Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rousseau > Machiavelli

Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 10:00:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 8:45:01 PM, Kefka wrote:
Discourses > The Prince


Message is obvious enough.

Why?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Kefka
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 12:00:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Machiavelli speaks of these inherent masks all people wear to seem "good" to the outside world; he says we thrive off of the benefits of public adoration for being "good people," and that this reward is the only pragmatic use of things like altruism and kindness.

On the other hand, Rousseau subtly asserts that Machiavelli's image of this apparent "human nature" is only believed true, because he had never seen humankind in their most basic form: the epoch between the discovery of tools and the discovery of property.

He even quotes da man in his discourse - "Where there is no property, there is no injury" - John Locke
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 12:06:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
So...

Rousseau is beter than Machiavelli in Political Science/Philosophy? Justify it. I own a copy of both Discourses and Prince and to me they are very, very messy.

As for Rousseau I don't know him much nor have I read any of books so I can't judge.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 10:50:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 10:06:17 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not really sure who Rousseau is, but Machiavelli wrote The Prince so he wins hands down. ^^

... Wow.
President of DDO
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 11:01:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 10:50:09 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/27/2010 10:06:17 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not really sure who Rousseau is, but Machiavelli wrote The Prince so he wins hands down. ^^

... Wow.

Hey, I don't read philosophy, ok. lol
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 11:15:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 12:00:14 AM, Kefka wrote:
Machiavelli speaks of these inherent masks all people wear to seem "good" to the outside world; he says we thrive off of the benefits of public adoration for being "good people," and that this reward is the only pragmatic use of things like altruism and kindness.

On the other hand, Rousseau subtly asserts that Machiavelli's image of this apparent "human nature" is only believed true, because he had never seen humankind in their most basic form: the epoch between the discovery of tools and the discovery of property.

He even quotes da man in his discourse - "Where there is no property, there is no injury" - John Locke

So?

How do you know Machiavelli is wrong and Rousseau is right? You still haven't answered the question, only outlined each one's apparent beliefs.

What have you read by either one? Who has discussed either work with you? Have you taken a course on either political philosopher? Are you sure you even understand the work correctly? Why is Rousseau's opinion more viable to you?

How and why was humanity an different before property?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Kefka
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 5:36:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 11:15:05 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 1/28/2010 12:00:14 AM, Kefka wrote:
Machiavelli speaks of these inherent masks all people wear to seem "good" to the outside world; he says we thrive off of the benefits of public adoration for being "good people," and that this reward is the only pragmatic use of things like altruism and kindness.

On the other hand, Rousseau subtly asserts that Machiavelli's image of this apparent "human nature" is only believed true, because he had never seen humankind in their most basic form: the epoch between the discovery of tools and the discovery of property.

He even quotes da man in his discourse - "Where there is no property, there is no injury" - John Locke


So?

How do you know Machiavelli is wrong and Rousseau is right? You still haven't answered the question, only outlined each one's apparent beliefs.

What have you read by either one? Who has discussed either work with you? Have you taken a course on either political philosopher? Are you sure you even understand the work correctly? Why is Rousseau's opinion more viable to you?

How and why was humanity an different before property?

- So far only The Prince and the First and Second Discourses
- No one really, except for small commentary by Alto to enlighten me a little.
- No, I have not taken a course. (No Philosophy classes High School, such a shame. Maybe I could find one at nearby college? I"ll just wait.)
- I'm pretty sure I understood the theme and points made by each home-slice. I tried to be as concise as possible in my little rant. I'm sure I could elaborate a little more if I wasn't clear.
- Because anyone who seems to hint towards humans being inherently greedy/manipulative/etc has little to no proof, and bases their theories only on what Rousseau said to be "nascent behavior." On the other hand, Golden Rule believers have little to no proof as well. Only "God" (Allah, Xenu, Spaghetti Monster) knows humankind's core drives before they are immediately polluted by their environment. And Rousseau's explanation of the development of humans and their endeavors seemed pretty sound to me, but what do I know? If I'm wrong about Machiavelli's assertion being what I described above, let me know.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 7:54:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 11:01:34 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/28/2010 10:50:09 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/27/2010 10:06:17 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not really sure who Rousseau is, but Machiavelli wrote The Prince so he wins hands down. ^^

... Wow.

Hey, I don't read philosophy, ok. lol

Lol so why pick one "hands down" when you don't really know the work of either? Why is The Prince better to you than Rousseau's work? I'm just wondering your reasoning :)
President of DDO
True2GaGa
Posts: 1,574
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 7:55:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 7:54:01 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/28/2010 11:01:34 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/28/2010 10:50:09 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/27/2010 10:06:17 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not really sure who Rousseau is, but Machiavelli wrote The Prince so he wins hands down. ^^

... Wow.

Hey, I don't read philosophy, ok. lol

Lol so why pick one "hands down" when you don't really know the work of either? Why is The Prince better to you than Rousseau's work? I'm just wondering your reasoning :)

Personaly, I don't really like either of them.
True2GaGa
Posts: 1,574
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 8:00:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 7:57:17 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/29/2010 7:55:31 AM, True2GaGa wrote:

Personaly, I don't really like either of them.

