Machiavelli And Friedrich | A comparison

Machiavelli And Friedrich | A comparison It is interesting to note that Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) share a great deal of similarity, so that in fact, both have at one time been referred by the clergy of their times as the herald of the antichrist. Nevertheless, the similarity that exists between the two is mainly underpinned by their philosophical standpoints, given that Machiavellis and Nietzsches philosophical postulations were characterized by their antithetical standpoints towards Christian values, ethics and doctrines. Particularly, a case in point is Machiavellis maxim that the end justifies the means. In his II Principe, Machiavelli sees man as a political animal, but not because of mans gregarious tendencies as seen by Aristotle. To Machiavelli, man is a political animal in that in the quest for power, he has to act swiftly and be very cunning. Therefore, this brings in the concepts of competition which ensures that only those who are really determined and enthusiastic on whatever they are doing are able to keep up with the stiff competition. The divergence between Machiavelli and Christianity is further widened when he maintains that to seize and consolidate political power, it is necessary for the prince to move faster than his real and perceived enemies and crush them. The rationale behind this standpoint is that the person who moves fast and first emerges the victor, whereas the slow paced are victims (Machiavelli, 175). The similarity between the above standpoint and Nietzsches ideas is that both advocate against Christian ethics such as modesty and justice. Similarly, both disagree with the very fundamentals of Christian ethic as they both see man as an animal, whereas Christianity sees man as the most important being, with this importance being underpinned by rationality and morality. Therefore, the concept of seeing human being an important being they are regarded as civilized and are not intended to act like animals such as being not thoughtful. The main difference between human beings and animals is that human beings have conscious and are able to think and reason out in whatever they do unlike animals. Nevertheless, Nietzsches animal instincts of man is covertly mentioned, as he only refers to it, by critiquing Christianity for shutting its doors on pleasure, self, the natural and appetitive elements of man. In so assuming their controversial standpoints, both Machiavelli and Nietzsche postulate that the need to act towards self preservation, self actualization and self aggrandizement is paramount. This relegates man into likeness with the animal kingdom, given that the animal kingdom is merely driven by the need for self preservation, through instincts. As it were, the place for rationality in lieu of pure pleasure and self seeking is not given a big berth by both Nietzsche and Machiavelli. This is well proven by the fact that Machiavelli casts aspersion on the importance of values such as trust and mutual respect or agreement. Machiavelli argues that after fatally closing in on political enemies, the Prince must later on turn to his friends and eliminate them, since friends as confidants will have accrued a lot of political and administrative secrets adequate to turn against the Prince. However, it is important to take note of the fact that Nietzsche and Machiavelli had somewhat different reasons for assuming their controversial standpoints. While Nietzsche maintained his standpoint on the account that he saw Christianity a curse and God as being dead [non-existent] as the basis of his standpoint, Machiavellis concern was not concerned with atheism, theism or the concern over the existence of a deity. Machiavelli did not write his radical standpoint for the sake of dethroning Christianity, unlike Nietzsche. In respect to the above development, as a matter of fact, by conjoining ethics to Christianity, and criticizing Christianity for its moralist stands and its shunning of pleasure, debauchery and self seeking, Nietzsche basically made a dereliction on the importance of ethics and morality as important constructs that hold the society together. It is at the same time, this juncture that Machiavelli and Nietzsche part ways, as far as their philosophical standpoints are concerned. Despite his radical political standpoints Machiavelli sees the need for tampering political administration and rule with some elements of ethics. This standpoint is seen explicitly when Machiavelli urges the Prince to always make sure that he did not amass wealth and affluence by rapine. Similarly, Machiavelli argued that in order that the Prince realizes a peaceful and stable administration, it is important that he stayed away from mens women and wives. To Machiavelli, the failure to steer clear of mens wives and the failure to shun the temptation of wealth acquisition through larceny are the very factors that would drive men into vengeful tendencies and thereby sparking off a political resistance, and subsequently, instability. To any one analyst or careful reader, this is indeed a moralist standpoint. So moralist it is that many a world leader has not been able to keep. This is not the case with Nietzsche. In almost the same vein, Machiavelli does not see religion as being retrogressive or disposable to the domains under the Prince. As a matter of fact, Machiavelli reiterates to the need by the Prince, to desist from interfering with the Church and religious matters. To Machiavelli, the failure to do so would warrant the loathing by the masses. As a corollary to this standpoint, Machiavelli advised the Prince on the need to acquaint himself with the clergy, so as to be able to rule effectively. However, it must be remembered that Machiavelli advised the Prince on the need to ensure that the Church remained under the control of the state, since the Church existed under the auspices of his domains, and the Prince ought to know the developments taking place within his jurisdiction. On the other hand, Nietzsche in his condescending criticism against the Christian religion or faith, becomes blinded to the point of disposing off, any need for morality, ethics and self restraint. To him, the fact that God is dead has given man the liberty to indulge himself. This is the fatal mistake of Nietzsches works (Nietzsche and Mencken, 139). Conclusion There is no civilization that can exist in the absolute absence of ethics. In the same vein, it is not tenable, the idea of governance and administration of a people who have a totally laissez faire condition to do as they please. The veracity of this concept is well established by the law which seeks to control and ward off the excesses of man. Nietzsche fails to realize that removing the concept of absolute authority to which all are accountable is to issue a blank check on mans actions. On the other hand, handing man absolute rights will make life intractable, given that in seeking to exercise these absolute rights, the rights of others and the authority of the state to exercise its powers will have been compromised. In summation, it is important to realize that the main difference that lay in Machiavellis and Nietzsches works was that of purpose. While Machiavelli only sought to advise the Prince on the technicalities of politics, Nietzsche mainly sought to produce an atheistic t reatise.

