Midterm report presentations begin today:
Machiavelli and/or Hobbes - #1 Shane #2 Sarah A #3 Josie
*How [some of] the World Thinks - #1 Sarah
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...)
Section #1
ReplyDeleteA Little History of Philosophy
4.) Hobbes believed society outside of society would be a state of nature, and we’d be at higher risk for criminal activity. I do not think my neighbors would threaten my survival, however, I do think there would be intensified murder and crime rates. The human race would likely be taken out, because there would be good, but the people with murderous intentions would take out any and everybody.
5.) Hobbes lived through multiple wars in England, and he was born early because of his mother’s stress from the war. I do not pay attention to politics in the slightest, so I do not fear anything political. Well—I suppose I do fear the possibility of a nuclear war, but otherwise, I do not bat an eye to political media.
6.) Hobbes did not believe in the existence of the soul. I do agree in the existence of the soul. I think our souls are what make us human, and our souls also make us happy. If we are not giving positivity to our soul, we might be bitter.
#1
ReplyDeleteLHP
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?
Machiavelli said a leader needed to have virtú, not virtue, but “mannliness” (which suggests that a woman can’t have that– flaw of its time? Or genuine sexism?) which was the wisdom and cunning to know when to be ruthless, the recklessness and ability to put aside personal conscience to not hesitate or second guess (although he called it bravery). This way, he believed that actions would be taken to deter a worse outcome and ensure stability for the populace, which is of course the greater good. A leader needs to know when to lie, when to cheat, when to steal, when to kill to protect his power and land and people.
If you are a good person in power, you cannot ever take pride in being good, for no one will see you as such if you do what is best for them. Better to rule in fear than in love. Although best to rule with both, don’t fall to failure while striving for greatness. Fear is ‘good enough’ in Machiavelli’s book.
In some ways, it’s romanticized. Quaint. Almost Naive? Lots of ‘leaders’ never lead this way, and those who do are often miserable. Because we have inherited this perspective, good people don’t want to lead.
Do I agree with it? That a leader should take decisive action, be not afraid to be seen as a bastard because they’re working towards a greater good?
No. It sounds lonely. Sure makes for good fiction though. I’ve seen so many fantasy epics with these sorts of characters…
Also, I try to be honest. Radically, undividedly honest. I scold myself internally whenever I say something false. If everyone did the same, the world would be chaotic for quite a while, but then I think it’d be a better place.
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"?
I want to say that the good in the world outnumbers the bad, that Machiavelli’s flaw was with his base logic. He claims everyone is selfish and greedy and will never be worthy of your trust, and that that is all there is to us. I want to disprove him, but I can’t do it alone. If that is ‘realistic’ then I don’t want to live in the real world. If I somehow knew, deep in my soul, that he was speaking the truth, I’d fall into despair and likely determine that humanity isn’t worth saving. I’d either give up and immerse myself in fantasy or simply end my existence. Clearly that’s the bad ending. I can’t possibly know that sort of truth, no one can. We can only believe, and work so that it clearly isn’t true for us. For myself, I can work to prove him wrong everyday. Selfish? Greedy? Rarely, and there is much more to my core self than that.
As for others, for society as a whole, if we take Machiavelli’s view of the world, can we really expect someone else to take the first step, to trust if we cannot trust their trust? If we would stab them in the back for it?
Virtu sounds like the coward's way out. The safe way, the way that protects ‘your group’ but if you take the stance that all life matters, it is not the way to go. Radical trust. Radical honesty, is far better. It may have a high chance of failure, but on the off chance it works it would be so amazing.
Goodness has to start somewhere. Utopia fails without trust. Humanity has to be better than this, or what was all the suffering for? Never let fear of failure stop you from trying to be great. The worst that can happen is we all die.
I can only hope, cheer us on, and curse at society every time it proves me wrong.
Delete4. Life outside society would be what, according to Hobbes? Do you think your neighbors would threaten your survival if they would suffer no consequences?
Nasty, brutish, short… The title of his chapter kinda says it all.
It's tough to say what total strangers would do if there are no consequences to their actions. I will also point out here, that no consequences includes no guilt, as mental self-flagellation is a punishment. For the point of this question though and in order to respond to the spirit of it instead of the letter, we shall ignore this fact. If my neighbors, the strangers that surround me, don’t know there are no consequences, they would certainly assume there are consequences so wouldn’t do anything. Once no consequences are realized, unless my neighborhood is filled with sociopaths, some might rob me, but physical harm would be rarer– especially if they had the option to physically harm and rob anyone without consequences. If their curiosity to explore this new power was only limited to me in scope, I’d take a lot more harm than if it was towards anyone at all. Those who wish for violence would meet it out on those they find deserving of it, instead of little old me. They would rob me sure, but robbery probably wouldn’t put me in the ‘threatening my survival’ territory because I have a job (outside of my neighborhood and resources outside of it that I can take advantage of to escape.
