Machiavelli vs. Thoreau

Compare and Contrast Machiavelli and Thoreau.

Niccolo Machiavelli, an Italian philosopher who was best known for his work The Prince published in 1532; and a philosopher by the name of Henry David Thoreau—known for his Civil Disobedience—were not only philosophers, but incredibly influential people in their time as well as for modern day. Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of being in control and maintaining the stature a Prince has, while Thoreau believes in taking action against what we feel is unjust. However, even though the two philosophies may seem different, they also share similarities with each other.

                However, apart from their similarities, their philosophies also have differences.  Machiavelli believes in instilling fear in his subjects and being at powerful position, while Thoreau believes in nonviolent ways to take action against the government. Machiavelli says that “because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony,” it’s better to be a feared leader rather than a loved one. While Thoreau believes that the government should not be unjust towards its people and what may seem as injustice should be taken action against.  Thoreau thinks of government as “the machinery of society,” and sees the legislators as ones who “contemplate no essential reform[s] in the existing government.” However, Machiavelli has a different thought in mind because he believes that for a Prince to stay in authority and have control over the people, he must “not diverge from the good…but, if compelled then to know how to set about it.” Being so, Machiavelli and Thoreau don’t agree with each other on the level of authority and rules because of Thoreau’s standing up to the government belief, and Machiavelli’s it’s better to be feared than loved theory.

                Machiavelli and Thoreau’s philosophies go hand in hand because ultimately they are both agreeing that the morality of any action is founded only on the results of that action, rather than being founded on the action itself; if someone like a serial killer was punished, it would be justified since it is for the good of the people.  Machiavelli believes that it is better to be fear than loved by your subjects because “love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread punishment which never fails.” Similarly, Thoreau –even though he does not instill fear in his readers—accesses his position in a rebellious manner by influencing the people’s emotions by creating a need to take action against the government, rather than waiting around and  “voting for [something] right, [which] is [like] doing nothing for it.”  However, in a way both philosophers ideas relate back to each other; Thoreau and Machiavelli are both implicitly stating that the consequence of an action is what people should be concerned with, instead of just the action itself. Thoreau talks about the government as a machine, and how people should “consider whether the remedy [to stop the machine] will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law.” Thoreau, backs up Machiavelli’s famous statement, “the end justifies the mean” by saying that if you believe in something to be a successful action, and then do it, but don’t do it for the heck of doing it, rather an individual should break the law to cause a change to occur.

                Therefore, not only do Machiavelli and Thoreau share differential ideologies, but they also share similarities in their philosophies as well. This of course, is why Machiavelli and Thoreau have been successful in their philosophies, even in modern times. 

Read More

Let's have ourselves a bit of thanks!

Thanksgiving: one of America's beloved holidays; beloved for some more than others. Thanksgiving is celebrated by many, usually by inviting family and friends to a wonderful feast in order to, well, give thanks. It's strange how it’s called Thanksgiving, even though it’s more about "giving thanks." Sound like a reverted structure. Don't you think? But nonetheless, it’s a great holiday where anyone and everyone can come together have a happy ol' turkey or chicken; maybe some pie. But regardless of what you're eating, thanksgiving is a time to be thankful for what you have, rather than reminiscing about what you could have. Its not only about eating or visiting family that’s as big as Madea’s. It’s more about being thankful for that food, and that family and all the little things that are usually taken for granted. Thanksgiving is a time to enjoy the little things; like that cousin who always calls the turkey leg even before you can smell the turkey, or your aunt who will take only a small spoon of everything—because she’s on a new “diet”—even though she’s the first one waiting for desert. It’s about your sibling who stuffs their face with food right before your mom comes to the table to say grace, give thanks or maybe make a little speech. How fun! But, at the end of the day, it’s the one holiday—no matter how irritated or tired you get—you remember. You love that annoying uncle who only talks about politics, yes even at the dinner table. You love your grandfather who tells you about all of your mom’s mischievous adventures as a kid, and you absolutely love that you can finally be a complete family, at least once a year. Oh, and of course the Indians. Don’t forget them! 

Read More

Pakistan, United States, and Afghanistan! oh my!

Thesis: The Reluctant Fundamentalist represents the depression and discrimination 9/11 has left individuals of Arab or Muslim descent in the United States and portrays the ongoing tension between Pakistani's and Americans. 

 the trust issues between Pakistan and the United States pre-9/11 and post 9/11, and a clear understanding of the historical point of view of what it felt to be a Pakistani at such a significant and saddening time. 

The current US-Pakistani relationship is short of trust. The two countries have tried to create a stable relationship, especially with the war in Afghanistan, however it is unsuccessful because of the lack of trust. In The Reluctant Fundamentalist, Changez implicitly and explicitly references to the fact that America is shameful for not supporting Pakistan during its conflict with Afghanistan. Especially, since after 9/11, Pakistan had given its highest effort to win the satisfaction of the United States by performing actions like capturing members of Al-Qaeda and allowing the United States to plant military bases in order to attack Afghanistan. Changez says “I was saddened to find it in such a state...This was where I had come from…and it smacked of lowliness” (141). A man, who had seen his homeland change completely, was flustered at the thought that America was doing nothing to help even after Pakistan had aided them in a battle. Throughout the novel, Changez never permanently identified himself as an American, and it came to be of no surprise that a smile was revealed during the 9/11 incident. He had no ill intention towards either country, however because he was so attached to Pakistan from the start, he felt it was like a duty for him to side with his country, instead. This was basically a symbolic way of representing the relationship with the two countries because Changez smile was like the “I know you’re lying” type of smile, which is exactly the main reason behind the problematic countries.

The situation the US and Pakistan is currently in is an accurate representation of the relationship the two countries had during the time period this novel is set in. During the course of The Reluctant Fundamentalist, after 9/11 became a reality Changez depicted the US-Pakistani relationship as one that never had an effective set of rules or policies placed on either country. The way that Changez talks about America in the novel, it’s as if he’s let whatever pride he had in America die alongside with his love Erica. Changez “had always thought of America as a nation that looked forward; for the first time [he] was struck by its determination to look back” (131).  It’s as if Changez knew that United States and Pakistan weren't going to have the best of relations, and so his views on both countries had changed by the way he declared the United States shameful and unhelpful. Changez was mostly accurate in portraying the relationship because it just goes to show how moment or an incident can change everything. Pakistan wanted help from the United States, and in a moment that bond the two countries had was torn.

However, at the same time the portrayal of the US-Pakistani relationships was somewhat inaccurate. Since during the time around 9/11, Changez felt that Pakistan is dependent on support from the United States, and without that support they are feeble. However, Pakistan had not directly called to the United States to come and rescue them in their war against Afghanistan; help was more expected than asked for.  In The Reluctant Fundamentalist there is actually more disagreements between Pakistan and the US however the negative side of the relationship was not stressed during the novel at all. This is the reason it is important to read the novel through a historical point of view, because the disagreements, history, and content becomes clear and understandable. 

Topic Four 

Read More