Computers and Computer Peripherals in Mandarin

Similarities Between Socrates And Machiavelli - 1803 Words

Machiavelli and Socrates were beings of their time. The world around them shaped their views, and their views have in turn shaped ours. While both lived through turbulent times, they do not share the same ideology. Socrates would dislike Machiavelli’s description of the ideal prince, regardless of how the prince actually ruled. Socrates would oppose both how the prince got to power and keeps it, as well as the society over which he rules. Socrates assigned certain responsibilities to both the ruler and the subjects, and some of them are incongruent with the expectations and suggestions proposed by Machiavelli in The Prince. As a result, even if Socrates liked the ruler he would see it as a result of the individual (the ruler) and not the†¦show more content†¦The city had a monopoly on the use of violence, and resorted to it when it could not find a way to stop Socrates from doing what he was doing. Socrates knew that the city was wrong in executing him, but felt he wa s obligated to accept his faith because of the â€Å"agreement† he had with Athens. This agreement refers to the dynamic between subject and ruler, and would be the same under Machiavelli’s Prince. By virtue of birth or where one lives, the person owes loyalty to the state and must obey the decisions made by that state. According to Machiavelli, this means that if the Prince is as unwilling to compromise as Athens, then not only is he justified in using force against dissenters but the recipients of the violence, by virtue of where they live, must, without resistance, accept their fate. Why would any Prince compromise under those circumstances? If the Prince acts as Machiavelli suggests, then it is inevitable for situations such as that of Socrates with Athens to arise. Given that Socrates thought it was wrong when it happened to him, then it is reasonable to conclude that it would be wrong if it happened to others as well. Death at the hands of an unjust and biased ju ry is no more wrong than death at the hands of an unjust and biased Prince. Furthermore, the Prince would seek to establish a dynamic of which Socrates would be critical. The Prince would aim to prevent the masses, and hopefully theShow MoreRelatedSimilarities Between Socrates And Machiavelli1197 Words   |  5 Pages Socrates and Machiavelli both grew up in times of political instability which formed and shaped their political beliefs. Machiavelli primarily discussed his view of how a leader should behave in the book: The Prince. A prince is an individual who is the leader of a state or group of people. Machiavelli’s version of a prince is very accurate but, Socrates would not support Machiavelli’s version of a prince. Machiavelli believed a prince must be domineering and aggressive, while Socrates viewedRead MoreSimilarities Between Socrates And Machiavelli1905 Words   |  8 PagesEssay 1 While Socrates and Machiavelli lived over 1900 years apart, the dilemmas their societies faced draw many parallels. In Machiavelli’s â€Å"The Prince†, he demonstrates a wide-ranging set of rules and principles to be followed by a leader to ensure the steady maintenance of authority and stability in a state or principality. Not only would Socrates be opposed to many of the espoused views in â€Å"The Prince† on what creates a successful ruler, thereby society, but had he lived in Machiavelli’s â€Å"ideal†Read MoreSimilarities Between Socrates And Machiavelli1084 Words   |  5 Pagesamong them were Socrates and Machiavelli, whose ideas regarding violence and its ideal usage to us inspired countless other prominent figures after their respective times. Socrates believed humans are imperfect and fallible, and should therefore avoid using violence. Machiavelli on the on the other hand considered violence a useful tool in achieving one’s goals . Considering both thinkers’ impacts on history, a question arises: whose concept of violence is more corrupting, Socrates’ or Machiavelli’sRead MoreSimilarities Between Machiavelli And Socrates1534 Words   |  7 PagesGovernment 241: Political Philosophy Professor Ives October 13, 2017 The morality which guided Socrates were an end all, be all for him. He did not wish to live without his search for truth. Socrates would see a Machiavellian Prince as self-centered, and void of morals. A Machiavellian prince would not appreciate the way Socrates carried himself and would see him as a challenge to his authority. Socrates would not support a Machiavellian society because most likely he would not be free to philosophizeRead MoreSimilarities Between Machiavelli And Socrates1250 Words   |  5 PagesMachiavelli and Socrates are two of the most influential figures in modern day political philosophy. These two individuals established the bases for our interpretation of the world and human political interaction. While they were separated by centuries and a significant geographic distance, it is fascinating nonetheless to ponder what they would think of each other. Sadly it is impossible to ask themselves and so we must instead turn to their writings in order to glean an ide a of what their opinionsRead MoreSimilarities Between Socrates And Machiavelli1649 Words   |  7 PagesSocrates and Machiavelli both existed during times of political unrest. Both men sought different means of political leadership, and could be seen as activists of their times. During times of war and unrest, it was a bold choice that both men made to stand up for their beliefs and speak out against the system. However, Socrates wouldn’t have agreed with Machiavelli’s means and concepts of the Prince and his ideas for how a political establishment should function. Machiavelli’s means may have beenRead MoreSimilarities Between Machiavelli And Socrates1544 Words   |  7 PagesMachiavelli and Socrates agree on very little. While an initial reading of the two may elicit some comparisons, the goals of their respective philosophies rely on different foundations, and would therefore culminate in very different political results for society. Socrates would likely see in the Prince a selfish ruler, while Machiavelli would see in Socrates a dangerous idealist whose ideas would lead to instability and the death of the state in which these ideas were implemented. Machiavelli’sRead MoreSimilarities Of Socrates And Machiavelli1669 Words   |  7 PagesBoth Socrates and Machiavelli emerged as renowned thinkers of their time because of their approaches to government that moved away from idealism and towards a rational and real approach. To understand why Socrates would be critical of Machiavelli’s concept of a Prince we must understand the similarities and differences between the two philosophers, and then analyze if Socrates would find his ruling system to be efficient. Socrates and Machiavelli value the qualities of a strong and fair ruler, howeverRead MoreMachiavelli And Socrates1579 Words   |  7 PagesMachiavelli and Socrates Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates both lived during turbulent, political times. Machiavelli in Florence, Italy and Socrates in Athens. Machiavelli’s The Prince outlines the necessary features and traits of a sovereign, primarily, a Prince. It served as a handbook to effective rulership in the 16th century. By analyzing Machiavelli’s belief that a prince should be strategically feared, the role of free will , and the role of the people , I will argue that Machiavelli hasRead MoreThe Ideas Of Machiavelli And Socrates1988 Words   |  8 PagesThe ideas of Machiavelli and Socrates have influenced the leadership styles and approaches of leaders around the world. From Stalin to the founding fathers of the United States, Machiavellian influenced motives and ideals can be seen throughout modern history. Socrates is often referred to as the founder of Western philosophy, and his teachings have been passed on to leaders over the centuries. This paper will state both the Machiavel li’s concept of a ‘Prince’, and present Socrates’ perspective on

