THINKER'S ALMANAC - May 29

How was classical rhetoric the spark that ignited the American Revolution?

Subject: Classical Argument - “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death”

Event:  Birthday of Patrick Henry, 1775

In making a speech one must study three points: first, the means of producing persuasion; second, the language; third the proper arrangement of the various parts of the speech. -Aristotle

Today is the birthday of Patrick Henry, who delivered one of the most memorable and most important speeches in American history on March 23, 1775.  The speech was delivered at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia, to the 120 delegates of the Second Virginia Convention, which included George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.  

The question at hand was whether or not to mobilize military forces against the British.  Some held out hope for peaceful reconciliation with Britain, arguing against the motion to use force.  Henry, a 38-year-old lawyer and politician, listened respectfully, then rose to give what is probably the best-known call to arms in the history of rhetoric. 

 

In making his argument, Henry drew upon the classical arrangement of an argument, dating back to Aristotle and Cicero:

-The Introduction (Exordium) – The Reason for Relevance

-The Context (Narration) – The Context of the Controversy

-The Thesis (Partition) – The Architecture of the Argument

-The Evidence (Confirmation) – The Explanation of the Evidence

-The Counterclaims (Refutation) – The Consideration of Counterclaims

-The Conclusion (Peroration) – The Finish With a Flash

As we read Henry’s speech, we can break it into the six-part structure and examine how each part relates to the whole.

Exordium (Paragraphs 1-2):  Instead of beginning with a claim, the exordium seeks to win the attention and goodwill of the audience. Here Henry’s focus is on showing he is trustworthy and credible.  Notice how he shows respect to those who have spoken before him, while at the same time establishing his own forceful and confident voice:

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony.

The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Narration (Paragraphs 3-8 ): In the Narration a speaker gives the context for the argument.  Notice how Henry provides background on the issue at hand. Also, notice how instead of making declarations, he more subtly guides his audience to join in his conclusions through the use of rhetorical questions:

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss.

Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort.

I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging.

And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne!

Partition (Paragraph 9):  In the Partition, a speaker presents the thesis, the core argument being made.  Notice how Henry clearly and forcefully states his claim, not just once but twice:

In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

Confirmation and Refutation (Paragraphs 10-12):  In the Confirmation, a speaker supports the central argument with reasoning, proof, and evidence; in the Refutation, a speaker anticipates opposing claims and attempts to rebut them.  Notice how Henry builds his case for taking action and how he rebuts the case for inaction. Notice also how in addition to appealing to the logic of his audience, he uses powerful imagery to move his audience emotionally:

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.

Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable—and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

Peroration (Paragraphs 13-14):  In the Peroration, a speaker presents the grand finale by summarizing the case and by attempting to move the audience to action by appealing to emotion (1).  Henry has constructed and arranged his entire argument to culminate in a single dramatic crescendo:

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?

Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! (2)

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What are the six parts of the classical argument, and how did Patrick Henry use them to structure his argument for going to war with Britain?

Challenge - Classical Arguments, Classical Choices:  What are some examples of the kinds of fundamental choices people must make in their lives, such as to marry or to stay single, to go to college or to get a job out of high school, to join the military or to remain a civilian?  Brainstorm a list of at least 10 possible choices a typical person might make.  These may be monumental, life-altering choices, or they may be simple choices that an individual must make on a daily basis.  Select one of the key choices that you feel strongly about and construct a classical argument using Henry’s speech as your model.  Arrange your speech to include each of the six elements of the classical argument, and like Henry, make sure to end with a climactic peroration. 

Sources:

1-Purdue Writing Lab. “Classical Argument  A (Very) Brief History of Rhetoric.”

2-”Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death.”  Colonial Williamsburg 3 March 2020.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - May 28

How did one Greek philosopher put his wisdom to the test and make a fortune?

Subject:  Natural Philosophy/Science - Eclipse of Thales

Event:  Thales the Milesian predicts a solar eclipse, 585 B.C.

Philosophy began in the seaport town of Miletus on the Aegean Sea. Here, instead of doing what others had done for thousands of years, accepting answers about the world via mythology and superstition, a group of people began asking questions.  One of these was Thales (625 BC-545 BC), who asked, “What is it that everything is made of?” His hypothesis was that everything is made of water.  

