Machiavelli's The Prince

[innonimatu]

Not really. Hannibal used the overland route for a reason; it was next to impossible to move that many troops via the sea.

Hannibal managed to take his veterans from Italy to North Africa in 203.

Hannibal was sunk the second the more-powerful Italian city-states - with the obvious and notable exception of Capua - decided to stick with Rome rather than take a chance on Carthage. If his plan to gain support in southern Italy had worked, he'd likely have won, but that plan failed after Cannae, when, despite Rome's heavy losses, the Italians still bet on the Romans coming out on top.

He still got a major greek city to support him, Tarentum, after Capua. But getting the support of Capua was probably what lost him the support of other central italian cities: the terms were such that for many of those a victory by Hannibal might only trade rule by Rome for rule by Capua! Latio was obviously going to support Rome, and the other central italian cities had no motive to throw their luck with Hannibal instead of sitting on the fence. As for the greeks further south, well, they were never much of an asset...

 

[aelf]

I hope I'm not the only person here who lollerskates at the (repeatedly given) comment that motive is irrelevant to a work's meaning.

It's more complicated than that. Basically, unless you want to endorse a foundationalist perspective on meanings (i.e. that they exist immutably and independently of interpretation), authorial intention or motive is not absolutely relevant to a work's meaning. At best you could say that it informs interpretation.

 

[LightSpectra]

It's rather unarguably relevant that the motive is important if the contention is whether or not the work is meant to be a treatise or a satire.

 

[punkbass2000]

If the motive is not explicitly stated then you're just speculating. Stop putting words in my mouth and reread my third paragraph.

 

[Plotinus]

Ah, an argument for literal mindedness. For instance, you seem to have presumed that I didn't know what Occam's Razor was, rather than postulating the explanatorily unnecessary hypothesis that I was just goofing off. I can only counter that goofing off is far from unnecessary.

Of course. I'm not sure why I included your quote really.

After all, if one doesn't follow the Razor, then one is necessarily postulating entities where there is no evidence of their existence.

No, that's not so. There could certainly be evidence of their existence. Ockham tells us merely to avoid postulating the existence of entities that aren't necessary to explain that evidence (i.e. that could be explained with fewer entities). That doesn't mean that there is no evidence for the "extra" entities, merely that this evidence isn't good enough to force us to admit their existence.

Occam may not get you to the whole truth of a premiere causality, but it will at least preclude a scientist just making stuff up.

Some kinds of stuff, of course, though not others. After all, it doesn't stop you making up a hypothesis with fewer entities that in fact is false, in favour of a rival hypothesis with more entities that in fact is true.

I'd suggest that the consensus attachment to false presumptions is a good deal more detrimental to the pursuit of truth than the occasional shrug admitting we just don't have an answer yet.

I can't disagree with that.

If the motive is not explicitly stated then you're just speculating.

I don't think so: Swift didn't explicitly say that A modest proposal was meant to be satirical, but we're not "just speculating" when we say it was. Obviously we can be more certain about an author's motive when they explicitly state it, but that doesn't mean that if they don't, we have no idea whatsoever.

(Also, of course, an author might explicitly state a motive but be lying.)

 

[punkbass2000]

I don't think so: Swift didn't explicitly say that A modest proposal was meant to be satirical, but we're not "just speculating" when we say it was. Obviously we can be more certain about an author's motive when they explicitly state it, but that doesn't mean that if they don't, we have no idea whatsoever.

(Also, of course, an author might explicitly state a motive but be lying.)

Would you then suggest that a body of work incurs less speculation since a direct statement could be more immediately falsified? Could we know if any author (or what have you) had falsified their entire canon? Given all the evidence of works being attributed to authors that didn't write them (with Shakespeare perhaps at the top of this list), how far back is historic speculation valuable?

What cannot be denied is the current value of your interpretation of the words. You, and only you, know this value and probably that it is malleable, especially when reread after a span of time.

 

[Gangor]

I hope I'm not the only person here who lollerskates at the (repeatedly given) comment that motive is irrelevant to a work's meaning.

Do you also "lollerskate" when you see lawyers defending people they know to be guilty?

 

[LightSpectra]

If the motive is not explicitly stated then you're just speculating. Stop putting words in my mouth and reread my third paragraph.

Even if the motive were explicitly stated, I'd still be "just speculating." That's what people do when they read things.

Do you also "lollerskate" when you see lawyers defending people they know to be guilty?

No, because that's not quite the same thing, is it?

 

[aelf]

It's rather unarguably relevant that the motive is important if the contention is whether or not the work is meant to be a treatise or a satire.

