The passions that incline men to peace are fear of death, desire of such thingsas are necessary to commodious living, and a hope by their industry to obtainthem
This reminds me of the fact that many older citizens are a lot wiser about life as they have lived it for so long
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? But neither of us accuse man’s nature in it.
What this makes me think about is that no matter what it is always good be precautious towards things as you never know who you could trust.
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time or war where every man isenemy to every man, the same is consequent to the time wherein men livewithout other security than what their own strength and their own invention shallfurnish them withal.
I think what he is saying is that if there isn't some type of control there would always be some kind of conflict and demise against each other as someone will always want to have the most power
time’ is to be considered in thenature of war,
Do you think he trying to say that war could be part of human nature or more of the fact that it is something that results from human nature?
The first maketh man invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, forreputation. The 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
If referring to men, I believe this has a lot to do with their masculinity and wanting to show their masculine side at all times. According to society, this means that they are not suppose to appear weak.
So that in the nature of man we find three principal causes of quarrel. First,competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.
This is very true for all aspects of human
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.And by consequence, such augmentation of dominion over men beingnecessary to a man’s conservation, it ought to be allowed him
I believe what he is saying that those who do not seek power and to go higher are weak as they will eventually fall against those who want power. My question is if they don't seek power then, do those who do seek power still see them as competition? If not, why would they fall if they aren't a threat?
And the invaderagain is in the like danger of another
I believe it a lot about wanting to better than everyone else so your ego plays a role in this. There should be a way were everyone is happy for each other though.
nd 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.
This reminds me of the idea that there is only room for one person to have a certain thing. For this reason if someone were to get in the way of what you want, you would by all means do what's necessary to prevent that from happening. This mindset could result in a lot of conflict and be dangerous at times.
ariseth
arise
For such is the nature of men that, howsoever theymay acknowledge many others to be more witty or more eloquent or morelearned, yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves, forthey see their own wit at hand and other men’s at a distance.
I believe what he trying to say here is that many people aren't open minded in a way in which they believe that their own beliefs and smart are correct. They don't try to learn from others as they believe they know it all in a way. This is what makes us all equal in the sense that we have a certain ego.
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
What I take away from this is that never to underestimate anyone and judge a book by their cover. This is because you never know what someone is capable of in any way and that everyone has their own strength and weakness.
society often helps him in the solution
This could go two ways as yes you do need to leave in order to grow. However, if you aren't secure in yourself before leaving, it is easy to become someone you are not.
ut 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.
This is an interesting point of view but I believe that the more a family is loving the more the individuals in that family are able to give that love to others as they have a sense of security in a way
not all men are worthy of love.
I think everyone is worthy of receiving love but the type of love that they receive should be based on how they give love and treat others
the power oflove, which made the man unwilling to be deprived of his sexual object -the woman -and made thewoman unwilling to be deprived of the part of herself which had been separated off from her -her child
I feel like what he is saying is very traditional in a sense. It's also interesting that both male and female stayed because of love but in different ways. I think its kinda of odd that he views woman as sexual objects
We must ask ourselves to what influences the development of civilization owes its origin, howit arose, and by what its course has been determined.
This will always be hard to answer as I feel there will not be a right or wrong answer. All humans would have different answers based on what they experienced and learned.
The essence of it lies in the fact that the members of the community restrict themselves intheir possibilities of satisfaction, whereas the individual knew no such restrictions.
I think this may be due to the social norms and structures that are placed up resulting in individuals not really being themselves sometimes
man's 'ideals' - his ideas of a possible perfection of individuals
"Possible perfection" will lead to one always chasing that perfection and therefore always wanting more. It results in depression and disappointment when this perfection isn't met
we demand other things from civilization besides these
Kind of like humans being greedy for more
these things do not only sound like a fairy tale, theyare an actual fulfilment of every -or of almost every -fairy-tale wish
I think this kind of put into perspective to appreciate things for what they are as many people have it worst. This doesn't undermine the fact that these things also leads to our unhappiness. It's kind of like the saying another man trash is another man treasure somewhat.
welcome death as a deliverer?
