[Catch up from last time: Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, Aquinas]. Machiavelli, Hobbes-LHP 9-10. Rec: FL 11-12. HWT 11-13
PRESENTATIONS:
- Machiavelli - #5 Aaron M., Marshay Jones (or Darwin). #6 Josh S. #? Joey F.
- Hobbes- #5 Bailey H. #6 Jessica L. #7 Chris G
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...)
Do you respond more positively to politicians who appeal to pessimism and fear, or to those who appeal to hope?
ReplyDeleteI personally do not believe that pessimism and fear does any good in politics. I think nowadays politicians rely too heavily on fear mongering and dividing nations against each other by making a common enemy. I read a book called Demagoguery and Democracy by Patricia Roberts-Miller a couple of years ago, and it changed my life on how I believe the political systems need to be run. I prefer voting and supporting politicians that appeal to hope and a desire to make the world better through positive change… rather than a politician that plans to change things out of fear or hatred.
I agree with the belief fear does harm in politics; however I wouldn't go as far as saying that there isn't a space for fear. Many times politicians try to appease to a specific group, cater to them, and in this bring many perspectives directed at that audience with hope it would reach further. This is where I am not totally against fear. Oftentimes politicians glamorize their plans to gain power, however some policies proposed by opposing applicants can be harmful. In this case I believe introducing that fear for what another candidate may bring could be useful to their campaign. Whether than in and of itself is controversial is a whole different conversation, but I will say depending on the context fear doesn't always dissuade me from a potential candidate.
DeleteYou know what FDR said about fear, right? It was a rhetorical statement, but it was leadership too.
DeleteI agree with this! I feel like if you want any long term success as a nation or established power, appealing to hope would make the most sense to me. We’ve seen it happen many times now where leaders that lead under fear and such face their demise along the path. To me, this is because in order for something to stand for a long period, there must be support and trust in the system, rather than having its people wait for the very moment it stumbles to destroy it.
Delete“...though you might want to seem honest and seem good in that sense. According to [Machiavelli], sometimes it is better to tell lies, break your promises and even murder your enemies. A prince needn’t worry about keeping his word. As he put it, an effective prince has to ‘learn how not to be good’.” - Warburton
ReplyDelete…this sounds an awful like today’s political leaders, and people running for office. It seems like recently politicians will lie about what they intend to do for America’s greater good, and then once they get into office they pretend they never said the promises they made. I still hold out hope that one day a good candidate will come and actually do what they say they will do, and enact positive change in America, uniting the country from its divisions.
What reasons would a politician have for not keeping their promises? Apathy or personal gain might account for some, but I think most unkept promises are probably just too ambitious. As far as a politician meeting Machiavelli's criteria of "effective", it would depend on whether or not simply being elected constitutes effectiveness or if it's contingent upon accomplishing something afterwards.
DeleteJust being elected clearly does not constitute "effectiveness"... you don't need a democracy for that.
DeleteLife outside society would be what, according to Hobbes?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Hobbes, life outside society would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” I think this is an awful outlook on life, but also in today’s age I can somewhat agree with this sentiment. I think if we were in a lawless society most people would remain good the majority of the time only resulting in violence when necessary… As for the other percentage of people, I unfortunately think they would result to violence for their personal gain. We already see people doing that in our world. I think if there were no laws some people would result to violence rather quickly, but I think the majority of people would remain neutral unless threatened. I know for me, I wouldn’t go out of my way to steal or murder, but if someone broke into my house or tried to kill me, I would defend myself and my family…
I also think that his outlook on life is awful, but it unfortunately has some slight truth to it. The world has a big homeless population, nasty people, and brutal tendencies. It is just more impactful hearing it in that manner.
DeleteHobbes wasn't thinking about a small percentage of homeless, deranged, or criminal types. He was writing in a time of civil war and brutality, and drawing large conclusions about human nature being inherently selfish. If most of us are not so selfish and potentially violent, we have reason to reject an authoritarian anti-democratic "solution" of the sort he proposed (and that the present POTUS seems to favor).
DeleteI think Hobbes was right about society needing law and order or some kind of governing body, but I don't think that governing body needs to be authoritarian. He made a big leap there.
