Hope you enjoyed Library Day. We'll get started catching up today.
Midterm report presentations begin next time.
Former vice-president (and target of the murderous Jan.6 mob) Mike Pence is on campus today, 3 pm in the Tucker Theater. #H3, you can be excused to attend if you post a summary of what he says and share a photo from the event.
LHP
1. What did Machiavelli say a leader needs to have? Do you agree? Is it important to you for our leaders to be reliably honest, with exceptions only for instances of national security and the nation's best interests?
2. Machiavelli's philosophy is described as being "rooted" in what? Does your own experience confirm his appraisal of human nature and what's "realistic"?
3. The idea that leaders should rule by fear is based on what view of human nature? Do you respond more positively to politicians who appeal to pessimism and fear, or to those who appeal to hope?
4. Life outside society would be what, according to Hobbes? Do you think your neighbors would threaten your survival if they could get away with it?
5. What fear influenced Hobbes' writings? Do any particular fears influence your political opinions?
6. Hobbes did not believe in the existence of what? Do you? Why or why not?
HWT
1. How do eastern and western philosophies differ in their approach to things, and what is ma? Which do you find more appealing?
2. An interest in what is much more developed in eastern thought? Do you share it?
3. What is dukkha?
4. What is Sakura?
5. What takes the place of religion in China? Do you know people here who have found religion-substitutes?
6. Chinese thought does not distinguish between natural and ____, focusing on what?
7. What is the famous story of Zhuangzi? What's your reaction to it?
8. The Japanese fascination with robots reflects what traditional view? Are you similarly fascinated?
FL
1. What was Arthur C. Clarke's 3d law regarding technology, and what's its converse?
2. What was the original "alternative medicine" and what is its "upside"?
3. What national craze of the 1830s relied on a "totally bogus extrapolation"?
4. Who was Mary Baker Eddy and what are her followers misleadingly called?
5. Who was Dr. William A. Rockefeller?
6. What did Mark Twain say about history?
7. How was the California Gold Rush an "inflection point" in how Americans thought about reality?
8. What did de Tocqueville say was "the chief or secondary motive in everything Americans do"?
Niccolo Machiavelli (in From Humanism to Hobbes by Quentin Skinner)
Calvin sounds like (Thomas) Hobbes describing the state of nature. Hobbes (the tiger) behaves like Machiavelli's Prince. (And check out Hobbes, Machiavelli & others in Existential Comics...)
ReplyDeleteRoman Phillips H#03
LHP
2. Machiavelli's philosophy is described as being "rooted" in what really happens. In order for his readers to understand this concept, Machiavelli used examples from recent history mostly involving people he had met. For Machiavelli, the end result was more important than how it was achieved. Machiavelli emphasized the importance of how leaders should be feared and not necessarily loved. He truly believed humans were unreliable, greedy, and dishonest. He also understood how people are gullible and are taken in by appearances. While Machiavelli is often viewed as a selfish schemer, many philosophers believe he is a realist who truly understands people are naturally selfish. I feel Machiavelli's thoughts on people being naturally selfish are true. I also think there is a strong value in focusing on what is happening. I believe life can be based on 50 percent luck and the other 50 percent is based on personal choices. It is clearly important to focus on those choices and not worry about bad luck.
FL
1. Arthur Clarke's famous third law states: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The converse (contrary point of view in Anderson's book) is: "Technology that seems magical and miraculous can encourage and confirm credulous people's belief in make-believe magic and miracles." Anderson proves this point by relaying the story of the Fox sisters who claimed they communicated with ghosts using a type of knocking Morse code.
2. According to Andersen, the original alternative medicine was homeopathy. The idea of "like cures like" became the latest fad in the new age of reason and science since homeopathy uses a misrepresentation of science, analogy with a superficial sheen of logic. To make this argument of "like cures like" suggests a type of universalized version of vaccination. In reality, homeopathy is fake medicines prescribed to cure every disease - which is an extreme magical thinking. The upside of homeopathy fulfills the Hippocratic Oath of doing no harm because homeopathic medicines contain negligible active ingredients.
5. Dr. William A. Rockefeller, a small-time 19th century medicine seller from upstate New York, traveled the country selling his quack medicines. He was also the father of business tycoons John D. and William Jr. who were founders of the Standard Oil Company. Dr. Rockefeller mass marketed a pink elixir known as Microbe Killer which claimed it cures all diseases. Dr. Rockefeller built Microbe Killer factories around the world and became rich from selling something made almost entirely out of water by using the term microbe which was a new word coined from germ theory science.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP-2
Machiavelli described his philosophy as being entirely rooted in what really happens. He was a realist to its full extent. My own experiences can somewhat see and believe in his philosophy, however, I have also realized that sometimes reality is not as it appears. Because of how complex reality can be , sometimes we should look past what really happens.
LHP-4
Hobbes went on to take a similar stance as Machiavelli when it comes to human nature. His conclusion was life outside of society would be extremely hostile, selfish, and unforgiving. People are only kept in check by rules and consequences, so take that away and we are left with primal instincts to survive at all costs. All neighbors in society left to fight for survival would do all they could to stay alive. With how little emphasis most people put on morality in a stable society now, I could not imagine what would happen if hell broke loose in the United States.
LHP-5
The fear of anarchy and chaos heavily impacted Hobbes most famous works. Living through tumultuous times of the English civil war the constant loom of societal collapse was prominent. Many fears can impact our political opinions and ideas. For me it is the fear of loosing freedoms and the fear of dictatorships. While these can be positive deciding factors of ideology, fear must be kept in check because it can easily be exploited to sway emotions, votes, and unity.
LHP-1: Machiavelli argued that a leader needs to be pragmatic, willing to deceive if necessary to maintain power and stability. While some may agree, others believe honesty should be a core value, with exceptions only for national security. I think that honesty should be the top priority of a country’s leader since in our modern age and through social media lies are uncovered easily and the truth that leaders hide from us shakes their credibility, so personally transparency should be the main concern for a country’s leader.
ReplyDeleteLHP-2: Machiavelli’s philosophy is rooted in realism, focusing on human self-interest. His view is often seen as accurate in political settings, though people’s experiences with trust and cooperation might challenge it. Human nature is difficult and not always easy or realistic, and I believe that theoretically Machiavelli has a fair point, but it is hard to compromise to his likings.
