Name: 你用錯了 "馬基雅維利" | 灰色地帶 (You're using "Machiavellian" wrong | The Gray Area)
Uploaded: 2025-06-17T17:17:30.000Z
Duration: 42 min 44 s

Hey, this is Sean, host of the Gray Area. For the show this week, I talked to Erica

嘿，我是《灰色地帶》的主持人肖恩。在本週的節目中，我採訪了埃裡卡

Binner. She's a political philosopher and the author of a great book called Be Like the Fox.

賓納。她是一位政治哲學家，著有一本名為《像狐狸一樣》的好書。

程度副詞

We talk about the infamous philosopher Machiavelli and why he's both incredibly influential and incredibly misunderstood. Hope you enjoy. Erica Binner, welcome to the show.

我們談論臭名昭著的哲學家馬基雅弗利，以及他為什麼既有難以置信的影響力，又被人難以置信地誤解。希望你們喜歡。埃裡卡-賓納，歡迎來到節目。

There is the popular caricature of Machiavelli, with which I think most people are familiar, you know, the conniving, manipulative, sneaky figure. And then there's the real

我想大多數人都熟悉馬基雅弗利的通俗漫畫形象，你知道，他是一個縱容、操縱、陰險的人物。還有真實的

Machiavelli. Tell me about the gap between those two.

馬基雅弗利請談談這兩者之間的差距。

It's massive, because if you go and you read, like, Machiavelli's correspondence, they're hilarious. Like, he's the funniest guy on the first kind of literary piece that we've got notes about, but we don't actually have anymore because it was kind of concealed.

因為如果你去讀馬基雅維利的書信，會覺得非常有趣。他是第一部文學作品中最有趣的人，我們有相關的筆記，但實際上我們已經沒有了，因為這有點隱蔽。

And then the Pope's banned everything he wrote. But one of the first things he wrote was a satirical play about, like, the powers that be in Republican Florence. So he's a satirist. I mean, one of the things I just always want to kind of bring out about the gap between this cold, calculating advisor to princes saying, you know, better to be feared than loved is this guy is hilarious all the time. And he's a dramatist. Like, he's a brilliant writer of plays and dramas.

然後教皇禁止他寫任何東西但他最早寫的東西之一 是一部諷刺劇 關於佛羅倫薩共和國的當權者所以他是個諷刺作家我的意思是，我一直想強調的一點是，在這個冷酷無情、老謀深算的王公顧問說 "與其被愛，不如被怕 "之間，這傢伙一直在搞笑。他是個戲劇家他是個出色的戲劇作家

And so that's one gap that when you read, when you come to the prince, I kind of urge people always to kind of bear in mind that before he wrote The Prince, and then after he wrote The

是以，當你讀到《王子》時，我希望人們記住，在他寫下《王子》之前，以及在他寫下《王子》之後，都存在著這樣的差距。

Prince, he was writing political satires. And I think we're in a kind of atmosphere now in the world where that might be easier to see for a lot of people. Because if you imagine somebody who doesn't want to be too direct and preach to people in criticizing the great leaders, but still wants to kind of take the piss out of them, he just does that in a very, very subtle Florentine way.

普林斯寫的是政治諷刺作品。我認為我們現在所處的世界氛圍讓很多人更容易看到這一點。因為如果你想象一個人在責備偉大領袖時不想太直接，也不想對人們說教，但還是想把他們氣得半死，他只是用一種非常非常微妙的佛羅倫薩方式做到了這一點。

I don't know if that kind of answers your question.

我不知道這是否算是回答了你的問題。

No, no, it does. So, you know, when I was in graduate school for political theory,

不，不，確實如此。我在研究生院讀政治理論的時候

Machiavelli is introduced as kind of like the first truly modern political scientist, sort of like the Galileo of politics. Is that how you think of him? Is that how we should think of him?

馬基雅維利被介紹為第一位真正的現代政治學家，有點像政治學中的伽利略。你是這樣看待他的嗎？我們應該這樣看待他嗎？

Unequivocally no. Machiavelli was somebody whose main examples and main interests when it comes to like, you know, thinking about how politics should work, his main interest is in ancient history.

毫無疑問不是。馬基雅維利的主要例子和主要興趣是思考政治應該如何運作，他的主要興趣是古代歷史。

That's clear. He's somebody who's really, really grounded in ancient history, like most of the people who are educated in his times. His, you know, second big, big book is called The Discourses on Livy. That is a commentary on ancient Rome, which is trying to draw from history examples that can, you know, serve as cautionary, you know, warnings to people of his own times and for the future, but also help us to think about what is actually, you know, what is a good leader in politics? What is prudent? And what kind of sometimes seems like a prudent policy, like something could actually achieve some good. But then if you really, really think ahead and look at history as well, and realize what people have done before along those lines, you kind of see the problems. I don't think he's a scientist in a political science way at all, thank goodness.

很明顯他是一個對古代歷史非常非常有研究的人，就像大多數在他那個時代受過教育的人一樣。他的第二本鉅著叫做《李維論》。這是對古羅馬的評論，試圖從歷史中總結出一些例子，作為對他所處時代的人們和未來的警示，同時也幫助我們思考什麼是真正的，你知道，什麼是政治上的好領袖？什麼是謹慎？什麼是審慎的政策，什麼是有時看似審慎的政策，什麼是可以真正實現一些好處的政策。但是，如果你真的真的向前看，看看歷史，意識到以前的人是怎麼做的，你就會發現問題所在。謝天謝地，我不認為他是政治學方面的科學家。

Maybe you could replace political scientist with just political thinker. Maybe that's a little broader. But you're right, he is very interested in the past. And he seems to have a bit of a beef with a lot of these ancient philosophers, you know, the Plato's and the

也許你可以把政治學家換成政治思想家。也許這樣更寬泛一些。但你說得對，他對過去非常感興趣。他似乎對很多古代哲學家有些不滿，你知道，柏拉圖和

Aristotle's. He seemed to think that they were naive, if that's the right word, that they weren't looking at the political world the way it actually is. But instead, they were projecting their own ideals and fantasies onto the political world, and then dreaming up a kind of politics in light of that. What was his beef with the ancients? What did he think they misunderstood, or got wrong, or ignored about actual life? The kind of view that you just outlined,

亞里士多德的。他似乎認為他們太天真了--如果這個詞用對了的話--他們沒有按照政治世界的實際情況來看待它。相反，他們把自己的理想和幻想投射到政治世界中，然後根據這些理想和幻想建立起一種政治。他對古人有什麼不滿？他認為古人誤解、弄錯或忽視了現實生活中的什麼？就是你剛才概述的那種觀點、

I don't want to get nerdy and too academic about this, but that is looked out...

我不想在這一點上變得書呆子氣和太學術化，但這是看出來的......

You're about to tell me why I'm wrong, aren't you?

