No description available.

The problem of corruption is an enduring problem in societies throughout time. In this study I examine Machiavelli and Ibn Khaldun's perspectives on corruption, a major theme in their writings. I show that corruption in their works is identified in relation to the polity. Both thinkers diverge from classical and ethical views of corruption, while also differing from modern approaches. I study how they define corruption, their understanding of the primary reasons leading to corruption, and their recommendations and treatments to address the problem. The underlying theme in their discussions is that corruption eats at the very fabric of a society, leading to the downfall of the political regime. Through a comparative lens, I not only analyze the distinct historical contexts in which they wrote, but also their distinct intellectual repertoires and rhetorical methods. By comparatively examining their insights, I aim to make their views relevant and insightful for contemporary discussions on corruption.

Trata-se de uma leitura do livro O trabalho da obra Maquiavel (1972), opus magnum de Claude Lefort (1924-2010). Com base na distinção lefortiana entre discurso manifesto e palavra latente da obra de pensamento, concebemos nosso texto a partir de uma divisão tripla. Inicialmente, com o objetivo de localizar o leitor ciceroneando-o pelos mesmos caminhos que levaram Lefort a Maquiavel , perguntamos: se à obra do secretário florentino dedica-se o discurso manifesto do filósofo francês, como este objeto se inseriria na problemática de seu hic et nunc, temática latente que o motivou a levar a cabo o seu mais longo estudo? Em seguida, apresentaremos nossa interpretação do Maquiavel de Lefort, na qual veremos emergir ao primeiro plano a personagem do conspirador, trazendo à cena consigo a proposição da inevitabilidade da impostura do poder e a defesa da imprescindibilidade e da legitimidade do ato ilegal empreendido contra a legalidade ilegítima. Por fim, é à crítica ao idealismo democrático que somos conduzidos ao nos depararmos com o saldo de nossa leitura e, diante dele, questionarmo-nos: de que modo o Maquiavel de Lefort conteúdo manifesto deste trabalho pode nos ajudar a pensar o nosso próprio tempo, a sustentar os nossos desejos de saber e de agir, a nos engajarmos aqui e agora no enigma de uma paixão realista, palavra latente de todo e qualquer escrito que aceite o desafio do político? / This is a reading of the book Machiavelli in the making (1972), the magnum opus of Claude Lefort (1924-2010). Based on the Lefortian distinction between the manifest discourse and the latent word in the work of thought, the text is in three parts. Initially, with the aim of locating the reader by guiding him along the same paths that led Lefort to Machiavelli we ask: if the manifest discourse of the French philosopher is dedicated to the work of the Florentine Secretary, what is the place of this object in the problematic of his hic et nunc, the latent thematic that led him to undertake his longest study? Next, we present our interpretation of Leforts Machiavelli, in which we will see the conspirator\'s character emerge to the foreground, bringing with him the proposition of the inevitability of the imposture of power and the defense of the indispensability and legitimacy of the illegal act employed against illegitimate legality. Finally, we are led to a critique of democratic idealism as we are confronted with the results of our reading and, faced with this, we ask ourselves: how can Leforts Machiavelli the manifest object of this work help us to think about our own time, to sustain our desires to know and act, to engage ourselves here and now in the enigma of a realistic passion, the latent word of each and every text that accepts the challenge of the political?

Trata-se de uma leitura do livro O trabalho da obra Maquiavel (1972), opus magnum de Claude Lefort (1924-2010). Com base na distinção lefortiana entre discurso manifesto e palavra latente da obra de pensamento, concebemos nosso texto a partir de uma divisão tripla. Inicialmente, com o objetivo de localizar o leitor ciceroneando-o pelos mesmos caminhos que levaram Lefort a Maquiavel , perguntamos: se à obra do secretário florentino dedica-se o discurso manifesto do filósofo francês, como este objeto se inseriria na problemática de seu hic et nunc, temática latente que o motivou a levar a cabo o seu mais longo estudo? Em seguida, apresentaremos nossa interpretação do Maquiavel de Lefort, na qual veremos emergir ao primeiro plano a personagem do conspirador, trazendo à cena consigo a proposição da inevitabilidade da impostura do poder e a defesa da imprescindibilidade e da legitimidade do ato ilegal empreendido contra a legalidade ilegítima. Por fim, é à crítica ao idealismo democrático que somos conduzidos ao nos depararmos com o saldo de nossa leitura e, diante dele, questionarmo-nos: de que modo o Maquiavel de Lefort conteúdo manifesto deste trabalho pode nos ajudar a pensar o nosso próprio tempo, a sustentar os nossos desejos de saber e de agir, a nos engajarmos aqui e agora no enigma de uma paixão realista, palavra latente de todo e qualquer escrito que aceite o desafio do político? / This is a reading of the book Machiavelli in the making (1972), the magnum opus of Claude Lefort (1924-2010). Based on the Lefortian distinction between the manifest discourse and the latent word in the work of thought, the text is in three parts. Initially, with the aim of locating the reader by guiding him along the same paths that led Lefort to Machiavelli we ask: if the manifest discourse of the French philosopher is dedicated to the work of the Florentine Secretary, what is the place of this object in the problematic of his hic et nunc, the latent thematic that led him to undertake his longest study? Next, we present our interpretation of Leforts Machiavelli, in which we will see the conspirator\'s character emerge to the foreground, bringing with him the proposition of the inevitability of the imposture of power and the defense of the indispensability and legitimacy of the illegal act employed against illegitimate legality. Finally, we are led to a critique of democratic idealism as we are confronted with the results of our reading and, faced with this, we ask ourselves: how can Leforts Machiavelli the manifest object of this work help us to think about our own time, to sustain our desires to know and act, to engage ourselves here and now in the enigma of a realistic passion, the latent word of each and every text that accepts the challenge of the political?

