Midterm report presentations begin today-
15 Kaag 1 - SSHM... Midterm report presentations begin. Machiavelli, Hobbes-LHP 9-10. Rec: FL 11-12. HWT 11-13. #1 Austin Vance-Machiavelli. #2 Max Lynch-___. Fena-Hobbes. #3David Vandelay-Hobbes. Alex Daniel-Epicurus
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?
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?
2. What is distinctive about "our age" that makes James particularly relevant?
3. What happened on Feb. 6, 2014 that prompted Kaag to write this book?
(See "Is Life Worth Living...)
5. Human history is "one long commentary on" what?
6. A "wider world... unseen by us" may exist, just as our world does for ___.
7. The "deepest thing in our nature," which deals with possibilities rather than finished facts, is a "dumb region of the heart" called (in German) ___.
HWT
1. How do eastern and western philosophies differ in their approach to things, and what is ma? Which do you find more appealing?
FL
1. What was Arthur C. Clarke's 3d law regarding technology, and what's its converse?
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...)
Thomas Hobbes (in "The Dream of Enlightenment" by Anthony Gottlieb)
BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time, Hobbes
Machiavelli in our time
Thomas Hobbes - Interpretations of Leviathan | Political Philosophy
Machiavelli: A Very Short Introduction | Quentin Skinner | Talks at Google
For the past year, two philosophy professors have been calling around to prominent authors and public intellectuals with an unusual, perhaps heretical, proposal. They have been asking these thinkers if, for a handsome fee, they wouldn’t mind turning themselves into A.I. chatbots.
John Kaag, one of the academics, is a professor at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. He is known for writing books, such as “Hiking With Nietzsche” and “American Philosophy: A Love Story,” that blend philosophy and memoir... (nyt, continues)
Discussion questions:
- Have you ever felt "pulled in too many directions"? 2 How did you respond?
- Do you approach philosophy as a "detached intellectual exercise," an "existential life preserver," or something else?
- Where would you place yourself on the spectrum between "sick soul" and "healthy-minded"? Does that change, over time?
- Can belief that life is worth living become self-fulfilling?
- Do you know any "sick souls"? 3 Or "healthy minds"? 4 Are they the same person?
- Do you agree that believing life to be worth living "will help create the fact"? 5
- Do you like WJ's answer to the question "Is life worth living?" 9
- Is suicide always "the wrong way to exit life"? 10
- Have you ever visited the Harvard campus? What were your impressions?
- Is "maybe" a good answer to the eponymous question of James's essay below?
- Do you like Whitman's poetic expression of "the joy of living"?
- Have you ever been as happy as Rousseau at Annecy?
- Do you agree that nature cannot embody the ultimate "divine" spirit of the universe? What if you remove (or re-define) "divine"? 489
- Do you agree that "sufferings and hardships do not, as a rule, abate the love of life..."? 491
- Does the "purely naturalistic basis" suffice to make life worth living? 494
- Does life feel like a "real fight" to you? 502
*IS LIFE WORTH LIVING? (see the Library of America's terrific William James : Writings 1878-1899... vol.2 is William James : Writings 1902-1910).
When Mr. Mallock's book with this title appeared some fifteen years ago, the jocose answer that "it depends on the liver" had great currency in the newspapers. The answer which I propose to give to-night cannot be jocose. In the words of one of Shakespeare's prologues,—
"I come no more to make you laugh; things now,
That bear a weighty and a serious brow,
Sad, high, and working, full of state and woe,"—
must be my theme. In the deepest heart of all of us there is a corner in which the ultimate mystery of things works sadly; and I know not what such an association as yours intends, nor what you ask of those whom you invite to address you, unless it be to lead you from the surface-glamour of existence, and for an hour at least to make you heedless to the buzzing and jigging and vibration of small interests and excitements that form the tissue of our ordinary consciousness. Without further explanation or apology, then, I ask you to join me in turning an attention, commonly too unwilling, to the profounder bass-note of life. Let us search the lonely depths for an hour together, and see what answers in the last folds and recesses of things our question may find... (continues)
- Why does anyone give Alex Jones any credibility at all?
- Why do people like Ayn Rand's message that selfishness is a virtue?
