• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

To be feared

Falcon

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
46
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Have truer words ever been spoken?

Yes, but Machiavelli is only correct for the emotional part of ruling. He does not say much about the logical part. His writings are not sufficiently precise and clear, and while they may talk about the truth of feelings, they omit logic to a point that his writings could corrupt the mind of some leaders. Frederick the Great wrote an "Anti-Machiavelli" book for that matter, because he considered Machiavelli's writing to be a danger greater to humanity than epidemics.

The reason why I'm saying this is that it is not directly fear - it is justice which indirectly inspires fear of retribution if the rules are broken. A better term would be respect. Fear without fairness breeds rebellion. Just using the word "fear" without precising what I have said makes Machiavelli prone to misinterpretation. The issue is probably not with his original ideas, but with the lack of precision in language used that can make him easily misunderstood.

Finally, is it better to be feared than to be loved? It is irrelevant: it is better to be respected.
 

Risen

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
3,185
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
9w8
Yes, but Machiavelli is only correct for the emotional part of ruling. He does not say much about the logical part. His writings are not sufficiently precise and clear, and while they may talk about the truth of feelings, they omit logic to a point that his writings could corrupt the mind of some leaders. Frederick the Great wrote an "Anti-Machiavelli" book for that matter, because he considered Machiavelli's writing to be a danger greater to humanity than epidemics.

The reason why I'm saying this is that it is not directly fear - it is justice which indirectly inspires fear of retribution if the rules are broken. A better term would be respect. Fear without fairness breeds rebellion. Just using the word "fear" without precising what I have said makes Machiavelli prone to misinterpretation. The issue is probably not with his original ideas, but with the lack of precision in language used that can make him easily misunderstood.

Finally, is it better to be feared than to be loved? It is irrelevant: it is better to be respected.

Yes, I do suppose people could misinterpret it. The concept of fear, as it relates to leadership, involves both emotional fear and respect. A leader that is "feared" has power because the people respect his power, and have a healthy "fear" of going against that power. They need not be outright scared of him or dread what the leader may do, but they surely know that to go against the leader would be to their detriment. It is the promise of harm, unhappiness, pain, and all unpleasant things that may come to you that breeds fear in the emotional sense, and that promise is born of the "respect" for the leader's power.
 

Falcon

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
46
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Yes, I do suppose people could misinterpret it. The concept of fear, as it relates to leadership, involves both emotional fear and respect. A leader that is "feared" has power because the people respect his power, and have a healthy "fear" of going against that power. They need not be outright scared of him or dread what the leader may do, but they surely know that to go against the leader would be to their detriment. It is the promise of harm, unhappiness, pain, and all unpleasant things that may come to you that breeds fear in the emotional sense, and that promise is born of the "respect" for the leader's power.

Right. I agree with whay you say, and that if it is not explained well people could misinterpret it.
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
I find love and fear to be so intertwined that it is hard to receive one without also experiencing the other (at least in some part).
 

nolla

Senor Membrane
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
3,166
MBTI Type
INFP
I don't see no point trying to scare people (except for fun). The people who are feared seem to be more afraid also. Fear is used to get power, or maintain power. When you are in power you fear for losing the power. So, you have to run faster all the time. Even if everyone is afraid of you, you don't know that, so you need to keep running.

I think it is far more useful to not be afraid of anything. And that is something that can be achieved through love.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Perhaps in politics, this is the very definition of realpolitik I think, but it would not be true personally surely?

It is one thing to be assured of your safety by striking fear into the hearts of strangers or wrong doers but quite another to wish that your significant other fears you or your children fear you or dependents fear you, wouldnt you say?

An authoritarian ruler will demand submission or cause fear, a totalitarian one will demand love and eschew so much as apathy as criminal.
 

LunarMoon

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
309
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3
Being feared is only a useful state when you’ve already obtained a position of power and desire to maintain it. While you are making the climb to that position, however, you will want to be loved, since no one will very well fear a low level. If you enact violence without power then you or thug, a common street criminal; if you enact violence with power then you are a politician.

As for me, personally, I would rather be primarily loved rather than feared. Tyrants are looked on rather poorly in the history book and unless you create an infrastructure to maintain that fear, as the mafioso and the judicial system do, your power will dissolve immediately after your death. People still follow Gandhi as an inspiration but few people practice the teachings of Hitler in fear of any sort of harm.
 

IZthe411

Carerra Lu
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
2,585
MBTI Type
INTJ
I find love and fear to be so intertwined that it is hard to receive one without also experiencing the other (at least in some part).

Healthy fear, yes.

If you are loved, truly loved, there is a fear of displeasure.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I think its true that intimidation, threatening and creating fear are primitive strategies for getting your needs met.

I'm unsure of the extent to which the animal kingdom is characterised by this kind of aggression and violence which humankind often paints it with, for instance aggression in the animal kingdom is generally "get out of my space" and it takes that special human element to qualify as truly pursue sadistic, merciless and murderous.

That said the majority of those who do use these simplistic strategies, the street thugs and muggers, arent usually capable of anything more complex, whether its pain based behaviour or derailed development or maladaptive behavioural habits, whatever way you label it it amounts to the same thing, in the contest of values, resources or needs they cant do any different. Consequently they lose and so do others.
 

CzeCze

RETIRED
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
8,975
MBTI Type
GONE
I don't believe a person can inspire fear or love in others - a person will love or fear another based on what they know about themselves (what it is they love or what it is they fear). Since each person's perception may be (and probably is) different, I'd say it's better to simply be yourself, and others will respond as they may.

That answers way too deep.

Just answer the question.

:alttongue:
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
When I was younger I would have answered feared, although now that I'm older and probably at the time too I think to be loved would be a superior and preferable.
 

Jack

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 22, 2010
Messages
29
MBTI Type
EXTJ
Enneagram
8
It depends on what you want to interpret power as and what kind of influence you want.

Personally speaking, I think one needs to be in a place where it doesn't actually matter how the other person feels 'towards' you. Know who they are and determine whether they ought to be encouraged or discouraged towards whatever it is they are trying to do, and how useful they are in the overall sense.

--

Holding fear over other people is only useful in a more or less short run take. I know I sure as hell wouldn't linger around and serve someone who used fear to rule me.

I think the real prize is influence, and if you really care about 'leadership', then that takes a sense of going beyond yourself. If you're just in it for the glory, people might kowtow to you out of fear and self preservation, but ultimately you won't be any more significant to them than they are to you. So, it depends at what level you want to play the game at.

Do you want to try to maintain some position of power for the sake of holding on to it, or, do you want to wield it - perhaps even attempt to wield it 'properly' or 'effectively' or 'magnanimously' ; what is your self image and your relation to others, etc. What is the ultimate impact of your own personal state and your impact thereby unto others?
 
Top