However, if I was trapped, If any of my neighbors was under pressure to commit heinous crimes and survive or suffer and perhaps die being good, I have no doubt they’d sacrifice me or put my survival under threat to get them out of that threat. Without that stressor, they might take minor advantage– however, their own sense of self, of being a ‘good person’ would stop most from going far enough that it would be a threat.
The question remains then, am I surrounded by “most people” or people who are curious what blood tastes like, what it would feel like on their hands, people who don’t see other lives as more valuable than a second's pleasure. I don’t even know their names so I am in no position to qualify a response.
If there were truly nothing negative that could happen to them due to it, no guilt, no drama, it’s a lot harder to say what would happen because it’s not often I run into people like that.
The reason I’m drawing this conclusion is because there has been someone who tested it, or got as close to testing it as she could.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythm_0
Made a blogger account, still can't publish it as one comment. How do I go about making my own posts?
DeleteSection #1
ReplyDeleteLHP
4) Hobbes believed life outside society would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." I have high hopes for my neighbors, and I doubt they would harm us. I don't think that's in line with our logos. Harming others, I believe, doesn't come naturally... initially, at least. Besides, our HOA strictly prohibits murder.
FL:
2) Dr. William A. Rockefeller (AKA Devil Bill) was a notorious businessman and snake oil salesman. He was also a bigamist and father to Standard Oil Company founder John D. Rockefeller.
Comment:
3) In our history class, we were discussing how John D. Rockefeller used his father as an example of how not to behave. John D. Rockefeller's future philanthropic work was heavily influenced by his desire to be unlike his father. I just thought that would be interesting to share.
LHP Ch 9-10
ReplyDelete1. 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 believed that a leader should have Virtù and good luck. Virtù is the Italian word for manliness or valour. I agree with Machiavelli that a leader needs good luck to be successful, but I do not think a leader needs manliness in the masculine sense of the word. If he meant that a leader needs to be tough and resilient then I agree, but the leader doesn't need to be a man or even traditionally masculine to be effective. The reason I believe this is because nothing speaks louder than actions no matter how someone looks or sounds. For Machiavelli, nothing seemed to be off the table including murder, and I do not want a leader like this. It is imperative that our leaders have a strong moral compass and honesty. To be a leader, especially a prince, would be an impossible position for most people. Which is why I think the best leaders are the ones who do not seek the position, but rather end up with a responsibility to lead out of chance. Some historical leaders who found power like this include Marcus Aurelius and George Washington.
National security requires operational security and secrets. This can make it hard for leaders to maintain trust with the public. In this circumstance, I think the leader can still be honest without giving secrets away by simply acknowledging that they cannot share details for the safety of the people involved. Machiavellian leaders hold their country back from progress and prosperity. Leaders such as Putin, Stalin, Hitler, and Trump all exhibit characteristics reminiscent of Machiavelli’s ideal prince. These traits include narcissism, paranoia, killing political opponents, isolation, and a thirst for absolute power. We know how it ended with Stalin and Hitler.
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 thought his philosophy should be rooted in what really happens. I would describe myself as a realist, skeptic, and sometimes a cynic. However, Machiavelli doesn't just take a cynical approach to viewing human nature. He believed that everyone was driven by a will to power and control. I do not agree with this assertion. While I think the loudest and worst humans spend an enormous amount of their energy seeking power, I have also seen incredible selflessness with no reward or promise of social status. I also try to distance myself from people who are convinced that everyone is just out for themselves and want nothing but material gain. I fear that people who are enveloped in this mindset are actually just projecting their own dark desires and motivations. They paint society as wanting the same thing as them. Machiavelli seems like one of these people and wrote a whole book about the way he sees the world. I want a leader who seeks good for their people and not for themselves. Fear is the easy way to control people, whereas hope and faith are the righteous ways to lead people.
6. Hobbes did not believe in the existence of what? Do you? Why or why not?
Hobbes did not believe in a soul. He thought humans were mechanical creatures like a clock. I do not agree with Hobbes on thinking that humans have no soul whatsoever. I suspect that humans have souls, but that they are not eternal. When we die, the soul dies too. When I think of my soul, I think of the part that is connected to everything. My soul feels most connected when socializing with friends and family or when I used to go surfing every morning. Some people view the soul as an immaterial energy that is always there regardless of a body, or they may feel that their soul is connected to a god and that it will go to heaven after death. I have no definitive explanation for what my soul is, just an intuition about who I am and what makes me unique.
Section #1
ReplyDelete1. Machiavelli believed leaders must have virtu, manliness or valor. Success is determined by one’s own choices, but also by luck, and one can improve his chance of success by preparing and being opportunistic. Leaders must be willing to do whatever needs to be done to maintain rule and order. However, Machiavelli’s examples of leaders with virtu seem less like valor to me, and more like rule by deception and fear. We should try to foresee problems and their outcomes so we can plan ahead, and there are many types of situations where the details should not be made public, at least not immediately, but as a general rule our leaders should be honest. They’re making decisions that affect the rest of us, it’s important that we can know and trust them, their motivations, and their intentions.
