Machiavellianism

[Shepard]

Machiavellianism, a the tendency to manipulate and deceive other people towards a goal. Is it justified. Do the ends justify the means?

I certainly think so! I scored 96th percentile on the machivellianism personality trait test. It seems to me that anyone who thinks honesty can get you anywhere is naive.

[Cory Duchesne]

The subject of Machiavellianism could only hold my interest if you break down very distinct species of Machiavellians. For instance, a man who wants all of the mundane, conventional things in life - luxury, women, money, fame and worldly power is just not a very interesting person.

However, understanding the laws of power and seduction and using them to weave your presence into the fabric of your culture primarily to gain first hand experience of humanity and then to pull the rug out from under everyone (for the cause of wisdom) is more along my lines of thinking. But even that seems to be a lot of energy spent on what could only be regarded as a social experiment (one where you could very well end up killed).

[jupiviv]

Do the ends justify the means?

The ends can't justify the means because if it did then the ends itself would become a means(for the justification of what we call the "means.") People should only be deceived when deception is itself a rational objective.

[Cory Duchesne]

People like Oscar Wilde or George Bernard Shaw were a bit Machiavellian, but they were also very human people - genuinely intelligent and compassionate (rather than limited to superficial political cunning and feigning empathy).

They are examples of people who managed to get very close to other humans, but also maintained a significant portion of humanity, using their Art and Creativity to playfully pull the rug out from under people, causing a scandal, but out of Joy.

The lowest man is like vermin, secretly eating deeply into people who trust him, often for very mindless, animalistic reasons.

He causes scandals, but it is always accidental, and he deals with it by fleeing or attacking in fear. A coward and a moron in the truest sense.

[Alex T. Jacob]

But isn't Machiavellianism really associated withthe state and statecraft? De Gaulle once said 'France has no friends, only interests', and a state cannot ever act like a person, nor think like a person. Machiavelli wrote his Discourses as a 'historical meditation" on the first ten books of Livy with an eye to explain how it was that the Roman state endured and also what brought its demise. When a person becomes unscrupulous in imitation, they are generally found out and branded. Iago in Othello is perhaps the most obvious literary character who acts thoroughly unscrupulously---Machiavellianly.

[Cory Duchesne]

Initially it was, but widespread dissemination of Machiavellian literature shows that the underlying social psychology applies everywhere where social power and seduction matter. Hence, you see Machiavellian philosophy rear it's head even in the music industry (2pac Shakur consciously employed it to make his mark as a musician).

Being Machiavellian is largely about ascending in social rank and ruling power through intentional concealment and seduction (not sexual seduction).

I find Lau Tzu in the Tao te Ching is even a bit Machiavellian. He was very sly and slippery as a sage, and you could tell he commanded attention and practised leadership, but he did it with humility and grace.

However, the laws of power and seduction are quite extensive and any exploration into them is indeed poison for the heart.

[Dennis Mahar]

All these concepts,
machiavellian, resentment etc..

are simply moves

thay appear in the 'play of causality' based in the erroneous belief of separate self...

once, belief in separate self entrenches, power play ensues.

They lack inherent existence,
they are causes/conditions.

they are deluded.

to give them absolute existence is distortion.

[Cory Duchesne]

Yes, your job is monk. I get that. :) You just stay put and meditate in the void.

I'll give you a message if I need a refresher on the fundamentals.

[Dennis Mahar]

its empty and meaningless
that its empty and meaningless

[David Quinn]

Machiavellianism, a the tendency to manipulate and deceive other people towards a goal. Is it justified. Do the ends justify the means?

Just about everyone is a Machiavellian by that definition. Women doubly so.

Perhaps a better question is: How does one justify not being a Machiavellian to a species of Machiavellians?

-

[Cory Duchesne]

Conscience? Appeal to the conscience of these Machiavellians?

DQ, when I dated that lady last summer, I started having intense pangs of guilt and so I did some searching around and coincidentally found your essay "murdering women's souls for sexual gratification". Very potent read. It helped get my mind and heart in the right place, as I was under great sorrow. The most important thing I learned about women was how much being in love messes with their head. It leaves both sides utterly compromised and mentally unbalanced. Love makes people stupid and unhappy. And as I said, this was a relatively smart and artistic girl, and it broke my heart to see her lose her sense of identity. Philosophy was not for her.

