The Prince

Magnificent insights into the inner workings of power, and how people achieve, use, abuse and lose power.

Could have used 53638384 more paragraph breaks but hfs this is a banger

🫶Alyosha

🫶devil who serves grudgingly for the sake of events

Magnificent. Lives up to its reputation.

The best book to ever be written. I swear.

Wanna read a whole book by him about children’s friend group politics

The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky offers an uncompromising examination of love, grief, and faith, urging readers to reconsider their idealized notions of love. Dostoevsky presents love not as a romantic fantasy but as an active, laborious force requiring perseverance and fortitude. Through the character of Father Zossima, the author shows that genuine love is transformative, born from life’s struggles and redemptive in its ability to transcend pain. A standout in the narrative is the term “laceration,” which encapsulates the pain of grief but also the beauty of transformation through suffering. Dostoevsky’s reflections on grief as a doorway to a deeper love resonate with the metaphor of a seed falling to the ground, signifying the possibility of renewal even in the harshest of circumstances. This theme of love’s active, spiritual nature is intertwined with Dostoevsky’s religious iconography, showcasing a divine power quietly within the soul. The chapter “The Grand Inquisitor” is another highlight, offering unmatched spiritual depth through Ivan Karamazov’s philosophical musings. Ivan, with his sharp intellect and moral complexities, challenges the very notion of truth and suffering, leaving readers to ponder the value of truth when weighed against the cost of innocent suffering. His dialogue with Alyosha is a haunting meditation on forgiveness, suffering, and the struggle for harmony, with Ivan’s words still echoing long after the book’s conclusion:

If the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.

The dense prose can be challenging, but the rewards of navigating Dostoevsky’s intricate style are immeasurable. As a lover of philosophical literature, I found the book to be both intellectually stimulating a challenging read, but for those willing to engage with its complexity, The Brothers Karamazov stands as the pinnacle of existential exploration and one of the most impactful literary experiences I’ve ever had. 

Written in the 1500s, this book addresses the general tendencies and thought processes of humans, and how a prince can use them to his advantage. It's cold in its consideration of the public as mere subjects, yet pragmatic enough to advise that a prince should always strive to remove any hatred his public might have towards him. Moving away from the idealist approaches a prince must take, it makes a lot of good points, which I feel continue to apply even 500 years later.

No words. I fucking love you Dostoyevsky.

Buku pedoman para diktator. Luas dan terasa tajamnya pembahasan di sini. Saya ingin membaca ulang buku ini kapan-kapan.

do NOT get the 23andme kit from shein

I lack the necessary English degree to adequately review this book. It was long.

