The Awakening - Kate Chopin

The Awakening, a sensuous novel, I enjoyed it very much.  It is nice to finally read more from female authors.  As a student who has most recently been studying anthropology courses, this novel reads like a narrative on an ethnography of a married's woman's life just before the turn of the 19th century.

Edna is clearly resisting gender and societal mores and norms.  She exposes explicitly women's sexuality, a taboo subject during her time.  She reasserts herself as an individual and as a woman, as opposed to as her husband's property.   She 'breaks loose', moves out, tries to support herself - she realizes in the sad ending that to be independent is to be alone as Mademoiselle Reisz is.  Mutual love that cannot ever be realized between Edna and Robert.

Edna's children do not seem to get much attention from her as she is busy with her personal awakening but in the end, she sacrfices herself so as not to taint their reputations and future.  Is it a sacrifice of love for her children? I am not clear.  The children are talked about at some points as a burden as while she can sever her ties on her husband, she cannot do so with her children.  They weigh her down.  She ends her life to end her loneliness/misery which she knows will accompany her whole life as an independent woman.  Did she 'awaken' and remembered her children in the end?  I am not sure...

I can certainly relate to Edna's awakening.  Many of us have in our own ways, broken out of our old molds by breaking social and gender norms.  Not all women have a maternal instinct.  I have not really desired to procreate, not because I view them as a burden, on the contrary, I adore and love kids and generally feel happy around them but I am too afraid to take the risk to become a mother and I just do not see the need to create a mini-me.  I have fallen into the trap in the past that independence meant empowerful, which it is in many days, but if one is still mentally in chains, one cannot truly be free.  I was once in love and I was very independent but my mental chains were tying me to a man I was hopelessly in love with - the problem is that it was an abusive relationship, mentally and financially.  And so Edna's 'rebirth' or 'awakening' speaks dear to me as I have awakened oh so many times: (1) to recognize myself as an individual but to remember my relationship to others around me,  (2) to become more socially aware and to actually care and to get angry about issues, angry enough to want to do something, (3) to be aware of the horrific suffering of animals that was just 'food' to me in the past, to be completely moved by my willful blindess to this large scale suffering, brought out extreme guilt in me..  which I am still in the process of reconciling.  I have been seeking a Krishna last year to teach me, to tell me what to do...  I realize later rather than never that only I, hold the answers to my own internal dilemmas..  but dialogue certainly helps.  To hear different perspectives.  I try to convey this in my work, when students ask me "What should I study?", "What should I become?" and so forth.

It is sad that Edna ends her life abruptly at the end.  I have experienced depression/despair - I think we all have and can understand the pain that one feels when one is grieving or in despair.  I would certainly never advocate suicide as the solution but I can understand wanting to end the pain or to die rather than to live in chains, be it real or metaphorically speaking.

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (ch. 1-4) - Mary Wollstonecraft

A lot that was said in Wollstonecraft's text back in 1792 seems to eerily still ring true.  Much has changed but much also has not.

Women tying their pride and self-worth on her looks still sadly ring true today.  Decorating yourself and spending a lot of time and money on it is generally still the norm.  The justifications that I have heard from this activity include
(1) I work hard and I deserve to treat myself - in other words, materialism and consumerism become the material (false) reward for our Protestant Work Ethic, a prevalent idea that doesn't get investigated enough!
(2) I was to look sexy and good to the opposite sex and also make myself feel good - in other words, mistaking dressing scantily and getting cat calls or other objectified "compliments" as a form of empowerment.

I, too, fell into this trap of a mindset.  Gender roles and expectations are taught and reinforced to us from childhood and into adulthood.  Pink is for girls, trucks are for boys, women don't become carpenters and so on.  Well, says who?!  I agree with Wollstonecraft that education is an important tool for women's empowerment, but not just rational education but spiritual education too.  Education is but a tool, women must also know how to apply the knowledge that they obtain.  Why is it that despite the relatively high level of education of women in the West received, we not the less subscribe to shallow activities that relate to our vanity and thus to our self-worth?  Is it because our sensibility takes our our rational mind?  The 'wants' often overtake the 'needs' after all.

