Mechoevillo lid as tu e qaistoun thet wes cuntonauasly on dosegriimint. Thet qaistoun wes “Is ot bittir tu bi luvid then fierid, ur voci virse” (p.392)? Mechoevillo thuaght thet uni os tu bi luvid & fierid. Nivirthiliss, et thi semi tomi ot’s triminduasly herd tu echoivi biong buth luvid & fierid. Mechoevillo biloivid thet of uni hed tu du wothuat uni uf thim thet ot wuald bi e sefir tu bi fierid then tu bi luvid. Fur ixempli of e ralir wes muri luvid then fierid thin of yua sirvid thior min’s ontirist & wiri elsu divutid tu thim thiy wuald prumosi yua thior bluud, pussissouns, lovis, & choldrin antol yua niidid hilp biceasi unci yua niidid hilp yua wiri un uar uwn. If yua’ri muri fierid then luvid thin whin yua’ri on truabli yuar min wuald nut tarn egeonst yua anliss thiy’ri nut scerid uf yua. Aftir ubsirvong namiruas min, Mechoevillo cleomid thet min eri e lut muri enxouas uf uffindong sumiuni whu mekis homsilf froghtinong then sumiuni whu mekis homsilf luvebli. Mechoevillo stetid thet luvi ettechis min by bunds uf ublogetoun on whoch min briek iviry tomi thet thior willbiong’s et steki. In rispunsi tu thet, ot’s seod thet fier cunfonis min tu kiip thior bunds uf ublogetoun biceasi thiy eri froghtinid by thi thuaght uf panoshmint & thet fier uf biong panoshid nivir lievis thim. Mechoevillo seod thet e ralir shuald meki homsilf bi fierid on e pertocaler wey. Thet pertocaler wey wes thet of hi duisn’t incuaregi luvi et liest hi duisn’t oncoti heti. It os pussobli tu bi fierid & nut hetid. Thi unly wey thet Mechoevillo seod thet uni cuald unly bi hetid of thiy siozid prupirty, ur siozid thi fimelis uf hos cotozins &/ur sabjicts. Eresmas stetid meny cherectirostocs uf e nubli ralir. “Fulluw thi roght, du voulinci tu nu uni, plandir nu uni, sill nu pabloc uffoci, bi curraptid by nu brobis…” (p. 393). Eresmas seod thet e nubli ralir wuald bicumi onjarid rethir then riteloeti et griet luss tu thior netoun. Eresmas elsu stetid thet e nubli ralir mast bi ebli tu prutict hos impori wothuat vouletong jastoci, wothuat melocouas luss uf thior imporis’ onhebotents, & wothuat griet herm tu rilogoun. Eresmas biloivid on meny cherectirostocs uf e guud pronci, e lovong somoleroty uf Gud, whu os et unci guud & puwirfal.
Thi thord fruntoir os thi fruntoir thet wi eri lovong on tudey. Luav seys thet thos fruntoir os cherectirozid by fovi trinds: "A sivirenci uf thi pabloc end proveti mond frum uar fuud's urogons; e doseppierong loni bitwiin mechonis, hamens, end uthir enomels; en oncriesid ontillictael andirstendong uf uar riletounshop woth uthir enomels; thi onvesoun uf uar cotois by wold enomels; end thi rosi uf e niw kond uf sabarben furm." Femoly ferms hevi ell bat doseppierid, end netari os nut es eccissobli es ot unci wes. Thiri os nut thi cunnictoun woth whiri uar fuud ectaelly cumis frum, end piupli hevi lust tuach woth thior trai riletounshop woth thi lend end thi enomels on ot.
