LH
- What qualities do you think an effective leader needs to have? Do you agree with Machiavelli? 53
- Do you approve of Borgia's "trick"? 54
- Should leaders rule by fear? If you think so, is that because you have a low view of human nature? 55
- Was Hobbes right about what life outside society, in a "state of nature," would be like? 58 If you think so, does that justify an authoritarian police state?
- Is your fear of violent death so great that you value your safety more than you value your freedom? 60
- Hobbes was a materialist, denying the existence of an immaterial soul. 60 But could there be a material (physical) soul?
FL
- What do you think of Arthur C. Clarke's statement about technology and magic? (FL 75)
- Does homeopathy fulfill the Hippocatic Oath? 76
- What do you think of phrenology? 78
- What do you think of Mary Baker Eddy's (and Christian Science's) claim that evil "has no reality"? 79
- Was the Gold Rush a good "inflection point" for America? 84
- Do we overrate our chances of entrepreneurial success in America, "from Ben Franklin to Mark Zuckerberg"? 85
HWT
- Is the space between things really "empty," if it's what makes the relations and relationships between people and things meaningful? 125
- "Every part contains the whole"... "The entirety of space is within each blade of grass." These statements are literally false, aren't they? but are they true in some important metaphorical sense that you can explain? 127
- "Often the best evidence of absence is indeed the observation of absence." Can you think of an example (besides "no butter in the fridge")? 128
- "Time does not exist inherently" according to Buddhism. How, then, does it exist? [NOTE: See The Big Think...]
- Reality generally does not exist "inherently," say Buddhists, but is impermanent ("All things pass") and should not be an object of "grasping" and "attachment, etc."129 Does this perspective remind you of Stoicism?
- Is the instruction of Japanese coaches to their players to put themselves in a state of mushin ("no mind") good advice? 130 (I'm reminded of Yogi Berra: "You can't hit and think at the same time." Also Johnny Damon: "If you think, you only hurt the team.")
- "We should not cling to that which does not last." 132 But while we're here, shouldn't we cling to one another for mutual support?
- "Where the west tends to contrast natural with 'human-made', in China humanity does not stand apart from nature but is fully part of it." 134 But is there a danger of carrying this attitude too far, and saying (for instance) that human pollution and aggression (etc.) are a proper part of nature too... thus becoming destructive of nature? Consider, for instance, the Aboriginal Australians... (141)
- Does it matter if we're the dreamer, or the dream? 139
- What do you think of the Japanese infatuation with robots? 142
- Are Anglo-Europeans abnormal (or WEIRD, as that acronym we were discussing has it) to separate the spiritual from the physical? 143 (Or the sacred from the secular?)
- Should we reject dualistic thinking, such as the mind-body distinction? 144
Niccolò Machiavelli
Our assessment of politicians is torn between hope and disappointment. On the one hand, we have an idealistic idea that a politician should be an upright hero, a man or woman who can breathe new moral life into the corrupt workings of the state. However, we are also regularly catapulted into cynicism when we realise the number of backroom deals and the extent of the lying that politicians go in for. We seem torn between our idealistic hopes and our pessimistic fears about the evil underbelly of politics. Surprisingly, the very man who gave his name to the word “Machiavellian,” a word so often used to describe the worst political scheming, can help us understand the dangers of this tired dichotomy. Machiavelli’s writings suggest that we should not be surprised if politicians lie and dissemble, but nor should we think them immoral and simply “bad” for doing so. A good politician – in Machiavelli’s remarkable view – isn’t one who is kind, friendly and honest, it is someone – however occasionally dark and sly they might be – who knows how to defend, enrich and bring honour to the state. Once we understand this basic requirement, we’ll be less disappointed and clearer about what we want our politicians to be.Niccolò Machiavelli was born in Florence in 1469. His father was a wealthy and influential lawyer, and so Machiavelli received an extensive formal education and got his first job as a secretary for the city, drafting government documents. But soon after his appointment, Florence exploded politically, expelled the Medici family, who had ruled it for sixty years and suffered decades of political instability, as a consequence of which Machiavelli experienced a series of career reversals... (continues)
Thomas Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes was a 17th-century English philosopher who is on hand to guide us through one of the thorniest issues of politics: to what extent should we patiently obey rulers, especially those who are not very good – and to what extent should we start revolutions and depose governments in search of a better world?
Hobbes’s thinking is inseparable from one major event that began when he was 64 years old – and was to mark him so deeply, it coloured all this subsequent thinking (remarkably he died when he was 91 and everything he is remembered for today he wrote after the age of 60).
This event was the English Civil war, a vicious, divisive, costly and murderous conflict that raged across England for almost a decade and pitted the forces of King against Parliament, leading to the deaths of some 200,000 people on both sides.
Hobbes was by nature a deeply peaceful and cautious man. He hated violence of all kinds, a disposition that began at the age of four, when his own father, a clergyman, was disgraced, and abandoned his wife and family, after he’d got into a fight with another vicar on the steps of his parish church in a village in Wiltshire.
The work for which we chiefly remember Hobbes, Leviathan, was published in 1651. It is the most definitive, persuasive and eloquent statement ever produced as to why one should obey government authority, even of a very imperfect kind, in order to avoid the risk of chaos and bloodshed. To understand the background of Hobbes’s conservatism, it helps to realise that across western Europe in the 17th century, political theorists were beginning to ask, with a new directness, on what basis subjects should obey their rulers... (continues)
==
Old posts-
Machiavelli & Hobbes, Osgood & Scully
What a memorable weekend, beginning Friday night with Ron Howard’s Eight Days A Week at the Belcourt. The lads from Liverpool are timelessly, endlessly inspiring. Opie still impresses too.
Then there was Saturday’s superior sushi at Sonobana. Try the crawdad roll, if you go.
Yesterday’s departure of two grand old men, honeyed voices of the airwaves I’ve been making a ritual point of hearing my entire adult lifetime, was even more moving than anticipated: Charles Osgood, from Sunday Morning, and Vin Scully, from the Dodgers. Two more exemplary long lives for my collection, two more ringing endorsements of Theodore Geisel’s smart optimism: “Don’t cry because it’s over, smile because it happened.” See you on the radio, Charley. And a very pleasant good evening to you, Vin. It’s been good to know you both, though of course we’ve never actually met. The connective power of broadcast speech outpaces mere proximity, and shrinks the planet in the best way.