Analysis Of Multidisciplinary Counter Intelligence Essay -- essays res

The United States today is becoming more and more dependant upon technological developments to gather intelligence. The â€Å"secret agents† of yesterday are very close to being obsolete. With technology becoming the prime source of intelligence gathering, there is an assumption that other countries are gathering intelligence in similar ways. The only way to combat intelligence gathering against the United States is to know what technological intelligence collection resources are being used for gathering information. This is the job of Multidisciplinary Counterintelligence (MDCI). How does the government know that lines are secure from signals intelligence of foreign adversaries? One of the main tasks of MDCI is the â€Å"communication line† of the American Government. Radio waves can easily be detected with the right equipment anywhere within the area, and even microwaves can be detected with a receiver in the right place. MDCI combats these problems with encryption for messages and secure lines for voice communication. The encryption process is found on the governments SIPRnet web, which is used for the transfer of classified information only. For voice communications, the government uses secured lines that will scramble communications into meaningless sounds or scratches. The only problem with these types of devices is that they cannot be located just anywhere and can be very expensive to maintain; furthermore, facilities must be able to support these classified mediums. With all o...

Chess vs Human

It is hard to distinguish between that that is better in chess Human or Artificial Intelligence. Some would say humans because of their critical thinking and throwing computer off guard. And others would say artificial intelligence like Deep Blue because of its capability to calculate upto 4,000,000 chess moves per second as compare to human chess player who could only calculate upto three moves in a second. But in my opinion I think human has the upper hand. Human plays better chess than Artificial Intelligence. We know that presently computers can only use the intelligence that is load in it.It is not capable of thinking anything else as human minds can do so. All the moves that computer make are based on the series of calculations and this all based on the positions of the pieces on the chessboard. A computer chess program like Deep Blue makes its move by using its evaluation function. The evaluation function is an algorithm that measures the chess position. Positions with positiv e values are good for ‘White’ and positions with negative values are good for ‘Black’ (IBM Research – Deep Blue – Overview).Here is where I think that human has the upper hand while playing chess with an artificial intelligence. Human chess players use their skills, judgment and previous experiences to decide about the moves they are going to make next (Connor, 1993). And artificial intelligence moves are based on its algorithms and so a human chess player can disturb its algorithms making an unusual move that artificial intelligence does not recognize. In 1996, Gary Kasparov beat Deep Blue by 4-2 in a â€Å"regulation-style match† held in Philadelphia.Although Gary Kasparov lost the opening game to Deep Blue but he came game back and won the game 2. â€Å"Gary Kasparov won in an interesting ending, though due to programming errors the computer in that game played without any opening database. Two draws followed. Kasparov's second win came in Game 5 after the IBM programmers refused a draw offer even though Deep Blue considered the position roughly equal. In this game, Deep Blue demonstrated its lack of understanding of the danger of a kingside pawn majority.In Game 6, Kasparov totally outplayed Deep Blue by gaining a ecisive space advantage and by avoiding any weaknesses. In this game, Kasparov trapped the computer's rook and bishop, in part because the IBM programmers had never properly adjusted a parameter that signals when bishops are trapped† (Lesson 4: Deep Blue vs. Kasparov). Here a human player skills, experience and critical thinking helped him to win the match against artificial intelligence. Also it also shows that artificial intelligence has flaws in its. And how can it not have flaws. Artificial intelligence is created by us ‘Humans’. And we are not the perfect being on this planet.So how could we create something that is better or at our level in every circumstance of the life? We could not. We tried cloning and we failed in it to. So how could we create an artificial intelligence that is by no means different from us? We are not God, so we could not create anything like what He has created. â€Å"Although Man has done a pretty good job in creating his own complexities here on Earth, they're still nowhere near what Nature has done on her own†(Artificial intelligence vs. Human intelligence). Furthermore, the human brain has the capacity to do anything.Its possibilities are endless, which is why the imagination is so powerful. And computers lack the traits of humans; they are tools for our use and are limited physically. Computer cannot do anything on its own. Series of arguments and methods are inserted in it in order to preform an action. â€Å"But humans have the capacity to store information indefinitely, seeing as how we cannot be rebooted or turned off/on†(Intelligence: Artificial vs. Human). Also â€Å"The human brain is the most complex part of the human body if not the most complex subject known to human kind.Although a computer may work on a complicated series of circuits and processors it is a relatively simple item to understand in comparison to the human brain. So many important functions of the brain is beyond our understanding and has un-quantifiable properties† (Artificial Intelligence). Thus a simple program, which uses artificial intelligence by no means, is capable of beating a complex human brain. Another important point is that Howard’s mentioned is that intelligence suddenly changed in the last 30 years, while several putative causal factors had been present since 1920, such as the fact that chess became a popular sport, many illions played.Also chess participation rate was very high, chess was taught in schools and factories, and was identified early and given special training, sizeable government salaries, and overseas travel. Howard’s reasoning is that if these factors, rather t han rising general intelligence, were the explanation for the decreasing age of younger chess top players after 1970 (Howard 1999). Its would not be reasonable to say that humans minds have no limits to its critical thinking but it has the power to make the correct decision while the artificial intelligence may not be capable of doing that.All the artificial intelligence has is memory and the programs that are in it to perform the action. It cannot think on its own. It works on the algorithms and as soon as it is disturbed, artificial intelligence gets confused and makes the wrong moves. But a human chess player if in the same situation can make the right move that is need using his critical thinking, which is why I think that human play better chess than artificial intelligence.