Delete1. 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?\
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli said a leader should have vitrtú or manliness. In addition, he said a leader who prepares well and seizes the moment is going to do better than one who doesn’t. However, earlier, he also mentioned how leaders should be able to lie, not hold their word, and kill when needed. While I do not agree with killing your enemy or, in this day in age, political persecution, I do agree that a leader should be physically manly and mentally strong. A leader to me is someone who is trusted by the people, holds true to his word, is liked by many but also hated by many, at times is controversial to bring attention to problems, and most importantly, holds a strong image of strength and courage while representing a city, state, or country.
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"?
He believed in having a philosophy rooted in what really happens rather than a made-up idea of reality. I believe, from my own experiences, that the human race should definitely be taken with a grain of salt when interacting with each other. I wouldn’t say I am 100% skeptical when I meet someone or interact with someone, but I also never let my guard down immediately, as anything could happen. As far as what I believe as “realistic” in humans, I would say, at the heart, humans strive for meaning and purpose in their live. Because of this high goal, many will go great distances and make many rash decisions for this. Therefore, once again, I always take things with a grain of salt.
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?
This is the idea that humans are pessimistic or cynical. I personally respond better to politicians who not only address whatever the problem is at hand but then take swift action to fix that problem. I do not like leaders who fear-monger, make blanket statements not rooted in logical thought, and are always saying how bad something is without fixing it themselves. To me, this is almost like a victim mentality where they only want to complain but never take action. I don’t need a politician who is “nice” or “happy” or says the right things, I like a politician who says what has to be said and does what needs to be done.
There's a lot of talk these days (as for instance from Mark Zuckerberg) about a need for manliness ("masculine energy") in public life. I think it's time we tried something different.
DeleteMachiavelli's book The Prince is fascinating in its accurancy in what seems like the true reflection of most politicians. Many politicans portray themselves in such as way to sway votes; however, they are plagued with greed and incompetence.
ReplyDelete3. The idea that leaders should rule by fear is based a low view of human nature, as stated in the reading. Personally, I do not trust politicans who promote themselves as trendy, friendly, caring, etc. The reason being is many politicans make empty promises. I would agree with Tyler Raiman in that I want a leader who sees a problem, addresses the issue, and makes a change. Words mean I lot to me. I always remember what people say they will do.
I thought it was fascinating how Hobbes cared about his health and lived what appeared to be a freely lifestyle, at least in his personal pursuits, yet he argued for a authoritarian state
I can see where you are coming from when it comes to politicians, but though politicians who carry out hope may carry empty promises that can still be true for politicians who actually address the issue. They might address it but can still do it incorrectly, so I think that it just depends on the circumstances. Words mean a lot to me as well, but actions show more.
DeleteI also found the juxtaposition between his beliefs and his reality really interesting. The simple fact he did live this way does somewhat solidify in my mind the reasons he IS in favor of this state. Having existed without opens to door to imagine what living with might bring, inherently good or bad.
DeleteIt's too easy to disengage from politics and declare that most politicians are corrupt. Politicans reflect the polity. If we want an honest politics we must demand it democratically (while we still have a democracy). Sadly, too many voters lately have demanded the reverse.
DeleteI agree with Caitlyn. There will always be people in power that address the issue—and even have a solution to it— yet once they’re in control, they do nothing to actually fix it.
Delete1.) He states many qualities that leaders could have. he acknowledges that for a ruler it is better to tell lies, break your promises and even murder your enemies. In other words, learn not to be good. He believed in manliness and virtue which can mean being humane at times, but that it is better for a ruler to be feared than loved in order to stay in power, because acting in compassion could have disastrous results. His reasoning is interesting, and I don't necessarily agree with him. I don't think that to be a good ruler that you should practice immorality as it can cause an uprising possibly. I believe that being a reliable and honest leader makes you a better leader.
ReplyDelete3.) The idea that leaders should rule by fear based on the human nature of humans being unreliable, greedy, and dishonest. He states that if you rely on your people loving you, and then you risk them abandoning you when times get tough but if they fear you, they will be scared to betray you. I tend to respond to those who bring hope instead of fear because it will cause less of an uprising and more alliance.