The lives they’ve lived stand as a strong rebuke to the low estimation of humanity we find in today’s CoPhi philosophers, a pair of Power Politics proponents who expected the worst from people.
Italian Niccolo Machiavelli was all about appearances. He admired lions and foxes but seems in many ways to have been more like a chameleon, changing colors and stripes to suit situations, procure patronage, and manipulate people. Really, though, only the human animal is capable of the kind of duplicity and means-end rationalization he urged. Russell liked him more than I do, for his absence of “humbug.” If “success” in a leader means simply staying power, a talent for deception, and a mania for winning, I vote for failure.
Brit Thomas Hobbes (“Tommy,” my first PoliSci prof familiarly named him, “mainlining on utopia”) was a peripatetic who derived great energy from his daily perambulations. Frederic Gros doesn’t tell us that in his little “Energy” chapter, but Hobbes would certainly have agreed that the solid support of earth under foot makes realistic alliance with the pull of gravity. He thought we ought to build similar stability into our public institutions.
“He would go out for a long walk every morning, striding quickly up hills so as to get quickly out of breath” and to get ideas, which he preserved by extracting a quill from his walking stick. He seems to have been hail, healthy, hardy, and happy, living into his 90s (but not an optimist). Not the guy you’d expect to stump for a maximum state like his awe-inspiring mortal God “Leviathan.”
Hobbes was a “rigid determinist” but something got him up and going each morning, out into the English countryside. Did it really feel involuntary? Does it? Not to me.
Hobbes was a “rigid determinist” but something got him up and going each morning, out into the English countryside. Did it really feel involuntary? Does it? Not to me.
He didn’t find any intrinsic difference between religion and superstition, but thought the former might have its uses for the state. Like everything else, legislation governing what belief and conduct to allow in “utopia” is supposed to make life (not people, contrary to what a student once told me) less nasty, brutish, and short. Hobbes had nothing against vertically challenged individuals.
It’s a good day to be thinking about what qualities we desire in our leader and our nation. I’m not holding my breath for an edifying debate tonight, but as Mr. Osgood always said: “we’ll be watching.” Too bad he and Vin aren’t on the ballot. As Vin once said, we’re all “day to day.”
6 am/6:40, 67/74/51, 6:36
Hobbes “walked much and contemplated”
Machiavelli and Hobbes are on tap in CoPhi today. Students often come to them already intrigued with the former but unaware of the latter, though both their names have become adjectival terms of notoriety. Beware Machiavellian politicos and their ends-justify-the-means mentality, we all seem to have been forewarned, and beware Machiaveliian schemers generally. But while the last century spawned chilling examples of totalitarianism and its murderous toll, fewer of us have been alerted to the dangers of the Hobbesian superstate.
The explanation could have something to do with the evident sweetness of temper of “Tommy” Hobbes (as my old poli-sci prof at UMSL called him), who envisioned Leviathan but exemplified something more like the lamb in his personal conduct and bearing. Simon Critchley’s Book of Dead Philosophers offers an endearing glimpse of a true English eccentric. He “avoided excess ‘as to wine and women’ and stopped drinking at age sixty,” he “walked vigorously every day to work up a sweat… and expel any excessive moisture,” he sang “prick-songs” late at night to stimulate his lungs and lengthen his life.
My favorite thing about Hobbes remains, naturally, his peripatetic nature. He walked to work up a sweat but also to stimulate ideas, which he’d interrupt himself long enough to record by disengaging the quill from his walking stick. “He walked much and contemplated,” says Aubrey’s Life, “and he had in the head of his cane a pen and ink-horn, carried always a note-book in his pocket, and as soon as a thought darted, he presently entered it into his book, or otherwise he might perhaps have lost it.”
Another explanation of the failure of “Hobbesian” to convey the menace it might is, of course, a certain sweet-natured cartoonish tiger-cat who resisted his namesake’s “war of all against all.”
Machiavelli, & civil disobedience
Mistrust, suspicion, refusal to really listen to others: these are symptomatic features of the world as Machiavelli (and Hobbes, coming next) knew it, a world full of testimonial injustice. Not to mention intrigue, plot, war, and violence. The more things change...
Niccolo Machiavelli praised virtu’ in a leader: manliness and valor are euphemistic translations, ruthless efficiency might be more to the point. The intended implication of "manly" is not so much machismo as hu-manity, with a twist. Machiavelli's manly prince judiciously wields and conceals the guile of the fox and the brutality of the lion, all the while brandishing an image of kindhearted wisdom. A wise prince, he said, does whatever it takes to serve the public interest as he sees it. But does he see it aright? Hard to tell, if you can’t believe a word he says. But Skinner and others think he's gotten a bad name unfairly. (See videos below.)
A new detective mystery starring Nicco has recently been published, btw, and was featured on NPR. “What would happen if two of the biggest names of the Renaissance — Niccolo Machiavelli and Leonardo da Vinci — teamed up as a crime-fighting duo?” Beats me, may have to read The Malice of Fortune. One of our groups, I think, is doing a midterm report on Superheroes & Villains. Room for one more?
I'm a bit puzzled by the sentimental fondness some seem to feel for "machiavellian" politicians. Haven't we had enough of those? Wouldn't we rather be led by Ciceronians and Senecans and Roosevelts, evincing qualities of compassion and (relative) transparency? Don't we wish them to affirm and work for the goals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Eleanor's great post-White House achievememt?
But, Bertie Russell agrees that Machiavelli has been ill-served by invidious judgments that assimilate him to our time's conventions and accordingly find him objectionable, instead of appreciating his fitness to live and serve in his own day. Russell praises his lack of "humbug." Give the devil his due.
“I never say what I believe and I never believe what I say,” declared Machiavelli. “If I sometimes say the truth, I conceal it among lies”... more»
“I never say what I believe and I never believe what I say,” declared Machiavelli. “If I sometimes say the truth, I conceal it among lies”... more»
Hobbes
“Hobbes was fond of his dram,” sang the Pythons. But he was fonder of his stick. His walking stick. (See below.)