你要告訴我為什麼我錯了，是嗎？

Out of a couple of lines, where he says things like, oh, you know, philosophers have imagined ideal republics. But in reality, that's just one quote. And then there's some other little quotes you can pluck out, and you can turn into a big modernist system, which quite a few of my very esteemed Machiavelli scholar colleagues have done. But actually, you know, in context, it's a lot more complicated than that. Because he also has many quotes elsewhere, where he said, the greatest thing you can do, if you can't actually create a republic, is to imagine one.

他說了幾句話，比如哲學家們曾想象過理想的共和國。但實際上，這只是其中一句話。然後還有一些其他的小引文，你可以摘錄出來，你可以把它變成一個大的現代主義體系，我的很多非常受人尊敬的馬基雅維利學者同事都是這麼做的。但實際上，你知道，從上下文來看，情況要比這複雜得多。因為他在其他地方也有很多引文，他說，如果你不能真正創造一個共和國，你能做的最偉大的事情就是想象一個共和國。

He has that in one of his pieces, it's called The Discourses on Government of Florence, where he's trying to advise them on how to save their flailing, fragile new non-republic, and saying, maybe you should turn this non-republic back into a republic. And he says,

他在其中一篇名為《佛羅倫薩政府論》的文章中這樣寫道，他試圖建議佛羅倫薩人如何拯救他們搖搖欲墜、脆弱不堪的新非共和國，他說，也許你們應該把這個非共和國變回共和國。他說

I'm not in position anymore to help do that in practice, like I used to be. So I'm trying to go in the footsteps of Plato and Aristotle and imagine one where you can't have one.

我已經無法像過去那樣，在實踐中幫助做到這一點了。是以，我試圖追隨柏拉圖和亞里士多德的腳步，想象一個你無法擁有的世界。

There is no sharp contrast in Machiavelli properly understood between his ideals and his realism.

正確理解馬基雅維利，他的理想與現實主義之間並沒有鮮明的對比。

And realism, you know, realism and idealism don't have to be opposite. That idea in itself is something I think people are really waking up to more and more that if we try to go, you know, if you imagine that you can follow a realistic path towards a better world without having an ideal or two to guide it. You know, he sort of has the same problem Nietzsche has, in that there's so much irony in so many different voices in his work that it practically begs you to misinterpret it. Or at the very least, it makes it very easy for the reader to project whatever they want onto the work. And so it's his fault, I guess is what I'm saying.

現實主義和理想主義並不一定是對立的。我認為人們越來越清醒地認識到，如果我們試圖去，你知道，如果你想象你可以沿著一條現實的道路走向一個更美好的世界，而不需要一兩個理想來指引。你知道，尼采也有同樣的問題，在他的作品中，許多不同的聲音都充滿了諷刺意味，這實際上是在乞求你去曲解它。或者說，至少讀者很容易將自己的想法投射到作品中。所以這是他的錯，我想這就是我要說的。

Yeah, but this is what they did. I mean, this is another thing that I hope we will, I mean,

是的，但這就是他們所做的。我是說，這是我希望我們能做的另一件事、

I was just reading something today about AI and why, you know, somebody like a professor saying, don't we still want students to learn how to read difficult, ambiguous works, and that reading one of the reasons we want students to keep reading and not to filter everything to interpret it through a machine, is that reading is like a practice in listening, and a practice in hearing things that are subtly off, or that you could work with. And that's what you need in politics, right? Especially in a democracy or a republic, you need people not to just to go by hard rules, but to hear the subtleties and be able to judge for themselves. That's what he's trying to get us to do, like, as you know, part of recovering the republic is readers have to see, you know, he's telling you all these shocking things that you ought to do and that princes ought to do.

我今天剛讀到一些關於人工智能的文章，還有為什麼，你知道，有人像一位教授說，我們不還是想讓學生學會如何閱讀困難的、模稜兩可的作品嗎，而閱讀的原因之一是我們想讓學生繼續閱讀，而不是過濾一切，通過機器來解讀，因為閱讀就像是傾聽的練習，是聽到一些微妙的偏差，或者你可以處理的事情的練習。這正是政治所需要的，對嗎？特別是在民主或共和政體中，你需要人們不只是按照硬性規定行事，而是聽到其中的微妙之處，並能夠自行判斷。這就是他想讓我們做的，就像你知道的，恢復共和國的一部分就是讓讀者看到，你知道，他告訴你所有這些令人震驚的事

And readers are supposed to be kind of saying, hang on, hang on, let me judge that for myself.

讀者應該會說，等等，等等，讓我自己來判斷一下。

All right, well, look, let's set about the work of cutting through some of these.

好吧，聽著，讓我們開始工作，把其中的一些剪掉。

No, I do. I do. I mean, I think, I think once you get into the business of trying to distinguish, you know, what is the wink wink, and what is meant to be taken literally, it's very difficult, but you are, you are a much closer reader of Machiavelli than I am. So I'm not going to challenge you on that. And I think your reading is actually very interesting and very persuasive.

不，我願意。是的我的意思是，我認為，我認為一旦你進入試圖區分的業務，你知道，什麼是眨眼的眨眼，什麼是意味著從字面上看，這是非常困難的，但你是，你是一個更接近讀者馬基雅維利比我。所以我不會在這一點上質疑你。我認為你的解讀非常有趣，也很有說服力。

Part of what I'm doing here is, because the popular image of him is so cemented, as this, you know, deceptive figure. I'm really trying to set that up so that you can, you can challenge it kind of, you know, piece by piece. So let's start right. I mean, I think one of the certainly the conventional popular view of Machiavelli is that he is someone who wanted to draw this neat, clear line between morality and politics. They wanted to sever these things. But you write in the book that that's not true, that he simply wanted to put and now I'm quoting, he simply wanted to put morality on firmer, purely human foundation. So what does that mean? How is it different from what people think?

我在這裡做的部分工作是，因為他的大眾形象是如此固化，作為這個，你知道，欺騙性的人物。我真的很想建立這樣的形象，這樣你就可以，你就可以挑戰它，你知道，一塊一塊地挑戰。所以，讓我們開始吧。我的意思是，我認為其中的一個 當然，傳統的流行觀點 馬基雅維利是誰想要畫這個整齊，明確的界限 道德和政治之間的人。他們想切斷這些東西。但你在書中寫道，事實並非如此，他只是想把，現在我引用一下，他只是想把道德放在更堅實、純粹的人性基礎上。那麼這是什麼意思呢？與人們的想法有何不同？

What is true is that he often criticizes the morality that of the, of the, let's say, the hyper kind of hyper Christianity or spirituality that, you know, takes morals into the, puts morals and what, you know, judgments of right and wrong into the hands of priests and popes and, and, and some abstract kind of God that, that, you know, he, he may or may not believe in, but doesn't think it's something we can totally access as humans.