- Was Mencken right about the Scopes Trial? 375
Kieran Setiya's Five Questions podcast... Five questions for Setiya in TPM...
Map of William James's Cambridge...
- Do you feel more resentful or grateful to have been "thrown" into the world? 11
- Do you agree with Jennifer Michael Hecht? “None of us can truly know what we mean to other people, and none of us can know what our future self will experience. History and philosophy ask us to remember these mysteries, to look around at friends, family, humanity, at the surprises life brings — the endless possibilities that living offers — and to persevere. There is love and insight to live for, bright moments to cherish, and even the possibility of happiness, and the chance of helping someone else through his or her own troubles. Know that people, through history and today, understand how much courage it takes to stay. Bear witness to the night side of being human and the bravery it entails, and wait for the sun. If we meditate on the record of human wisdom we may find there reason enough to persist and find our way back to happiness. The first step is to consider the arguments and evidence and choose to stay. After that, anything may happen. First, choose to stay.” Stay: A History of Suicide and the Arguments Against It by Jennifer Michael Hecht
- Does Calvinism "set out an impossible task"? 13
- Do you agree with WJ's father about "the point of life"?
- Can there be a constructive, non-violent "moral equivalent of war"? 21
- Do you agree with James about "our national disease"? 22
- Would it be bad if all your wishes "were fulfilled as soon as they arose"? 23
- Was "Mark" right about the three parts of a person? 26
- If there's no "soul" is determinism true? 28
- If humans are animals, do we have no soul? 31
- Were Nietzsche and Buber right about suicide? 34-5
- Are you one of the lucky "once-born"? Does that make you "blind and shallow"? 40
- If we possess free will, would it be wrong to insist on a coercive demonstration that we do? DD 566
- Do you believe you regularly experience opportunities to really choose between alternative futures? Could you decide, for instance, to take an alternate route home from school today? 573
- Are some regrets appropriate and unavoidable? 577
- Does determinism define our universe as one in which it is impossible to close the gap between how things are and how they ought to be? 578
- Which is better, pessimism or subjectivism? 584f.
- Does life lose zest and excitement, if things were foredoomed and settled long ago? 594
LISTEN (11.4.21). The World Series may be over, but "radical evil gets its innings" still (wrote William James in the "Sick Soul" chapter of Varieties of Religious Experience). That's what's really at stake in the free will-determinism debate: whether we'll get ours, and have a shot at amelioration.
Sick Souls, Healthy Minds: How William James Can Save Your Life
by John Kaag (author of American Philosophy: A Love Story and Hiking with Nietzsche)
In 1895, William James, the father of American philosophy, delivered a lecture entitled "Is Life Worth Living?" It was no theoretical question for James, who had contemplated suicide during an existential crisis as a young man a quarter century earlier. Indeed, as John Kaag writes, "James's entire philosophy, from beginning to end, was geared to save a life, his life"--and that's why it just might be able to save yours, too. Sick Souls, Healthy Minds is a compelling introduction to James's life and thought that shows why the founder of pragmatism and empirical psychology--and an inspiration for Alcoholics Anonymous--can still speak so directly and profoundly to anyone struggling to make a life worth living.
Kaag tells how James's experiences as one of what he called the "sick-souled," those who think that life might be meaningless, drove him to articulate an ideal of "healthy-mindedness"--an attitude toward life that is open, active, and hopeful, but also realistic about its risks. In fact, all of James's pragmatism, resting on the idea that truth should be judged by its practical consequences for our lives, is a response to, and possible antidote for, crises of meaning that threaten to undo many of us at one time or another. Along the way, Kaag also movingly describes how his own life has been endlessly enriched by James.
