Agree or Disagree: Better to be feared or to be loved?

[heavens-champion 1,905]

Niccolo Machiavelli once said that it's better to be feared than to be loved. What do you guys think? Would you rather have a broken heart, or everyone treating you like you're some kind of monster? I don't know about you, but I think I'd rather not be feared, because sooner or later, people who are afraid are going to get tired of living in fear and start to think something has to be done about you.

Edited August 10, 2019 by heavens-champion

[Lucky Bolt 35,063]

No, I disagree. Personally, I believe it’s better to be loved than feared. 

There’s good and bad about both though. 

[Goat-kun 2,527]

Love brings madness, fear brings stability.

[Xe__or 4,377]

Fear; fear, fear, and fear. Mostly because I don't want people to love me; I want them to think that if they disappoint me, that would bring its load of bad things with it, and so they do their best to do what pleases me. To be loved it means, even subconsciously, that the other party expects at least some degree of love/sympathy from your part - that's just the way selfish human nature is. We don't want to love someone while they don't actually love us, do we? 

[Here No Longer 5,276]

Machiavelli is the same person whose real life philosophy is now known to be associated with egomaniacs obsessed with power.  I think of his ideas as pretty much the philosophy of evil (though I'm still looking at Socrates on this one too. His is more of just arrogance though ). I mean he's considered the father of modern politics, if that doesn't say anything I don't know what does with all of our egocentric right-wing political figures (yes, actually, a VAST MAJORITY of Democrats ARE on the right internationally speaking, believe it or not).

 

I personally would much rather be loved than feared. For three reasons:

1. Actual love (and not obsession) is built from respect, meaning that I'll be respected. Which is really what I want in life, the (earned) respect of my peers.
2. Fear becomes hatred, and hatred leads to anger. Anger causes people to do what? Become violent? Indeed. So fear makes people more prone to violence.
3. It may be true fear brings stability, but the stability it brings is short-lived. When people start hating you instead of fearing you, you'll instead be left watching your back.

 

As they say, love conquers all. 💓

Edited August 10, 2019 by Dustlicious

[Sunny Fox 5,950]

If someone fears you, you will have power over them. Anything that evolves from that necessarily includes some form of coersion, whether consciously identified or not. Love is a choice. You cannot be forced into love (Stockholm Syndrome aside). Whatever I'm doing, I'd rather have consent as opposed to force.

But what about punishing criminals... isn't that fear (of punishment), being a higher consideration than love? Sure. But I believe that institutions should be feared while people should not. (A person should fear committing crimes in light of the punishment they would merit should they be caught. But such punishment needs to come from some sort of entity that represents society as a whole, not an individual with all the individual failings that implies. - This is part of why vigilantism is punished.)

Also, your thread title is totes confusing. What are we to agree to disagree with if your statement takes no stance? "Agree or Disagree: It is better to be feared than loved" or "Agree or Disagree: It is better to be loved than feared".... either is a better thread topic, because it makes a stand for us to agree or to disagree with. (Whichever you personally prefer, you could just argue that you were playing Devil's Advocate.)

1 hour ago, Dustlicious said:

 

1. Fear becomes hatred, and hatred leads to anger. Anger causes people to do what? Become violent? Indeed. So fear makes people more prone to violence.

It leads the dark side.

[Here No Longer 5,276]

2 minutes ago, Sunny Fox said:

It leads the dark side.

Except Yoda sort of gets it wrong. 

[Sunny Fox 5,950]

12 minutes ago, Dustlicious said:

Except Yoda sort of gets it wrong. 

Hmmm. Wasn't it fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering?

[Here No Longer 5,276]

Just now, Sunny Fox said:

Hmmm. Wasn't it fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering?

That's how Yoda said it.

[Sunny Fox 5,950]

Just now, Dustlicious said:

That's how Yoda said it.

And he was wrong?

[Here No Longer 5,276]

Just now, Sunny Fox said:

And he was wrong?

I think so, yes.

[Sunny Fox 5,950]

Just now, Dustlicious said:

I think so, yes.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but why do you say that?

[Here No Longer 5,276]

Just now, Sunny Fox said:

I'm not saying you're wrong, but why do you say that?

I say that because of how he comes to his conclusions, and the pseudo-philosophy used to get to them. He may end up basically right about the main point that fear leads to violence, but what leads up to that violence, not really. Of course it's not the most blatant false philosophical thing he says in the series (he's said (and also done) outright stupid things rather than just things that halfway make sense), but it's still there.

[Jeric 46,851]

17 minutes ago, Dustlicious said:

I say that because of how he comes to his conclusions, and the pseudo-philosophy used to get to them. He may end up basically right about the main point that fear leads to violence, but what leads up to that violence, not really. Of course it's not the most blatant false philosophical thing he says in the series (he's said (and also done) outright stupid things rather than just things that halfway make sense), but it's still there.

Philosophy should be countered with logic, and while Yoda’s viewpoint differs from Aristotle, the generalization does follow a logical pattern backed loosely by modern psychology, especially since it isn’t represented by Yoda as a true schema and contains a nebulous and undefined mention of suffering. The absence of a modifier like “can” also doesn’t make something false. 

[Goat-kun 2,527]

1 hour ago, Dustlicious said:

Machiavelli is the same person whose real life philosophy is now known to be associated with egomaniacs obsessed with power.  I think of his ideas as pretty much the philosophy of evil (though I'm still looking at Socrates on this one too. His is more of just arrogance though ). I mean he's considered the father of modern politics, if that doesn't say anything I don't know what does with all of our egocentric right-wing political figures (yes, actually, a VAST MAJORITY of Democrats ARE on the right internationally speaking, believe it or not).

