Machiavellian Ideals Explored
I would like to quickly address the idea of Machiavelli that ideals do not exist in the physical world; they only exist in the world of the mind, if we are to use Plato’s world of forms. This de-idealization of the physical world was critical for philosophy.
To address this notion, as in all philosophical endeavors, it is first imperative to define terms. I have hitherto defined “not exist in the physical world” so that leaves “ideals” to be defined. By an ideal I believe Machiavelli meant a perfect notion, on something that can be universally perfect. Kant took this notion to heart (it is not guaranteed but probable that Kant read Machiavelli) when he said that “happiness is not an ideal of reason but of imagination.” Machiavelli would say that happiness cannot exist because it is something perfect and infallible. It does not appear that he extended this notion to god, but if he did he did not write it explicitly due to fear of persecution or other harmful events that would befall him were he to abnegate the existence of god.
I would like to question Machiavelli to what extent he believes that ideals are not existent. If we take the utilitarian definition of happiness, (the best possible ratio of pain to pleasure) then it would appear that this would contradict Machiavelli on its nonexistence. I believe Machiavelli viewed ideals as limits or asymptotes, that cannot be reached, or attained because they do not exist, but he did not draw a line anywhere else. If I cannot be happy, can I be in perpetual good spirits, thoroughly appreciate life, be grateful for my life and be an ardent optimist? Machiavelli may claim that one cannot be in a “good mood” all the time, and that there has to be something wrong, even if it is say a wart on a toe; it is still an imperfection that would prevent perfect happiness. I believe that Machiavelli knew that perfect ideals do not exist, but his flaw was that he settled for a middle of the way solution to everything. He was possibly the greatest realist of all time, but I believe that this type of realism does not lead to progress. Some extreme liberals may claim that progress is a façade and humans are not getting anywhere, but I believe that ideals are beneficial and exist in the mental world. However, they do not exist in the physical world; but that should not prevent us from trying to get close to them. Ending war is impossible; but why not try to decrease the amount of war? I think that idealist thinkers, such as me to an extent, can be beneficial to society because they present a goal for progress. While ideals are almost never accomplished in the physical world, if one can hold them as possibilities in the mental world and try to implement them in the physical world by trying to make the world fit in with the ideals while knowing that it is a futile task to have the ideal completely achieved, but 80 percent success is still a massive achievement (I apologize for the run on there). I think that there is a limit to the ideals in the world physical world, but not attempting to strive even a small amount toward those ideals is to miss the point of human progress.
To address this notion, as in all philosophical endeavors, it is first imperative to define terms. I have hitherto defined “not exist in the physical world” so that leaves “ideals” to be defined. By an ideal I believe Machiavelli meant a perfect notion, on something that can be universally perfect. Kant took this notion to heart (it is not guaranteed but probable that Kant read Machiavelli) when he said that “happiness is not an ideal of reason but of imagination.” Machiavelli would say that happiness cannot exist because it is something perfect and infallible. It does not appear that he extended this notion to god, but if he did he did not write it explicitly due to fear of persecution or other harmful events that would befall him were he to abnegate the existence of god.
I would like to question Machiavelli to what extent he believes that ideals are not existent. If we take the utilitarian definition of happiness, (the best possible ratio of pain to pleasure) then it would appear that this would contradict Machiavelli on its nonexistence. I believe Machiavelli viewed ideals as limits or asymptotes, that cannot be reached, or attained because they do not exist, but he did not draw a line anywhere else. If I cannot be happy, can I be in perpetual good spirits, thoroughly appreciate life, be grateful for my life and be an ardent optimist? Machiavelli may claim that one cannot be in a “good mood” all the time, and that there has to be something wrong, even if it is say a wart on a toe; it is still an imperfection that would prevent perfect happiness. I believe that Machiavelli knew that perfect ideals do not exist, but his flaw was that he settled for a middle of the way solution to everything. He was possibly the greatest realist of all time, but I believe that this type of realism does not lead to progress. Some extreme liberals may claim that progress is a façade and humans are not getting anywhere, but I believe that ideals are beneficial and exist in the mental world. However, they do not exist in the physical world; but that should not prevent us from trying to get close to them. Ending war is impossible; but why not try to decrease the amount of war? I think that idealist thinkers, such as me to an extent, can be beneficial to society because they present a goal for progress. While ideals are almost never accomplished in the physical world, if one can hold them as possibilities in the mental world and try to implement them in the physical world by trying to make the world fit in with the ideals while knowing that it is a futile task to have the ideal completely achieved, but 80 percent success is still a massive achievement (I apologize for the run on there). I think that there is a limit to the ideals in the world physical world, but not attempting to strive even a small amount toward those ideals is to miss the point of human progress.
posted by Brian Hillman at 8:58 PM
1 Comments:
Well thought... I think you are brave to call yourself an idealist thinker to any degree.
In your post on ethics you claim to favor an absolutist secular ethic; where certain actions are wrong and others are rigth. Inspired by Kant and the categorical imperative.I feel like you are contradicting yourself when you now state a more pragmatic wiev of ideals.
Would not any ethic exist only as mental possibilities, as ideals? Is it possible to act according to an ideal ethic in the real world if ethics are only mental possibilties?
Post a Comment
<< Home