The Prince by Machiavelli- 1st Hour
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 | 2:30 PM
42 Comments:
In one part of this, it says "...a successful prince must imitate both the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves...", why just these two animals? What two animals would work better? If any.
"But he should be ready and able to do evilwhen it is necessary." This quote by Mr. Machiavelli perplexes me as to why a monarchial leader's performance with evil would ultimately produce success in his society. Throughout all of history, historians have detected and discovered that evil does nothing but strike a rebellious spark within the people under that leader. Evil and intimidation is in know way a powerful element of leadership. Any ideas as to why Machiavelli would use such an outrageous comment in "The Prince"?
In response to Jake, I think that I would go against someone that I love, if I tought that he or she was not the right person to be a leader for a country. Does that answer your question?
Brooksk, I think that in that time to be evil and to intimidate were common espcially when you were in a position of power.
I noticed the quote that Machiavelli says, “A Prince who wishes to stay in power must learn how not to be good…”(Machiavelli). I thought that this statement was interesting because throughout the reading, Machiavelli’s ideas seemed to me as kind of “going against the grain” so to speak. His ideas are not traditional and idealistic. So what does he mean by learning how not to be good? Would you agree with this idea?
niki, wouldn't you want to be more loved than feared because of the possibility of rebellions? i think it would be almost "better" if you were loved opposed to feared.
in response to brooks' question, maybe he is suggesting fighting evil with evil. kind of like what war is an attempt to do. someone is attacked with an evil act so they feel that they must fight back with evil in order to accomplish something.
Niki, I diasagree with your comment in that ultimately love broken can lead to a much more disastrous outcome than the prodcution of fear within your society. For a leader to keep a controlled amount of fear within his people would really give him an edge as leader for the people are more likely to obey and respect your authority. Although love shows popularity and great amounts of respect from your people, it puts you on the brink of failure, and one easy slip-up can ultimately lead to that love being destroyed and your leader being destroyed himiself.
I think that in being a prince is very similar to being a knight in this time, and to be similar to a knight and having princly qualities are almost one and the same, but at the same time, a prince must have the ability to rule.
Yes lizzie, but just because it was common for them to practice evil does not show any proof of practical leadership skills. As all say, two wrong don't make a right. ALthough leaders of this era practiced evil, that in no means should make them a successful leader.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
In response to janessa, to go against someone that you loved, do you mean someone that you love like you are in love with them, or love as in a beloved ruler? because in my mind that would be the deciding point of the matter.
Jake, I don't know if i understand that quote. Does anyone have any idea what it means?
jackie, i think that when he says learning not to be good, he is suggesting that when someone is in power, good gets them no where. it is often times evil that intimidates or motivates someone into doing what you want. i wish this wasn't true, and ultimately i dont agree with it, but i know that this idea exists and that its used by many people in power in many situations.
Lizzie, I don't think that we can compare princes and knights at all. Knights were rarely in power of such a government and society, and as feudalism shows, you could rarely find them in a high governmental status. Princes are completely opposite, and this entire paper is geared to explain Machiavelli's opinion on how princes should rule their society and their people. Knights never had an opportunity such as this.
I agree with bryan on the idea of learning how to not be good to be the best leader they can be. Do you think that that is the way our leaders do now/
In response to the feared vs. loved statement, I would have to say that in the position of power, a prince has more power being feared rather than loved. It is important to remember though, that Machiavelli is referring to being feared with the absence of hatred, so a prince could still be respected and looked up to, but feared in a sense that no one will step out of line under his rule. Whereas if the prince were loved, people would have no problem stepping out of line under him because they believe he will not hurt them if they do.
Bryan i would agree with your commment, although I would like to add one exception. Leaders should not take an extremist's point of view on succeeding. He should take any necessary steps to succeed, but if it puts his government, economy, culture, or his people in possibly GRAVE danger, the leader shouldn't consider it.
I understan the inability that we have to compare princes and knights, but as lisa said, they seem to be giving a prince a similar quality to what we may think of as a knight, being a lion to scare away enemies (wolves). but at the same time they are set apart because they are given the quality of the cunning of the fox, which is not kinght like at all.
niki, while i agree with what you said about women being able to listen better to our conscience, we also do tend to overthink things and let our emotions get in the way of making a clean cut decision. so i think that we need a more equal balance of men and women in power to more balance out the decision making.
can you fear without hatred?
does this tie into currect day government?
I think that the overall message is not only to do whatever it takes to be a good leader, but also to be able to change to continue being a good leader when your way of leading is no longer working. Agree?
niki, why do you believe it is better to be loved then feared? can one rule this way?
do you see this in the current day?
Yes, you can fear without hatered. I know from experience. I am feared by some (I know that no one in here will believe me) but even though they fear me, they don't hate me.
Niki, I wanted to comment on your post above. First a question I had for you. I was confused by your statement, "men are always checking up on women...", could you possible rephrase that and give me some clarification on your point you were trying to make. And also, I don't think that women are in control of the world right now (as you would word it). If you take a look at the historical line of political affairs, I think it would be fair to say men contain the majority of these issues, and seldomly do we see worldly problems with women involved. That does not mean I think women are awful leaders and shouldn't contain any power, but just as a historical reference, men have the upper hand. It would be nice to see some women leaders within our government, but my question for you is do you have any proof women "listen to their conscience" better than men?
Janessa, you cannot rule with only a soft kind heart. I wish it were not so, but if there were no harsh punishments, then who would listen to the one giving out the laws. But I understand your point of having people not wanting to overthrow you.
In response to Lisa's question, I do agree with the quote of the fox and the lion, because I don't think that being completely like the fox, or completely like the lion is useful. It's not the right kind of mindset to be on one side of the pole or the other. A prince must possess both qualities of the fox and the lion in order to be successful. Just think about it, if the prince only knew how to recognize traps, then he doesn't have the strength of a lion, for wars and such. But, if he can only frighten off the wolves, then he cannot recognize traps like the fox.
I wouldn't agree emotions help make good decisons. Frequently, when people get their emotions tangled within executive decisions, results are not going to end successful, and it is best to keep personal emotions separate from your decision-making. Logic, reason, and intellect will always lead to the most reasonable decisions.
tie this into the renaissance.... was fear necessary to unite the people of Italy? why?
in response to being feared without being hated, i see being feared more as being respected rather than literally being afraid of the person. it's like with the title "God-fearing people" the people are not literally afraid of God but more giving reverence and respect to Him because they know of his great and awesome power. so i think that you can have high respect for your leader and love them as well.
I agree with Brooksk, I don't think that as a person in political power that emotions help at all. I think that when in poitics that emotions should be put away and that if you let emotions get in the way you will not make a descision that everyone will agree with.
Now lisa, saying that the prince is a pon to help, and that their are others who can defend, doesn't that show nothing but lack of leadership and horrible communication? A successful governemnt can be used to show that leadership takes the "trickle-down effect". From the prince through the rest of his system and all the way down to his soldiers, leadership is going to trickle down. It is his job to rally troops, assure powerful structure in his society, and use logic, reason, and intellect to make executive decisions in his monarchy. Remember, there is a reason why he is the leader of a monarchy, and it's not to be a pon for society.
In response to Ms. Mcbride's question, I do think it is possible to be feared but not hated. You can fear a leader just by fearing the power that he holds, and not hate what he has done in his power. If you were to meet the president in person, you would probably feel the need to pay him a lot of respect in the fear that he would punish you otherwise, but really like the president at the same time. You could even have the same views as the president, but fear the power that he holds and what he could do to you.
I have a question, in this piece, it talks about being a loved and hated and feared leader. Then it talks about being a lion and a fox. When i think of those two animals as a leader I am not sure that I would love or hate them, but I would fear them. If our leaders were like lions and foxes would society today love,hate, or fear them?
I understand that nikki, by no means do i intend to disrespect the leadership of women, and women do have significant roles within our society, but media tends to shield ourselves from seeing the women in support of our government.
lizzie, i think that is redundant to our coversation earlier, but i would have to say that those animals are feared in many societies of the world today. Biology has demonstrated the ferociousness of the animals, and any leader compared to these beasts should be seen as a powerful and intimidating leader.
i agree with brooks that the media does shield us from seeing women in power...that is still the presence in discrimination against women still present in our society today. and i think, sadly, that most people have more respect for male leaders than they would for a female leader, especially in the presidential position.
that is a good question niki! Why does the media cover up the women in society?
What do you think about the quote, “It is not at all necessary for a prince to have all the good qualities which I have named, but it is necessary to seem to have them. I will even go so far as to say that to actually have these qualities and to be guided by them always is dangerous, but to appear to possess them is useful”. Why do you think that Machiavelli would say all of these traits and state that they are crucial to be a successful prince, but then say that you should only seem to have them because actually having these traits would be dangerous?
Nikki, when people contain fear for you, they will be intimidated to turn their backs on you. Love puts two on a psychological equivalent level within society making it much easier to "turn their back on their leader". Fear will prevent this the majority of the time and keeps the levels on a much greater difference.
Janie, then i say, so don't put a woman as president, but don't let people think that their discrimination is right!!!I understand what you are saying, but that doesn't mean that you should encourage the discrimination towards women!
Just a thought!
What if the fox nature of the Philosopher King (Prince) conflicts with his lion instincts, maybe that could lead to his own destruction. Complacency and arrogance born of ongoing success leading to deadly overconfidence. Because another fox-lion has reset the traps and placed them in new unknown locations?
Post a Comment
<< Home