真實的情況是，他經常責備超基督教或靈性的道德，你知道，這種超基督教或靈性把道德和是非判斷交到神父和教皇手中，以及某種抽象的上帝手中，你知道，他可能相信，也可能不相信，但他不認為這是我們人類可以完全接觸到的東西。

We can't, you know, so that we, if we want to think about morality, both on a personal level, but certainly in politics, we've got to kind of go back to basics. Think about what is the behavior of human beings? What is human nature? What are the drives that kind of propel human beings to do the stuff that we call good or bad? And that's one of the fundamentals. I think he's, he wants to say, we should see human beings not as fundamentally good or evil. We shouldn't think that human beings can ever be angels. And we shouldn't see them as devils when they behave badly until they really behave badly. Then we can call them evil. And sometimes he does, he calls people cruel, inhuman, and evil sometimes, but very seldom. But the basic is, if you want to develop a human morality, you, you study yourself, you study other humans, you don't put yourself above other humans because you're just one too. And, and then you kind of start from there and say, right, what kind of politics is going to make such people coexist in ways that are not going to aim at some like divine order, you know, something that's going to bring higher and higher kind of godly ethics into human life. We've got to be more modest and just talk about, we're all going to be arguing. We're all going to be difficult. Let's have rules and laws that help us coexist. Well, let's talk about The Prince. I take it, you do not think this book is very well understood in the popular imagination. Is that, is that about right? Do you think we, do you think most people have this book wrong? And if they do, tell me what you think is the, the most glaring, obvious misinterpretation of what he's actually up to there. Because I think what people think he's up to is giving this handbook to tyrants. I think that is what most people think. Tell me how that's wrong. I mean, I used to think that too. I used to have to teach Machiavelli as part of the courses on lots of different thinkers. And I would just say, well, it's a handbook for tyrants. But then he wrote The Discourses, which is a very, very Republican book, very openly. So, so there's first, that's the first thing that sets people off and makes you think, well, how could he have switched so quickly from being a super

我們不能，你知道，是以，如果我們想思考道德問題，無論是在個人層面上，還是在政治層面上，我們都必須返璞歸真。想想人類的行為是什麼？人性是什麼？是什麼驅動力推動人類去做我們稱之為好或壞的事情？這就是基本原理之一。我認為，他想說的是，我們不應該把人類看成是基本的善或惡。我們不應該認為人類是天使。我們也不應該把行為惡劣的人視為魔鬼 直到他們真的行為惡劣然後，我們才能稱他們為惡魔。有時他也這樣做，他有時稱人們為殘忍、不人道和邪惡，但很少。但最基本的是，如果你想培養人類的道德，你要研究自己，研究其他人，不要把自己凌駕

Republican as a political actor to writing The Prince to suddenly writing The Discourses. So that's a kind of warning sign. And then that got me thinking. And then I kept coming across earlier authors who I trust deeply, like Rousseau. I mean, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in the 18th century, a great, I think a very great philosopher and a deep Republican, has a footnote in his social contract saying, The Prince has been totally misunderstood.

從作為政治演員的共和黨人到撰寫《王子》，再到突然撰寫《論語》。所以這是一種警示信號。這讓我開始思考然後我不斷遇到我深信不疑的早期作家，比如盧梭。我的意思是，讓-雅克-盧梭，18世紀一位偉大的，我認為是非常偉大的哲學家，一位深刻的共和主義者，在他的《社會契約論》中有一個腳註說，《王子》被完全誤解了。

Yeah. I didn't, I mean, I've read that book, but-

是的，我沒有，我是說，我讀過那本書，但是...

Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is what set me off. So this isn't just me making it up. I mean,

是啊，是啊，是啊。我就是這麼被激怒的所以這不是我瞎編的我是說

I have to say, I'm not like a, I mean, I'm a very, like, I was very uncertain about this too.

我不得不說，我不是一個，我是說，我是一個非常，就像，我也非常不確定這一點。

But then when I started seeing that some of the earliest readers of Machiavelli and the earliest comments you get from Republican authors, they all see Machiavelli as an ally. And they say it, they say he's a moral writer. Rousseau says he has only had superficial and corrupt readers until now.

但是，當我開始看到馬基雅維利最早的一些讀者 以及你從共和黨作家那裡得到的最早的評論時 他們都把馬基雅維利視為盟友他們說，他是一個道德作家。盧梭說，直到現在，他也只有膚淺和墮落的讀者。

If you pick up The Prince and you read the first four chapters, and most people don't read them that carefully, because they're kind of boring modern readers. The exciting ones are the ones in the middle about morality and immorality. But like the first one you go, and then you come to chapter five, which is about freedom. And up to chapter four, it sounds like a pretty cool, cold analysis of this is what you should do. Chapter five.

如果你拿起《王子復仇記》，閱讀前四章，大多數人都不會讀得那麼仔細，因為它們對現代讀者來說有點無聊。令人興奮的是中間那些關於道德和不道德的章節。但就像第一章一樣，你讀完了，然後就到了第五章，這一章是關於自由的。到第四章為止，這聽起來像是一個很酷的、冷酷的分析： 這就是你應該做的。第五章

Wow. It's like how republics fight back. And the whole tone, and remember, he's a literary guy, and he's a dramatist. The whole tone changes. Suddenly, fire. Republics are fighting back, and the prince has to be on his toes, because he's probably not going to survive the wrath of these fiery republics that do not give up.

哇哦就像共和國如何反擊一樣整個基調，記住，他是個文學家，他是個戲劇家。整個基調都變了突然間，火光沖天共和國開始反擊 王子必須提高警惕 因為他很可能無法在 這些不放棄的共和國的怒火中存活下來

So who is he talking to? Who's he really talking to in The Prince? Is he talking to the people, or is he talking to future princes? I mean, I see it as, you know, imagine somebody who's been kicked out of his job and has a big family to support. He had a lot of kids, and who loved his job and was passionate about the republic. He's been tortured. He doesn't know what's going to happen next, and he's absolutely gutted that Florence's republican experiment, renewing the republic experiment, has failed. And he can't speak freely. So what does a guy with a history of writing dramas and satire do to make himself feel better? So number one motivation is it makes you feel better, you know? I mean, you're just like taking the piss out of the people who have made you and a lot of your friends very miserable in a low-key, you know, way, because you can't be too brutally satirical about it. It makes you feel a little bit better.

他在跟誰說話？在《王子》中，他到底在跟誰說話？他是在跟人民說話 還是在跟未來的王子說話？我的意思是，我把它看作是，你知道，想象一個被解僱的人，有一個大家庭要養活。他有很多孩子，熱愛他的工作，對共和國充滿熱情。他被嚴刑拷打。他不知道下一步會發生什麼 他對佛羅倫薩的共和實驗 徹底失望了 重建共和的實驗失敗了他不能暢所欲言那麼一個擅長寫戲劇和諷刺作品的人 會怎麼做才能讓自己好受些呢？第一動機就是它能讓你感覺好點，知道嗎？我的意思是，你就像是在嘲笑那些讓你和你的很多朋友非常痛苦的人，你知道，用一種低調的方式，因為

But I think he's really writing it in a way to kind of expose the ways of tyrants.

