THE EMERGENCE OF THE CONCEPT OF MODERN MAN IN MACHIAVELLI'S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY: THE TRANSITION FROM THE TRADITIONAL INDIVIDUAL TO THE EGOISTIC INDIVIDUAL

ABSTRACT

This research focuses on the Italian philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli, who lived in the 15th and 16th centuries, examining his rejection of the traditional understanding of humanity and the creation of modern human thought, as well as the place of this approach in the history of philosophy. The concept of the "wise man," which was influential in ancient Greece, began to be abandoned after the Renaissance in favor of the idea of the egoistic individual who pursues personal interests. According to Machiavelli, humans are egoistic beings who consider their own interests. He depicted both humanity and political power in a manner contrary to traditional thoughts. This perspective had a significant impact on the thoughts of philosophers who followed him. Additionally, this philosophical approach held considerable importance for the rulers living during and after his time.

АННОТАЦИЯ

Данное исследование посвящено итальянскому философу Никколо Макиавелли, жившему в XV–XVI веках. В нём рассматривается отказ Макиавелли от традиционного понимания человеческой природы и формирование им концепции современного человека, а также место этого подхода в истории философии. Концепция «мудреца», преобладавшая в Древней Греции, начала утрачивать своё влияние после эпохи Возрождения, уступая место представлению об эгоистичном человеке, стремящемся к личной выгоде. Согласно Макиавелли, человек — эгоистичное существо, которое руководствуется собственными интересами. Он описывал как человека, так и политическую власть в противовес традиционным воззрениям. Этот взгляд оказал значительное влияние на философов, пришедших ему на смену. Кроме того, данный философский подход имел важное значение для правителей как его времени, так и последующих эпох.

Keywords: Machiavelli, wise man, egoistic man, prince.

Ключевые слова: Макиавелли, мудрец, эгоистичный человек, государь.

Introduction

The understanding of human nature among Ancient Greek philosophers was based on virtue. In this period, the ideal conception of a person emphasized moral virtues and inner harmony. The Pre-Socratic philosophers were concerned with nature and the question known in the history of philosophy as the “arche problem” — that is, “What is the fundamental substance of the universe?” However, beginning with Socrates, the focus shifted from nature and the arche problem to questions directly concerning human beings, such as “What should a person be like?”, “What is a virtuous person?”, “What is a moral person?”, and “What is ethical behavior?” Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized that an individual can only find meaning in society through wisdom and inner balance.

In antiquity, the concept of the “Wise Human” was of central importance. In his work The Republic, Plato described the wise person as someone whose soul is properly regulated. [5, 441d–443e] However, following the Renaissance, this concept underwent a significant transformation. The notion of the “Wise Human,” which had been developed thanks to thinkers like Socrates and Plato in the classical era, was abandoned during the Renaissance and replaced by the idea of an individual who is self-centered, egoistic, and interest-driven. Thinkers such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, Mill, and many others shaped their philosophical approaches based on this new perspective. Machiavelli was one of the first creators of this idea. In his philosophy, the individual is egoistic and driven by self-interest. According to Machiavelli, a person should act in accordance with their own interests. He expresses this idea in his book as follows:“For one can generally say this about people: they are ungrateful, fickle, deceitful, and hypocritical; they flee from danger and seek profit; as long as the danger is far away and you work for their benefit, they are entirely on your side—offering you their blood, their possessions, their lives, and their children. But when the danger draws near, they turn their backs on you.” [3, p.116]

It is in human nature to do everything possible for the things that serve their interests. “And such is human nature that they feel obliged both for the good they do and for the good they receive.” [3, p.89] According to Machiavelli, there is no universal notion of good and evil; these concepts vary from person to person, depending, of course, on individual interests.

The aim of this study is to examine how Machiavelli rejected the traditional conception of the human being that originated in Ancient Greece and replaced it with a modern understanding of the individual, as well as to explore the place of this perspective in the history of philosophy. The concept of the "virtuous human," which was abandoned after the Renaissance, was transformed by Machiavelli into an understanding of a selfish and self-interested individual. This study demonstrates how Machiavelli shaped the egoistic human and how this conception influenced modern political philosophy.

Methodology

This study employs a qualitative method. In examining the concept of the human in Machiavelli’s philosophy, his own writings are considered as primary sources, while studies related to his philosophy are treated as secondary sources.

Machiavelli’s Modern Individual

Before Machiavelli, philosophers argued that ethics and politics were intertwined and that the human being should be evaluated within this context. However, Machiavelli separates these two fields and views the individual as someone who acts according to their own desires. He interprets politics and explains how a ruler should behave within a state.

Machiavelli formulates the definition of the modern individual through political philosophy. What fundamentally distinguishes him from his predecessors is the scientific nature of his political thought. The scientific aspect of Machiavelli’s political philosophy can be better understood through Althusser’s interpretation. Althusser states that Machiavelli’s scientific approach stems from the fact that his thought is aimed at the subject. [1, pp. 28–29] His theory is not intended for any particular subject; rather, he constructs it without defining a subject in advance. In his work Writings – Two Philosophers – Machiavelli – Feuerbach, Althusser notes, much like Montesquieu, that Machiavelli’s scientific discourse is objective and universal. “For Machiavelli, as much as for Montesquieu, the universality and objectivity of scientific discourse is based not on the imaginary world but on actual reality — this is precisely why we consider them even more deeply. Didn’t Montesquieu himself say: ‘I did not derive my principles from my prejudices, but from the nature of things.’ Therefore, Machiavelli’s discourse resembles that of Montesquieu: it is objective because it is universal; it expresses the laws of its object, and the concrete object is merely a particular instance of this universal.” [1, p.29] In other words, like Montesquieu, Machiavelli examines events not through emotions, but based on a rational and universal approach.