Why not?

I'm not that into philosophy.
Most times I just go with the flow.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 9:48:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 8:00:48 AM, True2GaGa wrote:
At 1/29/2010 7:57:17 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/29/2010 7:55:31 AM, True2GaGa wrote:

Personaly, I don't really like either of them.

Why not?

I'm not that into philosophy.
Most times I just go with the flow.

lol, Have you read either of them, True? You can't say you don't like them if you haven't read them :p

Or are you just saying you don't like philosophy at all so your dislike comes from that generality?

Shame you don't like philosophy. It's spirituality in place of ridiculous religion :)
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 9:50:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 5:36:01 PM, Kefka wrote:

- So far only The Prince and the First and Second Discourses
- No one really, except for small commentary by Alto to enlighten me a little.
- No, I have not taken a course. (No Philosophy classes High School, such a shame. Maybe I could find one at nearby college? I"ll just wait.)
- I'm pretty sure I understood the theme and points made by each home-slice. I tried to be as concise as possible in my little rant. I'm sure I could elaborate a little more if I wasn't clear.
- Because anyone who seems to hint towards humans being inherently greedy/manipulative/etc has little to no proof, and bases their theories only on what Rousseau said to be "nascent behavior." On the other hand, Golden Rule believers have little to no proof as well. Only "God" (Allah, Xenu, Spaghetti Monster) knows humankind's core drives before they are immediately polluted by their environment. And Rousseau's explanation of the development of humans and their endeavors seemed pretty sound to me, but what do I know? If I'm wrong about Machiavelli's assertion being what I described above, let me know.

Hmm... ok, I see. Personally, from my other major (psychology) I have come to terms that humanity is ungrateful, fickle, pretenders and dissemblers, evaders of danger, and eager for gain. This combination of traits, if left unchecked, always leads to destruction of community. So I tend to agree with Machiavelli, though I wish with all my heart the opposite was true :p
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 9:53:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 9:48:23 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:

Shame you don't like philosophy. It's spirituality in place of ridiculous religion :)

I agree with the ridiculous religion portion, but....
what do you mean by 'spirituality'? (cuz to me that sounds like religion; that is, unjustified belief)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 9:55:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 9:53:35 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/29/2010 9:48:23 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:

Shame you don't like philosophy. It's spirituality in place of ridiculous religion :)

I agree with the ridiculous religion portion, but....
what do you mean by 'spirituality'? (cuz to me that sounds like religion; that is, unjustified belief)

Ah, I should clarify: By "spirituality" I mean, it is a great way to practice the "why?" and "how should we live?" parts of life.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 9:57:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 8:00:48 AM, True2GaGa wrote:
At 1/29/2010 7:57:17 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/29/2010 7:55:31 AM, True2GaGa wrote:

Personaly, I don't really like either of them.

Why not?

I'm not that into philosophy.
Most times I just go with the flow.

I'm not either. Most philosophy bores me to death.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 10:01:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 9:57:32 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:

I'm not either. Most philosophy bores me to death.

What interests you on an intellectual level?
President of DDO
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 10:05:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 10:01:59 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/29/2010 9:57:32 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:

I'm not either. Most philosophy bores me to death.

What interests you on an intellectual level?

tbh, I'm not really sure. I don't really consider myself much of an intellectual. I just love learning new things and I'm almost entirely self-taught.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 10:08:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 9:55:16 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:

Ah, I should clarify: By "spirituality" I mean, it is a great way to practice the "why?" and "how should we live?" parts of life.

Oh than I completely agree, I think Ethics is really the center of philosophy.

Understanding the nature/limits of knowledge is interesting but only 'useful' when we attempt to use that knowledge to inform how we act, and Ethics, being the study of how we ought to act, is the ultimate arbiter in this regard.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 10:13:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 10:05:31 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:

tbh, I'm not really sure. I don't really consider myself much of an intellectual. I just love learning new things and I'm almost entirely self-taught.

Oh, okay. I was just going to say that almost anything you chose would have philosophy at its core :) I guess apathy is the one trait that might turn someone away from philosophy. Otherwise politics, ethics and hell even literature discuss or require some aspect of it.
President of DDO
True2GaGa
Posts: 1,574
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 5:05:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 9:48:23 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 1/29/2010 8:00:48 AM, True2GaGa wrote:
At 1/29/2010 7:57:17 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/29/2010 7:55:31 AM, True2GaGa wrote:

Personaly, I don't really like either of them.

Why not?

I'm not that into philosophy.
Most times I just go with the flow.


lol, Have you read either of them, True? You can't say you don't like them if you haven't read them :p

Or are you just saying you don't like philosophy at all so your dislike comes from that generality?