LHP-3: Ruling by fear stems from a pessimistic view of human nature, assuming people are inherently selfish. Politicians who appeal to hope usually resonate more positively with those who believe in optimism and progress. I answer more to the pessimistic and fearful type of politicians since hope may be nothing but empty words and does not prove to be something desirable for a nation, but fear and pessimism may help a nation wake up and change habits if they fear that their way of life is endangered.
LHP-4: According to Hobbes, life outside society would be “nasty, brutish, and short.” While some might distrust their neighbors in extreme conditions, others rely on social bonds and cooperation. In my opinion if people can get away with it, they will not restrain from anything meaning that I agree with Hobbes thinking about society and the need for leadership.
LHP-5: Hobbes was influenced by the fear of chaos and civil war. Personal fears about instability or inequality can shape political views but mostly the fear of losing power is a driving factor in our modern-day society as well as it was back then.
LHP-6: Hobbes argues that there is no objective morality or divine law governing human behavior. He believed that morality is not inherent or universal but rather a social construct created through agreements within society to ensure peace and stability. In a state of nature, without government or laws, humans would act out of self-preservation, which is why Hobbes advocated for a strong sovereign to impose order. I agree with Hobbes because in my eyes we are all wild animals driven by our instincts and without social order it would be a constant war between humans and a fear of life everywhere we go.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 2. Machiavelli strongly believed that his philosophy should be based on what truly happens around him. He looked up to those that deceived others for their own benefit, stating that they had “virtu”, or manliness. I presume that my experience would support his philosophy, but not in the way he uses it to support his malicious actions and beliefs.
LHP 3. Machiavelli’s idea that leaders should rule by fear rather than adoration is based on his cynical view of human nature. As with most people, leaders that look to rather than fear appeal to me because of their positive outlook on the future. I feel that those who have a more optimistic view will always have a truer influence on others. Those that provoke fear take away freedom of peace, sanity, etc. and never truly influence the soul. However, I can see how one would think that using fear to persuade people could work; for example, a certain way of doing something may be dangerous, and sharing those dangers could help people change. In that type of situation, a hopeful or positive perspective may not be as effective.
LHP 4. Without society, Hobbes states, life would be short, brutal, and nasty. Like Machiavelli, he accepted the fact that humans often act on their fear and selfishness, and thought that society was the solution to these problems. Unfortunately, I think anyone, no matter our relationship, would use or harm me for their own benefit. I, too, think that humans would constantly betray each other without society.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Machiavelli said that a leader must have virtù, the italian word for valor. I believe that every leader must have a sense of valor, among other things. I believe it is very important for our leaders to be reliably honest. While I can understand certain lies being made to keep the peace, I do not believe our leaders should be pathological liars.
2. He believed that his philosophy should be rooted in what really happens. I believe that his appraisal of human nature is flawed. In my experience, human nature that shows a person has more depth than previously thought is what I would praise. Machiavelli's version of human nature is far more violent and cunning.
3. His cynicism is what leaders ruling by fear is based on. I respond better to a leader that rules with hope. In a world where it is so easy to see the worst in everything, a leader who sees the best in everything would be a welcome change of pace.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP 1- Machiavelli says that all rulers should need to learn how to not be good. He means that in order to succeed in a position of power you need to be able to be dishonorable to have the most favorable outcome for yourself. Me personally, I hold honesty as a very high standard of character in people, and as a leader I think that if you aren't honest with your subjects then you should be replaced by someone who will. However, on the world's stage I could see where being dishonest could lead to more favorable outcomes for the many.
LHP 2- Machiavelli's philosophy is very grounded in worldly thought. He didn't look at philosophy as a spiritual calling like many before him did. Many would also call him realistic as he doesn't have any naive notions about human nature. He isn't too far off base when he says that humans often times will do whatever it takes for them to be on top. Now this is only their desires, I don't think that most people act on their impulsive desires if it goes against their consciousness which is built up over their years living in a social environment. So he isn't completely correct in his assumption that humans were greedy, dishonest, and unreliable. That's also a reason why when we meet virtuous people we often times try to befriend them because we acknowledge the value of a person like that.
LHP 3- The idea that rulers should rule by fear is under the assumption that as a ruler your subjects will someday try to betray you be it via abandonment or true treason. It's based on humans who were very self-centered which many of us are and are very unreliable. I don't think this is the correct way of leading people because people have value that can only be shared in peaceful settings, but it isn't a failed strategy as shown throughout many dictatorships over the years that ruling through fear is a successful tactic. It doesn't have a good track record for long term success however because people don't like fearing for their lives everyday. I would prefer a more encouraging leader which wants to lead everybody into a better, more stable life.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Machiavelli believed leaders needed to have what he called Virtu, or manliness. I agree with Machiavelli on this point, as I believe that leaders need to generally be the smartest and strongest within a group of people. Due to me being Christian, I do not believe that a leader should lie to his people if there is a way around it. I am convinced a moral law governs the universe, and with belief in such a moral law, lying in a circumstance where it is avoidable is against such law.
2. Machiavelli's philosophy was rooted "in what really happens", his worldview appears to be godless one, as he seemed to not truly believe in any governing objective moral law. If there is no moral law, then I would say Machiavelli's philosophy is probably one of the most logically consistent outlooks one could have on the world. However, if a moral law and a God exist, then Machiavelli's worldview would not be illogical to adapt as it would be in direct contention with the objective law governing the universe. In my experience of reality, I have been lead to believe in things such as God and love, and believe these things transcend physical reality. With this, I can not agree with Machiavelli, as my experience of reality has lead me to a different conclusion on the existence of an objective moral law.
6. Hobbes did not believe in the existence of the soul, or anything beyond the physical. I disagree with Hobbes point, as my experience of life has lead me to believe in things which transcend the physical. Experiencing things such as love push me to believe there are things which transcend the physical reality, as I am not convinced such things can be purely brought about by chemical reactions in the brain. The issue of consciousness is still one that has existed since the dawn of time, and has yet to be solved by anyone from any age in human history. These things, along with other experiences, convince me that there are things which transcend the physical, which would make the existence of the soul probable.