Machiavelli attributes universal characteristics to the individual. His understanding of human nature lies at the core of his political philosophy. In his book, he offers advice to the prince while emphasizing the true nature of human beings: “(...) If all men were good, this advice would not be good; but since they are wicked and will not keep their word to you, you need not keep yours to them.” [3, p. 120] In another major work, Discourses, Machiavelli again addresses human nature: “(...) anyone who plans a state and establishes laws for it must assume in advance that people are bad by nature and will act according to the wickedness in their souls whenever they have the freedom to do so.” [4, p. 36]

According to Machiavelli, the constant desire to acquire is a universal trait of human beings. Human nature is shaped by the urge to possess everything. A person desires all things, but cannot attain them all. By nature, they are simply created to desire everything. This is the most important trait that distinguishes humans from other living beings. However, this characteristic also leads to a profound contradiction. While humans are created with a powerful natural drive to acquire, they are simultaneously limited by nature in their ability to obtain everything. Machiavelli expresses this paradox in The Prince as follows:“The desire to acquire is indeed a very natural and common thing; and when men who are able to do so act on this desire, they will always be praised—or at least not condemned. But when they lack the power to acquire and yet still try to do so by any means, they are mistaken and deserve reproach.” [3, p. 53]

He also addresses this issue in Discourses, explaining: “Moreover, human desires are insatiable; because while nature gives them the power to desire everything, fortune grants them little capacity to attain what they desire. The result is an endless dissatisfaction in their minds and a weariness in the pursuit of what they seek.” [4, p. 216]

In Machiavelli’s philosophy, there are two necessary conditions: first, a ruler must present himself well and demonstrate that he prioritizes his people over himself. This is the ideal situation. However, in reality, this is not the case; although a ruler may portray himself in this way to the public, he actually acts in accordance with his own interests. When making decisions, he does so not based on what benefits the people, but based on what benefits himself. Machiavelli does not see this as wrong; in his view, people should act according to their self-interest. Because of these views, Machiavelli was criticized by many philosophers both in his time and afterwards. Some respected him for his frankness, while others considered him the teacher of the injustice present in modern states. Machiavelli states that if a person acts in their own interest at the expense of another's, it is beneficial for them—but not for the other party. A ruler also operates according to this principle. However, since Machiavelli emphasizes that chaos would arise if everyone behaved this way, he argues that the ruler must take common interests into account.

Prioritizing only personal interests and allowing the interests of a specific group to prevail over the common good will lead to corruption. This, in turn, will mark the end of a free way of life. “When individuals pursuing their own interests or sectoral tendencies begin to gain support, the people's desire to legislate in the name of freedom is paralyzed, opposing groups begin to seize control, and tyranny soon emerges in place of liberty.” [2, p. 16] For this reason, the dominance of personal interests over the common good not only harms freedom but also endangers the ruler’s future power. In this context, according to Machiavelli, safeguarding the common good of the people ensures lasting benefit.

In other words, if something is entirely against the interests of the people, it should not be done. Here, Machiavelli seems to be in a contradiction, because at first, he claims that everyone should act according to their own interests, yet later he speaks of the common good. What Machiavelli means here is that in order to achieve a greater interest, one must be willing to give up a smaller one. For example, if a ruler sets aside his personal interests and acts in line with the common interests of the people, it will benefit not only the people but also the ruler himself in the long run. However, if he fails to do so, the people may rise up, leading to serious unrest in the country. The public could even go so far as to attempt to overthrow the ruler. On the other hand, if the ruler acts in accordance with the interests of the people, he will gain more respect in society and, in the future, may secure even greater benefits.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates how Machiavelli rejected the dominant ancient concept of the “virtuous human” and instead introduced a selfish, egoistic, and self-interested understanding of human nature. In this context, Machiavelli reveals the true nature of individuals and rulers in political philosophy, while also addressing how they ought to behave. In his philosophy, he both depicts reality as it is and questions the masks worn by individuals and rulers, implicitly presenting an ideal of proper behavior. While explaining the existing situation, Machiavelli essentially tries to describe how rulers and people think. What ought to be refers to the different masks worn by both individuals and rulers. Therefore, both people and rulers should act in accordance with what ought to be.

References:

1. Althusser, L. (2010). İki Filozof: Machiavelli – Feurbach. (Çev. A. Tümertekin), İthaki Yayınları, İstanbul.
2. Kılıç Cepdibi, A. (2014). Değişimin içinde değişmeyen ilke: Cumhuriyetçi düşünce geleneğinde ortak iyi anlayışı ve Machiavelli’in özgünlüğü. FelsefeLogos, 54, 16.
3. Machiavelli, N. (2012). Prens. (Çev. K. Atakay),Can Yayınları, 6. Baskı.  İstanbul.
4. Machiavelli, N. (2017). Tutis Livius’un İlk On Kitabı Üzerine Söylevler. (Çev. A. Tolga), Say Yayınları, Ankara.
5. Platon. (2002). Devlet (Çeviri, Demirhan). Sosyal Yayınevi.