There are two most common types of philosophies of education in society, which include non-Christian and Christian. In this essay, comparison between the main differences and similarities between non-Christian and Christian philosophies of education using three different approaches: perennialism, essentialism, and progressivism will be made.
Perennialism is a philosophical theory that emphasizes the unity of world religions and philosophical traditions. It asserts that there are some universal truths and principles that can be found in all cultures and religions (Kooli, 2019). According to perennialism, non-Christian and Christian philosophies of education can exist within a shared cultural heritage, as they have common ideas about what education is and how to achieve it.
Essentialism is a philosophical theory that claims that there are some fixed entities in the world that can be studied and understood. In non-Christian philosophy of education, essentialism can be associated with the concept of “general education,” while in Christian philosophy of education, essentialism can be associated with the concept of “Christian education,” which aims to develop students’ faith and morality.
Progressivism is a philosophical theory that emphasizes the importance of individuality and freedom in education. In non-Christian philosophy of education, progressivism can be associated with the concept of “lifelong learning,” which aims to develop students’ skills and abilities for successful adaptation in a changing world. In Christian philosophy of education, progressivism can be associated with the concept of “humanistic education,” which aims to develop students’ values and morality.
When comparing non-Christian and Christian educational philosophies, it can be observed that they share many ideas and values. For example, both philosophies emphasize the importance of education for personal development and improving the quality of life. However, there are also differences between non-Christian and Christian educational philosophies. Christian educational philosophy asserts that education should be aimed not only at developing intellectual skills but also at cultivating the faith and morality of students (Kooli, 2019). This sets Christian philosophy apart from non-Christian philosophy, which may only focus on developing intellectual skills and knowledge.
In conclusion, non-Christian and Christian educational philosophies have their similarities and differences. Each philosophy offers its own solutions and approaches to education, which can be effective depending on the specific situation. Philosophies of perennialism, essentialism, and progressivism can be used in both non-Christian and Christian educational philosophies in different combinations and variations.
Reference
Kooli, C. (2019). The philosophy of education in the sultanate of Oman: Between perennialism and progressivism. American Journal of Education and Learning, 4(1), 36-49.
Every organization has key principles to guide its operations toward business effectiveness and sustainability. Dr. W. Edwards’ management principles focus on enhancing the organization’s success through business improvement. The 14 principles provided an in-depth understanding of management transformation and optimization to Japanese manufacturers after World War II. From the list of Deming’s 14 points, some points are more important than others. The principle of creating constancy of purpose in product and service improvement is the most important while putting everybody to work towards accomplishing transformation is the least important point.
Discussion
Companies require strategies that foster a more competitive organization in a dynamic business environment. I think constancy of purpose is the most important point in Deming’s list because it provides a company with a competitive advantage to outperform its rivals. Putting a priority on continuous improvement of the products and services in an organization ensures that the business remains competitive to meet the customers’ needs (The Deming Institute, 2015). The constancy of purpose brings every stakeholder of an organization on board and everyone works toward the success of the business. This point promotes ownership of the company among the members and enhances long-term business sustainability.
Deming’s point on a company’s transformation being everybody’s job is the least important because it is not a strategy that any organization would adopt to remain successful in unstable environments. This point cannot succeed without the company understanding the building blocks of organizational transformation and measuring its readiness, agility, and resilience (London et al., 2021). I believe that companies should consider the application of value-based thinking to deepen their competitive advantages. I think the point is the least important in the list because if all the other 13 points are fulfilled, transformation by everyone is achieved automatically.
Conclusion
Deming’s philosophy of an enriched society is pegged on 14 points among which others are more important than others. Deming’s principle of creating a constancy of purpose is the most necessary strategy that every business needs to achieve long-term success. Companies should work towards remaining competitive through the services they offer and the products they sell to customers. I think tasking everybody in a company with a transformation role is the least important principle because a company can remain competitive and successful without it. However, management should understand their businesses and adopt the most important principles to remain competitive.
A philosophical idea known as “Natural Law Theory” asserts the presence of a moral code rooted in nature and uncreated by humans. According to this theory, this code can be understood through intuition and reason and applies to everyone, regardless of their cultural, religious, or personal views. Yvonne Raley offers Natural Law Theory in “Ethics and Religion” to understand moral conundrums from a theological standpoint.
The controversial subject of euthanasia is one of the ethical conundrums that Raley tackles in her essay. It is contentious because it involves taking a person’s life to stop their pain and misery. Euthanasia is viewed from the standpoint of Natural Law as going against the natural order because it entails purposefully ending life with intrinsic value. According to this theory, human life has intrinsic value and should be protected whenever feasible. Therefore, Natural Law deems euthanasia morally impermissible.