Eloquent, inspiring, and filled with insight, Sick Souls, Healthy Minds may be the smartest and most important self-help book you'll ever read. g'r
==
By William James
A common opinion prevails that the juice has ages ago been pressed out of the free-will controversy, and that no new champion can do more than warm up stale arguments which everyone has heard. This is a radical mistake. I know of no subject less worn out, or in which inventive genius has a better chance of breaking open new ground--not, perhaps, of forcing a conclusion or of coercing assent, but of deepening our sense of what the issue between the two parties really is, of what the ideas of fate and of free will imply. At our very side almost, in the past few years, we have seen falling in rapid succession from the press works that present the alternative in entirely novel lights. Not to speak of the English disciples of Hegel, such as Green and Bradley; not to speak of Hinton and Hodgson, nor of Hazard here --we see in the writings of Renouvier, Fouillée, and Delbœuf how completely changed and refreshed is the form of all the old disputes. I cannot pretend to vie in originality with any of the masters I have named, and my ambition limits itself to just one little point. If I can make two of the necessarily implied corollaries of determinism clearer to you than they have been made before, I shall have made it possible for you to decide for or against that doctrine with a better understanding of what you are about. And if you prefer not to decide at all, but to remain doubters, you will at least see more plainly what the subject of your hesitation is. I thus disclaim openly on the threshold all pretension to prove to you that the freedom of the will is true. The most I hope is to induce some of you to follow my own example in assuming it true, and acting as if it were true. If it be true, it seems to me that this is involved in the strict logic of the case. Its truth ought not to be forced willy-nilly down our indifferent throats. It ought to be freely espoused by men who can equally well turn their backs upon it. In other words, our first act of freedom, if we are free, ought in all inward propriety to be to affirm that we are free. This should exclude, it seems to me, from the freewill side of the question all hope of a coercive demonstrations,-- a demonstration which I, for one, am perfectly contented to go without.
With thus much understood at the outset, we can advance. But not without one more point understood as well. The arguments I am about to urge all proceed on two suppositions: first, when we make theories about the world and discuss them with one another, we do so in order to attain a conception of things which shall give us subjective satisfaction; and, second, if there be two conceptions, and the one seems to us, on the whole, more rational than the other, we are entitled to suppose that the more rational one is the truer of the two. I hope that you are all willing to make these suppositions with me; for I am afraid that if there be any of you here who are not, they will find little edification in the rest of what I have to say. I cannot stop to argue the point; but I myself believe that all the magnificent achievements of mathematical and physical science--our doctrines of evolution, of uniformity of law, and the rest--proceed from our indomitable desire to cast the world into a more rational shape in our minds than the shape into which it is thrown there by the crude order of our experience. The world has shown itself, to a great extent, plastic to this demand of ours for rationality. How much farther it will show itself plastic no one can say. Our only means of finding out is to try; and I, for one, feel as free to try conceptions of moral as of mechanical or of logical rationality. If a certain formula for expressing the nature of the world violates my moral demand, I shall feel as free to throw it overboard, or at least to doubt it, as if it disappointed my demand for uniformity of sequence, for example; the one demand being, so far as I can see, quite as subjective and emotional as the other is. The principle of causality, for example--what is it but a postulate, an empty name covering simply a demand that the sequence of events shall some day manifest a deeper kind of belonging of one thing with another than the mere arbitrary juxtaposition which now phenomenally appears? It is as much an altar to an unknown god as the one that Saint Paul found at Athens. All our scientific and philosophic ideals are altars to unknown gods. Uniformity is as much so as is free will. If this be admitted, we can debate on even terms. But if anyone pretends that while freedom and variety are, in the first instance, subjective demands, necessity and uniformity are something altogether different, I do not see how we can debate at all...
...determinism leads us to call our judgments of regret wrong, because they are pessimistic in implying that what is impossible yet ought to be. But how then about the judgments of regret themselves? If they are wrong, other judgments, judgments of approval presumably, ought to be in their place. But as they are necessitated, nothing else can be in their place; and the universe is just what it was before,--namely, a place in which what ought to be appears impossible. We have got one foot out of the pessimistic bog, but the other one sinks all the deeper. We have rescued our actions from the bonds of evil, but our judgments are now held fast. When murders and treacheries cease to be sins, regrets are theoretic absurdities and errors. The theoretic and the active life thus play a kind of see-saw with each other on the ground of evil. The rise of either sends the other down. Murder and treachery cannot be good without regret being bad: regret cannot be good without treachery and murder being bad. Both, however, are supposed to have been foredoomed; so something must be fatally unreasonable, absurd, and wrong in the world. It must be a place of which either sin or error forms a necessary part. From this dilemma there seems at first sight no escape. Are we then so soon to fall back into the pessimism from which we thought we had emerged? And is there no possible way by which we may, with good intellectual consciences, call the cruelties and treacheries, the reluctances and the regrets, all good together?
