11/19 Paradise Lost #12B

Presentation

11/17 The Prince #12A

Human Nature
In the Prince, Machiavelli describes the guidelines that a leader should ascribe to himself. Almost all of these tips pertain to how the "the prince" should act in relation to his people. In his writings, Machiavelli's view on human nature and people in general are seen. To him, humans as purely political, emotional creatures. His view places no faith in man, save for his ideal prince. Machiavelli even says, "For men in general judge more by their eyes than by their hands; everybody is fitted to see, few to understand." While his assumptions about man are seen often in reality often, he places too many expectations in his prince considering his low opinion of everyone else. He writes that people are flighty, unfaithful, and somewhat stupid. Yet, he expects the prince to be and achieve number of extremely difficult to impossible things. His view of man requires impossible acts to be the perfect leader. While his view of man is very pessimistic and somewhat insulting, it is true at many times. Therefore, to have a realistic version of his new government, Machiavelli should have changed his high expectations.

Virtues
Machiavelli makes several great points about that type of qualities a prince should have. For example, when discussing on rather it is better to be a loved ruler or a feared one, Machiavelli supports a feared leader. His explanation makes sense, a feared leader has more control and can make a better country (and so is in the end loved). And when discussing whether the prince should deal with his subjects through politics or violence, Machiavelli suggest politics. However, he add that it will be necessary to use violence and trickery at times, "Hence a prince must know perfectly how to act like a beast and like a man." The author made several points like that are reasonable. However, the thought of one man being able to balance out all these traits and perform them in the manner that Machiavelli prescribes is near impossible. He expects his prince to be perfect, yet no man is perfect. Therefore, no man would be able to posses all the qualities Machiavelli writes about. While "The Prince" is a good example, no leader would be able to do everything written in it.

11/12 John Donne #11B

Holy Sonnet 14
"John Donne's work Holy Sonnet 14 follows the style of his other poems in it reads and has the imagery of a love poem. As the title suggests, however, this is not an ordinary poem but a love letter to God. In the first line, Donne addresses his words to the "Godhead." The language Donne uses suggest strong, passionate feelings bordering on sexuality, not what one would expect to a love letter to Christ. For instance, Donne even says about his devotion to Christ, "Except you enthrall me, never shall be free, Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me." This use of language like a lover conveys his strong feelings towards his faith. Donne's chosen worldly vehicle (the imagery, feelings like for a lover) to express a religious message fits in with the Renaissance.

Flea Bait
Two of John Donne's poems, "The Flea" and "The Bait," are similar is several ways, but also different. Both are love poems, from one lover to another (presumably to the man to the woman), and both have subjects of things in nature, a flea and fish. Both the poems express adoration and a desire to be together in one way or another. However, in these way they also differ. While "the Bait," does include something from nature, in the "the Flea," the flea is part of their love. The flea is almost put on an equal standard as the two lovers. Their love is intensified because of the flea. In "the Bait," likewise, their love is not affected by the fish, but the fish are affected by the lovers. Another difference between the two is the desires of the speakers. In the "the Flea," the speaker is addressing a woman that he wants to be with, yet cannot. The poem expresses his desire for her. Yet, in "the Bait," it is implied that the two lovers are already together. The speaker of the poem is not expressing his desire, but he is complimenting his lover. In these way, John Donne's poems are very similar, yet also different.

11/10 The Praise of Folly #11A

Folly
In Erasmus's Praise of Folly, Folly is character that describes her role in people's lives. According to Folly, she is a deity, a goddess. She differs from other gods in that she requires no token of devotion from her subjects nor does her rule only over one region, but the entire world. Folly describes her ways as following the ways of Nature. Being a fool does not step beyond the lot that Nature has given humans, like artists, philosophers, inventors do. Foolishness not hurt anyone, instead not only brings pleasure to the fool and to one observing the fool. Since foolishness is simply thriving in the way Nature has allotted us, why would it hurt anyone? Folly's ways, as Erasmus has described, encourages a selfish, low life style where one is not human, only an animal. One should not think outside what pleases him and what would make oneself a better person. Folly's lifestyle is a degrading, wretched life style that, even if it leads to present happiness, can only lead to misery in the end.
Christian Folly
Erasmus's Christian Folly does not make any sense. He wrote that Christianity is folly, that God hates human wisdom (so he must encourage foolishness) and that even our Savior's act was in itself Folly and that is what, in the end, saves us. While I can understand his point, I believe that Erasmus is missing the entire point of Christianity. His earlier descriptions of Folly describes a life style wrapped up around the individual and even still, Erasmus' view of Christianity is about the individual. I know Christianity to be a faith not about me, but about God. God doesn't like human wisdom, but He doesn't want folly either. He wants us to bring glory to Him through making ourselves better and honoring Him in all our actions. Since Folly is only focused on herself, already it cannot relate to Christianity. Erasmus made some good points, about believing in Christ's folly in the cross (which is what it was), he just doesn't fully grasp the concept. God loves us, and when we accept His love, he are commanded to return that love and act according to God, still leaving the point of emphasis on God. Erasmus' school of thought does not grasp this.