6.) Hobbes did not believe in the existence of our "soul". He thinks that we are simply bodies. All aspects of our existence are physical activities.
Based of #3,
DeleteI relate heavily to your tendency to lean on those who carry hope and warmth, rather than those who are cold and unforgiving. Humanity is untrustworthy without government according to Machiavelli and even with hope it is difficult to not agree with that sentiment to some extent. Yet, living life through hope and believe people have the capacity to be good is more comforting than living in fear.
Everything might be material without everyone being selfish. Hobbes made some false assumptions about that, I'd say.
Delete2. Machiavelli’s philosophy is rooted in realism but in a more pessimistic way. I disagree because people can still follow the rules of society and be kind to each other. There are just a few that won't.
ReplyDelete3. The idea that leaders should rule by fear comes from the belief that people are naturally self-interested and will only behave when they fear consequences. He said that humans were cruel and self-serving, so leaders had to act similarly to keep the peace. I disagree with this because leaders can be compassionate and still have authority over others.
5. Hobbes was influenced by the fear of chaos and civil war.My political opinions are influenced by the past and how humans have a history of taking away each other's rights because they're different from each other.
It's mine, I forgot to put my name on it
DeleteAgreed, authoritative leaders can be compassionate and humane. The authoritarian style is not compulsory, but for some inexplicable reason many voters seem to prefer it.
DeleteI agree with you. While there are plenty of examples of people who are very selfish and only respond to fear, this isn't true for all of humanity. I think that inherently we are good, we can just be corrupted as many people unfortunately are.
Delete1. Machiavelli makes clear in the LHP that a leader needs to have virtu. This word means the person would have cunning, strength and be able to make decisions. He also stated that he thinks its okay for leaders to be dishonest. I agree with this to an extent. I think that just like almost everything in this world its all about intent. If the leader is being misleading, or dishonest, with the sole purpose to gain for himself or has malintent, its wrong. However i think that if a leader is hiding something for the benefit of his people or for the greater peace i think that its okay. However this can be a VERY slippery slope.
ReplyDelete3. The idea of ruling through fear is a school of thought that banks of the interpretation that human nature is naturally selfish or evil. Mach's school of thought stems from this as well. Personally i don't respond to politicians or leaders that lead this way very well. I think that the way you lead is the way people will follow. If you follow with evil or hate then people are going to follow you with that same intent. By leading with hope and fairness, the people will follow the same way.
5. The fear of anarchy and the end of society is what motivated Hobbes in his creations. His thoughts stemmed from economic stability and the new rising wave of authoritarianism. The fear that drives my political side is really similar, but more focused on the economic side of things. I'm fully aware that the love of money is evil and that the greed that comes with that is very deadly. However, its important to note that without our economy and without money our society as we know it would collapse, putting millions of people and their families in danger. I want to not only look out for others, but also i would like to have children one day, who i want to live an enjoyable life.
I would also like to note the very well known quote, " We have nothing to fear, but fear itself." - FDR
i think that there are two types of fear. One is a biologically engrained sense to help us avoid getting eaten by something larger than us. The second kinds of fear is just misplaced anxiety that we label as fear.
Again: no need to repeat the same textual answer here after others have already stated it. But by all means do share your view of the philosophers' or authors' statements.
DeleteSection 006
ReplyDeleteHobbes' rejection of the existence of souls is a thought-provoking concept. According to the text, he believed humans are "complex machines" and thoughts and emotions are simply mechanisms of bodily processes. I think he was technically correct, however we are still not able to define consciousness or life scientifically. Aristotle's "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" quote comes to mind. Though human bodies are made up of organs and neurons which can be studied individually, these parts come together to create something new. I think this is why a lot of people believe there is some separate element or "soul" inside of us. I'm pretty sure I agree with Hobbes though; our bodies and their physical processes are what create our consciousness. I don't think they are two separate things.
Yeah I think so as well. I think that the soul is somewhere in us that we just can't or don't know how to look for. It's all a part of us even if we can't see it. Or at least that's what I think.
