书评内容会自动聚合在本帖中作者: 蓝地 时间: 2013-7-22 13:31
廖老师从一开始上课就告诉我们：读书不是让你成为被统治者，教育最大的目的是培养统治者。的确如此，正是因为培养的是军师，所以我们的自我意识应该被唤醒，不再是被动的学习，不再把自己定位成一个打工者。而是军师，自己人生的军师。这恰恰也对应了另外一句话：选择总是自由的。你选择什么样的生活方式你就成为什么样的人。选择尼科洛·马基雅维里的《君主论》大概是被名字吸引的。其为潘汉典翻译商务印书馆出版。
《君主论》是学术著作，以前我从来没有涉及此类书籍，所以开始翻开的时候有些害怕内容枯燥无趣，但是令人惊讶的是这本书读起来很有意思，它一步步肢解君主国，告诉我们有哪些种类，怎么样取得和维护一个新的君主国，不同军队的重要性，以及君主的行为和应该注意的。这本书并没有引起洛伦佐·梅迪奇殿的高度重视，但是马克思却十分肯定的说马基雅维里在国家观上摆脱了神学的束缚说，并且使政治研究独立于道德。关于政治与道德，数百年来以及引起了人们无数的讨论，而因为此书也有了“马基雅维里主义”之类的不好的称谓。以此来表达为了取得权力，全然不顾道德约束的愤慨。
全书共二十六章，我认为可以分为三部分。
第一部分主要是第一章到第九章，可以归为君主国的种类，以及不同种类不同方法取得君主国应该如何更长久的统治。
第二部分是第十章到第十四章归为不同类型军队的利弊以及作用。
第三部分是第十五章到第二十六章归为君主的作为以及一些切实的意见。
对于意大利以及欧洲历史了解甚微的我来说他举得每一个例子对我都是陌生的，但是他的确是善于举例子的， 所以历史家对于他是十分切实的描述。让人惊讶的是他同时还是军事著作者、诗人、剧作家，而且每个领域都受过不少的好评，我觉得相比与前人，现在人们真正专注并且精通的东西实在是少得多。
我真正感兴趣的是第三部分，因为这里面解释了很多君主的作为，也打破了我以前陈旧的观念，而且让我觉得成为统治者不是那样一件容易的事情，而统治的艺术也实在是高明。
第十五章开头，他就坦诚自己的观点与他人不同，他认为“君主应该有足够的明智远见，知道怎样避免那些使自己亡国的恶行，如果可能的话还要保留那些不会使自己亡国的恶行。”“如果没有那些恶行，就难以挽救自己的国家的话，那么他也不必要因为对这些恶行的责备而感到不安。”有些事情看起来是恶行但是却可以为君主带来安全与福祉，对于此类的恶行，马基雅维里是赞同施行的。大概“马基雅维里主义”由此而出吧。道德被抛在一边，就我个人观点来看，我认为君主为了保全国家以及大部分人们的福祉，牺牲少数人的行为是可以原谅的。当然这个行为得是明智的理性的，不是无理取闹的。
而对于慷慨和吝啬，他认为慷慨会被人轻视和憎恨，因为需要慷慨就意味着有财力支持，而财力一旦耗尽，却为了保住慷慨之名，不得不横征暴敛，所以如果君主是英明的话，对于吝啬之名就不应该有所介意，吝啬虽然带来臭名但是不引起憎恨。看到这里，我有时候想中国现今到底是慷慨呢还是吝啬呢？我不知道答案。但是好像钱真正到了人民手里的，人民总是觉得不够的。
十七章里有很著名的一段话，关于人类的：他们是忘恩负义、容易变心的，是伪装者、冒牌货，是逃危难，追逐利益的。因此他认为被人畏惧比受人爱戴安全得多。但是即使不能得到爱戴也要避免憎恨，所以残忍也是有策略的。结论是：人们爱戴君主，是基于他们自己的意志，而感到畏惧则是基于君主的意志。因此君主应该立足在自己的意志上，但是也要避免招仇恨。
我私以为他是读懂人民的心的，不带半点夸张和假想，人们是自私的渴望得到好处的，同时也是胆小的趋利避害的欺害弱小的。而如此不带道德批判性提醒君主可以行恶行可以吝啬可以残忍的行为，大概得到很多君主暗地里的表扬吧。
里记着为了保持国家，不得不背信弃义，悖乎人道。但是君主的言语却要做到让人们相信他是慈悲为怀的。“因为群氓总是被外表和事物的结果所吸引，而这个世界里尽是群氓。”这里有多少君主情不自禁的鼓掌了啊。这大概真的道破了很多君主的面目吧，在人民面前一副为国为民的样子，背地里干的都是坏事，而愚昧的善良的人民却总以为他说的就是对的。希特勒和墨索里尼是这样做的吗？
里，告诫君主务必把担当责任的事情交给别人，自己要掌握布惠施恩的事情，实在是大大的狡猾呀。
二十三章里，说避开谄媚者就要让人知道对你说真话不会得罪你。但是我想得是，就算他们说的是真话，那也是他们的视角来看的，正确性有待考证，所以君主还是要有一颗会分辨的心。
文章结尾，马基雅维里引用了诗人佩脱拉克的话语：
反暴虐的力量，将拿起枪，
战斗不会很长！
因为古人的勇气，
在意大利人在心中至今没有消亡。 相信马基雅维里为这部著作是耗费了大量心血的，但是他所做的除了单纯学术研究思考外，对于意大利的热爱是很大一部分原因吧，谁不希望自己的祖国繁荣昌盛呢。对于这本书，我关注更多的是以前我所不了解的地方，以及他提出的有悖我认识常理的观点。
看来下次再看这样的书是不会感到恐惧的了，看完此书后多少能看出点君主的阴谋，不会太轻易被迷惑，而且不要轻易把自己定义为被统治者，要努力使自己能够成为统治者。选择总是自由的。作者: jelly 时间: 2013-7-27 17:01
Since the birth of “The Prince”, Machiavelli, the important character in the history of Western political thought and the ideas of “The Prince” has been affirmed full of criticism. However, we should take an objective evaluation of “The Prince”. In the time of Machiavelli, Italy is disrupted and corrupt, people are eager for unity. As an expert that is used to be working for government, Machiavelli looks for the existence of a tyrant who can bring the unity. This great work reflects Machiavelli’s philosophy of politics. It also gives expression to his patriotism.
In the great work The Prince, I feel that Machiavelli offers us a significant model of ruler that refers his political ideas. Additionally, he defines a successful rulership by emphasizing the laws of human nature, the importance of military and the characteristics of a great leader. He tries to persuade his emperor to take his concepts of governing a state by giving such a wonderful presentations.