Abortion is another ethical predicament analyzed in Raley’s paper. It is a contentious topic as it involves deliberately terminating a pregnancy to prevent childbirth. From the Natural Law outlook, abortion is perceived as contravening the natural order, as it involves deliberately destroying a potential human life. The theory argues that human life begins at conception and should be preserved whenever possible. Thus, Natural Law deems abortion morally impermissible.
Despite its appeal, Natural Law Theory has its detractors. One of the primary criticisms is that it is too rigid and inflexible. Detractors argue that the theory neglects the intricacies of human experience and allows no room for moral reasoning or personal interpretation. Another critique is that the theory is too closely linked to religious beliefs and, therefore, not applicable to those who do not share those beliefs.
To sum up, the Natural Law Theory provides a unique perspective for understanding moral problems and conundrums, especially when viewed through the prism of faith. According to the theory, an ethical framework is constant and lives separately from human creation; it is understandable through perception and reason. The theory continues to be a required field of philosophical research despite having its detractors because it offers a useful framework for understanding the complexities of human morality.
Clifford provides an argument against those who believe in judgment, using insufficient evidence. The essay by Clifford focuses on two things. These include stories and principles. The story involves a ship owner who was inclined to sell tickets to people moving through the transatlantic voyage. According to the essay, Clifford believes that people need to have sufficient evidence before they make a judgment.
In this regard, people need to make a thorough research and have objective evidence, before making a conclusion about a given subject. He feels that it is wrong for individuals to believe what they are told without referring to reliable and unbiased information. According to his theory of knowledge, Clifford thinks that people need to research first, before rushing or jumping into conclusions. This can help them gather enough evidence, to guide their judgment. In reference to this theory, when one believes on the availability of insufficient evidence, he/she keeps those superstitions alive. Clifford feels that failure to follow the evidence presented by an individual, end up tearing the society apart.
For instance, he gives a story of a ship owner, who gave tickets to people without having sufficient evidence that the ship was not worth of sea travel. Clifford’s theory makes people believe that the ship owner was guilty, regardless of whether the ship did, or did not get an accident. This is because he made his judgment, based on insufficient evidence (Clifford and Madigan 3).
Although Clifford’s theory of knowledge is educative, it has some merits. Some philosophers criticize the theory in many ways. For instance, they argue that it can only be acceptable if it is needed in the opinion of having sufficient evidence. Clifford’s theory of knowledge does not focus on when a person feels not to act.
His thesis revolves around the time a person needs to believe in something. In this regard, he suggests that the ability to differentiate a belief and an action provides the required evidence to escape an objection of his claim. He claims that having sufficient evidence is the only determinant of whether one does right or wrong (Clifford and Madigan 6). This is the reason why Clifford states that the ship owner should be condemned on the basis of making a judgment without sufficient evidence (Clifford and Madigan 7)
James’s theory of knowledge
In his pragmatism, James sees the truth in terms of usefulness and acceptance (James 2). By saying this, he denies that characteristics of truth can be applied to the concepts in his theory. His analysis provides a suggestion that there are others concepts, rather than correctness that explain the truth. In the essay, the selection of expression provides a clue on the description of knowledge. In addition, his use of language also vividly describes an individual’s knowledge. In addition, the use of hypothesis to analyze his pragmatic truth shows compatibility. The hypothesis does not only clarify his analyses, but also makes his claim to be stronger than the way people think. In addition, it also stands to be more compatible and more reflective (James 3).
James’ theory of knowledge presents a superficial concept that was traditionally evaluated by the theory of truth. James starts by admitting that truth is an agreement. In addition, the agreement must be a reality. He further claims that truth is a property that connects people with ideas. While using the concept of correctness, James uses the term truth on many occasions. For this reason, it becomes difficult to know the evidence put across. This arises when there are difficulties in the two terms, and their derivatives seem to be directed to a given concept (James 4).
The best theory
Among the two theories, the best one is James theory of knowledge. Clifford’s theory claims that beliefs, which are associated with right or wrong, present a strong argument. In his argument, a person does not need to go into a detailed discussion, in order to understand something. He only says that behavior is immoral if it has bad effects to people. In this regard, Clifford believes that it is immoral to believe in insufficient evidence. In addition, the claim, provided by Clifford is simple and general. This is because of the use of terms such as “always” and “everywhere,” to show how long it is for a person to believe in insufficient evidences.