Formation of the Delian League in Ancient History

Several Ionian cities joined together in the Delian League  for mutual protection against the Persians. They placed Athens at the head (as hegemon) because of her naval supremacy. This free confederation (symmachia) of autonomous cities, founded in 478 B.C., consisted of representatives, an admiral, and treasurers appointed by Athens. It was called the Delian League because its treasury was located at  Delos. History Formed in 478 B.C., the Delian League was an alliance of mainly coastal and Aegean city-states against Persia at a time when Greece feared Persia might attack again. Its goal was to make Persia pay and to free the Greeks under Persian dominion. The league morphed into the Athenian Empire that opposed the Spartan allies in the Peloponnesian War. After the Persian Wars, which included Xerxes invasion by land at the Battle of Thermopylae (the setting for the graphic novel-based movie ), the various Hellenic poleis (city-states) divided into opposing sides ranged around Athens and Sparta, and fought the Peloponnesian War. This enervating war was a major turning point in Greek history since in the following century, the city-states were no longer strong enough to stand up to the Macedonians under Philip and his son Alexander the Great. These Macedonians adopted one of the aims of the Delian League: to make Persia pay. Strength is what the poleis had been seeking when they turned to Athens to form the Delian League. Mutual Protection Following Hellenic victory at the Battle of Salamis, during the Persian Wars, Ionian cities joined together in the Delian League for mutual protection. The league was meant to be offensive as well as defensive: to have the same friends and enemies (typical terms for an alliance formed for this dual purpose [Larsen]), with secession forbidden. The member poleis placed Athens at the head (hegemon) because of her naval supremacy. Many of the Greek cities were annoyed with the tyrannical behavior of the Spartan commander Pausanias, who had been leader of the Greeks during the Persian War. Thucydides Book 1.96 on the formation of the Delian League 96. When the Athenians had thus gotten the command by the confederates own accord for the hatred they bare to Pausanias, they then set down an order which cities should contribute money for this war against the barbarians, and which galleys. For they pretended to repair the injuries they had suffered by laying waste the territories of the king. [2] And then first came up amongst the Athenians the office of treasurers of Greece, who were receivers of the tribute, for so they called this money contributed. And the first tribute that was taxed came to four hundred and sixty talents. The treasury was at Delos, and their meetings were kept there in the temple. Members of the Delian League In The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War (1989), author-historian Donald Kagan says the members included about 20 members from the Greek islands, 36 Ionian city-states, 35 from the Hellespont, 24 from around Caria, and 33 from around Thrace, making it primarily an organization of the Aegean islands and coast. This free confederation (symmachia) of autonomous cities, consisted of representatives, an admiral, and financial officers/treasurers (hellenotamiai) appointed by Athens. It was called the Delian League because its treasury was located at Delos. An Athenian leader, Aristides, initially assessed the allies in the Delian League 460 talents, probably annually [Rhodes] (there is some question about the amount and people assessed [Larsen]), to be paid to the treasury, either in cash or warships (triremes). This assessment is referred to as phoros that which is brought or tribute. 23.5 Hence it was Aristeides who assessed the tributes of the allied states on the first occasion, two years after the naval battle of Salamis, in the archonship of Timosthenes, and who administered the oaths to the Ionians when they swore to have the same enemies and friends, ratifying their oaths by letting the lumps of iron sink to the bottom out at sea. — Aristotle Ath. Pol. 23.5 Athenian Supremacy For 10 years, the Delian League fought to rid Thrace and the Aegean of Persian strongholds and piracy. Athens, which continued to demand financial contributions or ships from its allies, even when fighting was no longer necessary, became more and more powerful as her allies became poorer and weaker. In 454, the treasury was moved to Athens. Animosity developed, but Athens would not permit the formerly free cities to secede. The enemies of Pericles were crying out how that the commonwealth of Athens had lost its reputation and was ill-spoken of abroad for removing the common treasure of the Greeks from the isle of Delos into their own custody; and how that their fairest excuse for so doing, namely, that they took it away for fear the barbarians should seize it, and on purpose to secure it in a safe place, this Pericles had made unavailable, and how that Greece cannot but resent it as an insufferable affront, and consider herself to be tyrannized over openly, when she sees the treasure, which was contributed by her upon a necessity for the war, wantonly lavished out by us upon our city, to gild her all over, and to adorn and set her forth, as it were some vain woman, hung round with precious stones and figures and temples, which cost a world of money. Pericles, on the other hand, informed the people, that they were in no way obliged to give any account of those moneys to their allies, so long as they maintained their defense, and kept off the barbarians from attacking them. — Plutarchs Life of Pericles The Peace of Callias, in 449, between Athens and Persia, put an end to the rationale for the Delian League, since there should have been peace, but Athens by then had a taste for power and the Persians started supporting the Spartans to Athens detriment [Flower]. End of the Delian League The Delian League was broken up when Sparta captured Athens in 404. This was a terrible time for many in Athens. The victors razed the great walls linking the city to her harbor city of Piraeus; Athens lose her colonies, and most of her navy, and then submitted to the reign of the Thirty Tyrants. An Athenian league was later revived in 378-7 to protect against Spartan aggression and survived until Philip II of Macedons victory at Chaeronea (in Boeotia, where Plutarch would later be born). Terms to Know hegemonia leadership.Hellenic Greek.Hellenotamiai treasurers, Athenian financial officers.Peloponnesian League modern term for the military alliance of the Lacedaemonians and their allies.symmachia a treaty where the signers agree to fight for one another. Sources Starr, Chester G. A History of the Ancient World. Oxford University Press, 1991.Kagan, Donald. The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. Cornell University Press, 2013.Holden, Hubert Ashton, Plutarchs Life of Perciles, Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 1895.Lewis, David Malcolm. The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 5: The Fifth Century BC., Boardman, John, Davies, J.K., Ostwald, M., Cambridge University Press, 1992.Larsen, J. A. O. â€Å"The Constitution and Original Purpose of the Delian League.† Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. 51, 1940, p. 175.Sabin, Philip, International Relations in Greece, the Hellenistic World and the Rise of Rome, Hall, Jonathan M., Van Wees, Hans, Whitby, Michael, Cambridge University Press, 2007.Flower, Michael A. From Simonides to Isocrates: The Fifth-Century Origins of Fourth-Century Panhellenism, Classical Antiquity, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Apr. 2000), pp. 65-101.