1. Machiavelli believed that any leader needed to have something called "virtu" to stay in power. Virtu means manliness or power, and in Machiavelli's eyes, it meant to use both strength of leadership and spirit of honesty to lead a population through the means of accomplishing great things. I think that this is an important quality that is likely more useful in older times than now. Although many believe that Machiavelli was cruel, I think that he actually spoke the truth on many practical topics that were apparent as his time as a diplomat. Any leader should be able to appear trustworthy and give the people what they want while maintaining more serious threats in confidentiality. If every single threat posed to the USA was brought to the peoples' attention, then there would be mass chaos in the news, workers would slow down, and society would be in shambles, so being able to keep secrets and lie to the people is a good skill to have. As they say, "Lying doesn't matter if you don't get caught."
ReplyDelete2. Machiavelli wanted his philosophy to be rooted in real events that happened in his lifetime, so he used many examples from recent history or anecdotally as a hint to his own ideas. I believe that I haven't experienced the full fabric of what Machiavelli is trying to teach in his philosophy, however, with events that I see on the news such as the war in Gaza, Israel, and Palestine, I think that there is a lot of truth to what Machiavelli is saying. Leaders will do whatever they can to stay in power no matter how cruel and inhumane their tactics may be, and it has led to a controversially successful career for them (such as Putin). Therefore, I believe that Machiavelli's philosophy is party realistic in the fact that there are events that reflect his word happening in today's world too.
3. Ruling with fear increases the order of society. By killing de Orco, Borgia was able to keep his citizens from rising against him through both the use of fear and respect for his power. I believe that this approach to politics is very powerful, and it can sway a mass to move in unison towards a singular action. When it comes to politicians, I believe that the natural approach to hope is the best bet to garnering support from an unknown audience, however, there are also limitations to how much hope can provide for your voting status. It takes a lot more than nice, reaffirming words to convince a population to go out and vote for you.
H1
ReplyDeleteLHP1- Machiavelli believed that leaders needed to learn to not always be good and to have virtu, or valor and manliness. I do not agree. I believe that unless absolutely necessary, a leader should never lie. It is the cracks in the foundation that bring a house down. To lie to the people you claim to be having the best interests in mind of is deceptive and wrong.
LHP3- The idea that a ruler should rule out of fear is based in cynicism for humankind. It is an idea to prevent the betrayal and abandonment of your people. I feel like I respond more to hope than fear. Like mentioned above with the lying, fear creates an unhealthy dynamic where you do not feel safe to speak up. On a large scale, it can lead to major abuse of power.
LHP6- Hobbes did not believe in the soul. I would say that I disagree. Our survival is based on our sociability, and yet I feel like we immerse ourselves into love and happiness for more than mere survival, but for the enrichment of our soul and lives. I believe there are things that we cannot understand, so much so that I cannot find words here to explain even what they are.
HO2
ReplyDeleteLHP2. Machiavelli's philosophy is described as being rooted in what really happens. He believed that if intimidation tactics and manipulation were successful, then they should be respected and studied. I think this applies to my life simply by me observing things around me but probably not in the same way Machiavellis philosophy was used practically.
LPH3. The idea that leaders should rule by fear is based on control. Machiavelli thinks that it is better for a leader to be feared than be loved, if they can do both that's ideal but that's too hard usually. If a leader leads based on love they risk the populous abandoning them when times get tough. But if a leader is feared, the people will be too scared to betray them. I would say I personally respond better to politicians who appeal to hope, although I feel like those who run based on fear can get a lot further unfortunately.
LPH5. Hobbes believed that the fear of death was the driving force behind human beings and the best way to control them politically. I fear living in a world that continues to divide those at the bottom while the ones at the top sit and laugh, and this directly influences my politics in many ways.
I agree with you on your opinion for question two. Personally I feel that I would respond to a leader that relies on hope over fear, but historically and in general those who utilize fear seem to do better. Due to the evidence behind fear for authority and how they CAN run better that makes me feel that even though I'd respond more POSITIVELY to one that appeals to hope, I'd be more active if I feared the leader. However, just because fear would push me, it would probably not be positive, more so an eventual rebellion way or trying to flee way. It's hard to say at times, but Hope is the better one to appeal to morally wise for their people.
DeleteH#2
ReplyDeleteLHP #2 - Machiavelli's philosophy is said to be rooted in what is really happening. He wanted his philosophy to be heard and have events from the recent past to show why his philosophy was backed and was right for him. My personal experiences don't completely align with what he believed about human nature;however, times were much different then and people don't want to live in fear/shouldn't have to feel fear when around others now. I can see why his philosophy would work though and the book gave some examples of how his philosophy evolved into modern day figures ruling as the people in the past did.
LHP#3 - The view that rulers should rule based on fear is because of the idea that if you allow people to think you aren't strong then they'll take over or take advantage of you. If you have people under you in fear the they're less likely to go against you.I feel like I respond better to politicians who appeal to hope over pessimism because everyone knows there are problems, but I feel like it's better to hear plans on how to actually fix them and be hopeful that there can be changes made.
LHP#4 - Hobbes believed that life outside society would be like a never ending war and a lawless state. I feel like if we ever got to this state there would be people who have major distrust but also a big group of people who would just want to get through it together. I feel like my neighbors wouldnt threaten my survival if they could get away with it because I feel hope in the idea that just because we're strangers would make someone never give people a chance.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP #2:
Machiavelli wanted "his philosophy to be rooted in what really happens" (Warburton 53). I think that his view of human nature is understandable, since people do tend to be selfish. However, my input on this is that, just because people typically behave selfishly, this does not make it acceptable or desirable to lie and manipulate one's way to power.
HWT #2:
In Eastern thought, there is a much stronger interest in emptiness or nothingness. I honestly don't have much interest in this concept, but I think that it is indeed interesting that some philosophies do take note of it, since it is something I rarely ever think about or integrate into my thoughts.
HWT #3:
Dukkha means unsatisfactoriness or suffering. I would have to push back on the Buddhist view expressed in the book, which essentially states that the reason we suffer is because of wrong knowledge. I think that you can definitely understand the impermanence things and still suffer. For example, you may be perfectly aware that a valued possession will break someday (so clinging to it is meaningless), but still be sad when it is gone.
