|
Post by Yahweh on May 1, 2009 17:57:11 GMT -5
I never understood any deepness in Machiavelli, The Prince just seemed like a lot of common sense. The Prince doesn't represent Machiavelli's views or his ideal form of government. The book was intended as a sharp, stark, and intense criticism of the type of government he saw; however, rather than writing satire, he simply wrote how governments actually operate, which is more or less summed up by stating that governments are enthusiastically deceptive and manipulate people for their own ends. His Discourses on Livy describes a republican form of government, and represents Machiavelli's idea form of government. Its worth nothing that the Discourses had a profound impact on Rousseau, who himself had an impact on Montesquieu, Thomas Jefferson, and some of the early American founding fathers.
|
|
|
Post by machiavelli on May 1, 2009 21:50:13 GMT -5
Spot on! I didn't realize that Machiavelli was influential to that extent!
But the Prince pretty much was the stepping stone for the Realist Paradigms. While other philosophers we're writing about how a Monarch/Government ''Should'' look like, Machiavelli focused on the present and historical analysis, how State and Citizens operate.
From what I`ve read and learned in classes, is that Machiavelli most probably wrote this not as a ''how-to'' guide to princes, but as a warning to the citizenry of what to expect from their governments. At one point in the Prince he warns the Monarch from taking advice from those who wish to offer it first hand, yet his entire book is filled with advice for the Monarch.
Finally in the early parts of The Prince he also speaks about Religion and Armed Prophets, noting that Jesus was the only unarmed prophet who turned out victorious. I think I will have to re-read that part this summer as I`ve forgotten what it symbolized.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on May 2, 2009 21:20:14 GMT -5
Well, I really don't take mine from philosophers, but rather works of fiction. More, I'd say parts from them really stuck out and rang true for me, and greatly influenced how I approach things.
From Obi-wan Kenobi in Return of the Jedi: "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view." This basically showed me that people view things differently, and so understand things differently, and that then to understand things more accurately I need to view it from as many angles as I can.
From Dread Pirate Roberts in The Princess Bride: "Life is pain. Anyone who says otherwise is selling you something." This then leads to "if it sounds too good to be true, it likely is." Took a long time for me to apply it towards religion, but once I did I saw more how it's most often a scam, as they only care what time, resources, and most importantly, money, they can get from you, even when they themselves don't fully realize it.
From the book The Regiment by John Dalmas, there was a philosophical chart that had a list of activities (like work, play, learning, war, and others I can't recall) and ways from which to approach them, with small descriptions. Sadly I can't seem to find it online, and my book has buggered off in a box somewhere so I can't scan it in either. However, the chart itself isn't as important as what I took from it. It wasn't it's exact approach, as in part I could never remember it and felt that one shouldn't limit themselves to only one approach on things, but more that how one approaches an activity is easily as important, if not more so, than what the activity is.
Said between Sarah and Jareth in The Labyrinth: "It's not fair!" "You say that so often. I wonder what your basis of comparison is." I guess this again stresses the importance of points of view, and the need to see and understand multiple views.
And lastly, from my father: "You can only mean what you say if you say what you mean." This is why I view basic language skills, meaning grammar, vocabulary, and punctuation, as imperative and a necessity. I know I'm bad at grammatical terms, and have a hard time explaining why something is or isn't grammatically correct, but I do at least know how to make sure it makes sense and that my meaning should be gotten across. It's also then when the person I'm talking to shows that they don't understand what I mean that I do what I can to look from their point(s) of view, and try to tailor what I say and how I say it in a manner that I hope will be comprehensible to them.
|
|
|
Post by Green-Eyed Lilo on May 4, 2009 21:35:23 GMT -5
Now I feel like a plebeian because I haven't read anything by anyone big, important, or philosophical. *pout* I'm glad someone else said that. I was interested in seeing who others would mention, but I can honestly say I just looked and listened and thought. I've had a few people try to put a philosophical label on me, but I'm a marketing major with an interior decorating certification who just reads what she likes and is damned grateful she can.
|
|
|
Post by The_L on May 6, 2009 14:01:45 GMT -5
When I was 7 and very devoutly Catholic (when you're too young to think for yourself and it's all you know, it's kind of hard NOT to be devout), my awesome Shamanistic cousin gave me two books I've cherished ever since: Touch The Earth (quotes of famous Native American leaders--very interesting) and Bulfinch's Mythology. I wasn't old enough for Touch The Earth yet, but I remember being fascinated by the mythology. I thought a lot of those stories were better than the ones in Sunday School, though it was years before I dared admit it. It took me two years to wear the front cover off that thing from reading it so much (it was a paperback). As I got older, I basically explored a lot of religious and philosophical books, trying to pin down exactly what it was I, and others, believed. I had never had much of a social life, so I wanted to learn how to understand people. I read the Ramayana, the Bhagavad-Gita, The Republic, The Screwtape Letters, a huge chunk of the Old Testament, and a variety of apologetics books. What I got from it all can be distilled into the following: - Religion is not bad, in and of itself. People sometimes use religion to justify horrible things, but that doesn't make religion itself bad. - People of differing religious and social viewpoints can only find peace through discussion and education. The other side isn't usually as bad as it is painted by propagandists. Usually, the differences between "Us" and "Them" are trivial. - Intolerance stifles discussion, and often prompts violence. - Just as religion is not bad, neither is it necessary for all people. We each have different paths to follow. Some of us are meant to be Christians, others Neo-Pagans, others atheists, and so on. Each of us must find his/her own path; we cannot rely on another's. - Hyper-sensitivity is poisonous. When you cannot accept that others might think you wrong, you are locking yourself into a dangerous mindset. When you think everyone is offended by the same things that offend you, you are opening the door for intolerance and hatred. Yes, life is hard. Put on your big-girl pants and deal with it. Wow, that turned out to be pretty damned long and didn't really answer the question. Quick review of influences would be mythology, Plato, and a bunch of left-wing teachers like Kozol and Gatto. Honestly, it's hard to sort out, since most of my personal philosophy is along the lines of "Be nice to people." Desmond Morris (author of "The Naked Ape" and other fucking awesome books) showed me that humans, for all their sophistication and technology, are *still* animals at heart. Most of you just cloak yourselves in a thin veneer of "civilization", and come up with elaborate (and often nonsensical) "reasons" to justify your behaviors. Yay, Morris! I found The Naked Ape fascinating as well.
|
|