This book is all about the theory and conceptual views of war. Clausewitz is a philosopher/general for the Prussian army. He talks a lot about how Napoleon Bonaparte was a great leader, even thought Clausewitz fought against Bonaparte. The language in the book was difficult at times and I found myself having to reread some of the paragraphs, because it was translated from German to English. Aside from that the book is by far my favorite philosopical war book. His ideas are clearly stated and even steps outside the actual fighting and looks at how war is to be viewed or "criticized."
I found myself constantly highlighting passages. The ideas are "simple," but "they are not easy"(Clausewitz 243). The book is long and has a lot of run on sentences, which did influence me when I was writing my Iliad essay, and is difficult to read at times.
"But the frequent application of methods will be seen to be most essential in and unavoidable in the conduct of war..." (Clausewitz 207) This whole passage is one sentence (broken up by semi-colons and comas) and a paragraph which happens to take up 90% of the page.
I would classify this book as a "how to" on just about every aspect of war. The content is extremely dense and will probably make more sense to me when I am older, but I could comprehend all of the ideas pretty well. Some were self-explanatory and others I needed to have broken down and detailed examples, which Clausewitz does. The theory of war was the most confusing at first, because the abstract ideas were over my head. So I had to ponder these ideas and then it was a renaissance for me. All of these ideas made sense and I could even talk to a Lieutenant in the Rangers about these ideas in war.
The rest of the book gets into actual events and devices in war. Strategy, method, tactics, Bonaparte, and a handful more that I cannot list. If one were to read this book, I would suggest a knowledge of the Rhine campaigns and many of the wars and people around the time of Bonaparte. (Fredrick the Great, etc.) I had to learn while reading and do research for myself to understand. This is my new favorite book, and I feel like I could read it again now that I have basically highlighted the whole book and grasp a better view on modern warfare.
This is the book that all current generals (U.S., French, Russian, British, etc.) study.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Methodicism
"However pre-eminently a great Commander does things, ther is always somthing subjective in the way he does them; and if he has a certain manner, a large share of his individuality is contained in it which does not always accord with the individuality of the person who copies his manner" (Clausewitz 209)
I chose this passage because this is supported by Machiavelli's idea that even if a prince copies another leader, that does not mean that the prince will have the same outcome. It is also true in boxing. Whenever one is trying to learn boxing, they must first learn the basics (which takes about a year to master), then they must work on developing their personal style. I myself have been boxing for 5 years and I am still trying to fully develop my own style. To achieve this, one would need to watch other professional boxers who have successful styles and use what they use (only if it works) and make adjustments to make it their own. If one is creative, then they could invent their own moves. I was told by my dad, "if it works, and you don't get in too much trouble for doing it, do it."
1). Could one follow exactly what someone else did and get the same results?
2). How would someone with no creativity (for instance) go about getting his own style?
I chose this passage because this is supported by Machiavelli's idea that even if a prince copies another leader, that does not mean that the prince will have the same outcome. It is also true in boxing. Whenever one is trying to learn boxing, they must first learn the basics (which takes about a year to master), then they must work on developing their personal style. I myself have been boxing for 5 years and I am still trying to fully develop my own style. To achieve this, one would need to watch other professional boxers who have successful styles and use what they use (only if it works) and make adjustments to make it their own. If one is creative, then they could invent their own moves. I was told by my dad, "if it works, and you don't get in too much trouble for doing it, do it."
1). Could one follow exactly what someone else did and get the same results?
2). How would someone with no creativity (for instance) go about getting his own style?
Nature of Observation
"It becomes then a guide to him who wishes to make himself acquainted with War from books; it lights up th ewhole road for him, facilitates his progress, educates his judgement, and shields him form error" (Clausewtiz 191).
This brings up and intresting point, on whether it is better to experience something with no prior knowledge of history or any other means that would give on the upper hand in a battle; or whether it is better to research history and create a foundation in which one could use to later as experience of knowledge. This is what I am doing, learning from books and creating a foundation. (Now, whether or not I go into some sort of military future is unclear). "... and shields him from error," this point is also important. If one learned through first hand experience with no knowledge of history, were to go into a battle and make a mistake, that mistake may be the end of the battle and maybe the end of that persons life. If he had learned that someone else made that same mistake and had the fatal outcome, he could see how experts analyzed the situation and how it could have been avoided. It is implied that he who learns form books would eventually recieve first hand experience on the battlefield.
