Time to Reflect...

Okay so first off….

There were so many layers to what was discussed in class on Thursday. In fact, there were so many layers that I am actually having a bit of a difficult time connecting and making sense of it all. Come to think of it, that’s actually one of my favorite aspects of our World Politics class. Each class I walk in knowing, for sure, that the discussion will begin with debating a specific question or idea that Professor Jackson presents. However, where the class ends is always at a completely different spot from where it began. Our class has the wonderful ability to look at the entire spectrum of the discussion topic, steering our focus away from the obvious and delving deeper into the nitty-gritty details while still keeping the overlying topic in mind. In Thursday’s class, I frequently found myself listening to others and thinking, “Wow, I honestly would have never thought of that… that makes so much sense!” Basically, I think everyone in the class is exceptionally brilliant.

Okay so secondly….

            I actually feel as though I was able to speak quite a bit in our last class and say most of what was on my mind (this was a very satisfying and new feeling), thus I do not have too much more to say other than noting a couple of my interesting observations. I am still firm in my opinion that territorial integrity should not be the leader’s foremost concern. Adam made a good point that, although most of the class shared my same opinion, our discussion would always end up relating back to the security of the state. However I do not feel this proves territorial integrity’s importance above all else. Rather, I feel that it proves something I had stated in my first blog post, that everything is interconnected and that no matter how hard we try to delegate importance to all of these various world politics issues, everything is relative and intertwined.

            Okay so lastly,

            Professor Jackson threw out this question in the concluding moments of class: “What was Machiavelli’s idea of the perfect leader?” I’m pretty sure that Machiavelli didn’t even have a solid answer to this question, for, frequently, his suggestions were just not plausible. Like Professor Jackson said in class, the only leader that Machiavelli does not criticize and who does not mess up in the end is Moses. Doesn’t that speak for itself? Furthermore, many of Machiavelli’s ideas contradict each other! He offers so many different ways to succeed and states that each way is the best way – but no leader could possible encompass all of these traits or practice all of these values in his or her lifespan, and if her or she tried, I would put money down that “the populace” would think the leader is mentally ill. 

p.s. Sorry my thoughts are so scattered tonight! I couldn't decide what to write about and, therefore, wrote a little teeny tiny bit about everything.