I definitely understand Hobbes's point in this part of the passage. But, I do not agree with man's passions/desires being no sin until the actions are clarified by law as wrong. Where does a person's morals, values, or empathy come into play? For instance, this could apply to white people not knowing slavery was wrong until it was abolished. You cannot justify man's actions, creating slavery, to fulfill their passions, a more efficient and powerful economy. This way of thinking can apply to some things but not everything.

These three principles remind me of the three G's from history. My teacher used to say that nations fought over three things: God, gold, and glory. In Hobbes's message, I think that competition and glory apply to the three G's. However, the second diffidence is new to me. I believe he is saying that men fight for their own safety or to defend their home. This is a more defensive tactic whereas the three G's is strictly offensive.

This sounds like Hobbes is describing the beginning stages of every war. Most war over territories started with two men desiring the same thing. If we think about the Civil War, the whole point was to abolish slavery. One side wanted to keep and the other did not, thankfully. Compared to Hobbes's point, the single desire was control of slavery in US. Both groups could not enjoy their preferred outcomes at once, so they fought to determine the 'winner.

I think that this line has to deal with deception. The main point is that any man physically strong or weak has the power or will to overthrow the other. However, the difference is those that are physically weakest have to overthrow the strongest with deception. Secret machination means to devise a plan that accomplishes an evil end. Confederacy with others refers to conspiring with others to make the strongest fall. This reminds me of the Trojan horse. The tactic used was not technically fair to the other opponent, but the weaker army won because they deceived their opponents.

Freud mentions the current events of his time. He does not necessarily offer an opinion on whether he thinks these events are right or wrong. They act as examples for his previous points. I still wonder if there were any major reactions from these groups on his comments.

I wonder how pride plays a role in this kind of thinking. Why can men not show love first? If a stranger were to show Freud some love or concern, would Freud be more inclined to show love back to him? This part of the reading provides insight into men thinking that love, vulnerability, and emotion are a weakness. He truly believes he is wrong to give his valuable love to a stranger who doesn't deserve. This could be the root of civil unrest or why there is no world peace now.

If you replace claims of civilization with a man's career, dreams, or goals, Freud describes the issue that a lot of marriages today are facing. However, I do not agree that women develop a hostile attitude towards the civilization or a man's life plans. Women begin to resent the man for his own actions. Freud might think women resent civilization because he cannot fathom a woman being upset with men do to his misogyny.

How can the power of the community be right? Quantity does not surpass quality. This is how slavery and the race for the Congo began. A group of people banned together with the same idea and declared themselves right. When the individuals came forward to voice their opinions, it did not power because of the power imbalance. I can see how the power of the community is a step towards civilization. Freud is accurately recounting how unfair things went down.

I think this is where Freud tends to veer off from his original topic. I am starting to make the connection from the micro lecture to how Freud structures his thoughts.

I think Freud uses the term cheap enjoyment because the satisfaction does not last long. Helping to reduce infant mortality rates is probably not cheap enjoyment if you deliver babies everyday. That satisfaction or joy you feel continues to happen. You can quantify it by the amount of successful deliveries. However, if you are in a lab all day looking for the next thing to cure or improve, then these victories feel small after a while. I would not classify them as cheap enjoyment, but I would equate his words to finishing your Med school application vs getting accepted into your dream school.

While this is a loaded question, I think it is extremely accurate and worth understanding. Women have been fighting for equality for years. We still have not reached a fraction of the success men have in discoveries, power, or wealth. All our global, environmental, and social issues stem from the unhappiness or restlessness of men. It is important for us to understand why they are so discontent with the world. The chaos they feel internally is having a huge impact externally on the world.

Prior to reading, I was most curious to see Young's perspective on violence as a face of oppression. Her thought process and breakdown of the systemic oppression within violence is very eye-opening. It reminds me of movies where the leader decides to "make an example" out of someone. Their violence toward that one person evokes fear in the rest of the group. When Young mentions the oppressed deprivation of dignity, I feel like it directly correlates to the unjust killings of black people by the police. Whenever a black person gets pulled over, we have to swallow our pride, pull out our phones, verbalize every action we do just to make it out alive. There is so much dignity that the oppressed have to give up for survival.

I agree with what Young mentions here and earlier about dependency. Dependency in your country and other people for that matter is a slippery slope that has its pros and cons. While some dependency in life is healthy and inevitable, it really is more negative than positive. Dependency leaves you comfortable and complacent which is what Young is conveying here. Even if you are comfortable and not directly oppressed, people still feel the affects of indirect oppression. People may feel useless or without a purpose because of consistent marginalization.

I completely agree with what Young is saying here. I appreciate the breakdown and distinct difference between an association and a social group. The group explanation makes a lot of sense. Especially with gangs and people feeling the need to 'rep their hood'. I think that some of those people get so caught up in defending their homes and area that the group becomes their whole identity. While this is an extreme example, I think it still applies to the social groups mentioned such as race or religious groups.

On page 2, the author talks about oppression being systemic. She says, "We cannot eliminate this structural oppression by getting rid of the rulers or making some new laws, because oppressions are systemically reproduced..." I never thought of oppression as systemic, but if racism is systemic then oppression is as well. This statement is so powerful to me because we have tried the alternatives listed. People tried to impeach Trump or make new laws to protect black lives. However, Trump is still trying to run for a second term, Affirmative Action and Roe v. Wade were overturned. These are current examples that support her remarks. How will we advance past a broken system?