I was amused when my old friend said he’d just spent five weeks in Britain and came away with nothing more philosophical than a visit to a castle where Hobbes had tutored. My colleague answered rightly by noting that an ancient English castle’s more likely to stimulate the philosophical imagination than is a dusty library in Tennessee. But in any event, Hobbes is a fascinating and over-maligned figure whose steps I look forward to tracking. As I wrote for students awhile back,
I was amused when my old friend said he’d just spent five weeks in Britain and came away with nothing more philosophical than a visit to a castle where Hobbes had tutored. My colleague answered rightly by noting that an ancient English castle’s more likely to stimulate the philosophical imagination than is a dusty library in Tennessee. But in any event, Hobbes is a fascinating and over-maligned figure whose steps I look forward to tracking. As I wrote for students awhile back,
Thomas Hobbes is one of my favorite “authoritarians”: a walker who kept an inkwell in his walking stick, he
lived to 91 in the 17th century and believed humans could be saved from themselves with the right kind of contract. Contrary to a student essay I once graded, he did not say pre-social contract humans were “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
lived to 91 in the 17th century and believed humans could be saved from themselves with the right kind of contract. Contrary to a student essay I once graded, he did not say pre-social contract humans were “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”Hobbes did say that’s what it would be like to live in a “state of nature,” without civil authority or police or government to keep the peace and impose order. It would be a “war of all against all.” If you don’t agree, asks Nigel Warburton in his Little History, why do you lock your doors?
Not, surely, because you think everyone’s out to get you. But it only takes a few miscreants, doesn’t it, to create an atmosphere of paranoia and mistrust?
I’d like to think Hobbes might reconsider the extremity of his position, were he transported to our time. On the other hand, we might reconsider the benignity of ours, were we transported to his. Those were tough times: civil war, a king executed, murderous politics, etc. How much freedom would you trade for peace and safety, if there were no other way to secure it? How much have you? How secure do you feel? Still relevant questions in our time, and Hobbes’s answers were extreme indeed. But he was no monster, he was a peace-seeker and a civilizer. Most walkers are.
But, would life in a state of nature really be as bad as Hobbes thought? Most of us find most people less than totally distrustful, hostile, aggressive, and vicious, most of the time. On the other hand, we’re most of us hardly “noble savages” either. Civilization and its discontent-engendering institutions account for a percentage of everyday bad behavior, but surely not all of it.
The Hobbesian threat of insecurity and fear of violent death, in our time, may be great enough for most people to override their desire for personal freedom. Is safety more important than liberty? “Better red (or whatever) than dead?” Better to have government snoops monitoring your calls, emails, etc., than… than what, exactly?
Even if you agree with Hobbes that humans left to themselves would revert to base, aggressive, instinctive behavior, you may still also hesitate to agree that the only corrective for this condition is an all-powerful and authoritative central state. You may prefer not to concede the mechanistic, material model of humans as incapable of changing, of choosing to become more kind and compassionate, less fearful and selfish. You may hold out for a species capable of rewriting its default programming.
Speculations about human nature as inherently good or bad have always slighted the individuality of persons, absorbing it in abstractions about universal nature. We should seek instead to grasp the particularity of our separate natures. Our separate plural natures.
“Common sense” gets things wrong often enough and egregiously enough – the flatness of earth, the rectitude of slavery, etc.? – to give serious pause. Uncommon sense is in shorter supply, and greater demand.
Finally today: Descartes’ dreams of reality and appearance, and ours. Mine are not usually so lucid, but others say otherwise of theirs. Is it really possible to alter the “real world” by controlling your dreams? I’m skeptical.
And can someone please explain “Inception” to me?
'The Prince' and 'Why Machiavelli Still Matters ...
The political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” as a manual on leadership and governing during the late Italian Renaissance, ...
Five centuries after “The Prince” was written, visiting spots in and around Florence that track the arc of Machiavelli's life.
Arthur Herman makes the case for assigning Machiavelli to Team Aristotle... Inside the Mind of Machiavelli (Salon)Looking for a firm modern presidential declaration of anti-Machiavellian sentiment? Jimmy Carter said: "A strong nation, like a strong person, can afford to be gentle, firm, thoughtful, and restrained. It can afford to extend a helping hand to others. It is a weak nation, like a weak person, that must behave with bluster and boasting and rashness and other signs of insecurity."
We're talking civil disobedience too, today. Again Nigel slights the Yanks, in not mentioningThoreau. “If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.” And,
Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them?
So, here's my Discussion Question today: Have you ever engaged in an act of deliberate law-breaking, in order to challenge what you considered an unjust law? Are there circumstances in which you would do so? Would you risk arrest on behalf of social justice, climate change, or anything else? Will you at least support those who do? Are you a compliantist, a gradualist, or a transgressive reformer?
Russell, incidentally, himself a civil disobedient in the great tradition of Socrates, Gandhi, King, et al - ("On April 15 1961, at the age of 89, Bertrand Russell gave a speech calling for non-violent civil disobedience in his campaign for British unilateralism, i.e. to get Britain to unilaterally give up its nuclear weapons and membership in NATO") - gives Thoreau only passing attention as an American representative of the romantic movement of the 19th century.
LISTEN: Jennifer Michael Hecht on Hobbes.
Section 8 Th. 28
ReplyDeleteResponses that didn’t go through.
Do you agree with Socrates' conception of what a successful conversation looks like (see LH p.2), or his definition of wisdom (p.3)?
I think defining a perfect conversation isn’t necessarily black and white. I do think that learning something or understanding someone else in conversation is a good thing.
Do you think Plato was on the right track when he compared the human condition to that of cave-dwellers who are clueless about what's "outside"? (p.5)
I agree with that. Your perspective and what you’re exposed to matters a lot for how you view the world. Not everyone is enlightened.
Would you want to live in Plato's so-called utopian Republic? (p.6)
Not so much especially with it being totalitarian and banning some art. I understand what he means when he says “letting the people vote was like letting the passengers steer a ship ”, but I like our democracy.
Have we become a nation more interested in "truthiness" than truth, in alternative "facts" and fake "realities"? (FL p.4)
I would say yes. There is so much information online and everyone's social media is tailored to them and what they are interested in. I would think misinformation is at an all time high today, after all how many people say they got their news from Facebook or Tik Tok or some other social network. Maybe some of the news is true, but for me when people say that’s where they got their information, discredits it.
Are you with the 2/3 of Americans who believe in angels and demons (etc.)? (p.6)
I wouldn’t say I believe angels and demons are active here on Earth. Maybe as a metaphor, yes.
Do you agree with Martin Luther's "only prerequisite for being a good Christian"? (17)
No, I think there is a lot more that can go into it. Is it about being a good Christian or being the best you can be to yourself and everyone else around you.