One anecdote about Thales says that a servant girl mocked him when he was so busy looking up at the stars that he fell into a well.  Thales had the last laugh though because it was on this day in 585 B.C. that he predicted a solar eclipse. We don’t know exactly how he did it, but because of this successful prediction, science writer Isaac Asimov credits Thales with the first successful science experiment (1).

Another anecdote about Thales reveals that he didn’t always have his head in the clouds. One winter he speculated that there would be an enormous olive harvest in the coming year.  Putting his money where his prediction was, he rented all the olive presses in Miletus ahead of the harvest.  When his hypothesis proved correct, Thales’ monopoly on olive presses allowed him to make a killing by charging high rental fees.  Thales’ sound thinking earned him the praise of other philosophers.  In his Politics, Aristotle said the following about Thales:  “He showed the world that philosophers can easily be rich if they like, but that their ambition is of another sort” (2).

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  Why is  May 28 celebrated as an important date in the history of science?

Challenge:  A Date With Science: Do some other research on significant dates in the history of science.  What is one date that you would argue should be included in a timeline of dates as extremely important?  Make your case.

Source:  

1-The Philosophy Book

2-Bahr, David. “Xenophon The Athenian: Not Your Average Pasty-Faced Philosopher.” Forbes.com 31 May 2017

THINKER'S ALMANAC - May 27

Why is Rachel Carson viewed by some as a “Copernicus of biology”?

Subject: Environmentalism - Carson’s Silent Spring

Event:  Birthday of author and biologist Rachel Carson, 1907

In 1958, marine biologist Rachel Carson -- who was born on this day in 1907 -- was moved by a letter to the editor that she read in a Boston newspaper.  The letter criticized the aerial spraying of insecticides, which did more than just kill pests, it killed all manner of living creatures, including birds, bees, and grasshoppers.  Being a scientist, Carson went to work to document the harmful effects of toxic chemicals, not just to animal life but also to human life.  One chemical in particular concerned Carson, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (commonly known as D.D.T.).

The product of Carson’s passion to prevent the poisoning of the environment was the influential book Silent Spring, published on September 27, 1962 , a book that is recognized as the catalyst for the environmental movement as well as the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 (1).

The power of Carson’s denunciation of toxic insecticides can be felt in the following excerpt:

These sprays, dusts, and aerosols are now applied almost universally to farms, gardens, forests, and homes—nonselective chemicals that have the power to kill every insect, the "good" and the "bad," to still the song of birds and the leaping of fish in the streams, to coat the leaves with a deadly film, and to linger on in the soil—all this though the intended target may be only a few weeds or insects. Can anyone believe it is possible to lay down such a barrage of poisons on the surface of the earth without making it unfit for all life? They should not be called "insecticides," but "biocides." (2)

Some hailed Carson’s environmental writing as the best since Henry David Thoreau.  Others called her book the most important science volume since Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. The writer Maria Popova called Carson's impact revolutionary, changing the way that humans see themselves in relation to other living creatures:

Rachel Carson, a Copernicus of biology who ejected the human animal from its hubristic place at the center of Earth’s ecological cosmos and recast it as one of myriad organisms, all worthy of wonder, all imbued with life and reality. Her lyrical writing rendered her not a mere translator of the natural world, but an alchemist transmuting the steel of science into the gold of wonder. (3)

Unfortunately, others were critical of Carson, especially chemical companies, who threatened lawsuits.  She was accused of being a Communist and her methods were challenged.  In the end, however, her work was vindicated and embraced by scientists and conservationists.  Unfortunately, not long after the publication of Silent Spring, Carson was diagnosed with cancer and died in 1964.  In 1980 she was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  Why did some call Rachel Carson a “Copernicus of biology”?

Challenge -  Words on the World: What is the best thing anyone has ever said about the environment and the obligation we have to take care of the world?  Find a quotation you like, and explain why you think it is inspirational. 

Sources:

1 – Christianson, Scott and Colin Salter. 100 Books That Changed the World. New York:  Universe Publishing, 2018.

2-Carson, Rachel, 1907-1964. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002.

3-Popova, Maria. The Writing of “Silent Spring” and the Culture-Shifting Courage to Speak Inconvenient Truth to Power. www.brainpickings.com 27 Jan. 2017.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - May 6

How can the 4th place finisher in the Olympic 1,500 meter run teach us more about mindset than the gold medal winner of the race?