Keeping women and other people of colour ignorant was certainly a clever ploy of some powerful men of the past.  Obedience is consider a virtuous value - why is that?  This still rings too today.  Women who stand up and speak their minds get labeled male-like or 'not a good' girl (if she is a young woman).  The false bias of women as children is still around today.  Just last week, a colleague of mine referred to one woman in her 40's as a 'girl'.  I think he realized his error and tried to save his face by telling me, "It was only a joke".  This concept of obedience as a good virtue is similar to how we consider a dog, a good dog - essentially by his obedience.  Something to think about.

Julie, or the New Héloïse - Rosseau

The first thing that struck me about this text is the role reversal of 'norms'. In Abelard and Heloise, Heloise was the 'weakling' where as in Julie, Julie commands over the male partner, Saint-Preux.  Julie is the teacher vs. Abelard as the teacher. In some ways, Saint-Preux seems more passionate to me that the female whereas it is the opposite in A&H.

Very evocative language, very passionate.

Merging of characters (shared thoughts and feelings) (58, 115) - a love based on virtue rather than the physical/tangible - reminiscent of the divine love as advocated by Socrates in Plato's Symposium.

The concepts of benevolence, virtue and duty reminds me very much of Mencius.  Ideas replicate themselves around the world at different times.

Music and the arts a production of passion (106) - agreed! Although one can produce 'art' by just copying a piece of work, these types of work tend not to move people emotionally.

Humanitarian politeness (107) - an important concept! and so much more meaningful than politeness based on rank/class.  Perhaps a little lacking these days (and perhaps always).  In a sense, one is being virtuous and true to one's self, to one's principles.  Like Antigone although one could argue she wasn't exactly polite...

I do not agree with Rosseau that virtue means doing duty to family.  I do but not if your family is abusive, which I believe to be the case in Julie's case, concerning her father, more specifically.  Duty is a double edged sword like love or folly.  Duty to family should not be the absolute cases.  It needs to be a general rule but make room for a case to case basis (like Hume's philosophy).

The concept of virtue seems a bit strange to me.  In a way, it seems to be self-hating in denying your own happiness and to deny yourself the person who loves you and vice versa.  I do believe in the mantra that you need to love yourself to love others and you cannot do this if you are unhappy.  As such, to remain unhappy is doing a disservice to own's self and all others.  Virtue is a bit of a loaded term I suppose much like love, passion, etc.  As Steve said, through our modern lens, we would have wanted Julie and Saint-Preux to have eloped, start a new life - this in many ways seems more virtuous to me.

Treating slaves better is 'progress' but not really at the same time - it is a band aid solution and should not be accepted as virtuous!

I do appreciate his critique of high society however and the corrupting effects of institutional rules and the lack of autonomy resulting from this restriction.

An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals - Hume

I definitely agree with Hume that both reason and sentiment/passion constitute morality.  Reason and passion are not separate realms to me - they are one, a continuum within a circle.  Why does western traditions tend to create seemingly so much more dichotomy than eastern traditions?

I think about my veganism and my very, very strong feelings on animals.  I care about animals.  I care deeply for my companion dog, Kaslo. To me, the thought of eating meat is akin to the thought of eating Kaslo.  That is how strong my feelings are.  While I have multiple rational reasons for not consuming or using any animal or animal by products, it is really my sentiment on animals that acts as the glue that holds my rational thoughts together.

That said, I do not know if I would say that passion trumps reason or vice versa.  They're both important in their own ways.  Some of Hume's writings reminds me of Mencius' writings.  Hume talks about the utility of morality in which one acts never fully in self-interest but in the interest of others/public whole.  Morality and good conduct helps to maintain a sense of order, civility and justice in society.  This is reminiscent of Mencius' theory that duty/benevolence to family will create a domino effect of duty/benevolence to society, to the state, etc.  The benefits of morality increases exponentially from one to many.  Morality is definitely a good system of governance if it works - if in theory, people abide by good morals and do their duties to themselves, to family, to friends, to society.