1). Is this the only way in which one could learn about "War?"
This brings up and intresting point, on whether it is better to experience something with no prior knowledge of history or any other means that would give on the upper hand in a battle; or whether it is better to research history and create a foundation in which one could use to later as experience of knowledge. This is what I am doing, learning from books and creating a foundation. (Now, whether or not I go into some sort of military future is unclear). "... and shields him from error," this point is also important. If one learned through first hand experience with no knowledge of history, were to go into a battle and make a mistake, that mistake may be the end of the battle and maybe the end of that persons life. If he had learned that someone else made that same mistake and had the fatal outcome, he could see how experts analyzed the situation and how it could have been avoided. It is implied that he who learns form books would eventually recieve first hand experience on the battlefield.
1). Is this the only way in which one could learn about "War?"
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The Art or Science of War
"We say therefore War belongs not to the province of Arts and Sciences, but to the province of social life. It is a conflict of great interests which is settled by bloodshed, and only in that is it different from others" (Clausewitz 202).
"War is part of the intercourse of the human race" (Clausewitz 202). From my experience, this idea holds true. War is an act of violence, all humans are eventually going to end up violent. Ex.- In a fist fight there will be a point in that fight where the fighter's will no longer be cognizant of what they are doing. In other words they will stop all reasoning and just act in a violent way (using the nature of "the beast" which Machiavelli says that princes must have). When one just acts in a violent way, isn't that the same as saying that one was acting in their true self. Reasoning is used for the strategy and tactics or deception (one could act one way, but be, in one's true self, another). War is a part of human nature; war is not composed from reasoning (Clausewitz 203).
"The essential difference consists in this, that War is no activity of the will, which exerts itself upon inanimate matter like the mechanical Arts..." (Clausewitz 203).
I really have no questions for this passage. It was very clear and supported my 'theory' that war is human nature and not that of cognizant reasoning.
"War is part of the intercourse of the human race" (Clausewitz 202). From my experience, this idea holds true. War is an act of violence, all humans are eventually going to end up violent. Ex.- In a fist fight there will be a point in that fight where the fighter's will no longer be cognizant of what they are doing. In other words they will stop all reasoning and just act in a violent way (using the nature of "the beast" which Machiavelli says that princes must have). When one just acts in a violent way, isn't that the same as saying that one was acting in their true self. Reasoning is used for the strategy and tactics or deception (one could act one way, but be, in one's true self, another). War is a part of human nature; war is not composed from reasoning (Clausewitz 203).
"The essential difference consists in this, that War is no activity of the will, which exerts itself upon inanimate matter like the mechanical Arts..." (Clausewitz 203).
I really have no questions for this passage. It was very clear and supported my 'theory' that war is human nature and not that of cognizant reasoning.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Genius for War (Courage)
"Courage is of two kinds: first, physical courage, or courage in presence of danger to the person ; and next, moral courage, or courage before responsibility, whether it be before the judgement-seat of external authority, or of the inner power, the conscience" (Clausewitz 139).
I picked this passage because, me being interested in the fighting arts (western boxing, muay thai/thai boxing/kickboxing) courage plays an important role. The physical courage is present in the face of danger or even death. This seems to occur naturally. It has been 'programed' into man that when one is given a clear choice between life and death, one would normally pick life. Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" states clearly that if two warriors were fighting and one fighter (with actions, not words) gives the other fighter a clear choice of whether to live or die, that fighter who is given the choice is more dangerous than the warrior supposedly winning. "Never press a desperate enemy" (Sun Tzu). This is why the solution to the problem is to show your enemy a way out. Courage is dangerous when it is concentrated for a simple cause, live. Now that is why one must not show his enemy that there is no hope, but rather keep one's opponent with the choice of retreat, so they will not feel obligated to fight to the death.
