<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Dikaiosis&#039;s Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dikaiosis.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dikaiosis.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>Machiavelli</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:25:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on (Machiavellian) Guidelines for scholarly reviews in the Real world by hzdelaoma</title>
		<link>http://dikaiosis.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/machiavellian-guidelines-for-reviewing-in-the-real-world-2/#comment-92</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hzdelaoma]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:25:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dikaiosis.wordpress.com/?p=168#comment-92</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Love the Guidelines.  Great preparation for setting the ambience for some of the reviews that you respond to.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Love the Guidelines.  Great preparation for setting the ambience for some of the reviews that you respond to.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Benner Machiavelli 1: irony and esoteric writing by dikaiosis</title>
		<link>http://dikaiosis.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/benner-machiavelli-1-irony-and-esoteric-writing/#comment-91</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[dikaiosis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 03:17:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dikaiosis.wordpress.com/?p=204#comment-91</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Not quite, Bernardo. I love a good debate and enjoy discussing criticisms of my work. And I&#039;m not exactly shocked to find that some scholars disagree with me. But yes, I do want to defend my views in a civil and reasoned way. If responding to criticisms makes a scholar &quot;defensive&quot;, mea culpa.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not quite, Bernardo. I love a good debate and enjoy discussing criticisms of my work. And I&#8217;m not exactly shocked to find that some scholars disagree with me. But yes, I do want to defend my views in a civil and reasoned way. If responding to criticisms makes a scholar &#8220;defensive&#8221;, mea culpa.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Benner Machiavelli 1: irony and esoteric writing by Bernardo</title>
		<link>http://dikaiosis.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/benner-machiavelli-1-irony-and-esoteric-writing/#comment-90</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bernardo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:41:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dikaiosis.wordpress.com/?p=204#comment-90</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Benner is clearly the least defensive scholar out there. How dare anyone make any manner of critical comment, ever! Outrageous!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Benner is clearly the least defensive scholar out there. How dare anyone make any manner of critical comment, ever! Outrageous!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Reply to Nederman&#8217;s NDPR review of Erica Benner, Machiavelli&#8217;s Ethics. by Philasophia</title>
		<link>http://dikaiosis.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/ndpr-review-and-reply/#comment-23</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philasophia]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:25:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dikaiosis.wordpress.com/?p=20#comment-23</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Alice&quot; needs to be chastened and should be less ambitious?? Oh dear. What a sad, uncomfortable outpouring in that last part. And how sad that some people still can&#039;t accept women scholars thinking big all by themselves (incredible!) or producing truly &quot;ambitious&quot; work. Yes, even on subjects like Machiavelli.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Alice&#8221; needs to be chastened and should be less ambitious?? Oh dear. What a sad, uncomfortable outpouring in that last part. And how sad that some people still can&#8217;t accept women scholars thinking big all by themselves (incredible!) or producing truly &#8220;ambitious&#8221; work. Yes, even on subjects like Machiavelli.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Reply to Nederman&#8217;s NDPR review of Erica Benner, Machiavelli&#8217;s Ethics. by Thomas Malmer</title>
		<link>http://dikaiosis.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/ndpr-review-and-reply/#comment-14</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thomas Malmer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 May 2010 21:20:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dikaiosis.wordpress.com/?p=20#comment-14</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#039;s a short but more accurate review:

http://www.cro2.org/default.aspx?page=reviewdisplay&amp;pid=3534040

Benner, Erica. Machiavelli&#039;s Ethics. Princeton, 2009. 527p bibl index afp; ISBN 9780691141763, $75.00; ISBN 9780691141770 pbk, $35.00. Reviewed in 2010apr CHOICE.