Indian Removal Act Essay Example For Students

Indian Removal Act Essay Indian Removal (Zinn Chapter 7) Once the white men decided that they wanted lands belonging to the Native Americans (Indians), the United States Government did everything in its power to help the white men acquire Indian land. The US Government did everything from turning a blind eye to passing legislature requiring the Indians to give up their land (see Indian Removal Bill of 1828). Aided by his bias against the Indians, General Jackson set the Indian removal into effect in the war of 1812 when he battled the great Tecumseh and conquered him. Then General, later to become President, Jackson began the later Indian Removal movement when he conquered Tecumsehs allied Indian nation and began distributing their lands (of which he invested heavily in). Jackson became the leader of the distribution of Indian lands and distributed them in unequal ways. In 1828 when Jackson was running for President his platform was based upon Indian Removal, a popular issue which was working its way through Congress in the form of a Bill. Jackson won a sweeping victory and began to formulate his strategies which he would use in an Indian Removal campaign. In 1829, upon seeing that his beloved Bill was not being enforced Jackson began dealing with the Indian tribes and offering them untouchable tracts of lands west of the Mississippi River if they would only cede their lands to the US and move themselves there. Jackson was a large fan of states rights-ism, hence he vetoed the charter for the Bank of the United States, and when faced with two issues concerning states rights (one with South Carolina regarding succession, one with Georgia regarding the Indians) he went with the suppression of South Carolina and gave Georgia all out support. When faced with the decision of Union or Indians he went with the Union and oppressed the Indians. The Executive branch wasnt the only part of government which suppressed the Indians, the Legislative branch also suppressed them. In 1828 Congress passed the Indian Removal Bill which forced the Indians in the south to relocate or be subjected to state laws. This Bill was strongly opposed by the north while it was supported by the south. The Bill, which barely passed it both House and Senate, was a support for the popular distribution of fertile Indian lands. The United States government was lured into the relocating of the Indians because it offered more farmland for southern farmers. As far as the actual relocation went, the task of relocating the Indians fell into the hands of the Army, who then mostly signed the task off to contractors. Indian attempts at conforming were futile and quickly crushed. When the Cherokees Americanized their tribe and converted to the American Way the state of Georgia quickly went in with militias and forced them along their way. Various tribes of Indians fought on the side of the United States against their Indian brothers in return for promised protection against removal, government promises proved to be false. The government (behind the lead of Jackson) sent a sign that it wanted the Indians to leave, and not conform. The US government was quick, behind its powerful Executive, to turn an eye. In 1832 militia regiments from Georgia went onto Cherokee lands and imprisoned 4 missionaries whom they later released upon them swearing oath to the state of Georgia. Later, the same militia imprisoned 10 missionaries and sentenced them to four years hard labor. Their case (based on a treaty with the Cherokee years prior) was appealed to the US Supreme Court where John Marshall upheld their case (see Worcester v. Georgia). The state of Georgia never released them from imprisonment and Jackson never intervened. .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde , .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde .postImageUrl , .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde , .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde:hover , .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde:visited , .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde:active { border:0!important; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde:active , .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Causes Of The Revolutionary War Essay The government also turned a blind eye when dealing with treaties that were previously agreed to with the Indians. In 1791 the Cherokee nation acknowledged themselves to be under the protection of the United States and no other sovereign, also an agreement was made that white men could not be on their lands without passports. Jackson himself offered false promises to the Indians that they would have the lands west of the Mississippi as long as Grass grows or water runs. These lands were taken away barely 50 years after they were assessed. The United States government played a cruel game when it relocated its Indian population (some could argue this as survival of the fittest, evolution). They turned a blind and mostly bias eye when it came to Indian politics and treaties they had made twenty years prior. They made promised that were going to be broken, and which there were no way of avoiding. In short, the government in a way did the same thing to the Indians that Jackson did to the Bank: extirpation.