但我認為他寫這本書的真正目的是揭露暴君的手段。

Support for the show comes from Shopify. Starting a business is all about turning your ideas into reality. And to see it through, you need the right tools. Tools like Shopify. Shopify is a commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world. And they say 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S., from household names like Mattel and Gymshark, to brands just getting started, like Dr.

Shopify 為節目提供支持。創業就是要把想法變成現實。而要實現這一目標，你需要合適的工具。像Shopify這樣的工具。Shopify 是全球數百萬企業背後的商務平臺。在美國，從 Mattel 和 Gymshark 這樣的家喻戶曉的品牌，到剛剛起步的 Dr.Dr.，Shopify 佔到所有電子商務的 10%。

Sean Elling's Drillings and Fillings, and the gray area soul patch dye for hip cats who want to look as young as they feel. Shopify's design studio lets you build a big, beautiful online store that matches your brand style. You can also use their AI tools to step up your content creation. Plus, you can easily create email and social media campaigns to meet your customers wherever they are. If you're ready to sell, you can be ready for Shopify. You can turn your big business idea into reality with Shopify on your side. You can sign up for your $1 per month trial period and start selling today at Shopify.com slash Vox. Go to Shopify.com slash Vox. Shopify.com slash Vox.

Sean Elling 的《Drillings and Fillings》，以及灰色地帶的靈魂補丁染料，適合那些想要看起來像自己感覺一樣年輕的潮貓。Shopify 的設計工作室可以讓你建立一個大型、漂亮的網店，與你的品牌風格相匹配。您還可以使用他們的人工智能工具來加強內容創建。此外，您還可以輕鬆創建電子郵件和社交媒體營銷活動，隨時隨地滿足顧客的需求。如果您已經準備好銷售，您就可以使用 Shopify。有了Shopify的支持，您就可以將自己的商業構想變為現實。您可以在 Shopify.com slash 

I think one of the more famous sentiments in The Prince is this idea that fear is more powerful than love. That from the perspective of a ruler, fear is more dependable than love.

我認為《王子》中最著名的觀點之一就是 "恐懼比愛更強大"。從統治者的角度來看，恐懼比愛更可靠。

What do you make of that? Do you think it's true? Did he actually believe that?

你怎麼看？你認為這是真的嗎？他真的相信嗎？

Yeah. He says it's good to be feared and loved, but if you have to choose, it's better to be feared than loved. So that's the context. And then he gives you examples of what kind of fear should be used. And what he really means when you look at his examples of the best kind of fear is just like fear of the laws. He gives examples that actually relate to transparency and legality. I'm sorry, but this is true. If you go to the chapter where he says that, he says it's better to be transparent and regular and not to do things in an irregular, arbitrary way. Do not arbitrarily take people's property. Do not take their wives. Do not do this.

他說，被人畏懼和被人愛都是好事，但如果你必須做出選擇，被人畏懼比被人愛更好。這就是背景。然後他舉例說明了應該使用哪種恐懼。當你看到他所舉出的最好的恐懼的例子時，他真正的意思就是對法律的恐懼。他舉的例子實際上與透明度和合法性有關。很抱歉，但這是事實。如果你去看他這麼說的那一章，他說最好是透明和正規，不要以不正規的、任意的方式做事。不要任意奪取別人的財產。不要奪人妻子。不要這樣做。

He gives you these lists. That's the kind of fear you want people to have. And it could be fear of you, the ruler, or it could be fear of a legal constitutional ruler as well. So what he's not saying is you should just use random terror. Arbitrarily scaring people, that is a disaster.

他給了你這些清單。這就是你希望人們產生的恐懼。這可能是對你這個統治者的恐懼，也可能是對合法憲政統治者的恐懼。所以，他並不是說你應該隨意使用恐怖手段。隨意嚇唬人，那是一場災難。

He's really clear about that in The Prince. Yeah. He says, if you do have to be feared, do not be feared in such a way as to produce hatred. That's a very important qualification.

他在《王子》裡說得很清楚他說，如果你必須讓人害怕，那就不要害怕得讓人產生仇恨。這是一個非常重要的條件

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. And look, I know part of what you do in the book is you're resisting this idea that Machiavelli is very simplistically driving a wedge between politics and morality. But God, there are these incredible lines, like you've been pointing out, right? And here's one. He says, therefore, it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain himself to learn how not to be good and to use knowledge and not use it according to the necessity of the case.

是啊 - 是啊 - Yeah.Yeah. - Yeah.Yeah, exactly.Yeah. - Yeah.聽著，我知道你在書中所做的部分工作 就是抵制馬基雅維利在政治和道德之間 簡單化地打入楔子的觀點但是，上帝，有這些令人難以置信的線條， 就像你一直在指出，對不對？這裡有一句他說，是以，對於一個想保持自己的王子來說 有必要學會如何不做個好人 以及如何使用知識 而不是根據情況的需要使用知識

So what is the meaning of a line like that for you? Is he just saying politics is a dirty business and you can't survive it without getting your hands dirty? Or is it more complicated than that?

那麼對你來說，這樣一句話的含義是什麼？他是在說政治是一門骯髒的生意，不把自己的手弄髒就無法生存？還是比這更復雜？

Yeah. I mean, unfortunately, this is what the thing about Machiavelli that makes him so susceptible to the kind of reading that's become popular is he's got these amazing lines. Oh, wow.

不幸的是 這就是馬基雅維利的魅力所在 這讓他很容易被流行的解讀所接受哦，哇

And they're so cool. I know. They're so cool. And if you're a teacher or professor who teaches political theory, it is kind of sad to kind of think about my Machiavelli being the right one instead of the one that we've all grown to kind of hate, love hate, because, you know, he's such a different, it's such a different view of politics than what we're used to in ethics.

他們太酷了我知道他們太酷瞭如果你是一個老師或教授 誰教政治理論， 這是一種可悲的一種思考 關於我的馬基雅維利 是正確的，而不是一

But I'm sorry to tell you that he's fantastic because he really is spelling out how human beings really behave and how leaders often behave. But what he does in that sentence is he's setting the stage for a series of chapters about what do people think is good and are they right?

但我很遺憾地告訴你，他說得很精彩，因為他真的道出了人類的真實行為，以及領導者的通常行為。但他在這句話中所做的，是為一系列關於人們認為什麼是好的章節做鋪墊，而這些章節又是否正確呢？

That's what the next few chapters about. And he has discussion of cruelty. What do people think is cruel or harsh? And are they right? And using money. When is kind of using money to get ahead okay? And when is it not okay for you? Because it's actually going to get you in deep trouble.

