Where there is no common power, there is no law; whereno law, no injustice.
I do not agree with the example Hobbes uses, but I do agree with his point. Without a governing system in place, a society would have no rules. No restrictions can lead to a society that lacks security.
For the savage people in many placesof America, except the government of small families the concord whereofdependeth on natural lust, have no government at all, and live at this day in thatbrutish manner as I said before.
This point seems to highlight a bias of Hobbes rather than prove his point. Just because Native American's did not have governmental systems similar to the UK does not mean there was no government at all or that they were uncivilized.
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.Does he not there as much accuse mankind by his actions as I do by mywords? But neither of us accuse man’s nature in it.
Being cautious is an innate part of beings. Not only is caution seen in humans but also in animals. It is the acknowledgement that even our own kind can be dangerous.
So that in the nature of man we find three principal causes of quarrel. First,competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory
I agree with all three terms leading to disagreements and fights. Competition and glory are an obvious ones. People always want to be better than others, and people want to be acknowledged for their success. I had to look up diffidence, but from my understanding it means lack of self confidence. This one is especially true in the age of internet and social media. Insecurity is a driving force for conflict. I think of the saying "misery loves company".
Also, because there be some that, taking pleasure incontemplating their own power in the acts of conquest, which they pursuefarther than their security requires, if others, that otherwise would be glad to beat ease within the modest bounds, should not be invasion increase their power,they would not be able long time, by standing only on their defence, to subsist.And by consequence, such augmentation of dominion over men beingnecessary to a man’s conservation, it ought to be allowed him
The first historical event that comes to mind after reading this section is British colonialism. The desire to constantly expand their reach of power and never be satisfied.
if any two men desire the same thing which nevertheless theycannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and, in the way to their end, which isprincipally their own conservation and sometimes their delectation only,endeavour to destroy or subdue one another.
It is becoming more and more apparent that greed is in human nature. There is no compromise, either one can enjoy something or no one can.
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.
Who is Hobbes referring to when saying "the vulgar"? Is this statement's purpose to say people with wisdom are not better than anyone else?
If civilization imposes such great sacrifices not only on man's sexuality but on his aggressivity, we canunderstand better why it is hard for him to be happy in that civilization. In fact, primitive man was betteroff in knowing no restrictions of instinct. To counterbalance this, his prospects of enjoying this happinessfor any length of time were very slender.
In this statement, is Freud concluding that it was better to be unknowing? Is mankind unhappier now because we have learned more?
If private property were abolished, all wealth held in common, andeveryone allowed to share in the enjoyment of it, ill-will and hostility would disappear among men.
This take reminds me of the pursuit of utopias. I think that an idea like this would be "perfect" in theory, but have a more dystopian outcome.
Even so, the behaviour of human beingsshows differences, which ethics, disregarding the fact that such differences are determined, classifies as'good' or 'bad'.
A lot of the time things are not inherently good or inherently bad. In ethics, it is important to acknowledge the in-between or grey area.
What good will it do us?
This question highlights the self serving nature of humans.
Only the weaklings have submitted to such an extensiveencroachment upon their sexual freedom, and stronger natures have only done so subject to acompensatory condition, which will be mentioned later.
This comment seems unnecessary, especially his word choice of "weaklings". I think he should be able to get his point across without using insulting terms.
Women represent the interests of the family and of sexual life. The work ofcivilization has become increasingly the business of men, it confronts them with ever more difficult tasksand compels them to carry out instinctual sublimations of which women are little capable. Since a mandoes not have unlimited quantities of psychical energy at his disposal, he has to accomplish his tasks bymaking an expedient distribution of his libido. What he employs for cultural aims he to a great extentwithdraws from women and sexual life. His constant association with men, and his dependence on hisrelations with mem, even estrange him from his duties as a husband and father. Thus the woman findsherself forced into the background by the claims of civilization and she adopts a hostile attitude towardsit.
Freud's viewpoint is quite sexist. However, he does make a good point that the structures and policies civilizations were build on pushed women into the background.
We went on to say that in doing so he made himself dependent in a mostdangerous way on a portion of the external world, namely, his chosen love-object, and exposed himselfto extreme suffering if he should be rejected by that object or should lose it through unfaithfulness ordeath.
