Laws of Power: Machiavelli and Sun-Tzu brought up-to-date(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
Laws of Power: Machiavelli and Sun-Tzu brought up-to-date
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_48_Laws_of_Power
21 comments
Machiavelli itself is not too bad. `The Prince' is remarkably progressive.
One theory is that Machiavelli wrote The Prince to make the common man aware of behaviors and practices of powerful people. The same could be said for The 48 Laws of Power.
The books are not necessarily meant to be instructional, but informative about the economics of power.
I haven't read 48 in some time but I believe Greene says something about regardless of if you want to participate in power plays you will undoubtedly find become a part of them so it's best to be aware.
The books are not necessarily meant to be instructional, but informative about the economics of power.
I haven't read 48 in some time but I believe Greene says something about regardless of if you want to participate in power plays you will undoubtedly find become a part of them so it's best to be aware.
I actually love this book. History and strategy. You use the tricks that suit your personality. And become aware of the rest.
I can't compare it with Sun Tzu. Because Sun Tzu is purely metaphorical. You have to think deep to see the applications.
And Machiavelli, while a pretty good strategy book, is very instructional. I like 48 Laws of Power a lot better. Its a lot more entertaining with stories,
(Also - if you want a mindfuck, you should read The Prince by Machiavelli and The Hero by Baltasar Gracian back to back. Both have opposite lessons. But both will get you nodding your heads while you're reading it. (Baltasar Gracian apparently wrote The Hero as a response to Machiavelli.))
I can't compare it with Sun Tzu. Because Sun Tzu is purely metaphorical. You have to think deep to see the applications.
And Machiavelli, while a pretty good strategy book, is very instructional. I like 48 Laws of Power a lot better. Its a lot more entertaining with stories,
(Also - if you want a mindfuck, you should read The Prince by Machiavelli and The Hero by Baltasar Gracian back to back. Both have opposite lessons. But both will get you nodding your heads while you're reading it. (Baltasar Gracian apparently wrote The Hero as a response to Machiavelli.))
Or, try "don't be evil"
Edit: Yes, I am suggesting that the 48 Laws of Power are inherently evil.
Edit: Yes, I am suggesting that the 48 Laws of Power are inherently evil.
I strongly disagree that they're evil. I have had the book for about a decade, and while I consider myself a low-power individual - that is, unaggressive in pursuit of my goals - I've found it a great aid in understanding the dynamics of many situations, as well as knowing when someone is exercising a power play against me or trying to manipulate me in some fashion.
Sure, it's not '48 laws of harmony and cooperation'; I think it's a legitimate authorial technique to challenge the reader and push them out of their comfort zone - and yet the book is abundant with examples of how greed and hubris can lead to a sticky end. The book seems to generate strong reactions in a lot of people, both those like yourself who say it's evil and from others who say it's too wishy-washy (one hard-charging person I mentioned it to derided it as '48 laws of brown-nosing'). I wonder if you have read the whole thing? If not, why not borrow it from the library, saving yourself the emotional conflict over whether to enrich the author, and give it a full read.
The fact is that it's a competitive world, and attempts to improve upon human nature often turn out to have serious negative consequences; apparently benign beliefs such as christianity can become vehicles of horrid repression. Better, then, to improve the world by securing for yourself the freedom to do so in peace than by wishing away the facts of life.
Sure, it's not '48 laws of harmony and cooperation'; I think it's a legitimate authorial technique to challenge the reader and push them out of their comfort zone - and yet the book is abundant with examples of how greed and hubris can lead to a sticky end. The book seems to generate strong reactions in a lot of people, both those like yourself who say it's evil and from others who say it's too wishy-washy (one hard-charging person I mentioned it to derided it as '48 laws of brown-nosing'). I wonder if you have read the whole thing? If not, why not borrow it from the library, saving yourself the emotional conflict over whether to enrich the author, and give it a full read.
The fact is that it's a competitive world, and attempts to improve upon human nature often turn out to have serious negative consequences; apparently benign beliefs such as christianity can become vehicles of horrid repression. Better, then, to improve the world by securing for yourself the freedom to do so in peace than by wishing away the facts of life.
Well said. Most problems are actually people problems. Like other problems having awareness of their nature can help you sort them out when you're in them and occasionally avoid them before they happen.
The biggest lesson I got from this type of thinking is that people are surprisingly predictable. I don't know where to draw the line between recognizing behavioral cues and patterns and manipulating people but at the least being aware of the potential should help you avoid being manipulated yourself.
The biggest lesson I got from this type of thinking is that people are surprisingly predictable. I don't know where to draw the line between recognizing behavioral cues and patterns and manipulating people but at the least being aware of the potential should help you avoid being manipulated yourself.
An argument can be made that adamantly stating "don't be evil" is in itself a grab for power by imposing your moral standards on others. If you were inherently not evil, why the need to declare that to the world? This argument is actually in the book, Preface, XVIII.
Are you saying that calling out evil is in itself evil?
I think they're more closely aligned with psychopathy/sociopathy (the actual disorders) than outright "evil".
(Of course, psychopathy/sociopathy is probably the closest thing to a medical description of "evil" that there is...)
(Of course, psychopathy/sociopathy is probably the closest thing to a medical description of "evil" that there is...)
That's not an option.
This book has a permanent place on my bathroom bookshelf-- each "law" can be a quick read and they aren't sequential.
Any practical use should be taken with a grain of salt. The book itself is more a great study of history and humanities than it is a guide to power.
Of course, I could be saying that to deceive you so I may gain power. Or something like that.
Any practical use should be taken with a grain of salt. The book itself is more a great study of history and humanities than it is a guide to power.
Of course, I could be saying that to deceive you so I may gain power. Or something like that.
I've read this and it's an interesting book, but it is very, very long and could really do with an abridged version.
I agree completely. I started reading this book, but by chapter 4 I was tired. It didn't need to be so long.
Isn't that what this is? :)
This is a great book but The Art of Seduction is more fun.
[deleted]
don't forget the 50th law!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_50th_Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_50th_Law
I'm actually excited about that book. I saw an interview with 50-cent on CNBC and he know's what he's talking about.
Before you scoff, remember that he was a seed-stage investor in Vitamin Water. Survivorship bias, but still an interesting point.
Before you scoff, remember that he was a seed-stage investor in Vitamin Water. Survivorship bias, but still an interesting point.
a.k.a. The 48 Laws of Unhappiness
[deleted]