HWT #7:
As I understand it, the story tells of Zhuangzi waking up from a dream and not knowing which experience was reality, and not considering the answer to be of any real importance (Baggini 139). It essentially illustrates that the definitive state of reality cannot be known, and that that is okay. “What matters is how we encounter existence, not what might ultimately by true of it, which is in any case beyond our comprehension” (Baggini 140). I think that the moral of this story is understandable, except that, at some point, I think that it is better to believe in a true reality even if you cannot be certain of it.
Baggini, Julian. HOW THE WORLD THINKS. Granta Books, 3 Oct. 2019.
Warburton, Nigel. A LITTLE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. Yale University Press, 30 Oct. 2012
#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Machiavelli said that a leader needs to have virtù or manliness, which means that a leader needed to do what was necessary to stay in power without a second thought. I do not agree with this, as I think leaders should be selected by the people that they rule or lead. I think that leaders need to be able to decide when to tell the truth and when to embellish a little or keep quiet when it comes to sensitive topics that could endanger the people they represent.
2. Machiavelli’s philosophy is described as being booted in what really happens. I do believe that there are a lot of people who are fundamentally shellfish, but I do not believe that all people are, this is me just hoping that there are genuinely good people out there who are more selfless than selfish.
3. The idea that leaders should rule with fear is based on a low view of human nature, and that people will betray you no matter how much they love you. I find that I respond better to politicians that appeal more to hope. I think most people like to hear positive things more, as there are a lot of negatives, and so the positive politicians stick out more to me.
4. According to Hobbes, life outside a society would be short, solitary, and essentially brutal, as everyone would be fighting, as he believed everyone to be essentially evil. I do believe that there are people who would threaten my survival if they could get away with it because there are people who would even when they know there is a low chance they get away with it.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 1- Machiavelli believed that a leader needed to have "virtù", which was the Italian word for valour. They must be willing to act swiftly and decisively in the face of adversity. This really means that a leader must do whatever it takes to stay in power, whether that means promising falsehoods to his citizens or murdering his enemies. But he wrapped it up in a nice word because he truly believed it was for the best. I think portions of his belief were right; the ability to act quickly and decisively is critical to being a leader. But lying to the public so that they follow you, or encouraging fear rather than love (I think love should be replaced by trust really), is tyranical. It's unjust.
3- The idea that leaders should rule by fear is based on the idea that at our core, humans are selfish creatures. They will always do whatever is best for them personally, so to make a civilization run smoothy, you must scare them into doing things that benefit other people. I think it is not unfounded to believe that all humans are selfish, but I don't agree with that. And I certainly don't agree that the best or only good way to rule is through fear. Millennia of revolts and revolutions have proven that. I think all politicians should acknowledge our shortcomings as a society, but appeal to the hope that it will get better by promising to do something about it (and then actually doing what they promised). Pessimism will never bring about positive change.
6- Hobbes did not believe in the existence of a soul because he thought that all aspects of the human experience were "physical activities". Bodies to him were complex machines like a clock. I think his belief has both merit and shortcomings. If you believe everything is physical, that the body is just running on programming and our muscles and organs are just like springs and wheels, you take all of the wonder out of life. The way our bodies work is so far beyond a simple clock that it's unfathomable to compare them. The fact that we work at all is unfathomable sometimes, even as we learn more and more about how. But I think it's also important to acknowledge that we are physical beings, and our physical bodies matter. You can't believe that your "immortal soul" or your "mind" is the only thing important about you, you have to take care of your body. In my opinion, there are pros and cons to his philosophy.
H02 Erick Martinez
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. Machiavelli's philosophy is described as being "rooted" in what? Does your own experience confirm his appraisal of human nature and what's "realistic"?
3. The idea that leaders should rule by fear is based on cynicism. I think I speak for many when I say I respond more positively who appeal to hope. For times we are in ruling with fear won’t get you anywhere and the US is free, and no one wants their freedom to be taken away from them. Maybe some places respond well to fear as some countries continue to be ruled by cruel rulers but personally that is not the effective way to rule. Being able to get people exciting for what you can do and how you will benefit lives is far more compelling.
4. Life outside society would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. I’d like to believe a normal human being doesn’t receive anything from threatening lives. They wouldn’t do such things only if they’re put between and rock and a hard place. So no I don’t think my neighbors would threaten my life even if they could because there’s no benefit for doing it.
6. Hobbes did not believe in the existence of the soul. I do believe that all human beings have a soul. Even if it isn’t a physical object in us, I believe we all have a soul that holds who we are, our goals, our memories, our personalities, our love. While most of what I listed can’t be seen or explained, we hold on to every piece of our lives whether we know it or not. It creates who we are and changes our soul as we continue to love, grow, etc…
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
1: Machiavelli believed that a leader needed "virtu" or manliness,. He believed that leaders should be decisive and swift in their course of action. He didn't believe that a leader needed to be honest because he believed that fear would help leaders retain power, however since our nation is a democratic republic I don't agree with Machiavelli since I believe that leaders need to use lies only sparingly when in the interests of the state and that leaders shouldn't try holding onto power, but instead always focus on doing what is best for the nation.
4: Hobbes thought that life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and poor" without laws to enforce order and that people would kill in order to focus on survival. If my neighbors could threaten my survival and get away with it I still don't think that they would because it would likely be too much of a hassle to try to kill me anyway (I am really stubborn), but also they would gain nothing from it therefore unless they are psychopaths then they probably wouldn't dare try!
6: As a materialist Hobbes did not believe in a soul because he thought that humans were just complex machines and to an extend I agree as humans bodies partially influence their personality, however I think the soul of a human is the person they are shaped through experiences, and although it is still just a part of the complex machine I still call it a soul because it has been crafted through very specific experiences and would not be the same even if a person was physically cloned.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1 - Machiavelli believed that to be an effective leader, one must have a sense of manliness, valor, or virtu. I agree with this statement as what Machiavelli meant by this statement is that a strong leader must be knowledgeable and prepared to face certain situations. While I do agree that a leader must be strong, I think that being earnest and remaining honest with your citizens is also quite important. It does not reflect good character to be deceptive toward your subjects, as I believe the moral decision is to remain honest even if it makes you look weak.