Shame you don't like philosophy. It's spirituality in place of ridiculous religion :)

Brain Crash!!
Kefka
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 7:31:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 9:50:58 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 1/28/2010 5:36:01 PM, Kefka wrote:

- So far only The Prince and the First and Second Discourses
- No one really, except for small commentary by Alto to enlighten me a little.
- No, I have not taken a course. (No Philosophy classes High School, such a shame. Maybe I could find one at nearby college? I"ll just wait.)
- I'm pretty sure I understood the theme and points made by each home-slice. I tried to be as concise as possible in my little rant. I'm sure I could elaborate a little more if I wasn't clear.
- Because anyone who seems to hint towards humans being inherently greedy/manipulative/etc has little to no proof, and bases their theories only on what Rousseau said to be "nascent behavior." On the other hand, Golden Rule believers have little to no proof as well. Only "God" (Allah, Xenu, Spaghetti Monster) knows humankind's core drives before they are immediately polluted by their environment. And Rousseau's explanation of the development of humans and their endeavors seemed pretty sound to me, but what do I know? If I'm wrong about Machiavelli's assertion being what I described above, let me know.


Hmm... ok, I see. Personally, from my other major (psychology) I have come to terms that humanity is ungrateful, fickle, pretenders and dissemblers, evaders of danger, and eager for gain. This combination of traits, if left unchecked, always leads to destruction of community. So I tend to agree with Machiavelli, though I wish with all my heart the opposite was true :p

Hmm, I've always considered majoring in Psychology. But I plan to take on Philosophy, and I've quite widely warned by my teachers that most Philosophy majors they know are bat-sh** crazy. One question though, what jobs could I get with a philosophy degree? I know it opens a lot of doors, because it proves you can think and organize your thoughts. But I plan on trying to teach on the high school level, maybe at a private school where they would actually offer a high school phil class; I've also considered the college level, but maybe just a junior college, because I don't want to become a pompous prick constantly worried about publishing at a more "prestigious" college.

And as to your observations, I have to disagree slightly. I don't think psychology can correctly burrow beneath the bushels of crap that ensues after birth. As I said, I guess we'll never know what "human nature" is, other than simple things like flight or fight. And I've read a little Leviathan too, and although he's almost as cynical as Machiavelli, I think he made a cool point: people aren't "evaders of danger" and "eager for gain" out of pure pride/greed, but maybe just simply to secure their livelihood; if we teach people when to quell their ambitions (read Speak for the Dead (Ender) saga), I'm sure we could lessen the nasty effects of environment.

P.S. Teachers are the greatest people on this earth!
Kefka
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 3:57:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I"m second thinking this. Recently I was reading and according to Pulitzer Prize winning historian, Garret Mttingly, it was very possible from looking at Machiavelli's life, his writings, and the time period that he lived in, that "The Prince" was satire. Basically a sheep in wolf's clothing, appearing evil but holding true to real, old world virtues.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 4:01:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 3:57:30 PM, Kefka wrote:
I"m second thinking this. Recently I was reading and according to Pulitzer Prize winning historian, Garret Mttingly, it was very possible from looking at Machiavelli's life, his writings, and the time period that he lived in, that "The Prince" was satire. Basically a sheep in wolf's clothing, appearing evil but holding true to real, old world virtues.

Interesting - sometimes I think the same. Sometimes :p
President of DDO
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 4:10:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 7:31:37 AM, Kefka wrote:
One question though, what jobs could I get with a philosophy degree? I know it opens a lot of doors, because it proves you can think and organize your thoughts.

Well if teaching is your goal, the jobs it offers are less important than your teaching ticket. :P

That said, law firms love a philo, as will potential schools, colleges. The key is not so much what your philosophy degree will get you (since it's not vocational) but how well you can sell the skills it gives you to any employer - which makes the degree useful. :)
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 4:10:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 7:31:37 AM, Kefka wrote:
One question though, what jobs could I get with a philosophy degree? I know it opens a lot of doors, because it proves you can think and organize your thoughts.

Well if teaching is your goal, the jobs it offers are less important than your teaching ticket. :P

That said, law firms love a philo, as will potential schools, colleges. The key is not so much what your philosophy degree will get you (since it's not vocational) but how well you can sell the skills it gives you to any employer - which makes the degree useful. :)
Kefka
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 3:03:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 4:10:48 PM, Puck wrote:
At 1/30/2010 7:31:37 AM, Kefka wrote:
One question though, what jobs could I get with a philosophy degree? I know it opens a lot of doors, because it proves you can think and organize your thoughts.

Well if teaching is your goal, the jobs it offers are less important than your teaching ticket. :P

That said, law firms love a philo, as will potential schools, colleges. The key is not so much what your philosophy degree will get you (since it's not vocational) but how well you can sell the skills it gives you to any employer - which makes the degree useful. :)

Well I'm fairly sure i would like to teach, but I was curious of, you know, backup plans ;P But I like your points; be pragmatic about what I've learned, and use it to convince an employer/school district that I'm a beast. Much gracias senor. I've also thought about being a lawyer since I LOVE to argue with peeps at school; I wonder if I could handle selling my soul though.....