machevelli , marx, and locke.

[Hidden.Shaman]

(1) Locke would argue that Machiavelli represents the interests of monarchs who rule without the consent of the people. Why would he reach that conclusion? Marx would argue that Locke represents the ideology of capitalism even before the emergence of modern industry. Why would Marx reach that conclusion?





(2) Locke and Marx put their trust in human reason. Machiavelli does not. How do these authors' assumptions, derived as they are from different conceptions of human nature, determine the nature of their thought and lead them to their conclusions?


I finished machiavelli last night . I'll be done with marx in about 10 mins. I'm in no way wanting you guys to write an essay for me. Just curious on the coli views on either of these topics. Make this 24 hours more interesting .

So far I like machevelli "the prince " alot . He like a wise man slash big homie. Dropping gems with facts to back it .

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

Love all three as contradictory as that may seem

 

[Hidden.Shaman]

Love all three as contradictory as that may seem

Just finished marx . Communism isn't that scary now . In fact it's a little attractive.

 

[Hidden.Shaman]

Just finished marx . Communism isn't that scary now . In fact it's a little attractive.

America sounds just like the bourgeoisie he speaks of. I am a proletariat.

 

[Broke Wave]

Actually Machiavelli was making far deeper points than what was on the surface. He was making a critique about how absurd the monarchy itself was and even made points against religion. Further still he satirized and insulted the very prince he was supposed to be educating and he didn't get it at all

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

Actually Machiavelli was making far deeper points than what was on the surface. He was making a critique about how absurd the monarchy itself was and even made points against religion. Further still he satirized and insulted the very prince he was supposed to be educating and he didn't get it at all

Ultimate job ever committed to paper. A lot of cats read it like it's some type of 48 laws of power tariq nasheed shyt and don't have the context for that side of the book. It's actually pretty funny too, despite how removed we are from it time period wise.

 

[Broke Wave]

Ultimate job ever committed to paper. A lot of cats read it like it's some type of 48 laws of power tariq nasheed shyt and don't have the context for that side of the book. It's actually pretty funny too, despite how removed we are from it time period wise.

The Prince is actually pretty funny I agree. The irony is that I feel like it's easier to read than 48 laws and that other shyt when you strip away the archaic language (which isn't even bad). I read 48 laws and it was so contradictory and juvenile I can't understand why it was so big. The Prince is my favourite non fiction book ever and by far .

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

Not to say I've fully read either I only read a little of each, but I always heard you're better off reading Discourses of Livy to get Machiavelli's true thoughts. True?

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

I read 48 laws and it was so contradictory and juvenile I can't understand why it was so big..

Because it makes neckbeards think they can be the CEO of halliburton. It's the Art of War for tards.

 

[Broke Wave]

Because it makes neckbeards think they can be the CEO of halliburton. It's the Art of War for tards.

Not to say I've fully read either I only read a little of each, but I always heard you're better off reading Discourses of Livy to get Machiavelli's true thoughts. True?

That is true but his true thoughts are boring. The Prince is fun and it's layered. It's comical and written for a man he thought was an idiot so it is very simple for us modern people.

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

That is true but his true thoughts are boring. The Prince is fun and it's layered. It's comical and written for a man he thought was an idiot so it is very simple for us modern people.

lol, that makes sense cuz Discourses was dense as fukk when I first started reading it that shyt forced me to lean back like Joe Crack. I'll prolly just read Prince first then and then move on to Discourses after I figure something can be gained even if its boring.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

:hovlol:48 Laws of Power is like the pick up artist movement for a corporate meeting room. It's goal is to teach you certain obvious observations and kick you some motivational shyt here and there and to basically help you feel comfortable with doing some sociopath shyt. It also has, by its very nature, some stupid shyt (as most media laying down 'rules' for social game do).

YMMV.

 

[Broke Wave]

:hovlol:48 Laws of Power is like the pick up artist movement for a corporate meeting room. It's goal is to teach you certain obvious observations and kick you some motivational shyt here and there and to basically help you feel comfortable with doing some sociopath shyt. It also has, by its very nature, some stupid shyt (as most media laying down 'rules' for social game do).

YMMV.

It's the Umar Johnson of books

 

[88m3]

Ultimately Max B was making far deeper points than what was on the surface. He was making a critique about how absurd the monarchy itself was and even made points against religion. Further still he satirized and insulted the very prince he was supposed to be educating and he didn't get it at all

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Machiavelli by far. One of the founding fathers of trolling. His shyt went iver everyones heads forcing them to resort to reducing him to ends justify the means when his actual thesis was far more complex. In any event, his shyt was the most realistic while locke and marx were ideologues. Locke and marx have had significantly more impact but machiavelli had the most accurate diagnosis.