The Solitary Boast

The Immaculate Conception: The Crucifixion::The Assumption of the Virgin: The Resurrection of the Dead.

Just as Mary's Immaculate Conception prefigures Her Son's Salvific Act, so too her Assumption, body and soul, into heaven prefigures the resurrection of the elect.

As They Are III

Machiavelli judges republics by their life span and general stability. Athenian democracy under Solon did not outlast its own founder, and even after some semblance of democratic order was restored, the polity could not last a century. Sparta, on the other hand, endured for eight centuries under the institutions established by Lycurgus. Why? According to Machiavelli, Lycurgus constituted Sparta in such a way that the king, aristocrats, and people all had a share in the maintenance of order. For Machiavelli, these three parts or classes of a city, which are always present in some form, must be recognized as having unique virtues and vices that make them integral to perpetuating both tranquility and stability.

In the case of Rome, Machiavelli says that even though the city was originally established as a kingdom, fortune and chance allowed it to transition to a state that had at least two of the three required representative constituents present: the two consuls who stood for royal authority and the aristocratic senate. All that was left was access by the people, the democratic element of government. This would be accomplished by the creation of the tribunes of the plebeians.

The process of political transition is not without its troubles, and most people would rather not acknowledge that the three separate factions do not always share similar interests or have identical desires. Political life, though, is part of the life of men, and men, so says Machiavelli, are evil creatures who will always seek to act cruelly to others if given the chance. Rulers who seek to found cities and political associations, not to mention political philosophers who wish to remake the world according to their pet theories, ignore this at their own peril.   

This inherent evil in man is what necessitates the representation of each faction within the city. When Rome was no longer ruled by the Tarquins, the unchecked aristocratic class, which no longer needed to fear an alliance between the king and the people, began to abuse their authority over the plebeians. The tribunes were birthed from the conflict between these two classes, and Machiavelli recognizes that these conflicts, rather than creating total disharmony or anarchy, helped hold together a relatively stable political order for three centuries. The evil of men combined with the disparate interests of each class, with no faction going completely unrestrained, created conditions favorable to liberty.    

As They Are II

Machiavelli, following more ancient political theorists, claims that there are, generally speaking, three types of government: kingdoms or principalities, aristocracies, and democracies. He points out, though, that it is more accurate to say that there are six, since each type has its own defective counterpart. Through a process of degeneration and decay, kingdoms become tyrannies, aristocracies become oligarchies, and democracies become anarchic ochlocracies.

The first ruler or prince comes about when smaller groups and clans place a leader, presumably the strongest among them, at their head in order to establish organization, protection, and law. In return, this leader is given obedience and, from this relationship, civil justice is born. Assuming that this dynamic persists, the next ruler chosen will not necessarily be the most powerful in the sense of being the strongest; he will, however, be the most able at maintaining justice among his people. It is here that Machiavelli says the process of degeneration may begin. Rulers, instead of being chosen for their ability, or even chosen at all, come to power through hereditary succession. Because of this, the rulers lose all necessary virtue, excelling only in the pursuit of power and pleasure. As a result of this abdication of concern for the common good, these new leaders are eventually despised by the people over which they rule. Living in fear of the people, these princes are more likely to enact violent deeds and become tyrannical rather than seek to assuage the displeasure of the citizenry.

At this stage, Machiavelli says that the tyrant begins to face opposition from men of wealth, power, nobility, etc. Upon the elimination of tyrannical rule, the mass of people fall under the rule of this small elite. These men, only just ridding themselves of the political yoke of tyranny, desire to keep the favor the people. They therefore take care to execute government effectively and also scrupulously observe the law themselves. However, just as the rule of a single virtuous man cannot endure perpetually, so too the virtuous collective must pass their rule to a group which lacks the necessary virtues. As the king becomes the tyrant, so too the aristocrats become oligarchs. Now, instead of turning to another small elite, the masses lend their support to any who are willing to destroy the oligarchs. Exhausting the rule of the one and the rule of the few, the people turn to the rule of the many.

Machiavelli, like Socrates in Plato's Republic, is particularly harsh toward democracy. He argues that democracies, like all other types of political organizations, can indeed maintain themselves at first. But unlike other forms of government, he does not think that a democracy can even outlast the generation which establishes it. Democracies immediately become anarchical, with each individual following only his own passions. Anarchy, though, is untenable. It must give way to either monarchy or monarchical tyranny, that is, if the state has not already been conquered by its more powerful and stable neighbors.

Notice, the distinction between a virtuous government and its opposite is whether the state's rulers are concerned with the common good or their own personal good. This contrast is most visible in democracy, where the concern for the common good is almost completely lost. Each man becomes a ruler to himself, it is a land of little tyrants. In our democratic regime, the very notion of the common good is rejected.   

As They Are, The Machiavellian Perspective

Machiavelli's political philosophy is essentially historical. By this I mean to say that his analysis does not proceed from lofty principles derived from abstract reasoning or fanatical devotion to one particular idea. He says that civil law just is the judgment of the ancients. Therefore, learning the art of governance, learning politics, necessarily entails learning history.

His political outlook is anti-revolutionary, meaning that, to him, the world and the men found within it have not fundamentally changed since ancient times. There is no ushering in of a new age, no radical discontinuity with the past. The is not the politics of a Rousseau, a Hegel, or a Marx.

In this way, Machiavelli's perspective is illiberal and non-ideological. Politics is the art of organizing men as they are found in nature and not as they are thought to be according to the whims and sentiments of the supposed intellectual.

Culture and Anti-Culture

Multiculturalism, usually conceived as a system whereby multiple cultures are given equal accommodation within some polity, is, at a practical level, a proficient method of destroying actual cultures. Although the apparent intention of such a policy is the creation of a broadly diverse yet utterly tolerant people, the result is a deracinated population whose members eventually become un-cultured. Multiculturalism, then, is profoundly anti-culture.

In order for a culture to thrive it requires the ability to totalize the lives of its members. It must inform all human activities and institutions; this includes both governing and economic action. If it cannot do this, it is doomed to wither away with time. Without this totalization, cohesion and unity cannot exist to the degree necessary to perpetuate cultural norms and mores.

Notice, this is precisely what modernity, what we call liberalism, seeks to eliminate. Theoretically, this is supposed to be a compromise between cultures based on some exogenous humane reasoning to which any and all cultures can conform. In reality, it is merely another version of cultural hegemony commonly found throughout imperial histories.     

Notes on Potency

- Being is perfection. Any being, then, that is not infinite in its being or perfection must contain within itself some principle by which it is finite and limited. This principle, though, cannot be the being through which something is perfected since perfection is, of itself, infinite and unlimited. Perfection is opposed to limitation, so our limiting principle must be something else. Its name is potency.

- Potency requires the act of being in order to become actual. All potencies are potencies for some act. In this way, potency has an essential relationship to act. Act, however, bears no essential relationship to potency.

- Something is known only inasmuch as it is in act. Being-in-act is determinate and therefore intelligible. Potency is essentially indeterminacy, it is not yet determined to an act. As such, it is unintelligible. Our knowledge of potency, then, cannot come to us through itself but only through our knowledge of something which is intelligible: act.

Being One Thing

Parmenides saw the undifferentiated nature of being. Being is not differentiated within itself, so inasmuch as things are said to be, there can only be one being. Any distinction between things must be predicated upon something other than being, but the only thing besides being is non-being, which is literally nothing. At this point, if we have no adequate response, we should cease thinking or speaking, for our metaphysics and thus all true knowledge, is complete.