However, if one judges the morality in the context of Clifford’s theory, it appears that the theory is incorrect. This is because it is immoral to have optimistic beliefs in circumstances that can hurt other people. On the other hand, James’s theory of knowledge holds that truth must have practical consequences. In he claims, there is no truth between two points if there is no difference between them (James, 3). James’ theory of knowledge is more logical than Clifford’s theory of knowledge.
Works Cited
Clifford, William K, and Timothy J. Madigan. The Ethics of Belief: And Other Essays. New York: Prometheus books, 1999. Print.
James, William. The Will to Believe, and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy. New York: Dover Publications, 1956. Print.
Both Stoicism and Epicureanism were founded in Athens around 300 BC, suggesting that humans should stay away from excessive pleasure and desires. The central claim made by Epicurus in his work is that happiness is the only pleasure in life, which is mainly connected with the avoidance of both mental and physical pain. Higher pleasures are considered preferable, such as the aspiration for knowledge and virtue. Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, argued that virtue is enough for achieving happiness while living in accordance with their own nature allows people to reach the desired outcomes of good living. Stoics have the moral responsibility to conform to natural laws and develop internal attitudes such as courage, prudence, justice, and temperance.
Discussion
Exploring the characteristics that the two philosophes deem necessary for reaching happiness, it is possible to suggest that Epicureanism and Stoicism agree with the Aristotelian perspective. It entails that the sort of an individual one becomes and the lifestyle one adopts will have a direct influence on the actions and behaviors one shows. However, the approaches a person takes to achieve happiness are pretty different. Specifically, the goal of Epicureanism is achieving pleasure by removing physical pain and anxiety. It considers three desire categories, which include natural but not necessary, natural and necessary, and unnatural.
Notably, the followers of this philosophy aim to refuse all unnatural desires, including the personal ambition of an individual to become famous or gain political power. These desires are seen as potentially causing anxiety to people, which is why it is necessary to eliminate them and free one’s body from additional mental strain. It is only the desires that allow for freeing the body from the pain that matter within the approach (Pojman 189). Important desires that can help a person free from pain and suffering include shelter and adequate nutrition and hydration for gaining nourishment. By aspiring to live a frugal lifestyle and being aware of one’s desires, an Epicurean is capable of fully appreciating the occasional luxuries. Finally, the way to secure happiness in life is the result of withdrawing oneself from public life and staying close to a few but like-minded individuals who share similar values.
In contrast to the epicurean perspective on living a good life and achieving happiness, Stoics place greater importance on pursuing and avoiding things, which, as a result, will serve people well in the future. Stoics emphasize the necessity of living in accordance with nature, while virtue itself is derived from reason. Any other so-called goods should be viewed with indifference – even if the virtuous individual endure tragedies throughout their life, including physical pain, they still reach eudaimonia (state of a ‘good spirit’, happiness) because their virtuous character was never corrupted (Copleston 323).
Conclusion
Therefore, once a person becomes virtuous, there are no external factors that can adversely impact their life. Overall, stoics view virtue as the ultimate limit of happiness, with the focus placed on the fulfillment of internal desires. This approach is different from Epicureanism, which makes the obtainment of external goods more desirable. The opposition between the two philosophies is illustrated in the fact that Epicureans do not acknowledge virtuous living as a secret to happiness but rather focus on maximizing pleasures that can help fill one’s life with joy within the realms of frugality.
Works Cited
Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy. Volume I: Greece and Rome. Image Books, 1994.
Pojman, Louis P. Classics of Philosophy: Volume I: Ancient and Medieval. Oxford University Press, 1997.
Thinkers have affected the society in many positive ways. However, one of the significant ways that have made thinkers popular is their contribution to societal concerns and the nature of human life. Based on Ebrey’s writings, bad governance was rampant in the society, and ignorance made the people support it fully. As a result, the author quoted that ‘those who use knowledge to govern the country are a plague on the country. Those who do not use knowledge to rule are the country’s blessing’ (Ebrey, “Daiost Teachings,” p. 29).
On the other hand, early Chinese thinkers were interested in making the society a better place. The view is clear as written by Ebrey in the Daiost teachings. One of the views that make it clear that thinkers were out to teach the human race quotes that ‘the highest good is like water. Water benefits all creatures but does not compete’ (Ebrey, “Daiost Teachings,” p. 28) From the observation quoted, it is clear that the thinkers were out to educate the people. In addition, they advised on what opportunities are good for exploration and how to fit in the society without straining.