Do you enjoy encountering new (to you) ideas, philosophies, religions, traditions etc., and comparing them to your own? Do you find value in that? Do you think most people do? (HWT p.xiv)
Yes, all the time. I like to see how everyone else reasons with this crazy world. There are so many people and every one of them is different in individual ways, there is so much to learn from other people to gain some perspective at the least.
Do you agree that we cannot understand ourselves if we do not understand others? (xviii)
I think understanding others can give us a sense of reference to our identity.
Do you value reason and rationality, and generally the notion that we all have an obligation to base our ideas on defensible reasons? (xxiv)
Yes of course, who am I to tell someone that their view is wrong because it doesn’t line up with my views? If that’s what they believe maybe I can learn something from it, or maybe they can learn something from me.
Are multi-cultural, multi-lingual persons and societies more creative and insightful? (xxxii)
I believe that multi-cultural, multi-lingual people can be more insightful because it’s like their mind has more ways to think than those who aren’t as exposed to such diversity.
I agree, there are metaphoric angels and demons. Most of that 2/3 mean literal ones, I think.
DeleteSection 8
ReplyDeleteQuestions that didn't go through
T2 Questions that didn’t go through (2)
Do you think children can be "happy" (can they achieve a life of eudaimonia, can they "flourish") in the Aristotelian sense?
I do believe children can be happy. I don’t think it takes age to have happiness, but they haven’t experienced the true happiness as he explains.
How do you define happiness? Is it anything like eudaimonia? (LH p.11)
I think happiness is subjective but for me it is feeling content with life and how everything is going. However, I do believe it can come and go unlike eudaimonia.
Do you agree with Aristotle's approach to developing the right kind of character? (LH p.12)
I like the idea of it saying, don’t focus on THE happiness, focus on the characteristics and type of life that brings happiness. Which I don’t think you have to have these traits at an early age. They can be acquired.
Do you try to avoid relying on external authority, in deciding what to believe and how to live? (LH p. 14)
Yes, I “cherry pick” my beliefs from my experiences in life and not one person.
What do you think of Daniel Boorstin's suggestion about the shaping of American civilization? (FL p.22)
Was Francis Bacon right about humans' tendency to embrace superstition and notice only instances of experience that seem to confirm it, while selectively ignoring other instances that do not? (Fl p. 23)
I would say yes. It sounds like a “grass is always greener” style of thinking, not in a pessimistic way but the sense of hope for a better life. We only want to believe the facts that line up with the story we have subconsciously or consciously made up.
Do you think enlightenment and insight into genuine reality is more a matter of "seeing" and "meditating" in the Indian style (HWT p.9), or cogitating, conversing, and analyzing as western philosophers are more prone to do? Or is it best to combine both approaches?
I think it’s best to combine both of the approaches. I do agree with the idea of talking, thinking, and asking questions in a group but, “Life cannot be comprehended in its fullness by logical reason”. I think that speaks volumes and shows validity in the Indian style
What do you think of the idea that students should ALWAYS defer to their teachers, even when they're wrong? (HWT p.11)
I think it sounds a little extreme.
Yes, a little extreme. In fact, you should never "DEFER" if that means not thinking for yourself at all.
DeleteSection 8
ReplyDeleteQuestions that didn't go through
Th4
Is it advisable, or even possible, to go through life without firm opinions? (LH p.15)
Personally, I have facts I believe in firmly, but being open minded, my opinions aren’t as firm. Everybody's got opinions. Why should someone be so hardheaded and stuck in their ways that they can’t broaden their perspective to hear other opinions. Maybe even adopt them as their own beliefs. Then again people have opinions on everything. I’ve heard people will convince themselves that the parking spot they picked was the best
Should you always mistrust your senses, if they've occasionally misled you? (LH p. 16)
That sounds like some very abstract thinking to me honestly, or just not caring at all. I like the idea he had, not to rule out the possibility that the senses were providing accurate information but to keep an open mind.
Do you think it plausible that Pyrrho's skepticism might have been influenced by the philosophy he may have encountered as a young man in India? (LH p.18)
I have learnt that letting go in some moments and just accepting “if this is my time to go then it’s my time to go” and enjoying and accepting the moment for what it is instead of worrying about it you will have a better experience than if you didn't. Now this doesn’t go to the extremes as Pyrrho but in a sense I feel it is the same. Maybe he had a point, what does it matter living or dead. No one will know your name 100 years from now or 100 years ago, just living openly will ease your life. Not saying go out of your way to do something disastrously lethal, but live life and get out of your head.
Is it a promising strategy for happiness to "free yourself for desires and not care how things turn out"? (LH p.19)
It seems uplifting, but it sounds like settling to me. It’s like, “I don’t want to set goals because I don’t want to fail”. The aspect of accepting the moment for what it is, and not having desires don’t go hand in hand. I think “free yourself from worry for
T9
Was Epicurus right about fearing death, and the best way to live? 23
I agree with him. Fearing your death is a waste of time.
Are you an "epicure" in either the ancient or contemporary sense of the word? 24
I wouldn’t consider myself an epicure. Though I do like to treat myself sometimes, but it's more of a goal-oriented reward.
Was Wittgenstein right about death? 25
Yes. Death isn’t an event in your life. It will happen to you whether you expect it or not, and you can’t fight the truth. It eases the fear of death.
Have you experienced the loss of a loved one as a tragic "event" in your life?
Of course. Its just a part of life everyone has to get through. Everyone copes differently.
What do you think of the Stoics' "basic idea"? 29
I think that is a great way to think. A lot of the time we do find ourselves worrying about things we can’t change, and it is a waste of energy. Bad things that happen won’t bother you as much if you are aware and don’t let them.
Section 8
ReplyDeleteQuestions that didn't go through
Th11
What do you think of the Manichaean "solution" to the problem of suffering? 36-7
I think it’s the most logical explanation for it. Since God has given free will, we are allowed to decide our actions based on moral understanding. It is almost as if God is each of us, maybe a metaphor, but WE are the God. After all, you only hear yourself (the voice in your head) when you are praying.
Are you surprised at what Jefferson told his French friend about religion in America? 60
No, I think it makes sense. Southerners thought of church as the church of England until preachers started preaching a new type of religion that began to build momentum among the South.
Glad you're finally able to post.
DeleteSection 7
ReplyDeleteLH
1. What qualities do you think an effective leader needs to have? Do you agree with Machiavelli? 53
- I do agree that a successful leader should have valor, however I disagree that you need to be dishonest and break promises to remain in power.
