In accordance to chapter 26, the idea of deception might be key to understanding this phrase. That is, the idea of knowing that a prince cannot adopt all the "good" traits that are stated above would most likely leave him to "act" as if he adopts all those traits. Thus, deceiving others through such false traits is something that would not only maintain his power in regards to the stability of his principality, but it would also avoid the different forms of uprisings that might take place because of realizations that are ought to take place within the analytical frameworks that the people are ought to subconsciously adopt while trying to make sense of their surroundings. Furthermore, it does seem that Machiavelli's words seem to highlight the fact that human nature is a precursor for the limitations for being "perfect" as it cannot handle such pressures that perfection induces naturally. Thus, the more a prince applies Machiavelli's advises of "awareness", the more probable the maintenance and sustainability of his position in power becomes.

This phrase is quite intriguing as it highlights the main flaws that people tend to fall victim to. The idea that people are ought to be destroyed from the evil around them through altering the efforts and approaches that they tend to invest and take for reaching virtue is an unfortunate, yet a realist perspective towards this problem. Hence, imagining the future is very much idealist because the product of such imagination is an ideal setting in which all wants. needs, and desires are achieved in. For this Machiavelli tries to explain to us the subconscious acts that we "the people" tend to fall to, thus allowing us to be aware of both our surroundings and most importantly our internal strive to achieve greatness via our imaginative capabilities (which, in this case, would be achieved and objectified if and only if we take the first point into consideration relative to the second point).

Referring to the second point I annotated.

This is somewhat relatable to chapters 12-13. The idea of a prince having his own soldiers is one that is highly regarded as a "need" more than a "want", a need to secure his own power relative to other externalities (such asa hiring mercenaries) that might pose a threat to his position within the socio-political hierarchy. However, what is added here is the value of cruelty. In other words, in order to unite the soldiers, a prince must value cruelty and thus implement it within his relations between him and his soldiers, hence securing his position via securing the positions of the soldiers relative to his governance/authority/power. With that being stated, duties would be achieved, objectives are reached, and missions are accomplished all under the banner of "unification via cruelty".

I can't help but see the values that are embedded within this line to the extent that I would questions whether Machiavelli could be considered as a nihilist or not? The idea of valuing the latter over the former is one that is highly questionable given the various belief systems that people (generally) abide by. Therefore, Machiavelli, in this case, is demoralizing the value of the former and strengthening the value for the latter, hence redistributing and allocating certain traits that would redefine "virtue" within the realm of power (as a constituent of human desire), which yields to redefining what morality, through an attempt of inducing moral realism , is.

This is quite interesting in terms of "seeking the truth". In other words, many theorists and philosophers (specifically moral philosophers) are keen in identifying the "truth" in many aspects of life. With that being said, I would presume that Machiavelli believes that he witnessed, and thus identified, the truth within his works, one in which would unlock many hidden aspects of human behavior and its direct lineage to nature (in that case it would be human nature). The idea of contributing the notion of love and respect in relation to fear is one that not only produces a philosophical argument that identifies the strength of such correlation, but it would also highlight the truth behind our actions through understanding the reasons of why such actions took place relative to the contexts that people are ought to be situated in. Thus, when understanding such correlations it is easier for us to capture the essence of ruling, one (in Machiavelli's perspective) in which is heavily related to the induction of fear within the relationship between the ruler and the people rather than inducing "love" between both parties. That is, love in this case is a sign of weakness, a trait that would obliterate any form of legitimate ruling as people are innately "exploitive". Exploitive, in this case, represents the idea of people taking advantage of "love" and "peace" for their own wellbeing, which in this case would absorb the power of the ruler for themselves. This would, in turn, shift the balance of power within the monarchy, and with that we can conclude that the people would be much more powerful than the ruler, hence allowing the people "rule" the ruler (this then leads to either deposing the ruler, conditioning the power of the ruler, etc.).

In my opinion this is a crucial normative statement that one should take into consideration while reading this chapter. The critical and analytical explanation to which Machiavelli proposes to us in regards to a prince's set of traits are ones that could also be applied to modern day leaders, specifically authoritarian rulers. Why have I decided to included modern day authoritarian rulers? This is because in order for an authoritarian ruler to legitimize him/her self, he/she should ought to 1. not show fear as it might alter his/her position within the overarching socio-political realm within a given society through displaying weakness and vulnerability, and 2. in order to mask such undesired motives , he/she is ought to act in ways that of which would appeal to the masses as the "righteous leader", a leader that would bring about peace, prosperity, and stability within the lives of the citizens via the right amount of temperament induced within his/her decision making processes. Once again, I suppose that if applying such analysis on a leader, one would also validly theorize and analyze this leader through the lens of political psychology, one of which would theorize his/her actions based on certain psychological criteria that would, in turn, enhance our understanding of some of the implicitly induced motives within the actions and decisions that this same leader chooses to implement.

Add Something