In 1513 Machiavelli offered some advice on how to handle friends who might turn into enemies. In 1955 Rev Martin Luther King, Jr. reached out to befriend those who were enemies to his cause. One touchstone is filled with suspicious motives that may be well grounded in reality. The other touchstone is based on hopes and dreams. Comment on both texts. Write two paragraphs. Use quotes from each touchstone. Congratulations on some lively debate that sparked some paideia. Which one is more valuable to a Hayesman who wishes to use Wooden's trait of friendship as he becomes a leader?
My name is Jhasua “Eagle” Fontanillas, and I agree more with the views of Machiavelli. I think that we live in a world where dreams are attainable but are very far fetched, because the world we live in is imperfect. Everyone has different views, or different ways of living their life because not everyone is brought up in a similar environment. Machiavelli believed that friendship was not important and that in the real world there weren't any friends and that a ruler had to act coldblooded to be respected in society. He also believed(and I also agree) that a person with power, a leader, always has somebody in his/her circle that low-key desires the same position that you have. This person will befriend you , even gain your trust, and in an eye blink will betray you without thinking twice about it. This occurs all the time in the real world. “ A ruler who ignores what is being done by human beings in order to think about what ought to be done will bring about his own destruction. Since a ruler always has subjects who are not good, he too must learn how not to be good’.
ReplyDeleteDr. Martin Luther King Jr on the other hand was more of a pacifist. He believed that friends were highly important in society and he even tries to befriend his and his people's enemies, which are the Clergymen. I don't agree with Martin Luther Kings views because he lived in a fairy world. He had too many dreams, that honestly in our society are very hard to obtain. “ My dear Fellow Clergymen” is how he starts this letter, and this quote indicates that he is trying to elicit or generate a relationship with these clergymen. He believed that rationality was the real way to voice out your opinions, that acting savagely was only going to make the other party do the same and that it was better to be a friend with the other party than to make things worst, and make the two parties (African-Americans, and Caucasians) hate each other and resent each other even more. He believed that in order to win the fight him and his people needed to befriend their enemies. A lot of African Americans were against this and obviously many Caucasians did not share this mindset. I believe that a Hayesman has to have a balanced view of both Machiavelli and Dr. Martin Luther King, and have a balance set of “Good” and “Bad” Qualities in Order to be a leader just like Mr. Machiavelli expressed In the prince.
Jhasua, Excellent work. A few typos: King, Jr. King's .. worse order .. Prince
DeleteYou are a bit harsh on King's dream! Closing is balanced. 95
It is not malevolent to have dreams and aspirations unless they are inherently so, but to be caught up in hopefulness and not reality is illogical. A criticism that Malcolm X held about Martin Luther King Jr. was that he should: “Stop singing and start swinging.” This means to say that X believed that King was too optimistic about societal and gubernatorial reforms. This does not mean to say that King was ignorant to the injustices that were going on but that X thought his methods of passive resistance and direct action were ineffective. Regardless of X’s criticisms of him, King referred to some of his biggest critics, the Alabama clergymen, as his: “Dear fellow clergymen…” This act opened the clergymen’s eyes to the true notion that they are all human. The effectiveness of King’s methods was once questionable, but it is clear now that both Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X had a strong influence on the movement for equality.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast to Martin Luther King, Niccolo Machiavelli realized that people are not always innately good. People often times do reprehensible things when there is no one to reprimand them. Both ambition and pragmatism are essential to a Hayesman who wants to become a leader, through John Wooden’s description of friendship because ambition allows openness to potential friends while being a realist helps one differentiate benevolent friends from enemies that come in the guise of friendship.
