Reply
Sun 10 Feb, 2013 08:09 pm
I know , The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli answers this question
"It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage;
but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails."
I think this is a great answer for being a ruler but..... is being feared really more defined than love? I'm troubled by this question.. so very much that I feel lost in my own war against me. So many things are happening that the once prideful,powerful King... has crumbled in so many truth of life that i feel like an outcast... on that what do you think?
@Black King ,
Never forget that quite a bit of what Machiavelli says in
The Prince is meant as irony. (Most of his contemporaries never caught on to that fact.)
the justification or the reasons are not through opposites or never by contradictions
if u mean to create smthg as a lie then u go with opposites investments since nothing would b pointed only and what is outside of all the mean that protect his ass back as non existing
but when smthg is present or real then positive reasons are the only justifications of its constant fact
so smthg related to its own attribute or quality in being present and where positive justification mean essentially the present value end necessarily free
in truth or as true existing thing
so the right question is why negative relation with others is more true then positive one
the answer is clearly present within the question, in truth any cant b with another, any is that present alone since it exists as any only, so the negative relation is sponsored or relatively recognized by truth but the positive one no
and when existence is only real in truth as constant fact then meanin loving would b much less seen then meanin hatin as objective fact from the mean itself realisations
that what prove how preachin love is the lie sold for all too
individuals source of good intentions towards others or else is only perceptible by that other or else since through freedom dimension of reality only never matters
@Black King ,
Quote:"...It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved..."
Being solely "feared" is a plea for assassination, sooner than later. The Hussein and Gaddafi types wisely did do both: Instill fear where it counted and buy love where allies were needed. As a result, they prolonged their getting whacked or executed till the ripe old age of 69. Stalin made it all the way to 85 before getting clandestinely poisoned by other party members, because his mental fogginess had apparently progressed to the point of him literally believing that proper emergency preparations and training would enable the USSR to satisfactorily survive a nuclear counter-response from the USA. Despots of Asian countries, like Mao Zedong of China and the "Jong" clan of NK , avoided such altogether due to the benefit of being in cultures favoring social conformity over mutable individuality, which accordingly lacked adequate "deviant/rebel" stimulus and backbone for successfully challenging tyrannical authority.
@G H,
"You can always get farther with a kind word, and a gun, than you can with a kind word alone" --A. Capone
it is incredible how far u insist to reject the truth as if u r seein nothing
after what i said it is clear that fear is bc of love
if what i said is true then love is subjective since cant b objective so subjects are gonna b frustrated from not being free while objectively others subjects that dont love would take advantage from those subjects weakness in being less objective to gain the power on the objective ground and claim their possessions to all objects rights or life
@farmerman,
I was wondering how would you react to that maxim ? I mean a kind word and a gun pointed at you...or better, imagine with Setanta...I would pay the ticket to watch the reaction in first hand !
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
"You can always get farther with a kind word, and a gun, than you can with a kind word alone" --A. Capone
That has been the technique of the Cosa Nostra (and its predecessor, the Maffia) since time immemorial.
@Lustig Andrei,
yes but big Al said it first
@Black King ,
I would say that it depends what is important to you.
If all you are after is power - then it is best to be feared by those in the know, and loved by the ignorant.
If you are after lifting other people up, inspiring people to greatness, and giving heart and hope - then the latter.
@Black King ,
Black King wrote:
I know , The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli answers this question
"It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage;
but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails."
I think this is a great answer for being a ruler but..... is being feared really more defined than love? I'm troubled by this question.. so very much that I feel lost in my own war against me. So many things are happening that the once prideful,powerful King... has crumbled in so many truth of life that i feel like an outcast... on that what do you think?
Better for what? Or for whom? And in what way?
Is this a question about controlling, in whatever way, others? Then the answer is: neither is better. Both encouraging love and manufacturing fear offer avenues of influence, but neither can be said to control an other's temporary reaction (...much less a permanent state of affairs).
@Black King ,
in rulership its better to be obeyed
The answer depends on your goal.
You scare me, Sofia Lash Goth . . .
I'd rather that some people love me and others fear me. But that's more a matter of my personality or system of drives, not a strategy for political survival. After all, I'm not a "prince" (politician) thank goodness.
I'd rather have them love and respect me.
Why does someone have to fear another?
If you have their respect everyone will be happy.
This question is like asking someone who believes in God about loving and fearing him.
Seems like it's more about the fear of being sent to hell, and the word love is thrown in there to fool yourself and others that it's not all about fear of punishment.
Do you think if people didn't fear you, they would run amuk and just do every wrong thing they can think of? That's not giving others a lot of credit.
Believers will ask non believers what they base their morals, behaviors and ethics on if they don't believe and fear a god. Well, what would they base them on if they didn't fear someone.
Simply the desire to have a place in your society, and the desire not to harm others.
@JLNobody,
I prefer the more important question, Is it better to fear or love? To this question the answer is obvious.
@JLNobody,
Is it ?
One would think that loving, trully loving, involves a good deal of fearing also...
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace