Or maybe weshould just give up entirely on optimism or pessimism—we have to do this work no matter how wefeel about it. So by force of will or the sheer default of emergency we make ourselves have utopianthoughts and ideas
I think that this is how a large portion of Generation Z feels, and as a result, we are getting more and more businesses. People are deciding to truly feed their passions before running themselves into the ground working for someone else's.
On the other hand, there is a real feeling being expressed in them, a real sense of fear. Some speakof 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 feel that this is the most common representation of what a dystopia is in the media, which is good, but it also takes away from the other facets that truly make a dystopia.
These 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.
I think that this is a thought that keeps most of society complacent in our situation as well. We are all living under the fear of "it could be worse" in some way.
Together thetwo views combine and pop into a vision of History, extending magically into the future.
We are essentially creating our dystopia(s) by way of discomfort and knowledge within the present and fear of the future.
Dystopia is very clearly a kind of satire.
Is this statement saying that while most understand that we are living in a dystopia, we will never end the cycle because of the foreshadows of history? If so, I agree with this statement because I think that we will almost always be bound by our morals or lack thereof, which ultimately creates some form of a dystopia.
There are a lot of dystopias around these days,and this makes sense, because we have a lot of fears about the future
In this class, we have learned about many different ways to define dystopias as well as what the most accepted definition is. While I do think that this statement would be the most widely accepted, wouldn't this statement still be one of subjectivity?
This surveillance is based on a system of permanent registration: reports from the syndics to the intendants, from the intendants to the magistrates or mayor
Since this system was formed for/during the plagues,I wonder if there was any corrupt activity during this relay of information, or if there would be a need to at all.
Inspection functions ceaselessly. The gaze is alert everywhere:
While I understand that this reading is supposed to be mostly about the "older" prison system, I think that it ties in wonderfully with the discussion that we have been doing this week on the different ways in which we, as Americans agree to being surveilled in our day to day lives.
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. Each family will have made its own provisions; but, for bread and wine, small wooden canals are set up between the street and the interior of the houses, thus allowing each person to receive his ration without communicating with the suppliers and other residents; meat, fish and herbs will be hoisted up into the houses with pulleys and baskets. If it is absolutely necessary to leave the house, it will be done in turn, avoiding any meeting. Only the intendants, syndics and guards will move about the streets and also, between the infected houses, from one corpse to another
The direct parallel to today's prison system in America is uncanny. After reading these few lines, you can tell that this is only being done to severely punish the prisoners in an unhealthy way.
It isconsequent also to the same condition that there be no propriety, no dominion,no ‘mine’ and ‘thine’ distinct, but only that to be every man’s that he can get,and for so long as he can keep it.
This is the type of communal living that can heal society, If we all followed our passions and did things for joy instead of purely greed of money.
Where there is no common power, there is no law; whereno law, no injustice.
For the most part, I agree with this statement. Now that violence is so normalized in society, there is a slim chance of this actually working out, but if societies were to start out this way (as far as laws and government) then I think that it would function well and be an overall supportive and good natured community.
But because they uphold thereby the industry of their subjects,there does not follow from it that misery which accompanies the liberty ofparticular men
From this statement, I got that countries are always "at the ready" for war, and have their reasoning be that they are just trying to protect their citizens. I think that this is untrue. While there are plenty of extreme nationalists that support this behavior, I still do think that it's rare that you would be able to find an average citizen in a given country that feels protected by the thought of their country going to war or even supportive of the idea in general. With that being said, now that "wars/conflict" is so normalized, I do think that there are plenty of people who are more willing to cheer on their countries in this game of violence.
a posture of war.
Government systems around the world always seem to be ready for war/violence even when there is nothing evidently wrong.
Let himtherefore consider with himself, when taking a journey, he arms himself andseeks to go well accompanied; 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?
I think that this is basically saying that there will always be a distrust in the people that are supposed to rule or even be servants to the public/community. In today's political climate I think that this is normalized, for good reason too. As much as we want to trust the people that are supposed to be protecting and advocating for us, we can't. This only leads to a normalized unknown rule of "every man for himself" being put into play.
Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a common power tokeep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such awar as is of every man against every man.
If mankind aren't able to exert their dominance on one another, they must be in some type of conflict, usually because of the previously stated reason.
The first maketh man invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, forreputation.
Again, I don't fully agree with the second principal (safety) used in this statement because while it does cause more violence brought into society, the laws on firearms and other forms of personal protection are becoming more and more loose as the days carry on, so safety for (most) people in the world is becoming less and less of an issue in that regard.
So that in the nature of man we find three principal causes of quarrel. First,competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.
I already had an idea of what these three terms meant, but I looked them up for clarification. I agree with all of these as causes except for diffidence. Times have definitely changed (but also repeated and stayed the same in some areas) since Hobbes' era, especially in terms of the "meek" ways of our society. There are many citizens that are fighting back and pushing back against the system.
there is no way for any man to securehimself so reasonable as anticipation, that is, by force or wiles to master thepersons of all men he can so long till he see no other power great enough toendanger him
Is Hobbes trying to say that as long as there is this hierarchal class system, there will never truly be peace in society or am I misreading the message that he was trying to convey?
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
I think that this is such a valid statement. We see this type of behavior all over the world, but especially in America's society. There are so many things that I think could lead us towards a more peaceful society but it seems almost unattainable because of things like capitalism, racism and prejudice.