2. Machiavelli wanted his philosophy to be rooted in the way things actually are. He gave several examples of “reality” from the life of Cesare Borgia: Borgia once discovered a plot against him from the Orsini family, invited them to a (seemingly) friendly meeting, and killed them all. Borgia later gave Remirro de Orco control over Romagna; after Remirro successfully scared the citizens into obedience, Borgia had him killed, which caused the citizens to be grateful to him, but also afraid. I do think that humans are naturally selfish and corrupt; I think that we can see that from looking at history and at our present. That being said, I also think there are a lot of people that strive to help and serve others without ulterior, self-serving motives. We should use caution and understand that others might have bad intentions, but I think preemptive bad actions just create a cycle of harm and lies.
3. According to Hobbes, life outside society would be a never-ending war. Everyone would be fighting for resources, if your neighbor wanted something they would just kill you and take it, and you would never know who you could really trust, even among your closest friends. No offense to any of my neighbors specifically, but I think generally speaking, a lot of people would get pretty violent if society collapsed. I think part of that may be because in modern times, we don’t really depend on each other very much, and certainly not on our communities as a whole. Instead we function more as individuals– My life, my wants, my needs. I don’t think we would know how to trust and rely on each other if we ever needed to, partly because we don’t know each other enough, but also partly because we don’t know how to ask for help.
Section #3
ReplyDelete1. 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 says a leader needs to have virtu. In other words, a leader needed to be manly or to posecess valor. I believe that it can be true that this is required for leaders. I think that a leaders priority should not stand on continuing power but in the saftey and wellbeing of the society it leads. There are instances where a leader may need to act with valor in the defence of their people, but I would not consider it impossible to do without the concent or knowledge of the governed. I hope that makes sense.
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?
Hobbs describes life without society as a war where everyone was against everyone. He thinks that people, who are enatley flawed, wouldnt think twice about stealing or killing if it were not for the threat of punishment by a higher authority. I do not think this is really true. I am kind of an optomist, but I believe that there is a good in humanity that could persevere in this instance. I think this is especally true if those without this governing body had religion. One that is peacful and functions with love. Now, whether that can be viewed as a governing body because the threat of punishment may come after death, that is another question entirely. Maybe...
6. Hobbes did not believe in the existence of what? Do you? Why or why not?
Hobbes did not believe in the existence of a soul. He believed that the body is like a machine. The thoughts we have are just physical process of that machine. I however do believe in a soul. As to the reason why... I believe in God. I believe he is the creator of the earth. The creator of an afterlife. I believe that he sent his Son Jesus, who is God made flesh, to die for us so that we may have eternal life with him. I also know that he came for us. In our brokenness, in our fear, in our pain, he meets us where we are. He does not turn away from me or from any of his children. He suffered like no man should and died on the cross. He took the burdens of our sin allowing our souls to be forgiven so that we may spend eternity with him.
To wrap this up, I believe in the soul because I know the God who created it. And I know the God who created it because he calls my name, in the same way he has called everyones. I know my God because I have seen miracles. I have seen people healed through prayer in front of my eyes. And I have seen demons (spirits) cast from the bodies of many. This is how I know there is a soul.
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"?
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli’s philosophy is described as being rooted in what really happens. Lots of Machiavelli’s examples are gruesome and unnecessarily violent. They involve examples of murder for a person to keep power. Because of this, I disagree with what Machiavelli views as “realistic;” while I do agree there are many people who are motivated by power, the idea that an ideal solution to keeping power is to murder people seems unrealistic to me. I think there would be other solutions for these people to accomplish their goals. I’m also not sure that I agree with Machiavelli’s assessment of what makes a good ruler. It seems to be implied that Machiavelli thought the most important thing for a ruler to do is to keep power. However, I think an ideal ruler acts in the best interest of their people, not only in their own best interest.
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?
Hobbes thought outside society, we would live in “a state of nature,” and everyone would steal and murder when necessary. Life outside society would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” I don’t think my neighbors would necessarily threaten my survival “if they could get away with it.” I think this idea overlooks the fact that people probably wouldn’t be hostile towards each other all the time. I think it’s likely people would make friends and work together even if there was nothing keeping people from threatening each other. I don’t think it’s impossible that people would become hostile towards each other; I’m sure some would, but I don’t think that everyone would be hostile towards everyone else.
I just read the next paragraph and while I see the reasoning that you couldn’t really trust anyone, I think people would anyway, and I do think some people would work together even though there’s no incentive to.
6. Hobbes did not believe in the existence of what? Do you? Why or why not?
Hobbes did not believe in the existence of the soul. I would say I believe in the existence of the soul, but it's hard to articulate why. I believe in an afterlife, so I think I must believe in the existence of the soul. Also, to me, the needs of the soul and the needs of the body seem separate; having a good soul requires different things than having a good physical form. Things like emotion and character seem to be connected to the soul rather than the physical body to me. However, I haven’t thought about this a whole lot before, so I’m not exactly sure what I think about it yet.
