Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1/2
2/25/2015
What I found interesting to ponder over is the public reaction if a European or American president cited Machiavelli in a
speech (e.g., Politics have no relations to morals, or Men should be either treated generously or destroyed, because they
take revenge for slight injuries for heavy ones they cannot.). Of course, there are ontological and philosophical differences
between Machiavelli and Han Feizi and their respective philosophies, and any quote, by definition, is taken out of context,
which is especially problematic for philosophical texts.
However, what makes the comparison to Machiavelli more interesting is not so much the obvious similarities in the
authoritarian streak of both philosophers and their amoral counsel on how rulers ought to run their affairs (by the way, I
strongly suspect that Machiavellis core political philosophy is buried in his Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy
rather than the Prince), but in how the fundamentals underlying their political thought have evidently much more in common
than the Italian thinker has with other great European philosophers. This makes Han Feizis work more European, and
Machiavellis philosophy more Chinese.
Plato, for example, argues in his Republic that the best regime happens by chance, the unlikely coming together of political
philosophy and political power. This is based on the ancient Greek understanding of human nature and in a sense cautions
against social engineering or the attempt to make utopia, the ideal state, a reality. However, Machiavelli broke with this
tradition publicly by pronouncing that chance (fortuna) can be influenced: For my part I consider that it is better to be
adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use
her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more
coldly.
Beating and ill-using chance is the foundation of any radical political reform and has openly been part of Chinese political
tradition if one studies writings from Han Feizi to Mao Zedong. The big question to ask is what is in the water in China that
allows a world leader to cite an evidently infamous or, at least, somewhat disreputable source to defend authoritarian policy?
I believe Mitchells essay calls for a greater understanding of Han Feizi and his relative status in the popular and pundit
thinking in China. Theres an interesting study there regarding the use of philosophical (and/or ancient) intellectual reputation
to defend political behavior and the perhaps unique cultural applications of this practice in China regarding Han Feizi.
http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/why-we-should-study-chinas-machiavelli/?allpages=yes&print=yes
2/2