What would you do for the privilege to pet her mane?
Someone write a fanfic where Alunya goes to Equestria as a catgirl and meets pony Grace.
24 posts and 28 image replies omitted.Look, I am divided on
#Team Love and
#Team Fear and which is more useful in being a ruler;
In my own personal experience, I know that #TeamLove can work leagues to render people more willing to side with you or accept you – honey is better than venom – these tactics I confess I used on leftypol.org, having your affection with love rather than fear.
…
#TeamFear has good points too, I am wholly convinced by Hobbes' narrative for an arbitrary power, that #TeamFear is the great anti-hero that saves us all from ourselves, like Godzilla.
…
Xenophon's Cyropaedia is for the most part on #TeamLove and precedes Christ's teaching to love your enemies.
Xenophon's Cyropaedia says,
>The way to win them is not by violence but by loving-kindness.&
>Man, he believed, was the noblest of the animals and the most grateful: praise, Pheraulas saw, will reap counter-praise, kindness will stir kindness in return, and goodwill goodwill; those whom men know to love them they cannot hate…
Though I will read this article on Love and Fear in Xenophon Cyropaedia:
https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/klio-2023-0005/html?lang=enSo it says
>It is obvious that among this congeries of nations few, if any, could have spoken the same language as himself, or understood one another, but none the less Cyrus was able so to penetrate that vast extent of country by the sheer terror of his personality that the inhabitants were prostrate before him: Post too long. Click here to view the full text.Speaking for myself, I am usually cast between modern sensibilities and traditionalist / classical & antiquated sensibilities.
I find myself nodding in agreement with Hobbes for areas he finds classical sensibilities unprofitable (whether it be the Greeks or Romans like Aristotle, Plato, Xenophon, Cicero, etc). –So I sometimes lean towards the modern.
The main reason why I cite Plato in my threads is when talking to Rightwingers – rightwingers usually want a history or precedent before anything is valid, on account of how old a given thing is (which for my main audience usually means medieval or older). So for monarchists who doubt the history of hereditary monarchy (& think it is an innovation), I'll cite Xenophon's Cyropaedia where Cyrus says he'll take the older son.
My agreement with the need of an arbiter or maybe the utility of fear – that is a very modern sensibility, but like I said I can see why fear might be a unifying factor (even if that opinion is unorthodox).
I'm sort of a cherrypicker between these traditionalist / classical & antiquated versus modern sensibilities. For the record, there are times where I don't like and disagree with Plato's teachings or even Bodin's. & I'm somewhat guilty of using their authority, if need be But it isn't always an endorsement when I quote names, just a cherry I plucked.
I don't consider myself married to a particular school of thought (even if I prefer some over others), but I definitely have priorities with the political persuasion / bias. That will probably annoy some people, of course.
I definitely diverge with the conservative/traditionalist sentiment with the classics: where once some legislators institute a law, it is to be considered unchangeable and the law of God, permanently and static. And the sentiment that not even legislators create a law (when even if they are discovering them or not, some people are clearly instituting them and I can't pretend that is not what is happening – even if they measure it with some knowledge, science, or discovery).
That is re-affirmed with Plato (who championed this) – although this is also acknowledged with the laws of nature, but not human laws (which Bodin says can be changed by a sovereign power).
I've seen the appeal to the former sentiment (esp. in succession laws), but I also cannot help but see Hobbes' sentiment as well.
>And therefore this is another Errour of Aristotles Politiques, that in a wel ordered Common-wealth, not Men should govern, but the Laws. What man, that has his naturall Senses, though he can neither write nor read, does not find himself governed by them he fears, and beleeves can kill or hurt him when he obeyeth not? or that believes the Law can hurt him; that is, Words, and Paper, without the Hands, and Swords of men?
(For Aristotle's part is also what Plato says, ultimately with an appeal to theocracy and the rule of God, not man, through laws – for the most part is said for the laws of God and Nature in absolutist rhetoric, but human laws are subject to change and legislation of a sovereign power).
>>709964For the record, a lot of what is said at times also applies to Plato, likewise about friendship & equality. (I'm pretty sure that is his teaching too).
Tbh, a good handful of things modern writers like Bodin or Hobbes bicker about Aristotle is sometimes shared by Plato.