June 4, 200917 yr Author Here's something funny....as with many on here...life and life experiences have been my biggest influences, after age 18. Prior, my schooling, faith and parents provided a good foundation. Isn't interesting that although many of us list "life and experience" we still have such disparity in the outcome. And, TTC....I did neglect Neitzsche. Not on purpose, but yes, he sould definitely be on my list. And PepRock...I keep trying to tell people not to pigeon-hole me! :lol: One of these days someone will peg you right. :lol: Just not sure when that will be. :confused:
June 4, 200917 yr Those that don't try to place us as better than we are. Understanding that man is inherently self-serving is the most basic tenet of my worldview. Obviously mine isn't the only one and who is to say what is right is actually right and what is wrong is wrong? Society creates such norms and as such understanding the nature of the creatures that create and dwell within it is better than thinking said creatures are anything other than what they are. If a man convinces himself that he is no more than an animal, then that's all he'll ever be. As a rational animal, however, man has a capacity to overcome instinct and basic impulse unique to our species. Public service is inherently a life of self-sacrifice, not self-serving, and anyone unable to do so is unfit to lead. I really don't care for Machiavelli at all. From that period, I much prefer the humanist works of Thomas More and Erasmus: "Noble cities are erected by the people and destroyed by princes..." A world in which Machiavelli's ideas are carried out meets well with Thomas Hobbes' vision: certainly there is nothing in it for anyone but a life which is nasty, brutish and short.
June 4, 200917 yr Author If a man convinces himself that he is no more than an animal, then that's all he'll ever be. As a rational animal, however, man has a capacity to overcome instinct and basic impulse unique to our species. Public service is inherently a life of self-sacrifice, not self-serving, and anyone unable to do so is unfit to lead. On the other hand man could well be deluding himself into thinking he is more than he is, something greater so he can try to understand his purpose in life when in reality no such purpose exists. All man ever does is for his own benefit, it just may not always be overt or even a conscious decision on account of the indoctrination of religion or society. I really don't care for Machiavelli at all. From that period, I much prefer the humanist works of Thomas More and Erasmus: "Noble cities are erected by the people and destroyed by princes..." A world in which Machiavelli's ideas are carried out meets well with Thomas Hobbes' vision: certainly there is nothing in it for anyone but a life which is nasty, brutish and short. Considering the eventual advocation of Machiavelli, from my interpretation of it, was inherently a representative government and the "prince" being said government not a prince in the true sense I don't see such words applying. A life of studying history and observing the world around me has shown me nothing to dissuade that view of humanity. Acknowledging it and understanding it helps to prevent being disappointed in humanity's selfish nature. Now that you have judged my own political views, what are yours? Edited June 4, 200917 yr by PepRock01
June 4, 200917 yr I really don't care for Machiavelli at all. From that period, I much prefer the humanist works of Thomas More and Erasmus: "Noble cities are erected by the people and destroyed by princes..." A world in which Machiavelli's ideas are carried out meets well with Thomas Hobbes' vision: certainly there is nothing in it for anyone but a life which is nasty, brutish and short. I would take issue with that in that Hobbes and Machiavelli said nearly the same thing. Machiavelli is just much more fun to read. :lol:
June 4, 200917 yr On the other hand man could well be deluding himself into thinking he is more than he is, something greater so he can try to understand his purpose in life when in reality no such purpose exists. All man ever does is for his own benefit, it just may not always be overt or even a conscious decision on account of the indoctrination of religion or society. So all of what some would call "selfless deeds" are, in fact, simply the results of social programming which tells us that certain things are good and certain things are bad. Acting one way or another based on those impulses simply goes toward fulfilling the psychological desire to satisfy that programming or, even more simply, we do good deeds because it makes us feel good and we do them to get that good feeling. Fine... but it sure sounds like we need to do a better job of "indoctrination." I, for one, believe in absolute moral truth. But perhaps human nature is at fault. I have long found that the weakness of the modern politician is his willingness to take the easiest road; at the same time, I do not believe that this is a necessary order for the world. A world of politicians acting in right manner for the good of ALL people is not an idealistic fantasy, it is simply a matter of desire for it. To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton: the great experiment of good governance has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried. Considering the eventual advocation of Machiavelli, from my interpretation of it, was inherently a representative government and the "prince" being said government not a prince in the true sense I don't see such words applying. A life of studying history and observing the world around me has shown me nothing to dissuade that view of humanity. Acknowledging it and understanding it helps to prevent being disappointed in humanity's selfish nature. While it is certain that Machiavelli's discourses are a better representation of his actual feelings while "The Prince" was mainly an effort to suck up to the Medicis (an effort that backfired terribly), I still don't think that viewing humanity through the lens of amoralism is going to help anything. When you say that something "helps to prevent being disappointed in humanity's selfish nature" I would respond that we ought to be disappointed. We ought to be reminded of our shortcomings daily but in light of the knowledge that our shortcomings are not insurmountable. Humanity can and must expect better from itself, all the time.
June 4, 200917 yr I credit my liberal views to my father and my uncle. Oh, and most conservatives have helped lead me to my views as well.
June 5, 200917 yr I'm the black sheep of the family. For the past 25 years I have worked (for the most part) six days a week. My family alot of them (not all) have never shook a stick at anything. They are what I call artist which means they are on the draw from the government. They can draw SSI but they never miss a softball game or a Sunday afternoon b-ball pick up game. They are democrats therefore I became a republican.
June 5, 200917 yr They can draw SSI but they never miss a softball game or a Sunday afternoon b-ball pick up game. Unfortunately, this situation is all too common these days. I hate to admit it, but I have SEVERAL clients in which at least one spouse is drawing social security disability (and has/have drawn for years) and you see them out and about all the time engaged in various activities and you wonder just what the heck is wrong that they can seemingly do everything except work. On an unrelated note, I was at Wal-Mart (unfortunately) the other day. While in the check out line, I looked over at the check-out next to me and noticed a couple was putting their items into 2 separate piles. Immediately I knew they were dividing the items into the food stamp and non-food stamp piles. The non-food stamp file was basically cigarettes and a bunch of junk food. They were ABLE to afford 2 cartons of cigarettes at $35 each with THEIR own money, but I guess it was too much to ask them to buy their own food!! I see these types of abuses all the time and it is sickening.
June 5, 200917 yr Unfortunately, this situation is all too common these days. I hate to admit it, but I have SEVERAL clients in which at least one spouse is drawing social security disability (and has/have drawn for years) and you see them out and about all the time engaged in various activities and you wonder just what the heck is wrong that they can seemingly do everything except work. On an unrelated note, I was at Wal-Mart (unfortunately) the other day. While in the check out line, I looked over at the check-out next to me and noticed a couple was putting their items into 2 separate piles. Immediately I knew they were dividing the items into the food stamp and non-food stamp piles. The non-food stamp file was basically cigarettes and a bunch of junk food. They were ABLE to afford 2 cartons of cigarettes at $35 each with THEIR own money, but I guess it was too much to ask them to buy their own food!! I see these types of abuses all the time and it is sickening. Amen
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.