這就是接下來幾章的內容。他還討論了殘忍的問題。人們認為什麼是殘忍或苛刻？他們是對的嗎？還有利用金錢。什麼情況下可以利用金錢出人頭地？什麼時候不可以？因為這實際上會給你帶來很大的麻煩。

So what he's doing with that is trying to get you to sort of think there's good and there's good is what I, what is what is conventionally thought of as good, the way to go. And sometimes he says that we have this angelic idea of how leaders should behave, which isn't suitable, but that's not saying that you should compromise like your basic standards of transparency and decent, you know, decent rule. It's just, it's very hard sometimes to know when he's merely describing something and when he's endorsing it. He's deliberately ambiguous. He's ambiguous on purpose. A lot of ancient writers were deliberately ambiguous. We are the ones who are kind of aberrations, modern people who think that everything has to be straightforward, blunt and clear. Uh, in, in ancient writers, you find loads of loads of writers, including

是以，他所做的是試圖讓你認為有好的，有好的是我，什麼是傳統的認為是好的，去的方式。有時他說，我們對領導者的行為方式有天使般的想法，這是不合適的，但這並不是說你應該妥協，比如你的透明度和體面的基本標準，你知道，體面的規則。只是，有時很難知道他什麼時候只是在描述什麼，什麼時候是在認可什麼。他故意含糊其辭。他故意含糊其辭很多古代作家都故意含糊其辭。現代人認為一切都必須直截了當、直言不諱、一目瞭然，而我們卻有點反常。呃，在古代作家中，你會發現大量的作家，包括

Plato and all the historians who were deliberately ambiguous because they're trying to get us to think. Well, and part of what is very persuasive about, about your book, um, is that you really get to understand what he's up to. Um, when you see some of his correspondence, some of his private correspondence with, you know, letters to friends and that sort of thing where he's being much more honest. And with that context, it, it gives you, um, a much better insight into what he's actually doing in his, in his work. Um, you know, and that's the work that you do. One of the things he says in the print is that, you know, the ruler must imitate the lion and the fox. And the book of yours we're talking about is called Be Like the Fox. I have it right here. Um, why that title? What do you mean? What does it mean to be like the fox?

柏拉圖和所有的歷史學家 都故意含糊其辭 因為他們想讓我們思考你的書很有說服力的一點是 你能真正理解他的意圖嗯，當你看到他的一些通信， 他的一些私人信件，你知道， 信給朋友和諸如此類的事情 他是誠實得多。有了這樣的背景，你就能更好地瞭解他在工作中的所作所為。這就是你的工作。他在印刷品中提到的一件事是，統治者必須模仿獅子和狐狸。我們正在討論的你的那本書叫做《像狐狸一樣》就在我這裡嗯，為什麼用這個書名？什麼意思？像狐狸一樣是什麼意思？

Yeah. I mean, foxes, again, he's playing with us because we think of the classical image of, you know, the trope of the, the fox is associated with cunning, sly, sneaky Machiavellian.

是的，我是說，狐狸，他又在耍我們，因為我們會想到狐狸的經典形象，你知道，狐狸的特例與狡猾、狡詐、陰險的馬基雅弗利聯繫在一起。

Hard to pin down. Hard to pin down. Yeah. But if you look at the context, again, you look at what he says, he says, the fox recognizes snares. He said, people, the ruler should imitate the fox and the lion, the lion, because the lion can scare wolves and the fox because the fox recognizes traps. So the skill of the fox he's highlighting isn't being shrewd and cunning. It's recognizing when someone's being shrewd and cunning towards you and building up defenses, cognitive and, and physical, whatever you need so that that person or doesn't pull you in.

難以確定。很難確定是啊但如果你看看上下文 再看看他說的話 他說 狐狸能識別陷阱他說，人們，統治者應該模仿狐狸和獅子，獅子，因為獅子能嚇唬狼，而狐狸，因為狐狸能識別陷阱。所以，他所強調的狐狸的本領並不是精明狡猾。而是當有人對你精明狡詐時，你要識別出來，並建立起認知和身體上的防禦，不管你需要什麼，這樣那個人才不會把你拉下水。

Tell me if I'm wrong. I remember, and I don't know where I read this. It was a long time ago, but I recall reading about this story that Machiavelli loved and apparently referenced quite a bit. And the story was of a, some ruler, I don't know who, who sends a man to some principality to put down an insurgency with just brutal force, right? And the guy does the job, but the people left behind in that principality are really pissed off and they resent him.

如果我說錯了，請告訴我。我記得，我不知道我是在哪裡讀到的。那是很久以前的事了，但我記得我讀到過這個故事 馬基雅維利很喜歡，而且顯然經常引用。故事講的是一個統治者，我不知道是誰，派了一個人去某個公國，用殘酷的武力鎮壓叛亂，對吧？這個人完成了任務，但留在公國的人非常生氣，他們怨恨他。

So the prince has the guy who did it, the guy that he ordered to do the job killed and then strung up in the public square. And then he makes a big show of how outraged he is by this man's criminal act of defiance. And Machiavelli apparently said to have loved that story because it demonstrates how flexible and cunning a prince can and should be and how effective it can be if he's doing that well. I think what you're talking about is chapter seven of The

於是，王子讓人殺了那個人，也就是他命令去做這件事的人，然後把他吊在廣場上。然後他大肆宣揚自己對這個人的反抗罪行有多麼憤怒。據說，馬基雅維利顯然很喜歡這個故事，因為它展示了一個王子可以而且應該是多麼靈活狡猾，如果他做得好，效果會有多好。我想你說的應該是《馬基雅維利傳》的第七章。

Prince where he talks about Cesare Borgia, who was the son of Pope Alexander VI, who was a brilliant deceiver. And Cesare Borgia, he's the Prince of Fortune. Chapter seven is about how to become a prince, not by virtue, but by fortune. And Cesare Borgia is a really ambivalent figure in The Prince, but he does something along the lines you suggested. He's got a guy called

在《王子》一書中，他談到了切薩雷-博爾哈，他是教皇亞歷山大六世的兒子，是個出色的金光黨。切薩雷-博爾哈是 "財富王子"。第七章講的是如何成為王子，不是靠美德，而是靠財富。在《王子》中，切薩雷-博爾哈是一個非常矛盾的人物，但他做了一些你建議的事情。他找了一個叫

Ramiro de Urco and he sets him up in this small town to be the police guy, the big sheriff on the block. And then he scapegoats him, basically. He gets Ramiro to be brutal and suppress all discontent. And then when all the people start getting upset about this, he goes, hey, I'm just going to like... And so he doesn't even... Machiavelli just describes this. He did love telling this story. He told it in several different places, actually. But he says, one day the people go into the plaza at dawn and there's the pieces of Ramiro de Urco, like in pieces, with a coltello, a knife by his side. And, you know, this is the image.

拉米羅-德-烏爾科 他把他安排在這個小鎮上 當警察 當街區的大警長然後他基本上把他當成了替罪羊他讓拉米羅變得殘暴，壓制所有的不滿情緒。然後當所有的人都對此感到不滿時 他就會說，嘿，我只是想...於是他甚至...馬基雅弗利就是這樣描述的他很喜歡講這個故事他在不同的地方都講過這個故事但他說，有一天，人們在黎明時分來到廣場 拉米羅-德-烏爾科的屍體就在那裡，就像碎塊一樣 他身邊放著一把刀，一把匕首你知道，這就是畫面。

And then it says the people were so stupefied that they didn't dare rebel anymore.