Subject:  Mindset - The Sub Four-minute Mile

Event:  Roger Bannister breaks the four-minute barrier, 1954

It is the brain, not the heart or lungs, that is the critical organ. -Roger Bannister

Two years before he became immortal by breaking the four-minute barrier on May 6, 1954, Roger Bannister suffered a painful defeat that might have caused him to quit running altogether.

Bannister was running as England’s entry in the finals of the 1,500 meter run at the 1952 Olympic Games in Helsinki, and he was the favorite to win.  Unfortunately, because Olympic officials added a semifinal race between the qualifying heats and the final, Bannister was not fully prepared to give his peak performance in the final.  He finished fourth, just missing a medal.  The sting of losing hurt Bannister, but instead of quitting running to pursue a medical degree, he set his sights on a new goal: to do the impossible.

The mile record had stood at 4 minutes and 1.3 seconds for nine years, and many doctors and scientists believed that a sub-four minute mile was a physical impossibility.  Bannister, a medical student himself, was one person who believed it could be done.  He also knew that the man who could do it would be remembered long after everyone had forgotten about anyone who ever won or would win an Olympic gold medal.  

Like most mornings, Thursday, May 6, 1954, found Bannister at a London hospital where he was working to earn his medical degree.  As he made his rounds, he thought about the mile that was scheduled for that evening in Oxford, hoping that conditions would be right for his record breaking attempt.  

As he took a train to Oxford for the race, he worried that there was too much wind.  However, by the time he got to the starting line at 6:00 PM the wind had died down, and he was determined to go for the record.  With two pacer runners helping him make the right time for each of the four laps, Bannister finished the third lap in 3 minutes 0.5 seconds, so he knew that his last lap needed to be 59 seconds.  Known for his strong finishing kick, Bannister flew past his last pacer with just over a half-lap to go. Looking back on his run, Bannister remembered the agony of approaching the finish:

The faint line of the finishing tape stood ahead as a haven of peace, after the struggle. The arms of the world were waiting to receive me if only I reached the tape without slackening my speed. If I faltered, there would be no arms to hold me and the world would be a cold, forbidding place, because I had been so close. I leapt at the tape like a man taking his last spring to save himself from the chasm that threatens to engulf him.

As Bannister crossed the tape, the stopwatch stopped at 3:59.4.  Only 1,200 people were in the stadium that day to watch the race, but the next morning newspapers around the world announced Bannister’s Everest-like accomplishment.

Bannister’s story typifies what psychologist Carol Dweck calls mindset:  the attitudes we have about talent and intelligence.  A person with a fixed mindset who experienced the kind of failure that Bannister did in the 1952 Olympics might have never rebounded.  While people with a fixed mindset allow failure to define them, people like Bannister who possess a growth mindset use failure as a springboard, an opportunity to learn more and to work harder.

Bannister continued to run for a few months after his record achievement, but he was eager to begin his career as a neurologist.  He might have continued to run and attempted to win the gold medal in the 1956 Olympics that had eluded him in 1952; instead, he took the lessons he had learned about hard work and perseverance on the track and applied them to medicine.

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  How did Bannister’s pursuit of the breaking the four-minute mile typify what it means to have a growth mindset?

Challenge - Four Differences:  What are four differences that you could list that reveal how a growth mindset is different from a fixed mindset?

 

Sources:

1-Litsky, Frank and Bruce Weber. “Roger Bannister, First Athlete to Break the 4-Minute Mile, Dies at 88.”  The New York Times 4 March 2018.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - May 5

What monster did Karl Marx use to characterize the relationship between capital and labor?

Subject:  Communism - Marx’s Vampire

Event:  Birthday of Karl Marx, 1818

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. -Karl Marx

On this day in 1818, the German philosopher Karl Marx was born.  Coming of age during the Industrial Revolution, Marx was troubled by the bleak and seemingly hopeless plight of the workers in the factories of Europe.  Men, women, and children worked long hours, exploited by factory owners.  The workers toiled up to fourteen hours a day for low wages while the factory owners reaped huge profits. 

In 1848, Mark and his friend Friedrich Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto, one of the most influential political documents ever written.  The Manifesto summarizes Marx’s core beliefs, that history can only truly be understood through the lens of class struggle, the conflict between the bourgeoisie -- the capitalist class who possess wealth and the means of production --  and the proletariat -- the working class.

