The Prince
Additional thoughts you didn't have the opportunity to mention in class? Blog 'em!
posted by erdecker @ 2:08 PM
13 comments
JM AP English Government
A resource for John Marshall's Advanced Placement English and Government class. Woo-hoo!
Thursday, September 14, 2006
About Me
- Name: erdecker
- Location: Lanesboro, Minnesota, United States
Enchanted April at Roc Rep Jan 2016 (Sound Design). Donnybrook's Dilemma Murder Mystery Jan 10 (Donnybrook actor). Valentine's Murder Mystery at Plummer House Feb 13 (actor). Ole and Lena in Love at Rochester Sons of Norway March 19 (Director).
13 Comments:
Hey Everyone, This is Becky. Ok, so maybe this isn't quite the right spot for this, but I just wanted to get the idea up ASAP! I'm working on sceduling a carwash to raise money for our trip to NYC! Walmart has a lot of openings and we would most likely be able to hold one there. Here's the deal as far as money, we obviously keep what we make, and based on the money that Walmart has left, they will try to do a matching grant. I'm going to try to schedule this thing ASAP I'm looking at sunday the 24th. Everyone check your calendars if you read this and clear some time if you can. Keep in mind that we will need to supply towels, soap, buckets and signs. One question I have for everyone is whether the money should go into one big group fund or to the individuals that work the wash. Either way, I just wanted to get the idea out and running and I will be bringing this up in class tomorrow. Have a good night everyone!
A thought I never got out there was the fact that we have discussed Machiavelli and his view on politics as almost an all-powerful machine, one that is emotionless and willing to do anything to attain and retain power. However, we never discussed if there was any humanity behind Machiavelli and his viewpoints (or, at the least, if he advocates it).
Low and behold, I found a small bit of text that delves into this issue!
Chapter 17, pg. 96:
"...his behaviour must be tempered by humanity and prudence so that over-confidence does not make him rash or excessive distrust make him unbearable."
As stated, Machiavelli believes a prince needs to have SOME compassion, if not for his conscious' sake then for his ability to hold his...princedom. A prince who loses his humanity may lose touch with his citizens, which will create loathing towards him.
My question is: In the current day, I think it is fair to say there are dictators out there that have very much been "Princes" in every sense EXCEPT the humanity (Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Ill come to mind). Could this possibly be the one major thing that lead to most dictators' downfalls?
I think that the lack of humanity shown by (modern) dictators is definitely something that leads to their downfall, but I think often they are overthrown by outside forces, for example, Saddam Hussein by the US, or Hitler by the Allies, rather than by an uprising of the people they victimize.
On another topic, here is a quote from chapter 17, pg.91 that really struck me while reading:
"...the gulf between how one should live and how one does live is so wide that a man who neglects what is actually done for what should be done learns the way to self-destruction rather than self preservation."
This echos the idea that a prince shouldn't be concerned with acting virtuously, which we discussed in class, however this particular passage seemed to take the idea a step further by directly stating that doing the right thing can be (or is) destructive. I had trouble truly grasping such a concept because I believe that doing the right thing naturally leads to positive outcomes and progress. The question I wanted to pose was; do you think that working for change that should happen is self-destructive (for example, Rosa Parks was jailed for her actions, and Susan B. Anthony was proclaimed guilty and fined for voting), and if so, if fighting for the right thing is worthwhile despite its destructive force?
-Sammi
I believe that almost all modern day politicians trick the public by finding a way between virtues and vices. Why else would they pay alot of money to speech writers? Most politicians that apear to be very virtuous often give their word lightly. In the Prince, Machiavelli talks about this sort of trickery in the following quote.
Ch. XVIII, pg. 99:
"contemporary experience shows that princes who have achieved great things have been those who have given their word lightly, who have known how to trick men with their cunning, and who, in the end, have overcome those abiding by honest principles."
If you don't agree that this quality exists in politicians today I would like to ask you a question. Can you name one politician who has from running for office through the end of their term held every promise and never told a lie. Furthermore, is there a single modern-day politician who does not fit to some extent the image of a lion and a fox pictured in chapter 18?
-David
From what I can see, Saddam’s downfall was directly related to either his actual inhumanity or his perceived inhumanity. Had Saddam been perceived as a more peaceful and traditional leader by the world, I doubt he would have been as unpopular world wide, and would have been a less obvious target for removal by a world power, or by a group of world powers.
Perhaps this is an example of how in the modern world times have changed, and it may be safer for leaders to be loved rather than the of feared as Macchiavelli suggests.
“It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved,”
Andrew
i love archives! (and not getting graded on what I say on here)-this is a...posting to all ye who plan on going to college next year, specifically st. ben's in st. joseph, MN next year: In my symposium class, we just read parts of the prince, and my homework this weekend was to get examples of current machiavellian politics: no problem, thanks to archives on this here blog! thanks a bunch mr. decker! good luck class of 07!
p.s.and science club rocks
Hey guys, this is Katrina..I haven't had access to the internet for the last few days, so I'm posting this Monday morning.
In chapter 22, Machiavelli discusses the important of a ruler's ministers/advisers. He states that the worth of each minister is a direct reflection of the Prince himself. On page 124, he goes on to say that there are three kinds of intelligence: the ability to understand things yourself, the ability to appreciate what others understand, and the last, the inabitlity to understand for itself nor through others. The first kind is most useful, the second is good, and the last is useless. He says that a prince doesn't necessarily have to have the first type of knowledge, but as long as he has the second and can judge what his ministers are saying to him he has the ability to make the right decisons.