...
The dilemma of this determinism is one whose left horn is pessimism and whose right horn is subjectivism. In other words, if determinism is to escape pessimism, it must leave off looking at the goods and ills of life in a simple objective way, and regard them as materials, indifferent in themselves, for the production of consciousness, scientific and ethical, in us... (continues)
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.
I agree, a combination of both fear and love is probably ideal for a good ruler.
Delete
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
DeleteI agree that ruling with fear won't get people to follow you because in the end, they don't support you, they are just scared of you.
DeleteYour comment about American political figures is extremely honest. It is hard to believe in our politicians when we live in the capitalist beacon of the world.
DeleteSEP 15...
ReplyDelete(Section 1)
ReplyDeleteLHP questions 3,5,6
3. A low view of human nature, i respond just as well to both depending on which topic they are speaking, if they are trying to put fear into criminals i would support that, but if they are talking about bettering everyday life then optimism does a lot more for me.
5. He feared the lack of repercussions for peoples actions when it came to parliament and the government, i don't believe i currently have any fears that influence my political opinion
6. the human soul, because there "was no room" in the body for it. I believe we all have souls.
I agree that Hobbes thought that the human soul was not a think and I also think that we all have souls.
DeleteSection H01:
ReplyDelete2. Machiavelli's philosophy was rooted in what actually happens in the real world. He believed people were often unreliable and dishonest. I think some experiences support his view because people don't always keep promises or act selflessly. But I think his view is a little too pessimistic because a good amount of people are trustworthy and caring.
3. It comes from Machiavelli's belief that people are unreliable and selfish. He thought fear was more dependable than love because people would be less likely to betray someone that they feared. I personally respond more positively to hope because I think hope gives people something positive to work towards.
4. Hobbes said life outside society would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Without laws or government, people would have to protect themselves and might steal or kill to survive. I don't think my neighbors would threaten my survival because I think they can cooperate.
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?
ReplyDeleteA leader can murder enemies, lie, and break promises. I do not agree. Leaders should be held to a higher standard. I would prefer our leaders, lead with the greater good in mind. While I would prefer them not withhold knowledge, I could see a case where it is in the communities best interest to not disclose everything.
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 was a realist, and that it should be rooted in what really happens.but said everything depended 50/50 on luck and choices but that we should not be victims to chance. I think more of what happens is related to actions instead of just luck
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?
He said if they fear you, they would be less likely to betray. And that humans are “unreliable, greedy, and dishonest”. I respond better to those with messages of hope.
Questions: Section 2#
ReplyDelete1. Machiavelli advised that leaders must have virtu, which is the Italian word for 'manliness' or valor. I think that a leader should try to be honorable, which in turn would naturally lead to valor in certain circumstances. It is important for our leaders to be honest and reliable to what degrees they can be. A leader who does not have the peoples' trust will run into trouble in the long run.
2. Machiavelli rooted his philosophy in what really happens. I believe that rooting our philosophies in reality and our own lived experience is very logical. My own experiences play a big part into how I view the world around me.
3. Machiavelli believed that human beings were unreliable, greedy, and dishonest. Thus, rulers should rule by fear over anything else. I do not respond well to any politicians, but I especially dislike rulers using scare tactics to further their political agendas. I should like to believe that politicians that run on the basis of hope for the future have a better appeal to me.
Section 3 Spencer Hebel
ReplyDelete1. Machiavelli said that a leader needs virtu, which is equivalent to manliness. I would agree, but not in such extreme circumstances. It is important for leaders to be reliably honest, with exceptions potentially but depending on a case-by-case basis.
2. His philosophy is rooted in what really happens, which makes him a realist. Throughout my personal experience, I have found people to show true kindness out of a good-natured heart, rather than exploitation, which shows me that a realistic worldview can still see the good in people.
3. The idea that leaders should rule by fear is based on cynicism, which states that humans are greedy and at a low level. I respond much more to people who utilize hope as a tool to win people over and think that should primarily be the way that politics are conducted.
Section 2
ReplyDelete1. I think that it is essential for leaders to be brave in their decisions but I think that Machiavelli was specifically selfish. I think that while he did things in which he though was best for the public, he did them for personal reasons, to keep status. I don't think that appealing to fear is a fair strategy for a leader to constantly use to gain control over citizens because it begins to come off as leading for the wrong reasons. However, it is a useful to gain followers, because humans are afraid of consequences.