According to Marx, the class struggle produced great profits for the bourgeoisie, but only alienation for the proletariat.  The workers toiled like slaves at tedious, dehumanizing jobs, earning barely enough to live.  The capitalists -- those who had money that they could use to make more, exploited the workers.    To describe this unhealthy relationship between the capitalist (bourgeoisie) class and the working (proletariat) class, Marx turned to a fearful metaphor, a vampire that sucks the live-blood from its victim:  “Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.”

Marx offered hope, however, for he envisioned a future where the workers of the world would unite, overthrow capitalism, and establish a socialist utopia.  The revolution that Marx envisioned would put the means of production into the hands of the people.  Individual ownership of land and capital would end and be replaced by a society based on cooperation, where injustice would end and people would live peacefully and communally.  All individuals would contribute what they could to society and in return would be given enough to live a meaningful life:  “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

When Marx died of tuberculosis in 1883, all of his ideas existed only in his books, pamphlets, and articles, and he never saw the revolution he predicted come to fruition.  After his death, however, Marxism inspired several revolutions around the world, most notably the Russian Revolution of 1917.  Today people still debate the validity of Marxism as a political philosophy.  Could the utopia that Marx envisioned ever come to fruition or is it inevitable that any attempt to implement communism will fail because of the corrupt nature of humanity that comes from greed and competition?

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What did Marx mean by the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and how do these two groups of people fit into his philosophical framework?

Challenge - Marx’s Mark on History:  Whether or not they agree with him, most people will concede that the ideas of Karl Marx have been influential.  Do some research on what people have said about the influence of Karl Marx.  Identify a quotation that you think is interesting, and explain whether or not you agree with it.

Sources:  

1-Warburton, Nigel.  A Little History of Philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - May 4

How is being agnostic about ideas consistent with intellectual humility?

Subject: Agnosticism - Darwin’s Bulldog

Event:  Birth of English scientist Thomas Huxley, 1825

Try to learn something about everything and everything about something. -Thomas Huxley

The English biologist and anthropologist Thomas Huxley was born on this day in 1825.  Huxley was born into a middle-class family, but he was forced to leave school at age 10 when his father lost his job as a mathematics teacher.  Undaunted by his family’s financial struggles, Huxley educated himself through voracious and omnivorous reading.

When Charles Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859, Huxley eagerly read the book.  He recognized the revolutionary nature of Darwin’s thesis.  Just as Copernicus challenged the long-held idea that the Earth was the center of the universe, Darwin challenged the long-held notion that man was the “paragon of animals.”  The theory of evolution placed man and all other animals into the same tree of life.  All living things, according to Darwin, evolved or became extinct over long periods of time based on the forces of natural selection.  

Initially, Huxley was skeptical of Darwin’s theory, but as he read and reread it, he became convinced that Darwin was right.  In a letter dated November 23, 1859, Huxley expressed his appreciation to Darwin and offered his willingness to help him in the dogfight that seemed inevitable: 

I trust you will not allow yourself to be in any way disgusted or annoyed by the considerable abuse & misrepresentation which unless I greatly mistake is in store for you— Depend upon it you have earned the lasting gratitude of all thoughtful men— And as to the curs which will bark & yelp—you must recollect that some of your friends at any rate are endowed with an amount of combativeness which (though you have often & justly rebuked it) may stand you in good stead—

I am sharpening up my claws & beak in readiness. (2)

Huxley was true to his word.  On June 30, 1860, he debated the Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce, at the Oxford Museum of Natural History.  Employing a straw man argument (See THINKER’S ALMANAC - January 8 and April 18) -- a deliberate distortion of Darwin’s theory -- Wilberforce asked Huxley whether he had descended from apes on his grandfather’s side or his grandmother’s side.  Huxley responded with one of the greatest retorts of all time:

If then the question is put to me whether I would rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessed of great means of influence and yet employs these faculties and that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape.

Of course, Huxley knew how absurd Wilberforce’s argument was.  Darwin never argued that humans were descended from apes; instead, his theory posited that apes and humans shared a common ancestor.  For his willingness and deftness to defend Darwin, Huxley earned the nickname “Darwin’s Bulldog.”

Another notable accomplishment of Huxley is his invention of the word “agnostic,” a term he needed to explain his dogged determination to stay true to the truth and to resist claiming to know anything that cannot be backed up on scientific grounds.

