Secular Right | Reality & Reason

Feb/13

18

Old Nick, Dead Right

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someoneShare on TumblrShare on Google+

MachiavelliIsaiah Berlin on Machiavelli:

Machiavelli’s cardinal achievement is his uncovering of an insoluble dilemma, the planting of a permanent question mark in the path of posterity. It stems from his de facto recognition that ends equally ultimate, equally sacred, may contradict each other, that entire systems of value may come into collision without possibility of rational arbitration, and that not merely in exceptional circumstances… but (this was surely new) as part of the normal human situation.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAFor those who look on such collisions as rare, exceptional, and disastrous, the choice to be made is necessarily an agonizing experience for which, as a rational being, one cannot prepare (since no rules apply). But for Machiavelli, at least in The Prince, The Discourses, Mandragola, there is no agony. One chooses as one chooses because one knows what one wants, and is ready to pay the price. One chooses classical civilization rather than the Theban desert, Rome and not Jerusalem, whatever the priests may say, because such is one’s nature, and—he is no existentialist or romantic individualist avant la parole—because it is that of men in general, at all times, everywhere. If others prefer solitude or martyrdom, he shrugs his shoulders. Such men are not for him. He has nothing to say to them, nothing to argue with them about. All that matters to him and those who agree with him is that such men be not allowed to meddle with politics or education or any of the cardinal factors in human life; their outlook unfits them for such tasks.

…If what Machiavelli believed is true, this undermines one major assumption of Western thought: namely, that somewhere in the past or the future, in this world or the next, in the church or the laboratory, in the speculations of the metaphysician or the findings of the social scientist or in the uncorrupted heart of the simple good man, there is to be found the final solution of the question of how men should live. If this is false (and if more than one equally valid answer to the question can be returned, then it is false) the idea of the sole true, objective, universal human ideal crumbles. The very search for it becomes not merely utopian in practice, but conceptually incoherent….

After Machiavelli, doubt is liable to infect all monistic constructions. The sense of certainty that there is somewhere a hidden treasure—the final solution to our ills—and that some path must lead to it (for, in principle, it must be discoverable); or else, to alter the image, the conviction that the fragments constituted by our beliefs and habits are all pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, which (since there is an a priori guarantee for this) can, in principle, be solved; so that it is only because of lack of skill or stupidity or bad fortune that we have not so far succeeded in discovering the solution whereby all interests will be brought into harmony—this fundamental belief of Western political thought has been severely shaken. Surely in an age that looks for certainties, this is sufficient to account for the unending efforts, more numerous today than ever, to explain The Prince and The Discourses, or to explain them away?

…If there is only one solution to the puzzle, then the only problems are first how to find it, then how to realize it, and finally how to convert others to the solution by persuasion or by force. But if this is not so (Machiavelli contrasts two ways of life, but there could be, and, save for fanatical monists, there obviously are, more than two), then the path is open to empiricism, pluralism, toleration, compromise.

Well, yes. That’ll do very nicely, very nicely indeed.

H/t (and thanks to) Andrew Sullivan

·

7 comments

  • Mark in Spokane · February 19, 2013 at 9:15 pm

    So in the end, will not reason is the guide. In a conflict of competing wills there is only victory or defeat. The Dark Enlightenment at its best. How Darwinian.

  • Andrew Stuttaford · February 19, 2013 at 10:29 pm

    No, the opposite. Take another look at this paragraph, and, the key section that begins “if this is not so…”

    “…If there is only one solution to the puzzle, then the only problems are first how to find it, then how to realize it, and finally how to convert others to the solution by persuasion or by force. But if this is not so (Machiavelli contrasts two ways of life, but there could be, and, save for fanatical monists, there obviously are, more than two), then the path is open to empiricism, pluralism, toleration, compromise.”

  • Mark in Spokane · February 20, 2013 at 8:15 am

    Has it worked out that way?

  • Narr · February 20, 2013 at 2:56 pm

    Only in the relatively successful societies and polities.

  • John · February 21, 2013 at 12:35 am

    Why should I compromise and tolerate? If there is no one way, and I have the biggest club, why not bonk everyone else on the head to get what I want?

  • Narr · February 22, 2013 at 9:17 pm

    Because, John, you might not actually have the biggest club, and other people may well choose to defend their own interests from you.

    This has been known to happen.

  • CJColucci · February 22, 2013 at 9:59 pm

    Why should I compromise and tolerate? If there is no one way, and I have the biggest club, why not bonk everyone else on the head to get what I want?

    You do sleep every so often, don’t you? And if not, you’ll eventually be too tired and disoriented to wield your big club effectively.

<<

>>

Theme Design by devolux.nh2.me