First of all, Machiavelli points out that the nature of human beings is evil. He discusses the human nature in the entire book to sustain his persuasion. The human beings are, as Machiavelli says,"…ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; as long as you benefit them, they are entirely yours" (The Prince, p.46). According to him, people are changeable by nature. It is easy to persuade them about some particular matter, but it is hard to hold them to that persuasion. Hence it is necessary to provide that when they no longer believe, they can be forced to believe. Likewise, government must take account of man's real nature and use his real qualities for its purposes. Machiavelli’s point of view is based on the reality that is human nature is not as innocent as we thought.
Secondly, to speak about the military, Machiavelli points out the weakness of depending on the mercenaries, and he emphasizes numerous times that the importance of building its own army of a country, “…it is of such value that is not only keeps born princes in place, but often raises men from private citizens to princely fortune”(p.40). He holds that the cultivation of this art is the chief means of gaining and keeping power, and that the neglect of this art is the chief means of losing power. It is a central belief of Machiavelli's that security could only be obtained by raising a body of troops within one's own country--loyal soldiers who would be defending their own homes and families. He particularly opposes the use of mercenary forces, or dependence on the help of foreign armies. He is also inclined to downgrade the importance of fortifications, remarking that "the best fortress is to be found in the love of the people" (p.40).
Meanwhile, he suggests the prince keep studying from the war. “Thus a prince who knows nothing of warfare, apart from his other troubles already described, cannot hope for respect from his soldiers or put any trust in them”(p.41). And “Therefore the prince should never turn his mind from the study of war”(p.41). Moreover, he briefly proposes the tyrant that learn the art of the war by“…training the body and training the mind” (p.41). He gives the example of Philopoemon, the prince of the Achaeans.
In addition, later in The Prince, Machiavelli implies that no matter how cruel a prince is, but at the head of his army, the prince should not be considered cruel. Because “without such a reputation, he could never hold his army together and ready for action” (p.46). The right instance that Machiavelli mentions is Scipio.
From this part, I am able to see that Machiavelli is so solicitous of the national unity. He loves his country and desires the dominator can equip a strong army to realize the unity of Italy.