Sure. It's rather obvious that knowledge of the author's motive is important in establishing what the author intended the work the achieve. But, as you can no doubt see, that's an exceedingly trivial statement. That's not what you said earlier, though, nor has anyone actually argued against that. And it doesn't say anything about why the author's intention for the work is particularly important to the interpretation of the work (i.e. to the establishment of the work's meaning).

 

[punkbass2000]

Even if the motive were explicitly stated, I'd still be "just speculating." That's what people do when they read things.

Uh huh. So now you agree with me. Move along.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I would say, rather, that the beauty of satire comes from it not being explicitly stated that it is such.

 

[Gangor]

No, because that's not quite the same thing, is it?

It's just the same - Machiavelli: Professional political advisor, Lawyer: Professional legal advisor. My point is that professionals are able to provide advice, or rather to exercise their profession, regardless of their own personal beliefs.

 

[LightSpectra]

Sure. It's rather obvious that knowledge of the author's motive is important in establishing what the author intended the work the achieve. But, as you can no doubt see, that's an exceedingly trivial statement. That's not what you said earlier, though, nor has anyone actually argued against that. And it doesn't say anything about why the author's intention for the work is particularly important to the interpretation of the work (i.e. to the establishment of the work's meaning).

I'm not seeing how "It's rather obvious that knowledge of the author's motive is important in establishing what the author intended the work the achieve" is not what I was arguing before.

It's just the same - Machiavelli: Professional political advisor, Lawyer: Professional legal advisor. My point is that professionals are able to provide advice, or rather to exercise their profession, regardless of their own personal beliefs.

Yes, but that's not what we're talking about at the moment. It's only determinable if the work is some form of subtle criticism of its stated claims if we know what the motive of the author is. We're not discussing if, assuming the Prince was not satire, Machiavelli was right or wrong to advise Florence with immoral advice.

Uh huh. So now you agree with me. Move along.

Thank you for confirming that you're a troll.

Moderator Action: Infracted for flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[aelf]

I'm not seeing how "It's rather obvious that knowledge of the author's motive is important in establishing what the author intended the work the achieve" is not what I was arguing before.

I hope I'm not the only person here who lollerskates at the (repeatedly given) comment that motive is irrelevant to a work's meaning.

A work's meaning and the author's intention for the work are different things.

 

[LightSpectra]

A work's meaning and the author's intention for the work are different things.

I wouldn't say so, unless by "a work's meaning" you're assigning some sort of external value to it. Which I suppose is reasonable, but not assumed.

 

[aelf]

I wouldn't say so, unless by "a work's meaning" you're assigning some sort of external value to it. Which I suppose is reasonable, but not assumed.

Well, as I said, it's difficult to divorce meaning from interpretation. There's a host of epistemological problems that come with treating meaning as something that originates and exists in the mind of the author and that we have to strive to gain access to, particularly when the author is long gone. There are also ontological critiques of the notion of meaning as something that exists in some abstracted realm, which is invariably implied when one posits that there is a 'central' or 'correct' meaning that is tied to the author's intentions.

 

[Plotinus]

"Meaning" is a slippery term with no (aha) clear meaning. It is obviously not the same thing as "intent", as one can see from the example of malapropisms (where the speaker's intended meaning differs from the actual meaning, with humorous effect). However, it seems to me perfectly obvious that the author's intent has at least some impact upon the meaning of a work, whether the author reveals that intent explicitly or not. The fact that the author's intent may be unknown to us, and even unknowable, doesn't affect that - it just means that the work's meaning is obscure, at least to some extent.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

I hope I'm not the only person here who lollerskates at the (repeatedly given) comment that motive is irrelevant to a work's meaning.

You'd be lollerskating at the whole concept of literary deconstruction. I happen to agree with this sentiment though. Shall we dance on Jacques Derrida's grave together then?

 

[aelf]

"Meaning" is a slippery term with no (aha) clear meaning. It is obviously not the same thing as "intent", as one can see from the example of malapropisms (where the speaker's intended meaning differs from the actual meaning, with humorous effect). However, it seems to me perfectly obvious that the author's intent has at least some impact upon the meaning of a work, whether the author reveals that intent explicitly or not. The fact that the author's intent may be unknown to us, and even unknowable, doesn't affect that - it just means that the work's meaning is obscure, at least to some extent.

I don't deny that the author's intent has some impact on the meaning of the work. But on the decoding end, I'm not sure whether it really matters all that much, certainly not enough to support the claim that any interpretation which does not seek to understand the context in which a text is produced, including the author's intentions/mental states/etc, is necessarily unable to grasp its meaning.