BookTalk.org

Delete this post. I want to read this book a little before bringing it up in discussion. I may have made a huge mistake in purchasing it.

Tell us what you think. It sounds interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dialog ... ontesquieu

Is this the book your are referring to Pres?

Boy, you have the weirdest taste in books

It looks interesting, yes, please read a little and share your thoughts. Have to say, however, won't be reading this one with you.

Boy, you have the weirdest taste in books

Yikes.

I read a post on here about an individual that wanted access to an anti-semitic book.. that should have been my first clue. This book was plagiarized in the book that person wanted - unknown to me at the time. This one, from what wikipedia says, does not touch on race or religion but if portions of it were used for such an infamous book as the one that person wanted then it's probably pure garbage. The title is what grabbed me... and also the 'Humanitarian despotism and the conditions of modern tyranny'. It seemed like some political philosophy book that would pose Machiavelli against Montesquieu and I would have a chance to learn a little about both people and what thoughts each person expounded. That doesn't seem to be the case at all. If I had a strong grasp of Machiavelli and Montesquieu it would be worth reading to tear apart but I've only read The Prince and I haven't read anything by Montesquieu so... this one is going to be shelved for quite a while... I'm not even going to display it until I learn some more about it.

Ok, there's nothing anti-religious in this book at all so far. It seems it's just a political science book like I originally thought. It pits Montesquieu against Machiavelli. As I said before, I read The Prince and the views expressed by Machiavelli in that book are expressed by his character in this book.

The two men meet at opposite ends of a shore.

To give you an idea of the quality of the writing in this book, I'll share the first lines:

Mach: At the edge of this shore, I was told I would meet the shade of the great Montesquieu. Is this it in front of me?

Mont: The name "great" belongs to no one here, O Machiavelli. But I am the one you seek.

Jolly really has these too sparring from the get go and neither wants to give an inch. They both acknowledge they are from different times and that Europe has changed but while Montesquieu argues for a Europe free of the tyranny of Autocrats and Princes, Machiavelli asserts that it is still and will always be possible as man is more attracted by evil than good and fear and force have more sway over him than reason.

It's important to know that although Joly has used the names of M&M and based his characters on some of their principles, HE (Joly) is the one writing the book and the statements made by the two characters are his alone and may not be shared by M&M. In fact in the fourth dialogue Joly's own personality comes out more and more in Machiavelli. I imagine it does in Montesquieu as well but I am unfamiliar with his writing so it's impossible for me to say.

In the first dialogue Machiavelli allows the reader, who may or may not be familiar with The Prince, to gain an insight into some of the ideas expressed in the book. So Joly has Machiavelli begin by telling how vile man is, how men seek to hold power of men, and how all are ready to sacrifice another person's rights for their own interests.

To restrain these evil men force must be used and then later that force becomes the law, an institutionalized force but force nonetheless. Force precedes right. A state without force where prolonged liberty is transformed into license will quickly be followed by war and anarchy and the state will fail. In a later dialogue Machiavelli will suggest that states that allow popular sovereignty will give power to demagogues who will bring about anarchy and so a civilization will return to barbarism. That's a little ridiculous to me....

Anyway to complete Machiavelli he says states fail either internally or by some external force which was very common in Italy during Machiavelli's life.

Read this and tell me what you think...

"Has politics anything to do with morality? Have you ever seen a single state conduct itself according to the principles that govern private morality? But then ever war would be a crime, even when it had fair cause. Any usurpation of sovereign power would deserve death. Nothing would be legitimate except what as based on justice."

That's pretty interesting...

Mach is convinced that all sovereign powers find their origin in force or the negation of justice. This seems to be very, very true.

He goes on to say that Evil can produce Good and that the ends justify the means. To that, Montesquieu has only to say that justice is necessary for a state to survive and that evil begets evil. That no hypocritical state would be allowed to endure. Morality is the foundation of justice and it is from this pure source that all civil, political, economic, and international laws must flow.

International laws huh? hehehehe.... riiiiight.

So while Montesquieu will not totally defend men, he kind of sidesteps them and in a way acknowledges their baseness by asserting it is the institutions that preserve the reign of liberty and sound morals in states. "All the good, indeed all the bad, which redounds to man in society, necessarily depends on the correct or incorrect ordering of institutions.

In the 3rd dialogue Mont claims that Machiavellian despotism could not survive in Europe after the late 1830's. Machiavelli claims that rule by force is inevitable and predicts democracy failing within 200 years.

So reading into the fourth dialogue I found something a little troubling considering how I found the book. While both characters are fighting over equality, popular sovereignty, and forms of government - Machiavelli begins to attack the people again.

He says that people that are allowed such freedoms will eventually become materialistic, disillusioned, unpatriotic, cold, and care only for gold. He says, "Their mercantile morals rival those of the Jews whom they have taken for models." Men have hatred for the well off and seek to rob them of their riches, the means to pleasure which they covet.

Machiavelli's character is seen here to use a very common Jewish stereotype and nothing more. Has anyone ever read the Merchant of Venice? There are many cases of Jewish stereotypes throughout literature. This is the first one in the case of this book.

The book also suggests that liberty can safely be bestowed on stoic men, christian men, Athenians and Romans - but no other people other than those are listed as being capable of being free. To add to this, Machiavelli strongly agrees with the way the Orient does business and we all know how they prostrate themselves and kowtow to their rulers.

Machiavelli is a pretty nasty character in this book.

Mont is obviously our heroine in this book. He is fighting for our ideals and for our institutions. He defends the balance of power, freedom of the press, and limited equality.

"Without doubt, inequality in matters of intelligence and fortunes brings about inevitable inequalities among individuals in the enjoyment of their rights."

Can we argue that? Should we argue that? How much inequality is deserved? Is there a limit? If there wasn't the state would fail as Machiavelli suggests, I think.

Anyway, we're all cheering for Montesquieu who is definitely optimistic about things... =)

I just reread that ... limited equality... hmmm lol