Predestination?

The other day in class, when we covered the Protestant Reformation, we talked a little about the idea of predestination. How people, long before being born, are already set in life; what they are going to do and where they're going to end up. This doesn't quite make sense to me. Perhaps I'm a bit biased, I was raised to believe in free will. But it seems to me that predestination would eradicate the concept of sin, and thus morality. Sin is pretty much the choice to go against the teachings and laws of God. But if people had no choice, they couldn't technically sin. God's will is good and moral, and so a murderer would not be a sinner, or immoral, because he/she simply was doing as God had planned. And who would call God's plan immoral?
Besides, the whole concept seems like a rather fatalistic way of looking at things. You do what you do, but know it doesn't matter because you really have no control over your fate. Kind of bleak.

Praise of Folly

In the first forty pages, I was interested in Erasmus/Folly's use of many references to classical Greek and Roman mythology. It wasn't what I had expected, but it was amusing. At this point, Folly is declaring that no one or nothing is possible without her. Nothing good, no pleasure, does not have its roots in folly, and she makes the point that even to 'make a child,' she must be present. Sometimes it is difficult to tell if a given section is meant to be serious or a joke, but I suppose that's the whole point, right?

The Prince, pt. 2

In the last chapter, Machiavelli seemed to switch rather rapidly from a calm observance of what princes should and should not do to a plea to the Medici family. He ends the book with an urge to the family to learn from and apply all he has written, and use this information and methods to retake Italy from the "barbarians." The switch was rather abrupt, and now I see how some individuals think that 'The Prince' was written in an attempt to get his old job back.

The Prince

So far, up through chapter thirteen, this text has read like an instruction manual. Which is, of course, it was meant to - if you belong to that particular camp, anyway. However, there was a certain part at the beginning of chapter seven that I found amusing. When Machiavelli is discussing the different ways in which princes come to power, he sets those that rule due to ability over those who are simply fortunate in gaining their position. He says that those of ability are more likely to keep their principality under control, and that the fortunate ones, especially those that inherit power from the ability and toil of their fathers, are generally less capable because they did not personally lay any type of foundation. This made me laugh, considering he dedicated this book to Lorenzo de Medici, whose family ruled practically in this way. Perhaps they were not officially or technically princes, but the power they gained and then held was still handed down in such a manner that Machiavelli believed lead to less successful leaders.
In chapter eight, at the end, he first discusses the use of cruelty. His ideas on this are interesting, and, overlooking what "cruelty" may entail, make a measure of sense. Princes adopt the Band-Aid method; just hurry up and get it over with all at once, like ripping off a bandage. And by not continuously being cruel, the wounds of the initial force can heal up. They won't fester into resentment, but the people will remember what the prince is capable of. The prince may then be able to use the "it-was-for-your-own-good," argument afterward. Not a method I would recommend, but I can't deny Machiavelli does have a point.