To be a loved leader or a feared one, which is more important? Machiavelli would argue that love made his subjects weak and gave them choices whereupon they could possibly ruin the interests of the state, whereas fear bound them in an iron grip and forced them to behave in a way that kept alive the interests of the state. We, however, came to the conclusion that a combination of elements of each is most favorable.
Machiavelli's method of disloyalty and backstabbing enemies and friends alike (though he did it more literally) is used much in politics today, we surmised. Politics is a shady, dirty business, the corruption of which is definitely popularized in all forms of media, and it has been this way since even back in his time. Campaign promises pretty much have to be made to bolster candidates' followers, whether or not they deliver on them. There are good, humble candidates, as well, but the negative ones drag them down. In the end, it's very difficult to tell if our leaders are doing things that help the common people or that further societal order but may not seem morally clean or trivial to us.
Many people mock Machiavelli's The Prince as a "handbook for gangsters," an unimaginably evil text that spelled out his biggest belief: rulers should stay in power by any means necessary, regardless of moral standards or even dignity. And yet, it seems to be an important read for many politicians today, though few would admit it.
Our opinions differed greatly on this, but are all people inherently rotten, as he claimed, are we inherently distrustful of our fellow humans, or do we all have (forgive me for taking a quote from my first book) "a hidden cache of gold inside the walls society forced us to erect in [our] hearts?" You decide.
I enjoyed exploring our topic of Mockiavellian leadership. As someone who lives by certain values such as honesty and integrity I find it hard to imagine people are inherently rotten. Also as we progress through the age of knowledge and higher level thinking it becomes harder and harder for a government to operate in a “shady” manner. A good example would be the five rogue states of North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, and Libya. The leadership style for most of these countries was one of oppression, evil-doings, and lies. Two have seen a total overthrow of their government, one relies almost solely on outside aid to function, one is declining economically via sanctions and other counties refusing to do business with it because of it’s practices, and the other is stagnate. Ruling with an iron fist is never the answer. Instead ruling with a firm yet fair style allows for growth and minimizes resentment for actions taken against those who inhibit our natural desire to better ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI admit however, at times it is easier and faster to impose your will with no restrictions. It may even be the only way to accomplish a goal. It still doesn’t give the right for anyone to neglect their fellow man.
Hey man you forgot to put on our questions for the review. They'll need ASAP to study.
ReplyDeleteI sort of this while reading the entry for this class period, but maybe Machiavelli's ideas were more of a guide towards critical thinking in a variety of situations as he didn't figure being a brute of a leader was the best strategy in every circumstance where decisions must be made. Although, one could consider it morally-unhinged critical thinking, it's critical thinking nonetheless.
ReplyDeletePascal
FQ: What controversial religious sect did Pascal originally belong to?
DQ: When you put into account the possibility of their being other gods who exist outside of Christian one, do you find Pascal's Wager a favorable way to come to a conclusion of whether or not, one way or another, God exists?
I find it rather ironic that Machiavelli was unsuccessful at remaining in power, yet he wrote a "how to" book.
ReplyDeletePascal
FQ: According to Pascal, what organ leads us to God?
I also enjoyed talking about this subject. i think that you have to live by certain morals in life to become a better person and to do the right thing in genral! As easy as it is to go about life doing the wrong things you will never get anywhere.
ReplyDeleteIn a way Machiavelli just put into a book what people have already been doing, especially people of political power. It gives them an excuse or a guideline of how to do it better.
ReplyDeleteFQ: Why did Pascal once scold his sister?
DQ: Do you think that Pascals views on religion was affected by his own illness? In what ways?
Machiavelli definatly sees the worst in humanity, actually to be honest his whole philosophy depends on humans being scum. To put it shortly, that is where his philosophy has a logical fallacy in that it generalizes all of humanity as scum when we very well know that there are great people who make selfless decisions and actions every day. Besides that obvious fallacy his views are very applicable to politics today, even if it is not what it should be, it is the most truthful observation of the political beast today.
ReplyDeleteFQ: What act by Pascal's sister made Pascal himself correct her sternly?
DQ:Are Pascal's views shaped from his turbulent life? Does this mirror other Philosophers we've studied? Whom and how?