2 - Machiavelli's philosophy is rooted in what really happens. For example, deceiving your enemies to gain an advantage over them. He strongly admires those who will go to great lengths to come out on top. His idea of human nature seems to be one that supports the idea that the strong are self-serving and do not support "weaker" people in society. I believe this is somewhat consistent with what happens in the real world. While I do know some that make it their life goal to support other people, I believe that most in high places of power can have self-serving personalities.
4 - Hobbes believed life to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." By this he means that the natural "state of nature" for humans was very low, and without laws or rules to guide people through life, it would be a very chaotic world. I do believe that without any proper guidelines, whether they be formal or mutual agreement, people would try to get an advantage over one another. If they could get away with it and it benefited them, I believe they would attempt to harm my chance at survival.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Machiavelli said that leaders need what is called virtu. Virtu is Italian for manliness or valor. I partly agree with the valor section of his argument. I feel that leaders need to be strong and stand up for the ones who they represent. I also do believe that leaders should be as honest and they can be, and for them not to be is a violation of the power that they hold and a violation of the people.
3. The idea that leaders should rule by fear is based on the greed and selfishness of people. I personally appeal to politicians that talk about more hope than pessimism, but I also feel that talking about solutions is more important than just talking about hope and false promises.
4. Life outside society would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" as described by Hobbes. I don't think that a majority of neighbors would resort to killing as fast of Hobbes thinks people would. Although I do think that there would be a considerable amount of people that might end of resorting to a life like this outside of society.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP #1: Machiavelli believed leaders needed to have "virtu," which simply means exhibiting actual manly characteristics such as valor and bravery. Leaders must seize the moment and do whatever is required to protect their power. I agree with this mindset; however, they must be headstrong but not to the point where the people they lead are no longer the focus of the decisions being made. Leaders must balance these virtues with honesty and level-headedness. The relationship between the leader and the people should not be fully transparent; there are matters that the one in charge must keep to themselves to best protect the nation.
LHP #2: Machiavelli's philosophy is described as being rooted in realism. His philosophical beliefs are founded on what happens in the world, and he didn't sugarcoat his take on human nature. He saw humans for their most raw qualities, such as greedy, selfish, and untrustworthy, and a good leader will keep these things in mind. A leader can act as a beast when necessary because they see humans for how they really are and not how they pretend to be. Unfortunately, as dark as this viewpoint is, it is close to reality. Humans are inherently consumed by volatile traits that cannot be overlooked, especially in a position of power.
LHP #4: Life outside of the fine-tuned structure of society would be a monstrous one at that. Without lawful punishment, humans would show their true colors that have always been burning inside them. Killing for food, stealing land, and doing whatever it takes to survive outside of the guardrails that are societal norms. According to Hobbes, humans are naturally selfish and, ultimately, will do whatever it takes to protect themselves and their needs. Personally, I do agree with this perspective. Look around the world at all of the horrific things people do now with law and order in place; now, simply imagine the extremes they would go to if there were no repercussions for these actions or their livelihood was no longer secure.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
Q1 To Machiavelli an essential part of leadership was the ability to stay in power, and willing to trick or deceive but also act swiftly and bravely. This maintained of power he said was the characteristic “virtu”, or valor, and a good leader needs virtu to be a successful ruler. To me people in power lying and deceiving to their people is a huge gray area, especially when it’s in their own best interest or power. There are instances where I think twisting the truth can be okay, like to spread calm and protect people. However the morality of lying for self-preservation is so gross to me, I can see why it could be justified or done by good people but no matter what it’s horrible that it could even be necessary to deceive whole groups of people for self-preservation, even if their intentions are good.
Q2 Machiavelli rooted his philosophy in the world, history and what really happens. He used real life examples in his book to show examples of rulers who had virtu and acted in seemly immoral ways to stay in power. I do see examples of his ideas in our world today, and it is realistic even though it shouldn’t be. At the moment we are seeing Israel basically following a Machiavellian plan, they want a land and are justifying any way of getting it. I think this could be a Machiavellian technique, but I wish I didn’t have to see his ideas of human nature playing out in real time, because I really don’t like to believe humans are naturally inclined to brutish behavior
Q3 Machiavelli borrows some cynicism when he says that all humans are naturally greedy and dishonest. He says that if subjects fear a ruler, they’ll be too afraid to betray or overthrow you. He says leaders should rule based on fear because it’s a safer position to stand in rather than relying on admiration from subjects. I like to look to more positive figures who don’t draw on fear, politicians who do are usually the leaders who tend to rely on manipulation and fear mongering to gain traction. They are usually less reliable and more focused on self-preservation instead of positive change or life and safety of the people.
I agree with you on your opinion for question 1, while twisting the truth can be good for certain things when in power, it still is used wrongly in today's age and can be wrong in general. Using it to calm or protect people as you said are good instances where lying or twisting a truth is fine, but using it can be deceitful to everyone else no matter the intentions. I do see why it needs to be done, and the purpose behind lying when in powerful positions at time, but choosing when to do so and about what is what causes me to feel opposed toward lying in some degrees.
DeleteH03
ReplyDeleteFirst, I would like to mention that the introduction to the essay on Hobbes seems completely unreasonable. It can be justified that if a true God enacts His will upon humanity, He will occasionally dish out punishment. However, if we take a look at today, there are many people who wouldn't be living according to the Bible. Thus, that claim made by early modern England is completely irrational.
FL
Dr. Rockefeller was the father to the Rockefeller we all know today. He was not present for most of his son's life, but as we can see, that may have been a mistake for him.
Mark Twain famously said that "history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes." This entails that we should be cautious of our past and while not being overly suspicious.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP-
3) The idea that leaders should rule by fear is based on what view of human nature? Do you respond more positively to politicians who appeal to pessimism and fear, or to those who appeal to hope?
It is based on the view that human beings are “unreliable, greedy, and dishonest” which is a low view of human nature. I respond more positively to politicians who appeal to hope rather than politicians who appeal to pessimism and fear. While fear may motivate me to vote for politicians who appeal to pessimism and fear, I would have no political loyalty to them whatsoever. I think politicians who have realist views and are confident in them, but do not sacrifice their hope and positivity for the future, are ideal in terms of who I would want to see in a position of power. Although, for me, hope outweighs negativity and fear any day.
