(October 30, 2012 at 5:58 pm)jonb Wrote: I am very sorry that my example did not measure up to your high standards, I only mentioned it because it was a story which Machiavelli probably alluded to in the Prince without directly mentioning.
I try to be a discerning apprasier of treachery.
(October 30, 2012 at 5:58 pm)jonb Wrote: Incidentally your reason for the dismissal of the story from apophenia seems at odds with those written by Machiavelli himself which were meant to display a particular action, not necessarily all the ramifications thereof.
I think the term Machiavellian has evolved to assume certain connotation beyond what Machiavalli himself may have attempted to directly illustrate. Basically cunning acts devised solely out of desparate self-preservation is no longer deemed to be quite completely "machiavellian". Instead the underhandedness must have been devised to serve a certain descretionary self-aggrandizement to fully qualify.