This thought process is not only inferring that women are "love objects" but also downplaying the complexity of men. Freud makes it seem like men cannot survive without sexual gratification, and women are obligated to help them.
When this happened, themale acquired a motive for keeping the female, or, speaking more generally, his sexual objects, nearhim; while the female, who did not want to be separated from her helpless young, was obliged, in theirinterests, to remain with the stronger male.
This comment shows Freud's bias. He is objectifying women and making it seem like women are nothing more than baby-makers and caregivers.
The other man acquired the value for him of a fellow-worker, with whom it was useful tolive together. Even earlier, in his ape-like prehistory, man had adopted the habit of forming families, andthe members of his family were probably his first helpers.
Human are social creatures. Working together and forming groups is in our nature.
No doubt he will always defend hisclaim to individual liberty against the will of the group. A good part of the struggles of mankind centreround the single task of finding an expedient accommodation -one, that is, that will bring happiness -between this claim of the individual and the cultural claims of the group; and one of the problems thattouches the fate of humanity is whether such an accommodation can be reached by means of someparticular form of civilization or whether this conflict is irreconcilable
This is a good question to ask. The conflict between preserving individuality and the betterment of the group has been a societal issue for a long time. There is no clear solution.
on the contrary,human beings exhibit an inborn tendency to carelessness, irregularity and unreliability in their work, andthat a laborious training is needed before they learn to follow the example of their celestial models
Humans are born helpless like most animals on the planet, so there has to be someone to teach them.
exploitation of the earth by man
In search of happiness the earth is being destroyed. The continuous exploitation of the resources on earth is affecting society today.
Long ago he formed an ideal conception of omnipotence and omniscience
The longing for power could be a contributing factor to unhappiness. When a person is constantly wanting more, how can they ever be satisfied and happy?
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.
I do not like Freud's take here because he makes it seem like Europeans are better than other races. However, this statement makes me think of saying "the grass is greener on the other side".
We do not admit it at all; we cannot see why the regulations made by ourselves shouldnot, on the contrary, be a protection and a benefit for every one of us. And yet, when we consider howunsuccessful we have been in precisely this field of prevention of suffering, a suspicion dawns on us thathere, too, a piece of unconquerable nature may lie behind -this time a piece of our own psychicalconstitution
Regulations that are put in place are usually beneficial to a certain group and disadvantageous to another. People in power usually make laws that favor others in power.
Applying these five criteria to the situation ofgroups makes it possible tocompare oppressions without reducing them to a common essence or claiming that one is more fundamental than another.
I like that a solution is presented for the previous problem that was discussed earlier in the article. Instead of comparing the oppression of different groups, these five categories help categorize the types of oppression. This highlights howd one is not inferior to the other.
To the degree that institutions and soc.ial practices encourage, tolerate, or enable the perpetration of violence· aga/nst members ofspecific groups
This makes me think of police brutality. Violence has been used time and time again. Instead on feelings of safety, many minority groups, especially black and hispanic, feel fear. The violence towards specific groups by police is almost encouraged. It's scary.
Violence is a sociaj practice. It is a social given that everyone knows happens and will happen again.
This is a sad truth. Violence is something that is seen everyday. We are desensitized to it and almost expect it.
many groups suffer the oppression of systematic violence
This is the first word that comes to mind when I think of oppression. I closely relate the two subjects.
White males, on the other hand, insofar as they escape group marking, can be individuals
Does the lack of stereotyping for white males stem from predominantly white societies imperializing other nations? Are they free to be individuals because they set the rules?
These kinds of oppression arc a matter of concrete power in relation to others-of who benefits from whom, and who is dispensable
Why does cultural imperialism not fit this description as well?
Powerlessness
Powerlessness is also a mentality. The feeling of having no say and no control over a situation can make oppressive situations even worse.
Despitetheir differences from nonprofessional workers, most professional workers ar�stiJl not members of the capitalist class.
Whether a professional worker or non-professional worker there is still usually someone of higher rank. The capitalist class can still take advantage of all of them.