4) Life outside society would be what, according to Hobbes? Do you think your neighbors would threaten your survival if they could get away with it?
As Hobbes describes, “life outside society would be solitary, poot, nasty, brutish, and short.” Much like Machiavelli, he also had a low view of human nature. That we are selfishly motivated beings and only have interest in our personal self-gain. If we one day stop having a society, I do believe that people will turn on one another. There would be no community and survival of the fittest would come into play. Looking back at the many dystopian books I have read, I would not deny that it is highly probable that my neighbors would threaten my survival if they could get away with it, during a time with no society.
6) Hobbes did not believe in the existence of what? Do you? Why or why not?
Hobbs did not believe in the existence of a human soul. That we are simply physical beings. I do believe we have a soul. According to my religion, the soul is a combination of the physical body and the life-giving spirit of God that makes up a human being.
LHP
ReplyDelete2) Machiavelli's philosophy is said to be rooted in what is really happening. He wanted his philosophy to be heard by others be proven by recent events that his ideology was back up. I don't exactly line up with his philosophy because things are a little different now.
3) The view that rulers should rule based on fear is because if you show strength and instill fear in others then they will obey you. I feel like I respond better to politicians who appeal to hope over pessimism because problems are very prevalent in society, and I would like to have a leader that brings the community hope for solving those issues
4) Hobbes believed that life outside society would be like a never-ending war and a lawless state. I think if this happened around us that there would be just outright chaos in some communities and in others it would be a time that everyone would come together to work through it together. My neighbor definitely wouldn't threaten me because she's my grandma.
H03 - Quinny VanDerSlik
ReplyDeleteLHP 1-
Michiavelli said that a leader needed to have virtù, which in Italian means manliness of valor. He believed that in order to succeed one cannot rely only on luck, but instead a leader needs to have bravery and to be swift. Another part of being a good leader to him was that they need to be able to “learn how not to be good,” being able to lie when needed. These traits do line somewhat up with what I believe a leader should have, however, it is not the most desired trait that I’d want in a leader. To me I would rather have a more honest leader, there can be exceptions, just like Machiavelli said, a leader needs to be able to see when it is best to hide the truth or not be completely honest. The problem that comes from this needed trait for me is that now leaders will use that as an excuse or way out of an unnecessary or harmful lie they’ve told.
LHP 3-
The idea that humans should rule with fear is based on cynicism. He believed that ideally a leader could be both loved and feared, however, it was very hard to achieve in reality, so fear is the one that should be prioritized option wise. I feel personally I would respond more positively to those that appeal to hope over fear, but I would feel more likely to follow one that appealed to pessimism and fear. The reason I would be more reactive to one that appealed to fear is because that might put things in current perspective and not a promise of a future that might never come. If they are honest about our current situations and how bad they might be, it would strike fear into their people and cause a chain reaction that could lead to a solution to the situation.
LHP 4-
According to Hobbes, life outside of society would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” He believed this as it would be harder to find resources more naturally and without struggle, so it would be more reasonable to kill others before they killed you. If people were given the freedom to take other’s land, help themselves to whatever they want and allow them to kill whoever, it would create a never-ending war for everyone. I believe that my neighbors would not threaten my survival if they could get away with it, as I have not out right talked with a majority of them, and am gone for a fair portion of the day, so my roommate and I are not out right bothering others. However, if that were not the situation, if we partied, played loud music, yelled and made lots of noise then I believe that people when given the freedom would threaten harm, they might not follow through, but fear is a powerful motivator for humans.
Alayna Frazier H1
ReplyDeleteHWT 1. Eastern cultures are more community centered while western culture is more individual centered. Western culture is also far more materialistic than eastern cultures. I find Eastern cultures interesting as they're different than what I'm used to, but I find Western culture more appealing because I am an individualistic materialist.
LHP 6. Hobbes didnt believe in the existence of ethics. I do believe ethics still exist as ethics are socially acceptable guidelines established by society. Society definitely does have ethics because we have laws like don't murder and also unspoken rules like belching in restuarent is rude.
LHP 4. According to Hobbes, life outside of society is every man for himself. I think it would be dangerous and everyone is a danger to your survival because "the ends justify the means" so if your neighbors are hungry and there is no food, it would be justified for them to eat you so they don't starve.
LHP:
ReplyDelete3. The idea that leaders should rule by fear is based on a pessimistic view of human nature. Personally, I would much rather have a leader who appeals to hope for humanity. Having a ruler that clearly believes in the success of humanity gives me courage to fight for them and realize their goals.
4. According to Hobbes, life outside society would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” I strive to see my neighbors as compatriots unless I have reason to suspect otherwise. Being in the same neighborhood as another family cultivates a strong sense of community and trust that brings me a lot of joy. I do not expect my neighbors to threaten my survival in any way.
6. Hobbes didn’t believe in the existence of the soul. Personally, I don’t have any reason to believe we don’t, but I also have no reason to believe we do. The indomitable sense of comradery and hope that I feel when I think of all eight billion people on this planet is hard to beat, but what if ants feel the same way? Do ants have souls? Honestly, if there’s any proof of either, I’m willing to accept it. As it stands, however, there’s not any evidence supporting either side.
H2
ReplyDeleteLHP 2. Machiavelli believed that his philosophy should be rooted in what really happens in the world, pushing his point by his usage of real-world events to promote his teachings. I don’t fully confirm his appraisal of human nature, because although having good luck can bring you success, hard work is still required to get into those situations where virtù comes into play.
LHP 4. Hobbes believed that with no society, people would murder and steal when it was necessary to in order to survive and uphold survival of the fittest. I hope my neighbors wouldn’t threaten my survival if they could get away with it because of morals and the relationships I’ve created between myself and them.
LHP 6. Hobbes did not believe in the existence of the soul. I believe in people and animals having souls, solely because I think it’s where the concept of conscious decision making and morals come from.