然後它又說，人們被迷惑住了，不敢再反抗了。

And then if you end it there and you say, that's the end of the story, you say, okay,

然後，如果你就此結束，說故事到此結束，你會說，好吧、

Machiavellian, isn't that? But... That's pretty cynical. It's pretty cynical, Erica.

馬基雅維利，不是嗎？但是...太憤世嫉俗了是很憤世嫉俗，艾麗卡

Pretty cynical. It is. It's very cynical. Read on. Don't get stuck. My one advice, don't get stuck on one thing. Keep reading on. What were the consequences for Cesare Borgia?

很憤世嫉俗。沒錯非常憤世嫉俗。繼續讀不要固步自封我的建議是，不要糾結於一件事。繼續讀下去切薩雷-博爾哈的後果是什麼？

What happened to him after that? Well, everyone starts leaving Cesare, like all the people who are giving him troops and who supported him, all his allies. They all say, okay, this guy's crazy.

他後來怎麼樣了？每個人都開始離開切薩雷 所有給他軍隊和支持他的人 所有他的盟友他們都說，好吧，這傢伙瘋了。

He's out of control. They start dropping out. The French pull back their troops that they were giving him. All his closest mates, they conspire against him. He finds this out. He brutally slaughters them. And then everyone else hates him. So within a few months, he's like really in trouble. He doesn't actually die immediately, but he's out.

他失控了他們開始撤軍法國人撤回了給他的軍隊他所有最親密的戰友都密謀反對他他發現了這一點他殘忍地屠殺了他們然後所有人都恨他所以沒過幾個月，他就麻煩大了他並沒有立刻死去，但他出局了

And that's it. So if you go to the end of the story, you don't just start and say, wow, what a cool thing. Because, I mean, we can see examples of this all over the world today.

就是這樣。所以，如果你讀到故事的結尾，你不會一開始就說，哇，多酷的事情啊。因為，我的意思是，我們今天在世界各地都能看到這樣的例子。

Wow. That was a cool thing. Somebody did that. That was tough. Wait till the story continues because doing that is going to make you feared and hated. You're mad at me for not finishing the reading, aren't you? Yeah. Oh, you didn't even read that chapter in my book. That is such a good chapter. I read your book all the way through when I read it the first time and I didn't reread it cover to cover this time. I did revisit it, but I didn't reread the whole thing. But I did at one point read the whole thing. There's clearly a pragmatism to Machiavelli. Would you say that he has something like an ideology or is he just a clear eyed realist?

哇哦太酷了有人做到了太厲害了等故事講完再說吧 因為那樣做會讓你又怕又恨的你在生我的氣 因為我沒有讀完，是嗎？是啊你連我書裡的那一章都沒看完那一章寫得真好我第一次讀你的書時是通讀的 這次我沒有從頭到尾重讀一遍我是重讀了一遍，但沒有讀完。但我曾一度讀完了整本書。馬基雅維利顯然有一種實用主義。你認為他有類似意識形態的東西，還是說他只是一個目光敏銳的現實主義者？

He's a Republican. And again, this is something that if you just read The Prince, you're not going to get that. But if you read Machiavelli, even just read The Discourses, which, as I say, was written around the same time as The Prince, it's very, very similar in almost every way, except that it praises republics and criticizes tyrants very openly, whereas The Prince never once uses the tyrant or the word tyranny. So if there's a guiding set of political views, whether you call ideology or not, it's Republican. Republican ideology, if you like, is shared power. It's all the people in a city, all the male people in this case.

他是共和黨人。再說一遍，如果你只讀《王子》，你不會明白這一點。但如果你讀馬基雅維利，哪怕只是讀《論語》，正如我所說，《論語》與《王子》成書時間相近，幾乎在所有方面都非常非常相似，只是《論語》非常公開地讚美共和政體，責備暴君，而《王子》從未使用過暴君或暴政一詞。是以，如果有一套指導性的政治觀點，不管你是否稱之為意識形態，那就是共和黨的。如果你願意，共和黨的意識形態就是分享權力。這是一個城市裡所有的人，在這裡是所有的男性。

In Machiavelli's case, he was quite egalitarian. He clearly wanted as broad a section of the male population to be citizens as possible. He says very clearly, the key to kind of stabilizing your power is to change the constitution and to give everyone their share. Everyone has to have their share. I know you just said he's a Republican. He's defending Republicanism.

就馬基雅維利而言，他是相當平等主義的。他顯然希望儘可能多的男性成為公民。他說得很清楚，穩定權力的關鍵在於修改憲法，讓每個人都有自己的一份。每個人都必須有自己的一份。我知道你剛才說他是共和黨人。他在捍衛共和主義。

But do you think of him as a democratic theorist? Do you think of him as someone who would defend what we call democracy today? If you see the main principle of democracy is also sharing power among all the people equally, which is how I understand democracy. Yeah, he'd totally agree with that. What kind of institutions would he say democracy has to have? He's pretty clear in the discourses. He tells you, you don't want a long-term executive. You need to always check power. So anyone who's in a position of a magistracy, a political office of any kind, needs to have very strict limits, needs to be under very strict laws, even stricter laws when they're in the office than they would be as private citizens. Can I pause you for a second?

但你認為他是一位民主理論家嗎？你認為他是捍衛我們今天所謂的民主的人嗎？如果你看到民主的主要原則也是所有人平等分享權力，這就是我對民主的理解。是的，他完全同意這一點。他認為民主必須具備什麼樣的制度？他的論述非常明確。他告訴你，你不想要一個長期的行政機構。你需要始終制衡權力。是以，任何擔任地方行政官或任何政治職務的人，都需要有非常嚴格的限制，需要受到非常嚴格的法律約束，甚至在任職期間要比作為普通公民受到更嚴格的法律約束。我能打斷一下嗎？

Why is he a critic of people being in power for a long time? Why does he want limits, term limits?

為什麼他責備人們長期掌權？為什麼他希望有限制，任期限制？

It's simple. He's doing this all through Roman history. So he makes his arguments not by just kind of abstract setting out. These are the kind of constitutional principles you need.

很簡單他在整個羅馬歷史中都是這樣做的。是以，他的論點不是抽象地闡述：這些都是你需要的憲法原則。

He's saying, this is what the Romans did when they got rid of the kings and they started building a republic. They did some really good things. And then they did some things not so well. And they had to then kind of go back to the drawing board and rewrite some of the institutions and add some laws that were especially strict for against people trying to come back and create a dictatorship. So he goes through lots of different kind of things that the Romans did that are now kind of reflected also in the US constitution or in other democracies around the world, because the founding fathers drew on Machiavelli and others, you know, authors who'd built on him. The rule of law is really super important. If you don't have laws that are kind of constraining everybody and institutions that make sure that the more powerful are not held in check, you're going to have trouble soon, because people are always, always in conflict. This is another thing I think is really more interesting about Machiavelli's view of democracy than a lot of democratic theories you get today. He stresses how much democracy is turbulent. Even in a stable democracy, people are going to be fighting all the time about what kind of, you know, where do they want to go? What kind of values do you want in there? Rich and poor, you know, how much should people get taxed? That's an eternal problem of democracy, eternal. And he says, you need to have institutions where everyone can debate that. And, you know, checks on people getting too powerful, also economically. Why did he think rule of law was so perilously fragile?

