The intended audience could be future rulers or sons of those who are currently ruling and they want their descendants to be able to see how they came to their right of power. It’s almost as if it is rules regarding how a ruler is chosen, and/or what ruler’s roles are after they have been chosen. 3) The purpose of the text seems to be rules and regulations, but like the text says it was a way for the Zhou to overthrown the Shang. I also think it was to scare future rulers, because it mentions that the good-doer it sends blessing, whereas the evil-doer heaven sends down all miseries, and if the ruler results in poverty or miseries on their people, they can be overthrown. The source is a primary source, but it also says it is a collection of myths and recollected texts, and that being said when it says ‘myths’ I have doubts about this text.
Burke opposed the instability and the reasoning of the revolution, as well as it’s potential to increase in violence and decline into anarchy, as it later did. Burkes opposition to the French revolution can also be inextricably linked to he’s insight that tradition should be prioritised over reason as he wrote ‘you possessed in some parts the walls and in all the foundations of a noble and venerable castle. You might have repaired those walls; you might have built on those old foundations… but
Moreover, source 1 also explains that there may be a ‘future struggle’, therefore implying that there maybe a form of rebellion that could occur in response to the act being implemented. As a result, the source also admits that there could be the likelihood of conflict occurring from the changes brought about by the act, with the lower class possibly becoming unhappy and losing respect for the Source 3 further corroborates with source 1 as the act could ‘root up the feelings of respect, reverence and loyalty, which are the only sure foundations of government.’ Peel therefore suggests that there could be drastic change to the character of the constitution, where the traditional political hierarchy could be destabilised and in effect, agrees with source 1 as they support the view that the act could lead to increased factions and disputes. Taken at face value Sources 1 and 2 clearly conflict with Peel’s claims in Source 3. Both emphasise the limited nature of the proposed reforms and emphasise that the intention is to strengthen the existing system by getting rid of ‘blemishes’ and adding new voters of the most respectable and reliable kind. Palmerston asserts that the changes
Paul Starita Pol Sci 201 10/26/12 Examining Justice and Education In The Apology, Socrates defends himself in a court of law after being accused of creating new deities and corrupting the youth. In this text, we find subtle opinions and explanations about the nature of justice. The Republic is a text written by Plato, where Socrates and several of his students deeply explore justice and how an ideal society might look. Especially present in The Republic, both texts have undertones of how education ought to be and why it is so important. These two texts define justice as an important virtue that every person should learn to possess through a balanced, self-discovering education.
The most important factor and root for all of the problems was Charles. Due to his personality and as he ruled by Personal Monarchy, this shaped how he deployed his prerogative. His policies throughout 1625-1629 were often extreme and passed as a reaction to what he felt was a threat from parliament and an act of disloyalty on their behalf, knowingly angering them. These provocative actions were very much resented by Parliament who felt he was threatening them and provoking them, thus causing the collapse within their relationship. The next most important reason for the collapse was religion and Charles’ push toward Arminianism and absolutism.
One last piece of advice is that fortresses depend on the situation. If the prince is hated by his people then the fortress will not protect him. 6. According to Machiavelli in Chapter 21, what must a prince do to be esteemed? He must be an outright ally and an outright enemy of a fight.
He says that it is generally better to be frugal because lavish spending will lead to jealousy. It will also lead to higher taxes, and will make the prince unpopular. Machiavelli believes that it is important for the prince to be cruel. It is important for him to punish appropriately in order to have the respect from his citizens and his army. On the issue of admiration Machiavelli states that a prince ideally should be loved and feared, but it is more important that he be feared.
However we know that had passed enough policies to cause a stir in society especially with the nobility where he would treat the ‘equal’ to the less privileged by for example taking away their enclosures of land and prohibiting any further enclosures to take place. Source T has backed up the negative stance on Wolsey’s domestic policies as seen with source, stating “his hostility towards the nobility…caused him the greatest irritation” suggesting Wolsey to have be intimidating towards the nobility in terms of introducing the new domestic policies which would have caused hatred on the nobility side towards him. However I cannot agree with this viewpoint as we must take into account the nature and origin of the source as we know the creator
Socrates vs. Machiavelli: Different Political Perspectives de la Rosa, M. SOCU 450 18 November 2011 Socrates and Machiavelli are considered two of the world’s most influential political thinkers. Both Socrates and Machiavelli have left behind some convincing claims regarding political questions of justice and power. While information about Socrates is mostly “second hand,” he was well known mostly for his philosophy on personal liberty and morality (Nails, 2010). Machiavelli, on the other hand, “overtly rejected (the) philosophical inquiry” that Socrates was famous for (Nederman, 2009). His was a more straight-forward view.
Christina Politis Mr. Lambropolous HZT4U1 Sunday, April 10, 2011 The Ideological Shift From Metaphysics to Ethics Like most things in life, philosophy been evolving throughout history. One of the original, well-recognized philosophers was Plato who was mostly concerned with the metaphysical. His beliefs extended beyond the perceivable world. At one point in time, Plato’s philosophy was the standard viewpoint of society. However, as philosophies such as Epicureanism started to develop, the opinions of society were revolutionized.