2. Do you approve of Borgia's "trick"? 54
- No. I can see why you could kill someone who was going to kill you, but you can’t go around killing people who disagree with you, especially being a leader.
3. Should leaders rule by fear? If you think so, is that because you have a low view of human nature? 55
- No, you shouldn’t rule you people by fear. It would feel like a dictatorship.
4. Was Hobbes right about what life outside society, in a "state of nature," would be like? 58 If you think so, does that justify an authoritarian police state?
- I do agree with Hobbes that in a “state of nature” people would murder and steal when necessary. I don’t think it justifies an authoritarian police state. We do need a police force most definitely, but we do not need an authoritarian police state, that would be just as dangerous as living in a society in a “state of nature”.
5. Is your fear of violent death so great that you value your safety more than you value your freedom? 60
- My safety does mean a lot to me, but not more than my freedom. I don’t think people will run away and start their own society just because some people don’t feel as safe.
6. Hobbes did not believe in the existence of what?
- Souls
FL
1. What do you think of Arthur C. Clarke's statement about technology and magic? (FL 75)
- His statement “technology that seems magical and miraculous can encourage and confirm credulous people’s belief in make-believe magic and miracles” is enlightening. I had never thought of it in that way and I can see what he means by that.
HWT
1. Is the space between things really "empty," if it's what makes the relations and relationships between people and things meaningful? 125
- I don’t think what the author is trying to say is that it’s literally empty, I think what they mean is that it’s visually empty, and that you need to appreciate the tension of powers of energy between this space and the “flower” as used as an example in the book.
Oops, an old quiz question slipped in there ("Hobbes did not believe in the existence of ...")... but you're right, Caitlin, he didn't believe in IMMATERIAL souls, the sort that might retain their identity after losing a host body. He was a thorough-going materialist, like the old Greeks (Democritus, Epicurus et al) who believed in soul but didn't think it could survive the atomic dispersal we call death. I like question 7, about whether there can be material souls. Depends on what "soul" means to you, but to me it means (among other things) self-awareness, curiosity, engagement with life... so sure, we've got soul.
DeleteAnd the other interesting thing Clarke said about technology and magic was (paraphrasing) that the former would be indistinguishable from the latter, to a pre-scientific mind.
DeleteI appreciate your opinion regarding Hobbes theory of the State of Nature. Left to their own devices without structure or some form of authority, people will give in to their inert depravity. While in reality individual conduct will not all be as extreme as others, it is still fascinating the need many people have to submit to an authority figure in order to maintain moral, and in the cases where there is a government, legal integrity. It is certainly in the hands of the people in a society whether they have the acuity to determine whether a leader will lead or totally exert control over the same society.
Delete1) What qualities do you think an effective leader needs to have? Do you agree with Machiavelli?
ReplyDeleteTo start off, his idea of manliness is associated with the idea that only men can lead which I find to be false. However, His claim that a great leader must be brave and seize the moment is idea that I greatly agree with. He also states the idea that luck play at least half a part in our success and I couldn't agree more that a lot of peoples success such as billionaires, actors etc. all of them will tell you that you just have to be in the right place at the right time. But his tidbit about how your actions can increase your chances are also true, that if you make the effort in something you want, you can increase the odds of your luck happening by a lot.
My own beliefs of what a good leader should be is one who is empathetic, strong willpower and courage and steadfast when faced with the hard decisions leaders must make. One that also can not only do what he ask those under him to, but also be the best at doing it to set a example. Humility also plays a role in my belief as you must realize that you simply point those who accomplish the task in the right direction.
2) "Every part contains the whole"... "The entirety of space is within each blade of grass." These statements are literally false, aren't they? but are they true in some important metaphorical sense that you can explain?
Not only is the metaphoric meaning of the statement true, but also the literally sense as well. the entire universe is connected to one another and are composed of the same stuff. Take us as humans for example, we are made up of dead star dust, so when you look at the sun your seeing atoms and molecules splitting and burning that the cells and atoms in our own bodies did billions of years ago in a star not much different from our own. So everything is connected as we are all made of the same things from the same place, the big bang. Metaphorically, we are all connected as well. We may not look the same as a pig or a lion but we all operate in the same confines of our universe and live our lives side by side. We as a individual may be small in the grand scheme of things, but our part we play in our lives continue our species as a whole and what each of us do individually could change the course of the universe drastically similar to the butterfly effect.
Everything's connected and ultimately from the same "stuff," but I'm still unsure about "contains" as a literal relation. On the other hand, I recall an Emily Dickinson line I like quite a lot: "The brain is wider than the sky..." It contains that idea of the larger entity. We can think a universe.
DeleteSection 8
ReplyDeleteWas Hobbes right about what life outside society, in a "state of nature," would be like? 58 If you think so, does that justify an authoritarian police state?
I think Hobbes presents an interesting perspective as it relates to this topic of how society actually functions. I do believe that if there were not consequences in place for various criminal actions than the criminal activity in the United States would increase tremendously. I think we would see more of the uglier sides of humanity than we have already seen. I think order, laws, and systems of justice are necessary. In America specifically, there has been tremendous injustice towards people of color and when mentioning police this is the first thing that comes to mind. Policing is important, but reform is needed in this country. We need government and systems, but the systems we have are particularly oppressive towards people in marginalized communities and communities of color. The "state of nature" that America finds itself in is one that is still created to work in favor of a certain demographic, and because of this I think there needs to be a new "state of nature" in our country specifically
Do we overrate our chances of entrepreneurial success in America, "from Ben Franklin to Mark Zuckerberg"? 85
The entrepreneurial attitude that is so prevalent in America is not a bad thing, but I do think that people overrate their chances of success an as entrepreneur. I am a musician and the field I am going to entering into is a creative one where artistic control, collaboration, and freedom are aspects of it. I understand the desire to create something that is fully your own. However, I think people embark on this journey hoping to become the next big success story without realizing the work required for them to actually have success. Many of the most successful entrepreneurs had to fail a few times before becoming successful. These failures are things that people do not want to face. Because of this, America is filled with "entrepreneurs" who are convinced that they are going to make it big, but who have absolutely no idea of what it actually takes to create success and wealth.
Is the space between things really "empty," if it's what makes the relations and relationships between people and things meaningful? 125
This is a deep question that caught my attention instantly. The idea of space is one with a lot of layers. I do not think space between two things is "empty." For example, if you were to consider to people in love who were away from each other, that space between them would be filled with other emotions. There would be longing, reminiscence, and anticipation for their return. Because of the space between these two people they were filled with these emotions and they would recognize the importance of that person in their lives. Consider music, whenever there is a rest or space within a piece of music it is always one of the most important aspects of that piece. Basically what I am trying to say is that space is not empty, but rather it is the means by which other things are able to be revealed.
Response Log:
Replied to a comment for Jan 28
Responded to questions for Jan 28
Responded to questions for Feb 2nd
Responded to questions for Feb 4th
Responded to questions for Feb 9th
Responded to questions for Feb 11th
We've certainly seen instances of "state of nature" degeneracy lately, in the way some people abuse and deny the rights of other people in what does indeed take on the appearance of a state of war. So the specific nature of the humans who behave badly needs to change. It needs civilizing. Big part of that is that we all need to respect the rule of law, we need to respect the humanity of our peers, and we need to respect truth and reality. That's gonna take some more work.
DeleteSection #4 Jones
ReplyDeleteWhat qualities do you think an effective leader needs to have? Do you agree with Machiavelli? 53
An effective leader should be self-confident, and one who has faith in God, who is humble, not seeking personal rewards. One who has a clear understanding of what the next step should be.
Should leaders rule by fear? If you think so, is that because you have a low view of human nature? 55
No. It is much better to gain cooperation and trust from the ones you are leading.
Do you approve of Borgia's "trick"? 54
No. Borgia’s tactics were cruel and inhumane. No one should never take something they are not capable of giving. Life is something man can’t give
I don't agree that an effective leader must believe in god. I do agree that an effective leader should be humble, selfless, resolute, respectful of human rights, concerned for the public good etc., all qualities that in my view are separate from theology.
DeleteWhat it takes to be an effective leader is not easy to sum up into just a few sentences. I agree with you that a leader should possess qualities such as confidence, humbleness, and an ability to invigorate a sense of unity. However, it would seem that the people who do possess those qualities are rarely the people found in leadership positions. Whether the person is elected, appointed, hired as a private employee, it is impossible to know anyone's heart. We can see the outward manifestation of who they claim to be, but all of these things don't necessarily add up to being a good leader.
DeleteI find your belief that an effective leader must have faith in God to be interesting. I disagree that any form of theology is necessary to be an effective leader. A leader could be more effective in the sense that he or she is committed to a higher moral standard. I would think a good leader's faith in God is not as much of a necessary leadership quality, but is more of a way for the leader to hold himself accountable which manifests as having discernment and having a giving heart.
What do you think of Arthur C. Clarke's statement about technology and magic? (FL 75)
ReplyDeleteMy view of technology is something that is tangible and practical. Magic does not have to be practical, for example; why would anyone want to pull a rabbit out of a hat?
Well, Clarke meant that primitive people and societies can't distinguish science from magic, and hence confuse technology with the latter. They become prone to magical thinking, and believe things that are false.
DeleteBut I agree, I've never understood the appeal of magicians and magic shows. To each their own, though.
Section 7
ReplyDeleteWhat qualities do you think an effective leader needs to have? Do you agree with Machiavelli? 53
I think that an effective leader needs vigilance and understanding. They need knowledge and wisdom in the choices that they make. A good leader needs vulnerability in heart and not actions, not to be confused for weakness, just to show that he or she is human too reliability in a sense. If I interpreted what he is saying correctly then Id say he meant a leaders best quality if to be in position for success and the betterment of his people regardless of the situation. Where proper preparation prevents poor performance.
Should leaders rule by fear? If you think so, is that because you have a low view of human nature? 55
No. Fear doesn’t last long, respect does. The Quality of a nation that relies on fear is how America got into the position we are in right now. A solution driven peoples that has respect for a leader is how you get to futuristic gains. Respect is earned not given. Fear is forced and when things are forced they don’t last.
Is your fear of violent death so great that you value your safety more than you value your freedom?
ReplyDeleteSection 4
I would say I live life very carefully and cautiously. In high school, I barely took any risks and followed the rules as closely as I could. I have tried to emerge from that phase since college started. I even started skateboarding at the beginning of fall semester, which I previously considered a dangerous activity. Whenever I am trying something new or “dangerous”, I often think too much of the negatives and how things can go wrong instead of enjoying the moment and trying something new. My risk taking has been extremely lowered ever since I dislocated my knee in junior year of high school. I used to play soccer and be so reckless on the field but now I get terrified to run and kick the ball. I am even scared to go on trampolines anymore!
No doubt in my mind I value safety over my freedom. I have made an amazing group of friends who are all risk-takers, and they don’t know it, but they are slowly helping me value my freedom more than safety, even though that sounds bad! They are helping me see the positives instead of the negatives. For example, today we all went sledding since it was so icy outside. I couldn’t help but imagine myself, or my friends, falling off the sled and breaking a wrist or hitting their head on the ice. I was so hesitant. That’s the best word to describe me: hesitant. Now maybe it was peer pressure, but they slowly helped me build the confidence to go down and it was some of the best fun I have ever had. And I almost missed that opportunity, for what? A “what if” scenario I created in my head?!
I have severe FOMO and I try to make as many fun memories as possible but since I am also very cautious and scared of getting hurt, I contradict myself.
I am not more scared of death, due to the previous chapter that addressed this, but I am more scared of an injury. Death is sudden and painless and unmemorable but being injured is completely felt and remains for a long time. I remember when I dislocated my knee, I was in pain for 2 hours straight without the help of any pain relievers and I want to do everything I can to avoid that pain again. Injuries also take time, and I would hate to miss out. Also, injuries can prevent me from experiences AFTER I heal, like how I can’t really go on trampolines anymore or truly go into a full sprint without being scared. I constantly play these mind games and cut off my own freedom.
I relate to you so much on this. I grew up with a mom that was constantly warning of the bad things that would happen even if I took the slightest risk. Eventually, half way in my senior year my boyfriend introduced to me the idea that living life with no regrets is worth living for
DeleteI think regrets are okay, if they guide us constructively to make better (and sometimes riskier) choices in the future. But it does no good to get stuck in ruminations about the unchangeable past. But life itself is at constant risk, we never know what's coming down the pike. Might as well go meet it.