So! When I read that I thought that I wouldn't want the ruler of my country to just judge what other people advise him/her to do. It seems to me that an average person can judge what another is saying; a ruler would be the one to think of new innovations and to break the paradigm. I'm not saying a ruler would have to be the most "intelligent" person in existence, but I believe there are some qualities that set good leaders apart from mediocre ones (thinking for themselves is once). Comments?
After reading what last year's students wrote, two things came to mind. First was the connection between Machiavelli and Hobbes both describing the poor qualities of man. Hobbes calling man "naturally self-seeking and egoistic, and nothing more" while Machiavelli called man "ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers" on page 96. Machiavelli also goes on to say "a prince who wants to maintain his rule is often forced not to be good, because whenever that class of men on which you believe your continued rule depends is corrupt... you have to satisfy it by adopting the same disposition" on page 108. I especially noticed how he chose the word "forced" to excuse the ruler for being bad. For those of you from ethics, and anyone who has read Ishmael, this reminds me of how he says that man uses our humanity to excuse our actions throughout history. Anything we do wrong we attribute to the fact that we are humans and supposedly are flawed to begin with. Machiavelli seems to use this to excuse the actions of his ruler by saying it's okay because his citizens are that despicable.
The other thing that came to mind was the discussion of the types of intelligence which Katrina just brought up. I agree that the ruler should have the first type, the ability to understand things themselves. I think this ties in with when Machiavelli says on page 101 "he should not deviate from what is good, if that is possible, but he should know how to do evil, if that is necessary." The way I see it, a leader should have all the available knowledge, and from that knowledge should choose which route is most beneficial. I don't necessarily agree that a leader should exhibit evil, but I think Machiavelli is saying he should not be ignorant in his decisions.
Thanks for the comments, especially yours, Heather! It's been fun hearing back from alum reading Beowulf, Mach, or Plato!
Here's another excerpt that is crystaline in its Machiavellian favoring of appearances over reality:
From Brooks's September 11, 2005 appearance on NBC's The Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: Do you think there's a problem with this? I remember when the president wrote in his diary -- his father, President Bush senior -- "you know, I picked [former Vice President Dan] Quayle the first time around, and I wish I hadn't. But I'm stuck with him, and I can't admit it." Is there a problem with this president simply admitting, "I put the wrong people at certain jobs, I didn't get back fast enough to the White House, I wasn't calling the orders fast enough?"
BROOKS: From Day One, they had decided that our public relations is not going to be honest. Privately, they admit mistakes all the time. Publicly -- and I've had this debate with them since Day One; I always say admit a mistake, people will give you credit --
MATTHEWS: Who do you debate this with?
BROOKS: With people who work in the White House.
MATTHEWS: I thought you were talking about with the president in the back room.
[laughter]
BROOKS: Not with him, but they represent what he believes, which is, if you admit a mistake, you get no credit from your enemies, and then you open up another week's story, because the admission of a little mistake leads to the admission of big mistakes and another week's story. It's totally tactical and totally insincere.
full source here http://mediamatters.org/items/200509120003
This is Jenny!
"A private blog (http://annika.mu.nu/archives/022386.html) on another site, which identifies and encourages W.'s Machiavellian tendencies. Mild obscene language warning, senior AP students."
I found this ^ on the archive from last year, and it caused me to question my acceptance of what Machiavelli encourages for the leadership of a country.
First, Annika, the blogger, states "we can *****foot around some more, trying to get these ***holes in the Sunni Triangle to like us, or we can start killing them. Yes, I said ****ing kill them."
She then states this to be Machiavellian as he says, "In truth, there is no sure way of holding other than by destroying" (From The Prince).
So simply considering Machiavelli’s theories on managing an existing state, I might agree. However, his foreign policy of conquer and destroy I can not believe is always the best way. Diplomacy has proven itself VERY useful in the past, and is not to be completely disregarded by a ruler.
In fact, remembering the Cold War is a grand example. “Presidents Bush and Gorbachev grappled…intensively personal diplomatic activity [that] produced numerous formal agreements and informal understandings that, in effect, led to the end of the Cold War.” (cia.gov/csi/books/19335/art-1.html#rtoc7)
May I add, without breaking out into battle either.
“And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared.”
We all know what Machy’s answer to that was… but is it the right one?
I feel like it's been a century since we talked about The Prince!
In response to Jenny's question:
I think that what it really comes down to is whether the prince is in it for himself or for the people.
Obviously a leader whose main objective is to stay in rule doesn't care all that much about bettering the country or the people within it. In that case, why should he care about the people unless they could endanger his chance of staying in rule? If he can safely be feared, why does he care what the people think of him?
As Machiavelli said,"Therefore a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty"
When the topic is business, it is better to keep emotions out of it.
Why do you think businesses discourage employee relationships? Because to get things done it can't always be rose petals and gum drops.
Hey everybody, this is Sarah. I know that in class we discussed this for quite a while during the symposium, but what do you think would be better? Being a leader that is feared or a leader that is loved?
Personally I think that it would be better to be loved. I believe this because don't you think that you would want people, after your reign, to like you? Or would you rather that they always live in fear of you? This is what I think personally but if you have a different thought I would love to hear about it.
In response to your question, Sarah: (sorry if what I'm saying was brought up in class...it's been so long, haha!)
I agree with you in that I'd rather be loved than feared. But when you examine other leaders in history who reigned using fear, they are hardly remembered as fearful. Sure, people recognize their leader as a bit terrifying, but most of them are revered for their leadership tactics and strategies. So I think both being feared and loved can work for your reputation after you're dead. You'll most likely be better remembered if you scare people. So for a leader, the choice may come down to how they want their people to regard them while they are living, or after they've died. If you don't care what they think, why not be feared?
Just a thought...Opinions from others?
Post a Comment
<< Home