I think it is okay to recognize that people will not want to do this while also hoping for and working toward better.

I agree, I don't think we are unable I think we are unwilling.

I agree. It is important to keep reaching toward a utopia even if it is unrealistic that we could get there. It is interesting that he says especially if not. Maybe we need to believe because if we get bogged down by knowing we'll never make it to utopia we will never try to fix the dystopia at all.

I never thought to think there was anti and that makes me question the things I have previously considered dystopian. Most of the things I am familiar with seem to be anit-utopian rather than dystopian.

I like the way the author says that the dystopia is coming to being every day. I always think of dystopias being the result of some major event, but this dystopia that is coming is coming gradually by our own hands.

I like that they author expresses two views of dystopias and gives backing to both. They both hold water, and I think the individual determines how they want to view it.

I don't think I would have said it's not plausible. It might take some major events to get there, but I think it could happen. I like to think that in order for dystopian media to be impactful it needs to be realistic enough that we can see the warning for what it is. If those events could never happen, the media is reduced to nothing more than entertainment.

Does it have to be about our future? I understand if we were using a definition in which the dystopia has to be a imaginary it is likely about the future, but if we were to think about dystopias as they apply to real life I feel like it could be about expressing fears of the present or reflections on the past.

It's not surprising though I feel it ought to be. Why are prisons, factories, and schools all resembling each other in that way when their purposes are so different. Is a panoptic society the only way of discipline?

I never looked at it as an exchange of discipline, but following his idea that our society is rooted in discipline it makes sense.

the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge

This reminds me of when we talked about civilization without a government. How it could lead to chaos like the Hobbesian jungle.

It is crazy to think about the socialized disciple we have as generalized "panopticism." That once was a means of safety has been applied to daily life like in schools. Where does the constant surveillance end?

In what way? In the closed utopias I have seen they were truly a dystopia for those trapped within it.

Using the Panopticon in this way leads me to believe that it was never about keeping the prisoners in check but being able to be in control of everything going on.

The Panopticon is like a one-way mirror.

What is the difference between individualizing the excluded and using individualization to mark exclusion?

This paragraph, like many others have stated, shows many parallels to what quarantine was like in 2020. I don't believe that in America there was any true surveillance like that stated here nor were people locked into their own homes, but there are many similarities. Is the extreme isolation that comes from an epidemic the blueprint for a prison system?

So if there are laws of nature, there is no world in which we live without laws. Correct? So there is always some governing force even if it is due to our own fear.

If there were no one else in the world, then the man would not understand justice and injustice because there would be no one to do right or wrong unto. He never has to question his actions because everything would be his.

I feel that this doesn't necessarily have to be true. I think there are things that can be considered intrinsically wrong and thus would still be wrong lacking a government or laws.

So is there no question of morality? Our concept of right and wrong is due to laws?

I think Hobbes is saying that without other measures of being safe other than their own might survival is all that exists. Fear and violence due to that fear affects the quality of life.

He talks about people like property. Like they are something in which to compete for. It's weird to view your wife and children like you would cattle.

This reminds me of the saying "you are the company you keep." If they see themselves a certain way, they will find company in those that also view them in that way.

It makes sense for Hobbes to say the only way to feel safe in the face of this danger is anticipation. If you are always looking for it, it will be easier to spot. But I feel that always anticipating the moves of others leads to a fearful life. While it could be necessary, it is also exhausting.

This reminds me a little bit of what I learned in my philosophy class. We talked about how humans are too biased in our own self- interest and how it can affect both the way we see ourselves and how we judge other. That our senses can deceive us, thus our opinions can be false.

Nature in what sense? Is he talking about nature in terms of our biochemistry like nature vs nurture, or human nature, or the nature of our circumstances/ environment?

What does he mean by American methods? Is he trying to say that Americans critique their own civilization?

This feels like he is saying that ill-will and hostility cannot be removed because taking action to do so would decrease mans happiness by way of limiting his aggression.

This goes back to our discussion on if oppression is inherent, and it appears here that Freud believes that it is.

It's an interesting idea that one must be ready to sacrifice their love. I never thought of it that way, I always took it as akin to the golden rule, essentially just be good.

The lovers do not exist in a vacuum though. They are still dependent on the civilization and part of their happiness will reside in that fact. They cannot be completely happy only within themselves.

convenient and practical although possibly improper or immoral -Oxford Languages

relating to the evolutionary development and diversification of a species or group of organisms, or of a particular feature of an organism -Oxford Languages

regarded as being symbolic or representative of a particular quality or concept -Oxford Languages

I am assuming that here he is referring the oedipus and electra complexes. In this way, familial love would be considered aim- inhibited because it does not follow what he considers the reason for love, sexual gratification.