James. Excellent insights. You need to add a quote from The Prince to further strengthen your thesis . 95
DeleteJorden “Leaf” Wilson
ReplyDeleteThe Letter from the Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King and the excerpt from The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli have very interesting perspectives about whether or not friendship is a necessary characteristic for a leader to have. Martin Luther King’s ideal society is to have a pluralistic society in which everybody respects and is in harmony with one another. On the other hand, Machiavelli believes that friendship is not necessary and that it is better to be feared then love. It is more plausible to be a feared leader rather than to be loved by the people. It is just extremely difficult to try to get everyone to cooperate with each other. The majority of people have goodness and kindness in their hearts but the minority of people who live a life of love and hate just ruin it for everybody. Everybody wishes for a reality in which everybody is at peace with each other and everything is good but human nature prevents it from coming to fruition. Just as Machiavelli says, “There is such a great difference between how human beings actually live, and how they ought to live.” He advocates that a leader should try to acquire qualities that are considered bad in order to maintain his power and be an effective leader. An effective leader to him is somebody who is not swayed by human emotion and is cynical when it comes to his subjects. This view is more credible because it takes into account the negative human nature of people. He sees things as they are and not as society wants it to be. This view is extremely different from Martin Luther King’s view. Martin Luther King sees friendship as a necessary characteristic to being a leader. He sees friendship among all as a possibility and that is one of the key ideas in his “I Have a Dream Speech” as well. Instead of accepting the reality of his situation, he instead makes it his goal to try to make his dream a reality. He does not want to accept Machiavelli’s notion that it is impossible to change the nature of people. He knows it is difficult but he certainly makes it clear that he doesn’t think that it is impossible. In his letter, he makes it clear that he wants to try to convince his enemies to change their ways even with all the wrong that has been done to him. He calls them, “My Dear Fellow Clergymen” which implies that even though they are people of different color they still have the same beliefs. Machiavelli would call King ignorant and say that human nature just makes the goal of harmony just too out of reach for society. King on the other hand would say that Machiavelli needs to have more faith in the goodness of people and understand that it certainly is possible to create a peaceful society. It is more feasible for a leader to believe in Machiavelli’s ideals because it is just too out of reach for humans to be at peace with one another. Some people are just too stubborn and are rooted in a life filled with hate and distrust for humanity. Even though King’s ideal society is what the majority of people strive for it is all in vain because of the people in this world.
Jorden, Well done. It would be powerful to use both Martin and Machiavelli as imagery for the Charlie Chaplin "Great Dictator" Speech. 100
DeleteJoyner L. Meregildo
ReplyDeleteFrom a standard decision between M or M or M and M, it is better to choose Martin Luther King Jr. over Machiavelli because MLK's views are much more positive. Many people think that MLK's views are hopeless dreams while they actually are not. They are hopes and dreams that are reachable and in sight. As proof of this, today's society has become one where white and black folks are friends and look for qualities that surpass the mere skin color of one another. Although racism may very well exist forever in the minds of some people, it is also very possible that one day racism may be fully extinguished. MLK addresses the clergymen who were calling his present activities "unwise and untimely" in a manner that involved fellowship, "My dear fellow clergymen..." Although the clergymen attempt in delaying MLK's righteous and peaceful cause, MLK still addresses them in a friendly manner that seeks for peace, agreement, and friendship. Just as MLK once proclaimed, "Justice delayed is justice denied!"
Machiavelli has more of a pessimistic point of view of the inhabitants in the world. This negative feeling is one that might seem like reality but actually is not. It is an illusion that the world is filled with people who always look behind their shoulder for people who they trust to betray them. Machiavelli says, "A ruler always has subjects who are not good so he too must learn how not to be good." This is not true. One must always have friends for a life without trust is not life at all. Everyone needs someone who they can interact with completely. People need to have trust in others. It is necessary to have hopes and dreams to stive for, not a life filled with fear of betrayal.
Joyner, excellent views on how trust is a linchpin to life at its fullest. 100
DeleteAaron Lion Gardner
ReplyDeleteBoth Martin Luther King Jr. and Machiavelli teach us a little something about friendship. Both men of a lot of wisdom and well respected.
Martin Luther king in the ballad of a Birmingham talks to all groups of people white, black, Jews, Christians. Talking about the things happening in Birmingham defends the strategy of nonviolent resistance to racism, arguing that people have a moral responsibility to break unjust laws. He tries to befriend groups against him trying to show that they are all the same. When he says dear fellow Clergymen trying to start off saying we are all the same. MLK thinks we should all work together for the same goal equality to life with each other in complete harmony. Which is really a dream in a way sometimes not really reality of the case.
Machiavelli was a little harsher in the way he thought of the idea of friendship. Machiavelli thought friends were temporary. He felt they weren’t always going be there. Also if you have power you can’t have friends and care what the people want. Which in some way is true reality but not at the same time. I agree with both Martin Luther King and Machiavelli. MLK was a dreamer in a lot of what he said but it could work if people tried. Machiavelli didn’t really dream he just took it as the world showed him you have to be harsh and not trust people but I feel that’s no way to live cause it builds up a lot of a hate toward others.
Aaron, Your interpretation is valid. You need to add quotes to further legitimize your thesis. Avoid some run-ons. Formalize the syntax. 85
DeleteThe question wouldn't be which is more valuable, rather the question should be, how to balance the two. Both touchstones are very valuable in such a creative perspective that they cannot be compared, rather balanced between each other. In certain situations, the enemy is a friend, and others, the friend is an enemy. Machiavelli believed that not all friends are actually "friends", there are some who are only searching for their own benefit, and you are what stands between them and that goal.
