Final Exam Flashcards
Machiavelli is what two things
1469-1527
Political Psychologist
and Master of Realpolitik (master of practical politics without moral or ideological considerations)
before Machiavelli, what was the prevailing view of the task of a government
distribution and maintenance of Justice. Machiavelli believed that the law of life under which every political organization existed was growth and expansion. Thus, force was an integral and most essential, element in politics.
Machiavelli Nobles and the People
the aim of the people is more honorable than of the nobles, nobles seeking to oppress and the people not to be oppressed
The princes subjects should always feel the need of the state and of him, so then they will always be faithful.
When his subjects are well disposed towards him, the prince will have little to fear. The well ordered states and wise princes have made sure that the nobility shall not be driven to desperation and the people will be content
regardless how a prince comes to power, he should make every effort to win the good will of the people, or in times of trouble, he will have no hope
the people are the many, and the nobles are the few. keep the people dependent and do all that benefits them not because its the right thing to do but because it consolidates the princes power
machiavelli and innovation
taking the lead in introducing a new order of things. one who innovates gives their enemies an opportunity to attack him.
It is easy to persuade them of something, but difficult to confirm them in that persuasion.
humans are keenly aware of loss and while only vaguely aware of gain. Negative consequences associated with changing the status quo are magnified, while the benefits of change are ignored.
Machiavelli then shows two ways in which the innovator can use to get his message through. The first is the one who uses force, and the second to use persuasion. Machiavelli then points out that “persuasion” is a double-edged sword. One can persuade another with the concept of an idea, but the latter may choose to still follow his or her way of doing things. The persuader must ensure that the latter confirms to act upon the idea, not merely entertain it. This requires a lot of skill in understanding the person (or people) one is trying to convince.
The force can really backfire on you. there’s no grey area
don’t innovate unless you have to. if you have to, you will have backlash.
Machiavelli Feared, Loved or Hated
if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved….
[M]en are less careful how they offend him who makes himself loved than him who makes himself feared. For love is held by the tie of obligation, which, because men are a sorry breed, is broken on every whisper of private interest; but fear is bound by the apprehension of punishment which never relaxes its grasp.
make them fear you because you cannot make them love you.
[A]bove all, he must abstain from the property of others. For men will sooner forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.
Machiavelli Appearance and Craftiness**
[T]here are two ways of contending, one in accordance with the laws, the other by force; the first of which is proper to men, the second to beasts. But since the first method is often ineffectual, it becomes necessary to resort to the second. A prince should, therefore, understand how to use both the man and the beast.
he ought of beasts to choose the lion and the fox; for the lion cannot guard himself from the toils, nor the fox from the wolves. He must therefore be a fox to discern toils, and a lion to drive off wolves.
Thus it is well to seem merciful, faithful, humane, religious, and upright, and also to be so; but the mind should remain so balanced that were it needful not to be so, you should be able and know how to change to the contrary.
understand to react to people before they do whatever they’re going to do
Ruling families of Renaissance Italy
Sforza (Milan) Medici (Florence) Borgia Orsini Barberini (Rimini) Malatesta (Palestrina)
Swiss army
MERCENARIES
became traditional to hire Swiss mercenaries for special operations
or Scots
Machiavelli and the Citizen Army
Condottieri: a leader or member of a troop of mercenaries, especially in Italy.
Those who have a vital interest in the defense of the country will fight more tenaciously than those who do not.–The citizen vs. the mercenary
The mercenary is the downfall of a prince’s state
Mac believes in a republic. people should be ethical and the state should promote good citizenship
Essay question
1) What main categories do their political philosophies deal with?
1) the political philosophies of the three philosophers deals with three main categories: the state of nature, or the period before government, human nature, or the sum of the human condition in action, and the social contract, or the artificial contract “signed” and agreed to by members of a society for social benefit of a civil society. The minority will accept the will of the majority.
Essay question
2) How does each of them treat these themes?
Hobbes
Hobbes, scientist in optics and biology, but remembered for his book Leviathan and lived at the same time of the English civil war, thirty years war and eighty years war.
SON - a war of all against all life in nasty, brutish and short. in the state of nature, life was horrible, miserable, and a constant nightmare of an existence for all. to Hobbes, there is nothing worse than going back to the state of nature. Everyone has a right to everything. The only laws that exist in the state of nature (the laws of nature) are not covenants forged between people but principles based on self-preservation. everyone fears and mistrusts everyone else.
HN: Men are mainly concerned with self-preservation, egoistic, not egotistic, and, most importantly, men are rational.
SC: all sovereignty is surrendered to a king. The king will (hopefully) prevent people from harming each other. it is never proper to revolt against the King. There is always a danger of slipping into chaos, back into the state of Nature.
“lay down” their natural rights
Why someone is king is a social or political issue. The divine right of kings issue is not involved in this picture.
difference between egoism and egotism
egotism: I am so terrific that I can barely stand it.
egoism: a point of view about nature of human beings. a psychological, sociological, and ethical stance. All people, all the time, are working for their own good.
