As discussed in a previous article, this analysis considers Aristotelian causation and the concept that each creation in the universe embodies its own inherent purpose.

Illustration

Following this principle, content should be purposeful and structured with clear intent. While Machiavelli did not explicitly address the four Aristotelian causes (formal, material, causal, and intentional cause), his approach to political theory was pragmatic—founded on systematic analysis of political dynamics and human behavior. However, scholarly analysis has identified several notable inconsistencies in Machiavelli’s works, including:

  • Contextual adaptations of source material
  • Historical interpretations
  • Broad generalizations
  • Selective historical analysis
  • Methodological variations

Note:
For proper interpretation, passages should be considered within their full context. Understanding cause and effect relationships is essential. The medieval scholastic tradition emphasized methodical and logical analysis. The gradual shift away from this approach led to various alternative educational methodologies, each with their own merits and limitations.

Scholastic Method: Two Main Parts 1

In the scholastic method of teaching, the central focus was on a given work, which the lecturer would then comment upon. The lecture (lectio) was primarily divided into two parts:

  • Divisio:
    The master would quote a passage from the work and then explain and arrange its contents in a logical order.

  • Expositio:
    The lecturer’s aim was to uncover the deepest essence of the text and reveal its profound meaning.

Key Observations:

  1. Passive Reception:
    In the divisio phase, the learner was not active because he lacked the necessary foundational knowledge. His main task was to listen and absorb the information.

  2. Contrast with Modern Didactics:
    Today’s methods emphasize “activating the empty head”—encouraging the student to be active even if they lack fundamental background on the topic.

Additionally, there exists a parallel between the scholastic method and the ancient method, in which it was equally crucial to explain the work and its content precisely before proceeding to analyze and draw conclusions.

Scholastic Illustration

During the expositio phase, various questions and issues—referred to as quaestio—arose, and answers were sought through disputations, serving as exercises to analyze any doubts that emerged during the lecture.

Scholasticism – Types of Discussion 1

At this stage, the student (scholar) became active, now capable of confronting new insights with the knowledge he had already acquired. The usual types of discussions were:

  • Disputationes Ordinariae:
    Debates between students and masters.

  • Disputationes Quodlibetales:
    More solemn debates conducted among professors.

Other forms of discussion also existed.

In these disputationes, the process typically unfolded as follows:

  1. A problem was gradually developed.
  2. Accusations were made.
  3. Arguments, counter-arguments, and sophisms were presented.

Each problem was examined in detail, exercising precision and sharpness of thought. Paradoxically, this very precision is sometimes cited today as a criticism of the scholastic method. To accuse the method of overemphasizing logical thinking is, in many respects, unfair. Even if one does not favor the medieval worldview, one can still admire the pursuit of precision exemplified by that era.

This classical method of teaching followed a clear sequence:

  1. Education first
  2. Exercises to consolidate knowledge thereafter

The rejection of this sequence—on a religious level—suggests beliefs in a form of reincarnation (implying that a child must possess prior knowledge to discuss a subject) and, on a philosophical level, a variant of extreme naturalism (the notion of innate self-knowledge).

Excerpt:
“Thus, in Machiavelli’s literature, the last bit of the dorgi must be traversed by the reader understanding what the author has kept silent or dimmed. Machiavelli does not unravel the ending about his intentions, nor does he tell everything.”

For example, when the author deliberately and subtly contradicts himself, he often modifies earlier statements—such as adding qualifiers like ‘as has already been said’—in a way that obscures the changes for certain reasons.

This mode of reading or learning is greatly needed at present. In the next article, I will outline the goal and plan, focusing on the importance of avoiding self-conscious dogma. To create an innovative perspective on the material world, one must first discard such dogmas—only then can you develop your own vision, nurture an open mind, cultivate critical thinking, and build coherent arguments.

Historical Context and Interpretative Challenges

In works like “Reflections” or “The Prince”, historical and social context is crucial for proper interpretation. During Machiavelli’s era, authors needed to exercise careful consideration in their writing, as their works reached diverse audiences including powerful political figures. Controversial or challenging content could result in serious consequences. Thus, apparent inconsistencies or omissions in his work can be interpreted as deliberate rhetorical devices.

This phenomenon has modern parallels in various forms of institutional critique and public disclosure, which often face complex social and professional implications. The subtle nature of Machiavelli’s writing style presents unique interpretative challenges.

  • Key Analysis:
    While traditional critical writing allows readers to maintain analytical distance, Machiavelli’s method of indirect communication engages readers in active interpretation, making them participants in the analytical process.

Religious and Political Pragmatism

In “The Prince”, Machiavelli presents a nuanced analysis of the relationship between religious institutions and political governance. He suggests that effective leadership requires careful consideration of religious sentiment and institutional structures. This might involve:

  • Public Engagement:
    Participation in religious and cultural institutions.

  • Strategic Adaptation:
    Maintaining balanced relationships with religious authorities while pursuing political objectives.

Machiavelli’s approach was fundamentally pragmatic rather than theological. His analysis focused on the practical aspects of governance and the maintenance of political stability. His perspective on religious institutions was part of a broader framework analyzing how various social institutions contribute to political order.

Key Insights:

  • Machiavelli’s analysis considered religion as one of several important social institutions affecting governance and stability.
  • Contemporary interpretations of his work often reflect various philosophical perspectives, from secular pragmatism to traditional institutional analysis.
  • His work continues to influence discussions about the relationship between social institutions and political governance.

  1. Scholastic Method Reference ↩ ↩2