In a society, human beings need to live with each other in a good and trouble-free way. According to Daiost teachings, ‘if a man can practice five things in the world, he is a man of humanity’ (Ebrey, “Confucian Teachings,” p. 19). The five things include ‘reverence, generosity, truthfulness, diligence and kindness’ (Ebrey, “Confucian Teachings,” p. 19). As a result, the thinkers wanted to make sure that the society is a better place by advising the human race on how to live according to expectations. However, the thinkers expressed their concerns mostly through the writings.
Most of the intellectual content in the Chinese society originates from earlier thinkers. Despite the fact that their works are ancient, they still hold a place in the society and are taught to the current generation. However, there are central concerns identified as having been addressed by the thinkers. To start with, the early Chinese thinkers stressed about humanity and how human beings should behave to one another. For example, Confucius once said ‘a person with honeyed words and pious gestures is seldom a man of humanity’ (Ebrey, “Confucian Teachings,” p. 20). As a result, he put across a clear message through the quotation and showed that humanity is vital in the society.
Governance and leadership qualify as other central concerns for early Chinese thinkers, and they wrote a lot about the issues. For example, the Master noted that ‘lead them by means of virtue and regulate them through rituals, and they will have a sense of shame and moreover have standards’ (Ebrey, “Confucian Teachings,” p. 21). However, this is not the only philosophical extract that talks about governance but the thinker has written a lot of intellectual and profound knowledge on the issues as a way of ensuring that the society is properly alerted.
From the Daiost teachings, early Chinese thinkers emphasized the reason human beings compete and its impact on the society. For example, Ebrey wrote that ‘do not honor the worthy, and people will not compete’ (Ebrey, “Daiost Teachings,” p. 28). The thinker communicated to the people that they were making the world a bad place through their actions. If they change and do things according to the advice presented to them, the world will be a good and fair place. As a conclusion, the central concerns of early Chinese thinkers revolved around creating a better world.
The philosophical inquiry into the nature of human existence has been a longstanding topic, with philosophers throughout history striving to unravel the fundamental dynamics that shape the human condition. Three notable concepts proposed to elucidate the essence of human existence are Hegel’s notion of Geist, Schopenhauer’s concept of Will, and Nietzsche’s idea of the Will to Power. Each concept offers a distinct perspective on the dynamics that govern human existence. In this essay, we will explore, compare, and contrast these concepts, examining their value as explanations for the underlying dynamics of human existence.
Hegel’s Geist: Unveiling the Historical Development of Human Existence
Hegel’s philosophical concept of Geist, also referred to as Spirit or Mind, holds a central place in his philosophy. Asserting that Geist is the driving force behind the course of human history and represents the culmination of the dialectical process of historical development (Hegel 37). According to Hegel, Geist is not confined to individual consciousness but is a comprehensive entity that manifests in the collective consciousness of societies. Geist are dynamic and ever-evolving, constantly striving for self-realization by resolving contradictions and conflicts.
An essential aspect of Hegel’s notion of Geist is its emphasis on historical development. Hegel argued that history is not a random sequence of events but rather a process through which Geist realizes itself (Hegel 42). Geist progress through distinct stages, each characterized by specific social, cultural, and intellectual conditions. These stages are marked by contradictions and conflicts that propel the dialectical process, leading to the synthesis of opposing forces and the advancement of Geist toward its ultimate realization.
Hegel’s Geist concept was appreciated for its ability to explain the underlying dynamics of human existence, particularly the role of contradictions and conflicts in shaping human history. It provides a framework for comprehending the evolution of societies, cultures, and ideas and underscores the dynamic nature of human existence as an ongoing process of self-realization.
Schopenhauer’s Will: Unraveling the Nature of Human Desires and Suffering
In contrast, Schopenhauer presents a divergent perspective on the fundamental dynamics of human existence with his concept of Will. According to Schopenhauer, the Will is the fundamental force that propels all human action and motivation (Schopenhauer 24). He portrays the Will as an unconscious, blind, and irrational force that dictates human behavior. It is a greedy and relentless force, constantly driving individuals to seek fulfillment and satisfaction, and serves as the source of all desires and suffering in the world.
Schopenhauer’s concept of Will underscores the significance of human desires and the perpetual pursuit of satisfaction as the driving force behind human existence. Schopenhauer posits that pursuing desires and pleasures ultimately leads to suffering, as desires are unquenchable and can never be fully satisfied (Schopenhauer 32). He views the Will as an endless cycle of suffering that can only be transcended through renunciation and detachment from desires. Schopenhauer’s concept of Will is esteemed for elucidating the pervasive nature of desires and their impact on human behavior. It sheds light on the struggles and suffering that arise from the ceaseless pursuit of desires and raises profound questions about the nature of human motivation and the pursuit of happiness.
