As humans, and as sapient beings, we have always known the answer, and we have always had the means to achieve worldwide peace, free healthcare, and so on. It is still a mystery to me how we ended up in this situation.

In my personal opinion, many dystopian novels and movies lack this type of function. I would not define it to be necessary to describe a dystopian work.

Little did he know that COVID19 was about to drastically change our lives about two years after this article. I believe what happened during the pandemic was something that dystopian books and movie hadn't even portrayed yet, as it would have been hard to imagine a future where the whole world stopped, completely.

An example of this is the novel Gulliver's Travels by Swift as it clearly ridicules the English government and society in the 18th century.

I wonder if he thought of this type of arrangement for any type of institution, even those that would usually be inhabited by people with mental health conditions and individuals that committed very violent crimes. I don't think that all inmates can be thought of being able to behave in an environment where some type of additional control is in place to defend those individuals from themselves while also protect the rest of the institute's population.

It is met however with a great deal of self confrontation and people being in their own minds, which at times can be even more detrimental than physical confrontation.

This reminds me of the situation that is arising in many American states where the legislators have undiscussed power on people's medical treatments.

This reminds me of the way that Gilead was organized, where there would be Guardians watching every movement of the handmaids.

This is the main point of Hobbes's state of nature. Humans are pretty much animals when left to their own devices and not proctored by laws.

Hobbes is not wrong, but this is crazy to think about because it is so accurate and undeniable.

His take is interesting, especially considering the time and place where Hobbes was born. In fact, I would expect the United Kingdom of the 17th century to be more heavily concerned with religion. The way I interpret his words is an absence of repentance as a consequence of the absence of a religious belief. Sins are usually understood to be within a religious context, hence him saying that the passions of man are no sins calls for an absence of religious context in my opinion.

I would have to disagree with Hobbes on this one. Times of war have proved to be some of the most fertile for technological advancements in industry, but also in navigation and aviation. Additionally, some of the most well known pieces of art, especially of the 20th century, are products of the pain caused by wars. I am not necessarily saying that war is necessary for a society to produce art, but it is also inevitable that the intense and lacerating emotions that people at war experience get translated to verses, paintings, music, and movies, which are art.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. We are constantly told to surround ourselves with people that value us and don't make us feel unfit and not right, so Hobbes words fit into a modern view of friendships and companionships too.

Hobbes is just trying to convey the fact that we are thirsty for power and many would go above and beyond to obtain more than they actually need. Th

archaic for has

I think Hobbes offers a very interesting perspective. I never thought about the fact that regardless of disparities and circumstances, within a same time length, we are all offered the same time to learn and gain experience in something. Now, the experience may be in different fields, but that does not mean that a type of experience is less valuable than another.

I do not know if this would be completely applicable to modern day society, where we claim equal rights in theory, but proceed to perpetuate behaviors that enhance social and economical disparities.

This already reminds me of Freud's work we read recently.

This ties back to Montale's and Ungaretti's work that depicts how war changes us as individuals.

Has Fascism therefore grown in strength in this land since then?

Noun. dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries.

Technology as we understand it now would not have been the same without the advancements developed during WW2.

One of the biggest literary figures in the 20th century in Italy together with Ungaretti. Plenty of his work depicts how the war took a toll on him, but he communicates it so elegantly.

Even though he was a controversial figure, some of his non political poetry is still incredibly beautiful.

I think it is important also to mention that in his earlier years, Mussolini was an exponent of the Socialist movement in Italy.

It is interesting how the Ubermensch for Nietzsche becomes an individual that develops only after all the certainties that Hitler bases his believes on are lost.

Although I hope Eco's words will live up to be true, it is rather concerning how many of these totalitarian movements are gaining power and followers again all over Europe.

This proves how in times of oppression, people come together regardless of their religions, cultural and economical background, and political ideas.

As a European, and Italian, this is still a great source of pride that part of my family members were able to contribute to the liberation of my country.

I wonder if the many kids born in the ongoing wars in Iraq, Iran, but also Ukraine and the many more places worldwide affected by wars will ever be able to feel that same curious sensation.

My grandma recalls getting her first bar of chocolate from an American soldier after her town was liberated. It is interesting to see how things we take so often for granted in our daily life became small treasures in time of war.

In Italy, the partisans became an armed and organized net of people that tried to fight back Fascism and Nazism alike. It was formed not only by adult males, but also females, and younger kids. They were tremendously important for the development of the war.

I wonder if he considered also the woman as unwilling to be deprived of her sexual object. I also would want to know if the gender of the mentioned child would shift the dynamics based off of the other scripts of Freud regarding the sexual component of the relationship child-parent.

I can see myself in this sentence. It does not matter how good, or knowledgeable, or athletic I make myself look; there is always going to be that feeling of not being completely fulfilled.

Freud intends this to be a moment for mankind to take ownership of its own downfall and absence of happiness. I some times do wonder what the world would have looked like if we hadn't tried to take over nature and explain its operation.

It is in fact true that some of the most well known scientists, mathematicians, physicists, and in general "knowledgeable" people ended up taking their own lives because of the lack of sense of fulfillment in understanding more about nature.

The NIH describes neuroticism as the trait disposition to experience negative affects, including anger, anxiety, self‐consciousness, irritability, emotional instability, and depression.

It is almost like Freud is saying that we are constantly fighting against ourselves and nature even though we are aware of our limited influence on them.

I think this is actually an accurate even if broad summary of the things that cause us humans to be unhappy. Obviously each one of those sources looks different in our lives, but it is probably possible to identify them in our stories.

I find Marx's idea to be a utopia. Realistically, it would be unlikely for a society as big as the one that Marx's was analyzing to be functioning without any type of law. Rousseau's Social Contract would also disagree with this.

This would not apply to modern day society where we are taught to forge our own identities and not let other dictate our future and sense of self.

I agree with this concept because when we think about it, babies are born from the social processes between the parents. However, I think that in a way the individual is the origin of new social processes.

But can't shared attributes also create a sense of identity? For example, I identify as a woman because of my attributions. Wouldn't that make an aggregate of women also a social group?

I am unsure about why they are considered to be individualist concepts. I understand both words as almost synonyms of the word group.

We could also think of humankind as its own society. I think she should have provided her definition of society before introducing the concept of social groups.

This I agree with, because there is usually never a "one size fits all" situation where all those involved are equally impacted.

I find the part in the previous page where she mentions that the different groups are "obviously [...] not oppressed to the same extent or in the same ways" almost annoying. How do you judge the extent of the oppression that these groups are subject to? I also find it in discord with the concept expressed shortly after regarding the "fruitless disputes about whose oppression is more fundamental or more grave". If she mentions that the groups are obviously oppressed to different extends, then there has to be an ideal scale she is comparing them against.

Am I allowed to be skeptical about whether every type of injustice can possibly fit under just these two definitions?

This is a phrase that can apply to anything in life, I think especially about when we complain about our lives and compare them to others'. We often seem to think that other people's lives are idyllic because we can't see the entire picture, and not seeing it leads us to believe that what we see is the entire picture.