Difference between revisions of "Talk:The Prince"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(major erros) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
In light of the debacle of the [[Machiavellian]] article - which is even more distorted than the current article on ''The Prince'' - I think we should take a closer look. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:15, 16 May 2008 (EDT) | In light of the debacle of the [[Machiavellian]] article - which is even more distorted than the current article on ''The Prince'' - I think we should take a closer look. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:15, 16 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | We should add something about avoiding flatters. [[Trump]] evidently never read ''Il Principe''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Give Peace a chance'']]</sup> 15:29, November 25, 2022 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 20:29, November 25, 2022
Another wiki-based encyclopedia, where I in fact used to work as a consultant, contains information which contradicts the views in this article.
- A careless reading of The Prince could easily lead one to believe that its central argument is that "the ends justify the means"; that any evil action can be justified if it is done for a good purpose. Machiavelli, however, limited the circumstances under which an evil action could be justified. First, he specified that the only acceptable end was the stabilization and health of the state; individual power for its own sake was not an acceptable end and did not justify evil actions. Second, Machiavelli did not dispense entirely with morality nor advocate wholesale selfishness or degeneracy. [1]
In light of the debacle of the Machiavellian article - which is even more distorted than the current article on The Prince - I think we should take a closer look. --Ed Poor Talk 11:15, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
We should add something about avoiding flatters. Trump evidently never read Il Principe. RobSGive Peace a chance 15:29, November 25, 2022 (EST)