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 said that a leader needs to have virtú, meaning manliness or valor. This Italian word does not carry as much of the positive connotation that “virtue” does in English. To display virtú is to act in a way that is for the overall good of all people, even if it means doing something violent or abhorrent in the short term. In accordance with this view, Machiavelli believed that it was right for a ruler to kill a person (especially an opposing leader) as long as it further cemented their place as ruler over their people and prevented further bloodshed. He did not believe that murder for its own sake was justified.
I am inclined towards saying that I do not agree with his idea of virtú, but I also recognize that political leaders sometimes have to make very hard decisions with no “good” outcome, especially in times of war. I think virtú has its place, but should not be applied in all situations.
It is extremely important to me that our leaders be reliably honest, especially with their own people. I leave it to their own sense of judgment to discern whether it is in the nation’s best interests to be dishonest in certain situations. After all, I couldn’t make the government tell me all their secrets if I wanted to.
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 in a cynical view of human nature, or one that asserts that humans are not naturally inclined towards “good” thoughts and actions, but rather selfish and even violent ones. I naturally respond more positively to politicians who appeal to hope rather than fear. While it may be advantageous for a leader to rule by fear, the subjects being ruled over usually do not prefer to live in constant fear of those in authority over them, and I am included in that “subjects” group.
6. Hobbes did not believe in the existence of what? Do you? Why or why not?
Hobbes did not believe in the existence of a soul or a spirit that is separate from the physical body. I do believe in the existence of the soul, as it is a central part of my religious beliefs. However, Hobbes being a very practical and “physical” person, I understand where he was coming from.
1. What did Machiavelli say a leader needs to have? Do you agree? Is it important for our leaders to be reliably honest, with exceptions only for instances of national security and the nation's best interests?
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli used an Italian word to describe the golden trait for a successful leader: virtu. It means valour, or a degree of “manliness”. To further describe the concept, he uses the lion and fox to describe how a leader should be as strong as a lion, but as cunning as a fox. On the contrary, I think the worst leaders are those who deny their state transparency and honesty. A successful leader, to me, is a leader that pursues policies for the success and growth of a community and therefore would have no reason to be deceitful or terrifying. In international relations, I understand why a leader may want to appear intimidating and competent to other nations, but they should be reliably honest with who they lead. Through his cynical view on human nature, it makes sense that Machiavelli believed societies must be led by a frightening, manipulative prince. However, I believe a leader can garner respect through their achievements and actions. I like to think an honest, well-respected leader will have a more positive influence than a feared leader.
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 would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short outside of society. I certainly don’t think that my neighbors would threaten my survival if they could get away with it, because I don’t believe they would have anything to gain. I don’t believe the majority of people who commit violent crimes are led by a desire to inflict harm but instead act out in passion or seeking riches. I don’t think (or at least I hope not) my neighbors would be angry enough to harm me, and they definitely wouldn’t be doing it for monetary gain.
Hobbes did not believe in the existence of what? Do you? Why or why not?
Hobbes did not believe in the existence of the soul, but I absolutely do. He had a materialistic perspective and was led to believe that we operate like intricate machinery. I believe our emotions are a result of the chemicals in the brain, but our consciousness and morality are intertwined with the soul. It’s what defines our character and allows us to create connections beyond what is tangible. I do believe in the afterlife, and therefore believe the soul is eternal and will outlast our bodies.
Section #3 -
ReplyDelete1. Machiavelli said that a successful leader needs virtu, which is the ability to be decisive, adaptable and strategic. He believed that leaders have to appear virtuous while being able to act immorally when necessary. I partially agree with this. I think leaders need flexibility and realism, but I also think reliable honesty is important. While I think exceptions can be made, habitual dishonesty risks trust.
5. Hobbes was influenced by fear of civil war and violent chaos, which was shaped by the English civil war. My political views are influenced by fear of instability, loss of rights, and the breaking down of social trust.
6. Hobbes did not believe in souls, as he was a materialist. I'm personally not convinced of an immortal soul in the religious sense, but I do think that humans have a complex conscience and moral experience that makes us different, which I think can count as a soul to some people.
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?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Hobbes, life outside society would be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’ I’d like to have faith that my neighbors wouldn’t threaten my survival if they could get away with it, but there's really no telling. If I were the neighbor, I personally wouldn't threaten anybody's safety on purpose and I hope that would be returned to me.
5. What fear influenced Hobbes' writings? Do any particular fears influence your political opinions?
Hobbes’ fear of violent death influenced his writings. I don’t think I have any fears that would happen to me specifically that influence my political opinions. I have fears for other people when choosing my political opinions, whether it be people who are currently going through war or occupation, or victims of horrible things that some of our administrations have done to them. I understand that I am very very lucky to be able to feel this way, and hope to spend parts of my time advocating for others who cannot.
6. Hobbes did not believe in the existence of what? Do you? Why or why not?
Hobbes didn’t believe in the existence of immaterial substances, like demons, angels, spirits, or souls. I honestly have no idea what if i believe in the existence of these things. It’s hard for me to choose a side after being asked if I do or not. When I think of things like angels or demons, my brain usually conjures up an image of the Hollywood representation of the two, and I don’t really think those types of spirits are real. However, when I think of someone I know who has passed away, I love the idea that their souls are still living somewhere around us.
