Fermi

The Renaissance attempted to answer the question of how it is possible that freedom (free will) can reside at both ends of the spectrum...the thing that makes man both the best...and the worst...of God's creation. Pico and Machiavelli were on opposing ends of the spectrum and held differing perspectives on the nature of man. Pico della Mirandola suggested that freedom was an "awesome prize or gift", whereas Machiavelli felt that "freedom in the hands of the people will be the cause of their own demise". My question is: Do you see the world from Pico's...or Machiavelli's perspective...and why? Do you think our freedoms are or will be our own demise?

Carno

Running short on time until you have to turn in your philosophy paper?

Ch'i

Both. Freedom is a gift which is commonly squandered.
It depends entirely on how one uses their freedom.

Fermi

I wish that were the case Carno....I have plenty of time (3 more weeks) and I have done a ton of research. But the more research I do, the more it confuses me. I will read Pico's perspective and writings and find myself agreeing with what he says (all knowledge shares basic common truths, the concept of individual worth, masters of our own destiny, etc), but in my heart I don't feel that mankind is inherently good. Then I read Machiavelli's perspective and writings, and although I disagree with some of it, such as man using any means (deceit, duplicity, ruthlessness,etc) to get what he wants, I agree with his assessment of man as greedy, corrupt, and that allowing "morality" to govern his desires only stands in the way of effective governing. Isn't that what some accuse George Bush of doing? Using his "morals" to impose law and order on citizens? So, you see, I am torn. I have to pick only one side. And while I have never had a problem with research papers, essays, or persuasive arguements, this time I am really conflicted. I thought that by going to a site where people profess to having some insight into philosophy that I could brainstorm and get differing views that might shed some light on my own turmoil with this assignment. I thought that perhaps I would have an 'aha' moment and then it would all come together. I am not looking for someone to "write" my paper...I am perfectly capable of doing that myself and have done so more times than I care to count in my 5 years of college. I just wanted to find out what others thought of these men (if they have ever even read any of their works). I am not philosophical by nature, that is why my major is the hard sciences. I apologize if I came across as looking for a handout.

Chi,
Thank you for replying! I feel the exact same so now you see my dilema....I also think "both"...sigh!

Carno

Well, I would choose Machiavelli. I agree to a certain extent with Mirandola's ideas, but when I look around, I see a Machiavellian world. I don't see a world where people recognize their individual worth, or the worth in others. Machiavelli and Mirandola are opposite ends of the spectrum of human nature. Yes, people can be kind and generous and caring and compassionate, but they can also be hateful and petty and vindictive.

The reason I agree with Machiavelli more is because I think it is easier to be a bad person than a good person. It is much easier to be morally weak and lazy than it is to have character and honesty. It's also easy to raise your children to be dishonest and lazy and unethical, but it isn't so easy to foster honesty and integrity in your children. There will also always be greed, envy and lust in humans.

I may be jaded and cynical, but that's just how I see things. I think it is extremely foolish for a ruler to rely on the positive aspects of human nature. That is not to say that I think it is better, I just think that it's the way things are.

politicophile

Life Lesson: When you are asked to write an academic paper asking you which of two opposing viewpoints is correct, the best paper is almost always one that takes a qualified view somewhere in the middle of the two extremes presented. What you professor wants from you is a reasoned analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of both positions.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Willravel

"Both" is a perfectly reasonable answer. Freedom is a tool to be used in the way that the person or persons choose. I see that freedom is a glass both half empty and half full.

Mojo_PeiPei

By my perspective I think Machiavelli wins by virtue of comments such as Will's in this thread; Carno made a solid point, but rather then put words in his mouth I will expand.

There is always two sides to the coin, obviously. One of Machiavelli's main points was the importance of the practical imperative (my copy of the Prince is missing atm so don't quote as to the name) as opposed to the moral imperative; men don't live as they should, to strive for that any idealistic notion, which would be in opposition to how things are, you are pursing your own downfall. At least it's so far as the political aspect pans out.

In a more general philosophical sense, I would have to lean more towards Machiavelli, I think Will make's a fair point about it being "both" with freedom, but at the same time it only secures Machivellis points: There is no honest man in a den of thieves, the fact that there is a choice, that the freedom exists, there is going to be problems.

Admittedly so my understanding and knowledge of Pico is limited and much less compared to my understanding of Machiavelli, but from what I understand Pico is big on the precept of free will and how it relates to man. Machiavelli no doubt is aware of this concept, I can't recollect him refuting it really in any capacity, but Machiavelli seems to throw a lot more stock in the "nature" of man. Thus it would seem Pico put more "faith" in man's cognisance, whereas machiavelli acknowledged that we are animals and ultimately we cannot escape our nature (selfish, instinctual); just seems to me that in world were both concepts exist, Machiavelli wins because he is a gangster.

/End rant, my sig factors into my mentality and perhaps this conversation

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

roachboy

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Ita...ori/frame.html

here's a link to an annotated electronic edition of pico's oration on the dignity of man.
i figured it might help the discussion.

stuff to do in 3-d so.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite