Rosseau, Thomas Jefferson, & Machiavelli
Subject: Thomas and The Declaration of Independence (Video), Rosseau (Video), & Machiavelli (Video)
They Say:
The Declaration of Independents, in most respects, is seen as an iconic peace, entailing the main reasons for America instituting its independence. Though most Americans today can recite the Declaration by heart, the document as it was passed and the one we know today are vastly different, with no less than 86 changes. One of the biggest changes would be of him condemning the slave trade. At the time their current institution was one in favor of keeping the standards of slavery a float.
Machiavelli, born in Florence in 1464, proclaims that it's hard to be a good politician and also be a good person, in the Christian sense, at the same time. From becoming an important diplomat to a semi-successful general, and finally, an enemy of the state, tortured and then exiled. He learned of these hardships. That a politician's main job is to defend and keep honor to the state, which at times rely on the use of some darker arts. He must be seen as strict but also reasonable, as to not disgust his people. Though it would be nice for a leader to be both loved and feared, it best for them to air on the side of inspiring terror, for this is what ultimately keeps people in line.
Rosseau, born in 1712 in Geneva. As a young man, arriving in France in the year 1749, he read a copy of a newspaper, named the Mecure de France, which contained an advertisement for an essay, regarding if the current advancements in society, may it be arts or sciences, has contributed to the "purification of morals". Rosseau, in the time of writing this essay, realized that the current progress didn't, in fact, improve the morals, but disrupted the morals of people who had once been good. In this writing, which would later be known as the Discourse of Arts & Sciences, with a simple point that people had once been good and happy, but when they emerged and advance from this pre-social state, they had been plagued with impurity and sin. At the beginning of time, the philosopher imagined the world as being pure, focusing on one another and simple morals, but through society, people began to slide their focus onto self-love, pride, and jealousy. He believes that this was brought when people became a party of society and began comparing themselves to each other. Rosseau referenced the state of Indians. Before the arrival of the Europeans, they were seen as a tightly knit society, rich with culture and morals. But through the introduction of technology and alcohol, this peaceful culture slowly fell apart, with the rates of suicide and alcoholism on the rise.
I say:
Rosseau, being a man of reason, I can see supporting the Libertarian Party. In which individuals are seen as unique and responsible members of society. I believe that, through hearing his philosophy, he would like to see rulers, presidents, or governments that actively address their problems instead of their own hidden agendas. One that listens solely to the people, and shows progress through action. A government that doesn't publicize popular artist or important figures, and allows people to freely find themselves without the crushing influence of social structures/ hierarchies. In terms of a government like this existing. I personally believe it wouldn't be possible. With the current state in advancement, I believe it would be impossible to rid society of these social standards. And even if we did, these problems would still begin to grow beneath the surface of lies and blindness, and people choosing not to address them.
All men are created equal, written in the Declaration of Independence, is a staple of the American revolution, but I would like to talk about this in the terms of slavery. In term of slavery, war is and was the main thing that changed this society for the good. Though war and death was the main outcome that brought about the liberation of slaves, I do believe that the cost could have been less, with people eluding more to the philosophy of Rosseau, with the belief that back in time all people, no matter of color, lived peacefully with one another. At this time, however, slavery was fairly normal in America, with nobody really questioning it. And through the Civil War, which could be seen as a major civil disorder, lead to a change in the right of this injustice. Jefferson through writing this did condemn slavery, but it was later revised out by the Congress. In Machiavelli's viewpoint, with slavery being seen as a norm, probably would bat an eye to it, but instead would include harsher, but not too harsh, laws to punish people who went against these words. And in term, the Civil War would be seen as a rebellion, rather than the North versus the South. And with that philosophy, I believe that Jefferson would argue against it, as he had against John Adams, on un-related issues. And in saying this, Jefferson may have made his writings a lot clearer on what the country needed, but I don't feel like he would go to the extent of Machiavelli ideals.
They Say:
The Declaration of Independents, in most respects, is seen as an iconic peace, entailing the main reasons for America instituting its independence. Though most Americans today can recite the Declaration by heart, the document as it was passed and the one we know today are vastly different, with no less than 86 changes. One of the biggest changes would be of him condemning the slave trade. At the time their current institution was one in favor of keeping the standards of slavery a float.
Machiavelli, born in Florence in 1464, proclaims that it's hard to be a good politician and also be a good person, in the Christian sense, at the same time. From becoming an important diplomat to a semi-successful general, and finally, an enemy of the state, tortured and then exiled. He learned of these hardships. That a politician's main job is to defend and keep honor to the state, which at times rely on the use of some darker arts. He must be seen as strict but also reasonable, as to not disgust his people. Though it would be nice for a leader to be both loved and feared, it best for them to air on the side of inspiring terror, for this is what ultimately keeps people in line.
Rosseau, born in 1712 in Geneva. As a young man, arriving in France in the year 1749, he read a copy of a newspaper, named the Mecure de France, which contained an advertisement for an essay, regarding if the current advancements in society, may it be arts or sciences, has contributed to the "purification of morals". Rosseau, in the time of writing this essay, realized that the current progress didn't, in fact, improve the morals, but disrupted the morals of people who had once been good. In this writing, which would later be known as the Discourse of Arts & Sciences, with a simple point that people had once been good and happy, but when they emerged and advance from this pre-social state, they had been plagued with impurity and sin. At the beginning of time, the philosopher imagined the world as being pure, focusing on one another and simple morals, but through society, people began to slide their focus onto self-love, pride, and jealousy. He believes that this was brought when people became a party of society and began comparing themselves to each other. Rosseau referenced the state of Indians. Before the arrival of the Europeans, they were seen as a tightly knit society, rich with culture and morals. But through the introduction of technology and alcohol, this peaceful culture slowly fell apart, with the rates of suicide and alcoholism on the rise.I say:
Rosseau, being a man of reason, I can see supporting the Libertarian Party. In which individuals are seen as unique and responsible members of society. I believe that, through hearing his philosophy, he would like to see rulers, presidents, or governments that actively address their problems instead of their own hidden agendas. One that listens solely to the people, and shows progress through action. A government that doesn't publicize popular artist or important figures, and allows people to freely find themselves without the crushing influence of social structures/ hierarchies. In terms of a government like this existing. I personally believe it wouldn't be possible. With the current state in advancement, I believe it would be impossible to rid society of these social standards. And even if we did, these problems would still begin to grow beneath the surface of lies and blindness, and people choosing not to address them.
All men are created equal, written in the Declaration of Independence, is a staple of the American revolution, but I would like to talk about this in the terms of slavery. In term of slavery, war is and was the main thing that changed this society for the good. Though war and death was the main outcome that brought about the liberation of slaves, I do believe that the cost could have been less, with people eluding more to the philosophy of Rosseau, with the belief that back in time all people, no matter of color, lived peacefully with one another. At this time, however, slavery was fairly normal in America, with nobody really questioning it. And through the Civil War, which could be seen as a major civil disorder, lead to a change in the right of this injustice. Jefferson through writing this did condemn slavery, but it was later revised out by the Congress. In Machiavelli's viewpoint, with slavery being seen as a norm, probably would bat an eye to it, but instead would include harsher, but not too harsh, laws to punish people who went against these words. And in term, the Civil War would be seen as a rebellion, rather than the North versus the South. And with that philosophy, I believe that Jefferson would argue against it, as he had against John Adams, on un-related issues. And in saying this, Jefferson may have made his writings a lot clearer on what the country needed, but I don't feel like he would go to the extent of Machiavelli ideals.
Comments
Post a Comment