[jahewson]

I… don’t think so? Machiavelli was challenging the zero-sum 14-1500s Catholic Christian thinking that the world was set in stone by God and that providence was beyond humanity’s control. This is what he means by encouraging “ambition” among elites - a conscious act to produce the betterment of the state and those within it. Indeed he hoped virtues would flourish in such an environment - but was not optimistic about the odds.

> Machiavelli would seem to dismiss the possibility that a society can reorient itself towards empathy, charity, and equality without imploding.

He’d dismiss a state founded on ideals, yes, but he’s in favor of human progress, even if he’s pessimistic about what that yields. Remember in his era to be ambitious and want to change things was to go against God.

It’s easy to dislike Machiavelli as he’s cynical and amoral but he’s a modern thinker in many ways.