This is sexism. He has reduced the "female" to a means of sexual gratification for the male.

I think part of civilization also has to do with our inherent social nature. We reap the benefits of utility, but I think a civilization is some sense of the word would form regardless.

I went over this idea in my philosophy class. The idea that the concept of God is the perfect idea. In order to be perfect, God must be omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, and omnipotent. And that one argument is the superhero argument where God is an imagined being where all of our imperfections are overcome.

This idea is interesting that even objectivity is never truly objective at least when it comes to matters of people. Then your "objective" opinion would be based on how you view each angle which is inherently subjective.

Could we go back? Living how we live and have lived for centuries, I don't think restoring happiness is as easy as going back to before present day civilization. The happiness would have still existed in the absence of colonization.

I feel like this could be tied to the ignorance is bliss argument. When humans were living "primitively", they didn't know that there were easier ways of living and more ways to insight happiness, so they were content with what they had. While knowing better can cause misery because you know what you don't have, it also allows room for growth into different avenues of happiness.

I wish Young had talked more about the overlap between oppressed groups. It is mentioned, but I feel that understanding intersectionality is important and that going deeper into the affect of the layers of oppression would have been beneficial.

This answered my question on what it takes to be considered oppressed. Having one of these faces demonstrates oppression, but also having a combination of them. Levels of oppression can be compared without diminishing the presence of oppression in either group.

I heard discussions recently about rape culture and that is being expressed here as well. How do we go about unsocializing certain acts like rape, when it has been part of this country since its inception.

"To experience cultural imperialism means to ..." This is interesting to me because they used Black liberation as an example and they talk about being rendered invisible. From what I've heard recently, some people have expressed that they feel that black Americans are hypervisible and that our group is seen often though still stereotyped and made out as other.

So nonprofessionals are always the bottom of the totem pole? If a person who has no real direct influence but yet has authority over others is a professional, then the only nonprofessionals are those who start at the bottom and stay there. I would have thought there was a grey area because while I understand the privilege, being one step above the bottom sounds powerless to me too.

When I hear about material deprivation the first thing that comes to mind is food deserts. In some black dominated areas, there is maybe limited grocery store options and the produce may not be that good and thus they are deprived of material necessary for survival.

I took interest in the quote "The injustices of exploitation cannot be eliminated by redistribution of goods, for as long as institutionalized practices and structural relation remain unaltered, the process of transfer will recreate an unequal distribution of benefits." To me, this sounds like Young is saying exploitation will always remain under current capitalist conditions. I'm not sure if we could get to a pointe in capitalism where it would no longer contain exploitation.

In the context of philosophy/ethics, normative means the right thing to do/ what ought to be the case, while descriptive means what is the case. It would make sense to me that Marx would include both meanings in his theory because while knowing what should be done is good, knowing what is currently being done can be beneficial for making moves for the future.

I think it is detrimental to the individual to deny groups. Groups can be so much more than a label, it can be a place of belonging and support by people like you and for you. We should be recognizing differences, not eliminating the spaces that have been crated to embrace those differences.

I agree with this statement. The way that we experience the world and are grouped by it depend on how we are perceived. Due to the way society thinks, one can be thrown into a group, what they make of that grouping is up to the individual, but I feel the world will always view them where they were thrown.

I've been learning in my philosophy class what it truly means to be autonomous. It is being self-determining and self- governing, but choosing to do something does not mean it was autonomous nor does obeying a rule automatically denote the loss of autonomy.

Here they are talking about this collective black identity that many black Americans share. We derived this identity I feel do to the scattered nature of our history. There is no one culture we can claim besides the one we have made ourselves. In that, though our experiences vary, we tend to walk through life in a similar way and that unites us.

This interesting to think that a group can only exist with the context that there are more groups. I understand it though, because if there was no distinctions and thus one big group, you wouldn't call it a group it would just be everybody/ the collective.

I agree that both those that are conscious and those that are seemingly unconscious both contribute to the oppression of marginalized groups. Whether they recognize it or not they are feeding into the same system that is a hinderance to others. The important part about having privilege is recognizing that you have it and using it to help those who don't.

Is the reason it is incommensurate with liberal individual language because the groups whose livelihood are consumed with oppression are not included in the making of that language to begin with?

I like Weil's use of the word caricature here and in the last sentence. Without directly stating it the reader is able to create an image in their mind about how Weil feels about both rape and oppression. They are nothing but an exaggerated imitation of what people can claim it to be.