Different demands

            Skepticism and curiosity shaped the infamous writings of Machiavelli and Descartes. For very different reasons, they each sought “higher understanding”. Education is learning according to Machiavelli, while Descartes would argue learning is not education. The wisdom and writings of both minds are continuously studied, after decades, and still influence business ethics and religious studies. Comparing the two, notice the demands of their circumstances couldn’t be more different. Yet they both wanted one thing, to understand what they did not know, and that reason alone is what makes their writings educational. 

            Machiavelli can either be seen as manipulative or a realist, both are true. Machiavelli has just been forced into exile after years of diplomatic service. After a day of mundane activities his joy comes from studying the greatest minds. To him, reading and understanding the textbooks and the foundation of knowledge is most important, but why? From a manipulative view, one could argue he is learning to seek knowledge to regain his power. Writing to the ruler on his studies, as if trying to manipulate him into showing him he is worth regaining his title. Furthermore, if you want to know how to gain power and keep it, understanding how the foundation of society was built sits within the writings of those who were said to be the smartest of their time. For example, say someone lost their job due to breaking a rule, they would soon read the company rules and handbooks and seek knowledge to further understand why. The handbook was already written, the reasons behind the rules and why they are used had been available all along. Yet, it wasn’t until the person felt what it was like to lose their job did, they care enough to educate themselves. This sudden desire for knowledge could be used to sue or to know what not to do at their next job. Not only will the person be more educated on what not to do, they will also know how to “get around” or “get away” with breaking rules if they know how they are built. Either way, the obtained new information and educated themselves, despite what they could do with it.  

            But could this be all there is to his legacy? Certainly, there has to be some type of realism to his mind frame. Machiavelli worked as a political influence for years, he knew the ins and out and lived a nice life. A stranger to poverty to say the least. Yet here he is, poor and banned from the very kingdom he helped. Could he be sending the message that he knows what it’s like in power and wants to know “why” society works the way it does? Could the greatest minds have a reason for his rise and fall? For example, say we have a doctor who lost their medical license, reason being, they committed insurance fraud. Days later the doctor published articles on insurance and how it is unfair, ranting on how poor people die because insurance is a scam. This doctor would have lost their job, then learned how the insurance system works after working in the industry blindly for years. 

            Seeking education for Machiavelli seems to have various reasons, although self-preservation and writing to the very person who can give him is life back seems to be the most obvious. He finds value in seeking previous knowledge to better understand what is current. History does repeat itself.

            Descartes was the exact opposite, he had so much knowledge from school and was an astounding mathematician. Yet, felt that being taught textbook knowledge served very little purpose. There is humor in this, simply because everything we learn at some point can be traced back to the very person who thinks school is delusional. Descartes had the approach, having knowledge of something does not mean you are correct. He did not feel that learning was education but seeking your version of truth outside of what you’ve been taught is. Today, people often argue school does nothing but teach students what society wants them to know. Only to test on how well students remembered the information without having really learned anything. 

            Cartesian skepticism takes the ability to really learn what you know to new heights. Even if a person thinks they know nothing, they have the ability to know without doubt that they know nothing, therefor they are knowledgeable. Descartes drive for learning came from having such an abundance of knowledge and questioning its credibility. This process is praised today in higher education, especially in scientist. This skeptic approach is how the world around us keeps progressing. Without it society would stop progressing, even in nature adaptation would stop and extinction would happen faster than it already is. 

There is only so much a person can be taught. Without doing some type of experimental exercise the brain doesn’t wrap around an idea completely. In science, students are given a lecture with homework, followed up with a lab to back up the lecture and offer further evidence that what was taught has so much evidence its true, it must be irrefutable. Without realizing it, this ignites a “prove it” attitude that Descartes would be proud of. 

These two minds are polar opposites and that could be why each side carry truth and go hand in hand. Both types of understandings and drive for learning are needed in today’s world. There are cases of the wrongfully incriminated representing themselves in court and winning their freedom after their lively hood was taken away. Giving them no choice but to seek education and teach themselves the law. On the other side, there are wealthy ivy league adults who step away from everything they know to become world travelers saying experience is the best teacher. Either way both show us that what you don’t know is attractive. If everything is connected and purposeful-like Rene and Nicoolo- opposites really do attract.