Section #2
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"?
He describes his philosophy as being rooted in "what really happens." To be honest, I'm not sure what he means. He could mean the reality of things, which I agree is a good philosophy. I also agree with his description of human nature as its said in our text. As a leader there does have to be some sense of "fear" of the leader, or else people would not follow them. I think you need to have the right balance of fear and respect as a leader. Right now, ruling out of pure fear works, but it leads to hate and underground schemes, but being too nice can lead to rebellious citizens because they know they'll get off easy. In those times, other kings (or leaders of other countries/cities/whatever they had at the time) would constantly be plotting ways to take over other countries and overthrow the leaders, so you had to be harsh to minimize the chances of people plotting. Like our book said, they would be too scared to plot rebellions on the account that they got caught, because there would be no sympathy.
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?
DeleteHobbs said that life outside of humanity would be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.' And I agree mostly. In my neighborhood we have a Facebook page where we post things when we need help. For example we had to change the light bulb in our living room that hangs from the ceiling fan and we didn't have a tall enough ladder, so we posted it on the Facebook page and a neighbor had a tall enough ladder so he brought it over and helped us change it. So I don't think that my neighbors attack each other, I think we would all help each other survive.
5. What fear influenced Hobbes' writings? Do any particular fears influence your political opinions?
His fear was anarchy. He was scared that England was going in that direction during the English civil war. I don't really think about these things too much, but if i was scared of anything happening, the top would be our country turning socialist/communist. We already have some places where laws that reflect these principles are in place, and we know from history that communism does not work, and that everyone thinks "I'll make it work!" and end up ruining the country. And the other is being physically attacked because I don't agree with the masses. I'm a small girl, and if someone wanted to harm me because of something I believe, then there's not much I can do. I guess this does affect my opinions somewhat.
LHP
ReplyDelete1. Niccolò Machiavelli said a leader needs to have power, strength, and the ability to maintain control, even if that means being deceptive or ruthless at times. He believed leaders should focus on results and stability, not always on being morally good. I partly agree because a leader needs to be practical and make difficult decisions, but I also think honesty is important for trust. It matters to me that leaders are generally honest, with rare exceptions only when national security or the country’s safety is genuinely at risk.
2. Machiavelli’s philosophy is rooted in a realistic and often pessimistic view of human nature, where people are seen as selfish, unreliable, and motivated by their own interests. He believed leaders must deal with people as they actually are, not as we wish they were. From my experience, there is some truth to this, since people often act in their own self-interest. However, I also think some people are capable of kindness and cooperation. In the book, the author explains that Machiavelli's response to this would be that these people are either pretending or are doing good because there are consequences or punishments if they do not. This has led me to begin to think about myself and the motive behind why i do good things when I do them.
5. Thomas Hobbes was deeply influenced by his fear of violent chaos and instability, especially during the English Civil War, when government authority collapsed and society became unpredictable and dangerous. His fear was that England could easily descend into anarchy and violent disorder without strong central authority. This experience shaped his belief that without a strong central authority, human life would descend into conflict and insecurity. He believed people naturally fear death and suffering, and this fear is what drives them to accept government control in exchange for protection. I do think fears influence political opinions, because people are more likely to support leaders and policies that promise safety, order, and stability. Fear can shape how people view threats, authority, and what they are willing to accept in order to feel secure. I don't really follow politics so I can't say for certain if fear doesn't or does not affect my political decisions.
Daniel #1
DeleteSection #3
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli argued that a leader needed to have Virtu (manliness or valor) and good luck. I think good luck is an important component for leaders to have throughout time, but I think the idea of Virtu was more valued in Machiavelli’s time but honestly these traits are still what we look for in leaders whether we intend to or not. Gender doesn’t have to play a role in it although it does because we tend to associate traits that a good leader has as masculine ones.
Machiavelli’s philosophy was rooted in reality, and what actually happens in political situations, not what we want to happen.
It is rooted in a cynical view of human nature that believed that humans are inclined to “bad” and violent actions. I don’t really think that’s necessarily true because humans are driven by deep biological impulses towards survival, but that doesn’t make them bad, it just makes them unconsciously act towards betterment for the self. I think politicians who appeal to hope are always the better choice because it encourages their followers to look outside of their own extreme need for self preservation and realize that other people exist as well, instead of encouraging a negative downward spiral towards blind following of instinct.
Evie Wade, Section 1
ReplyDelete1. 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?
Virtú (like bravado, as I understand it) was highly regarded by Machiavelli as a leadership quality. I can imagine how it would be helpful in very small doses, but in general I dislike his philosophy on the matter. Honesty in a leader is very important to me. Politicians running for office should be completely transparent to the public in their goals and motives; I can’t think of a scenario where dishonesty in that situation would be beneficial to the citizens. I do agree there should be ways to protect national security though.
