Blog #18: "The Prince Blog One"

Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince was written in 1513, but its descriptions and directions are still prevalent in our world today. Many people believe that Machiavelli was evil. They believe that his motives were for personal gain, power, and authority. After reading through the first nine chapters of The Prince, I do not agree with this. I believe that, in his time (1469-1527), he was simply trying to improve society, as he saw it unfit. The arguments for the evil side of the debate state that his theories are more aimed towards tyranny than democracy, but during his time period, many kings and queens ruled in this way. He was simply following society’s rules, yet at the same time, trying to improve them. Also, the concept of a king or queen in this time was one of absolute power. In today’s terms, we regard them as selfish and greedy, but back then, that was what they believed they were meant to do.

Even though I believe that Machiavelli did not have evil intentions for writing The Prince, there sill are some “evil-like” points he makes in the book. One of which is contained in chapter five, where Machiavelli describes “how cities or provinces which before their acquisition have lived under their own laws are to be governed.” Machiavelli writes that “When a newly acquired State has been accustomed, as I have said, to live under its own laws and in freedom, there are three methods whereby it may be held. The first is to destroy it; the second, to go and reside there in person; the third, to suffer it to live on under its own laws, subjecting it to a tribute, and entrusting its government to a few of the inhabitants who will keep the rest your friends” (Machiavelli 11). Machiavelli says that a method of holding a newly acquired state is to destroy it. I find this to be kind of evil, because it forces all prior cultures and traditions of the people to be thrown away. Again, this picture Machiavelli paints is not of democracy, but rather a dictatorship type of government.

While Machiavelli made many good points throughout these first nine chapters of The Prince, I found that I most believe with a point made in chapter six, where Machiavelli describes “of new princedoms which a Prince acquires with his own arms and by merit.” He writes that “For since men for the most part follow in the footsteps and imitate the actions of others, and yet are unable to adhere exactly to those paths which others have taken, or attain to the virtues of those whom they would resemble, the wise man should always follow the roads that have been trodden by the great, and imitate those who have most excelled, so that if he cannot reach their perfection, he may at least acquire something of its savour” (Machiavelli 12). I find this statement quite insightful. People we look up to should be accomplished in their respected areas, and by choosing the “best of the best,” insures that what you learn, is of the highest quality. What is the point of learning from someone who is unknowledgeable in the subject area you wish to learn? If you have the opportunity to learn from the best, it is to your advantage to do so.

Machiavelli’s beliefs are in practice today. The main purpose in the book is to show how Princes either gain or maintain control in a variety of situations. Today is no different, in regards to politics. Presidential campaigns, for example, pin one person against another in an effort to win the highest seat in our country. Through many methods, some more socially acceptable than others, politicians bash each other in hopes of convincing the people to elect themselves. Once elected, they must steer around many “sticky” situations to maintain their position. While the concepts of princedoms and democracies are certainly different, they do relate in the sense of politicians using many different ways to gain or maintain power.

Extra Credit Blog: "Slumdog Millionaire's Relation to the Nature of Man"

This past weekend, I viewed the film, Slumdog Millionaire. As I watched, my eyes were glued to the screen. I was hooked and could not look away, the movie was that good. As I was watching, I couldn’t help but realize that the movie and its main themes related directly to our study of the nature of man. The film also shed light on reality in India, showing how a few people have great wealth, but the general population is extremely poor. While the few with money and power sit idly by, millions suffer from a lack of proper necessities of life. In that sense, the movie did an excellent job at educating the rest of the world the problems they face.

The story is of a young boy’s journey from the slums of India to a better life. It is truly a “rags to riches” story, as he eventually wins one million dollars on the popular game show, “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” However, his journey to that point is the highlight of the film, and is directly related to the nature of man theme we’ve been studying this year.

When the movie first started off, the two boys, Jamal and Salim were very young. They were discovered by a man who exploited their singing abilities for his own gain. This evil man also blinded many young children with acid to improve their begging chance in the streets of Mumbai. It is true that he used the children for his own gain, but this evil was a result of his environment. The conditions around him, in the Indian environment, forced him to result to any means necessary to survive. And for this man, it was the immoral exploitation of young children. Jamal and Salim managed to escape, but unfortunately had to leave their new friend, Latika behind.

As time continued, the boys grew. They eventually returned to attempt to rescue Latika. This willingness to risk everything to save a loved one shows that even in the middle of someplace as corrupt as India is, the power of humanity still can strive. This rescue of Latika was one of the last moments that Jamal and Salim shared moral values. The two split up after Salim joined a gang and “stole” Latika away from Jamal. Jamal was crushed as a result of this, but never gave up hope for their reuniting someday. This shows again, that even in the midst of evil, good can still survive. The power of the human spirit is strong, and near impossible to destroy completely.

Jamal never gives up hope for Latika, and reunites with Salim some time later. The gang leader is wealthy, selfish, and cruel, which paints a perfect picture for the nature of humans being influenced by their surrounds. This man was able to become wealthy at the expense of many poor Indian people. Eventually, Salim realizes him mistakes, and reconnects with Jamal. Salim even helps Latika escape, and allows himself to die to ensure her escape.

The main story is that of the game show. One question away from a million, the game is stopped and scheduled to continue the next day. During the break, police arrest Jamal, and accuse him of cheating. They argue that a “Slumdog” couldn’t possibly know all the right answers, but Jamal persists in his defense of his success. Even after torture by hanging and electrocution, he will not give in to a false answer. This strength, even under intense pressure, is truly a mark of the power of the human spirit. I believe that this is innate, and all people possess this. For some, it is easily found, but for others, it is not. Regardless, Jamal persisted and as the police review the tape of the show, Jamal explains how he knew every answer.

In the end, he is allowed to continue, and correctly guesses the million dollar question’s answer. Latika, his “phone-a-friend” lifeline doesn’t know the answer, but Jamal is thrilled to communicate with her. They meet up after Jamal’s winning, and everyone breaks into song and dance, as all great films conclude.

The nature of man is prevalent in Slumdog Millionaire, which not only makes this relevant to our studies, but also a more meaningful and overall superb film to view. It definitely deserved all eight Oscars it won this year, and is one of the best films I have viewed. Thank you Slumdog Millionaire!

Blog #17: “Heart of Darkness versus Nature of Man”

First of all, the title “Heart of Darkness” is, in itself, relevant to the earlier discussion of whether the nature of man is innate or formed by his environment. The title suggests that man is evil, but doesn’t do anything as to the reason. In order to retrieve this information, one must read the book Heart of Darkness. In this book, a character named Kurtz is corrupted in the ivory trading business. Through a long, (and boring) jungle river trip, another character named Marlow, discovers that there is a mystery surrounding Kurtz. No one knows how he is able to get all the ivory that he does. As time goes on and the book continues (through describing the water for several pages), Marlow concludes that Kurtz is exploiting the natives for the ivory. Putting himself in the Congo region, forced this evil part out of him. While it is possible that it is innate, I believe his evil source to be his environment. Without the Congo, there would be no ivory, and no evil exploitation process. Kurtz transformed from a curious individual, into a man letting greed run his life. As a result, the natives suffered. The environment caused this, and is the reason for Kurtz’s evil nature.