dystopia helps to scare us into working harder
I don't think it will because many of those who are not ignorant to the issues have a huge ego or alternative motives.
dystopia helps to scare us into working harder
I don't think it will because many of those who are not ignorant to the issues have a huge ego or alternative motives.
Or maybe weshould just give up entirely on optimism or pessimism
I consider myself a realist. I tend to think logically like, "Yes, it can get better, but it will not because human nature"
Anti-utopias are the anti, saying that the idea of utopia itself is wrong and bad, and thatany attempt to try to make things better is sure to wind up making things worse, creating anintended or unintended totalitarian state, or some other such political disaster
This is how many dystopic societies formed.
there are forces keeping the collective from seeing this
Yes. With the media blocking issues and spreading false information, there is no way we will get better.
This period we are entering could becomethe sixth mass extinction event in Earth’s history, and the first caused by human activity
We deserve this as a whole. Our idiocy and stubbornness is very damaging, but we continue because we are selfish.
however bad our presentmoment is, it’s nowhere near as bad as the ones these poor characters are suffering through.
I don't get this feeling. I like dystopias because of their false realism. I can only enjoy them because they are fiction. If I knew it was happening in real life, then I do not think I'd be able to marvel at them.
One lens of science fiction’s aesthetic machineryportrays some future that might actually come to pass
This is what I mean when I say an exaggerated warning. It is fiction, but with realistic elements. Our imagination can only span so far past our reality.
Possibly dystopiashope to kill the societies they depict
I agree. I think they serve as an exaggerated warning, but a warning nonetheless. For example, the movie "Contagious" was thought to be just a movie, but then covid began.
utopiasexpress our social hopes, dystopias our social fears.
I love this statement. A simplified way to explain both concepts.
it is not that the beautiful totality of the individual is amputated, repressed, altered by our social order, it is rather that the individual is carefully fabricated in it
This is just crazy to think about... It makes me think of the society in "The Giver" as they all seemed to have a personality, but their personalities were restricted by society.
But the Panopticon was also a laboratory; it could be used as a machine to carry out experiments, to alter behaviour, to train or correct individuals. To experiment with medicines and monitor their effects. To try out different punishments on prisoners, according to their crimes and character, and to seek the most effective ones. To teach different techniques simultaneously to the workers, to decide which is the best. To try out pedagogical experiments — and in particular to take up once again the well-debated problem of secluded education, by using orphans
human testing is one of the most agreed immoral concepts, yet this is being described as an opportunity.
produces homogeneous effects of power
ultimate oppression
ence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power
Surely this drives people to insanity. I see increased paranoia and possibly schizophrenia being induced.
penitentiary, the reformatory,
notice how adult prisons and youth prisons are different by name. Only one has the intent to reform.
this is the utopia of the perfectly governed city
Is this satire?
The first is that of a pure community, the second that of a disciplined society. Two ways of exercising power over men, of controlling their relations, of separating out their dangerous mixtures.
This doesn't sound like it has anything to do with the plague anymore. It just sounds like a total control for selfish reasons rather than health.
verything that may be observed during the course of the visits — deaths, illnesses, complaints, irregularities is noted down and transmitted to the intendants and magistrates. The magistrates have complete control over medical treatment; they have appointed a physician in charge; no other practitioner may treat,
Once again, this reflects "Never Let Me Go". The children's health is the top priority. They are observed 24/7 for any sickness and wounds. There is a doctor's office within the school, so there is no reason to leave.
the closing of the town and its outlying districts, a prohibition to leave the town
This reminds me of the movie, "Never Let Me Go", that my research project is about. The students are to stay on campus and never leave. They fear leaving because of stories they have heard of children that faced death once they left.
whereno law, no injustice
Logically true, but empathetically false.
when going to sleep, he locks his doors; wheneven in his house, he locks his chests; and this when he knows there be lawsand public officers armed to revenge all injuries shall be done him; what opinionhe has of his fellow-subjects when he rides armed; of his fellow-citizens, whenhe locks his doors; and of his children and servants, when he locks his chests.
Woah. That hit. I think "Just in case" or "Some people are crazy". It's justified to think this way despite laws in place people criminals exist.
no society, and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violentdeath, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
against no government?
condition which is called war
It's interesting how he called war a condition like it's an illness.
From this equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends
Hope, but not reality.
For such is the nature of men that, howsoever theymay acknowledge many others to be more witty or more eloquent or morelearned, yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves, forthey see their own wit at hand and other men’s at a distance.
People choose to be blind to the truth for the sake of their own ego.
That which may perhaps makesuch equality incredible is but a vain conceit of one’s own wisdom, which almostall men think they have in a greater degree than the vulgar, that is, than all menbut themselves, and a few others whom by fame or for concurring withthemselves they approve.
People deny our natural equality because they wish to be above others.
Forprudence is but experience
i agree
general and infallible rulescalled science,
Why does this feel like satire?
the weakest has strength enough to kill thestrongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are inthe same danger with himself.
Like the "would you rather fight a bear-sized ant or a million regular ants?" scenarios.
This reminded me of Young's passage in reference to oppression of categorized people.
one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body orof quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the differencebetween man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereuponclaim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he.
I completely understood this sentence until the word "pretend". I will attempt to rephrase it as I understood it. Do not roll with this as I am not definitely sure. By nature, all men are created equal, but one may portray themself as more capable than the other. However, there is no considerable difference between the two that one may claim to be greater than the other despite that portrayal.
American methods
He says this like the Americans weren't from Europe.
reveals man as a savage beast to whom consideration towardshis own kind is something alien.
It's because humans try to understand everything that we get scared when we encounter something we don't understand. A lot of the time I think to myself if we were really meant to discover all of this. I am not God so I cannot assume His purpose for us, but if Adam and Eve were blind until they sinned, maybe that's saying something.
which women are little capable.
I wonder if Freud would be able to accept our modern concepts. Although we still live in a society that overlooks women's capabilities, we have improved a lot since then.
not all men are worthy of love
Freud confuses me. It surprises me that he believes in love as something needing to be worthy of. As someone who is sexist and seemingly ignorant to emotions. His break down of love in the following paragraph is more fitting to his character than the phrase i highlighted.
hilosophic system, or ideal
This essay is just this of his own.
prosthetic God.
I like this analogy. Humans are only flesh and bones, but we have made ourselves to be so much more. In the end, we're still vulnerable.
Happiness, however, is something essentially subjective
Exactly, so the question of defining happiness is pointless to me. Freud uses his own opinions and experience as "research". However, that is nothing credible.
In consequence of insufficientobservation and a mistaken view of their manners and customs, they appeared to Europeans to beleading a simple, happy life with few wants, a life such as was unattainable by their visitors with theirsuperior civilization. Later experience has corrected some of those judgements. In many cases theobservers had wrongly attributed to the absence of complicated cultural demands what was in fact dueto the bounty of nature and the ease with which the major human needs were satisfied.
Considering the time, Freud's race, and views, I assume that he is racist. However, this portion sort of counters that assumption. At the same time, I think if Freud was a voyager then, he would think the same way as them.
his contention holds that what we call our civilization is largely responsible for ourmisery, and that we should be much happier if we gave it up and returned to primitive conditions.
I feel like he is only considering feelings and not survival. Of course the influences of society have a lot of negative results, but without it, we would not have the means to support billions of people.
too, a piece of unconquerable nature
It seems that Freud viewed the first two sources as something that we cannot control, but can regulate. It gave off a matter-of-fact tone. The third source seemed to harbor negative feelings. We are in control of it, but our control makes it worse.
A social group is defined not primarily by a set of shared attributes, but by a sense of identity.What definesBlack Americans as a social group is not primarily their skin color; some persons whose skin coior is fairly light, for example, identify themselves as Black.Though sometimes objective attributes are a necessary condition for classifying oneself or others as belonging to a certain social group, it is identificationwith a certain social status, the common histor y that social status produces,and self-identification that define the group as a group.
Unfortunately, some people choose not to see it this way. Although I am black, I have come across many people who say "you don't count" because I was brought up differently or behave differently. Therefore, I think a social group also takes personal opinions into account.
Many people in the United States would not choose the term "oppression" to name injustice in our society. For contemporary emancipatory socialmovements, on the other hand-socialists, radical feminists, American Indianactivists, Black activists, gay and lesbian activists-oppression is a central category _of political discourse
I would attribute this idea to two reasons. 1.The majority of the US are the oppressors who are blind to or benefit from the oppressed. 2. All those who are oppressed face varying kinds of oppression with varying levels of severity. This causes a separation within the common struggle and overall weakens them collectively.
Someone who does not see a pane of glass does not know that he does not see d.Someone who, being placed differently, does see it does not know the other doesnot see it.
This immediately reminded me of The Giver, which is a dystopian film. It also reminds me of the last week's third learning goal about making knowledge public as a social justice tool. If someone doesn't know that they are being deprived of knowledge, they will not refute or question anything because they are oblivious. This also tells how assuming someone sees things the same way you see things can lead to a negative result on accident.