Nietzsche’s Will to Power: Unconventional Views on Human Existence
Nietzsche’s concept of Will to Power diverges from Hegel and Schopenhauer, presenting a unique perspective on the dynamics of human existence. Nietzsche rejects the notion of a unified and transcendent human nature and posits that the Will to Power is the fundamental force that governs human behavior (Nietzsche 42). According to Nietzsche, the Will to Power is the primal and inherent drive that seeks to assert itself, overcome obstacles, and achieve domination.
Nietzsche views the Will to Power as the driving force behind all human actions, encompassing pursuits such as knowledge, morality, and social structures. He argues that individuals and societies constantly struggle for power, seeking to assert their will and dominate others. Nietzsche contends that traditional morality and societal norms are manifestations of the Will to Power, as they establish power structures and maintain dominance over certain groups (Nietzsche 52). His concept of Will to Power challenges conventional notions of human nature and morality, emphasizing the inherent drive for power and domination in human existence. It calls for revaluating values, urging individuals to embrace their will and strive for self-assertion and self-overcoming.
Comparing Philosophical Concepts: Hegel’s Geist, Schopenhauer’s Will, Nietzsche’s Will to Power
When comparing and contrasting these three philosophical concepts, notable distinctions arise. Firstly, Hegel’s notion of Geist centers on the historical development and evolution of societies, while Schopenhauer’s concept of Will revolves around the ceaseless pursuit of desires and the consequent suffering. Nietzsche’s idea of Will to Power highlights an innate drive for power and dominance, transcending conventional moral concepts and embracing individual will. Secondly, Hegel’s Geist suggests a teleological progression towards ultimate self-realization, whereas Schopenhauer’s Will implies a pessimistic view of human existence where desires and suffering are inherently intertwined. On the other hand, Nietzsche’s Will to Power celebrates individuality and self-assertion.
Despite these distinctions, common themes also emerge among these concepts. All three emphasize the dynamic and evolving nature of human existence. Hegel’s Geist progresses through historical stages, Schopenhauer’s Will is an unrelenting force that propels human desires, and Nietzsche’s Will to Power is an inherent drive for domination and assertion. Furthermore, all three challenge conventional notions of human nature and morality, proposing alternative explanations for human behavior beyond traditional frameworks.
Unveiling Human Existence: Hegel’s Geist, Schopenhauer’s Will, Nietzsche’s Will to Power
Each conceptual framework has its strengths and limitations when explaining the underlying dynamics of human existence. Hegel’s concept of Geist presents a comprehensive framework that allows for an understanding of historical development, societal evolution, and the evolution of ideas and cultures. It emphasizes the significance of contradictions and conflicts in propelling human progress and portrays human existence as an ongoing process of self-realization. However, it may be criticized for its teleological view of history, which implies a predetermined end goal and may not fully account for the complexities and contingencies of human history.
On the other hand, Schopenhauer’s concept of Will offers a unique perspective on human motivation, highlighting the pervasive nature of desires and the resulting suffering. It challenges conventional notions of human happiness and raises crucial questions about the nature of desires and their impact on human behavior. Nevertheless, it may be criticized for its pessimistic view of human existence, which could be seen as overly deterministic and limiting in its outlook. Nietzsche’s concept of Will to Power presents a radical and provocative interpretation of human behavior, emphasizing individuality, self-assertion, and the rejection of traditional moral notions (Solomon 33). It encourages a revaluation of values and challenges societal norms and conventions. However, it may also be criticized for its potential to promote selfishness, exploitation, and the abuse of power in pursuing individual will.
Conclusion
In summary, Hegel’s idea of Geist, Schopenhauer’s concept of Will, and Nietzsche’s notion of Will to Power represent three distinct viewpoints on the fundamental dynamics of human existence. Hegel focuses on the historical development and self-realization, Schopenhauer highlights desires and suffering, while Nietzsche challenges conventional moral notions and champions individual will and self-assertion. While each concept provides valuable insights into the complexities of human existence, they also have limitations and potential criticisms. The value of these explanations may vary depending on one’s philosophical perspective. Nevertheless, comparing these concepts sheds light on the intricate nature of human existence and offers insights into human behavior, motivations, and societal dynamics.