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?
Machiavelli has a really pessimistic view of human nature. While I do think of humans as inherently selfish, I also believe there are real parts of us that want to help other people and feel genuine love for others. Ruling by fear is immoral and significantly decreases the quality of life, as we see from examples mentioned in the book like Nazi Germany and the Taliban. When I listen to political speeches and debates (or read their social media posts), I find the ones most uplifting and hopeful far more impactful than those who sow seeds of fear and division.
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?
Nasty, brutish, and short. It’s a rather pessimistic view, but I’m not sure where I stand. I think if all governments and law enforcement vanished overnight, chaos would break loose. But after the inevitable Purge-like situation, I think mankind would create some kind of order or hierarchy to replace that which is lost. Unfortunately, because the worst members of society are the ones willing to use the most force, the future seems bleak. We’ve worked long and hard to get to where we are, social justice-wise, so I doubt that would be the default. However I don’t think I would be concerned about the everyday person: I’d be concerned by the people who are used to having power, and who would be hell bent on regaining control. I would be tempted to find a group of people I trust (because I do believe some people are trustworthy) and go somewhere in the mountains to live far, far away from the Angry Men fighting over everything.
Section #1
ReplyDelete4.) According to Hobbes, life outside society would be chaos. He described it as "brutish and short". He thought that if given the chance, people would turn on you. I don't agree with Hobbes. While I do believe some people have ill intentions, I believe many care enough to understand social construct and order without law. Many people do bad things, I believe, because they were made so by factors in life (like someone who steals food to eat). They may not do those things if given the choice, therefore they wouldn't without social structure.
3.) Dukkha, in Buddhist Belief, is stress and discontentment. It is described as "a broken or crooked axle on a wheel". According to Buddhism, this stress and anguish is caused by attachment and craving, and that to achieve nirvana (liberation) you must acknowledge dukkha and let go of it.
4.) Sakura, or cherry blossom, is an appreciation for the beauty and plasticity of life and the world around us (also called "mono no aware"). This Japanese philosophy states that life and nature are more beautiful because they are fleeting. This is a philosophy I carry with me, and that I think of a lot, even if I never put it into words. I think life and its transience are both beautiful and purposeful; beautiful as it is only once (maybe...), and can never be redone in the exact same way, and purposeful because life's shortness makes you want to achieve more.
Machiavelli thought that leaders should have virtu, or manliness. He believed that good luck played a big part in our lives, but a leader would act swiftly rather than fall victim to bad luck. Machiavelli's example of virtue was when Cesare Borgia learned a wealthy family wanted to overthrow him, and he acted like he didn't know to trick and murder them. I think that leaders should have a sense of morality, and can't go around just doing anything they want.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Machiavelli's chapter I'm thinking of the current administration. Machiavelli said that leaders should do whatever to remain in power, throwing the concept of "good" out the window. Because of this, I can't help but disagree with Machiavelli. Trump is willing to destroy the world to remain in power, and he is in no terms a good leader. I can't help but wonder what Machiavelli's stance would be.
The idea that leaders should rule by fear is based on the interpretation that humans, by nature, are selfish. Personally, I appeal more to politicians who focus their campaign on hope rather than pessimism, think Zohran Mamdani!
section #1
DeleteLHP
ReplyDelete1. 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?
A: Machiavelli highlights the imperative of "virtu" as a means of retaining power. It encapsulates the Italian perspective of 'manliness' or valor, asserting that a sovereign must act with exacting haste in response to a compromising issue or threat. To an extent, I share this view with Machiavelli; leaders must be efficient and intentional with their methods of rule. The implications of these methods is where I beg to differ. Machiavelli advocated for the "Flexible Disposition." A ruler must be willing to break the conventional moral code (typically through dishonesty) to preserve the security of their state. As a citizen, I hold our elected officials to the highest degree of honesty and integrity. So, in a state governed by a Machiavellian leader, I would maintain a sense of cynicism, which is a feeling no one should have to endure as a member of society.
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"?
A: Machiavelli's philosophy is described as being "rooted in what really happens." He asserts that in a world where you can either by loved or feared, it's better to be feared. Coercing subjugation by threat of punishment, in Machiavelli's eyes, proves effective in a realistic, cut-throat world. This view reflects Machiavellian's low standards for human nature. He believed that humans were inherently "unreliable, greedy, and dishonest." In a modern, discordant political climate, I've started to notice the frequent surfacing of these tendencies, and I don't believe that Machiavelli's appraisal was too far off the mark.
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?
A: Realists, like Machiavelli, subscribe to the belief that humans are fundamentally selfish. To combat the natural human impulse, Machiavelli believed that leaders needed to rule by fear.
I personally respond more positively to politicians who appeal to hope. I belief the same can be said for almost anyone. This is not uncommon. However, as Machiavelli believed, politicians who appeal to pessimism and fear have a firmer grasp on their people, as it disincentivizes civil unrest.
Section #1
DeleteSection #2
ReplyDeleteLHP
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?
