Jeremy Ocampo
Prof. Billy Middleton
Moving on to Machiavelli's passage, he discusses how in
order to maintain a prince's position as ruler, he must know all fundamentals
and aspects of warfare. If a prince didn't have the support of the people that
he governed, he wouldn't be an effective ruler making him vulnerable to being
disrespected and questioned by the public. In my views, a leader is one that
possesses an aggressive image but at the same time, manages to be respected by
the people through the decisions he makes for the good of the village. The ruler must never stay in rest, meaning that he has to be actively train himself even in time of peace. This can be done in two ways, "one by action, the other by the mind" (40). By action, the leader has to always out hunting and make his body used to the hard conditions present during wartime. The leader has to be mindful of his surroundings, taking mental notes on the advantages and disadvantages of the enemy, knowing their escape routes, and how to attack them if they are on high ground. A prince must weigh down every possibility if he wants to win the battle. By mind, the prince must get tips from history's greatest men and how they carried themselves in times of war. In comparison to Lau-tzu, Machiavelli argues that the prince's main focus is staying alive and keeping his position of power while on the other hand, Lau-tzu reinforces the idea that the leader must rule in a way that the people doesn't realize he exists. Machiavelli also argues that the prince must use any means necessary to make the people content in order to keep his position because my making majority of the people content, the public will be supportive of the leader's actions. In light of the decision making process that the leader undergoes, Machiavelli also states that the leader should "avoid being despised and hated' (50) because by not being despised or hated, no one is going to want to hurt or kill the prince. What I don't understand however is in what other ways does Lau-tzu's passage correlate with Machiavelli's passage? Other than that, the two passages were very interesting and they should be read twice in order to grasp the concepts that they try to portray to us readers.
Hi Jeremy,
ReplyDeleteGood job summarizing and interpreting some of the content of Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli. First, remember that you don't have to do a blog for ever text, just every assignment. In other words, for the next one, rather than doing a 300 word post for Gandhi, one for Tolstoy, and one for King, you could just do one post that briefly compares or examines elements from all three. You are definitely free to do multiple blogs if you so choose, and it may even be helpful for you to do so, but it's more work than you strictly have to do.
The other thing I'd suggest for your next blog is try to summarize less and analyze more. Talk some about what elements you agree or disagree with and why. Complicate some element of what they say by applying it to some personal anecdote from your own life. Expand on one element of their text you think is particularly interesting. Pull out some passages and closely read them. These are all options that will prove more fruitful in helping you understand the texts than just summarizing them.