11 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2024
    1. But, though there had never been any time wherein particular men were in acondition of war one against another, yet in all times kings and persons ofsovereign authority, because of their independency, are in continual jealousiesand in the state and posture of gladiators, having their weapons pointing, andtheir eyes fixed on one another, that is, their forts, garrisons, and guns, upon thefrontiers of their kingdoms, and continual spies upon their neighbours: which isa posture of war.

      I interpreted this as Hobbes saying that there was never a time where individuals would wage war on each other. They only went to war because they were forced to by authority figures. For the most part, they only went to war due to jealousy.

    2. For, as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill thestrongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are inthe same danger with himself.

      I interpreted this sentence as Hobbes saying that strength isn't the only advantage people can have over others. There are other ways a person can overpower the other.

  2. Jan 2024
    1. People give the name'love' to the relation between a man and a woman whose genital needs have led them to found a family;but. they also give the name 'love' to the positive feelings between parents and children, and betweenthe brothers and sisters of a family, although we are obliged to describe this as 'aim-inhibited love' or'affection'. Love with an inhibited aim was in fact originally fully sensual love

      From my understanding, I think Freud was trying to say that people have modified the word "love" to have different meanings and emotions attached to it when it's expressed to certain people. When using the term with family members or close friends, love is pure. But when it's used towards a romantic partner, it's sensual.

    2. It forces us to acknowledge those sources of suffering and to submit to the inevitable.

      I interpreted this as Freud telling us to be content with the things that we cannot change within our lives to avoid most of our suffering.

    1. There is no common nature thatmembers o� a group share

      I disagree to a certain extent. Although everyone is different, there are still people who share common experiences.

    2. W hile I agree that individualsshould be free to pursue life plans in their own way, it is foolish to den)'. thereality of groups.

      I agree with the mindset of creating your own identity. But at the end of the day, you are still a part of a group whether you realize it or not. Just because you may reject the idea of groups doesn't mean that they don't exist.

    3. Group meanings partially constitute people's identities in terms of thecultural forms, social situation, and history that group member s know astheirs, because these meanings have been either forced upon them or forgedby them or both (cf. Fiss, 1976). Groups are real not as substances, but as formsof social relations (

      This claim expresses the idea that people's identities are also shaped by their upbringings. For example, people who were church kids. This specific group of people were those who were practically raised in the church and have a unique understanding of each other and the church that others wouldn't understand. Church kids may differ in race, class, or gender but religion is one of the ways that they can all relate to one another.