These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. It then discusses the aspects of Machiavelli’s philosophy, which really are novel-those concerning international relations. Does Machiavelli blaze any untrodden trail, or is he simply a post-Christianity Thrasymachus? Is the current crisis of meaning in human rights attributable to the thought of Machiavelli or to something different? This chapter examines Machiavelli’s lowering of the ends of politics and considers whether this teaching really departs from what the classical philosophers knew. Yet a close examination of his works leaves us wondering how new Machiavelli’s teaching is, after all. In his claim to be pursuing the effectual truth, in his rejection of philosophical knowledge in favor of consequentialism (the idea that the ends justify the means), in his insistence that human nature is base and will remain so despite the noble pull of law, and in his severing of the ends of politics from the ends of human beings, Machiavelli seems modern. Chesterton’s observation would seem applicable to Machiavelli, who, clearly accepting that one cannot serve both God and Caesar, opts instead for the latter.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |