The “Boundary” of the Socratic-Christian Order

The research goal is to identify the issue of “boundary” in Machiavelli’s political thought. Machiavelli criticized the state of contemporary culture, particularly the world of politics, which was subordinated to moral principles. The subject of this article is not a description of Machiavelli’s political thought per se, but rather an examination of the issue of boundary in the context of the above interpretations. The research method is based on textual analysis. The first part points to the boundary in the context of the European Socratic-Christian order, which serves as a prelude to a more detailed definition of boundary in human life. The second part describes the boundary of human well-being. The third part addresses the issue of the boundary of human action in politics, constituting the conclusion and culmination of the problem. Machiavelli opposes the Socratic-Christian order and its principles to draw a line between the religious and the political. He inverts the moral order. The existing boundaries between good and evil lose their validity in politics, where utility becomes the decisive criterion. Power, however, has its defined limits within which it can pursue its plan to seize power – on the one hand, it is the unpredictable Fortune, on the other, virtú must be within the bounds of humanity. In conclusion, the author points out that the boundaries of political activity are determined by the unpredictability and changeability of circumstances, or the absolute impossibility of transcending the idea of humanity. The novelty of Machiavelli’s thought lies in the fact that humanity should be the center of attention and the subject of all reflection.