Ex.- Historically, the reason that the 300 Spartans kicked the Persians ass (even though they all died, except for the legend of the unknown Spartan), was because the Persians tried to force them into a situation where they had no hope but the Greeks were more skilled; and thus the plan did not work, resulting in huge Persian death counts.
The second kind of courage, according to Clausewitz, is the courage that is pride, patriotism, or enthusiasm. I have experienced this also, this is the kind of courage that can either be really good or really bad, depending on how one uses it. One must not use this courage and turn it into arrogance, which translates into death and loss on battlefield. On the other hand, with the right mental organization, one could use their emotions to translate into a very dangerous and deadly source of courage.
Ex.2- Once again, the battle of the 300 Spartans was not to defeat the Persians, but rather to hold them off so the Athenian navy could destroy the Persian navy. The Greeks, as a whole united to fight for freedom and against the oppression of Xerxes. The Greeks used the right amount of this second kind of courage to kick Xerxes out of Greece for good.
"Mere intelligence is still not courage, for we often see the cleverest people devoid of resolution. The mind must, therefore, first awaken the feeling of courage, and then be guided and supported by it, because in momentary emergencies the man is swayed more by his feelings than his thoughts" (Clausewitz 142).
Questions:
1). Could courage win over skill, could courage win over intelligence? (In the abstract: courage has no skill and no intelligence; skill has no intelligence and no courage; and intelligence has no skill and no courage; but courage never gives up; skill is the best at the art; and intelligence knows all about the art and all the strategies).
2). Which situations (in the reality) would courage win over skill, or over intelligence?
I picked this passage because, me being interested in the fighting arts (western boxing, muay thai/thai boxing/kickboxing) courage plays an important role. The physical courage is present in the face of danger or even death. This seems to occur naturally. It has been 'programed' into man that when one is given a clear choice between life and death, one would normally pick life. Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" states clearly that if two warriors were fighting and one fighter (with actions, not words) gives the other fighter a clear choice of whether to live or die, that fighter who is given the choice is more dangerous than the warrior supposedly winning. "Never press a desperate enemy" (Sun Tzu). This is why the solution to the problem is to show your enemy a way out. Courage is dangerous when it is concentrated for a simple cause, live. Now that is why one must not show his enemy that there is no hope, but rather keep one's opponent with the choice of retreat, so they will not feel obligated to fight to the death.
Ex.- Historically, the reason that the 300 Spartans kicked the Persians ass (even though they all died, except for the legend of the unknown Spartan), was because the Persians tried to force them into a situation where they had no hope but the Greeks were more skilled; and thus the plan did not work, resulting in huge Persian death counts.
The second kind of courage, according to Clausewitz, is the courage that is pride, patriotism, or enthusiasm. I have experienced this also, this is the kind of courage that can either be really good or really bad, depending on how one uses it. One must not use this courage and turn it into arrogance, which translates into death and loss on battlefield. On the other hand, with the right mental organization, one could use their emotions to translate into a very dangerous and deadly source of courage.
Ex.2- Once again, the battle of the 300 Spartans was not to defeat the Persians, but rather to hold them off so the Athenian navy could destroy the Persian navy. The Greeks, as a whole united to fight for freedom and against the oppression of Xerxes. The Greeks used the right amount of this second kind of courage to kick Xerxes out of Greece for good.
"Mere intelligence is still not courage, for we often see the cleverest people devoid of resolution. The mind must, therefore, first awaken the feeling of courage, and then be guided and supported by it, because in momentary emergencies the man is swayed more by his feelings than his thoughts" (Clausewitz 142).
Questions:
1). Could courage win over skill, could courage win over intelligence? (In the abstract: courage has no skill and no intelligence; skill has no intelligence and no courage; and intelligence has no skill and no courage; but courage never gives up; skill is the best at the art; and intelligence knows all about the art and all the strategies).
2). Which situations (in the reality) would courage win over skill, or over intelligence?
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Nature of War- What is war?
the book is Carl von Clausewitz - "On War"
"In the former, everything must be subject to optimism, and we must imagine the one side as well as the other striving after perfection and even attaining it. Will this ever take place in reality? It will if,
(1). War becomes a completely isolated act...
