![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Then again, it's also my most philosophical post of the year, bc this is about as philosophical as I can get. My brain just doesn't work like that.
I have a future poll question about whether you read commentators or the source material. For instance,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
visage made some comments that made me realize that while I'd read The Prince, it's been a long time and my AP European History teacher was only so-so. It's a short book that I'd plucked from a book swap - I could easily read it again or I could listen to The Teaching Company lectures about Machiavelli and get more context, although I'd be learning history third-hand.
Learning about Machiavelli from a neo-con is very different than learning about him from a liberal academic. Prof. William Cook continually argues throughout the 24 lectures that Machiavelli is a republican, as everyone would know if only they read the Discourses on Livy as well as The Prince. However, (a) I found myself taking far more notes on The Prince, even though I was already familiar with it, than Discourses, although possibly this is bc I've never believed I'd have to and (b) it's hard to tell if that's what he believes bc he's a neo-con - I'm not interested enough to read everything Machiavelli's written to find out.
What I liked best about the series was being able to tie Machiavelli's history and political thinking to other things into my eclectic store of knowledge. For instance, in one lecture, I was struck by how The Prince could be seen as a manual for "Neutron Jack" and "Chainsaw Al". I think it would be so cool to take a course that examines post-Renaissance history through the lens of Machiavellian thought, coming to conclusions about whether such-and-such decision was consistent with his writings and evaluates in the end, how that all worked out - esp. since the strength of the nobility vs. the urban middle class was a big determinant of long-term economic success in Europe at least. Or there's a bit where Machiavelli talks about how important hunting is for princes - just like the Mongols believed. ( Other things I learned )
I enjoyed the series very much until the last 2 lectures, in which Cook decides to argue that Machiavelli's republican thought influenced the Founding Fathers - without citing a single reference. argh. This continues to be my biggest complaint about The Teaching Company: the lack of intellectual rigor and citations. On the other hand, as an introduction to a not-very-familiar topic, it was fine. Kate recommends.
I have a future poll question about whether you read commentators or the source material. For instance,
visage made some comments that made me realize that while I'd read The Prince, it's been a long time and my AP European History teacher was only so-so. It's a short book that I'd plucked from a book swap - I could easily read it again or I could listen to The Teaching Company lectures about Machiavelli and get more context, although I'd be learning history third-hand.Learning about Machiavelli from a neo-con is very different than learning about him from a liberal academic. Prof. William Cook continually argues throughout the 24 lectures that Machiavelli is a republican, as everyone would know if only they read the Discourses on Livy as well as The Prince. However, (a) I found myself taking far more notes on The Prince, even though I was already familiar with it, than Discourses, although possibly this is bc I've never believed I'd have to and (b) it's hard to tell if that's what he believes bc he's a neo-con - I'm not interested enough to read everything Machiavelli's written to find out.
What I liked best about the series was being able to tie Machiavelli's history and political thinking to other things into my eclectic store of knowledge. For instance, in one lecture, I was struck by how The Prince could be seen as a manual for "Neutron Jack" and "Chainsaw Al". I think it would be so cool to take a course that examines post-Renaissance history through the lens of Machiavellian thought, coming to conclusions about whether such-and-such decision was consistent with his writings and evaluates in the end, how that all worked out - esp. since the strength of the nobility vs. the urban middle class was a big determinant of long-term economic success in Europe at least. Or there's a bit where Machiavelli talks about how important hunting is for princes - just like the Mongols believed. ( Other things I learned )
I enjoyed the series very much until the last 2 lectures, in which Cook decides to argue that Machiavelli's republican thought influenced the Founding Fathers - without citing a single reference. argh. This continues to be my biggest complaint about The Teaching Company: the lack of intellectual rigor and citations. On the other hand, as an introduction to a not-very-familiar topic, it was fine. Kate recommends.