Love the shift away from abstract and religious dogma of morality that we have been reading so much of.

Afterclass thoughts: I will still have to agree that while sometimes the is and the ought cannot be reconciled logically, we feel that there is a right and a wrong action.  Rationalism is a great way to organize one's thoughts but rationalism is not universal, especially in the realm of spirituality and morality.  Perhaps that is why the union of strong sentiments that accompany rational thoughts is called the thinking heart by Mencius.  Even in the West, the heart is used as a symbol for benevolence and compassion.  Sentiment and rationalism are both important elements in our decision-making process - they cannot be separated or be pitted against each other.

What is Enlightenment? Kant

The freedom to make public reasoning while dutifully using our private use of reason - a topic that is very relevant today.  It seems like this is what is encouraged today. Get up, go to work, work hard for eight hours, go home exhausted.  Got beef against economic injustices and environmental degradation?  Write a letter to the Premier.  Sign a petition.  Business as usual.  Obey.  The minute you disrupt business (especially international trade), force and violence may be used against you.

Will we really reach public enlightenment through the method advocated by Kant?  Removal of religious dogma and tight state control is certainly a healthy start, I agree.  If we must conduct business as usual, how will social change really occur?  Would we not merely be paying lip service to issues of social justice and environmental degradation then?  How to create true resistance?  I agree with Kant that the contradictions arising from one's use of public vs. private reasoning creates dissent and resistance but how to activate this resistance in an experiential and material way?  I feel trapped in this paradox right now and have been for a long time...

I have to agree with Kant in some ways on revolution.  I believe that the Occupy Movement, the Arab Springs all constitute a very historical slow revolution.  But while people may be resisting, they may not all be 'enlightened'.  The issue of how to change people's awareness has been deep on my mind especially since 2009.  I struggled to make people see what I see on the issue of the Olympic Games in Vancouver and all around the world.  Now, in the context of the Occupy Movement, many have joined in with the cause but some are in the cause for self-interested reasons rather than for global justice.  The movement is diverse and it cannot be expected that thousands of persons all think alike.  This causes fractures in the movement.  The revolution cannot forge ahead with so much internal dissent.  Kant's discussion is still relevant today and of great importance - how to change the public's awareness and to create mass public enlightenment?  I have many questions but no answers... but the main thing to keep in mind is solidarity and to remember where the battle lies.  Internal bickering, egos must subsist in favour of the utility of the majority.  The 'battle' is not within the 99% at the moment - it is with the 1% and its supporters.

In Praise of Folly - Erasmus

A fantastic scathing critique of religious men, intellectuals and of those in power/of the upper class.  It seems timeless like it was written just yesterday!  I absolutely loooove the critiques in this book!

Sleep (as a follower of Folly) appears here as it does in Pilgrim's Progress.  What's with 'sleep'?  Maybe my classmates will be able to enlighten my slow mind...

I interpret Folly as humour in the part when she talks about wisdom withour folly would be unbearable and I think this true in many ways.  In this imperfect world of suffering, humour is an important coping mechanism.  Recently, at a friend's mother's 70th birthday celebration, her legs just gave out outside Hart House Restaurant and she fell and couldn't get up.  We later found out that she broke her hip.  The first thing that the parademic said to us was, "Okay, which one of you pushed her down?"  It made me laugh in a tense and stressful time.  There is certainly much wisdom (although incomplete wisdom) in Folly!

Then there is the darker Folly as discussed in class.  Perhaps Folly is a double-edged sword.  Love is generally known as something good.  We all desire love.  But love can bite you too as the rapper, KRS One notes in "Love's Gonna Get You".  He is talking about material love more specifically.  So although love is good, not love of everything is good.  You can transfer this philosophy to Folly as well.  Sometimes, it is wise to be foolish, to enjoy life, to take things easy and in perspective.  I didn't see Folly so much as 'two faced' as a classmate mentioned but rather that there are different degrees of Folly.