(2). If it is limited to a single solution, or several simultaneous solutions.
(3). If it contains within itself the solution perfect and complete..." (Clausewitz 106).
The whole first chapter of the book is spent talking about the abstract of war (which is stated above), and the reality of war; which usually contradicts the abstract. I chose this passage because it is the key to figuring out strategies or plans to go to war. Clausewitz defines "War" for intensive purposes:
"War therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponents to fulfil our will" (Clausewitz 101).
Clausewitz clearly states that the abstract and the reality of war are contradicting. Later on in the chapter he goes on to say that "war is never and isolated act; war does not consist of one instantaneous blow; and the result in war is never absolute. With this information, one in the position to decide who goes to war ;e.i. the Secretary of Defense, should carefully examine all the reactions of going into a full blown campaign to "compel our opponents to fulfil our will." Since, in the reality, war has no absolute result, one should be sure that they are prepared to be in the conflict for quite some time and be conditioned to see it through. The same goes for the second point, if war does not consist of an instantaneous blow, one would also make sure that he/she is prepared with numerous battle plans and is conditioned in the mental sense and the physical sense.
Another important fact is the breif comparison between the paradoxical nature of war and the reality. The paradox of war is that states are fighting for peace. Clausewitz states that as long as the emotions, animosity and hatred exist, whether or not the war is "over," that war will never die. There will always be a chain of emotions that cause the hatred, and with hatred, war will never end, in the complex sense. *Politics are also involved with war.
Later on in the 1st book (out of three in the whole book), Clausewitz goes into extreme depths on the subject and breaks down the "abstract phenomenon" according to the three principles in which war should be measured: pre-planning/ calculations and the anomaly's that appear; the adaptation in the actual heat of war; and finally the probability and chance/ who gets lucky on any given day.
Questions:
1). Since it is only an abstract; which attributes are the most important to have to come as close to the absolute result?
2). Did Agamemnon and Menalaus take into account these issues before they went to war?
"In the former, everything must be subject to optimism, and we must imagine the one side as well as the other striving after perfection and even attaining it. Will this ever take place in reality? It will if,
(1). War becomes a completely isolated act...
(2). If it is limited to a single solution, or several simultaneous solutions.
(3). If it contains within itself the solution perfect and complete..." (Clausewitz 106).
The whole first chapter of the book is spent talking about the abstract of war (which is stated above), and the reality of war; which usually contradicts the abstract. I chose this passage because it is the key to figuring out strategies or plans to go to war. Clausewitz defines "War" for intensive purposes:
"War therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponents to fulfil our will" (Clausewitz 101).
Clausewitz clearly states that the abstract and the reality of war are contradicting. Later on in the chapter he goes on to say that "war is never and isolated act; war does not consist of one instantaneous blow; and the result in war is never absolute. With this information, one in the position to decide who goes to war ;e.i. the Secretary of Defense, should carefully examine all the reactions of going into a full blown campaign to "compel our opponents to fulfil our will." Since, in the reality, war has no absolute result, one should be sure that they are prepared to be in the conflict for quite some time and be conditioned to see it through. The same goes for the second point, if war does not consist of an instantaneous blow, one would also make sure that he/she is prepared with numerous battle plans and is conditioned in the mental sense and the physical sense.
Another important fact is the breif comparison between the paradoxical nature of war and the reality. The paradox of war is that states are fighting for peace. Clausewitz states that as long as the emotions, animosity and hatred exist, whether or not the war is "over," that war will never die. There will always be a chain of emotions that cause the hatred, and with hatred, war will never end, in the complex sense. *Politics are also involved with war.
Later on in the 1st book (out of three in the whole book), Clausewitz goes into extreme depths on the subject and breaks down the "abstract phenomenon" according to the three principles in which war should be measured: pre-planning/ calculations and the anomaly's that appear; the adaptation in the actual heat of war; and finally the probability and chance/ who gets lucky on any given day.
Questions:
1). Since it is only an abstract; which attributes are the most important to have to come as close to the absolute result?