Works Cited
Hegel, Georg, Wilhelm, Friedrich. Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by A. V. Miller. Oxford University Press, 1977.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil. Translated by R.J. Hollingdale, Penguin Books, 2003.
Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Representation. Translated by E.F.J. Payne, Dover Publications, 1969.
Solomon, Robert C. Nietzsche: A Collection of Critical Essays. Edited by Robert C. Solomon. University of Michigan Press, 1980.
Inductive reasoning is a form of reasoning that enables us to draw conclusions based on evidence. It involves making generalizations about a particular event or situation based on limited information. The philosophical problem of induction arises when one considers the possibility that the conclusions that we draw may not be accurate or true. In this essay, I will reflect on this possibility and explain how being mindful of the fact that most of the conclusions we draw on a daily basis are inductive rather than deductive can help to improve our critical thinking.
Discussion
The philosophical problem of induction is rooted in the fact that no matter how much evidence we have to back up a conclusion, there is still a possibility that it could be incorrect. This is because inductive reasoning is based on the assumption that the future will follow the same pattern as the past, which is not always accurate. Therefore, even if we have an abundance of evidence to support a conclusion, there is still a risk that it might be wrong.
Being aware of the fact that most of our conclusions are based on inductive reasoning can help us to improve our critical thinking. It is essential to consider situations with an open mind and to challenge our preconceived notions since it encourages us to think more deeply. For example, if we are presented with a situation where we have to make a decision, it is important to consider all the possible outcomes and to be open to the possibility that our initial assumptions may be wrong. This will help us to make more informed decisions and to avoid jumping to conclusions without considering all the evidence.
Conclusion
To summarize, the philosophical concern of induction reminds us that the deductions we make may not always be accurate. Bearing in mind that much of our deductions are based on inductive logic can help us sharpen our analytical skills by asking us to consider circumstances with a unbiased mindset and to scrutinize our suppositions. This will assist us to come to more sensible conclusions and to stay away from hastily coming to a decision without contemplating all the facts.
In The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, the main agenda discussed in the novel and carried within its themes is the role of the government. The book supports the importance for maintaining political stability through principles and it acts as a counsel to political leaders. The sustenance of the government is a requirement of politicians to sustain at all costs for it to maintain its honor acquires riches and realize glory for the nation. It is in the ally of the state for through its leaders to maintain a status and to achieve power and secure its goods.
For greatness, a leader must be prepared to go against the conventional prudence to earn greatness for the nation while the public must be ready to accept the existence of no conventional morality in its maxims. The prudence of a prince lies in his preparedness to stay consistent to state projects as a political art (Barnet and Hugo 2-99).
Leaving the republic to the hands of the political princes demeans the state from democracy. It is a source of dictatorship, which undermines the principals of the nation. This is regardless of the power the prince may use in handling state activities. At the same time, this allows for a breach of prudence and places a state in a compromising situation full of immoral activities because of the power exuded by the political princes.
There is no ideal notion as to the need for a powerful and great leader if things can be done within the constructs of the law. Actually, even Machiavelli himself does not make and conclusive proof that he is for a powerful leader and that means that it is a concept that even he does not fully vouch for to be the absolute means for ruling a state. The notion is more practical than ideal since the good of the government is a state that can only be achieved in an ideal world.
In reality, a powerful government is not effective to any state since authoritarian rule and mere focus on power is not the best means for ruling a nation. In the efforts of advising Lorenzo and helping him to be the most powerful prince in the Florentine period, he focuses on the best means for the prince to gain power. This is so un republic and inconsiderate of the consequences such maintenance of power by a ruler can have on a country (Mattern 195).
The best led country is the one that balances both the fortune and virtue where there is exploration of shrewdness through skills for acquisition of opportunities. This allows the prince to use outside sources to gain power and take control of situations to conduct immoral businesses. Such hiring of outsiders to help with immoral duties allows the leader to survive fortune as a victim and comes to power through criminal activities not necessarily accounted on them without means of injuring their reputation for their cruelty.
Leaders are at time forced to make the decision of acting cruelly and finding ways for concealing their guilt or else, “a man who wishes to profess goodness at all times must fall to ruin among so many who are not good” (Machiavelli and Peter 126). This is contrary to a virtuous leader and stays in connection to the needs of his subjects and does everything possible to have them love him instead of fear him in any way.
The virtuoso leader then has the need of to “learn not to be good.” This is most important when there is a fortune that it could be bad. There is the need for going against the normal requirements by committing crimes and being politically advantageous through exploitation of the statuses using personal powers. However, a leader learning not to be too good when it is necessary, must be careful about not being bad in the eyes of his subjects in avoidance of negative implications for hatred. The concealing of bad behavior is to preserve the political advancement behind the cultivation of a “goodness” reputation with the only notion of looking good and no need for being good.