Machiavelli believed that a leader needed to have "virtú," or manliness. This involved the ability to act swiftly, employ particularly cruel or brutal tactics when necessary, and be prepared for unlucky outcomes. I definitely don't agree with Machiavelli that the ends justify the means, especially when it comes to things like murder and mutilation of political opponents. I think it's possible to be an effective and intelligent leader without resorting to illegal and inhumane tactics. In my opinion, the sort of people who don't hesitate to resort to assassinations in order to keep their power are not the sort of people who make good leaders to begin with. Transparency is important when it comes to leaders and public figures. Politicians are supposed to represent the interest of the people who elect them, and so they should make their agendas clear.
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 describes his philosophy as rooted in "what really happens." In this case, Machiavelli looks to the many instances of politically motivated murder and mutilation that served to keep the culprits in power. His philosophy was based on the assumption that in most cases, people would act cruelly in their own self-interests, and that humans by nature were selfish, greedy, and dishonest. It wasn't possible to be an effective leader unless you assumed the worst of others at all times.
Machiavelli's view of others doesn't align with my own. However, I have to admit that we run in very different circles; I have never been captured, tortured, and banished as a political prisoner before, and it's safe to say that it's an experience that would sour anyone to other people. But Machiavelli's view on human nature is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you assume that everyone is out to get you all the time, you will behave cruelly towards them out of self-protection, which in turn will make them act poorly towards you, reinforcing your view of all people as unpleasant and inherently evil, and so on...
In my own experience, people don't need much prompting to demonstrate their good qualities. They are quick to loan you a pen or scoot their legs out of the way so you can pass unimpeded. And if you've spent any length of time in the American South, you've probably had a friendly stranger strike up conversation with you while you waited in line together. Yes, people can be terrible, but by and large they can be very delightful. And assuming the worst of someone before you even know them will close off the possibility of a pleasant relationship before it can even begin.
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?
According to Hobbes, life without laws and social constraints would be complete anarchy. You would never be able to trust anyone, and would have to steal, lie, and murder to keep yourself alive. It would be a state of perpetual warfare just to keep living in a world full of people who experience no legal or social consequences for their actions. While I don't necessarily agree with Hobbes that laws are the only things that keep people from behaving cruelly, I do know that desperation can drive people to behave in ways they wouldn't normally. My neighbors wouldn't threaten my survival unless they themselves were threatened.
LHP 1 - Machiavelli believed leaders should have "virtù," his term for decisiveness and courage. A leader had to act quickly and prepare thoroughly to be truly effective. He also believed that leaders should be violent and rule through fear to keep their citizens in check. I think politics are already so dishonest and cold that it ends up a self-fulfilling cycle. To compete with dishonest people, you are forced to be dishonest. So, when someone like Mamdani becomes mayor and has already rolled out sweeping improvements to NYC's childcare in his first month in office, it's almost hard to believe that politicians are supposed to improve others' lives. I think Machiavelli's stance is more concerned with the pursuit of power than the improvement of one's community, which is what a government should exist to facilitate. His philosophies are more about maintaining control than actually doing anything with it. I can't really see what Machiavelli thinks is the end goal.
ReplyDeleteLHP 3 - Machiavelli believed that humans were inherently "unreliable, greedy, and dishonest" and that a leader can only counter this through violence. I'll throw out a Hail Mary: maybe this position is skewed by trauma that Machiavelli suffered from his time being tortured in captivity by the Medici family. Maybe he was Stockholm syndrome'd into believing the violence carried out on him was the "right" thing for leaders to do in order to maintain control. I don't stand by this armchair-at-best psychology, just a thought that popped into my head.
LHP 4 - Life outside of society, according to Hobbes, would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." His belief system painted humans as violent and self-serving to their core, which I think isn't true. I think humans are inherently problem-solvers, and when raised in violent environments, they just see violence as a particularly efficient way of solving problems. Hobbes is envisioning a free-for-all wasteland with scarce resources, but I think even under this imagined scenario, the thinking is wrong. Instead of the solution being "therefore we should punish humans for disobedience because they will kill each other for scarce resources," it should be "therefore we need to make sure resources aren't scarce so that there will be no need for any violence."
I do believe that we, as humans, have souls. If we did not, literally nothing else differentiates us from animals. There are obvious, drastic differences between humans and animals. For example, when was the last time you saw a dog worshiping a God? We have the ability to critically think in ways nothing else on this Earth can, the most important example being religion and morals. We are able to gain a deeper understanding of the world and what came before it, more so than animals of course. This isn't "evolution". You don't just suddenly wake up one day and everyone has gained true consciousness. However, it's about more than just the brain. Our emotions as humans are so complex that most of us still have trouble regulating them and not letting them control our lives. Our hearts and our built-in desire for knowledge is proof of a soul.