2. "Life outside society would be ‘solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish, and short". I don't necessarily disagree with Hobbes and his belief that all humans, whether aware of it or not, possess a selfish quality and desire to hold power over others. But I don't think that these selfish qualities have to specifically be stealing and murdering. It is interesting though thinking about what the world's dynamic would look like if we didn't have all the laws and policies that shadow those "selfish" traits that Hobbes believes is in all humans.
3. Hobbes didn't believe in souls. I think that the human sole comes down to what is "alive" in our body, once we die a part of it dies too. I am not sure yet what I believe in after death. I think it is something obviously we will never truly know so it's hard for me to commit to one belief but there is the possibility of the soul still living on.
Section 3
ReplyDeleteLHP 9-10
1. Machiavelli said a leader needs virtue, meaning courage, strength, decisiveness, and adaptability. A successful ruler should combine the fox’s cunning with the lion’s power and be prepared to deceive when necessary. A possible personal response is that leaders need these abilities but should also be reliably honest, with limited, accountable exceptions for genuine national-security needs.
4. Hobbes described life outside society as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Without laws and an authority to enforce them, people would compete for resources and fear attack. A possible personal response is that neighbors would not necessarily become violent, since people also cooperate, although severe scarcity and insecurity could undermine trust.
6. Hobbes rejected the existence of an immaterial soul, believing that human beings and their thoughts are entirely physical. A possible personal response is to remain uncertain about souls: the relationship between the brain and mental activity supports physical explanations, but it does not settle every philosophical or religious question about human existence.
Not "virtue" but virtu' - an Italian word that means something like "manliness"... a very different concept.
DeleteSection 2:
ReplyDelete1: Machiavelli says a leader needs to be able to not always be a good person. It can be important to deceive at times, whether it be one's enemy or even ones subjects. He also says it holds importance to appear honest to gain the trust of the people even if that is simply a facade. For the average person, I would say this is a manipulative and terrible way to approach all aspects of life, however, on the largest scale as a ruler, if ones goal is to stay in power and grow their influence, his ideas are a solid means to an end.
2: Machiavelli's philosophy is rooted in reality, what really happens. He had a negative view of the population, seeing that they were self-prioritizing, which can certainly be true for many; however, I do not see everyone following these characteristics. What is realistic to me is that there is variance in humans, sure there are plenty who would gladly put themselves first even if it meant putting others down however, not everyone thinks this way, there are truly selfless people.
3: The idea that humans should rule in fear is based on people's self-interest to avoid punishment. I have never had to experience a tyranny like this. I feel I respond better to hope, yet still, I do not have an undying devotion to the nation even with these freedoms. I do have a deep respect and appreciation, though for being able to live a life without fear of oppression.
Folks, no need to keep answering the same question in the same way if someone else has already done so accurately (for instance, identifying Machiavelli's "virtu")... but I would be interested in hearing what YOU think about it.
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli's philosophy, while quite effective, is unfortunately a product of its time. Due to the nature of the 16th century, most of mankind was focused on survival instead of luxury. Although distinct classes did exist, the formation of a middle class that was allowed to enjoy luxuries did not develop until centuries later. Most of 16th century reality was backed by instability, warfare, weak institutions, etc. This resulted in brutality and selfishness because support systems were not in place to help those who needed it most.
ReplyDelete- It is unfortunate that Machiavelli refused to look deeper into why his surroundings behaved the way they did. Perhaps due to a complex form of self hatred because he himself was born into poverty. I wonder if Machiavelli developed this mindset believing that it would bring him closer to higher socioeconomic classes.
DeleteSection 2
ReplyDeleteLHP
Machiavelli believed that a leader needs to have virtu, meaning manliness or valor. He believed that although success depends quite a bit on luck, acting bravely and swiftly can improve your success. Though I don’t share Machiavelli’s view on how this should be executed, I agree that the best leader is one who acts bravely and swiftly, as the best leader is reactive to the problems of their people. I value a leader who acts swiftly to assemble people to pass laws and acts in support of the common good of society. Honesty is also an important aspect of a leader, both for themselves and their community. A leader who is dishonest or secretive is not likely to garner support and therefore will not be able to lead. Honestly communicating with the public allows for more effective change, as problems can be identified quicker.
Machiavelli’s argument for ruling by fear was based on his low view of human nature, seeing humanity as unreliable, greedy, and dishonest. I would not respond well to this type of leader, who sees themselves as better than the average person, a “God amongst men”, because in devaluing the communal perspective, they will not be able to see what people need. Unfortunately, modern leaders are more likely to appeal to pessimism and fear because it creates a more visceral reaction than hope, and people tend to be more skeptical of hope than negativity.
Thomas Hobbes believed that life outside society would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”, as he saw that people are naturally selfish, and are only kept from acting on it by the rule of law and threat of punishment. While I don’t believe that everyone is being restrained from their true, vile selves, I know that some people are, and so being in an anarchic environment could be dangerous with those people. I also think that the abolition of all governments everywhere wouldn’t stay anarchic for long. I think that humans tend to seek out order and laws in order to guide their decisions, to make them feel rational and “right”. As social creatures, humans develop understandings as to what is “right” and “wrong” so that they can interact with others.
Section #2 (1pm)
ReplyDelete1. Machiavelli believed that a leader needed to have virtù, manliness or valor. I think a leader should have valor. I do not think manliness is a requirement for a leader. I think a leader should be honest. I recognize that there are gray areas in which they may not be completely honest, but there should be transparencies in which our government should be honest about so they can be held accountable.
3. A leader who rules with fear is based on cynicism. The belief that all humans are greedy and dishonest and should not be trusted. I think hope is a better appealer then fear. Fear can cause inaction while hope for something better can spark actions.
4. To Hobbes, life outside society would be almost barbaric and riddled with war. It would be full of fear and crimes. I would like to believe that most humans are good and kind and even without laws would remain the same.
1.) Niccolò Machiavelli argued that effective rulers rely on virtu which means to have sharp competence, grit, and political courage(google is the best) While unpredictable events shape some outcomes, leaders can override bad luck through intense preparation and a willingness to use any means necessary to keep order. However, this approach actually reduces leadership to simple cruelty, depending far too much on deception and intimidation. True stability comes from foresight and planning, not fear. While extreme crises might require temporary secrecy, honesty should be the default rule. Because a government's choices impact everyone, citizens must be able to verify and trust their leaders' motives.
ReplyDelete2.) Machiavelli insisted on looking at the world as it is, pointing to Cesare Borgia's brutal tactics as proof. To stop an internal rebellion, Borgia arranged a fake peace summit, lured the Orsini family inside, and executed them. He used a similar trick to stabilize a chaotic region: he hired a ruthless governor to violently crush the public, then publicly executed that same governor to appease the angry citizens and display his own absolute control. While history proves that humans can act out of pure self interest, it also shows we are capable of incredible, selfless cooperation. Being cautious is smart, but attacking others first just triggers a permanent cycle of retaliation.
3.) Thomas Hobbes warned that without a central government, humanity would descend into an endless, violent scramble for resources where trust cannot exist. If our social structures collapsed today, people would likely turn on each other to survive. This danger is even worse now because modern life isolates us, pushing us to rely strictly on ourselves rather than our local communities. Since we no longer practice depending on our neighbors for daily survival, a sudden disaster would leave us entirely unequipped to cooperate or show the vulnerability needed to ask for help.
Tyler Scherr - H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Virtu or Valor. I agree but not the extent that he expresses this idea is a bit off, and I don't believe manliness is connected with being a leader. I believe honesty is a touchy subject in politics and generally it would be good if they were honest but I see more drawbacks than benefits of a truly honest leader in modern politics, but as long as the public is more or less informed, I don't see an issue.
2. It was rooted in what really happens, and I think his view is harsh but true. Humans when it comes down to it are drawn to the principle "the ends justify the means" and his political examples of what really happens seem to align with that.
3. He has a low opinion of humans and I believe that one that appeals to hope in a time where it is allowed is better.
Machiavelli was rooted in pragmatism and political realism. I am not very fond of this sort of perspective from both angles. I dont like Pragmatism because it fundamentally does not believe in truth and metaphysically it subverts moral wants for the ethical. It is practically taking the primacy of consciousness to its logical conclusion. It is ethically incoherent. Political realism is also an inconsistent ideology because "politics" in any sense other than arrangement of individuals is bound to hold contradictory claims. Politics as a category is just a non starter.
ReplyDeleteLife would be poor brutish and short according to Hobbes. It is undoubtedly true that people engage in unethical behavior. They do it even when rationally it is obvious they won't get away with it.
Hobbes didn't believe in souls. I don't believe in souls from a positivist perspective, which is to say I'm agnostic about the claim. There simply isnt any non-mystical evidence. It is mere belief. I can be critical of the positive definitions for what a soul actually is, but when stricken down to its core it is definitionally impossible to grasp, so from my perspective it is irrelevant and really shouldn't be talked about at all. When everything is said and done, the reality of the claim will set upon me and in those moments I'm open to discussing the function of the essence. Or I won't.
Section #3 (2:40 P.M.)
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Machiavelli said a leader needs to possess "virtu" or in his terms, manliness, efficacy, and political skills. He believed that a leader must be willing to act ruthless and use deceit if it meant maintaining power and protection.
2. Machiavelli's philosophy is rooted in political realism, looking towards actual human behavior; he felt that people were naturally selfish, cowardly, and deceptive. In my own experiences, I can agree to a certain extent. It's harsh, but it is true, and current politicians are a prime example of that.
3. The idea that leaders should rule by fear is based on the view that human being are selfish and unreliable; Machiavelli felt that a leader cannot rely on the love of the people because love can easily be lost when it no longer is of benefit, according to him. He felt that fear did the opposite, as people are more easily controllable due to the dread of being punished.
Section #3
ReplyDelete4. 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 that society and the concept of punishment were the only things keeping people in “line” per se, and not being violent or brutish. And a life without society would be solitary and not permanent. I don't think of my neighbors in such light. I think people do bad things often. And I think it's clear from the fact that these things still happen that society is not
the limiting factor in violence.
5. What fear influenced Hobbes' writings? Do any particular fears influence your political opinions?
Hobbes had a deep fear of brutish violence and the unregulated state of man. Which he saw to be innately violent and evil. I think I have a fear of people being hurt and treated poorly. I have a fear of people I love being killed, but also anyone being hurt simply from political structure and ideology.
6. Hobbes did not believe in the existence of what? Do you? Why or why not?
Hobbes didn’t believe in anything immaterial. Such as a god, or a soul, or any sort of representation of our heart and faith that does not physically exist. I agree whole heartedly. Every emotion comes down to physicality. I don't think it means that love and connection don’t exist or aren’t that special. But I think that special connections and feelings are still feelings which are physical.
H03
ReplyDelete1. Machiavelli said that a leader must be able to have "virtu" which pretty much just means that a leader has to strike fear into the people to keep them in line.
2. Machiavelli's philosophy counted on the idea that a human's nature will naturally be selfish and evil, needing someone to control us by scaring us or else we'll just purge each-other. I think that, to an extent, we are egotistical, but not completely. I remember this one social experiment where everyone threw a bunch of kids aged 5-10 or so in a house and told them that they were free to do what they wanted to do. They were chaotic, yes, and they definitely had some interesting dynamics, but everyone assigned roles to each-other. One kid did the laundry, the other cooked.
3. As I said before, he sort of viewed people as selfish, cruel beings that would backstab each-other if given the opportunity. And also that order was just not instilled into our nature, therefore a big "leviathan" would be needed for any of us to work together.
Section 2
ReplyDeleteWhat 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 needs to have virtu, which was manliness and/or valor. He believed that success relied on good luck, but if you came across as more brave , then you had a better chance. I do agree because being successful relies on mental and physical well-being. I do believe it is important for our leaders to be reliably honest because trust is an important aspect of 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 cynicism.I believe I respond more positively to politicians who appeal to pessimism and fear because they feel more real. I like to look at the world through more pessimistic eyes sometimes, so that I don't believe everything is good when in reality, it's not.
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. Because I'm Christian I do believe in the existence of a soul, but I think people would classify it as your subconscious. I believe that everyone has a place deep down inside themselves that encourages them to think and act differently than they would normally.