DeleteSection 006
ReplyDeleteThe story of Borgia appointing De Orco only to later have him publicly executed reminded me of Trump banning TikTok and then immediately legalizing it again. These two events are obviously not comparable in scale or cruelty, but there is a similarity in both politicians carrying out insidious campaigns in an attempt to gain public favor. While a bit frivolous, the TikTok debacle was a sign of a leader who is not honest or reliable.
1. According to Hobbes, life without democracy would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. He called this state of nature. Hobbes believed that all humans are selfish. Humans seek power and are driven by fear and death. Life in a state of nature would lead to people not trusting others, and possibly death depending on how paranoid or intense the society is. I do not personally think my neighbors would harm me but I would be around.
ReplyDelete2. Hobbes did not believe in souls. He said that humans were only physical beings, and our organs and muscles were the springs and wheels. Some thought Hobbes was an atheist because he stated that God must be a large physical object. I do not agree that God is just a physical object like humans.
3. Machiavelli believed that as a leader, it is better to be feared than loved. He would do anything to stay in power: lie, break promises, and said he would murder his enemies. I disagree. The people who look up to a leader should be able to trust them, but they do not have to know all information. He also thought that people were greedy, gullible, unreliable, and dishonest. This can be true but it does not apply to everybody.
How do eastern and western philosophies differ in their approach to things, and what is ma? Which do you find more appealing?
ReplyDeleteWestern Philosophy is rooted within ancient greek thought. It focuses on concepts such as dualism, rationalism, individualism, and linear thinking. Eastern Philosophy comes from traditions such as Buddhism, Taoism and Zen. It focuses on insight, mind, interconnectedness, and cyclical thinking. Ma is a Japanese concept that refers to the space between things like events or thoughts. I personally prefer western philosophy because I value individualism.
What did Mark Twain say about history?
ReplyDeleteMark Twain said "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Twain believed that history will follow similar patterns. We as humans are destined to make the same mistakes over and over again. We will see governments make the same mistakes as before as new leadership will come in to replace the old. It will not be the exact same, but it will share many similarities.
Machiavelli's philosophy is described as being "rooted" in what? Does your own experience confirm his appraisal of human nature and what's "realistic"?
ReplyDeleteIt was rooted in political realism. I personally believe, like I commented before, that we are inherently good but can be corrupted. For example, I do think that being a politician or in any kind of position of power comes with corruption, because in order to make decisions that mean life or death so often you'd have to think differently. I think that this causes people to lose their humanity. While there are some good examples of rulers and leaders here and there, I think that is more a rarity.
Machiavelli's philosophy is described as being "rooted" in what? Does your own experience confirm his appraisal of human nature and what's "realistic"?
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli's philosophy is rooted in realism. Machiavelli has a very unique perspective on the world. He believes that people are motivated only by self interest. People have a deep inherent lust for power and control. I believe that this is somewhat true. As humans in order to survive we had to be selfish. We kill other tribes and animals just to ensure our own survival. No matter how ethical the decisions are we make decisions in order to benefit ourselves.
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?
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli argued that a leader needs to have virtù—a combination of strength, cunning, and pragmatism—to maintain power and achieve political stability. He believed that rulers should not be bound by conventional morality but should instead do whatever is necessary to secure their position and protect the state. Whether or not one agrees with Machiavelli depends on their view of leadership. Some may argue that honesty is essential for trust in leadership, while others might accept deception in cases of national security. Personally, I think honesty is important, but exceptions may be necessary in rare cases where national security is at stake.
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"?
Machiavelli’s philosophy is described as being “rooted” in realism—his assessment of politics is based on how people actually behave rather than how they ought to behave. He viewed human nature as self-interested and believed leaders must take this into account. My own experience suggests that people can be both self-interested and altruistic, depending on the circumstances. While Machiavelli’s cynicism may often prove true, I think his view underestimates the potential for cooperation and moral leadership.
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?
The idea that leaders should rule by fear is based on the belief that humans are naturally selfish and unreliable, meaning they are more likely to obey out of fear than out of loyalty or love. Machiavelli famously argued that it is safer for a ruler to be feared than loved, as long as they avoid being hated. Personally, I respond more positively to politicians who appeal to hope rather than fear. While fear-based leadership may be effective in the short term, history has shown that hope and inspiration can lead to greater unity and long-term progress.