Another Discussion with My Professor

I just had another discussion with my professor of both my Political Theory and Political Literature classes. On this occasion we discussed topics surrounding my latest paper for Political Theory about Machiavelli's Mandragola. In the essay I argue that Machiavelli does not promote absolute selfishness in Mandragola. Absolute selfishness is acting selfishly by initiating force. This is, of course, different from what people usually associate with Machiavelli. Usually, Machiavelli is associated with promoting absolute selfishness, or opportunistic nihilism, which has also become to be known as acting Machiavellian due to its relation to Machiavelli's other book The Prince. I did not agree with everything Machiavelli promotes in Mandragola but I do believe he is on the right track. I would not say the purpose of life is fore pleasure, which seems to be the theme of Mandragola, but the purpose of life is to be happy, and pleasure is certainly closer to being happy then what religion suggests or the state suggests.
However, the discussion with my professor became interesting when he explained just how influential Machiavelli was. I remember he explained in class that Machiavelli is the father of modern political thought, and I understood that as meaning he was the first to provide a secular system for the state. This is of course true, but my professor said the real influence Machiavelli has is that he redefines the purpose of the state. Prior to Machiavelli the state was concerned with governing souls, or making virtuous people; however, Machiavelli changed the state's concern to the governing of bodies. This has had a dramatic impact on man.
In looking at history one can see that since the Renaissance, religious authority has been declining and continues to decline. However, thinkers and scientists like Machiavelli, Bacon, Locke, Newton, etc. did not directly attack religion, or the church, in order to achieve this. Instead they basically set up another camp. This camp was obviously far more rational than the religious camp because it was concerned with this world. If this world is so important, and it is, than the purpose of life cannot be to please a supernatural being so one can enjoy eternal paradise. If this world is so important then the purpose of life is to be happy in this life. Therefore, if happiness is the purpose to life, then the state can no longer be concerned with governing souls, creating virtuous men. The state must allow man to have the freedom to pursue his happiness. Thus, the state must govern bodies; the state must ensure that no individual violates any other individual's natural rights, so that individuals can pursue happiness. I agree with everything thus far and I have addressed most of this in previous posts.
The interesting problem that my professor pointed out that from this switch, governing souls to governing bodies, eternal paradise to worldly happiness, man has changed profoundly because man has forgot his soul. Now, I do not believe in souls, they have some type of religious spiritual connotation that just reeks of irrationality; however, I do believe man has a self, which is composed of an individual's personality, behavior, but most importantly, his philosophy. I not a historian and I did not live in the pre-Renaissance world, so I have no idea whether men were more or less concerned with governing their souls, or selves, before the Renaissance, but before the Renaissance men's selves were being governed. Granted, how they were being governed was vicious in two ways. First, when the state assumes the authority to govern selves then the state must violate individuals' natural rights; thus, it acts viciously. Second, the state was governing selves with religious morality, specifically altruistic Christian morality. The state was using an irrational system that told individuals not to live their own lives but to live for a supernatural being's life. This is obviously vicious. However, when Machiavelli changed the state's purpose it appears as though man did not follow the change. The state went from governing selves to governing bodies, but man did not start governing his self. Instead man just followed the state and governed his body even more. The best example I can provide for this is one my professor used. He said presently people are less concerned about pornography and more concerned about smoking. I originally said I agreed with him and did not understand why people were so obsessed with smoking, but later I understood everything he was saying. Smoking harms the physical body, while pornography harms the self. Whether both halves of this statement is true or not is beside the point. There are plenty of other examples to show man is more concerned with governing his body than his self. For another example, many of my acquaintances were obsessed with going to the gym; however, few of them have thought twice about drinking. Now, let me set the record straight, I am completely against neither pornography nor drinking; however, I do see moral problems with both. The moral problems with drinking are actually addressed in my spring break post. As for smoking, I almost have no problem with smoking. I would actually sooner smoke a cigarette than drink alcohol.
The problem I am trying to point out is that when government switched from governing selves to governing bodies, and man decided to govern his body instead of his self, man's self was forgotten, man's self is decaying. There are a variety of moral problems man faces. He praises altruism, protects religion, protects the state, lies excessively, traumatizes children, praises the initiation of force, etc. These are products of the fact that man's self is ungoverned. Of course, I am not arguing that the state should start governing selves again. As I stated before, that is vicious. I am also not saying man should leave his body to the way side, for a man's physical body constitutes a part of his self. I am just arguing man needs to begin governing his self. He needs to practice philosophy, true philosophy. Not the bull shit philosophy of Michel Foucault. Philosophy meaning the search for truth. He must be concerned with his reason, his motives. He must understand what he believes. Man must become concerned with morality.