Briefly and broadly, I appreciate the suggestions about how a prince can keep his authority and how he should look at morality. Though his point of view is a little bit bias and cruel. To relate to human nature, according to Machiavelli, human is immoral, they are loyal to you when benefiting them, and they leave you when needing them. Human beings are always unkind unless under a pressure.
What more, he talks about the theory of Plato about the two worlds: the world “the way we really live” and the world “we ought to live”. And the theory implies that although “every prince would like to be both”—“be loved” and “be feared” (p.46), however, “…a prince, and especially a new prince, cannot possibly exercise all those virtues for which men are called ‘good’” (p.49), as for new princes: “new states are always in danger”. So when a prince faces a choice that is cruelty or clemency. As if the clemency goes against his interests, he should give it up without hesitating, “…he should not depart from the good if he can hold to it, but should be ready to enter on evil if he has to” (p.49). Since“…to be feared is much safer than to be loved”.
I am convinced that although extinguished leader can gather people by his morality, but if he didn’t take advantage of political means out of morality, so, it’s absolutely impossible for him to succeed in politic. “Hence a prince who wants keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that know ledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires”(p.42).
According to Machiavelli, there are two ways of fighting: laws that are human method and the force that comes from beasts. “Thus a prince must know how to make good use of both the beast and man”. Machiavelli said that the ruler must be able to imitate both the lion and the fox. “Since a prince must know how to use the character of beasts, he should pick for imitation the fox and the lion”(p.48). The bravery and strength of the lion will not be enough to enable the ruler to escape the traps set by his enemies; for that, the slyness of the fox is also needed. This is especially true of the new prince, who is in a very exposed position. Machiavelli admitted that Marcus Aurelius, the "philosopher King" (Roman emperor, 161-180 A.D.), who had been a virtuous and just ruler, had kept his throne. But Marcus Aurelius had become emperor by hereditary succession. Machiavelli offers Septimius Severus (Roman emperor, 193-211 A.D.) as an example of a new prince who effectively used the techniques of both the lion and the fox to maintain himself in power.
The discussion of praising and blaming is also very interesting. Regarding the liberality, Machiavelli believes that “…if you wish to be widely know as a generous man, you must seize every opportunity to make a big display of your giving” (p.43). He states the stories of Caesar, Cyrus, and Alexander as examples to support his opinions.
Additionally, Machiavelli keeps using “necessity”, “fortune” and “virtu” to demonstrate what features a successful ruler should have.
In fact, necessity as Machiavelli’s view means the political stability and power that which is necessary to the maintenance of the state, a specific political goal would be reached. Then, Machiavelli use fortune specifically means chance, luck, destiny, and unpredictability. On the other hand, he emphasizes man’s ability to press back against the vicissitudes of fortune. And the human exertion against fortune is achieved through virtu. Virtu often refers to qualities that make a military commander successful.
I support Machiavelli since I believe that politics is not the morality. I think the national interests are more important than anything else for a ruler. These interests were gaining, maintaining, and expanding political power of prince. All the princes should take foxes and lions as examples that take every means in order to reach one’s goal. The impactions of mercy and cruelty that have been discussed in The Prince are very controversial through the centuries. In my opinion, the political man always acts mercifully, and may not be merciful in his deep heart. As for the function of kindness and cruelty, alternatively, I think hatred always lasts longer than love.
Although Machiavelli has always been considered as a typical representative of non-moralism and criticized, I think he is still an outstanding ideologist. His ideals of the leadership not only guide the tyrants in the past, the feudal dynast, but also they make sense now for leaders. In the book The Prince, Machiavelli embodies political philosophy by arguing the various methods of being a successful prince. He states that a prince cannot always be good, and if he wants to keep his post he must learn not to be good. For example, I agree with his opinion on generosity. Machiavelli states that if you are too generous, the non-generous people will take advantage of you and will take away your power. I do believe that you cannot be too generous to your subjects or well they will take advantage of you. Many of the great rulers who were too generous to the people ended up in bloodshed because of small things that the ruler overlooked. You must keep guard and not be taken advantage of if you try to be generous.
On the other hand, his view of human nature is certain excessive and prejudice. He totally repudiates the goodness of humanity. As far as I concern that there is justice, kindness and love. Furthermore, throughout the history, people keep struggling against cruel emperors and their repressions. And there indeed appear a large number of moral persons such as Aristotle and Plato. As a result, we should take a cautious and rational approach for Machiavellian.
