- Feb 2024
-
room101.jtodd.info room101.jtodd.info
-
Where there is no common power, there is no law; whereno law, no injustice.
Injustices are only created when laws are present? Can't something be morally unjust even if there are no laws to enforce a consequence?
-
or ‘war’ consisteth not in battle onlyor the act of fighting, but in a tract of time wherein the will to contend by battle issufficiently known, and therefore the notion of ‘time’ is to be considered in thenature of war, as it is in the nature of weather.
The comparison Hobbes makes of war and the weather was very interesting, yet accurate. I never thought of the actual nature of war and how it is measured in days, months, years rather than individual battles. War only ceases once a consensus is drawn between the two parties (even if the battling has ceased).
-
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
This statement implies that every person is constantly in search for power to ensure that they cannot be overtaken. It reminds me of the saying "it's a dog eat dog world". Every man is in competition to out-power everyone else to, not only secure his own freedom, but also to secure his own desires.
-
Forprudence is but experience, which equal time equally bestows on all men inthose things they equally apply themselves unto.
I think that Hobbes is implying that men are not only equal in capabilities but also equal in wisdom. With time, everyone grows wiser through their lived experiences (even if those experiences are not shared amongst the masses). One may be wiser in certain areas than others, but the ability to gain wisdom is what truly makes us equal.
-
the differencebetween man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereuponclaim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he.
All men are equal in the sense that we all possess the same capabilities. Where one may lack in physical strength, he gains advantage through weapons or allies. No one man can be declared as the greatest because every man has the ability to improve and overthrow each other.
-
- Jan 2024
-
room101.jtodd.info room101.jtodd.info
-
men are not gentlecreatures who want to be loved, and who at the most can defend themselves if they are attacked; theyare, on the contrary, creatures among whose instinctual endowments is to be reckoned a powerfulshare of aggressiveness.
I feel as though this is an extremely cynical look at men's nature. To say that men cannot be gentle and are always at the edge of aggression and provocation is wrong. I do not believe 'inherently' that men are aggressive and must be taught to suppress said aggression. It is in our nature, as humans, to be wary of people/things that may pose a threat to us, but that isn't exclusively relegated to men (that's just animal instinct). Also, this seems like a justification for all the bad things men may intentionally do.
-
But the family will not give the individual up. The more closely the membersof a family are attached to one another, the more often do they tend to cut themselves off from others,and the more difficult is it for them to enter into the wider circle of life
I will have to disagree with Freud. I do not believe loving families isolate themselves from others. If a family has a healthy, loving relationships, the members tend to put forth more love out into society. They tend to have stronger peripheral relationships as well (such as between coworkers, neighbors, etc.).
-
A love that does notdiscriminate seems to me to forfeit a part of its own value, by doing an injustice to its object; andsecondly, not all men are worthy of love.
How can a love that does not discriminate have lesser value than a conditional love? Shouldn't love be unconditional and one should have love for their fellow neighbors to keep society "good"?
-
If the attempt were not made, the relationships would besubject to the arbitrary will of the individual: that is to say, the physically stronger man would decidethem in the sense of his own interests and instinctual impulses
Civilizations helps maintain a balance between the "weak" and the "strong". Without civilization, the strong would subject the weak to their every whim. This cycle would repeat continuously exchanging who is the "strongest" and who is weak.
-
narcotization
to make dull; to stupefy
-
And, finally,what good to us is a long life if it is difficult and barren of joys, and if it is so full of misery that we canonly welcome death as a deliverer?
Freud's interpretation of technological advancements is interesting. While most would agree with the former, that technological advancements have benefitted mankind to have a better existence, he finds these minute reasons why the advancement is negative. It is as if he would prefer society to be stagnant because improvements opens the door to never-ending possibilities and outcomes (good and bad).
-
in whatever way we may define the concept of civilization, it is acertain fact that all the things with which we seek to protect ourselves against the threats that emanatefrom the sources of suffering are part of that very civilization
Is Freud making the assertion that we conform to a society to protect ourselves from the very sources of harm which are inherently woven into society?
-
-
room101.jtodd.info room101.jtodd.info
-
Because they depend on bureaucraticinstitutions for support or services, the old, the poor, and the mentally orphysically disabled are subject to patronizing, punitive, demeaning; and arbitrary _treatment by the policies and people associated with welfare bureaucracies
I always thought of oppressed, marginalized groups having access to social and welfare programs as a means of economic equality (as far as quality of life). I never viewed the social programs as an element of oppression, in and of itself, due to isolating a group of people from the collective. Despite it being a tool for economic equality, capitalist society shames welfare users and encourages them to remain in a relegated class (which further perpetuates capitalism). The rich can only remain rich if there are poorer people willing to work for them and buy their products.
-
cogently
Definition: "in a way that is clearly expressed and is likely to persuade people"
-
those who identify with a group can redefinethe meaning and norms of group identity.
Does this make group identity fluid?
-
As Stephen Epstein describes it, identity is a "socialized sense of individuality, an internal organization of self-perception concerning one's relationship to social categories, that also incorporates views of the self perceivedto_ be held by other
The way I interpret this statement is identity is not a label placed on you by society, but rather a culmination of one's interactions with different social groups, as well as how others perceive you. You are not born with an identity, rather you establish one as you grow and interact with members of society. Ultimately you find groups with which you share experiences/history and this becomes a part of your identity.
-
The aggregate model conceives the individual as prior to the collective, because it reduces the social group to a mereset of attributes attached to individuals. The association model also implicitlyconceives the individual as ontologically prior to the collective, as making up,or constituting, groups.
How is concieving the individual prior to the collective an inherent problem? Social groups cannot be created if it weren't for common characteristics of individuals.
-
n its new usage, oppression designatesthe disadvantage and injustice some people suffer not because a tyrannicalpower coerces them, but because of the ever yday practices of a wellintentioned liberal society
This new designation of oppression allows it to be applicable to all societies, by separating oppression from tyranny. Earlier she notes that "our society" (America) cannot be associated with oppression because that term is reserved for nations under the strict rule of a dictator/tyrant. America still has oppressive policies even if we are a "free" nation. This new definition allows for a larger range of critique.
-