2). Did Agamemnon and Menalaus take into account these issues before they went to war?
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Final: Machiavelli's The Prince
This book is in some way a "how to book" on how to be a successful leader of pretty much anything. Machiavelli has clearly stated each idea and gives examples from history to prove his points; even though the thought can drag out and I found myself skim over some things the second time reading.
"There are three kinds of intelligence: One kind can understand on its own, the second can understand through others, and the third can understand neither on its own nor through others. The first kind is exellent, the second good enough, the third useless. Hence, if Pandolfo was not in the first category, he was at least in the second, because even if a prince does not possess great intelligence, if he can judge the good or bad that a man says or does, then he can distinguished between his adviser's good and bad deeds, and praise the good and punish the bad. The adviser cannont hope to decive him, and so behaves well" (Machiavelli 108-109).
I found Peter Constantine's translation to be easy to read and has helpful footnotes to history that Machiavelli is alluding to and also to better explain ideas that maybe unclear. The chapters are also clearly stated on what Machiavelli is going to talk about. As far as the book reads, I couldn't help but imagine being in a college classroom listening to a lecture.
It is hard in this modern world to relate what Machiavelli says to our government. I have; however, realized that this book could greatly apply to the communist countries that have one leader. Other than that, one could relate this book to everyday things like, teachers "ruling their class", corprate businesses, cults, etc. This is definitly my second favorite book, after Master Sun Tzu's "The Art of War."
"There are three kinds of intelligence: One kind can understand on its own, the second can understand through others, and the third can understand neither on its own nor through others. The first kind is exellent, the second good enough, the third useless. Hence, if Pandolfo was not in the first category, he was at least in the second, because even if a prince does not possess great intelligence, if he can judge the good or bad that a man says or does, then he can distinguished between his adviser's good and bad deeds, and praise the good and punish the bad. The adviser cannont hope to decive him, and so behaves well" (Machiavelli 108-109).
I found Peter Constantine's translation to be easy to read and has helpful footnotes to history that Machiavelli is alluding to and also to better explain ideas that maybe unclear. The chapters are also clearly stated on what Machiavelli is going to talk about. As far as the book reads, I couldn't help but imagine being in a college classroom listening to a lecture.
It is hard in this modern world to relate what Machiavelli says to our government. I have; however, realized that this book could greatly apply to the communist countries that have one leader. Other than that, one could relate this book to everyday things like, teachers "ruling their class", corprate businesses, cults, etc. This is definitly my second favorite book, after Master Sun Tzu's "The Art of War."
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Of How to Avoid Contempt and Hatred
"I therefore conclude that a prince need not worry unduly about conspiracies when the people are well disposed toward him. But if they are his enemies and hate him, he must fear everything and everybody" (Machiavelli 88).
I find this to be an example in our government. A lot of people "hated" George W. Bush, but people in power must have respected the decision of those party leaders who put him in power. No one conspired against him, or if they did they didn't get very far into doing it.
It is important, and Machiavelli stresses the point, that one in power must not have enemies that can and will do something to bring them out of power whether it's a government, business owners, etc.
"Well-ordered states and wise princes have been careful not to anger the nobles and to keep the populace content, because this is one of the most important tasks that falls on a prince" (Machiavelli 88).
This passage is important to life in general. Don't make enemies with the wrong people, and one should keep those around him happy and give them no reason to plot against him. This is important to everybody, not just leaders, or people who are in power. It would make one's life much easier if he did not have enemies with people who might seriously do him wrong.
1). While comparing "The Art of War" and "The Prince," there are contradicting ideas. Sun Tzu says that one is to anger his opponent to have them careless in battle/conflict. Considering a prince is in a time of war, how would he know whether to use Sun Tzu's ideas or Machiavelli's ideas?
I find this to be an example in our government. A lot of people "hated" George W. Bush, but people in power must have respected the decision of those party leaders who put him in power. No one conspired against him, or if they did they didn't get very far into doing it.
It is important, and Machiavelli stresses the point, that one in power must not have enemies that can and will do something to bring them out of power whether it's a government, business owners, etc.