他是說，羅馬人在擺脫國王統治、開始建立共和國時就是這麼做的。他們做了一些非常好的事情。然後他們又做了一些不太好的事情。於是，他們不得不回到原點，重寫一些制度，增加一些特別嚴格的法律，以防止有人試圖捲土重來，建立獨裁政權。是以，他講述了羅馬人所做的許多不同的事情，這些事情現在也反映在美國憲法或世界上其他民主國家的憲法中，因為開國元勳們借鏡了馬基雅維利和其他作家的經驗。法治真的超級重要。如果你沒有法律來約束每個人，沒有制度來確保更有權勢的人不受牽制，你很快就會遇到麻煩，因為人們總是衝突不斷。這是我認為馬基雅維

Because people don't want to be equal all the time. And that's just the thing. That's what he said. This is what I would say Machiavelli is a realist. It's this kind of human nature realism that isn't, it's not, you know, good and evil. It's that's, that's the wrong lens to read Machiavelli.

因為人們並不希望一直平等。這就是問題所在。他就是這麼說的。馬基雅弗利是個現實主義者這是一種人性的現實主義 這不是，這不是，你知道，善惡。這是，這是錯誤的透鏡 讀馬基雅維利。

He's going back to this old ancient pre-Christian, you know, traditions that say, look, human beings are bloody messy. We're always doing these things that upset the orders we create with all our great ideas. And people don't all want to be equal. You know, you're not going to turn people into angels who are happy, just saying, let's all just share power. You've got to have institutions and laws that do that for them. And if you're going to talk about what kind of democracy would help us, you know, get more stability, he thinks it would make sense just to have it up front, that we're not idealizing human nature. We're not idealizing what a democracy is. Democracy is like hard work. It's hard work. And it means that some people are not going to be happy all the time, but fight for it because it's a lot better than the alternatives.

他回到了基督教之前的古老傳統，你知道，這些傳統說，聽著，人類就是一團糟。我們總是在做一些事情，打亂我們用偉大的想法創造出來的秩序。人們並不都想平等。你知道，光說 "讓我們分享權力 "是無法讓人們變成快樂的天使的。你必須有制度和法律為他們做到這一點。如果你要討論什麼樣的民主能幫助我們，你知道，獲得更多的穩定，他認為有意義的是先有民主，我們不是在理想化人性。我們並沒有把民主理想化。民主就像艱苦的工作。這是一項艱苦的工作。這意味著有些人並不會一直感到幸福，但他們會為之奮鬥，因為這比其他選擇要好得多。

Support for the show comes from Shopify. Starting a business is all about turning your ideas into reality. And to see it through, you need the right tools, tools like Shopify. Shopify is a commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world. And they say 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. from household names like Mattel and Gymshark to brands just getting started like Dr. Sean Elling's drillings and fillings and the gray area sole patch dye for hip cats who want to look as young as they feel. Shopify's design studio lets you build a big, beautiful online store that matches your brand style. You can also use their AI tools to step up your content creation. Plus, you can easily create email and social media campaigns to meet your customers wherever they are. If you're ready to sell, you can be ready for Shopify. You can turn your big business idea into reality with Shopify on your side. You can sign up for your $1 per month trial period and start selling today at Shopify.com slash box. Go to Shopify.com slash box. Shopify.com slash box. If we were looking at Machiavelli for, for insights into, well, now, where do we start?

Shopify 為節目提供支持。創業就是要把想法變成現實。而要實現這一目標，你需要合適的工具，比如Shopify。Shopify 是全球數百萬企業背後的商務平臺。從 Mattel 和 Gymshark 等家喻戶曉的品牌，到 Sean Elling 醫生的鑽孔和補牙等剛剛起步的品牌，以及為那些想讓自己看起來像年輕人一樣年輕的潮貓們提供的灰色區域鞋底補丁染色，Shopify 佔據了美國所有電子商務的 10%。Shopify 的設計工作室可以讓您建立一個大型、漂亮的網店，與您的品牌風格相匹配。您還可以使用他們的

What do you think makes him a useful, relevant guide to understanding contemporary politics, particularly American politics? This is a really Machiavellian moment because, you know, I did, I taught, I talked about the situation he was in, in, in Florence. If you read the prints, kind of looking, not just for those outstanding, great course, you know, quotes, but look for the criticisms. And sometimes they're subtle. You start to see that he's, he's often like exposing a lot of the stuff that we're seeing today. And he's got a chapter nine in the prints where he talks about how you can rise to be the kind of ruler of a, of a Republic and how much resistance you might face. And he says that the resistance that you're going to, people might be kind of quite passive at first and not do very much, but at some point when they see you start to attack the law, the courts, especially, and the magistrates, that's when you're going to clash. And he says, that's when you as leader, he's playing like I'm on your side leader. That's when you got to decide, are you going to get really, really tough? Or are you going to have to kind of find other ways to kind of soften, soften things up a bit?

你認為是什麼讓他成為理解當代政治，尤其是美國政治的有用、相關的指南？這真是一個馬基雅維利式的時刻，因為，你知道，我做過，我教過，我談論過他在佛羅倫薩的處境。如果你閱讀這些印刷品，不僅僅是尋找那些傑出的、偉大的作品，你知道，引文，而是尋找責備。有時它們很微妙你會發現他經常揭露很多我們今天看到的東西。他在書中的第九章談到了如何成為一個共和國的統治者，以及可能面臨的阻力。他說，你會遇到的阻力，人們一開始可能很被動，不會做什麼，但到了一定時候，當他們看到你開始攻擊法律，尤其是法院和地方法官時，那就是你要發生衝突的

He would put Trump in two categories. He's got different classifications of Prince. He's got the Prince of Fortune, who's somebody who relies on wealth, money, and big impressions to get ahead and on other people's arms. He would say Trump has a lot of qualities of that because of the wealth question, relying on a massive wealth to help him campaign. But he would also call him, what Machiavelli has this word, astucia, astuteness, which doesn't really translate in English because we think of that as a good quality, but he means like calculating shrewdness.