Erasmus' religion/God is one I can believe in.  Remove the dogma and ridiculous abstractions of religion and god and you are left with spirituality.  If there is one thing in common with most religion, it is that they all preach morality.  For a secular person like myself, I equate morality with humanity or humanism.  Can humanism thus be called a religion?  I think humanism is a form of spirituality - of connectivity with others and one's surroundings.

I didn't really know the background behind Erasmus and didn't realize until class that he was a bit of a fence-sitter and sought to reform the church from within.  I can understand why Steve would dislike this philosophy as my philosophy would be similar.  That said, I still enjoyed the text very much.  I prefer the darker humour in the last half of the book and not so much the lighter humour in the first half of the book.  I think the dark humour is so much funnier because it is sadly a true commentary on how things were (though exaggerated).

I am thinking back to King Lear's Fool.  When the truth is spoken truth a Fool (or satire/humour), it seems to be tolerate as Lear tolerates the wisdom of the Fool but banishes Cordelia when she speaks the truth.  Here, Erasmus is able to speak the truth about religious men and other privileged/upper class men pretty freely through a satire.

Pilgrim's Progress - Part I

In many ways, this text reminds me of Dante's Inferno.  Both are journeys towards salvation although the contexts are somewhat different.  A beautifully written tale.  I love the symbolism and themes in this text, minus the Christian message...  As with other Christian texts, I am finding it very, very difficult to plough through them.  It is extremely difficult to remove my bias about Christianity.  What irks me is the wrathful God and the "Love me or burn in hell for eternity" message.  It really is hard not to get angry at times... Ellie mentioned that this text is not taught in theology classes.  While this may be true, my partner tells me that he had to read/learn excerpts from this text in Sunday school.  Like Sarah, this makes my blood boil.  To poison children's minds, to put fear into them is plain wrong to me.  I know Ellie talks about various scholars' interpretation of this text but ultimately, this text was written with an intent that was not secular despite what modern scholars say/think/feel.  I understand that you can still interpret it in a secular way, nonetheless and make this text work for you, for your worldview.  I can appreciate the message of taking (reasonable) risks in life but none of this fear mongering stuff.  It's just absolutely appalling to me.

I think Ignorance is an unfair name for the character.  I didn't feel that he was ignorant.  He was at worse, Misguided and at best, Faithful/Obedient.  To have led a good life but to be cast to hell for eternity - wow, and you want me to love this God??  Bunyan, you're just not convincing me of your theology...

Best picture in my search of 'pilgrim's progress'

I do not believe in the Marxist interpretation that Ellie mentioned and am quite frankly baffled by this interpretation as someone who subscribes to Marxist ideology.  I see this story of salvation more in line with this line from Marx: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."  This happy-ending cautionary fairy tale (as I see it) is a lovely story but that is all it is to me.  The story gave the working class hope that there will be something better in some other world/life.  It gives them hope in their harsh conditions in this material world.  Sometimes, we just need hope and religion can provide such hope.  I get it but do not subscribe to it.

Like Rachel, I enjoyed the 'adventure' element in the first quarter of the story but as I progress through my 'journey' of this text, I enjoyed it less and less.  As mentioned above, it is really difficult to detach from the awful theology in this text...

The pilgrim goes through trials and tribulations, makes mistakes, learns from them, suffers and then with guidance, reaches salvation - very Dante's Inferno!

One thing that struck me in this text is 'sleep'.  Sleep appears for the most bad to be something bad, something that hinders you and puts you behind in whatever journey you journey.  A strong word like 'sin' was even used!  I am not too clear what sleep connotes.  The lack of faith in God?  Or a put-down of bodily/earthly functions?

Civility, Legality and Worldly Wiseman.  Earthly laws, desires and order cannot cleanse one of sins.  Salvation cannot come through earthly or human means.