"Well-ordered states and wise princes have been careful not to anger the nobles and to keep the populace content, because this is one of the most important tasks that falls on a prince" (Machiavelli 88).
This passage is important to life in general. Don't make enemies with the wrong people, and one should keep those around him happy and give them no reason to plot against him. This is important to everybody, not just leaders, or people who are in power. It would make one's life much easier if he did not have enemies with people who might seriously do him wrong.
1). While comparing "The Art of War" and "The Prince," there are contradicting ideas. Sun Tzu says that one is to anger his opponent to have them careless in battle/conflict. Considering a prince is in a time of war, how would he know whether to use Sun Tzu's ideas or Machiavelli's ideas?
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Of the Need for Princes to Keep Their Word (Pt. 2, Thursday)
"Men in general judge more with the eye than with the hand, because everyone can see, but few can feel" (Machiavelli 83).
In our country, one can always find someone who is 'dogging' out the current president. One reason may be because the present president did not follow through with his word. Every time there is a new presidential race there is someone who 'is going to change things.' This is particularly directed towards Obama. We all know that the presidents are not going to keep their word fully, but we insist on acting bran-new to the idea that this next time will be different. We keep thinking that there is going to be change, when I personally don't think that this time is going to be any different than any other time. In the event that Obama does win, 8 months from now the majority of people will be saying, "Man, Obama sold out." Albert Einstein said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. According to that, the majority of people in this country are insane. It's not that I want to pick on Obama, I personally have no preference for any of the candidates; it's just that people should not get excited at Christmas time when they know they are getting the same 'gift' every four to eight years. Especially if the people are obviously tired of the 'gift' they keep receiving.
In our country, one can always find someone who is 'dogging' out the current president. One reason may be because the present president did not follow through with his word. Every time there is a new presidential race there is someone who 'is going to change things.' This is particularly directed towards Obama. We all know that the presidents are not going to keep their word fully, but we insist on acting bran-new to the idea that this next time will be different. We keep thinking that there is going to be change, when I personally don't think that this time is going to be any different than any other time. In the event that Obama does win, 8 months from now the majority of people will be saying, "Man, Obama sold out." Albert Einstein said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. According to that, the majority of people in this country are insane. It's not that I want to pick on Obama, I personally have no preference for any of the candidates; it's just that people should not get excited at Christmas time when they know they are getting the same 'gift' every four to eight years. Especially if the people are obviously tired of the 'gift' they keep receiving.
"He must have a spirit that can change depending on the winds and variations of Fortune, .... he must not, if he is able, distance himself from what is good, but must also, when necessary, know how to prefer what is bad" (Machiavelli 83).
Machiavelli here makes a good point. Princes/government officials must learn to keep some of their word, but at the same time must earn the respect of the people by using what is considered bad. It alludes back to "Whether it is Better to be Feared Than Loved"(Machiavelli 77). One cannot expect to be successful as a leader if he is not respected. The people do not know what is best for them, because most of them are not the most intelligent, but a leader needs to be known to do what is considered good and bad for the reason that Machiavelli vaguely, but clearly states, to be a successful leader.
1). Do all leaders start out sincere, and eventually realize they cannot keep all their word, or do they come in with knowledge that they cannot?
2). Is the deception of men necessary to all leaders to become successful?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Of the Need for Princes to Keep Their Word
"This has been taught to princes allegorically by ancient writers, who tell us that Achilles and many other ancient princes were sent to Chrion the Centaur to be raised and tutored. What this means is that the ancient princes, whose tutor was half man and half beast, learned to use both natures, neither of which can prevail without the other" (Machiavelli 81).
I chose this passage because it is an example that when reason does not work one has to use 'animal instincts' to get the job done/point across. The use of Chiron is as stated above; so that the students would get both natures of man and of beast. The leaders of the world's nations use only one or the other. While reading and watching the news in Africa and in the middle east I see only the beastly nature present, while in more political nations (those that make up the majority of the U.N.) only use the nature of 'man' in contrast to a beast. I see it a lot with the U.S., the government will try to reason its way through problems and using politics to confuse others, the others being those referred to as guerrillas, or those who only use the philosophy of the beast. The U.S. government does not use the beast philosophy when situations get sticky. They just keep pushing the reasoning factor, because they're scared to get their hands dirty; but it's like I quoted Machiavelli in the previous post, it is better to be feared than loved (Machiavelli 78).