As he explained, the word came to him as he contrasted his attitude of skepticism with others who had an attitude of certainty:

The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion ... So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. ... To my great satisfaction the term took.

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  How did Huxley earn the nickname “Darwin’s Bulldog”?

Challenge - Clearing Up Confusion:  Do some research on the terms “agnostic” and “atheist.” Explain the difference based on the different definitions of the two words.

Sources:

1-Grimes, David Robert. Good Thinking. New York:  Prometheus Books, 2021.

2-Darwin Correspondence Project.  Letter from T.H. Huxley to Charles Darwin, 23 Nov. 1859. University of Cambridge

THINKER'S ALMANAC - May 3

What two animals does Machiavelli advise leaders to use as metaphors for success in politics?

Subject:  Political Science - The Lion and the Fox

Event: Birth of Niccolò Machiavelli, 1469

Many have imagined republics and principalities which have never been seen or known to exist in reality, for how we live is so far removed from how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather bring about his own ruin than his preservation. -Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)

On this day in 1469, Niccolo Machiavelli was born in Italy.  At 29, he was a diplomat for the Florentine Republic.  Italy at that time was a volatile patchwork of city-states, ruled by warring clans.  As he traveled throughout Italy on diplomatic missions, Machiavelli saw up close how ruthless and double-dealing politics could be.  When the Medicis family took power in Florence in 1512, Machiavelli lost his position, and shortly after he was charged with conspiracy.  Imprisoned and tortured, he denied any involvement and was eventually released.  He then retired to his farm estate outside of Florence.  

Machiavelli then began to write the book that would make him known as the father of political science:  The Prince.  The book’s basic themes are leadership and what it takes to be a successful ruler.  Unlike past philosophers who focused on power as a divine right and leadership as guided by universal virtues, Machiavelli’s approach was about results.  Rather than idealism or ethical behavior, his approach was based on realism:  “[The Prince] should not deviate from what is good, if that is possible, but he should know how to do evil, if that is necessary.” According to Machiavelli as long as the prince maintains his state and achieves results, “his methods will always be judged honorable and will be universally praised.”

To truly be a successful ruler, the prince must be half-man and half-beast.  More specifically, “he must learn from the fox and the lion, because the lion is defenseless against traps and a fox is defenseless against wolves.  Therefore, one must be a fox in order to recognize traps and a lion to frighten off wolves.  Those who simply act like lions are stupid.”  With the combination of the lion's force and the fox’s cunning, the prince can function in a real world where “men are wretched creatures.”  

Rather than a cynical view, Machiavelli insists that his view is pragmatic, backed up by his study of truly successful princes:  “. . . those who have known best how to imitate the fox have come off best.”

Although he recognizes that it would be nice if a politician were loved, in the real world it is more important to be feared, for in the long run this will allow the prince to most effectively serve the state and provide the stability necessary for a successful society.

As Machiavelli puts it:

A prince cannot observe all those things which give men a reputation for virtue, because in order to maintain his state he is often forced to act in defiance of good faith, of charity, of kindness, of religion.  And so he should have a flexible disposition, varying as fortune and circumstances dictate.

Rather than focusing on the world of politics as it should be, The Prince is a work that instead focuses on the world of politics as it is, a world in which all people are not good and where a prince must occasionally be duplicitous or ruthless in order to defend and maintain the state.  In short, in governing, the ends sometimes do justify the means.  

Since it was published in 1532, five years after the author's death, The Prince has never gone out of date and remains a readable textbook on leadership and power.  Because it is based on sound psychological insights about the true nature of humans, it remains influential and relevant today.

Napoleon supposedly carried a copy of The Prince with him into battle and said that “The Prince is the only book worth reading.” Today, the term “realpolitik” is used when pundits refer to politics based on strength and pragmatism rather than on moral or ethical considerations.

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What was Machiavelli’s basic advice to leaders, and how did his metaphor of the lion and the fox relate to successful leadership?

Challenge - Best Political Advice:  What's the best thing said by a politician?  Research some quotations, and identify the one you like the best.  Then, explain why you like it, and whether or not you think Machiavelli would agree with it.

ALSO ON THIS DAY:

May 3,  2016:  Angela Duckworth published her book Grit:  The Power of Passion and Perseverance.  To describe grit she uses the following simile: “Grit is living life like it's a marathon, not a sprint.”