他會把特朗普分為兩類。他對王子有不同的分類。他把特朗普歸為 "財富王子"（Prince of Fortune），即依靠財富、金錢和影響力出人頭地，依靠他人臂膀的人。他說特朗普有很多這樣的特質，因為財富問題，他依靠鉅額財富幫助自己競選。但他也稱特朗普為馬基雅維利（Machiavelli）所說的 "精明"（astucia），"精明 "在英語中並不能真正翻譯過來，因為我們認為 "精明 "是一種好品質，但他的意思是精於算計的精明。

Somebody who's, his great talent is being able to kind of shrewdly manipulate and find little holes where he can kind of, and people's weaknesses and dissatisfactions and exploit them. And that's what he also thought the Medici were good at. And his analysis of that is that it can cover you for a long time. People will kind of see this, the good appearances and hope that you would be able to achieve the things that you can. But in the long term, people who do that don't know how to build a solid state. That's what he would say on a domestic front. Let's also say, if people are interested, chapter 21 is the most Machiavellian chapter in a way for our times because it's about foreign alliances and people's behavior on the international stage. And he's got this example of Ferdinand of Aragon of Spain, who was like super hyperactive. Like he comes to power and he's immediately going out and like doing things that shock and horrify everyone, beating up Jews, beating up Arabs, beating up, doing this and that, and taking neighboring countries around him. And Machiavelli kind of is very, very funny in the way he describes his behavior.

一個人，他最大的才能就是能夠精明地操縱和尋找小漏洞，他可以利用人們的弱點和不滿，並加以利用。這也是他認為美第奇家族所擅長的。他對此的分析是，這可以長期掩蓋你。人們會看到這些美好的表象，並希望你能夠實現自己的目標。但從長遠來看，這樣做的人不知道如何建立一個穩固的國家。這就是他在國內方面會說的話。如果人們感興趣的話，我們還可以說，第21章在某種程度上是我們這個時代最具馬基雅維利風格的一章，因為它涉及到對外聯盟和人們在國際舞臺上的行為。他舉了一個西班牙阿拉貢的斐迪南的例子，他就像一個超級活躍分子。他一上臺，就立

But then he ends up in the chapter saying, look, if you don't have stable alliances, you're dead. You know, stable alliances, thick and thin, transparency. That is the key to kind of study long term government. Well, just going back to Trump.

但他最後在章節中說，聽著，如果你沒有穩定的聯盟，你就死定了。你知道，穩定的聯盟，厚積薄發，透明度。這是研究長期政府的關鍵。好吧，回到特朗普身上。

Mm hmm. Okay. I didn't mention him directly.

I'm not, we're not running away from this, Erica. I'm sorry.

我沒有，我們不會逃避的，艾麗卡 I'm not, we're not running away from this, Erica.對不起 I'm sorry.

No, look, I think there's an unsophisticated way to look at the Trump administration as Machiavelli. I mean, again, there are these lines in The Prince about knowing how to deploy cruelty, knowing when to be ruthless, that thing, that whole thing.

不，你看，我認為有一個不成熟的方式來看待特朗普政府作為馬基雅維利。我的意思是，同樣，《王子》中有這樣幾句話：知道如何部署殘酷，知道什麼時候該無情，就是這些，整個事情。

But to your point, I don't think Machiavelli ever endorses cruelty for cruelty's sake. And this is my personal opinion, but I think Trump cruelty is often the point. And that's not really Machiavellian. It's just cruel.

但就你的觀點而言，我不認為馬基雅維利贊同為殘忍而殘忍。這只是我的個人觀點，但我認為特朗普的殘忍往往才是重點。這並不是真正的馬基雅維利。這只是殘忍而已。

So I think calling him Machiavellian is too generous.

是以，我認為稱他為馬基雅維利式的人未免太慷慨了。

Exactly. No, no, I wouldn't say Trump is Machiavellian. I mean, quite honestly, since the beginning of the Trump administration, I've often felt like he's getting advice from a lot of young people who haven't really read Machiavelli or fed, you know, put Machiavelli into chat GPT and got some pointers and got all the wrong ones because the ones that they're picking out that he and his guys are acting on, especially at the beginning, were just so crude.

沒錯。不，不，我不會說特朗普是馬基雅弗利主義者。我的意思是，老實說，從特朗普執政伊始，我就經常覺得他從很多年輕人那裡得到了建議，而這些年輕人並沒有真正讀過馬基雅維利的書，或者餵養過馬基雅維利，你知道，他們把馬基雅維利放到了哈拉GPT中，得到了一些指點，但得到的都是錯誤的，因為他們挑出來的那些建議，他和他的手下都在照著做，尤其是在一開始，實在是太粗糙了。

They're just, yeah, they're crude, but they sounded Machiavellian. But cruelty, you're absolutely right. Cruelty is, I think, for me too, it's been the thing that made me most, wow. This is something that's very hard to process. And Machiavelli is very, very clear in The Prince that cruelty is not going to get you anywhere. You're going to get pure hate.

他們只是，是的，他們是粗魯的， 但他們聽起來馬基雅維利。但殘忍，你說得很對殘酷是，我想，對我來說也是， 它一直是最讓我，哇。這是很難處理的事情。馬基雅維利在《王子》中說得很清楚 殘忍不會讓你得到任何東西你會得到純粹的仇恨

So if you think it's ever instrumentally useful to be super cruel, think again.

所以，如果你認為超級殘忍是有用的，那就再想想吧。

Again, I'm being a little American centric here, but obviously one of the problems of our time is polarization and negative partisanship. Did he have a lot to say about the dangers of partisanship in democracies? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. And that was, again, something that the Romans talked about a lot. So he's drawing on a whole history of talking about partisanship. He talks about divisions developing to such a point that it doesn't even really matter that much if the other side is telling the truth or introducing a specific policy that is justifiably going to annoy the other side. It's just that there's so little trust that conflict is bound to escalate. And he calls this kind of thing a sickness that you've got to catch as early as possible, because if you let it grow too big, it's going to be really, really hard to pull back. Something I hear a lot in my life, from people around me, is some version of the argument that, you know, the system is so broken.

同樣，我在這裡有點以美國為中心，但我們這個時代的問題之一顯然是兩極分化和消極的黨派之爭。他對民主政體中黨派之爭的危險有很多論述嗎？哦，是的。Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.羅馬人也經常談論這個問題所以他借鏡了關於黨派之爭的整個歷史。他談到，分歧已經發展到這樣一個地步，甚至另一方是否說了實話或出臺了某項有理由惹惱另一方的具體政策都已經不那麼重要了。只是信任太少，衝突必然升級。他把這種情況稱為 "病態"，你必須儘早發現，因為如果你讓它發展得太快，就真的很難挽回了。在我的生活中，我經常聽到周圍的人說，這個

Things are so messed up. We need someone to come in here and smash the system in order to save it.

事情變得一團糟。我們需要有人來這裡砸碎這個系統，以拯救它。

We need political dynamite. Trump. And I bring that up because Machiavelli says repeatedly that politics requires flexibility. And maybe even a little practical ruthlessness in order to get done what has to get done in order to preserve the Republic.

我們需要政治炸藥。特朗普我之所以提到這一點，是因為馬基雅維利反覆強調，政治需要靈活性。也許還需要一點實際的冷酷無情，以便完成為維護共和國而必須完成的任務。