Machiavelli Analysis

When I was done reading this text from Machiavelli, I felt like I had just read a tutorial on how to fix something. Being warned about Machiavelli’s writing style in the pre-text was probably the most helpful thing I read because it set me up for what was to come. This text was written like an instruction manual that didn’t allow me to connect with the ideas or create a conversation. Why Machiavelli chose this style of writing is beyond me but it does hold some small positive aspects.

            Since Machiavelli made this text so plain and simple, it lets the reader understand the immediate points he throws out. By giving direct examples and almost fact-like statements, he made me feel that this is the only way to be a ruler. He didn’t give any room for interpretation since he wanted his ideas to be more of an absolute, rather than something that can bent to mean something else. This text also helps me understand the nature of Machiavelli. By writing this, he shows his respect for different rulers of the past and seeks to educate future rulers to be the best they can be. His style also indicates that he is a stubborn individual. He thinks only one way and wants to make sure his ideas are the correct ones. This could either be good or bad depending on who you are. Yet, he puts a lot of analysis into his writing to show how passionate he is about studying history and how educated he is in informing people about it. I feel that Machiavelli wrote this as a interpretation of his time when he felt rulers have changed and need to look back at the great leaders of the past to succeed.

Murdoch and Nietzsche

Well as a Christian myself, it was hard not to disagree with both Nietzsche and Murdoch. However, after reading both texts, I have the weirdest feeling that I was actually more offended by what Murdoch had to say. While Murdoch seemed to take more of a non-bias approach, she seemed to be much more efficient in conveying her message. Nietzsche on the other hand was all over the place. His ideas may have been more forward and extreme but his delivery in my opinion was terrible. He contradicted himself had never seemed to focus on one main point. Murdoch was well organized and always had solid arguments that seemed more real instead of sounding like a maniac. She actually made me think about what she was saying. Not to say I agree with anything she says, I just felt she had a better way of reaching the audience.

            As I mentioned before I had a hard time agreeing with anything either of them had to say. Texts like these bring up a very important topic for me as well. I feel that in recent times, Christianity is used as the only religion to criticize. I think that people take advantage of the Christian religion as a whole because they know that Christians aren’t ones to fight back. Many outgoing atheists bite at the moment to politically destroy a Christian yet they never focus on other religions. What I don’t understand is that Christianity is criticized for its lack of morals. For example, women in the Jewish faith have to sit separate from the men when in a synagogue and in the Middle Eastern countries, where Islam in dominate, women are reduced to completely removing themselves from social interactions. I feel that people like Nietzsche and Murdoch need to take a step back and focus more on general discussions of religion instead of obviously singling out Christianity.

Gazzaniga: Toward a Universal Ethics

This subject is one that I enjoy reading about. Not only does Michael Gazzaniga go into the theoretical explanations of the topic but he also explains many of the physical hard facts that correspond with the current topic. One example is when Michael is talking about the social needs and thoughts of the human mind; he also correlates it with the cerebral cortex. This type of writing finds itself to be a lot more pleasant to read than other texts since Michael doesn’t just hit you with hard facts like a doctor or straight metaphors and possibilities like a theorist. He gives it a nice balance. However, aside from the way it was written, I would have to say that this text is very similar to the rest we have read so far. Even though he gives us all of this information as well as experiments used to test different subjects, he still ends the essay with a question. Because this essay is about ethics, it still relies heavily on human perception with in turn changes from person to person. I agree with his conclusion that there are rules by which our moral reason stems from but, I also think that he wrong to only consider ST and TT when talking about mind reading. I believe that there could possibly be more ways of defining delicate ideas such as these. One of the ways would be almost a combination of the two explanations that suggests that we use prior knowledge from our own experiences, (being a situation that deals with a similar problem) apply it to the person you are trying to predict and make a decision based on the possible outcomes your environment allows you to. Not all of Michael’s points in my mind have concrete evidence such as the example with the crying babies. I believe that the mind of a newborn is much too naïve and underdeveloped to rely on anything other than instinct. A baby hears noise so it makes noise. Since this is such a touchy topic to discuss, I’ll conclude my saying that there is a reason for all of our moral choices. We do have free will and our brain has no control over us in a conscious state.

Kwame's "Virtue Ethics"

Kwame’s stance on the psychological evaluation of virtue ethics was surprisingly similar to my own view on the matter. After he explained the concepts and theories behind virtuous actions, I came to my own conclusion that the excessive amount of theories to explain the changes and relations for situations involving virtue are over analyzed. He touches upon a similar notion that people need to create complex physiological theories to explain a concept that never fits one definition. I want to know just as well as Kwame why people feel the need to over scrutinize common everyday situations and slap a huge thesis to it. The subject of virtue ethics is simply determined by the general attitude of the person; as well as the morals they have been brought up on and abide to. No explanation is needed.  Kwame touches upon the same topic by stating that a person who sworn to himself not to give out change to someone would not do so even when environmental factors should influence him to do the opposite. This one example in my opinion shuts down the arguments on the opposing side. Even though not all people my be rooted so deeply in their values, bending more in at a given time, they still may never do a virtuous act even when the situation permits it to. I also came to another understanding that most of these situations deal with the honesty of the one being studied. When the investigators asked the people the reason for why they either did or did not pick up the papers, most of them believed it was a test of honesty. Thus, the people we influenced to give an answer that they thought the investigator would most want to hear. This forced people to give two of the common answers that was stated for a response; one being that they felt good so they helped out and the other being that they thought it was the right thing to do. Both of the examples fit the honest answer that each individual person gave. 

Balinese Cock Fights

While reading this selection, I did try to fit as many definitions of a discourse community to Balinese cockfights. The author gave us many details about the functionality of the village and how they go about their daily lives. He gives us many clues that help us relate what he is talking about to a discourse community. Johns Swales’ definitions of a discourse community fit well with many of the characteristics of Balinese cockfights yet there’s one in particular that cannot be related. Swales first definition states that a discourse community has an agreed set of public goals. Even though the cock owners are all working for the same goal, (which is to win) they are share conflict of interest. This means that they do not work together; they work against another. Since the members of the community of cock fighters are competing to be the only winners, the community is not together as a whole. They are only together for the sheer pleasure of the sport. I also noticed a similarity between the ways they carry out their sport with a sport of my own. I am a wrestler and I am part of a wrestling team. Yet, the sport as a whole is based on individual aims. I may wrestle in the room and improve my sparing partner but I am there for the purpose of improving myself. In the end, the team goals stops and you are there for your own personal achievements. Just like the cockfights, everyone participates to win. We all have the same goal but that goal only applies to ourselves. It just so happens that we all share the same dream.