This major new study of Machiavelli&#039;s moral and political philosophy by Benner (Yale) argues that most readings of Machiavelli suffer from a failure to appreciate his debt to Greek sources, particularly the Socratic tradition of moral and political philosophy. Benner argues that when read in the light of his Greek sources, Machiavelli appears as much less the immoralist or sophist he often is taken for and instead as a serious moral philosopher very much concerned with the republican ideals of justice and the rule of law. The author does not ignore Machiavelli&#039;s more infamous dicta, but argues that a careful reading shows that they are expressions of views he ultimately rejects. Particularly noteworthy here is her careful attention to Machiavelli&#039;s Florentine Histories. Benner&#039;s reading of Machiavelli is far too complex and subtle for such a brief summary. Her research is meticulous and her arguments finely honed. This important contribution to both Machiavelli studies and the history of political philosophy will be indispensable for scholars. Summing Up: Highly recommended. Graduate students and faculty/researchers. -- B. T. Harding]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s a short but more accurate review:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cro2.org/default.aspx?page=reviewdisplay&#038;pid=3534040" rel="nofollow">http://www.cro2.org/default.aspx?page=reviewdisplay&#038;pid=3534040</a></p>
<p>Benner, Erica. Machiavelli&#8217;s Ethics. Princeton, 2009. 527p bibl index afp; ISBN 9780691141763, $75.00; ISBN 9780691141770 pbk, $35.00. Reviewed in 2010apr CHOICE.</p>
<p>This major new study of Machiavelli&#8217;s moral and political philosophy by Benner (Yale) argues that most readings of Machiavelli suffer from a failure to appreciate his debt to Greek sources, particularly the Socratic tradition of moral and political philosophy. Benner argues that when read in the light of his Greek sources, Machiavelli appears as much less the immoralist or sophist he often is taken for and instead as a serious moral philosopher very much concerned with the republican ideals of justice and the rule of law. The author does not ignore Machiavelli&#8217;s more infamous dicta, but argues that a careful reading shows that they are expressions of views he ultimately rejects. Particularly noteworthy here is her careful attention to Machiavelli&#8217;s Florentine Histories. Benner&#8217;s reading of Machiavelli is far too complex and subtle for such a brief summary. Her research is meticulous and her arguments finely honed. This important contribution to both Machiavelli studies and the history of political philosophy will be indispensable for scholars. Summing Up: Highly recommended. Graduate students and faculty/researchers. &#8212; B. T. Harding</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Reply to Nederman&#8217;s NDPR review of Erica Benner, Machiavelli&#8217;s Ethics. by a serious reader</title>
		<link>http://dikaiosis.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/ndpr-review-and-reply/#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[a serious reader]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 14:54:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dikaiosis.wordpress.com/?p=20#comment-11</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree. Maybe some people want to resist a strong case for a new interpretation simply because there&#039;s been nothing like it for hundreds of years. And probably they simply can&#039;t believe that somebody should have made such a strong case in such an independent manner. But I think it will prove irresistible over time, maybe as the best book on Machiavelli since Machiavelli&#039;s days.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree. Maybe some people want to resist a strong case for a new interpretation simply because there&#8217;s been nothing like it for hundreds of years. And probably they simply can&#8217;t believe that somebody should have made such a strong case in such an independent manner. But I think it will prove irresistible over time, maybe as the best book on Machiavelli since Machiavelli&#8217;s days.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Reply to Nederman&#8217;s NDPR review of Erica Benner, Machiavelli&#8217;s Ethics. by Giovanni G.</title>
		<link>http://dikaiosis.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/ndpr-review-and-reply/#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Giovanni G.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 19:55:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dikaiosis.wordpress.com/?p=20#comment-4</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A strange review. I have not read the whole book, but the first chapters I saw make very strong arguments about the Greeks with many clear illustrations. I understand people will want to argue, but pretending there is no real argument looks like “bad faith”. Also I find inconsistent that he accepts your most controversial and “innovative” argument that Machiavelli has a special kind of ethics, but still wants to say the book is not so original or well founded.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A strange review. I have not read the whole book, but the first chapters I saw make very strong arguments about the Greeks with many clear illustrations. I understand people will want to argue, but pretending there is no real argument looks like “bad faith”. Also I find inconsistent that he accepts your most controversial and “innovative” argument that Machiavelli has a special kind of ethics, but still wants to say the book is not so original or well founded.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