ReplyDeleteI do agree because the element of discovering things, ideas, and thought processes comes from an inherent part of every man: the soul. Today, we have robots, machines, AI, and intelligent systems that can replicate human actions and behaviour. However, there is something they have not been able to accomplish: thinking outside the limitations of the algorithm and data they have access to. In other words, they cannot formulate or create beyond what they are designed, taught, or equipped to do. Humans is only different from them because of our soul, which is why even if u can successfully replicate a brain, without a human soul it is only mechanical.
Delete3. Do you respond more positively to politicians who appeal to pessimism and fear, or to those who appeal to hope?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe fearmongering should NEVER be a way of swaying people to your side. I better understand those who appeal to people's hope, and wish to change the world for the better. If fear has to be used to get someone into office, who's to say they won't continue taking control of literally everything? If we already fear them, then what's stopping us from continuing to give them control?
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?
Hobbes believed human nature to be something completely selfish, and if society broke, he believed that we would all steal and murder in order to survive. I completely disagree with his view. If we are all purely selfish, then why is there any kind of kindness? Why would there be any kind of love? Laws don't dictate those things, and yet they still occur.
5. What fear influenced Hobbes' writings? Do any particular fears influence your political opinions?
Hobbes' lived in a constant fear of attack, which greatly influenced his views on power and authority. Personally, the only fear that influences me is the fear of the ones I love being hurt.
Section #3 ^
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSection #2
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli's ideology is a very interesting, unique, dangerous, and probably the most diverse interpretation. However, I do believe that his philosophy does contain an element of truth that every leader should heed, which is that you can think or behave like ordinary people because your position of power differentiates you. Certain things that you can accept, believe, do, or participate in as an average citizen, you can no longer partake in it. Power itself is both an opportunity and a burden, so to keep, maintain, and efficiently utilize requires an element of firmness, and some might say cruelty. However, not to the extent that we see Machiavelli concur and describe using Cesare Borgia. Power is a thin line, and one can only walk it smartly and cautiosly.
Section 2
ReplyDeleteThe concept of an "all powerful" god has always seemed like a far-fetched concept to me for very similar reasons to what Augustine proposed. Although I grew up in a household that had some religious values, it was not a concept that was instilled in me as an ultimatum. I can remember sitting though synagogue services unaware that those around me genuinely believed in this "god" figure, without question of how things like consuming shellfish were forbidden and yet everyday human beings were being murdered. Eventually I accepted that I was simply not someone who believed in a god.
There is also a point made about since we have free will, our choice to be good or evil is a byproduct of that and a "test" in a sense. But to that there are also fully selfish extremes such as rape, which is not at all as simple as just "being led astray." It is a conscious, selfish, heinous choice and there is no way in my opinion that a god if he exists can allow something like that and remain deserving of respect or admiration.
section #2
ReplyDeleteHobbes highlighted the need for a sovereign to ensure the enforcement of laws to prevent lawlessness due to the nature of man. I do agree with Hobbes that, essentially, humans are selfish and lawless by nature and need that supreme authority to curb them in the form of a government. The danger lies in what this sovereign uses as a means to curb this lawlessness: fear or hope. These two achieve similar results, but fear doesn't necessarily leave the most impactful result and excess hope as a way to back fire. However, a lot of people are drawn to hope. I believe a mixture of these two is the best means to rule with hope on the large side.
Section #2
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli brings a compelling argument to what a leader should; that is for his time. I think a leader should be someone who strikes both fear and love in people's hearts. Someone who isn't only feared or only loved. That balance is crucial for both respect and loyalty. A leader who is only loved strikes loyalty and compassion in people's hearts but might lack respect and can be walked all over. A leader who only strikes fear will never be loved or gain true. It reminds me of Sonny from a Bronx tale. People did as he pleased not because they liked him or agreed with his views, it was because of how much power, fear, and money he possessed.
ReplyDelete3. The idea that leaders should rule by fear is based on a pessimistic view of human nature. This view assumes that people are naturally selfish, untrustworthy, and motivated mainly by self-interest. Because of this, it suggests that people will only obey laws and authority if they fear punishment. This idea is often associated with Machiavelli, who argued that it is safer for a ruler to be feared than loved. I would rather follow leaders who strive for hope than leaders who instill fear and punishment. Ruling by fear may work to get people to follow you, but it will never make them like you.
5. Hobbes fear of death and "a state of nature" influenced his writings. He thought that at the heart, all humans are selfish and only the rule of law and punishment keeps us in check. Personally, living in America, I have a fear of anyone in political power here, and therefore, I do not trust anyone or follow any political leaders. I fear them, because I believe to get in power, you have to be a bad person, and more importantly, you have to submiss yourself to the real ones in charge. After seeing the government released Epstein files, as seeing that almost everyone in power has ties to him, including our president, it validated everything i've ever felt about our democracy. In theory, democracy sounds like the most reasonable option, but it's not like that in reality.
6. He did not believe in the existence of souls. I do believe in souls. I have a hard time understanding the soul apart from the body after death, but when I think of souls I think of it being the spiritual part of humans that give our body life. Because I believe in an after-life, I believe our souls will return back with our bodies on judgment day to be accounted for our life on earth.
section #1
Delete