ReplyDeleteMartin Luther King Jr. is a different kind of leader, he believed in reaching out for the enemy in the hopes they will convert to a friend, maybe that's not always the case but it happens, converting skeptics to believers. That is why it is so important and crucial to balance these two very antonymous ways of thinking. Being a good leader is never deciding which side you're on, rather, how to balance the pleasures of both so that the majority is pleased.
Angel, Good work. However, add quotes from both texts to underscore your premise. 85
DeleteJordan "Sun" Ingram. To be a leader one should be well aware of reality, but also be optimistic. Both Machiavelli's "The prince," and Martin Luther King Jr. letter from Birmingham should be valuable and considered in ways that a hayesmen see's fit. A hayesmen becoming a leader should be aware of reality and also be optimistic of it. Machiavelli states "A ruler who ignores what is being done by human beings in order to think about what ought to be done will bring about his own destruction." As a leader, one must face reality and do what is for the better. Reality sets a state of actuality, and existence of all things abled to be observed and compressible. if a hayesman comprehends what is actually reality then he can also comprehend what is essentially needed to make a change in an optimistic way.
ReplyDeleteA leader must have the hopefulness and confidence about the future or the successful outcome of something with the understanding of reality. In with change, a leader must need a devote, mutual esteemed joint effort which is described as Friendship on John Wooden's pyramid. Martin Luther King Jr. was aspired with change alongside with several members of his staff. Along with Martin Luther King Jr. And several members of his staff came the comprehendible base set with reality. He realized that injustice is in Birmingham, which is the reality of the civil-rights movement. "I am in Birmingham because injustice is here." A hayesman should use both touchstones as a guideline to be a leader. A hayesman becoming a leader should look to follow Machiavelli's interpretation of reality but along with that, a hayesman should also look to follow the optimism that Martin Luther King Jr. Believed in order to change the course of reality.
Jordan, Well done! Typos: Prince Letter Hayesman with caps. believed w/o... Good sense of balance. 90
DeleteIn Dr. Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail , King states, "I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. This quote, by King, is directed towards the clergy men of the south, in attempts to try and convince them that his nonviolent civil rights movement was appropriate. Yet, what does this quote mean, what are the "means that he approves of, and how does King's opinion vary with that of Machiavelli?
ReplyDeleteKing's quote in short means that he does not agree with the use of immoral devices to achieve a moral goal. Dr. King believed that if you wanted unity and peace among the races then you could not take the path of violence to achieve that. Many of the other movements during this time notably that of Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad and his Muslim movement. These movements were violent and were "nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination (163). Personally I think that King was right to continue with a non-violence movement.
It is the perfect scenario to use when trying to make a point. Especially in the civil rights movement, here were these peaceful protestors marching through cities and were met with hate and prejudice. These protestors were completely peaceful and were arrested and beaten by the law enforcement. King believes that even if these marches cause violence by the law enforcement and other racist that they should continue to get their message across. To stop would be "like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery (161). Which is true, why should you stop doing something that makes people violent if it is morally right? King believes that using the right means to achieve moral goals is necessary at any cost, even if that means jail or personal harm. I think Martin Luther King's beliefs are more valuable than Machiavelli because his belief teaches one to be a great societal leader and teaches one not to judge.
Kofi, Explain (163), (161). Your answer needs a stronger link to friendship.
DeleteAdd a Machiavelli quote, too.. 80
Theophilus Dog Whyte
ReplyDeleteBoth are good if you are talking about friendship. In Machiavelli thought friends were temporary. He said your friends arent always going to be there which is true i understand that. But its how Machiavelli said it made it wrong and in a mean way, he said if u a Boss or have some type of power u cant have friends and care what people want or said about you.
In Mlk " Letter from Birmingham Jail" Mlk had a dream and he talked to all different type of Race of whats happening in Birmingham the racism and he try to make all groups come together and be friend which is hard to do. Dr.King wanted peace among the races so then you cant take the path of violence to achieve that.
Mlk is Better then Machiavelli because Mlk teach more about friendship then Machiavelli Mlk talks about being a Great socal leader and how not to judge people. Machiavelli talks about oo you dont need friends cause they to much.
Theo, Congratulations on posting your first comment. Proofread. Include quotes from both documents. Your answer says a great deal about loyalty and friendship 75.