Delete
ReplyDeleteWhat qualities do you think an effective leader needs to have? Do you agree with Machiavelli? 53
Should leaders rule by fear? If you think so, is that because you have a low view of human nature? 55
There are certain qualities an effective leader must possess. For example, leaders must be willing to make difficult decisions with the good of the whole in mind. A leader who is only willing to act in a way that is best for himself or the few is not going to be effective because the others in the group/society will naturally come to believe they are not represented nor does the leader care for them. It undermines trust in the leader and his or her abilities. A leader should be honest and have an ability to unify people towards a common goal. Unfortunately, like being a parent, there are times when leaders are put in a position that they must make a difficult call. A “Prince” might have to kill or have killed someone endangering the lives of others. The “greater good” idea says the removal of the person damaging the ultimate comfort of those under the leader’s care, which while harsh, is consistent with his worldview that people are incapable of governing themselves.
I agree with Machiavelli in some respects, but not to the extent to which he takes his ideas. Humans are flawed and have an instinctual predisposition for violence, total depravity if you will. Naturally then it would make sense that people need to take charge and make decisions. No leader can make decisions that everyone agrees with all of the time. But like Hobbes pontificated, human’s fear of death causes them to seek safety and will give up any freedom to obtain that safety.
Christopher Hall
Section 7
"Humans are flawed and have an instinctual predisposition for violence, total depravity if you will." I won't. I don't think most of us are "totally depraved," and I prefer leaders who expect better of us. I also prefer leaders who don't think freedom and safety are incompatible.
DeleteMarim Sameer
ReplyDeleteSection 7
Discussion answer
Is your fear of violent death so great that you value your safety more than you value your freedom?
I grew up with parents that were extremely overprotective. More so my mom. My mom would never let me take risks as a child to the point where she hesitated for me to have friends and become too close to people. She always told me this because the people I trust from a young age can do you wrong. Growing up I hated that I could not go out as often as other kids or see friends outside of school. Eventually, as I grew up, I started to see where she was coming from. She was looking out for my safety, but I still do not agree with the lengths she did it at. However, this did cause for me to create “what if” scenarios in my head. I wanted to try new things even if that meant going behind my parents back. Once I met my boyfriend had way of my senior year it all changed for me. He was the adventurous type. I created a bucket list of everything I have ever wanted to whether it was dangerous or risky or just fun and simple. I eventually was able to leave my house more often because of college so college became the excuse for me doing these things. I skydived for the very first time, although it could have been dangerous and risky, I am so glad I did it. The risk is worth the memory. However, just because I started to do more of the things, I wanted did not mean I completely lost my ability to value my safety. I would still go out and do fun activities but with precaution.
You skydived! Close as I've come to that was parasailing, on my honeymoon. Risky behavior felt more appropriate then. I do have a bit of grudging respect for the late president Bush (Sr.), who jumped out of planes at age 80, 85, and 90.
DeleteMatah Nan
ReplyDeleteSection 4
Should leaders rule by fear? If you think so, is that because you have a low view of human nature? 55
Leaders should be feared. The discussion is rather what they should be feared for. If the leader is insane then there will be a greater chance to result in a revolt against the leader. People who have nothing to fear from their leader are either those with no fear of the consequences or are those who have not broken any major laws.
Was Hobbes right about what life outside society, in a "state of nature," would be like? 58 If you think so, does that justify an authoritarian police state?
Hobbes is partially correct is thinking that the State of Nature is cruel, but he did not know that Humans are social animals. Along with that he did not think of the possibility of the a republic appearing and focus more on the monarchy. Machiavelli's political theory is becoming the one that is more prevalent due to the fact that is connects more with our time and that there are too few authoritarian police state that still exist.
Is your fear of violent death so great that you value your safety more than you value your freedom? 60
Not if it meant complete enslavement and injustice.
Hobbes did not believe in the existence of what?
God
What should they be feared for?
DeleteI'm more concerned about leaders who have themselves broken laws. They're to be feared, not loved... and not, let's hope, re-elected.
Hi, Matah! I also wrote on if leaders should rule with fear. I think leaders should not rule with fear as the people will most likely grow irritated and rebel. I do think leaders should be feared since they hold so much power. They should also be respected if it is earned.
DeleteProphetess Turner, Section 4:
ReplyDeleteIs the space between things really "empty," if it's what makes the relations and relationships between people and things meaningful? 125
I think that they are empty in a physical sense but very full in a more spiritual or (i guess) metaphysical sense. I think the best way to explain what I am trying to say is by taking the example of silence among a group of people. While the space is physically empty of noise, mentally each individual is trekking through a lot. Often times in silence the biggest decisions that have a huge impact on relations and relationships are made. So, no I don't think that empty space is ever truly empty.
The old philosophers' question, "why is there something rather than nothing," seems to assume that pure nothingness or emptiness is an actual possibility. Maybe the better question is why we have the somethings we have, and not other somethings... why space if filled (or vacuous) in the specific way it is, and not some other. Either way, the relations between things seem as real as the things related.
DeleteSection 7
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli's part is my favorite, I've always enjoyed the discussion of to be loved v. feared. I'd have to agree with him on this take. There are occasions where dealing in love/compassion is doable, but more often than not I would have to go with fear. The Christian Science view is interesting, especially the pain part. Technically, I would agree that pain doesn't exist because yes we are all matter, and matter can't feel pain. HOWEVER, complex organism are able to define their experiences of pain, which then bring it into existence. It's just a matter of the way you look at it, I suppose.
Fortunately love and fear aren't our only choices. There's respect, admiration, expectation, hopefulness...
DeletePain doesn't exist? Matter can't feel pain? Just wait 'til you're my age, you'll think differently about that.
But seriously: we shouldn't load the dice by declaring in advance that matter is not capable of giving rise to everything we can experience. We don't know that to be true. As William James once said of a friend who'd passed away, the fact that matter COULD assume that precious form for the duration of her life should make matter sacred in our eyes forever-after.
Section 8
ReplyDeleteDo you approve of Borgia's "trick"? 54
I think it was a pretty sly thing to do, like a snake in the grass. But, with what he believed, Borgia was just being a leader, prepared, seizing opportunities as they arise, having virtu. Doing whatever it took to stay in power, provoking fear and eliminating risk.
What do you think of Arthur C. Clarke's statement about technology and magic? (FL 75)
I would say, new technology is like “magic”, or the closest thing you can get. Something that wasn’t possible before, something that’s never been seen, a gray area. It is crazy what people will believe, its not like they know better when people are telling them what they want to hear. People are always looking for something to have faith in, something bigger than themselves, something to help insecurities, or something to better themselves.
Jones Section #4
ReplyDeleteIs the space between things really "empty," if it's what makes the relations and relationships between people and things meaningful? 125
I think the answer to this question depends on one’s point of view. If your point of view is focused on the space, then the space becomes meaningful, and may serve some function in the overall view of things. On the other hand, if one’s focus is on objects, the objects become meaningful and serve some purpose. Regardless of your point of view, space is space, and the objects are objects. One’s point of view does not change the nature of anything.
Keylee Crutcher Section 8
ReplyDeleteWas Hobbes right about what life outside society, in a "state of nature," would be like? 58 If you think so, does that justify an authoritarian police state?
-Yes, most people would be like that. However, some people will still want that feeling of safety and try to have someone powerful or that proved themselves govern them. It may not make them fully safe, but some people will realize that they can't do everything on their own, all the time, for the rest of their lives. Plus, especially in survival situations like that, as long as he people somewhat are working together, there's strength in numbers.
Is your fear of violent death so great that you value your safety more than you value your freedom? 60
-I would like to say no, but honestly yes. Also, society wouldn't be able to advance (at least not nearly as fast) if we didn't have these systems in place.
What qualities do you think an effective leader needs to have? Do you agree with Machiavelli? 53
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I believe that an effective leader needs patience, determination, integrity, and kindness, among other things. Someone who is passive and timid most likely will not make a good leader. I somewhat agree with Machiavelli. Someone may possess the traits listed above, but if they do not act upon an opportunity, they will simply be an individual with those qualities.
Should leaders rule by fear? If you think so, is that because you have a low view of human nature? 55
I do not believe that rulers leading by fear is the most effective manner of leading. People may be afraid for a bit, but they will most likely grow out of this fear and rebel. The use of fear is tyrannical and usually limited. Most countries that had leaders like these did not survive very long as the people did not respect the leader and their choices. Respect is a tactic that all leaders should use, some of America’s best presidents used respect rather than fear.
Is your fear of violent death so great that you value your safety more than you value your freedom? 60
I think at times I value my safety rather than my freedom. However, I do not think of this as a bad thing. I use common sense and put my life and safety above freedom. I do not live in fear that something terrible may happen to me at any minute, but I try to be smart about situations I find myself in.
Section 4
Should leaders rule by fear? If you think so, is that because you have a low view of human nature? 55
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that leaders should completely rule by fear. That would be too authoritarian as we have read in many dystopian novels. That being said, leaders should not be too lenient with their subjects lest there be too much of a good thing. Rather think of the subjects and the leader as a parent and child relationship. One must not be too much of a helicopter parent, otherwise the child will grow up to hate and rebel against their own blood. On the other hand, the parent should not spoil the child either, because then the child will not learn that everything will not go there way and will not have the skills to cope with the real world, ultimately causing the downfall of that child. The leader needs to have a good blend of love and fear of the subjects to properly rule.
Does homeopathy fulfill the Hippocatic Oath?
I think it does fulfill the Hippocratic Oath granted they provided the cure only to a sick person. The doctor's ultimate goal is to see the patient cured of the disease, and doctors do not prescribe medicine to a healthy person, only to a sick person. So it does fulfill the Hippocratic oath.
"Often the best evidence of absence is indeed the observation of absence." Can you think of an example (besides "no butter in the fridge")? 128
There are many examples to prove this. And by observing this, we gain some knowledge about it. Such as: It is night outside; this must mean the sun is not here, and it is evening hours. There is no light in a house; this typically means no one is home. The absence of light is darkness; the absence of love is hate or apathy; the absence of a person can change a relationship and so on. But as stated before, the observation of absence can give some knowledge about a situation
Sydney Davis
ReplyDeleteSection 7
What do you think of the Japanese infatuation with robots? 142
I think it's really interesting that this is something that the Japanese are so into. I think Japan is very forward driven, in that they are always trying to get better and make the next best thing so they're always looking to the future. So it makes sense that robots and technology and these unreal techy objects are something that they look to as cool and something they enjoy. I feel like that's just a part of their culture now and they don't see anything wrong with it, they just always make these new robot shows and toys and are always making new models and are actually integrating that into real life. They actually have little robots that work around their cities. There are little cafes you can go to which are self-service, but they have robots that act as waiters, in that they can take the payments for the transactions as well as bring out meals or anything else you might ask for.
Ash Warner Section 7
ReplyDeleteWhat qualities do you think an effective leader needs to have? Do you agree with Machiavelli? 53
While I do not believe that “an effective leader” has to be a specific somebody or look a certain way or be from a certain place, I do believe however there is certain characteristic an effective leader should have to be the best possible leader he or she can be. I believe in order to be a leader of something, whether it’s a team, school, county, city, hometown, or even your home country, you must represent the best aspects of it. Like for instance, if you are from California, I feel like you should represent that place to the fullest. If you are running the senate or the house of representatives, I feel like you should bring the best aspects of California to congress with you, whatever it maybe whether it is a certain law you think will benefit the rest of the country or a social program you think could benefit the rest of the country, you should try and put that on display. While I do believe you should be proud of where you are from, no matter how great or how insignificant, and should put on display of your successes whether that’s championships, successful programs, or historical figures, I believe there is a second aspect to pride and that is accountability of failures. I think every leader needs to be able to look at whatever they are a leader of, whether it is a team, state, or country, and they need to be able to point out it is failures and work on them. No person, place or thing is perfect so there is no point of sitting around acting like it is. Because when we sit and act like everything is perfect when it really isn’t we then start developing a nationalist like mindset which can be very dangerous because then the said problems only become worse.
Section 4
ReplyDeleteWhat qualities do you think an effective leader needs to have? Do you agree with Machiavelli? 53
A bottom line is required but it is most improtant act achieving the greatest benifit for your people and for the publics good.
Haven Word, Section 4
ReplyDeleteShould leaders rule by fear? If you think so, is that because you have a low view of human nature? 55
Yes and No, The reason why i say "Yes" is because without that strong aura over the general population, there is no respect. However, i also say "No", because once you can the respect, that doesn't mean look down on anyone because you were once in there position as well. We have to realize that we are all Humans who once started somewhere that could have been a low point in our life.