Feminists have exposed this assumption as inappropriately individualistic and derived from a specificallymale experience of social relations, which values competition and solitaryachievement
This idea of solitary achievement lacks empathy. Especially, when at some point in most people's life they have had to depend on someone or someone depend on them.
Marginalization is perhaps the most dangerous form of oppression.
I agree with this statement. It is basically the equivalent of losing a race before it even starts. People are treated like they are useless start to believe they are useless because they are not given a chance.
effrey Reiman argues that such a distributive understanding of exploitation reduces the injustice of class processes to a function of the inequality ofthe productive assets classes own. This misses, according to Reiman, the relationship of force between capitalists and workers, the fact that the unequalexchange in question occurs within coercive structures that give workers fewoptions
Capitalists can not profit if the workers are not at a disadvantage. The driving force of capitalism, profit, pushes this unequal exchange.
There is no doubt thatracialized groups in the United States, especially Blacks and Latinos, are oppressed through capitalist superexploitation resulting from a segmented labormarket that tends to reserve skilled, high-paying, unionized jobs for whites.
This stems back to the opportunities given to different racial groups. Intellectual capabilities are questioned the darker the skin. It is a sad reality that needs to be changed.
sexual and racial oppression are nonexploitative
I have never considered the aspects of racial oppression as exploitative, not because it is or isn't, but because they are not two topics I think of together. The main aspect of racial oppression that I usually think of is violence. It is interesting to see the topics are not constrained to one category.
Every commodity's value is a function of the labor timenecessary for its production. Labor power is the one commodity which in theprocess of being consumed produces new value. Profit comes from the difference between the value of the labor performed and the value of the capacityto labor which the capitalist purchases. Profit is possible only because theowner of capital appropriates any realized surplus value.
The issue with profit in a capitalist society is that it often comes with a disadvantage for laborers. This could be in the form of long work hours, little pay, or unsafe work environments.
groups are fluid;�hey come mto bemg and may fade away
The world is always changing so it would be weird if groups were stagnant and never evolving. Groups form and leave depending on the times.
Eliminating oppression thus requires eliminating groups. People should be treatedas individuals, not as members of groups, and allowed to form their lives freelywithout stereoty pes or group norms.
This is an interesting take that I can not agree or disagree with. I would not say that groups are fundamentally wrong or bad, but I do think that a person should be treated based on their individual merit and not as a member of a group.
The self is a produce of social processes,not their origin.
This line makes me think of nature vs. nurture. I interpret this line to say that the self comes from the environment around a person rather than their biological predispositions. I would argue social processes and origin are both important.
Groups, on the other hand, constitute individuals. A person's particularsense of history, affinity, and separateness, even the person's mode of reasoning, evaluating, and expressing feeling, are constituted partly by her or hisgroup affinities.This does not mean that persons have no individual sty les, orare unable to transcend or reject a group identity.
A person's group does not take away individuality. This paragraph touches on the ideas of stereotyping. Just because a person is a part of a certain group does not mean that they are the exact same as others in that particular group.
Social processes also differentiate groups within a single society. Thesexual division of labor, for example, has created social groups of women andmen in all known societies. Members of each gender have a· certain affinitywith others in their group because of what they do or experience, and differentiate themselves from the other gender, even when members of each gender consider that they have much in common with members of the other,and consider that they belong to the same society.
The social process of differentiating groups is a double edged sword. It provides people with a sense of belonging, but it also sets boundaries/walls between groups.
ageism
I do not often see this topic brought up, especially when talking about oppression. Facing discrimination for your age, whether young or old, is definitely a topic that should be discussed more.
But oppression also refers to systemic constraints on groups that are not necessarilythe result of the intentions of a tyrant. Oppression in this sense is structural,rather than the result of a few people's choices or policies. I
I think that oppression has to be built into a society through governmental and social practices. Even if the policies are not overtly or purposely oppressing a group, it can have that effect.
Oppression is a very polarizing term. There is always a competition of who has it worse. I like that Young acknowledges these disputes as "fruitless". That way of thinking only hinders the progress of a cause or movement.
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.
The first line reminds me of the saying ignorance is bliss. Once a person opens the door to a subject there is no telling what they will find.