"Since a prince must know how to use the nature of the beast to his advantage, he must emulate both the fox and the lion, because a lion cannot defy a snare, while a fox cannot defy a pack of wolves. A prince must therefore be a fox to spot the snares, and a lion to overwhelm the wolves. The prince who models himself only on the lion does not grasp this, but a wise ruler cannot and should not keep his word when it would be to his disadvantage to do so...." (Machiavelli 81-82).
This passage brings me to my next point, the presidential race. Every time the people here the same thing that McCain is going to do this, or Obama is going to do that, but the intelligent citizens know that all that is a bunch of crap. The president never keeps all of his promises, and the wide public will get angry and wonder why promises were made and some weren't backed up. This now makes sense to me because I see that it is at the presidents disadvantage to keep his word on certain issues. They know, and probably try to make their bills pass, but sometimes it is not in the best interest of the president to do so. Sometimes they will try to sneak around the issues, thus using the model of the fox, and sometimes they have to overwhelm their adversaries, using the model of the lion.
1). As Machiavelli later makes an example of Pope Alexander VI and how his power let him get away with not keeping his word, how would someone who is not in such a powerful position be able to get away with not keeping his word? (Keeping in mind that men are simple, and wicked.)
I chose this passage because it is an example that when reason does not work one has to use 'animal instincts' to get the job done/point across. The use of Chiron is as stated above; so that the students would get both natures of man and of beast. The leaders of the world's nations use only one or the other. While reading and watching the news in Africa and in the middle east I see only the beastly nature present, while in more political nations (those that make up the majority of the U.N.) only use the nature of 'man' in contrast to a beast. I see it a lot with the U.S., the government will try to reason its way through problems and using politics to confuse others, the others being those referred to as guerrillas, or those who only use the philosophy of the beast. The U.S. government does not use the beast philosophy when situations get sticky. They just keep pushing the reasoning factor, because they're scared to get their hands dirty; but it's like I quoted Machiavelli in the previous post, it is better to be feared than loved (Machiavelli 78).
"Since a prince must know how to use the nature of the beast to his advantage, he must emulate both the fox and the lion, because a lion cannot defy a snare, while a fox cannot defy a pack of wolves. A prince must therefore be a fox to spot the snares, and a lion to overwhelm the wolves. The prince who models himself only on the lion does not grasp this, but a wise ruler cannot and should not keep his word when it would be to his disadvantage to do so...." (Machiavelli 81-82).
This passage brings me to my next point, the presidential race. Every time the people here the same thing that McCain is going to do this, or Obama is going to do that, but the intelligent citizens know that all that is a bunch of crap. The president never keeps all of his promises, and the wide public will get angry and wonder why promises were made and some weren't backed up. This now makes sense to me because I see that it is at the presidents disadvantage to keep his word on certain issues. They know, and probably try to make their bills pass, but sometimes it is not in the best interest of the president to do so. Sometimes they will try to sneak around the issues, thus using the model of the fox, and sometimes they have to overwhelm their adversaries, using the model of the lion.
1). As Machiavelli later makes an example of Pope Alexander VI and how his power let him get away with not keeping his word, how would someone who is not in such a powerful position be able to get away with not keeping his word? (Keeping in mind that men are simple, and wicked.)
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Whether it is Better to be Loved Than Feared,or the Contrary
"My reply is that one would like to be both, but as it is difficult to combine love and fear, if one has to choose between them it is far safer to be feared than loved"(Machiavelli 78).
I chose this passage because I find it very plausible and intersesting that Machiavelli has said this. What would citizens respect more, someone that tries to do the citizens good to win them over, or someone that has taken a strong hand to keep order so internal problems can be avoided.
