Recent orders
So many similarities flow through man’s interpretation of the unknown and the spiritual and it seems that all cultures and ti
Monothesim
So many similarities flow through man’s interpretation of the unknown and the spiritual and it seems that all cultures and times have had the need to have something in their lives other then the material world that we can see, smell, taste and touch. Many today follow the belief in the One God. This seems to be driven by the notion that a supreme god is needed for religion which is driven by the hope for some form of salvation. The God of religion is the unspeakably great Lord on whom man depends, in whom he recognizes the source of his happiness and perfection; He is the righteous Judge, rewarding good and punishing evil; the loving and merciful Father, whose ear is ever open to the prayers of his needy and penitent children. Such a conception of God can be readily grasped by simple, non philosophic minds, by children, by the uneducated peasant, by the converted savage. Even with all their religious crudities and superstitions, such low-grade savages as the Pygmies of the Northern Congo, the Australians, and the natives of the Andaman Islands entertain very noble conceptions of the Supreme Deity. Primitive man was capable of monotheistic belief, even without the aid of Divine revelation, contrary to some religious beliefs. Among the more educated there was support for the belief that many deities were in existence at some level lower than the one supreme deity. Some were even capable of worshiping one god while recognizing the existence of other deities.
Along with polytheism, monothiesm is one of the best known theistic systems. Monotheism is founded upon the idea that there is only one God, typically regarded as the creator of all reality. This god is believed to be totally self-sufficient and without any dependency upon any other being. Other alleged gods might be claimed to be merely aspects of the supreme god – this argument is more commonly found when the transition to monotheism is recent and the older gods need to be explained away. More often, other alleged gods are simply denied any reality at all, or perhaps claimed to be demons tempting people away from the True Faith. This exclusivity has resulted in less religious tolerance and freedom in traditionally monotheistic cultures. The origin of monotheism is unclear.
The first recorded monotheistic system arose in Egypt during the rule of Akhenaton, but it did not long survive his death. Some suggest that Moses, if he existed, brought monotheism to the ancient Hebrews, but it is possible that he was still henotheistic or monolatrous. The earliest Egyptian civilization believed in a single supreme god, who had no name but was described as the source of light the creator of all. He brought fourth rules or natural laws and in their diagrammatic literature these were personified in what we see as the gods and goddesses. Briefly around 1350 BC flourished the worship at Armana in Egypt of Aten/Aton as the one and only manifestation of god, in the near east Zoroaster saw the revelation of one supreme being in the eternal flame around 600 BC and some hundred year later in the Middle East appeared the historical writings from the descendants of Abraham, and out of whose customs grew Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The form of monotheism which is traditionally most common in the West and which is too often confused with theism in general is the belief in a personal god which emphasizes that this god is a conscious mind that is immanent in nature, humanity and the values which it has created. This god is both independent of and distinct from the created universe and also presently active in the created universe. Because this form of monotheism dominates so strongly in the West, it is not uncommon to find people who simply give it the label “theism,” ignoring all the other forms as being types of theism.
When Abraham was held back from sacrificing Isaac by God around 2000 BC, his God which became the God of the Israelites was seen as but one of many. From the days of Abraham to the days of Moses and beyond, a lot of local gods still existed. When we talk about Akhenaton having but one god, to many He too was but one of many. Even Allah was originally one of many a local god. The God of Abraham and Israel was their God, their chief god, who proved himself over and over to be greater than the gods of other lands and peoples. Even the first of the Ten commandments recognizes ‘other gods’. However the other gods were but the local interpretation of god under a local name.
But what is this “god” thing that is the object of theism? A god is being, usually thought of as a person or having personal qualities, who plays a role in mythology and religion. This object of belief typically possesses supernatural or extraordinary powers far in excess of those that can be attributed to normal, mortal humans. The development of the idea of a “god” can be clearly observed in the development of religion in the Indian subcontinent. Originally, the Indian “gods” were exemplary , strong, and victorious rulers who managed to accomplish a great deal more than their contemporaries. Later they were elevated to godhood and worshiped as supernatural deities. Similar processes can be seen even in the later periods of the Roman Empire, when emperors were declared gods after their death as a matter of routine (although it was not routine that coherent religions were maintained around them for very long). Indeed, the elevation of powerful warriors or kings to the status of godhood may have been one of the earliest ways belief in gods was developed. Another aspect in the development of theism would have been the observation of powerful forces of nature. They all appear to be beyond the influence of humans, but they would also have appeared to be animate, just like humans and animals. Thus would have developed the belief that unseen, powerful spirits are behind the events in life: animism. Parallel with the belief in unseen spirits is the desire to influence those spirits – much the way powerful humans are influenced. Early religion therefore developed means by which humans make offerings to the spirits the same as offerings were made to tribal leaders. They followed whatever rules and orders the spirits might be thought to issue the same as orders from tribal leaders were followed From this sprung the tendency towards organized religion. Monotheism was a gradual process and it was not until around 500 BC that the idea that the God of Israel was the one and only God and always was. Christianity, at first a Jewish sect, confused the issue by developing the idea of a Trinity which took 400 years to define, and even then as a mystery. This Trinity seems to have roots in the three names of the Egyptian God and their fondness for triads. Allah was but the chief amongst a group of Arab gods until they recognized that he was the same God as the God of the Israelites and of the Christians. Just as the Jews had eventually got rid of all other gods so did the Moslems. Perhaps it was a lack of understanding as still exists. One region’s understanding may not be different to another’s but they all struggled to understand the indefinable unknown and eternal with greater or lesser success. As philosophy is always subject to the frailties of man it can often go astray. Some claim divine revelation but it just may be that it is logical. The truth of creation or the law of nature must eventually reveal itself simply because it is the truth. The great question posed by Pontius Pilot ‘What is truth’ is one of the eternal quandaries and at the beginning of all in our earliest civilization lies the guidance of truth from which all else flows.
Bibliography:
Bibliography
1.Sheed, Frank .J. Theology and Sanity ,Oxford/New York; Oxford University Press. 2000
2.Miller. Charles .d. The origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic background and the Ugaritic texts, Oxford/New York. Oxford University Press. 2001
Machiavellis Advice to America
Machiavelli’s Advice to America
Leaders of the world are not just a regular breed of individuals. In present days, the United States citizens elect representatives through a very precautious procedure; people know if the wrong person were to get into office they could cause a downfall of a nation. Not all of Machiavelli’s principles of a leader are strongly practiced in today’s world, yet when revised many compare incredibly to the way the American government is governed.
In The Qualities of the Prince, Machiavelli discusses a number of traits that he believes a prince or ruler of his time must have to be safe, successful, and loved by his people. Machiavelli believed in exploring both sides of an issue, “the art of war and the art of life, liberality and stinginess, cruelty and clemency, the fox and the lion” (36). Most of his instances have something to do with war, he is very repetitive in many of his believed traits and he stands firm with them by giving many examples. By reading The Qualities of a Prince it is very easy to assume that Machiavelli was brilliant in his thoughts during his time, this leaves one to ponder the thought of how successful these traits would be in modern American politics.
Americans elect leaders with certain distinct qualities, Machiavelli’s beliefs on leaders characteristics don’t totally relate to our expectations. He does mention that he doesn’t recommend tyranny, meaning one ruler have all the power or use it too his advantage. In American government there are no tyrants, all the power is distributed into branches where decisions are made on agreement on that of which will help the American people the most. The majority of Machivelli’s characteristics of a good leader would not get a man elected in the United States, in his time that wasn’t applicable because you were born a leader. Machiavelli wrote of it to be good to be generous but said that a reputation of it will harm you, stating that nothing will use itself up quicker than generosity (41). The candidates of today present themselves on generosity, explaining what they have done in the past and what they plan to do in the future. Machiavelli also suggests that a morally good person wouldn’t last long in a high office. Presently you can’t be elected unless you have morals, the President of the United States of America and his family our examples for the whole nation to look at, if they appeared to have no morals what could someone expect from our nation as a whole?
Machiavelli was right on task when talking of things a leader must do to maintain office, he believed in a lot of principles of which leaders today use. He states that a leader must desire to be merciful, not cruel. This relates to your people looking up to you, not running away from you, Machiavelli also says “a prince must not worry about reproach of cruelty when it is a matter of keeping his subjects united and loyal” (43). In America today this can be related to the death penalty, some Americans see it as cruel but in reality it is necessary to maintain a fear in those that wish to do others harm.