There is an argument for practical, friendship relations between the sexes, but... as I'm sure you can understand, there was very little basis for a relationship. "evil logic" and what not.

Interestingly, I had a very long relationship with my first girlfriend, attractive young lady, with consistent supply of sex all the time. I was just a teenager. What was the problem? I was utterly mindless, and that's how the relationship worked. As long as men are dumb and clueless, they can get along with the opposite sex. Getting sex is largely about either treating the other like an infant, or becoming infantile. It's a will toward self degradation.

And to elaborate on the character of a Machiavellian:

A highly Machiavellian man, in the most conventional sense, is a submissive, for a number of reasons.

He is obsessed with "worldly fairness" and because the world contains little of such a thing as fairness (at least how his little mind conceives of it), he is primarily filled with feelings of envy, vengeance and anger, and like Shepard says, he is motivated to "get somewhere".

By "somewhere", what he means is, he wants to please his girlfriend, parents and culture, and perhaps more importantly, he wants to prove his worth and superiority to people who he feels rejected by. His identity is caught up in that relation, and therefore, he is a "submissive".

In other words, because he is so inwardly impoverished, he cannot take his eyes off of the "forms" he sees outside him. As was written elsewhere - an animal sees value, a human places value. The inwardly impoverished man cannot place value because there is nothing within his soul he values. It's a wasteland. All he knows is the narcissistic stimulation he gets from other people.

This inner impoverishment explains why women are often so negative, it's why they complain so much, why they go from empty thrill to the next, and why it's correct to regard them as "gravity". There is nothing inside them, no wealth.

Even "Shepard's" avatar looks like a black, loose vagina.

[David Quinn]

A highly Machiavellian man, in the most conventional sense, is a submissive, for a number of reasons.

He is obsessed with "worldly fairness" and because the world contains little of such a thing as fairness (at least how his little mind conceives of it), he is primarily filled with feelings of envy, vengeance and anger, and like Shepard says, he is motivated to "get somewhere".

By "somewhere", what he means is, he wants to please his girlfriend, parents and culture, and perhaps more importantly, he wants to prove his worth and superiority to people who he feels rejected by. His identity is caught up in that relation, and therefore, he is a "submissive".

Again, this sounds like most men to me.

I suppose what distinguishes the "highly Machiavellian man" is that the envy and revenge are pushed more to the forefront of consciousness, causing him to direct his precious cerebral resources towards plotting and scheming. He doesn't just let the plotting happen subconsciously behind the scenes, as is the case with most people. Hence, his manipulations of other people are more intricate and chess-like. And because of their cerebral nature, they can seem more evil.

The human race has a history of believing consciously thought-out plots are far more dangerous and evil than instinctive ones. Cold, calculated crimes tend to be punished far more heavily than crimes of passion. This relates to people's hatred of truth and, by extension, their hatred of conscious people. Both are implacable in the face of human pleading.

And this, in turn, relates to the common conception of "evil", a label given to anyone or anything that cannot be dissuaded from consciously acting against our interests. The urge to use the term "evil" usually arises out of a feeling of impotence.

But yes, the kind of person you describe is very submissive, abandoning himself to the need for applause.

Even "Shepard's" avatar looks like a black, loose vagina.

A black hole in the middle of the vagina - very symbolic! :)

-

[jupiviv]

He is obsessed with "worldly fairness" and because the world contains little of such a thing as fairness (at least how his little mind conceives of it), he is primarily filled with feelings of envy, vengeance and anger, and like Shepard says, he is motivated to "get somewhere".

I'd say he is just obsessed with worldly things. I.e, anything that would satiate his ego. As David said, all people are Machiavellian to a great degree. People try to figure out how to get what they want without reflecting on the wanting itself. Machiavelli just gave expression to this and formed a political system out of it. Politicians, businessmen etc. are all very Machiavellian, yet people have no problem admiring them as long as they pander to their egos.

[Cory Duchesne]

He is obsessed with "worldly fairness" and because the world contains little of such a thing as fairness (at least how his little mind conceives of it), he is primarily filled with feelings of envy, vengeance and anger, and like Shepard says, he is motivated to "get somewhere".

I'd say he is just obsessed with worldly things. I.e, anything that would satiate his ego. As David said, all people are Machiavellian to a great degree. People try to figure out how to get what they want without reflecting on the wanting itself. Machiavelli just gave expression to this and formed a political system out of it. Politicians, businessmen etc. are all very Machiavellian, yet people have no problem admiring them as long as they pander to their egos.

If we're talking about human psychology (particularly as we are in this thread) worldly things need to be cast in a proper relation, in this case, it's into the context of fairness, equality, superior and inferior.

The Machiavellian man's relationship to things is superficial. They are important only as long as other people find them important. In other words, he's keeping score, and worldly things (including abstract honours, such as promotions, titles and rank) are how he measures his worth.

A decent human being such as Einstein would gaze at water or sunlight, and drift into his imagination pondering empirical questions, because that's what he loved to do. A Sage such as Buddha or Lau Tzu would contemplate the human condition and find principles, Truths and practices that would bring desire under control.

A Machiavellian, on the other hand, is simply too inwardly vacant for that kind of engagement with reality. The concepts he manages to keep in memory are connected to what is primary to him - other people. He remembers all of the slights, the failures, the embarassments, the victories, the sexual exploits, the shame, the pride - a cesspool of memory is there constantly, filling him with feelings of anger and desire for further victory over others. This is particularly true if he's recently found himself licking his wounds from a recent botched attempt at domination over others.

He is primarily a competitive being - always keeping score in relation to others. Such a man is very difficult to cooperate with in any interesting way. He just cannot accept himself as he is and relax in his proper role in the universe.

[jufa]

The oddness of this conversation is the belief sentient mind is battling itself to gain advantage over itself. Ha! the deception is the mind is not at odds with itself, nor attempting to manipulate itself. Its only purpose is to insure its survival of collectivity of indoctrinated conformity. The gripper of deception and survival of sentient philosophy is dependent totally upon the thinker's lack of understanding all principles and patterns operated from the spirit of equal thought upon reception.

The mind does not jockey for position of power to manipulate mind. The mind operates from the position of relativity. It is relativism which differentiate equality. It is relativism which birth the sentient determinist beliefs that the mind is the governing power in and of the materialistic world. Should one ever decide to look into the conscience of their inner-conscience, they will understand why the mind will fight reality until its very last illusion has disappeared.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

[Cory Duchesne]

The human race has a history of believing consciously thought-out plots are far more dangerous and evil than instinctive ones. Cold, calculated crimes tend to be punished far more heavily than crimes of passion. This relates to people's hatred of truth and, by extension, their hatred of conscious people. Both are implacable in the face of human pleading.

I think casting these nouns in relation brings greater clarity. People don't always hate truth, in fact, they admire it (from a distance) if it's wielded with responsibility, courage and gentleness. When I was 20, when I read the ideals of Tao Te Ching, Epictetus, Diogenes, or Socrates, I didn't hate them. I was intimidated by the ideals, but there was admiration.

What people hate is a little more complicated. It involves other factors like irresponsibility, cowardice, cunning and malice. Hate is an emotion that often arises after something complicated involving delusion, pleasure, hope, etc. It's the combination of dishonesty and truth that really sends people bonkers.

That is why people who were involved in cults can spend so many years filled with such passionate hate, trying to unravel and figure out the deception they fell under. They say the root meaning of the word passion is to suffer, and I suppose any passionate spiritual man would have his "key wound". I call it such because it is like the match that sets his heart on fire, and since his relation to Truth is clear, he can progress quickly. It is a suicidal passion, but not in the direction of annihilation, but in the direction of self overcoming.

Lau Tzu seems like he maybe had it at one time, but was lucky enough to age into a very full maturity. "a passionate man will kill or be killed" is what he said in one passage, and it's true.

And this, in turn, relates to the common conception of "evil", a label given to anyone or anything that cannot be dissuaded from consciously acting against our interests. The urge to use the term "evil" usually arises out of a feeling of impotence.

The boundaries of Good and Evil can be drawn to increase potency. So a man who does not feel sufficiently potent can draw some good-evil boundaries as an aid toward greater potency. But you're right, there is a sense of anxiety and vulnerability in people who indulge in morals, but with that, there can also be gratitude toward one's enemy, and with that, genuine progress toward a more logical and courageous (good) state of mind. To be evil is to be cowardly and emotional, and conventional Machiavellian's are generally not brave people, and are in fact, very moody and indulge in a great deal of emotion, for highly ridiculous reasons.