It seems like he is making it seem as if happiness is kinda materialistic in a way based on the things that we are able to achieve. Not that this is a bad thing as good things have come from it. I think happiness though is more about those we could enjoy these things with. Its based on human connection and relationships
, has not increased the amount of pleasurable satisfaction which they may expect from life and hasnot made them feel happier.
Is this like how social media and the internet has not made people happier? (similarly to how society has made standards as mentioned before)
person becomes neurotic because he cannot tolerate the amount of frustration whichsociety imposes on him in the service of its cultural ideals, and it was inferred from this that theabolition or reduction of those demands would result in a return to possibilities of happiness
This makes me think about how society set up standards which results in comparison with one another. This results in frustration within oneself and therefore results in one changing themselves
And yet, when we consider howunsuccessful we have been in precisely this field of prevention of suffering, a suspicion dawns on us thathere, too, a piece of unconquerable nature may lie behind -this time a piece of our own psychicalconstitution
I don't know why but this made me think about fate vs free as we may make all the right choices but somethings may not fall in our favor.
We shall nevercompletely master nature; and our bodily organism, itself a part of that nature, will always remain atransient structure with a limited capacity for adaptation and achievement.
Is he trying to say that no matter how hard we try we can't always control the things that happen to us? I do think that. not everything is in our control as somethings we can't decide on. Also is he trying to say that since we can't control everything, just live and be happy with what we got?
From reading her conclusion I realized that Young's five category for oppression is a nice thing to considered whether someone is being oppressed or not. Additionally this is because it could also emphasize not he fact that oppression is still oppression and there isn't a competition on who is oppressed more but more of the fact that there should be change towards dealing with oppression.
"Often third parties find it unsurprising because it happens frequently and lies as a constant possibility" This statement is really sad to read because of the fact that Young says its unsurprising for these things to happen. (I couldn't highlight this quote but its on page 57) .
"Violence is systemic because it is directed at members of a group simply because they are members of that group." This statement is so simply stated yet so significant at the same time because of how easy it is to understand what Young is trying to say. Additionally, when she is talking about violence, what came to my head as well is how stereotypes could play a role in violence that people experience
When Young talked about the powerlessness, it remained me about how this world is run on money. What I mean by this is if have money, the more power you could have in a way. I'm not saying this is for most instances but people judge you based on you status. Because of this it is also hard to escape the cycle as the powerful will try to keep the powerlessness powerless for their own benefits. I really liked Young explanation on the professionals and nonprofessionals as she depicts the differences really well. (I tried to highlight some of the sections but it didn't let me)
he self is a produce of social processes,not their origin
Like everyone else said environment plays a role in the person you become. This is why its important to understand the things that are taught to kids when they are younger as they could carry those thinkings especially if the kid is sheltered by the parents
group affinities.
This made me think of the saying "you are the average of the five people you hang out most with." The concept here is pretty similar as it makes sense for you to be similar to or like the type of people you are always around.
privilege and oppression
Putting the words privilege and oppression together was a really good way to describe peoples experiences in my opinion. I really liked how Young used these words because they are opposites of each other. Many people may not think of that fact that someone's oppression is their privilege.
YOUNG
On the previous page, Young statement about "Every oppressed group there is a group that is privileged in relation to that group" is very insightful as it opens up a new way of viewing oppression. This is because the group that does benefit from the oppressed may or may not realize that they do benefit which is why I think that her statement brings light to this idea.
Many people in the United States would not choose the term "oppression" to name injustice in our society.
I agree with many of my peers on their statement about this statement. What I think about why people may not use the term oppression is because the oppressors do not want to take accountability for their actions. Its based on being accountable and using the word injustice instead makes their actions seem less wrong
caricature
This words is defined as a picture or imitation of something or someone in an exaggerated form for comedic effects