ReplyDeleteYakubu "hummingbird" Gana
ReplyDeleteMartin Luther king was a dreamer while Machiavelli was a realist.The only similarities they both shared was that they both wanted to be successful in their endeavors. Martin Luther king wanted people to be able to live without hatred or jealousy for one another. His dreams were unrealistic because in order for them to be accomplished, human nature would have to be destroyed. Human nature is very essential to the human race's survival and development because one mans hatred or jealousy can push him to become better in every aspect than the person his hatred is directed towards. In a "letter from a Birmingham jail", Martin Luther King writes that "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws". If these unjust laws are made to keep society from falling apart, there is no reason to disobey it. If this "unjust law" goes against the persons morals but ensures the development of a people as a whole, disobeying it can only be seen as an act of selfishness. Machiavelli, on the other hand, embraces the human nature. He writes "since a ruler always has subjects who are not good, he too must learn how not to be good". Machiavelli realizes that people will always be how they want to be and in order to deal with them morals would have to be put aside.
Machiavelli's ideals would be the most valuable to a hayesman because the world is full of people who would stab you in the back if the opportunities presents itself and a hayesman should be aware of it. Thinking like Martin Luther King would later cause a hayesman pain and suffering because matin Luther king trusted people much more than needed. Taking life for what it is would be a wiser and better choice.
Yakuba, Good insights. Tie in friendship theme a bit more. Watch capitalization. Cornel West would say that the pain and suffering of King is the true paideia. 90
DeleteMy name is Carlos Owl Mora, in my opinion I feel like Machiavelli’s point of view is more agreeable. This world is a world we all wish to achieve this that is beyond our reach because nobody in this world is perfect and this world no one can ever be perfect. Machiavelli’s view on friendship wasn’t that important to him because you can have friends today and none the next. In the eyes of a ruler they’re are only policies, leadership, toughness, and being harsh to be respected and show people you mean business. In the real world this happens frequently.
ReplyDeleteIn the other hand Rev Martin Luther King Jr is a peace maker or pacifist. Martin Luther King Jr unlike Machiavelli believes that friends are important in the real world and in society. I don’t agree with this point of view because he lives a world of “dreams”, Martin Luther King Jr had many dreams and goals that were hard to accomplish. He also tried to befriend enemies such as the clergymen. In his letter Birmhington Jail he tries to promote a relationship with the clergymen. He believed that in order to win the fight he needed to befriend their enemies. I believe that a Hayesman has to have an equal mindset of “Dreams and Reality”, For the “Good and Bad” qualities in order to become leaders.
Carlos, Avoid first person singular usage. Your views are wise and accurate. On the other hand, the Irish definition of heaven conflicts with your view of a world" beyond our reach. " 90
ReplyDeleteTo some friendship is not a required aspect to being a leader. To some aspect they are right. This belief goes hand-in-hand with the excerpt from “The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavelli believes that the masses should be governed with an iron fist with no room for friendship. He believes that in order to be a leader, friendship must not be in the equation. His basis for his belief was solely based in the realities of this word. It is a pessimistic but somewhat true view of the world
ReplyDeleteHowever, to those who disagree with this are probably supporters of Martin Luther King. In his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” he never refers to the people he’s writing to with distaste. In fact, he refers to the men he’s writing to as “My fellow clergymen.” He believes we should all be friends despite implications to that sentiment. He believes friendship is a crucial aspect of leadership. He believed in the unity of people. The true meaning of friendship.
Hello my name is Daryl “Sloth” Sheppard, I believe Martin Luther king Jr. was a highly respected individual that was willing to use his powerful emotions to emit his feelings amongst a large population without violence or forcing anybody to listen to his message. People always say doing wrong is always easier than doing right MLK always had to do what was right because one slip he would have been viewed as hypocritical. MLK showed that friendship is necessary for peace to be obtained. Preferably than getting rid of or separating himself from the public. He attempted to make peace by befriending his enemies. But also in order to be a leader one must have the strength of Machiavelli to do what is necessary for a larger goal both are necessary in order to succeed as a leader.
ReplyDeleteDion: Machiavelli is more realistic and MLK is a futurist
ReplyDeleteJunior: retort MLK was trying to be friends with everybody and is trying to create a unity between the black man and the white man
Karl: he can be friends with everyone
Ian: retort no he cannot
Luigey: stay away from bad friends
Jesus: make the people change
Emilio: acquaintances
Bryan: you can change the mindset of the people
Dion: better to work solo, come up with better ideas
Bryan: we all need somebody
Jesus: everybody has someone which is God
Gio: better to be more open than severe