Hello all,
Today in Philosphy, Group 1 discussed the ins and outs of the complex life and views of thinker Augustine, or St.Augustine. The first thing we really found interesting about Augustine was that he was really the only thinker we have been introduced to thus far, whose religious views out weigh his philosophical viewpoints. With Augustine, they are both in a way entangled; however, his religious side was more evident. In the midst of discussing his Christian views, we as a group managed to come to the conclusion that Augustine, much like everyone else, was not a perfect individual, which in a way made him even more relatable. Furthermore, we ceased our philosophical discussion by thoroughly conversing on the concept of original sin. In closing, the discussion was very consise and different from most of the other excerpts we have read thus far.
After reading the assigned reading on Niccolo Machiavelli tonight, I finally discovered why individuals have such a negative impression of him. He was a hard core "leader". He strongly believed that ascension was required by any means. It was as if it was Machiavelli's world and we were all just living in it. He was all about self progression, and he strongly wanted everyone to believe in his harsh way of life. I can't wait to hear and discuss everyone's views on this controversial philosopher in class with you all on Thursday.
ReplyDeleteQuestions:
1)How did Machiavelli view himself?
2)How do you view Machiavelli's doctrine of how life should proceed?
What leader impressed Machiavelli?
ReplyDeleteDo you think that being a loved leader or a feared leader is better and why?
Sorry for the late post, I've been a busy boy lately.
Waddup Homies,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the chapter about Niccolo Machiavelli I definately understand his philosophy. A good leader has to possess cruel qualities that create fear for their allies and/or enimies. Governing land (in the 16th century) successfully would consist of lying, tricking, murdering (when/if necessary), and being feared. I believe that his life story impacts his philisophical view along with links tied to leadership, self-control, and ambitiousness. Also, I believe he has a Darwinistic approach on life. This was a very interesting chapter and I'm looking forward to having another good disscussion tomorrow!
Sorry, forgot the questions lol.
ReplyDelete1. After traveling and meeting rulers from across Europe, what one leader impressed Machiavelli the most? And why?
2. Do you think Machiavelli's past experiences with torture and abandonment impact his philisophical view?
Hi, hi, hi.
ReplyDeleteObviously not all philosophers had good intentions. Unlike Plato, Machiavelli acted on what he thought should be done. I can see why people looked at him as a terrible person, but he was a good leader. He did what he had to do to get whatever he wanted done, done. Isn't that what a leader is? Someone who gets stuff done. I'm not saying I agree with what he did or how he did it, but he made sure his country was not going to get taken over. Well - at least until he was thrown out. If you are a ruler, you can't really trust everyone and you have to stay on your A game, because people will always be out to get you. Regardless of you "nice" you are.
1.) What was Machiavelli's main purpose for writing The Prince?
2.)Why did Machiavelli believe luck was such an important part of ones life?
Hi Everyone!
ReplyDeleteSorry my post is so late.
Even though skepticism and cynicism are two very different extremes, I had a similar reaction to Niccolò Machiavelli as I did to Pyrrho. On the surface these ideas are shocking and wrong (they bring out our "yuk" reactions) but after really thinking about these philosophies they become understandable. While they are seen has hateful in our eyes and time, Machiavelli believed he was doing the right things.
Factual question: What did Machiavelli claim that a prince needed?
Discussion question: How do you think Machiavelli's philosophy can be justified?
Hello all,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry it has taken for me to post. Reading Machiavelli was a real eye opener in the pursuit of power, or rather the retention of that power. which brings me to a discussion question of sorts were there any mean Machiavelli would not got through to maintain his control of his people? Any means he would not attempt to keep what he felt was his rightly owned power?