To use the limited to pursue the unlimited is simply foolish. While Confucius argued that the only way to achieve a successful and meaningful life was to learn as much as possible in order to find the way, namely by studying everything around you. This is the biggest difference between the two philosophies. Confucius believed that above all else; emphasizing personal and governmental morality and correctness of social relationships, justice, and sincerity is the most important aspect of life. Chuang Tzu believed that how we perceive things are directly related to each of our separate pasts, or our “paths”.
Brahma teaches that all things, no matter how unrelated, are part of a bigger picture or purpose, and that material goods are worth nothing when it comes to finding truth. Although both these works are, at a first glance, totally different, they both relate directly to lessons that can be followed in order to reach enlightenment. In the journey for the self, being a free thinker is difficult, especially in this society because of the increased reliance on the system. It is important to always push the boundaries and test the authority of one’s superiors because without the restriction of a higher power, truth cannot be accomplished. McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest shows this kind of attitude in the scene where he wants to switch the schedule so he and the rest of the ward can watch the World Series.
Whitman, Joyce), Orwell finds its main quality in the way it focuses on an ordinary human being. He states: “... the whole atmosphere is deeply familiar, because you have all the while the feeling that these things are happening to you.” By refusing to take part in any political struggle and by “accepting” the reality, Miller is able to appeal to an “ordinary man”. Orwell however adds: “It will be seen that this is something (…) out of fashion,” and goes on with closer historical analysis in the second part to prove his point. This analysis takes the reader from
Inherent in this purpose is a key to Mach’s view of power. Because it was written for the use of one man to dominate over and control his kingdom/state, it was obviously not meant for lesser mortals. It in itself is a tool of power which could be used for only the good of the prince who uses it. Whether or not the people are empowered does not matter, it is irrelevant. It only matters that the prince uses it to maintain his own power.
These three individuals all impact Siddhartha’s life greatly in their own individual ways. Gotama, who has already reached enlightenment, helps Siddhartha recognize that the path in which he desires, must be travelled alone. When Siddhartha first saw Gotoma, he recognized him immediately because of how his body glowed with peacefulness .As Siddhartha talks to Gotama, he comprehends that to become a follower of the Buddha and learn off of his teachings, would not bring him anywhere he wants to be. “That is why I am going on mu way- not to seek another and better doctrine, for I know there is none, but to leave all doctrines and all teachers and to reach my goal alone- or die” declared Siddhartha. After his discussion with Gotama, he looks at his life in a new way and starts in a new direction.
Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu The way a government is run is dependent on one’s view of human nature. With the thought that human’s are inherently good, a relaxed and hands off approach to governing will surface, and the thought of human’s being inherently evil will result in a plethora of rules and constraints to give order to the state. It is the view of human nature that the leader will keep in high regards when deeming necessary courses of action. These two ends of the spectrum are displayed quite clearly through the tranquil, wishful thinking of Lao-Tzu and the much more realistic Machiavelli. Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli provide, in a sense, an instruction manual for those who are in the position to govern.
Buddhism is a transcendent religion that came from a man named Siddhartha Gautama in 600 BCE. It lacks a God so Divine Command Theory does not apply unlike the main internationally practised religions. Its ethics come from the Dharma and compassion rather than fear and a divine higher power. Also, unlike most religions Buddha himself gave permission for his followers to adapt certain rules or stray from them if the situation calls for it. Buddhism asks its followers to consider consequences of their actions towards others and self before committing them.
Although never really a leader of the people himself, Machiavelli believed that government should be controlled by a prince. The prince must be one who could in terms of practically, could maintain power of the people, and live for war. While on the other hand Lao Tzu was more individualistic, believing a ruler will be more respected by his people if he does not always resort to violence. Lao Tzu strongly believed in karma; if the ruler brings violence against someone, that person will eventually seek revenge. “The more powerful it grows / the greater the need for humanity” (Lao Tzu, 31).
Although democratic practices were on the way in the capitalist countries, he asserted that democratic politics possessed no advancement. Their destinations are totally different. Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience was the first great declaration of the right and duty to commit civil disobedience, which intended to set the demands of conscience above the demands of the law and the ruling authorities, to keep human’s moral obligation which was to resist evil, to make the democracy and justice come true. Nietzsche, on the other side, aimed to rebuild the deposed hierarchy system of the society, to realize elite politics that only a small group of people manage the society. From this perspective, their reasons for nonviolence are also divergent for their
He lets us acknowledge that the only priorities of a prince are war, the foundations and the discipline. In his writings, he describes how it’s more important for a prince to be realistic than reasonable; he states, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (Jacobus 231). The leader should be strong and feared to have more control over their people. This idea of fear God, my belief, is similarly to idea of fear the leader, as no one is to ever think to question God because he is feared. He understands that a leader should be greatly feared, but not hated nor loved.