Andrew #3
ReplyDeleteLHP #1-Machiavelli says that a leader must "learn how to not be good", this implies that a leader has to make morally questionable decisions. Sometimes they have to lie to their people to maintain order. I would say I "somewhat" "agree" with this statement. Sometimes the situation may be helpless, but I feel like it's better to have a populus who has a peace of mind. I feel like they should be honest to an extent. Sometimes government affairs shouldn't be made public. however, I believe to an extent this is just. Similar to when someone says "does this ____ make me look fat?" It's a question, if answered honestly, could hurt the Persons's feelings. Is it better to be honest to tell them it does? On the other hand, would it be better to be dishonest and tell them it does not. However, this statement only has validity if people view looking fat as negative. I myself believe all body types are valid. It is ok to be heavier set and lighter set. There shouldn't be any difference in how someone is treated. My point still stands, if someone views being fat as negative, should you tell them the article of clothing does or does not? Similar to the moral delima leaders have to make.
LHP #2 He says to be a good leader one must express "virtu." This translates to a word similar to bravery. Machiavelli says that even if the situation is dire, a leader is stronger if they express false bravery. It's better to present as strong and unaffected even if you're going to lose. I think this is a great tactic. It may intimidate the opposing side, thinking you have confidence in another plan.
LHP3:Machiavelli believed that humans are "naturally greedy" and "unreliable." This is why he believed it was better to rule by fear rather than love. He believed if a leader is loved people will walk away when times go tough. However he expressed that a leader is strong when the people fear to betray them. I for one think it's better to be a leader of love rather then fear. However, Machiavelli had a very different opinion.
Archaeology as Anthropology Revisited
H03
ReplyDelete(LHP, Question 1)
Machiavelli thought that a leader must have virtu, as in manliness or valor. His philosophy is difficult to necessarily agree with because of how brutal it is, but I can't entirely discredit it either. Many politicians and leaders throughout history have taken his ideology to heart, so it seems impossible to completely disengage from it. Speaking purely from the perspective of the acquisition and hoarding of power, I think he details a nasty but effective way of going about it (especially his idea of needing both lion-like strength and fox-like cunning to stay ahead). I wonder though if maybe the conversation is starting on the wrong foot. Should we even desire power in the first place? Machiavelli (like Hobbes) tosses this question by the wayside, since he thinks that we all want power over others in one form or another, but I don't know if I agree with that. In politics, I think honesty may be frequently thrown out due to a kind of prisoner's dilemma situation. If everyone was honest all the time, things would be fine. But if that's the case, individuals are incentivized to be dishonest for personal gain. If you think that everyone else is honest, you should then be dishonest so you can succeed, and if you think that everyone else is dishonest, you should also be dishonest so you don't get trampled.
(LHP, Question 4)
Hobbes says that, "life outside society would be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. '" While I'm not 100% sure that my neighbors would not threaten me in the event of a societal collapse, I do doubt it. I think everyone reacts in different ways to apocalyptic scenarios, but that the majority would probably cooperate. Cooperation and socialization are innate desires for most people. There may be chaos, but I don't think it would be literally every man for himself, especially when considering close friends and family.
(LHP, Question 6)
Hobbes did not believe in the existence of the human soul, and instead thought that humans were just physical beings without some special substance. Personally, the only thing I'd feel comfortable asserting is that I don't know whether or not we possess a soul (or some other special substance). My best guess would be that we probably don't, but I don't think it's particularly important to the human experience. I think the most interesting thing we have as people is a stream of consciousness and the ability to conceptualize.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP 7
1.
A leader needs to have the ability to not be good. No, I don't agree with this, due to how immoral you would become as a person. Honesty should a thing all leaders should strive to be.
2.
His philosophy is rooted in what really happens. I do agree that you should watch out for evil and self serving people, as they will screw you over if you don't watch out.
3.
The idea was based off of his cynic view of human nature: they're unreliable, greedy and dishonest. I like people who adress the issues at hand with realism and realistic optimism.
Bobby Goodroe H03
ReplyDeleteLHP Q2: Machiavelli's philosophy is described as being rooted in what really happens. I don't think he is inherently wrong to say that dishonesty and brutality are common in politics, but I do disagree with his approval of it.
LHP Q4: Hobbes described life outside society as being nasty, brutish, and short. I don't think my neighbors would threaten my life if they could get away with it. Generally speaking, nobody has anything to gain by killing anyone else, especially if we were living in an unregulated society without property. If there was no private property, there wouldn't even be an incentive to kill in the first place. Also, most people just do not want to kill people, we are social creatures, and as such, we shy away from doing things that other people think are bad. No one would really want to be friends with you if you were known for killing and stealing.
LHP Q6: Hobbes did not believe in the existence of a human soul. I personally disagree with him. If everything that happened inside our minds was just physical processes, I think we would be no different than any other animal. No other animal commits suicide but us. If our consciouses were purely physical, I don't think we would be able to engage in self-destructive behavior the way we do.
H02
ReplyDeleteGaunilo criticized Anselm's reasoning using what example?
Gaunilos criticism of Anselm was with his reasoning saying that although the logic is self validating that does not make it accurate using the example of a most perfect island saying an Island is the most perfect and saying that an island in the mind is worse than an island in reality doesn’t necessarily make that most perfect island reality although through that logic it would need to be Gaunilo then applied this example to Anselms argument of a supreme being
21. What was Aquinas' 2nd Way?
Aquinas was still a believer and so his argument was that there could not be an infinitely retreating line of causes and effects there must have been however far back an uncaused cause and that he belivieved was proof of the divine
22. What did Machiavelli say a leader needs to have? Do you agree? Is it important to you for our leaders to be reliably honest, with exceptions only for instances of national security and the nation's best interests?
Machiavelli said a leader must have a sense of virtoo or manliness and an ability to be ruthless and break their own promises. I’d say I disagree with this stance as my opinion of human nature is that cruelty and manipulation only create more cruelty and deception
23. Machiavelli's philosophy is described as being "rooted" in what? Does your own experience confirm his appraisal of human nature and what's "realistic"?
Machiavelli philosophy is described as being rooted in cynicism and believing that people will always act in a way that benefits them even if it hurts others I would disagree with this view of human nature their are numerous examples I have seen throughout my life of people behaving selflessly such as those in my life who have devoted their existence to political activism in order to make the world a better place even though they may not live to see it. I believe the most realistic view of human nature is more so in the middle of cynicism and optimism stating that although people can and will behave selfishly good people will do their best to behave selflessly and although the people can hurt others and you should be weary of that ability most will not
24. The idea that leaders should rule by fear is based on what view of human nature? Do you respond more positively to politicians who appeal to pessimism and fear, or to those who appeal to hope?