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
This, as well as external researching, leads me to the conclusion that Hobbes was a supporter of anarchy and that he ultimately believed that even though there are people in higher classes, who seemingly have more "control" over others, the "weakest/lowest class" person can still band together and take back their power.
When we justly find fault with the present state of our civilization for so inadequately fulfilling ourdemands for a plan of life that shall make us happy; and for allowing the existence of so much suffering whichcould probably be avoided -when, with unsparing criticism, we try to uncover the roots of its imperfection,we are undoubtedly exercising a proper right and are not showing ourselves enemies of civilization
I think that this statement is very true. Even though those that are open to exercising freedom of speech and questioning the actions of the government are looked at as "radicals", I think that it's unfair to day because I would like to imagine that the members of society that are critical of the government are mostly or only critical in hopes that it can change and get better for all.
No matter how much we mayshrink with horror from certain situations -of a galley-slave in antiquity, of a peasant during the Thirty Years'War, of a victim of the Holy Inquisition, of a Jew awaiting a pogrom -it is nevertheless impossible for us tofeel our way into such people -
I don't agree with this statement. Even though some people may have never went through what the next person has, I think that the least that can be offered or shared is sympathy towards that person or their situation.
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? And there is a long list that might be added to benefits of this kind Which we owe to the much-despised era of scientific and technical advances. But here the voice of pessimistic criticism makes itselfheard and warns us that most of these satisfactions follow the model of the 'cheap enjoyment' extolledin the anecdote
I still agree with freud's previous statement that I annotated, but I think this is a huge contradiction in comparison. Freud went from essentially saying that upper level advancements in technology and science doesn't bring us joy to now saying that the advancements should'nt be reduced to "meaning nothing".
During the last few generations mankind has made anextraordinary advance in the natural sciences and in their technical application and has established hiscontrol over nature in a way never before imagined. The single steps of this advance are commonknowledge and it is unnecessary to enumerate them. Men are proud of those achievements, and have aright to be. But they seem to have observed that this newly-won power over space and time, thissubjugation of the forces of nature, which is the fulfilment of a longing that goes back thousands ofyears, has not increased the amount of pleasurable satisfaction which they may expect from life and hasnot made them feel happier.
I agree with this statement, we have tried to bend almost (if no all) things that are natural to our will, but what have we really gained from it besides a life/ecosystem of a lower quality altogether?
This 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 agree with this to an extent, I think that if we kept the progressions in technology that we have made--along with some other things that we made in life-- we could adapt more atyypical way of life in terms of things like working,personal passions, and even buying and selling things (adopting a berter system).
We have given the answer already by pointing to the threesources from which our suffering comes: the superior power of nature, the feebleness of our ownbodies and the inadequacy of the regulations which adjust the mutual relationships of human beings inthe family, the state and society.
If I am interpreting this correctly, I think that I agree with this to an extent. Part of our "suffering" in society comes from 2/3 of the things that Freud has mentioned. The only one that i'm questioning is "the feebleness of our own bodies" does this mean that we as a working class, or even society in general aren't working hard enough??
Thus the mystery of capitalism arises: when everyone is formally free,how can there be class domination?
I think that this is how most Americans do not realize that they are in fact not serving themselves, but they are serving the upper class more.The working class works for their basic necessities and the upper class doesn't do much but profit from the fruits of someone else's labor.
Social groups of this sort are not simplycollections of people, for they are more fundamentally intertwined with theidentities of the people described as belonging to them. They are a specifickind of collectivity, with specific consequences for how people understandone .another and themselves. Yet neither social theory nor philosophy has aclear and developed concept of the social group
I think that it would be hard (especially today) to place people into one definite group just because of the fact that there are many people in this world that consider themselves to be one thing before they consider the other. To be more clear with what I am trying to say, an example of this is that I am a Black woman, and that is also how I outwardly appear. With that being said, I place my Blackness over my womanhood, which would be second for me personally. This varies in complexity and reason(s) from person to person.
■
I like how Young points out that oppression is not just a few events of injustice that happen in a lifetime for members of cultural groups or genders, but instead it is something that is ongoing and so normalized. I think that oppression in the world (especially America) is starting to become so normalized that the oppressed groups have had almost no choice but to surrender what little power they had left and accept that this is the new norm. Just as a disclaimer, I am not agreeing with the last part of my annotation being right or something that we should accept, I'm just saying that it's something I've noticed, primarily from being a member of an oppressed group(s).
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
I see how the word oppression is used almost "loosely" in day-to-day life and media, so I definitely am looking forward to see how Young digs deep to fully and correctly define the term.
I have proposed an enabling conception of justice.Justice should refer notonly to distribution, but also to the institutional conditions necessary for thedevelopment and exercise of individual capacities and collective communication_ and cooperation. Under this conception of justice, injustice refers primanly to two forms of disabling constraints, oppression and domination.W hile these constraints include distributive patterns, they also involve matterswhich cannot easily be assimilated to the logic of distribution: decisionmaking procedures, division of labor, and culture
I agree so much with this paragraph, because in a situation where justice is needed, I think that it is more than just "giving handouts" (for lack of better words) to those who were wronged but also setting up/creating spaces for those that were wronged to be able to thrive realistically. By "thrive realistically" I simply mean creating opportunities with the intended culture, gender, etc. being kept in mind.
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
In some situations, I do think that this can be considered a valid statement. In most situations I don't think that it would be valid. I think that the person that is contributing to the form of oppression knows what they are doing fully, especially if that person is an adult.