"Men have less compunction about harming someone who has made himself feard, because love is held in place by chains of obligation, which, as men are evil, will quickly be broken if self-interest is at stake" (Machiavelli 78-79).
I find it very interesting that I happen to be reading this book during the presidential race. The candidates are showing a perfect example of trying to win over the population by being loved. Of course I understand why; we vote for them! I do; however, find it difficult to understand why when they get elected they don't try to hold themselves in a manner in which they are 'feared.' Not that they have to scare the pants off of people, but they need to be strong in the sense that we, as citizens feel that we are safe.
On another note I do understand that the president has limited power because he is sharing with Congress, who has the real power. Even then there are 535 congressmen and women who have to vote, so our government is not the best example.
"... I conclude that since men love at their own will and fear at the will of the prince, a wise prince must build a foudation on what is his own, and not what belongs to others" (Machiavelli 80).
1). How would Machiavelli go about explaining how our democratic rebublic should go about using its power?
2). Are those leaders who rise to become a prince through being love doomed to fail in all situations?
I chose this passage because I find it very plausible and intersesting that Machiavelli has said this. What would citizens respect more, someone that tries to do the citizens good to win them over, or someone that has taken a strong hand to keep order so internal problems can be avoided.
"Men have less compunction about harming someone who has made himself feard, because love is held in place by chains of obligation, which, as men are evil, will quickly be broken if self-interest is at stake" (Machiavelli 78-79).
I find it very interesting that I happen to be reading this book during the presidential race. The candidates are showing a perfect example of trying to win over the population by being loved. Of course I understand why; we vote for them! I do; however, find it difficult to understand why when they get elected they don't try to hold themselves in a manner in which they are 'feared.' Not that they have to scare the pants off of people, but they need to be strong in the sense that we, as citizens feel that we are safe.
On another note I do understand that the president has limited power because he is sharing with Congress, who has the real power. Even then there are 535 congressmen and women who have to vote, so our government is not the best example.
"... I conclude that since men love at their own will and fear at the will of the prince, a wise prince must build a foudation on what is his own, and not what belongs to others" (Machiavelli 80).
1). How would Machiavelli go about explaining how our democratic rebublic should go about using its power?
2). Are those leaders who rise to become a prince through being love doomed to fail in all situations?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Of the Different Types of Armies, and of Mercenaries
"A prince who holds a state that is founded on the strength of mercenary armies will never be firm or secure, since such armies are divided, ambitious, without discipline, and fickle-- brave in the face of friends, cowardly in the face of enemies"(Machiavelli 57).
I chose this passage because it is very specific to the fact that outside help in military operations should not be used. How one should not use outside/foreign men to get a job completed whether it is and internal problem (inside the state) or even large scale operations. Those mercenaries are only driven off of the fact that they are being paid a wage to get the job done. "The reason for this is that all that keeps mercenaries on the battlefield are the negligible wages you pay them, which are not sufficient to make them want to die for you"(Machiavelli 57). Mercenaries cannot be trusted, "... brave in the face of friends, cowardly in the face of enemies"(Machiavelli 57). It is pretty clear cut. He even uses an example of the states of Italy who used mercenaries, and how they have fell apart as a whole society. "As a result, King Charles of France was able to conquer Italy with a piece of chalk..." (Machiavelli 57).
1. Should a state never use mercenaries even when their own military is not suited for the fight?
I chose this passage because it is very specific to the fact that outside help in military operations should not be used. How one should not use outside/foreign men to get a job completed whether it is and internal problem (inside the state) or even large scale operations. Those mercenaries are only driven off of the fact that they are being paid a wage to get the job done. "The reason for this is that all that keeps mercenaries on the battlefield are the negligible wages you pay them, which are not sufficient to make them want to die for you"(Machiavelli 57). Mercenaries cannot be trusted, "... brave in the face of friends, cowardly in the face of enemies"(Machiavelli 57). It is pretty clear cut. He even uses an example of the states of Italy who used mercenaries, and how they have fell apart as a whole society. "As a result, King Charles of France was able to conquer Italy with a piece of chalk..." (Machiavelli 57).
1. Should a state never use mercenaries even when their own military is not suited for the fight?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)