Ortaokuldan beridir, kütüphane raflarında gördüğüm için okumak istediğim ancak cesaret edemediğim “Karamazov Kardeşleri” nihayet okudum. Bence bu kitaplar o yaşlar için pek ağır. Okunmayacağından değil, anlaşılması için yaşlanmak gerektiğinden… En azından benim için öyle. 1000 sayfalık ağır bir roman hakkında yapılacak yorum da “güzel kitap” diye iki kelime olursa, Dostoyevski’nin kemikleri sızlar. Okumamış olanlar için baştan söyleyeyim, eğer eski eserleri veya “sıkan kitapları” hemen bırakıyorsanız bu işe girmeyin… Bu kitap uzun, çok uzun bir rüyaya benziyor kitabı bitirmeyene kadar olan biteni anlamıyorsunuz. Arada insan ruhuna dair farklı kahramanların dilinden tahliller büyülüyor. Bazen kahramanların kendi tutarsızlıkları da öyle… Bir kahramanın tutarsızlığı diye yapıştırıverdiğimiz hükmü her gün yaşadığımızı unutuyoruz. Kitabın kahramanı neredeyse kitaptaki herkes… Alyoşa’yı ana karakter sayanlar var ancak aslında gerçek hayata ve insanlara bu kadar yaklaşmış bir romanda bir Gruşenka da, Dmitri de hatta İlyuşa. Kitapta unutamayacağım bölüm yerini söylemeyeceğim bir duruşma sahnesi… Orada Avukat Fetükoviç ve İppolit Kiriloviç’in tahlillerini okuyunca hayatta bırakın basit bir olayı romanın konusu olan o büyük olayda bile insan ruhundan, olan bitenden, suçun/yargının toplumsallığından yana öyle dersler alıyorsunuz ki bunu burada “bütün ihtimalleri düşünün” şeklinde anlatırsak “Aa, bu muymuş” diye geçiştirisiniz ama öyle. Bu duruşma sahnesinde bir mühendis kafasıyla bir hesap yaptım. Bir duruşmada 10 delil ve 10 tanık olsun. Bu kişilerin hemen hemen her birinin birbirleri ile illiyeti olsun. Bu durumda 10+10 = 20 öğenin kendi aralarındaki ilişkileri 20×20 = 400 oluyor. Zaten insan zihninin bunu bir dava dokümanından okuyup aklında tutması imkansız. Bu yüzdendir ki her “iddia” veya her “savunma” ilk dinlendiğinde haklı bile gelebiliyor insana, hele İppolit Kiriloviç’in o tahlilleri öyle derin ki, eğer tanık sandalyesine masum adam otursa müebbet yer… Çünkü kitabın kendi benzetmesiyle maddi gerçekler de roman haline gelip anlamsız kurgular yaratabiliyor Diğer yandan kitaptaki kahramanlardan Dimitri, Katerina, İvan ve Gruşenka’nın diğer en büyük özelliği “poliamori”. Kitapta bu terim elbette geçmiyor, yani bir kişinin birden fazla kişiye aşkı… Ama kahramanlar bunu yaşıyor. Önce saçma geliyor, sonra Gruşenka’nın ağzından birine karşı “onu sevebilme ihtimalim vardı” gibi cümleyi duyup olan biteni, kıskançlıkları, hesapları da okuyunca bunun da tipik bir insan davranışı olduğunu görüyoruz. Öyle ki romanda daha sonradan ruh aslında bu poliamori olgusunda insanın “her anının ayrı bir telde” olabileceğini görüyoruz. Her konuda da böyle. Kitabı okuduktan sonra içimdeki “İppolit Kiriloviç” de Avukat Fetükoviç de birebir oluştu, yerlerini aldı. Kendimi kitaptaki tahlilleri kendime ve başkalarına yaparken buldum. Kitapta çok kızılan “Fyodor Pavloviç” in de aslında hepimizin içinde yer aldığını biliyorum. Sadece adlarını koyacak Dostoyevski gibi derin değiliz. Dostoyevski kitapta ana hikayeden kısmen bağımsız olan eski yüzbaşının oğlu İlyuşa’nın babasının Dmitri’den uluorta dayak yerken, çocuğun babasının yanına gidişini öyle bir anlatıyor ki sarsılıyorsunuz. Ana hikaye değil ama yan hikayelerden biri olan İlyuşa’nın öyküsü ve betimlemeler sizi ağlatabilir. Kitapta Alyoşa’nın “şeyhi” diyelim, Startez Zosima’nın kendi yaşam öyküsü ayrı bir romandır aslında. Bir düelloda yaptığı bir hareket sonrasında kendisi ile dost olan yaşlı bir adamın öyküsü var, siz okursunuz artık, insanın çelişkilerini öyle bir anlatıyor ki… Ayrıca Startez Zosima’nın verdiği öğütler çok etkileyici. Her kitap bir ders verir en kötüleri ise okunmayacak kitabın ne olduğuna dair ders verir. Bu kitaptan çıkardığım ders şudur: İnsanlar da, ilişkiler de, hayat da neredeyse muammadır. Biz günlük yaşamın pratiklği içinde örneğin bir hakim olarak o gün hızlıca karar verip birilerini idama da gönderiyor olabiliriz. Öte yandan idama giden suçlu da olabiliriz. Bu muammanın içinde rasyonel olmak için adil olmak gerekiyor. Adil olmak için -kitapta Alyoşa karakteri tam bir adalet örneği- ise herşeyi çok dikkatli gözlemlemek, Dostoyevski’nin gözü ile tahliller yapmak, sezgilerimizi dinlemek ama onlarla hüküm vermek yerine daha fazla düşünmek zorundayız. Nitekim doğru ile yanlış, iyi ile kötü, yalan ile doğru feci şekilde bir aradadır.