The lessons as put by Machiaveli, “Whereby it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain his position to learn how not to be good, and to use it [goodness] or not according to necessity (126),” go against the moral constructs of leadership. The call for strategizing and preparation for breaking the laws in a manner that does not conform to persecution gives unnecessary power and conquest of situations, which only lead to a chain of immorality since there is also the claim of training on the emulation of the behaviors of past successful men regardless of their characters. This leaves the leaders with the senseless decisions holding personal interests at the top against the interests of the people.
There are ample evidences of immoral input from Machiavelli in his book, The Prince. In his opinion, the end is a justification of the means since there is the notion that there is no capacity for judging political decisions especially when situation limits it as the process of protecting a notion. However, it is clear that there are certain political conducts that can face ethical questioning especially if powerful leaders overlook judicial constraints. Very powerful leaders project the public into cruelty and immorality. It is not always adequate to weaken adversaries and having spies in other territories as a means of staying up to date with any dangers they may present.
Strong state governments survive through oppression from their rulers and as the author states, it makes them easy to rule because oppression is the order of the day in their territories and a leader would expect very little resistance and revolts. This is contrary to the ease of conquering a republic and ruling it for a new ruler. The process of destruction of a conquered republic for rebuilding in the hands of an authoritative ruler brings with it so much pain to the republicans as they have to learn to stay in conformity to the new rules of the ruler.
However, at time, there is a crucial necessity for leaders to be disobedient against the law whenever they are performing some civil duties. Being civil means that there is the maintenance of the community in political unity through the sharing of a common good and being in accordance to justice and the constitution through the acceptance of the rule of law as the binding aspect for the community. There are certain laws that are wrong and go against the fundamental principalities and interests of the people in unity.
There are occasions when political leaders break the law in prudent allegiance, which is against the law and constitutional institutions. There is the claim of attending to matters of agency when breaking the law and this follows failed efforts for changing the laws through legal means. There is no resistance in cases of arrest and pleas in court are eventually made with the hope that people would see the sense in the decisions they made. It is through civic courage that such practices occur by taking risk for the good of the community and that may be understandable as it works in the preservation of the unity of the community.
A case when leaders have made decisions by learning to be good as put by Machavelli is such as when there have been presidential powers eavesdropping and torturing people regardless of the immorality it contains. The emergencies held by presidents go against set laws and legislations through the consideration of the inadequacies they present in the moments. For example, Jefferson in provisioning the navy for their atrocities was with the recognition that the public servants need to admit that holding to the principles of welfare at time surpass the principalities of the written law. This allowed the forgiveness of an officer who breached the law in the Chesapeake affair evading persecution for the moral risk through faith in the public.
This is similar to the surveillance following the 9/11 terrorist attack through a presidential call where there was open declaration as much as the act was going to breach the secrecy of other territories. Holding such surveillance and ordering the torture of suspects broke the law and the interpretation of the presidential authority remained as a mockery of the constitution by the Bush administration. These highhanded acts take place through the notion that the orders of a president are under the role of commander in chief and always lawful (Major 12).
Works Cited
Barnet, Sylvan, and H. A. Bedau. Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s. (2011): 1-99. Print.
Major, Mark. Where Do We Go from Here? American Democracy and the Renewal of the Radical Imagination. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books. (2010): 12. Print.
Machiavelli, Niccolò, and P. Constantine. The Prince. New York: The Modern Library. (2008): 126. Print.
Mattern, Mark. Putting Ideas to Work: A Practical Introduction to Political Thought. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. (2006): 195. Print.
Humans developed philosophy as a discipline to try and describe and understand objective reality, the processes that occur in it, and their causes. In fact, philosophy evolved alongside humankind, and different eras’ philosophers conveyed other concepts. Nevertheless, the division of philosophy into Eastern and Western schools, and even Eastern and Western civilizations, had the most significant influence on its growth. People who believe in the inner strength of a human being tend to support Eastern philosophy. In contrast, those who believe in the social nature of all processes tend to hold Western philosophical views. A canonical group of thinkers, including Pythagoras, René Descartes, Plato, and Aristotle, defines Western philosophy. The impact of monotheistic religions, particularly Christianity, is another characteristic. In totality, these philosophies provide a suggestion that knowledge is a necessity for every human being since they would inevitably face the difficulties of meeting the unknown in their life.