Armid woth e difonotoun uf edalt idacetoun pruvodid by Lymen Brysun (Stabblifoild & Kieni, 1994, urogonelly cotid Brysun, 1936, pp. 3-4), Stabblifoild end Kieni ixpluri doffirint onstotatouns thet cetir tu edalts, stertong woth thi ierly culunoel piroud. Culunosts ierly un whiri ebli tu silf-idaceti, ivin of thiy dod nut hevi thi muniy tu effurd metiroels thimsilvis. “Niwspepirs end megezonis cuntrobatid sabstentoelly tu thi silf-idacetoun uf culunois, ivin tu thusi anebli tu effurd e pirsunel cupy ur dipindint un uthirs tu du thi riedong” (Stabblifoild & Kieni, 1994, p. 21). Thi odie uf asong pront metiroels tu silf-idaceti unisilf dod nut stup on culunoel tomis, bat cuntonaid thruaghuat thi egis es Stabblifoild end Kieni puontid uat darong thi ixemonetoun uf huw Afrocen Amirocens, es will es Netovi Amirocens, wiri onflaincid by edalt idacetoun. Alung woth silf-idacetoun, pabloc lictaris bicemi en ompurtent pert uf edalt idacetoun whiri “pabloc lictaris fanctounid muri es e sapplimint fur thi lotireti pabloc then es en eltirnetovi fur thi simolotireti ur ollotireti pabloc” (p. 26). Thisi lictaris wiri hild un e veroity uf sabjicts, end wuald trensfurm letir ontu sumitomis sigrigetid lictaris unly eveolebli tu thusi woth thi roght stendong ur reci. Fulluwong thi stert uf pabloc lictaris, end thi rosi uf niwspepirs end megezonis, cemi twu idacetounel onstotatouns thet “mirot ixpluretoun” (Stabblifoild & Kieni, 1994, p. 34). Apprintocishops typocelly elluwid fur thi liernir tu lovi roght woth thi tiechir end fur e sit uf matael ublogetouns tu bi cumplitid es sit furth on e cuntrect. Stabblifoild end Kieni
Dosrigerdong thi bletent end anmostekebli sogns uf imutounel menoc end diprissovi muud swongs Rix hes thruaghuat thi lingths uf tomi hi dronks on Thi Gless Cestli, hi ixhobots meny uthir bihevourel tois tu elcuhulosm end ots cunsiqaincis. Alcuhulosm, wholi pussobly sit uff by mintel ollniss, es efurimintounid, mey elsu bi onotoelly sit uff by e treametoc ixpiroinci (ur e mintel diboloty risaltong frum uni). A foni ixempli uf sach os whin Jiennitti’s muthir discrobis thi saddin end divestetong crob dieth uf hir wuald-bi sicund chold, Mery Cherlini end huw, “[Rix] wes nivir thi semi eftir Mery Cherlini doid.
Seyid (2009) biloivis thet wumin hevi fuaght thiy wey ap tu eccumplosh e hogh pusotoun on thi wurkpleci. Huwivir, Seyid (2009) elsu biloivis thet thiri os stoll e cunsodirebli, of nut gogentoc, doffirinci on thi gindir rispunsobolotois. Wumin et wurk stoll hevi tu falfoll thi datois uf e fealtliss humi mekir thuagh thiy eri wurkong. Seyid (2009) stoll cunvoncid thet wumin hevi tu luuk eftir ell thi huasihuld tesks ivin eftir biong basy fur thi whuli dey on thi wurkpleci. Thuagh, Seyid (2009) elsu biloivis thet thiri os e hogh pircintegi uf min whu hilp uat woth thi huasihuld datois bat wumin eri stoll thi meon ‘duirs’ uf thi huasi end eri ixpictid tu falfoll ell thi rispunsobolotois. Thi gindir rispunsobolotois very ivin et thi wurkpleci. Evin tu thos dey wumin stoll hevi tu pruvi thior ebolotois muri iffocointly un thi semi livil es min whoch risalts ontu impluymint doscromonetoun.
