I’m going to argue that Niccolo Machiavelli deserves a place in next year’s syllabus. But I should be honest - I don’t think he does. I’ll make my case, but I don’t think he should be prioritized over the philosophers we read this semester. That being said, I’ll play devils advocate and argue why he should be included.
Machiavelli is a founding force in the field of political science and philosophy. He is a father of a subfield in philosophy, and in this sense, if we are to talk about political philosophy at all, we should be talking about - and reading - Machiavelli. The foundational gravity that he has in his subfield alone is reason enough to read his works. Further, there’s also the issue of reading political philosophy in general - we didn’t do much of it. As we had some repetition of certain subjects which we studied, I don’t think that diversifying the syllabus could hurt. And if we are to read political philosophy, who better than Machiavelli, a father of the area of study altogether?
Machiavelli also reaches a wide range of philosophical conversation. From virtue, to free will, to human nature, to religion’s impact in society, he in a very short period of time touches on many philosophical discussions well worth having. In this sense, even with giving political philosophy only a little bit of attention on the syllabus, Machiavelli’s ideas find themselves in other parts of the course material. He slots in then not only as an icon of the political philosophy category, but as a powerful voice in many other subjects.
But who, if anyone, should Machiavelli replace on the syllabus? This is tricky for me - I see the merits of pretty much everything we read this semester. But if I had to pick, it would not be for the philosophy itself - but rather the balancing of the course material. There were times where we read multiple philosophers discussing a topic, and I felt that we could have our discussions well without one of them. I felt that the syllabus was a little repetitive for how limited it had to be. And in this sense, I think Machiavelli should replace Marie de Gournay. I feel like the discussion around a lot of her ideas about human nature and so fourth are at least provoked by the likes of Sor Juana and Cavendish. They’re in the same unit, so I understand how there is overlap. But with how little we discussed political philosophy, and in the name of having maybe another unit, Machiavelli should take her spot. Especially regarding looking at human nature through a feministic lens, I feel like a lot of the general ideas we’re at least touched on in, per se, the Sor Juana reading. But again, I found all of the philosophy that we read this semester to be valuable and worth-while. I simply have to make a case for Machiavelli’s inclusion in the repertoire.