 

I personally would much rather be loved than feared. For three reasons:

1. Actual love (and not obsession) is built from respect, meaning that I'll be respected. Which is really what I want in life, the (earned) respect of my peers.
2. Fear becomes hatred, and hatred leads to anger. Anger causes people to do what? Become violent? Indeed. So fear makes people more prone to violence.
3. It may be true fear brings stability, but the stability it brings is short-lived. When people start hating you instead of fearing you, you'll instead be left watching your back.

 

As they say, love conquers all. 💓

That is quite an unfortunate view as "real" fear too has a bad side, yet you've only tried to define the benevolent "real" love to peddle your politics. Fear is an invaluable survival mechanism and one would do well to understand its many forms.

 

P.S: The majority of politicians are lefties when global definitions are taken into account as right-wing is the domain of free market which in its most right-wing form leads to anarchy and survival of the fittest.

[Flutterstep 47,088]

I want people to be afraid of how much they love me. 

[Treeglow Flicker 13,679]

Love is the answer.

Although some fear can go a long way towards making sure that nobody takes advantage of my pleasant nature. But I'd rather be surrounded by people who love me than fear me. Better to save the whole blanketing an area with a dozen miniture suns thing for those with dishonest and immoral intent.

[Sunny Fox 5,950]

23 minutes ago, Goat-kun said:

That is quite an unfortunate view as "real" fear too has a bad side, yet you've only tried to define the benevolent "real" love to peddle your politics. Fear is an invaluable survival mechanism and one would do well to understand its many forms.

Yes, it's good to fear an avalanche, or the tiger that wants to eat you. Fear in these cases can mean the difference between life and death. In neither case it is possible to sit down and discuss issues with the thing you fear. When it comes to people, it's not quite as clear cut. The question is not "can fear be valuable?" (obviously, yes, it can), it's "do you prefer to be feared or loved"?

24 minutes ago, Goat-kun said:

P.S: The majority of politicians are lefties when global definitions are taken into account as right-wing is the domain of free market which in its most right-wing form leads to anarchy and survival of the fittest.

That sounds to me like an oversimplification, but further elaboration would be ... um, read.

[Here No Longer 5,276]

13 minutes ago, Sunny Fox said:

That sounds to me like an oversimplification, but further elaboration would be ... um, read.

Really more like a strawman than a real argument, but yet again the initial argument I made on the subject sort of qualifies as one anyways. Though it was only meant as an expression of my opinion in the first place.

[Goat-kun 2,527]

22 minutes ago, Sunny Fox said:

Yes, it's good to fear an avalanche, or the tiger that wants to eat you. Fear in these cases can mean the difference between life and death. In neither case it is possible to sit down and discuss issues with the thing you fear. When it comes to people, it's not quite as clear cut. The question is not "can fear be valuable?" (obviously, yes, it can), it's "do you prefer to be feared or loved"?

That sounds to me like an oversimplification, but further elaboration would be ... um, read.

Let's say you are a deity or a leader. Would you rather be loved or feared? Preferably both, yes. However, when not having a choice let's explore our options. Now, you can't really dictate on which level the people will love or fear you so let's take into account that ignorant masses aren't very enlightened bunch.

 

Love of the people is a neat thing. Now let's see how that love usually becomes obsession when it comes to celebrities. Doing something out of love can become a problem. Love leaves a lot of leeway for personal interpretation and you can have everything from benevolent worship, loyalty to sacrifices in the name of our lord all out of love and you would have a harder time controlling it all since love in this state becomes a delusion that itself dictates your will inside the heads of your worshipers instead of you.

 

Fear may have a problem with hatred; however, if you are indeed powerful enough even the would-be heroes would not dare to touch you. Fear would give weight to every word you say or write. The problem with fear is the lack of initiative that would plague your people. Fear like this brings stagnation.

 

So love alone brings progress in short term and madness in long term, fear brings peace in short term and stagnation in long term, both bring destruction if left unchecked.

 

You can explain everything in simple terms. Let's have our buddy Tim Pool as an example. He is a moderate lefty and is thus advocating for government regulation of big business. One the other side you have someone like Stephan Molyneux who is anti-government right-winger who also doesn't shy away from interpreting politically incorrect data but that's another can of worms.

 

Often these days you will see radical leftists accuse fascists of being extreme right-wingers; however, both sides will agree on how to achieve their goals through government oppression while only disagreeing on the targets of said oppression. If that is not the same political leaning then what is?

[SharpWit 2,669]

Better to be loved domestically and feared internationally.

[TBD 17,254]

This sums it up perfectly well-

 

[bigRoadman 18]

I would much rather everybody loved me than feared me, and I think I speak for most people when I say that. However, I want people that dislike me to fear me.

[ZethaPonderer 2,199]

Personally I don’t care if people feared me or loved me. Because it is purely mental gymnastics. Overcome that and you’ll soon come to understand from an absolute sense that there is no reason for me to be afraid of you. Cause you are my equal regardless of your wealth, societal upbringing, race, ethnicity, and power in all aspects. To embrace and fully understand that as my equal would be the ultimate defeat for those who want to be feared, but not so much for those who want to be loved.

To be feared is truly unwise for it will only bring damnation and promote a sense of tyranny upon Life. To be loved is truly wise for it will bring salvation and promote a sense of hope to live Life to its fullest potential.

My choice is clear here based on my understanding: To be loved is better than to be feared.

[Dreambiscuit 9,819]

Better to be loved than feared. Love is positive, fear is negative. I dread the idea anyone would ever be fearful or uncomfortable around me, not that it's likely to happen. Love is what it's all about.