In conclusion, Machiavelli and his masterpiece The Prince deeply affect the later generations. Regardless the controversial parts, his theory clearly and brief give us hints of charging daily business and dealing the relationships with others. Therefore, The Prince is remarkable and valuable. 作者: 小牛 时间: 2013-7-28 08:05
读完马基雅维里《君主论》，顿时有一种如释重负之感，心想：终于把它给读完了。说实话，虽然这是一本小书，但读起来却让我十分的头疼，花了我好几天的时间才读完它。并且打心底里说我不太喜欢此书。
一、《君主论》在形式与结构上的特点
通过阅读全书，发现《君主论》一书有如下特点：
1、马基雅维里通常先针对一个问题阐明自己的观点，而后便举出大量的事实来证明自己的观点，这些事实有历史上的，也有当代的（指马基雅维里所处时代）。比如在第六章“论依靠自己的武力和能力获得的新君主国”当中，他例举了摩西、居鲁士、罗慕洛、提修斯及耶罗内等人作为例证；在第十九章“论应该避免受到蔑视与憎恨”当中，他又对法国政治制度和古罗马几代统治者进行论述和评价，来阐明自己的观点···这类先阐明自己的观点，再以具体事实论证的形式，整本书中随处可见。
2、整本书的结构非常清晰，全书共有26章内容，我把它简单地归为五类：第一，论国家及君主国的类型（1-11章）；第二，论军队及军事管理（12-14章）；第三，论君主所应有的品质（15-21章、25章）；第四，论廷臣（22、23章）；第五，论意大利的衰落及复兴（24、26章）；
二、《君主论》内容简析
如上说述，我将全书归类为五个部分，对每部分内容简要概括如下：
论国家及君主国的类型 在这部分里，马基雅维里论述了国家的类型以及新君主国产生的方式等内容。他认为，从古至今，无外乎有两种类型的国家——君主国和共和国。而君主国则可以分为世袭君主国、混合君主国、新君主国等。本书中，他着重对新君主国的产生方式进行了描述。从第六章开始他分别论述了依靠自己的能力和武力获得的君主国；依靠他人的武力或幸运获得的君主国；用邪恶之道获得的君主国；依靠本土市民获得的君主国；依靠宗教制度维持的君主国等等。从这部分当中，我们可以窥见马基雅维里的某些思想，比如他对能力和幸运或者说是命运的看法。他认为一位君主应该学会观察、把握机遇。要充分利用自己的能力和运气。因为有能力而无运气，则得天下不易而保天下易；有运气而无能力，则得天下容易而保天下难。“那些光靠幸运，从平民崛起而成为君主的人们，再发迹时并不很辛苦劳瘁，但是保持其地位时就很辛苦劳瘁了。（p.29）”对于命运，他认为：“命运是我们半个行动的主宰，但是它留下其余一半或者几乎一半归我们支配。（p.118）”读到这儿的时候，我忽然想到后来的德国社会学家马克思·韦伯的新教伦理观与其有类似之处。在马基雅维里看来，不单单要依靠命运，更重要的是我们的自由意志。作为君主不能完全听命于命运的安排，还要发挥自己的能力，应当与时俱进，随机应变。在他的观念中，显然没有摆脱神的意志，但已经突出了人事的作用。从这个侧面也反映了文艺复兴时代的某些特点。
论军队及军事管理 在马基雅维里看来，“良好的军队”和“良好的法律”是国家稳定的基础。在军队方面，一个英明的君主一定要牢牢把握军事大权，并且要有自己的军队——由臣民、市民或者是君主的属民组成的军队。对一个君主来说，“永远不要让自己的思想离开军事训练问题”、“在和平时期比在战争时期更加注意这个问题”（p.70），他认为君主应该有一种忧患意识，在和平时期里也要加强对军队及自身的训练，同时借鉴前人的经验教训。但是马基雅维里对雇佣军和援军则持一种否定态度，在他看来，意大利的崩溃就是由于依赖雇佣军造成的。同时他又以罗马帝国的覆亡为例，他说“人们如果研究一下罗马帝国覆灭的头一个原因，就会察觉，这是由雇佣哥特人当兵才开始的。因为罗马帝国的势力就是从那个时候开始衰微的，而以前曾经使罗马帝国勃兴的一切力量都转移到哥特人哪里去了。（p.67）”而比雇佣军更可怕的是援军，援军就是“请求一个强国进行援助和保卫自己的时候派来的军队（p.64）”，对于援军的危害，他分析道“如果他们打败了，你就完蛋了，反之如果他们赢得胜利，你就要成为他们的俘虏。（p.64）”