The pilgrim journeys from the City of Destruction to the Celestial City and in between encounters wilderness, Giant and other creatures.  Perhaps this ties into Genesis in which wilderness denotes that one has strayed from the right path of God.  The spiritual (rather than the earthly) City is the ultimate destination as a place of comfort.

Map of Pilgrim's Progress

A Discourse on the Method - René Descartes

I have much admiration for a man who studied even false knowledge (8) in order not to be deceived by them and who values experiential learning and not just 'book learning (10).  Descartes' reasoning on methodology makes sense on some levels but on others, it does not.

How would one accept something as incontrovertibly true? (17)
I see a tree, I can feel it - must it then be true?  I suppose it is rational to answer in the positive but what of those who suffer from mental illnesses in which their paranoia of e.g. someone following me (even though no one else is around).  The stalker may not be true to me but it is very true for the person who suffers from paranoia.  "I think therefore I am" - there is certainly truth to this, in proving one's existence but for the sake of argument, what of those humans who are in a coma but living.  Is this person thinking?  And if not, does this person exists?  We know that this person physically exists but if someone does not have rational mind, does this render their existence futile?  I have more questions than answers/comments for Descartes' text...  I realize that Descartes does not rely entirely on our senses to perceive the world but to separate sensory experiences from mind from body does not make sense...

While I see the logic in Descartes' reasoning of categorizing items for analysis (17), I would argue that there are some things that logic cannot necessarily address.  Spirituality is one of them.  I suppose for some religious persons, 'faith' rather than 'logic' guides their spirituality.  Also, some things just cannot be put into words or categorized.  e.g. the beauty of nature cannot be logically reasoned.

Part III, third maxim (23): I agree with his idea that changing desires, in a Buddhist sense - in essence to mitigating desires and thus 'suffering'/stress but I disagree that one cannot change the world and that one can only change our thoughts.  I understand that there are some things in nature that we just cannot change (and then there are things in nature that we ought not change but do anyway leading to environmental destruction) but I do think that change requires collective actions from all humans.  We can change the world through our actions and thoughts.  I think the Occupy Movement is a good example.  The civil rights movement is another.  Change may be small but incremental nonetheless and may take hundreds of years to achieve.  Descartes' philosophy seem to hinder this change, at least in the way that I am reading it.. and I will have to strongly disagree with him on this issue.

I also disagree with Descartes' separation of body from soul/mind. As we learned from Professor Paul Crowe, this concept does not exist in Confucianism.  My view is that our thinking mind relies heavily on our body.  If we stop breathing even for a very short period of time and oxygen no longer flows to our brain, our brain will start to 'die' rapidly resulting in brain damage or death. Then, by this logic, our mind is very, very much tied to our body.  It is much, much more than just a machine as Descartes puts it.  The body and mind absolutely depend on each other.  To privilege one over the other does not seem logical to me.  At the same time, he claims a union of mind and body!  Animals do not have a mind and are only a machine.  We supposedly have a rational mind and thus can be hungry and feel pain because we have a mind and a (machine) body.  Sorry but Descartes can't have his cake and eat it too..  This argument is not just jiving...

I also find his theory on the existence of God highly dubious.  We are incomplete/inperfect, therefore there must be a perfect being out there whom we depend on (30).  Bad things like sadness, doubt, etc. cannot exist from Him (30).  Descartes himself said that he will only take as truth those things that he knows to be absolutely true.  How does he absolutely know about God's existence?  I find his logic flawed and his reasoning circular in this particular issue.  He knows he exists because he has a thinking mind but on what basis other than faith does he know of God's existence?  I am reminded of SFU's PHIL XX1 Critical Thinking course.  While I do not disagree that good reasoning provides for a good methodology and analysis, I cannot see this applied in every single instance.  The issue of God is definitely one of them.  The course title is misleading to me.  Logic does not always lead to good reasoning in all instances.