Reading The Qualities of a Prince you will find that most of Machiavelli’s distinct qualities that mentioned concern war. Machiavelli writes that a leader must never be idle in peaceful times, meaning the leader should make their power known to all, also stating “in peacetime he must train himself more than in time of war; this can be done in two ways; one by action, the other by the mind” (38). This quality is very unique and true, used by not only the United States but also by any structured government. American leaders show this by having a strong militia, with bases spread throughout the United States, appointing experienced commanders with the mentality and experience to lead and train new soldiers.
Preparation for all obstacles is the center point for most of Machiavelli’s qualities, he stresses intensely on the fact of keeping your peoples faith while doing so, “for a prince must have two fears: one, internal, concerning his subjects; the other external, concerning foreign powers” (48). But this faith is not just given to a leader, it is earned through experience “a prince who does not understand military matters cannot be esteemed by his own soldiers, nor can he trust them” (Machiavelli, 38). America is known to be the elite government power on earth at this time because our past leaders have been well educated and ready for any circumstance. Our government has had its share of dramatic blows from other nations or ethnic groups but it has successfully bounced back up not showing weakness, giving truth to Machiavelli, “have a mind ready to turn itself according to the way the winds of fortune” (47).
Although most of the traits that Machivelli holds to be true involving warfare and preparation our still true today, one is outdated but easily revised. Machiavelli believed that in his time it was much safer to be feared than loved. This is still true in today’s world except Machiavelli was referring to the people of the prince’s kingdom; American leaders relate this to countries. Fear in a society accomplishes nothing and will cause an unsuccessful economy in present times, in the past it was essential to maintain a small sum of fear to not be overran.
American politicians have somewhat mirrored a number of the qualities mentioned in Machiavelli’s essay. A unique trait that is possessed by many of Americans great leaders of the present and especially the past is war experience. Leaders take pride in our military and as Machiavelli explained, they know people would much rather follow a person that would fight next to them than one that wouldn’t. Although American leaders have not and would not recently stand toe to toe with other soldiers while they were in office, most volunteered and when needed fought courageously, gaining a tremendous amount of knowledge for future occurrences. Exemplifying courage and wit tremendously is a leader of the past, John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Fighting in World War Two, Kennedy was a lieutenant on a PT 109. One night aboard his ship at sea, it was rammed by a Japanese destroyer causing enough damage to sink the ship. Kennedy dragged a wounded sailor for four hours to land, earning him the Navy and Marine Corps medal for Gallantry in Action. Anyone willing to fight for America would respect and be willing to follow and listen to a man with a background of Kennedy for these reasons, exemplifying one of Machiavelli’s qualities.
Leadership is a tremendous responsibility; although this is obtained by few in America the outcome and decisions made effect millions. There are many guidelines that a leader must follow to be successful, the studies one might go thru to do so would be tremendously improved in reading Machiavelli’s The Qualities of a Prince.
Bibliography:
Machiavelli and More are each often described as humanists
Machiavelli
Machiavelli and More are each often described as “humanists.” Does it seem reasonable to you to group them together as part of the same “movement” or intellectual trend? Explain why or why not.
A most complete definition of humanism describes it as, “an intellectual movement that stressed enjoyment of all aspects of life, and especially of the ideas and values of pre-Christian civilizations, such as those of Greece and Rome; the interest in individualism, including stress on man as an end in himself, rather than as merely one cog in the vast machine of the Church.” Thus far in this course we have studied two Renaissance figures that are typically described as humanists: Niccolo Machiavelli via The Prince, and Sir Thomas More in Utopia. In The Prince, Machiavelli uses the major corpus of the work to convey his observations concerning principalities. In addition to analyzing the types of difficulties that a prince might encounter, he describes how a prince comes to power and retains his position. In More’s Utopia, we find a treatise on ethics and human nature along with, above all else, a condemnation of pride, disguised in the painting of the portrait of a perfect world. Most important to the ideals of humanism, we see through both works that Renaissance man has evolved greatly from how his Medieval counterpart was viewed as a miniscule, analogous piece of the all powerful church. It is the individualism of this new character on the world’s stage, the Renaissance man, which creates the perfect setting for a return to Roman-Athenian ideals such as self-interest, worldly possessions, and a much greater concern for life than the afterlife. By staunchly defending these ideals, Niccolo Machiavelli emerges as a true humanist, while in abhorring them Sir Thomas More appears only a social critic.
