The Prince by Machiavelli- 1st Hour part2
During this fishbowl there will be a discussion taking place on the inside of the fishbowl and a blogging discussion on the outside of the circle. As you are blogging on the outside of the circle you need to present higher level questions and comments that you have in regards to the reading. We will notice that the conversations will be different but will overlap themselves in areas. You are encourage to participate both on the inside and the outside of the circle.
Remember, pose original thought provoking questions/comments that tie this piece of literature into the study of the Renaissance.
Remember, pose original thought provoking questions/comments that tie this piece of literature into the study of the Renaissance.
posted by Alison | 2:35 PM
35 Comments:
i think it is better to be loved more than feared because no one likes to be hated. when you are loved, you form allies, and companions. when you are feared people team up against you and work against you.
I would have to agree with you because I think "The Prince" brought forth new ideas on how a leadership should be run, and I don't think that the pope really appreciated that.
I think that the general meaning of "The Prince" was saying that in the instances of power, Machiavelli found it more important to be feared than loved.
I agree with alex that Machivelli found it more important to be feared than loved and, I also agree with Brendan because the pope banning the book because the pope felt challenged because of is influences in his writings twoards the people.
i agree with sara. people are saying here that they feel almost "more comfortable" breaking promises to people they love.
i agree with adison and sara, i dont see how it would be easier to break a promise that was made to someone you love there are more emotions attached to that promise and when broken you would feel much worse about it than if it were a promise to someone that you did not like at all.
current day.... better to be feared or loved as a ruler / politican /president etc?
Do you feel as though you can mix the two?
Which one is more effective and why?
Has it changed over time or has the beliefs of the price carried over into today?
I disagree with Niki because it is safer to be loved then feared. If you were feared you will always have enemies even so if you are loved.
In response to Ms. McBride, I think that current day it is more important to be loved as a politician. Because of how we elect officials, it is often times how well liked a politician is that determines if they will be elected. In modern times a feared politician cannot easily maintain power, at least in our country.
So it seems like most of the people who have posted so far about the love vs. fear idea seem to think that it is better to be feared, agreeing with Machiavelli says. Why do you think that it is so much safer to be feared than loved? And in today's society, are the most powerful and successful people feared or loved?
jessi, interesting point, can you give specific examples?
I agree with Brendan that you current leaders must represent the qualities of a fox and a lion. I leaders in current times do not exemplify this as much as Machiavelli would have recommended. I think that every successful leader holds these qualities a little bit, but definately not as much is shown to the public.
what is a "miser" will someone help me understand the quote "For these reasons a prince must not worry if he becomes known as a miser."?
i agree with alex that current day need to be loved more than feared. If they are loved they get the respect that they want and elections do in the end seem to be a popularity contest.
so emily thinks that there is less risk in ruling through fear... is that true?
how is one held accountable in either way?
how do you hold a ruler of fear or love accountable for their actions?
but once they are elected into office do they rule by fear or love? is their campaign one of love and then continued throughout their term?
yes they can be removed from office after 2 years, 4 year, 6 years but....
In response to Ms. McBride's response to my post, I don't know if it is necessarily LESS risk in ruling through fear, but that the risks are entirely different. If you are feared you don't have alliances who can betray you, or "stab you in the back" because you don't have those close friends who may really be working against you. On the other side, however, when you are loved and not feared you make alliances who sometimes will be true to the death. It comes down to a question of who can be trusted, and I think Machiavelli is referring to this question but doing it in a roundabout way.
Machiavelli says that "Men are less afraid to offend a prince they love than one they fear" and that "...threat of punishment never fails to bring them to heel." Do you agree with him?
i think that there needs to be a certain ballance in the levels of love and fear. It is good to be loved in aspects. but i also agree with anthony because people who are feared offten times do get respect.
word sam harper.
word.
Emily, great question! What do you guys think?
why do you believe a government of a monarch has failed over time?
In theory communism was a perfect sense of government, and if carried out in that manor would work just fine. It is merely the hunger for power of people in control that causes current day communism to fail. Monarchies put too much power into the hands of one person, and modern day thinking does not allow the individual to put that much trust into one person.
i do agree with emily, in the fact that no one likes to get in trouble. as soon as getting punished is on the line, everyone straightens up. i agree with machiavelli in this statement.
WILL SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHAT A MISER IS?? I DONT UNDERSTAND...
AHHH.
i would have to disagree with you adison not everyone straightens up as soon as they could get punished there are people that will test the system and see just how far they can take it.
A strong line needs to be drawn between Marx communism and Soviet communism, brendan was talking about the communism carried out that maintained one person in control of the populous, in theoretical communism no one person holds power.
ADISON I WOULD TELL YOU WHAT A MISER WAS IF I KNEW WHAT I WAS!!!!!
true kirsten, but as soon as they know they have reached the end of the line most people give up. they know what the next step is, and dont want to get in trouble.
this is true adison i see where you are coming from i guess you have proved your point...but you know that there are some cases where that isnt true!!!
What about Vietnam brendan, communism is working there just fine, they follow something much closer to Marxism than the Soviet practice
In response to McBride's question about whether of not fear was necessary to unite people during the Renaissance: I think fear was necessary. When people were united under the church, for example, aspects of it the religion could be argued and disagreed upon, because the people were united under a somewhat tangible thing (I'm not saying religion is tangible, I'm saying it has tangible aspects such as the cross, the popes, etc.) Yet fear is a more powerful tool for unification because it is an emotion. Emotions unite people differently because it is the way they feel, and can't be disagreed upon because it's a personal feeling. When you have a group of people united under one feeling, however, the unification is stronger because it is on a personal level. Does that make any sense?
kirsten:
hahahahahahahahahahahaha. i know i know. SOME people just like to be rebels and push their limits. its crazy that way.
Whatever works Brendan.
I got more people on my side, just look at how many agree with me.
alef i understand that and i guess the point has been made but there will always be some exception to the rule keep that in mind!
Post a Comment
<< Home