My brother,
my father, and I used to watch a show called “Deadliest Warrior”, where
scientists, historians, and weapons specialists, tried to see which two
historical warriors, or groups of warriors, would win in combat. The matches
ranged from Viking vs. Samurai to Green Berets vs. Spetsnaz. This historical “versus”
situation could be applied to other questions, such as “who was the best
leader?” One particular example is the comparison between Lao- Tzu and Niccolo
Machiavelli. Both have written works concerning
the topic of leadership, although they are dramatically different. They could
both be applied to modern society and analyzed to see who would better run a
country in the Western world.
Lao Tzu’s style
of leadership incorporated Taoist ideals. Many of these ideals could be useful to
the modern government, especially with the financial crisis we are currently
in. However, ideals are not always applicable to the real world. Lao Tzu
endorses a lot of passive leadership, which can be difficult to enact in a
large Western government with many factions. Machiavelli’s style of leadership
is much more centralized and requires a strong ruler. His Prince is an expert
of war and would put the protection of his people as his number one priority.
This exceptional familiarity with wartime history and strategy would be helpful
in the current times of our nation sending soldiers to places that may hardly
concern us. On the other hand, Machiavelli’s rule comes with a complete lack of
morality that, although would be hidden from the general public, makes him
unfit to lead a nation into a future of social and technological progress. Even
though the versus situation calls for a winner, this question is not so simple.
Both Lao Tzu’s Master and Machiavelli’s Prince have definite flaws that would
hinder them from becoming successful leaders in a modern Western country.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteI like the way you begin this paper. Students rarely use personal anecdote as a way of opening a paper, but the way you've done so here is quite interesting and does a good job of personalizing the essay.
One suggestion I have in the second paragraph is that the mention of the financial crisis seems out of place. You just toss it in there randomly and don't ever expand on it. In fact, your introduction seems to be focused mostly on warfare. Maybe that's really the contemporary issue you're most interested in examining? It would tie in more effectively with the "Deadliest Warrior" discussion in the first paragraph. If the financial crisis really is where you want to go, though, I'd say expand on that discussion more in your introduction. Summarize the problem and begin setting up which elements of Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli's philosophies relate to it.
Finally, take a look at your thesis statement. You have the "what?" idea: "Both Lao Tzu’s Master and Machiavelli’s Prince have definite flaws that would hinder them from becoming successful leaders in a modern Western country." This is what goes in your "I believe ___________" blank. But what's your "so what?" idea? What goes in the "because ____________?" blank? What flaws stop them from becoming successful leaders, and what elements of each philosophy fills in the gaps left by the other?
Overall, though, I think this intro is very promising, and with some work, it could be great.