Psychic Ruminations, etc.

[tcpip]

In recent days I've set myself up to undertake a graduate degree in psychology. My initial interest was the University of Adelaide, but increasingly I am looking across The Ditch to bonnie New Zealand, where of course, I am completing my sixth degree right now. The timetable is to start the middle of next year. My thoughts are not such much to do counseling, because I know myself well enough that others are better than that. My art in this regard the written word and noble deed and that is the path that I am best suited for. As part of this process, I finished my essay on project management, Stoic philosophy, and The Thing, which is currently being reviewed by a couple of people with appropriate qualifications before I distribute publically. I am ever cautious with giving advice on these matters, without it being checked by people who know what they're doing. Nevertheless, I felt sufficiently brave to post a selection on Facebook on a public post.

The reality is that Stoicism is damn hard work. Developing the internal discipline to redirect the energy of one's depressive or anxious feelings to virtuous behaviour and rational cognition takes a lot of effort and the feelings of the brain fights the cognition of the mind every step of the way. It's like the brain wants you to feel depressed or anxious, and goodness knows I have some powerful reasons for the latter at the moment, the main of which I believe that I must and will keep in confidence. Another challenge that I am confronted with is the relationship between Stoicism and Romanticism; I am very thankful that Mick B., has pointed me to Simon Swift's chapter on Stoicism and Romantic literature, noting the contributions of Coleridge, Wordsworth, and Fitche. A Romantic Stoic? It is an interesting possibility and would allow one's feelings to be redirected to productive writings. It is perhaps in that spirit that I penned a piece on "Misunderstanding Machiavelli", which includes what I think is a novel contribution that "The Prince" is actually a long-term insult to the Medici family. Usually, the dedication is interpreted as flattery, but the book itself recommends rejecting such overtures.

In the spare time, I had this weekend at the Willsmere home finally, after many years, had an electrician visit and so our powerpoints are all safe and the place has new and improved lighting. Have managed a little bit of visual entertainment with a few episodes of the new "The War of the Worlds" series, and quite a clever low-budget psychological science fiction thriller film, "Coherence". In traditional story-game style, today engaged in further explorations of life as a sapient duck with a session of RuneQuest, and the cap-stone of the weekend has been my second Chinese language lesson with Shupu W., who really has been super-helpful. I might even finish the Duolingo tree this time!

Comments

[dorchadas]

I know I've seen the argument before that The Prince is actually a subtle satire--or maybe backdoor proponent is a better phrase--in favor of democracy based, as you point out, on Machiavelli's own service in a (more) democratic government, but it's certainly not the common interpretation.

Then again, I often think that if "A Modest Proposal" had been published today, there'd be a contingent online sincerely in favor of baby-eating based on it.

[tcpip]

> but it's certainly not the common interpretation. <

On the contrary, it's pretty mainstream.

> a contingent online sincerely in favor of baby-eating based on it<

Well, let's face it, babies are delicious.

[dorchadas]

From that link:

Whether or not the word "satire" is the best choice, the interpretation is very rare amongst those who study Machiavelli's works, for example Isaiah Berlin states that he can't find anything other than Machiavelli's work that "reads less" like a satirical piece

My (non-academic) impression at least was that most people read it pretty straightforwardly, and especially non-scholars. As you point out, the term "Machiavellian" has a lot to do with the common interpretation and almost nothing to do with the facts.

[tcpip]

> My (non-academic) impression at least was that most people read it pretty straightforwardly, and especially non-scholars.<

Yes, but have you read the Discourses? And Livy?

Doesn't it strike you as a little strange that a person's life and all their other writing would be in contrast to one work, which is dedicated to the very people who tortured him?

[dorchadas]

The Discourses, but not Livy, but that's my point--at least in secondary schooling, most people (in America, not sure about Australia) read excerpts from The Prince, hear a bit about his advice to rulers, and don't dig any further into his life or opinions.

[tcpip]

The argument that it's deceit is one I find really fascinating.