I strongly disagree with his theory on animals!  Animals feel pain, joy, suffering, hunger, pain just like we do.  Anyone who has spent time with animals on a personal level knows this. They are most definitely not machines as he theorizes.  He seems to be stabbing himself in the foot.  He said himself that he will take as truth only what he knows as incontrovertibly true.  Well, how on earth does he know that they have no mind just because animals do not know language in the manner that humans do?  Unfortunately, it is theories like Descartes' that support the inhumane treatment of animals and the destruction of nature (as something to be molded/conquered).

Afterclass thoughts: First of all, I really enjoyed Professor Lisa Shapiro's seminar!  And I can appreciate the method professed by Descartes as an excellent way to organize in a logical sequence but again, while a useful method, it still nonetheless is not as universal as he professes it to be in this specific text (e.g. spirituality).  I still have problems with his thesis on god.  I think that if we replace soul/mind with energy and god with life, I can relate to his thesis a bit better:
the soul is immortal and does not need the body = energy cannot be created or destroyed. energy from death will regenerate into energy for new life.
god = the life force of nature that we do not really have the ability to explain.
If I interpret Descartes this way, I can appreciate his thesis a lot more.  However, even which this 'newfound' appreciated, I still think that his rationale for the existence of god as very flawed.  Just because we are incomplete/imperfect, there is no logic to say that there is some perfection out there, whatever we take "god" to mean.

King Lear

I confess that the thought of reading Shakespeare scares me.  The only Shakespeare I've ever read was Taming of the Shrew in English 11 and Macbeth in English 12, many, many moons ago.  I had difficulty understanding the language then and I confess that I still do today.  Somehow, just reading the play doesn't bring about the vivid imagery for me and so it was helpful for me to rewatch Ran, Akira Kurosawa's version of King Lear before reading the text.  Perhaps I rely on the visuals to fully understand Shakespeare as I enjoy and 'get it' when I attend Bard on the Beach plays.

I'll discuss a few themes/events/characters that stuck out for me.

Ironic that the Fool is the wisest character in the play!  He sees through all the characters' motives and the bad and/or wise decisions they make.  He warns Lear of his errors but Lear does not see it.  It is only through a series of unfortunate events causing Lear's downfall and suffering that he begins to realize his poor judgement in banishing Cordelia and Kent and elevating Goneril and Regan.  It is is a sense only by being the "Other" (e.g. the banished: Cordelia and Kent) that he understands what it is like to be banished/refused/disrespected/powerless.  And in the end, the suffering makes turns him into a better man.  A theme similar to Julian of Norwich, Dante's Inferno.  He redeemed himself at the very end but dies from the grief over the one daughter who loved him, Cordelia.

Loyalty seems to me to be a theme that really stands out.  I am impressed by Cordelia and Kent's loyalty (a form of love, I suppose but I wouldn't call it outright love necessarily) to Lear.  Their sense of duty reminds me of the sense of duty advocated by Mencius.  In this particular case, the loyalty of Cordelia and Kent also translates as compassion - compassion and empathy for the now poor and powerless Lear. Again, I see the theme of identifying with the "Other".  It is through identification with the "Other" that compassion can be made possible.

Honesty - Cordelia and Kent's action of speaking the truth causes them banishment and loss of power while Goneril, Regan and Edmund's lies get them 'ahead in the game' - at least in the beginning.  Very Machiavellian.  Deceit brings power.  In his particular case though, Goneril, Regan and Edmund "lose" in the end and suffer tragedy themselves.  Justice is meted, so to speak (except for Cordelia and Gloucester). Kent is elevated to ruler at the end of the tragedy and in a sense, his honesty and loyalty brings him power although in tragic circumstances.  Cordelia on the other hand, is murdered.  A sacrifice of all that is good - sort of like Christ.

Gloucester's gouged eyes - very dramatic.  Perhaps this symbolizes his 'blindness' in not being able to see through Edmund's plots?  Or his 'blindness' in not recognize Edmund as his own flesh and blood (rather than as a 'bastard child').

