Post by whitewolfstark on Apr 6, 2016 20:45:11 GMT
Tywin embraces Machiavellian thought in this episode, and while Stannis tries to do the same, Davos steps in and prevents him from doing so.
Machiavelli of course, as I posted the video which explored his "little pamphlet" as he so called it (a glorified job application, in all actuality) argued that to be a good ruler, one must leave personal morality at the door. That sometimes to ensure the best thing for a people or a country a ruler must do a horrible act to secure themselves--and be sure to have a lackey do it to take all the blame. The question being, does this add up in the books and the show thus far? I mean the assassination of Dany is supposed to be such a quandary, one which Machiavelli along with Littlefinger would have argued, yes it's better to have her killed for the "good of the realm". Except, the attempt is botched and only causes Dany to win influence with her recalcitrant husband and thus puts the kingdom in more danger.
Coming to the big act this season--the Red Wedding--it would seem that killing a dozen men at a wedding vs bleeding the country dry on the battlefield might in fact be the "better" way in terms of saving lives--akin to the famous "do you drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?" debacle. But by saving those lives you have no idea how many of them will come back to hurt you.
More and more it seems obvious that what Martin is doing is rejecting Machiavellian thought by arguing that Machiavelli has no idea of the consequences his "bad act" will have. Some, like Littlefinger, would embrace the chaos and use it to his advantage, but that only works as far as one is "climbing the ladder" so to speak, and doesn't really help once one is at the top and trying to prevent themselves from falling down the ladder.
Machiavellianism works if you want to acquire power Martin seems to say, but it doesn't really offer you a great way of keeping it is Martin's counterpoint therefore. The question I have is what is his response to it instead? I mean I think I have an idea from reading his 1000 Worlds series, but GRRM doesn't seem too interested in achieving the Utopia, instead he's far more interested in merely surviving the Dystopia and planting the seeds for a better day long after he's gone. Which is fine, but a little lackluster.
Machiavelli of course, as I posted the video which explored his "little pamphlet" as he so called it (a glorified job application, in all actuality) argued that to be a good ruler, one must leave personal morality at the door. That sometimes to ensure the best thing for a people or a country a ruler must do a horrible act to secure themselves--and be sure to have a lackey do it to take all the blame. The question being, does this add up in the books and the show thus far? I mean the assassination of Dany is supposed to be such a quandary, one which Machiavelli along with Littlefinger would have argued, yes it's better to have her killed for the "good of the realm". Except, the attempt is botched and only causes Dany to win influence with her recalcitrant husband and thus puts the kingdom in more danger.
Coming to the big act this season--the Red Wedding--it would seem that killing a dozen men at a wedding vs bleeding the country dry on the battlefield might in fact be the "better" way in terms of saving lives--akin to the famous "do you drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?" debacle. But by saving those lives you have no idea how many of them will come back to hurt you.
More and more it seems obvious that what Martin is doing is rejecting Machiavellian thought by arguing that Machiavelli has no idea of the consequences his "bad act" will have. Some, like Littlefinger, would embrace the chaos and use it to his advantage, but that only works as far as one is "climbing the ladder" so to speak, and doesn't really help once one is at the top and trying to prevent themselves from falling down the ladder.
Machiavellianism works if you want to acquire power Martin seems to say, but it doesn't really offer you a great way of keeping it is Martin's counterpoint therefore. The question I have is what is his response to it instead? I mean I think I have an idea from reading his 1000 Worlds series, but GRRM doesn't seem too interested in achieving the Utopia, instead he's far more interested in merely surviving the Dystopia and planting the seeds for a better day long after he's gone. Which is fine, but a little lackluster.