Boo. All we see in this book is Plato abandoning the Socratic method in favor of turning his fictional Socrates into a cult leader whose friends are nothing more than yes-men. His arguments about the nature of the soul are also full of fallacies akin to the Monty Python logic about ducks and witches. Not impressed at all. Edited to add: After thinking about it further, I recognize that to be fair, Plato was literally making this stuff up as he went. He did not have access to brain science and other research that would shed more light on the topics he was exploring. What bothers me is more that people still think his ideas are somehow the pinnacle of human insight.

Wonderful, accessible collection of four of Plato's dialogues regarding Socrates' trial and death, with very helpful introductions to each dialogue. Great read for those interested in pondering the law, justice, and considering things like the nature of our soul / whether there is life after death.

Three stars because it being assigned reading that I was later assessed on took whatever entertainment I could have derived from Machiavelli's irony.

I’m a simple girl, with simple reviews who loves to read. My review is not going to be the in depth with all the flowery, sophisticated words. It’s simple and down to earth. If you like the classics and you like Russian literature this was a great book. Three brothers who had a neglectful father and childhood are reunited under unusual circumstances which eventually follows in a love triangle, murder and trial. Just a warning, there are a lot of characters but it wasn’t hard to keep up with them. There are many philosophical and theological discussions so it was helpful to have knowledge of the Bible but not necessary. It did get very deep at times, humerous at others and overall a good book. It definitely lived up to the hype.

A masterpiece!

Never would I come across such a book ever again. I am sure of that. The theory of politics in respect with all the external factors that could possibly turn up, 5 centuries ago can never again be put in more elaborate and yet crisp manner.

I once worked for a large organization, a company with over 10,000 employees. When new managers, people from outside the organization, were hired, they would come in and clean house. A reorganization and layoffs were inevitable. I always saw this as a way of establishing that the new person, though they hadn’t come up through the ranks, was in charge. What I didn’t realize is that this practice is centuries old. "a new prince must always harm his new subjects, both with his soldiers as well as with countless other injuries involved in his new conquest" An important piece of understanding how the world works is understanding how people work. If you want to change the world you need to understand human psychology. One of the earliest books of psychology is The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli. The Prince has had many critics over the years. In fact, Machiavelli’s name has been transformed into an adjective meant to describe a person who is self-serving, deceitful, and ruthless. And certainly parts of the book are all of those things Some people will read The Prince as a sort of operating manual for how to live. Because of this, its real use comes from learning why people sometimes act in ways that seem immoral. The Prince, however, is amoral, in that it is unconcerned with morality. Its only concern is how to get and maintain power. As Machiavelli writes, "A man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good. Therefore, it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain himself to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it according to necessity." Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York, recommends it as one of the 8 books every intelligent person should read. Read it, he says, "to learn that people not in power will do all they can to acquire it, and people in power will do all they can to keep it." But read it for yourself. Don’t take anyone else’s interpretation as the definitive one. As you read it, look for analogies to modern life. We don’t wage war in the same way as Machiavelli’s princes did, but we can certainly find bloodless examples of these maxims in business and politics. Read it for yourself, and suspend judgment, though you may find parts of it downright repugnant. You might not act in the ways described, but other people do. If you want to understand why, read The Prince.

Trattato politico particolare e allo stesso tempo geniale: sicuramente non tiene troppo conto dell'etica, piuttosto delle manovre politiche che si possono utilizzare per raggiungere il fine. Davvero interessante.

Off the back of reading about the Medici's and the Florentine State in the 14th-17th centuries, it seemed quite fitting to pick this book up and give it a try - and I was a lot more impressed by it than I thought I was going to be. Going into it, I thought this treatise would be a pro-Medici pamphlet which, despite its historic acclaim, would contain very little substance. But, what this book manages to do in around 140 pages is offer a far-reaching, insightful account of princely governance and the control and management of fledgling states across Europe, from antiquity and current times. Laid out quite similarly to Aurelius' "Meditations", the book contains short summarising sections on specific points of governance, and does so in a very accessible way despite how old the treatise is. Machiavelli was clearly a well-informed and analytical writer, and looking at the book objectively it is clearly a good piece of work and very ahead of its time. I don't believe it should be judged based on the later misuse by tyrants and leaders to legitimise oppression and terror, but should instead be regarded for its original purpose of offering a way forward in what was a trying time for Italy. However, my one issue with the book was not necessarily to do with the text itself, but rather with the lack of notation on behalf of the publisher. Despite Machiavelli's best efforts to explain the intense political situation of 16th-Century Italy, had it not been for my previous reading about the Medici's then the book's many references would have been entirely lost to me, as there is next to no notation in the book at all. Some short descriptions or character profiles in the footnotes would have gone a long way to make the reading easier. Overall, a very good treatise!