Memoria (licenciado en ciencias jurídicas y sociales) / En la presente tesis discuto tres aspectos del pensamiento de Nicolás Maquiavelo (1469-1527). En primer lugar, su posición en la historia de la filosofía de la diversidad valorativa. Para un entendimiento del pluralismo como un anti-monismo, Maquiavelo es un autor pluralista. Su visión de la política como una actividad que no está fundada en la moral cristiana (el esquema conceptual más corriente para el siglo XVI) le habría permitido distinguir y reconocer dos sistemas de valoración distintos y antagónicos. En segundo lugar, la relación entre moral y política, o, en otras palabras, la relación entre los dos sistemas morales presentes en la obra de Maquiavelo. Si bien ambos sistemas son antagónicos, argumento que hay comunicación entre ellos. Examino el manejo retórico de términos como “virtud”, y sentimientos comúnmente asociados a la esfera privada, como “venganza” y “resentimiento”, para dilucidar cómo se produce la comunicación entre los sistemas moral y político. En tercer lugar, discuto su posición al interior del republicanismo como teoría política, que es tradicional asociar con la noción de virtud cívica. La discusión permite discernir variedades de republicanismo que están en pugna con la imagen clásica. Se logra así un entendimiento del republicanismo más complejo en términos históricos y conceptuales, contrastable con otros en el debate de la primera década del siglo XXI que gozan de mayor difusión

War has for all through the years adopted various guises and been performed by various actors for a wide variety of destination. But what is really a war? Why is war fought? How is war fought? By whom is war fought? Machiavelli, Clausewitz, Kaplan, Kaldor, Creveld and Krulak are just a few among others who have made valiant attempts to explain war and its nature. What did they find? This essay maps out their studies in the hope of finding some kind of continuity that can give a clearer picture of what war really is. It is important to point out; the goal is not to try to make a definition of war, but merely an attempt to find some kind of continuity. The study finds that as society develops, bridges get built and contracts are signed, everything falls apart at some point and you can  never be sure that something as complex as a war to retain some form of continuity, if any – it would be the power it contains, but barely it.

This study will try an hypothesis built on Machiavellis principles of power and examine the position of Machiavellis importance in the world of today. The hypothesis contains principles of Machiavellis thoughts on power and is ment to be used as an analytical tool to understand the downfall of totalitarian leaders. The hypothesis gains strength from this study due to the fact that it could explain the fall of Colonel Gaddafi and may even have predicted the downfall of Muammar Gaddafi based on the violation of several of the principles that built up the hypothesis. The hypothesis however, needs more testing to be able to be accepted as a generalization. The importance of Machiavelli and his school of thought is strengthened by the fact that the principles shown in the hypothesis are viable and the fact that Machiavelli still contributes to discussion on modern principles of power. Through the glasses that are the hypothesis we get a clear picture that tells us why Colonel Gaddafi got overthrown; He simply pushed the people to far.

Typescript (photocopy). / Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

<p>The problem of violent oppression is a persistent one. Every regime - autocratic or democratic - has an obligation to prevent the violent oppression of its citizens. My dissertation "Good Arms and Good Laws: Machiavelli, Regime-Type, and Violent Oppression" uses Machiavelli's understanding of different regime-types and their political dynamics to explore the means by which democracies and autocracies alike can prevent violent oppression within their borders. My exploration produces a standard for praiseworthy political regimes and action, based on what Machiavelli identifies as the people's desire "not to be oppressed."</p><p>Machiavelli's analysis of this problem of political violence leads to the conclusion that all types of regimes are united in needing an interdependent, yet competitive political relationship between their leading political figure(s) and the people at large. Different kinds of regimes vary, however, in the roles that their primary political classes must play in order to prevent oppression within their borders. After using the Florentine Histories to identify the lines of thinking central to Machiavelli's work, in chapter 1 I turn to Machiavelli's discussion of the citizen-militia in The Art of War. In chapters 2 and 3, I detail Machiavelli's recommendations for praiseworthy principalities in the Prince, where Machiavelli actually exhorts princes to arm their people (chapter 2) while simultaneously crafting for them the political ethics for which the text is notorious (chapter 3). In Chapters 4 and 5, I detail Machiavelli's recommendations for praiseworthy republics in the Discourses on Livy, where Machiavelli charges the people with policing the elites that would engage in projects of oppression if left to their own devices (chapter 4) while simultaneously praising elites who help to create and maintain mechanisms of violence (chapter 5). Machiavelli's analysis compels us to recognize that it is the particulars of these interdependent, yet competitive relationships between the people and their leading political figure(s) that define a regime and that our praise of that regime ought not depend categorically on whether the people rule, but rather whether the a regime's political classes effectively cooperate to prevent violent oppression.</p> / Dissertation

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal.