1. Do you agree with Machiavelli's premise that if given the choice between the two, the prince is better served by being feared than loved? How does Machiavelli make the case for his position (details, modes)? Are his arguments convincing? If you took the self-analysis on high-Mach or low-Mach, what were the results, and were you surprised by your score? 2. What is the thesis of Neil Postman's forward? Do you agree or disagree with his point of view? Provide support for your position. 1- The prince is better feared than loved, although striking a balance between the two would be best. As Machiavelli stated that the prince should do his utmost to escape hatred and too much fear would create hatred. The prince should try to balance love and fear based on his people and the situation at hand. 2- Both authors have different point of views; Orwell’s view is that we will be deprived of things by externally imposed oppression and by inflicting pain while Huxley’s view is that we will be distracted from our real goals with lust and pleasure. I agree to some extent on both points of views, except for the part that states that what we hate will ruin us. If you hate something that is bad then I don’t see anything wrong with it; I don’t think it can ruin us in any way. On the other hand I agree that lust and desire only lead to greed and other sins which corrupt us. Would time traveling be cool?
Time travelling would not be cool. In fact many scientists have done a lot of research on black holes and time warps. Einstein did work on it as well as Stephen Sawking to no avail. Actually Stephen changed his theory on the black holes losing and retaining information twice. If time traveling was possible we would be open to endless opportunities and nothing would be a challenge. Life would be stale without surprises, discoveries and evolution.