The New Social Order of the South, Barn Burning. Essay Example

The New Social Order of the South, Barn Burning. Paper Barn Burning, The New Social Order of the South Although many political and economic changes took place following the Civil War, it was very evident in William Faulkner’s Barn Burning that the impact on the social lives of the people living in the South were the most difficult to overcome. He utilizes the new tension between the social classes to create a compelling short story of a boy and his father, but more important, using the family to represent the change in society, the change between good and evil. The new social order after the civil war was a cause of tension between Abner Snopes and his surrounding communities. In William Faulkner’s Barn Burning Abner is portrayed as a man with much insecurity, which causes him to lash out at the people that were better off than he. His lack of prosperity and wealth leads him to be hostile towards the people wealthier than his family â€Å"‘I aim to. I don’t figure to stay in a country among people who†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ He said something unprintable and vile. † (Faulkner 2) While Abner was not found guilty of arson the family is forced to leave on account of their own safety because of how the public viewed their family, â€Å"’Barn burner! † (3) shouts one of the other citizens, showing the reader how much Abner and his family are un-liked. However, his choices do not change how his son sees him, yet. Abner and his way of dealing with issues begin to take a toll on the family, and most of all his son Sardy. His excessive anger and violence begin to change how Sardy feels about him, and he starts to question if his fath er is a good role model. Sensing this, Abner decides to intervene before Sardy sees what kind of a man he really is and he begins to question whether following his father is the right thing to do â€Å"’You’re going to be a man. We will write a custom essay sample on The New Social Order of the South, Barn Burning. specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on The New Social Order of the South, Barn Burning. specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on The New Social Order of the South, Barn Burning. specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer You got to learn. You got to learn to stick to your own blood or you ain’t going to have any blood to stick to you. ’† (5) Despite Abner’s efforts Sardy has already began to wonder about his dad’s character. At this point, Sardy realizes what kind of a man his father is and he decides to take his own path, even if that involves ratting out his own father â€Å"’Barn! ’ He cried ‘Barn! ’† Realizing that Abner is about to burn down another barn Sardy warns Major DeSpain. Thus breaking away from his father’s ways of life and choosing his own path, making sure he himself won’t venture down the same path Abner did. And hopefully be able to stay in one area for a prolonged period of time, making it possible for Sardy to better provide for his family. Abner is easily frustrated at the fact that his family must live in worse living conditions because he cannot provide for his family. He believes in the old ways of slavery, but now that he is beneath an African American in the DeSpain household he despises Major DeSpain and how he treats him and his family as if they are slaves. Abner feels as if he is beneath the African American population after the war, referring to his own family as slaves â€Å"’That’s sweat. Nigger sweat†¦ Maybe he wants to mix some white sweat with it’† (8). The Snopes’ quality of life is far worse than that of the African American butler in the DeSpain’s home. Because of Abners up-bringing in a racist time-period the thought of being below an African American angers him, especially when he is supposed to listen to what a black man tells him to do, â€Å"’Get out of the way, nigger. (7) Despite the new laws regarding slavery the overall attitude of Abner Snopes did not change towards blacks. It certainly did not help that the aristocracy found new ways to get their work done by victimizing poor families, and treating them almost as if they were slaves. Mr. Snopes despised Major DeSpain for treating him and his family un fairly, causing him to once again, attempt to burn down a bar n to get revenge for DeSpains wrongdoings to his family. Abner Snopes is contemptuous of the new ways of this country, refusing to accept the new order of doing things he decides to express his hatred through destroying of other people’s property. In William Faulkner’s Barn Burning he tells the reader of the devastating effects of the new social order of the South. Although many political and economic problems arouse resulting from the civil war the social effects on those living in the southern United States were the most evident in Faulkner’s short story Barn Burning.