In Book I of Utopia, More struggles with the question of how he, a good man by the moral standards of the day, can serve a wicked king. The dialogue, which takes place between More and Raphael Hythloday, could easily be mistaken for a dialogue between More and his own conscience. According to More, this world traveler would be of immeasurable assistance in any prince’s court due to the vast knowledge that he has gained, just as More believed he himself would be of importance to the court of the King of England. Unfortunately for More, it is soon shown that the opposite is true. For,
in a court made up of those who envy all
others and admire only themselves, if a
man should propose something that he had
… observed in his travels, the other
councillors would fear that their whole
reputation for wisdom was in danger, and
that they would be regarded as plain
More attempts to defend his actions by claiming that it is better to try to work for change within a corrupt government than do nothing at all. This is what he has done by accepting a position from King Henry. Hythloday clearly refutes this attempt at rationalization in his argument with the English counselor-at-law regarding the death penalty for thievery. “While [they] strive to terrify thieves with excessive cruelty, [they] really incite them to kill innocent men.” If a system does not work on face, it is not probable that internal adjustment would solve its deficiencies. Instead, it is most likely necessary that an entirely new system be put into place. Unfortunately, as More discovers, there is a stumbling block that prevents mans progress in physical ventures, and even in mental propositions: pride, especially manifested via the need for individual success. “Pride is the infernal serpent that steals into the hearts of men, thwarting and holding them back from choosing the better way of life.”
In Book II, through the narration of a journey to the land of Utopia by Hythloday, More depicts what he believes to be the perfect society created through constructs that completely eliminate pride. The society that he creates is in every way the antithesis of Renaissance Europe. The communism of the Utopians is placed in stark contrast to the individualism that we see developing in the Renaissance man. The end result being that the material possessions that had just become the rage among the Renaissance jet set became Utopian trash. The gold and silver wealth of Europeans was used by Utopians in their “chamber pots and stools … metals for the chains and fetters of their bondmen … Thus they [held] gold and silver up to scorn in every way.” The religion of the Utopians is not evangelical in nature. Citizens are allowed to believe whatever they want, so long as they do not try to force others to believe the same. Compare this to Sir Thomas’ England where he was beheaded for his failure to recite an oath that recognized his King as head of the church. More than anything, the Utopian government contrasts with those supported by Machiavelli in The Prince.
In portraying Machiavelli as humanist it is obvious to see how he fits the definition best. In fact, he best fits the definition because he demonstrates that which More detested, pride. Nothing represents that pride more than the prince’s quest for fame and glory, and “nothing brings a prince into greater respect than the undertaking of great enterprises and setting a glorious example.” The monarchy, which Machiavelli supports, is the converse of Utopia’s representative democracy. Also as our definition demands, the prince is the end in himself and he must obviously respect the empires of Rome and Greece that came before him or he would not be attempting to emulate them. The prince embodies individualism as compared to his subjects, the masses, in addition to the fact that he is to be feared. “It would be desirable to be both [feared and loved] but, since that is difficult, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved.” A prince must become an individual, meaning that he can stand on his own in battle, “able, through abundance of men or money, to build up an adequate army and take the field against anyone likely to attack them.” Thus, we see that Machiavelli’s Prince is the embodiment of all humanist dogma.
The feelings of More and Machiavelli towards the rebirth of the classical ideologies during the Renaissance were such obvious polar opposites that it allows us to easily determine which exemplifies the ideals of a humanist. Due to the fact that More was quite opposed to the rebirth of the ancient ideals that the Renaissance encompassed we cannot call him a humanist. And, despite the fact that Machiavelli was much more concerned with the creation of a strengthened unified Italy, and his own return from exile, than the mores of humanism, he did celebrate the resurgence of ancient culture, especially individualism. There is an important fact to realize, which could explain the inherent contrast between these two thinkers. The Renaissance that was experienced in Northern Europe, where More wrote, was quite different from that which affected Italy in that the Northern Renaissance was far more religious in its products. This was due in the most part to the fact that the area is removed from Rome and thus was not as disenchanted with the state of the papacy at the time. The conclusion drawn is that the extremely different views of these two thinkers were the results of two quite different Renaissance.
Bibliography: