Pre Writing Assignment for Machiavelli's The Prince

After reading The Prince, I would definitely say that my biggest impression is that of his business-like ideology. Machiavelli is a very reasonable man. I have a big issue with the unimportance he places on morals. However much it bothers me though, his ideas are correct, and his cynicism is practical. Machiavelli is basically writing a manuscript on leadership for 16th century Italy. To me it actually seems his thesis is in the eighth paragraph under the second section, with his first few paragraphs being the introduction. Machiavelli divides this passage into six sections or subheadings. The first points out the importance of warfare and military know-how to a prince (leader). He then moves into a second point that outlays the rest of the work in describing the qualities of a prince. In the third section, Machiavelli delves into a specified issue between miserliness and generosity. He discusses. The fourth section questions whether a leader should be loved or feared. Or both. How should a leader keep his word, and should he? This is discussed under section five. This brings up the major premise on whether the "ends justifies the means." In the last section the Prince wraps up with thoughts on being despised and how to avoid being hated by the people.

Niccolo Machiavelli

The Prince

The essay is divided into six different sections with the second holding the thesis.

1.       Why a leader should be readily involved in warfare and the arts of warfare

2.       What qualities a leader should hold

3.       Why a leader is wise to be a miser

4.       Is it better to be loved or feared as a leader?

5.       Does the “ends justify the means”?

6.       A leader must overall work to not be hated or despised.

I do think it is undesirable how hidden the thesis is. As I see it, the very first section talks only on warfare and is not setting a thesis for the paper. Also, I would say the Machiavelli does use alot of evidence and allusions to previous instances where certain history backs up his statements. Even though I as a 20th century reader cannot understand all of the allusions as did these Italians, I do think that it was sufficient.

PATHOS/ LOGOS

I am sure that at the time Machiavelli was quite emotional, and it shows his discipline in that you cannot read that emotion so much in his work here. The pathos definitely supplements the logos, the little pathos that there is.

TONE

Machiavelli uses very strong, meaningful words to emphasize his point. He is very matter-of-fact in his arguments, in which I think the audience would be inspired. He is obviously speaking to a smaller audience. The Medicis, the small group of politicians that recently returned to Italy, would be a major audience. I also believe his work would be read by the intellects and the thinkers. Plato would have enjoyed it. It is truly a lesson for a leadership course or Prince 101. Something like that.

EFFECTIVENESS

The work is very effective in that it reaches out to the audience and draws their attention to certain controversial topics. You will either agree with Machiavelli or you won't. Mostly, I would say it should really bother you to read Machiavelli. It is discouraging. The heart is deceitful and wicked; man is a "sorry lot." It feels wrong to say that the "ends justifies the means." Machiavelli was right.

New Post on Jefferson's Declaration of Inpendence

When asked which of the readings I would like to write a response on, first thing to come to mind was Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence is one of the most logically composed work I have ever read. It is very well put together and pulls upon the heart and the mind. If you were given the task (or inspired as Jefferson) to make a document that list the reasons for a declaration of independence, how would you draft it? Jefferson is very controlled and sincere, as well as fierce and passionate. It must have been difficult to write this. I bet Jefferson was an English professor.

The New Toyota Camry Youtube Advertisement

I thought it would be interesting to analyze a video advertisement from the youtube homepage, and this one happens to be a car ad for the 2012 Toyota Camry hibrid.

Interestingly enough, I think the ad is mainly addressing the issue of car performance and appeal. The message is displayed rather than spoken by addressing the fact that this NASCAR Camry is somewhat similar to the new 2012 Toyota Camry. The ad is targeted at a younger and more power-hungry audience who maybe think of the Camry as otherwise a mostly "fuel efficient car." However there is a bit of irony in that most car buyers are searching for a more economic car, not so much a powerhouse; whereas this ad points to the opposite. There were several other ads along with this one however advertising the fuel efficiency of the 2012 sedan Camry which may point to the fact that this ad may be targeted towards the true Camry XLE fans. XLE is a sportier Camry.

The author does utilize the rhetorical appeals. Logically, Toyota Camry wants to argue that they do have a powerful car. Emotional appeal would be credited to the way that the NASCAR driver switches cars or the fact that the two Camry's seem to have equal power. If there is a hot market for powerful cars then there is the ethos.

While I do think the advertisement is effective towards a cerain number of fans I do think that the general public might not care so much about a vehicle that is fast as opposed to one that they can drive for two weeks without refueling. . .