An adequate life provided for all living beings is something the planet can still do; it has sufficientresources, and the sun provides enough energy. There is a sufficiency, in other words; adequacy forall is not physically impossible
I once learned that Texas has enough space for everyone in the United States to have a house and a backyard. Therefore, the standards of living that many people are experiencing should not even be the case.
of a “crisis of representation” in the world today, having to do with governments—that no oneanywhere feels properly represented by their government, no matter which style of government itis.
I remember when doing the blog post, I tried to look up the happiest country and mimick their government to create a nondystopia, but I believe there will be a few that are unhappy with the ay things are.
hese days I tend to think of dystopias as being fashionable, perhaps lazy, maybe even complacent,because one pleasure of reading them is cozying into the feeling that however bad our presentmoment is, it’s nowhere near as bad as the ones these poor characters are suffering through
This is so true for me.
That’s not what it’s trying to do. Whatit does very well is to portray the feeling of the present for young people today, heightened byexaggeration to a kind of dream or nightmare. To the extent this is typical, dystopias can be thoughtof as a kind of surrealism.
This makes me think back to a question you asked last week. If dystopian books and movies are a good warning about our potential future. I would've said yes, but now I can see that these ideas are very extreme. Because of our progression as a society, I do not think these are portrayals of our future, but the ideals behind these books can be analyzed and used to prevent similar outcomes.
Possibly dystopiashope to kill the societies they depict
This is ironic, due to the fact that they created the societies, they hope to kill.
Dystopias are the flip side of utopias. Both of them express feelings about our shared future; utopiasexpress our social hopes, dystopias our social fears. There are a lot of dystopias around these days,and this makes sense, because we have a lot of fears about the future
This is actually an interesting way to distinguish between the two. I still believe there are other contributing factors to the formation of dystopias. I definitely agree though.
disciplinary power to observe; at the point where the universal punishments of the law are applied selectively to certain individuals and always the same ones; at the point where the redefinition of the juridical subject by the penalty becomes a useful training of the criminal;
This kind of reminds me of the police surveillance cameras, that are placed in certain areas.
t was an event in the “history of the human mind”
I kind of agree.. to come up with something like this is genius.
Hence 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.
This is quite a powerful statement here. It shows the conformity this technique created. To have to act as if you are always being watched. No privacy.
Visibility is a trap
This connects to the idea, of how the prisoners can be seen, but are never able to tell when they are being watched. That visibility traps them and they always act as if they are being watched.
the lepers are treated as plague victims; the tactics of individualizing disciplines are imposed on the excluded; and, on the other hand, the universality of disciplinary controls makes it possible to brand the “leper” and to bring into play against him the dualistic mechanisms of exclusion
Definitely an example of marginalization. They are set as examples for those around them.
“In this way he will find out easily enough whether dead or sick are being concealed
They seem to be the marginalized groups, within this society.
The syndic himself comes to lock the door of each house from the outside; he takes the key with him and hands it over to the intendant of the quarter; the intendant keeps it until the end of the quarantine.
This is extreme and would basically be a personal prison. If that's the goal, then this really gives that effect. I wonder how long is a "normal " quarantine.
killing of all stray animals
This seems extreme.
Howsoever, it may be perceived what mannerof life there would be where there were no common power to fear, by themanner of life which men that have formerly lived under a peaceful governmentuse to degenerate into, in a civil war
so the government insinuates war?
hen 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.
This is crazy to think about, but there was a time when we didn't do this. Sin has entered the world, so we take precautions. In certain neighborhoods, people do not lock their doors. We are just simply aware of the fact that there are people who have greed and thrive from the demise of others.
he first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men’spersons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, fortrifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue,either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, theirnation, their profession, or their name
when thinking of this first use of "violence, " why do people even resort to this in the first place?
So that in the nature of man we find three principal causes of quarrel. First,competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory
In a way this is true, but some times that are legitimate disagreements due to lack of information.
And therefore, 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.
Quite frankly, I believe there is a way for everyone to enjoy the same things.
But this provethrather that men are in that point equal than unequal. For there is not ordinarily agreater sign of the equal distribution of anything than that every man iscontented with his share.2
This is subjective to the fact that we all value different things. We are created equal in order to be able to have access to the same things, but this use of the term "equal" is more so applied when talking about social construct by society. Being different and having various attributes do not make one more equal than another.
I find yet a greater equality amongst men than that of strength. Forprudence is but experience, which equal time equally bestows on all men inthose things they equally apply themselves unto
All men are equal in the way that they acquire wisdom. It is acquired through experience. People can have unique experiences and acquire the same or different knowledge. What makes us equal is the way we can acquire the same knowledge and apply it in different situations.. It is interesting how we can have unique experiences and still have an understanding of similar concepts.
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.
This is definitely an old idea that we have surely progressed from. The traditionalist idea of the housewife and provider.
'cheap enjoyment' extolledin the anecdote - the enjoyment obtained by putting a bare leg from under the bedclothes on a cold
It's crazy that he can compare such monumental achievements to a trivial act like this. It's the opposite of the term "little victories" where we praise the small achievements we've made in pursuit of the larger ones.
mine who is living hundreds of miles away or if I can learn in the shortest possible time after a friend hasreached his destination that he has come through the long and difficult voyage unharmed? Does it meannothing that medicine has succeeded in enormously reducing infant mortality and the danger ofinfection for women in childbirth, and, indeed, in considerably lengthening the average life of a civilizedman?
It seems here that power is looked at as a source of man's happiness. Despite all that we have accomplished within society, it is not enough to achieve ultimate happiness. This also seems to be true
primitive conditions.
I'm assuming primitive conditions are what is sometimes referred to as the Paleolithic time period.
men to be happy
I wonder if here he means men or both men and women..
hough some groups have come to be formed out of oppression, and relations of privilege and oppression structure the interactions between mahygroups; group differentiation is not in itself oppressive
This is what I was referring to before, but this makes sense. All groups are not bad, they can be used to cope with oppression.
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 actually a compelling idea, but wouldn't this also strip the sense of community that people feel within their groups? Aren't our differences what make us unique.
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 actually can explain the lack of progress when it comes to combating injustices within our world. There are people who actually do not see what is taking place because they are not placed in circumstances where they have to experience it. They also so don't know to look for it. A person who has a different circumstance may experience these injustices, and because it is so blatant to them, it seems that others would understand.
r, because we have no clear account of the meaning of oppression.While we find the term used of�en in the diverse philosophical literature spawned by radical social movements in the United States, we find littledirect discussion of the meaning of the concept as used by these movements.
It's interesting that we all apparently "know" when to use this word, but don't"know" it's clear meaning. Could it then be said that some groups are possibly using it wrong?