It must be based on the view that all humans behave selfishly and in order to quell this selfish nature you must make them fear the consequences more than the rewards of betraying you. I prefer hope on what a society could be versus fear over what it will become because oftentimes that
25. Life outside society would be what, according to Hobbes? Do you think your neighbors would threaten your survival if they could get away with it?
According to Hobbes life outside of society would be a brutal and violent place where everyone would disadvantage, kill, and torture anyone to survive. I personally believe that my neighbors do not wish me harm and I doubt they would harm me without excessive need.
H03
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli held his philosophy to be rooted in "what really happens." Machiavelli's dog-eat-dog view of reality and human society, in my opinion, is rooted in fact. Naturally, there are people out there who - for whatever reason - wish to see your downfall. And, as evidenced throughout history, humans, when driven by fear, can be devout followers of leadership. However, I don't agree that this method of leadership is necessary or should be regarded as the "best way to lead." It's something of a self-fulfilling prophecy to constantly mistrust those around you. If you choose to be unapproachable and guarded or sneaky and conniving, you're bound to make some enemies. And, if you lead with fear alone, you're bound to suffer the consequences of revolution as soon as your subjects figure out that you need them to rule.
H#3
ReplyDeleteLHP1
Machiavelli says a leader needs to have valor, that they should learn how to “not be good”. I agree to an extent because sometimes you gotta break the rules to get what you want. So I would say yes and that there needs to be good reasons behind the “not good”. It still is however important to be honest because the people of that leader still need it to have faith. Lying has proven to be useful and for the better in some instances, but honesty is still needed.
LHP 2
It is rooted in what “really happens”. In my own experience, yes it confirms what is truly “realistic”. I’ve had times where I questioned reality and because of Machiavelli’s reasoning, I agree.
LHP 3
The idea that leaders should rule by fear is based on cynicism, making people in general (believed by Machiavelli) greedy and dishonest. I would respond more positively to those with a hopeful mindset because I personally believe it is more powerful. A drive, determination that makes you want more and to get better or reach a goal.
#H02
ReplyDelete1. Machiavelli believed that sometimes is would be better to tell lies, break promises, and sometimes even murder your enemies. I believe it is important for our leaders to be reliably honest because how will the people trust them again if they decide to lie?
2. Machiavelli’s philosophy is rooted in what really happens. From my experience, I don’t believe that being feared is the solution to anything.
3. The idea that leaders should rule by fear is based on cynicism. Personally, I respond more positively to politicians who are trustworthy and loved rather than feared.
#H02-
ReplyDeleteHWT-
Qn:3
Dukkha is a fundamental concept in Buddhism that refers to the inherent suffering and dissatisfaction present in life. It encompasses the idea that all existence is marked by suffering, impermanence, and the absence of a permanent self. This suffering can manifest in various forms, such as physical pain, emotional distress, and the inevitable changes and losses we experience throughout life.
Dukkha is one of the Four Noble Truths taught by the Buddha, which outlines the nature of suffering, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. Understanding dukkha is essential for recognizing the transient and often unsatisfactory nature of life, which can lead to a deeper sense of awareness and ultimately, liberation from suffering.
HWT-
Qn.4
Sakura refers to the cherry blossoms that are a significant cultural symbol in Japan. These blossoms are celebrated for their beauty and their fleeting nature, which symbolizes the transient nature of life. The concept of Sakura is often associated with the Buddhist idea of impermanence, reminding us that all things are temporary and that we should appreciate the present moment. The cherry blossom season is a time for reflection and celebration in Japan, highlighting the importance of living in harmony with the natural world and embracing the beauty of life’s fleeting moments.
HWT-
Qn.7
One of the most famous stories associated with Zhuangzi is the tale of the Butterfly Dream. In this story, Zhuangzi dreams that he is a butterfly, fluttering around and enjoying his life as a butterfly. When he wakes up, he is unsure whether he is a man who dreamed of being a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming of being a man. This story raises profound questions about the nature of reality and our perceptions of it.
I'm just blown and fascinated. It beautifully encapsulates the idea that our understanding of reality is subjective and can be fluid. The story challenges us to consider the boundaries between dreams and reality, and to question the certainty of our perceptions. It also highlights the Taoist philosophy of embracing the natural flow of life and the interconnectedness of all things. This parable encourages us to remain open-minded and to recognize the potential for multiple perspectives in understanding our existence.
Maheswari Ramesh (Maahi)
#H1 - Zoe Kuhn
ReplyDeleteLHP - #4
According to Hobbes, life outside society would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, or short. I don’t think my neighbors would threaten my survival if they could get away with it just because I like to believe that humans can be naturally good and not want to cause harm or “break rules”.
LHP - #5
Hobbes feared that society would decompose and fall apart, bringing about chaos among people. He believed people would turn into savages if society fell apart and everyone would fight to survive. These fears influenced his writing. For me, some of my fears influence my political opinions. For example, the fear of not having rights to my own body is a fear that influences my political opinion or the fear of my rights being stripped away in any capacity is a fear that influences me.
LHP - #6
Hobbes did not believe in the existence of a soul.
#HO3 Daniel Chera
ReplyDeleteMike Pence spoke regarding his position in the January 6th riots, but he also answered several questions regarding his political stances including foreign policy in Israel, endorsement (or lack of) for the Harris campaign, and abortion policy.
Pence was vehemently opposed to the acts of the extremists in 2021, and he recalled the events from his perspective a bit including Secret Services increasing wariness regarding the situation.
Pence made his opinion known on the flashpoint issues by being clearly in favor of supporting Israel (which is nearly bipartisan at this point) and wanting a nation-wide pro-life policy. Pence expressed his pride in being able to have Roe v. Wade revoked via the Supreme Court and the judges in place there.
Pence didn't endorse the Harris campaign which was to be expected. He also let it be known he accepted LQBTQ+ protestors right to gather in opposition to him.
It's clear Pence takes pride in his moral values and ideas; overall the speech was interesting if not the most insightful.