Aging - Lear's aging is a return to infanthood in the eyes of Goneril and Regan.  He is to be rendered powerless and be told what to do by his two oldest daughter.  He challenges this but to no avail.

Afterclass thought: I find it a bit offensive the ageism discussed in this class.  There was the question of Cordelia as a young passionate/stubborn 'child'.  Ditto with Antigone and also Heloise. I catch myself being ageist at times too, at aged 35, no 'spring chicken' myself.  It is not fair to pick on youthfulness and to equate it with naivity/passion and though unspoken, in a sense stupidity.  With age, does not necessarily come wisdom.  To imply this is incorrect and unfair.  I work with young university students and sure, I encounter plenty of naive youth but I also encounter amazing youth that puts me into awe their awareness and wisdom despite their young age.  I wished I had been that aware at 20 but sadly, I was not.

It was not clear to be that there was a fixed 'ritual' at the beginning of the play until Budra pointed it out...

Interesting that Lear treats the Fool well and accepts his honesty yet banishes Cordelia for her honesty.

"King Lear" and the Fool in Akira Kurosawa's Ran

The Prince - Niccolò Machiavelli

I am not clear if this text is meant as a guide for rulers or if it is meant as merely an accurate reflection of what successful rulers have done in the past in order to maintain their power.  Perhaps a little of both?  What is most fascinating is how the text accurately reflects many of today's rulers system of governance many, many years later.  What a complete contrast to Mencius' ways of governing!  I have to say that Mencius' philosophy is much dearer to my heart than Machiavelli's!  It seems to me that the ends justify the means, no many how unethical the means are.

On keeping promises/being true to the prince's word (ch. 18):
While Machiavelli advocates keeping to one's word, he has no qualms with deception by any means necessary either.  I am thinking to George Orwell's 1984 in government censorship and doublespeak - a definite form of deception.  And of course, how can I not think of Bush, Powell, Rice, Cheney and their cronies in their deceptions about the Iraq war and (the lack of) weapons of mass destructions and their justifications of torture.  I am perpetually amazed that they are free men and that not more people see through their deception.  Perhaps deception and propaganda advocated by Machiavelli is just that powerful...

Ditto for the ch. 15 on virtues.  Be virtuous but abandon it when necessary - wow.  Two faced, in other words.  For this, I am reminded of Obama.  He was the 'new hope' for America.  People cried when he won the election.  He gets incorrectly labeled as a socialist which he is most absolutely not!  Being a cynic, I never had hopes in him or hope of change through government.  He was seen and is still seen as the kind and nice president.  Somehow, the fact that he is leading wars and bombing South Asia and the Middle East seems to have escaped people's consciousness.  The fact that more people have been deported from the USA since his presidency also seems to have lost in all the 'hope' message.  I haven't heard "Yes, we can" since he won, have you?

I do not disagree with the author's premise that humans are generally self-interested creatures but I do also believe in humanity, that we also have the ability to think about others, not just ourselves.  Of course, we put ourselves first, out of self-preservation but think of the past examples of goodness of humanity (people sharing the one loave of bread with others because they could not bear to not do so in war, disasters, etc., people saving human lives, risking their lives doing do (e.g. Rwanda genocide, Holocaust).

Afterclass thoughts: I confess that I was viewing this book through my current day lens.  I understand that Italy was in turmoil but can unity and order be reached by the methods advocated by Machiavelli?  I don't know.  I don't know what I would do if I was a prince and my kingdom was being invaded.  My questions are more of (1) What gives anyone a right to rule over others?  Especially with cruelty (if necesary) - I mean, what does that mean???  Who determines when cruelty is necessary?  Who and how many persons get to determine the fate of an entire people  and area?  Why should there be kingdoms at all?  How would the actions of a prince as advocated by Machiavelli be different from that of a dictator's? Machiavelli was an 'advisor'.  I liked what Will said in class.  Advisors' talk is cheap in that they never have to go out to battle.  Perhaps they may think differently if they did.