So by force of will or the sheer default of emergency we make ourselves have utopianthoughts and ideas
This seems like the opposite of a utopia though. It sounds like forcing people to ignore their thought about the reality and adopt ones that only look like the desired reality.
Anti-utopias are the anti, saying that the idea of utopia itself is wrong and bad, and thatany attempt to try to make things better is sure to wind up making things worse,
So would the purge be a anti-utopia and not a Dystopia
This would imply that dystopia is somekind of call for revolutionary change.
I think that this can be said to be true for a lot of dystopian media, the overarching theme of impending doom, or the consistent thought that everything is the absolute worse, usually is a seguway into creating the change thats needed. Dystopias can be used as a means of creating change, but it is a real extreme way though.
Plato at least, and from the start it had arelationship to satire, an even more ancient form
Even Plato thought the concept of a Utopia is an exaggeration.
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 an interesting statement, I interpret this as we are inherently a pessimistic people. We are so worried about the neagtives, which can be easily attributed to how the world is being ran.
In fact, any panoptic institution, even if it is as rigorously closed as a penitentiary, may without difficulty be subjected to such irregular and constant inspections: and not only by the appointed inspectors, but also by the public; any member of society will have the right to come and see with his own eyes how the schools, hospitals, factories, prisons function.
I kind of understand what this means, but just as its meant to be accessible to the public, it can just as easily be changed to keep the public view from it so that its nolonger transparent, and the officials running the Pantopic institution can do what ever.
It can in fact be integrated into any function
I feel like this is dangerous, since this method can be implimented into anything t can be abused.
bodies mingling together without respect, individuals unmasked, abandoning their statutory identity and the figure under which they had been recognized, allowing a quite different truth to appear.
Sort of similar to the Pandemic, the mass hysteria and closures caused people to reveal their true selves. Peoples true intentions and thoughts toward POC were revealed, showing their true selves.
Everything that may be observed during the course of the visits — deaths, illnesses, complaints, irregularities is noted down and transmitted to the intendants and magistrates.
So this can sort of be an invasion of privacy. Based off of this, everything and anything can be recorded, despite it being in regards to the actual plague.
At each of the town gates there will be an observation post; at the end of each street sentinels.
The movements of the syndics are so precise ensuring that the plauge isn't unnecessarily spread.
Each individual is fixed in his place. And, if he moves, he does so at the risk of his life, contagion or punishment.
Considering the basic failure of the Corona Virus quarantine, even though this method of quarantine was extreme, it seemed to be slightly effective. The overarching consequence in this case was death as a punishment. So the people were probably afraid to leave their homes for fear of death from 2 sources. The Government and the sickness. Yes its a bit much but it works, and the US probably should've used fear as a tactic to keep some Americans in their homes during the height of COVID.
To this war of every man against every man this also is consequent, thatnothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice,have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; whereno law, no injustice.
Wouldn't that just be considered chaos? Does a government have to be synonymus with war and injustice?
For the savage people in many placesof America, except the government of small families the concord whereofdependeth on natural lust, have no government at all, and live at this day in thatbrutish manner as I said before.
Native Americans definitely had some organized government, just not one defined by European standards.
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.
wow. I think we all do this despite knowing that there are laws for criminals and laws created for protection because we subconciously don't fully trust those laws we dont fully trust each other. I think that humans recognize the desire to do something morally wrong within themselves and are sure someone else is going to do it.
here be some that, taking pleasure incontemplating their own power in the acts of conquest, which they pursuefarther than their security requires
this reminds me of Napoleon Bonaparte for some reason
which isprincipally their own conservation and sometimes their delectation only,endeavour to destroy or subdue one another
A major flaw in humans, we can become so wrapped up in someone else's life and completly forget about our own. Especially when it comes to revenge, historically and in the media when we enact revenge, it takes over a persons entire thought process.
That which may perhaps makesuch equality incredible is but a vain conceit of one’s own wisdom, which almostall men think they have in a greater degree than the vulgar, that is, than all menbut themselves, and a few others whom by fame or for concurring withthemselves they approve.
That's interesting, overall humans are extremelt selfish, and because of this we fail to view each other as equals, increasing the amount of social issues that we have to deal with. The last part of this about men only seeing others as equal if they approve of that other person sounds alot like the basis of the US's racial history.
skill of proceeding upon general and infallible rulescalled science, which very few have and but in few things, as being not a nativefaculty born with us, nor attained, as prudence, while we look after somewhatelse, I find yet a greater equality amongst men than that of strength
To me Hobbes is saying that those who value science (intelligence) and its laws consider themselves to be more equals wheras those who are more focused on the physicality of life are always in competition with one another.
one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body orof quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together 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.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
So essentially, man can be physically stronger than another man and that other man can be intellectually stronger than the other. But this doesn't matter because man can just say that their better than one another for their own reasons.
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.
interesting because within a community you can tend to loose yourself and your individuality amongst the crowd attempting to fit in with everyone. Where as individuals are free to do them.
No feature, however, seems better to characterize civilization than its esteem and encouragement of man'shigher mental activities
True, by doing this all persons in the civilization are capable of doing more because of the confidence and general encouragement.
To these gods he attributed everything that seemed unattainable to hiswishes, or that was forbidden to him. One may say, therefore, that these gods were cultural ideals.Today he has come very close to the attainment of this ideal, he has almost become a god himself.
I may be misinterpreting this but i feel like he's going against what he said about the suffering of man comes from the feebleness of their bodies, to be considered a god, to be able to make tools to innovate, there really isn't much feebelness in my opinion.
Happiness, however, is something essentially subjective. 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
The fact that he acknowledges that everyone defines happiness differently and understands that not everyone seeks happiness out is important;
we cannot see why the regulations made by ourselves shouldnot, on the contrary, be a protection and a benefit for every one of us. 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 surprisingly agree with that statement. I think he's saying that we may try to create rules and boundaries for ourselves and our relationships as a protection mechanism, however we still end up suffering because of it.
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 Freud trying to say that we cant "reach for the stars" that we can't be great?
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.
Our suffering comes from being (maybe mentally?) weaker than our nature, having weak bodies, and weak relationship skills. Essentially we are mad cause we are weak overall. Wow
A group 'maybe identified by outsiders without those so identified having any specific consc10usness of themselves as a grou
Everyone has a different perspective on groups, because of this there can be group identities that strongly differ from what the actual identity of the group.
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.
People in these groups have a similar or shared experience wether or not it has to deal with oppression or cultural experiences.
The same discussionhas also led to the recognition that group differences cut ,across individuallives in a multiplicity of ways that can entail privilege and oppression for thesame person in different respect
I wonder if this is referencing how people can experience intersectionality with oppression.
■
I am unable to highlight the specific section however, in the first sentence of the second paragraph on pg 38. Young actively acknowledges that the groups who identify with being oppressed do not experience the same type or extent of oppression, providing the thought that oppression has dimensions.
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
I love and appreciate this approach to Justice because generally justice is only seen as a means to give out to those who have been wronged. In this sense Young proposes a way for justice to alter the cause of the wrong for good.