dense writing; I like the unapologetic confidence in Machiavellian ways (although may be considered sociopathy)

The two-month journey is now at an end! I'm not an English major, and I read this book on my own, not in a class setting where confusing aspects of the book would be analyzed and discussed, but as a humble American reader I was deeply touched by the amount of hope in human goodness and redemption that Dostoevsky illuminates and praises, even amidst the corruption of secularism and culture that permeated his world, and continues to reek in our current world. It's a story that unfolds slowly, but with meticulous intention, each word set with the utmost care in its proper place. As a narrative, it is dynamic in its flexibility, ranging from funny and sensational to subtle, poignant, and moving. As literary fiction, it speaks profoundly to humanity, the things we make our gods, the ways we perceive our natures, and whether or not a human can truly be redeemed not by others, but to themselves in their own soul. I anticipate another, hopefully shorter, journey in the future. :)

"They have their Hamlets, but so far we have only Karanazovs." The brain-melting book, every sentence of which restlessly hurls you into hours of pondering. Be prepared to undergo some difficulties falling asleep. [image error] While reading this book, I experienced a unique and thus precious feeling as though, by the cozy fireplace with crackling logs, my grandpa was telling me a story that happened in his town in the distant years of his youth. The novel's unconventional role of the narrator contributes to this sense. He is not an active participant in the events but only a Skotoprigonievsk resident. Throughout the story, he occasionally interrupts the narration to make a remark, thereby distancing the reader from the events, allowing us to look at them from a different perspective. Yet, The Brothers Karamazov is not about the plot at all. For Dostoevsky, the story is nothing more than a pretext to tackle profound philosophical issues. Their complexity, along with the number of allusions and references to religious and philosophical writings, is overwhelming. Never in my life have I had to read so many additional materials to comprehend the author's original ideas. The book is demanding and challenging. The Brothers Karamazov offers much food for thought. Although some meanings are hidden from me owing to my young age, and I still have no definitive opinion on several issues, such as whether one can be a decent person without religion, I discovered remarkable insights that I am eager to share. 1. The first concept derived straight from Crime and Punishment and was elaborated in The Brothers Karamazov. Suffering indicates that you are on the right track, for every seeker of the truth paves the way to it with his mistakes that cause him to suffer. Therefore, the truth can only be revealed via suffering. Such stoicism somehow makes life seem easier. 2. I was surprised to find support for a simple idea that I had been thinking about for a long time but that many people don't comprehend. "How can we blame our children if they measure to us with our own measure?" As I feel it, if responsible parents want their children to have certain good qualities, they must have or attain such characteristics themselves. The child is the perfect reflection of his parents with all the good and the bad; To bring up a decent member of society, one must be an integrated, multifaceted person yourself. "Love children especially, for they too are sinless like the angels; they live to soften and purify our hearts and, as it were, to guide us." I can well understand why it's so controversial novel with all its theological and philosophical inclinations. Not only does Fyodor Mikhailovich not give his readers answers to these concerns, but he also conceals the true answer to the novel's central mystery by writing vaguely and obscurely. Since I am still arguing with my mother and friends about who murdered Fyodor Pavlovich, I consider this a sign of a great book because only great books elicit such heated debate. The brothers Karamazov is one of those rare novels you may use to assess your development as a person. I'm really looking forward to rereading it in 3 or 5 years to see how much my mindset has changed. PS: As I am looking for ways to improve my English writing, I would appreciate it if you could give me feedback on this review through direct messages. I'd also love to hear what you think of the book, as well as to have you on my friend list.