论君主所应有的品质 “君主应以为国家谋利为宗旨”，马基雅维里是这样认为的。基于这样的宗旨，“某些事情看起来好像是好事，可是君主照着办就会自取灭亡，而另一些事情看起来是恶行，可是如果照办了却会给他带来安全与福祉。（p.75）”他断言“一个君主要保持自己的地位，就必须知道怎样做不良好的事情，并且必须知道视情况的需要与否使用这一手或者不使用这一手。（p.74）”所以在马基雅维里那里，君主的品行与道德在我看来完全被颠覆了。
与其慷慨，不如吝啬。君主的慷慨其资本是来自于人民的，君主越是慷慨，其民就越是贫困，这样就会招致灭亡。而节制本国资本，不加人民的负担，则有利国家发展。但慷慨与吝啬又是相对的，他说：“君主所花费的钱财，或者是他自己的和他的老百姓的钱财，否则就是别人的钱财。在头一种场合，他必须节约；如果在第二种场合他不应该忽略表示慷慨的任何机会。（p.77）”
与其使人爱戴，不如使人畏惧。他说“人们爱戴君主，是基于他们自己的意志，而感到畏惧则是基于君主的意志，因此一位明智的君主应当立足在自己的意志之上，而不是立足他人的意志之上。（p.82）”但对君主来说，也要避免受人憎恨与轻视。“如果君主避免引起臣民的憎恨与轻视，使人民对他感到满意，他就能够坐稳江山了。（p.88）”
在马基雅维里看来，人性是恶的。他说人类是“忘恩负义的、容易变心的，是伪装者、冒牌货，是逃避危难，追逐利益的（p.80）”，“人们是恶劣的，而且对你并不是守信不渝的，因此你也同样地无需对他们守信（p.84）”。世界斗争的方法有两种，一种是运用法律，一种是运用武力。前者为人类所有，后者为野兽所有。所以一位君主就应该兼具人性与兽性。他以狮子和狐狸为喻，认为君主既要像狮子一样拥有武力，又要像狐狸一样拥有智慧。塞韦罗就是兼具两种特性的君主，因此他顺利地保持了他的帝国。
论廷臣 马基雅维里对于如何遴选大臣是十分重视的，在马基雅维里看来大臣与君主之间是似乎互惠的，但这种互惠却又是不平等的。对待良臣，君主应该“常常想着大臣，尊敬他，使他富贵使他感恩戴德，让他分享荣誉，分担职责；使他知道如果没有自己，他就站不住”（p.112）。而大臣呢？一个良臣“不应该想着他自己，而应该只想着君主，并且绝不想及同君主无关的事情”（p.112），也就是说一个好的大臣应该一切从君主的利益出发，为君主牟利。只有这样，君主与大臣之间才能“诚信相孚”。但是君主应该提防这样一类朝臣——谄媚者。马基雅维里认为，谄媚的大臣会使一个君主变得昏聩。为何会有谄媚者呢？其一是因为他敬畏你，害怕得罪于你；其二则是因为他想通过谄媚的方式获得更多的利益。对于谄媚者，君主应当如何应对？马基雅维里认为：选拔一些有识之士，给予他们讲真话的权力，并且要是他们意识到“谁愈发言，谁就愈受欢迎”（p.113）。但马基雅维里同时强调，悉心听取他人意见的时候，不要被不同的意见所左右，不要对各种意见摇摆不定，最终的决定权还是要君主自己拿定的。他说：“一切良好的忠言，不论来自任何人必须产生于君主的贤明，而不是君主的贤明产生于良好的忠言。（p.115）”
论意大利的衰落及复兴 马基雅维里认为意大利之所以衰落，有以下几点原因：军队以雇佣军为主；君主受到人民的敌视；君主受到贵族的敌视；安逸的生活腐蚀了心智，马基雅维里打了这样的比方：在风和日丽的时候想不到暴风雨。用中国的古话讲，可谓是“忧患兴国、逸豫亡身”；过分依靠外部的力量，而自己的力量却不强大。在最后一章中，马基雅维里将意大利复兴的希望寄托于一位新君主。作者: 风之为 时间: 2013-9-10 21:56