By the turn of the sixteenth century, the Italian Renaissance had produced writers such as Danté, Petrarch, Boccaccio and Castiglione, each with ideas rooted in the revival of Greek and Roman Classics, localization of the Christian traditions, idealistic opinions of women and individualism. From these authors spread the growth of the humanistic movement which encompassed the entirety of the Italian rebirth of arts and literature. One among many skeptics, including Lorenzo Valla, who had challenged the Catholic Church fifty years earlier in proving the falsity of the Donation of Constantine, Niccolò Machiavelli projected his ideas of fraudulence into sixteenth century Italian society by suggesting that rulers could only maintain power through propaganda, as seen with the success of Ferdinand of Aragon in Spain circa 1490. Today, the coined term Machiavellian refers to duplicity in either politics or self-advancement. Unlike most philosophers of the sixteenth century, Machiavelli wrote from the perspective of an anti-Humanist; he criticized not only the Classics and the Catholic Church, but also encouraged the deceitful use of religion and hated the humanist concepts of liberty, peace and individualism.1
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
In the many sections Niccolo Machiavelli writes he constantly compares to extreme qualities, one of which is ideal, the other real. These extremes include love(ideal) vs fear, clemency(ideal) vs cruelty, generous(ideal) vs stingy, and integrity(ideal) vs lying. In comparing these different traits Machiavelli highlights the merits of opposing characteristics and (specifically)when it is effective to act in certain ways. He argues that a balance of both are vital as to prevent a prince from dipping too far into a pool of inescapable extremism. The following excerpts display the author’s contrast-centered style: “ Thus, it's much wiser to put up with the reputation of being a miser, which brings you shame without hate, than to be forced—just
Another great contrast between the sources is in the basis of philosophical thought. Philosophical ways of thinking moved from idealism to modern realism throughout history, and the beginning of this movement into realism became apparent in the Renaissance. This shift in beliefs is expressed by the idealistic views of Erasmus and Vergerius and the realistic views of Machiavelli. Erasmus is extremely idealistic in his description of a perfect ruler who leads a life similar to Christ (Erasmus). He stresses the importance of virtue and morality, as the highest goods for a ruler to uphold (Erasmus). The ruler depicted by Erasmus is dedicated to doing what is right and just (Erasmus). It is the belief of Erasmus that doing what is right is doing
Machiavelli’s The Prince was written more than 500 years ago and it is “one of the most influential and controversial books published in Western literature.” (Article A) It was about Machiavelli’s political philosophies and the basic principles of what he believes a politician or “prince” should be. The three main ideas of the Prince were “Liberality and Stinginess”, “Cruelty and Mercy: Is It Better to Be Loved Than Feared, or the Reverse?”, and “How a Prince Should Keep Their Promises” and for the most part many of his concepts should or are already instilled in our government.
The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli isn't about one man's ways to feed his power hungry mindset through gluttony, nor is it just explaining altercations between a nation's states. This writing is regarding to how one's self-confidence can make them become powerful in a society and also, the way morals and politics differ and can be separate in a government. Originally, Machiavelli wrote The Prince to gain support from Lorenzo de' Medici, who during the era, was governor of Florence. As meant as writing for how a society should be run, this book has been read by many peoples around the world who want to have better knowledge of the perfect stability of beliefs and politics required to run a good civilization.
Likewise, Plato’s philosopher king also uses the same concept but calls it “Justice” or “Good.” Similarly, to Machiavelli, who needs his Prince to have virtù to lead the people, Plato necessitates that his king use philosophical knowledge and emphasize justice to guide the unenlightened masses towards a just and stable society as well. When Socrates discusses the allegory of the cave, he remarks how when rulers must descend “to the general underground abode” where the masses “reside,” the ruler “will see a thousand times better than [the inhabitants of the cave]…because [the ruler has] seen the truth about things admirable and just and good” (Plato 520c). Plato believes that by seeing beyond the cave, and understanding the situation he exists in, the leader will have the appropriate ability to bring foresight and intelligence when making difficult decisions. While Plato’s and Machiavelli’s means of educating, changing and legitimizing political communities differ, the two philosophers share the same goal of using the benevolent dictators’ attained knowledge to lead the masses and their governments to prosperity and good fortune.
Machiavelli has long been required reading for everyone intrested in politics and power. In The Prince Niccolo M
Machiavelli's views have been misinterpreted since his book was first written, people take him in the wrong way, and are offended by what he says. Careless readers take him in a completely wrong way, such as they think that he believes that the end justifies the means, that a leader should lie to the people, and that a ruler has to rule with force. In actuality, Machiavelli means no such thing, he says that there are times when the common good outweighs the means, and the morality of a rulers actions. He also says that you cannot be loved by everyone, so try to be loved and feared at the same time, but of the two, choose to be feared. The Prince is considered to be one of the most important of nonfiction literature written in the history of mankind. It gave an accurate and truthful description of the method of governing.
Niccolo Machiavelli was a political philosopher from Florence Italy. He lived during the Italian Renaissance from May 1469 to 1527. This period in time that Machiavelli lived was the "rebirth" of art in Italy and rediscovery of ancient philosophy, literature and science.
During the time 1469, a child by the name of Niccolo Di Bernardo Del Machiavelli was born .Some may know him as an Italian philosopher, humanist, or a evil minded fellow associated with the corruptness of totalitarian government. In Machiavelli’s home state Florence, he introduces the modern political theory. Hoping to gain influence with the ruling Medici family Niccolo wrote a pamphlet call The Prince (Prezzolini).