Essay question
2) How does each of them treat these themes?
Locke
By the time of Locke, civil wars are done in England, the merchant class is gaining power, and there was a large group of large land owners who are not aristocratic are coming to the economic and political scene which changed political dynamics tremendously.
SON; neither all good or all bad, life is static. absence of government but not by the absence of mutual obligation. Individuals nevertheless agree to form a commonwealth (and thereby to leave the state of nature) in order to institute an impartial power capable of arbitrating their disputes and redressing injuries.
HM: men are neither all good nor bad. Men are rational. People cam be both good or bad, lazy or industrious, etc.
SC: Some sovereignty surrendered to the monarch. Monarchs part of the contract, and is obliged to help protect subjects, and provide for well-being of society
In extreme cases, permissible to revolt against a REALLY bad king. Theoretically, Might be possible for the people to act as the sovereign.
You need authority for times of strife like droughts and hurricanes ect. They will help you through those times then you can get to the stuff with science and art and such
Essay question
2) How does each of them treat these themes?
Rousseau
French enlightenment
was kind of nuts. lots of kids (that he didn’t take care of) and roamed around from place to place and pissed off a lot of people.
SON: Wonderful!! Like the Garden of Eden. Hostile toward organized religion. Wasn’t against religion per se. He was a Diest.
The state of nature, Rousseau argued, could only mean a primitive state preceding socialization; it is thus devoid of social traits such as pride, envy, or even fear of others. The state of nature, for Rousseau, is a morally neutral and peaceful condition in which (mainly) solitary individuals act according to their basic urges (for instance, hunger) as well as their natural desire for self-preservation.
people leave an anarchic state of nature by voluntarily transferring their personal rights to the community in return for security of life and property. He argues that people should form a society to which they would completely surrender themselves
HN: Men are essentially good- have only become bad because they have been deformed by decadent society. Essentially rational, but must learn to reject superstition and recover their logical faculties
SC: has not yet happened. Once men are freed from superstition and lies, then they will be ready to make a rational Social Contract. NO KINGS. all people will retain their sovereignty and an Enlightened Society will rule itself.
End goal is to get back to something that is similar to the State of Nature where people are rational and cooperative.
Essay question
3)what then is the fundamental difference in their views on human nature?
Hobbes- egoism All people, all the time, are working for their own good. People have competing interests, and to prevent chaos, political and economic organizations need to use force to keep society together.
Locke- unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature is characterised by reason and tolerance. Positive view of human nature. He believed that people could learn from experience and improve themselves. As reasonable beings, they had the natural ability to govern their own affairs and to look after the welfare of society.
Rousseau- the most positive view of human nature. society threatened natural rights and freedoms of human nature. People have a sense of freedom, a faculty for self-improvement, a natural feeling of compassion and self-love. Private property is the source of all evil.
Establishment of the institution of private property lead to the establishment of society, government, and law.
The only solution is to abandon private property.
Essay question
4) fundamental differences in their views in human society?
Hobbes- monarchy. give up all rights to the sovereign. Placing all power in the hands of a king would mean more resolute and consistent exercise of political authority .The sovereign would make and enforce the laws to secure a peaceful society, making life, liberty, and property possible. Hobbes called this agreement the social contract.
Locke- government (limited government) acted only to enforce and protect the natural rights of the people. If a sovereign violated these rights, the social contract was broken, and the people had the right to revolt and establish a new government. Government, he said, was mainly necessary to promote the “public good,” that is to protect property and encourage commerce and little else. “Govern lightly,” Locke said.
Rousseau- Rousseau argued that the general will of the people could not be decided by elected representatives. He believed in a direct democracy in which everyone voted to express the general will and to make the laws of the land. All political power, according to Rousseau, must reside with the people, exercising their general will. There can be no separation of powers.
Dialectical materialism
Thesis: the prevailing ideas, politics, institutions, social structure of the age
Antithesis: The contradictions existing in the same age, working in opposition of the thesis
Crisis: when the tensions and contradictions between thesis and antithesis become too strong
Synthesis: the new situation which emerges as a result of the crisis. It becomes the new Thesis for the next phase in history
This is the motor of history.
Marx liked this idea, but in a materialistic way. Marxists are involved with what Marx predicted, Marx was concerned with right NOW vs. the future.
what is a philosophical materialist?
nothing exists that cannot be measured and observed. No patience for Gods and the soul
what thesis did Marx believe he lived in?
Before the wheel of history, people lived in communal situations (early communism)
He believed that he lived in a time that the thesis was that all was owned by a very very small group which would lead to a crisis to where there would be a smaller B and the P would get bigger and bigger and that would not be sustainable. Then, Revolution.
Logical problem: hes a materialist. Who the hell says that it has to end up nice? There should be an antithesis for every thesis. If you’re truly a materialist: there should be a telos (the goal of a thing or a person’s existence)
If your really a materialist, a telos doesn’t make sense.