The philosophers and ideas from Europe and the United States are called Western philosophy. Students who are given the freedom to express their ideas are less frightened to stand out or make mistakes because Western education views mistakes as valuable learning opportunities (Hassan et al. 2). Most Western philosophers provided insight into some of the most critical discussions in modern environmental ethics, including those involving the inherent value of nature (James 3). Many talks have been about metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and logic. A canonical group of thinkers and some recurrent distinctions and notions can be used to identify Western philosophy. Western and Eastern philosophies have different sets of thinkers and have been influenced by various religions.
Pythagoreanism was started by a Greek philosopher, mathematician, and polymath who merged rationalism with irrationalism more thoroughly than any previous movement in ancient Greek philosophy. His worldview has been described in contradicting ways; therefore, anything we say or read elsewhere must be seen as a compromise between extremely divergent viewpoints held by academics. In addition to being a nearly inextricable mixture of truth and lies, beliefs about Pythagoras reveal a highly peculiar psyche, even in their most fundamental and debatable forms (Russel 30). The Pythagoreans also created the idea of harmony, which is essential. The structures that give existence its order would not simply appear; they follow a system, form a coherent whole, and maintain a sense of cosmic harmony.
Plato was a Greek philosopher who established the Platonist school and founded the Academy in Athens, the first Western institution of higher learning. Regarded as the greatest thinker in human history, he has profoundly impacted how Western philosophy developed and progressed. Plato clarifies the difference between knowledge and belief in a way that has significantly more nuanced implications about the nature of reality (Cottingham 12). According to English philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, the best way to summarize the European philosophical tradition is that it is a collection of footnotes to Plato (Sidiropoulos 8). Like his mentor Socrates, Plato advocated for the pursuit of truth through discussion. Plato’s theories are frequently discussion-starting premises and are only sometimes a part of a comprehensive theory. Platonic concepts are often disputed within the dialogues.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle studied under Plato, although he created a different school of thought. He established a philosophical and scientific system that served as the foundation for all logic, Christian Scholasticism, and the modern scientific method, making him one of the most extraordinary intellectual personalities in Western history. Despite its origins in Plato’s concepts, Aristotle’s philosophy evolved due to his development. The key figures of Western philosophy are Plato and Aristotle, and no student of philosophy today can avoid a thorough study of Platonic and Aristotelian concepts. The importance of chance in the natural world was first clearly defended by Aristotle, a famous philosopher. There are two reasons for such a phenomenon, the first one being a causal chain. He rejected the oversimplified notion that each event has a single excuse. Accidents brought on by chance may occur in a sequence of events (Russell). The origin of indeterminism and randomness in modern science, including quantum mechanics, can be traced back to Aristotle’s conception of the function of chance.
Descartes, regarded as the father of contemporary philosophy, is also credited with founding rationalism, which holds reason as the only reliable knowledge source. Empiricism, which asserts that knowledge is derived through experiences, is opposed to this. Modern philosophy was launched by Descartes’ method of doubt, but ancient philosophy was created by diverse applications of the dialectic method (Gracious 9). Descartes created dream arguments to demonstrate that the data we gather via our senses is unreliable. However, he knew experiments were required to confirm and validate theories. One of the main pillars of the contemporary scientific method is Descartes’ approach to systematic skepticism.
In conclusion, all Western philosophers would concur that proper knowledge is a priori. People can build or expand on this intrinsic knowledge to find what Plato and Descartes could characterize as ultimate truths if they use it. Many of the difficulties one encounters everyday stem from a lack of knowledge. Even such necessities as procuring enough food and a place to live, present knowledge-related difficulties. Furthermore, once one moves past the necessities of basic survival, they meet with hurdles on practically every front. Knowledge questions range from bigger, more important ones like figuring out who real friends are, what to do with a career, how to spend time, and settle a disagreement with others. Every day, people make decisions based on their knowledge, some of which significantly impact their own lives and those around them.
Works Cited
Cottingham, John G., Western Philosophy: An Anthology. John Wiley & Sons, 2021.
Gracious, Thomas. Introduction to Western Philosophy. Indira Gandhi National Open University School of Interdisciplinary and Trans-disciplinary Studies.
Hassan, Aminuddin, et al. “Western and Eastern Educational Philosophies.” 40th Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia conference, Murdoch University, Western Australia, 2010.
James, Simon P. Zen Buddhism, and Environmental Ethics. Routledge, 2017.
Russell, Bertrand. History of Western Philosophy: Collectors Edition. Routledge, 2013.