[Alex T. Jacob]

I have just been reviewing Othello, and considering Machiavellianism and Grandiosity, and I am struck with some very interesting parallels which, naturally, I'll be honing and perfecting over the next weeks, months and years. In my radical new interpretation, 'Othello' is a sort of Everyman, but more specifically the youngish, impressionable man GF likes to get its hands on (when young and impressionable, naturally).

Iago, that Machiavellian terror, is of course David Quinn who drives a wedge between Everyman and his ewe-like girlfriend.

And Desdemona fits in quite nicely as the way that Woman is stereotypically identified, branded in fact. (Not that the Vagina and all it connotes doesn't at times also terrify yours truly...)

I will also attempt (and likely succeed...) in upturning the rather sophomoric grasp of 'evil' that has been tossed up around here recently, while simultaneously demonstrating that logic is useful in life only up to a point (Othello's tragic flaw is to rely on it too much) and that to make it through this Machiavellian universe and cosmos one needs a grasp on the alogical, which points to a fuller, a more holistic, guidance-system with which σημειωτικός (semiotics) is the de rigueur skill.

[jupiviv]

The Machiavellian man's relationship to things is superficial. They are important only as long as other people find them important. In other words, he's keeping score, and worldly things (including abstract honours, such as promotions, titles and rank) are how he measures his worth.

Again, that doesn't narrow it down. How many normal adults find supreme joy in throwing pebbles at birds? Most human beings want the company of other people. In some human beings like socialites, celebrities or aristocrats the opportunities for competing with others for status are more abundant, and thus they demonstrate such behaviour more clearly than others.

[Cory Duchesne]

You might be mistaking the limitations of your own personal experience for mine. :) My psychology is deeper than that. Judge not lest ye be judged.

[jupiviv]

You might be mistaking the limitations of your own personal experience for mine.

I don't think people are very diverse in terms of being irrational. All deluded people think, with varying degrees of clarity, that the ends justify the means.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

I want to be judged, because then I may become aware of a fault that I didn't notice before.

[Tomas]

Judge not lest ye be judged.

I want to be judged, because then I may become aware of a fault that I didn't notice before.

Very good, Jupiviv!

You win a cookie.

[Cory Duchesne]

You might be mistaking the limitations of your own personal experience for mine.

I don't think people are very diverse in terms of being irrational.

I pointed out a very basic truth, that reduction to a part is, in fact, irrational. Relation is how we make sense of things. This is too simple to argue, you either can see it or you can't.

[Dionysus]

How can anyone assert that the ends do not justify the means, when everyday, we justify our appropriation and killing of other life for the sake of furthering our own, when we kill animals for the sake of nourishment? On the twilight side of things, life requires cruelty, and therefore, we justify our cruelty by the ends of furthering our own life. For how could the ends not be justified when the very foundation of the civilization that we live in was based entirely upon cruelty, mass genocide, appropriation of land (remember that story of the native Indians, funny story wasn't it?). The justification of a better ends with the use of a considerable evil means is the foundation of our society. Life requires Death - Death brings forth Life. This is among the tougher facts of life we must grow to accept as REALITY.

However, even though one might take my argument as an argument FOR the mass acts of cruelty, it is NOT intended that way. An ends may be justified SOLELY when the perceived ends is greater in benefit than the perceived cost at which this ends would be brought forth. The measure of this benefit/cost must be, at all times, the benefit of the happiness, and the insurance of the security of human beings no matter who they are (CLASS, AGE, RACE, ETHNICITY, NATIONALITY, ...). Acts as such to be truly verifiable and justified would have to entail a greater benefit for mankind.

If one were to save a million people by the death of some thousand, THEN do we say that an act of murder is justifiable. But there are always complications with this. There are cases where an Ends-Justifies-Means argument would be made to justify atrocities that no human must be willing to accept as justified or true. We see Hitler attempting to save the world from a " Jewish Menace" (no Antisemitism intended here), and in the process, commits the worst, most barbaric, savage, crude and base acts of animalism in known human history. Therefore, wherein an argument is brought forth as in Ends-Justifies-Means, the specifics of the argument must be put forth under scrutiny. It is not possible to give a complete yes/no answer that can suffice for a general response to this topic, and it is not an either/or subject either.

[ForbidenRea]

DUCKING CORY

[SharpestNight]

Do the ends justify the means?

The means are already justified in the mind of the one doing them. Otherwise, he would not do them.

Unless you believe that he is not qualified to determine whether they are justified, in which case you must determine who should judge what is justified, and why that person.