What have you gained from studying the cultural guidance of western classics? Emergency, emergency, emergency

After reading it, reference: (1) has nothing to do with morality-after reading the monarchy, the unified Italian city-state is obviously not as famous as it was when it was divided. Brilliant cultural and artistic achievements and diverse ideological theories dressed the Renaissance as a papal scepter studded with jewels. This is an unparalleled scepter, which has brought the whole of Europe to a new road and become the master of the whole earth. However, just as the best treasure belongs not to the bravest knight, but only to the greediest desire, the booster of European masters is naked plunder, cruel repression and ruthless competition.

Different from Europe, China has stripped its savage edges and corners under the baptism of Confucian culture for thousands of years. We are upright, honest and peaceful, facing the ancient times and rejecting the future. The idea of "sage inside and king outside" runs through China's education, and the theory of "soldiers, weapons and saints have to be used" occupies his ruling thought. In the past, we ruled the world by culture and thought, but Wanbang came to the instrument with ulterior motives; Wan Li is closed. The two ways of thinking of enslaving oneself and others collided in the later 18 and 19 centuries. As soon as the invaders appeared in Kouga, we surrendered somewhat tragically. Machiavelli won a great victory, and his works changed the world.

The prince's success lies in his successful birth in Europe. Florence, a city-state, surrounded by powerful enemies, endowed the hegemonic theory with unique soil. At that time, the limited jurisdiction in Europe created a large number of village chiefs and county chiefs, and the original intention of rule became survival rather than enjoyment. As a result, meanness has become the passport of the despicable, and shameless has become the motto of the shameless. The only difference between success and failure is that you are a little more shameless than others. This book provides opportunities for many bandit leaders, and also finds a specious theoretical basis for the dark side of human nature. The remaining work is how European robbers can better practice this theory and prove it, and finally it will be universally applicable.

Machiavelli is a straightforward utilitarian, straightforward and even cute. Comrade Ma Lao thinks that there is no need to argue whether the beginning of life is good or bad. He hit the nail on the head in his book: "Because about human beings, it can generally be said that they are ungrateful, easy to change their minds, pretenders and impostors, and they are fleeing danger and pursuing interests." Then he further pointed out: "For a monarch, it is necessary not only to have all kinds of virtues, but also to keep those evils that will not make him perish." His words are incisive and sharp-edged, and there is potential for killing between the lines. Between East and West, the road to future development will be clear. Therefore, it's not that "I won't die if imperialism kills me", but that our innocent eyes can't melt into the sand and we can only give up resistance when encountering sandstorms.

Five hundred years have passed, but the prince is not lost in the dust of history. It is like a sharp knife, exposing all kinds of lies of political masters and business oligarchs at any time. Machiavelli always reminds us that the strong have nothing to do with morality, the strong have nothing to do with religion, and the strong only have something to do with themselves. With regard to what we usually think of as various virtues, Ma Lao described it as follows: "A wise monarch can never and should never abide by his faith when it is not good for him to abide by it or the reason for his commitment no longer exists. But the monarch must know how to hide this beast. He must be a great pretender and a fake good man. He must show all the good qualities. Because thugs are always attracted by the appearance and results of things, the world is full of thugs. " The old horse saw through it. The world is getting smaller and smaller, but the competition is getting more and more fierce. Whether it is a war society or a commercial society, the phrase "man is a knife and I am a fish" is irrefutable. 1998 financial crisis, hypocritical western politicians and capitalists jointly blew up the economic bubble in southeast Asia. People suddenly found that heaven and hell are separated by a paper, and the "mob" in the third world was seriously deceived and abandoned. Now, the impact of the subprime mortgage crisis has swept through again. Machiavelli's disciples began lobbying many years ago and achieved results. They are duplicitous and have made a fortune, but the bitter fruit has to be borne by people all over the world. The war never stopped and plundered not fade away, but the monarchs quietly changed, and they were deceived by civilization.

History is always strikingly similar, but the same ending will never happen again. Thanks to the continuous expansion of China people's horizons and knowledge, today we can see The Prince, a book that has influenced many politicians, entrepreneurs, emperors and hooligans in later generations, as well as the dirty means before brilliant achievements, and understand the pustules covered under their evening dresses. During the Westernization Movement, the leaders of the DPRK and China put forward the slogan of "learning from foreigners to control foreigners". In today's fierce business competition, we should use their ideas to complete our own rise.

Power often has nothing to do with morality. Whether this is the best time or the worst time depends on ourselves after all.

(2) Comment on The Prince As Machiavelli wrote, "People who want to be loved by the monarch always take what they think is the most precious or what they think is the monarch's favorite as a gift." Machiavelli really dedicated his most precious thing-knowledge about the deeds of great men in The Prince. This book discusses how a monarch should defend his power and govern the country from many aspects. I am very interested in what kind of monarch Machiavelli thinks a monarch should be and what kind of qualities he should have, so I want to focus on it.

Explain my views on these issues.

Should the monarch be a generous person or a stingy person?

If I have to answer this question before, the answer is too simple, of course generous, and the answer is self-evident only from the part of speech. But after reading Machiavelli's analysis, I think what he said is very reasonable. The generous monarch is actually very generous to others, and he can't farm to make money himself, but he uses what the people pay. Why is he generous? In addition, if not handled properly, generosity will also become a luxury. In the end, in order to maintain his reputation of generosity, the monarch had to extort money and do whatever it took, which made the people resent the monarch and the monarch naturally fidgeted. The emperor "if there is no water in the dragon boat, * * * will not do much", because he is too generous, the people can't stand it, and they rebel one after another, and the generous monarch has not escaped the fate of tragic death. Machiavelli said, "If the monarch is wise, he should not mind despicable names." If generosity doesn't make me feel safe, what's wrong with the name stingy?

Should the monarch be a cruel person or a kind person?

A monarch mainly wants to be immortal, and certainly wants to leave a reputation of kindness, but in Machiavelli's mind, cruelty is the real kindness from a certain angle. "He is much kinder than those who are too kind to sit back and watch chaos, murder and robbery, because the latter always makes the whole society get retribution, and the monarch only hurts individuals when he executes punishment." I disagree with Machiavelli. I don't think it's wrong for him to say that he will crack down on those guilty people severely and cruelly. Palliating the traitors will only cause greater losses. But if the monarch himself is fatuous and thinks that the guilty people are innocent, then as a cruel monarch, he will surely kill the innocent and make the people panic. In this case, how can the country be stable? Therefore, a brutal monarch may not be able to bring greater stability to the people as Machiavelli thought.

Is the monarch loved or feared?

If we can only choose between the two, Machiavelli and I have different choices. He thinks it is a good thing to be feared. Why? I think he thinks so. If someone threatens me to hit the teacher and he kicks me if I don't go, then I will definitely do as he threatens, because it is much easier to offend the person I love than to disobey the person I am afraid of. Then, by analogy, it is much easier for people to resist a monarch they love than a monarch they fear. The truth is right, but if the people love a monarch, why should the people resist him? If the people are so afraid of a monarch that their lives are not guaranteed under his rule, the people are likely to rebel. Just as people love Li Shimin, so they don't even want to oppose him, so the monarch naturally sits still; Although people were in awe of Qin Ershi, in the end, in order to save themselves, they had to do the opposite, and the eternal life that Qin Shihuang expected ended in two.