I think that he uses the pessimism and optimism he previously talked about very well and strikes a balance between both in his argument of finding the issue, developing methods to solve the issues, and determining what is feasible to achieve through what we have already done .

Again I think that the objective approach that anti-utopian thought takes is unappealing because doing things because we have to doesn't lead to change. how could we right an issue if we do things that are systematically implanted into the society that we deem dystopian. Also this repetition takes out the life in people and burnout/depression etc. can occur.

This is a very objective approach, which I think is harder for people to understand because if it doesn't have an effect on us (bad or good), then I feel that most wouldn't care about the consequences, whereas utopia and dystopia appeals to the emotions and evokes a response (a call to action).

A lot of the dystopian novels we read now are either from natural disasters or man-made disasters. I think it shifted more towards man-made, with cli-fi becoming prominent because of global warming, exhausting resources, etc.

I like the two ideas from this paragraph and the one before. It explains the two sides of dystopia which are both based on the fact that things are bad (or not as bad as the ones in the story): safety because our reality is not an extreme (yet) and change because our reality CAN get to that exteme.

this is a device that many leaders also use, drawing upon the emotions of readers/listeners. Their charisma and ability to empathize with the public is characteristic of so many great public speakers like MLK. Even evil people like Hitler was able to draw upon people's fears and emotions to gather supporters. This shows how strong emotional responses can be.

I think they hope to kill the societies they illustrate by warning people of the consequences of their actions. the stories give clear causes and their negative effects that people, if they fear, should avoid.

I find it interesting that we tend to focus more on fears rather than hopes. Maybe it's because we have to be put in stressful situations so that we can have hope. The myth of Pandora's box let chaos (the seven deadly sins) into the world and Hope was trapped inside the box. I also thought about how hope can overcome so many evils/fears, being one singular idea (probably taking on many forms though).

I think the panopticon has benefits as there is no need to use force/violence to enforce the rules since fear from punishment from constant surveillance serves this purpose, but there are also many consequences of these. I think much can be learned from OBSERVATION ALONE, but when they start to add experiments into the mix, the line starts to blur to unethical.

like my peers said earlier, experiments on men are typically unethical and the phrasing of this as an opportunity to learn from them seems ignorant because switching the places of the experimenter and experimented they would definitely not want to be in the latter's place.

This right here does not help the panopticon at all; with this statement it seem even MORE INHUMANE to subject people to this treatment--to be viewed as animals

this is painted in too positive of a light. yes people act better in the presence of authority, but why? I think it's mainly due to fear in punishment. always living life in fear; is that really living? the same could be same for always living up to someone else's standards

This seems like a good objective way to carry out the law IN THEORY, but who created the law? The law could be innately unfair because of predisposed bias. I had a similar construction in my video game where the society was run by this objective puppet that the creator (A god) left behind; good in theory but always constant and cannot change with the times.

people are naturally social beings; taking away the ability to communicate is inhumane in itself. also without communication you may be taking away evil plotting but you are also taking away the benefits of communication (companionship, cooperation, etc.)

scary that the opposite of a dungeon could even be formed into a weapon. I think the same could be said for utopias; what could be considered a utopian society could be morphed into dystopia with a few modifications

I find it interesting that hierarchy has FEW people at the top with power, but in reality the people in power tend to the "NORMAL" people (meaning the people who push/enforce "normal" ideals)

It's scary how the people in power can control individuals just through a label. This shows just how ingrained a power dynamic is in modern society.

I think this also speaks about human labeling too. In order, to understand things that are out of the norm (typically unknown things, or stigmatized things) we try to name it. There's a quote about monster and how naming them stops them from being a monster because it takes away the unknown factor. Taking away the unknown is our form of control; providing all these regulations is just a mechanism of this control.

this speaks for public surveillance too! During the crisis the regulation seems appropriate then out of that context we see that the regulation has outgrown its purpose and is instead used to monitor our everyday lives--"regulating" it to a certain degree.

I think this is an interesting way to describe the response that humans have toward crises; we try to control it in ways we can understand--giving them "order". The rules to control them for the time being MAKES SENSE for the situation, but I think that the people enforcing this need to know when to stop (like in the case for after 9/11, public surveillance became normal when I think it should've been kept to that time period).

The fact that there is no mobility at all is frightening. It isn't really spoken here how the people are chose for these positions either. However, given these circumstances it's hard to imagine people who would these "jobs" in the first place

the Crows seem very oppressed; they are marginalized (one of the 5 faces of oppression) and given no care and the most dangerous jobs

these people seem to have a lot of power with little to no consequence (because death seems to be a regular punishment for all who don't follow the rules anyway).

I find it interesting that these dystopian systems come from trying to solve a crisis. I think it was discussed in one of our first lectures but it has also been prevalent in the readings and movies we've seen (the handmaid's tale, the purge, etc)

I find it interesting that he compares a "savage" people experiencing continual fear of danger and death to a people run by a "peaceful government" that will eventually evolve into a civil war (because pleasure eventually ends and we always poke holes because we evolved our thinking to see certain things as unfair)

This is similar to implicit bias and hypocrisy. some might disagree with what Hobbes is saying but upon reflection, we might find ourselves DOING exactly what he is saying without realizing it.

This fear is what I believe to be the main driving force over wanting government. To provide safety and security in a harsh world by giving up some autonomy (relying on our own strengths to survive).

this is a very binary way of thinking: whether there is suffering or not. also the fact that he doesn't say much about the peaceful times is interesting. I think it's similar to the ideas of utopia where not everyone will understand it because it's such a subjective idea, but there is common suffering that people can relate to. It could also just be emphasizing the times of war is greater than these times of peace.

They say that time heals every wound but I think that Hobbes is saying that having too much time to wallow in this self-pity (diffidence) will actually hurt us. It's similar to depression where if it is not acknowledged over a long period of time, the hole you find yourself in is deeper than ever.

I think he is saying that without power, people are at a constant battle internally (probably because of the lack of power they possess compared to others above them).

I find that interesting that they all relate to power somehow. Competition = fighting for power against each other, diffidence (lack of self confidence) = shyness from lack of power, and glory = pride at having the power.

This reminds me of the quote "existence is suffering" in Buddhism. The draw of power leads to suffering but also having power means that people suffer below you. Suffering cannot be escaped but only alleviated.

so he's saying that ALL people, even people in the middle, will grow to crave more power; they won't stay happy with what they have. I find that both sides could be true because there are people who are content with a simple life but there are also power-hungry people.

People are greedy and they want to feel like they are better than another and if they enjoy the same things then they are on the same level (which is NOT what they want). It's all part of the superiority complex people have.

I think this explains how subjective everything is for people. the reason why equal distribution is hard to achieve is that people won't be content with his share. people won't feel like this is equal. for example, a man collecting food for a family of 7 (7 x equal parts food per person) might be seen as greedy to others or might be seen as abusing the system by having a larger family to get more items. Then they (those judging him) won't be contented with the share they received.

Hobbes is saying that each person has their own strengths, but each man is in the end equal. I think he is sayin that the superiority complex that certain people have on one another is not physically possible but is a social construct. They are then able to perpetuate oppression.

he definitely paints the picture of a savage man well in this paragraph. I'm not sure if this is true; sure we typically associate aggression with males, but now we realize that expecting it is toxic (toxic masculinity, male gaze, etc) and also the converse for women (women are the caretakers, etc.). If it is not expected and instead the choices we made were our own, I feel that we wouldn't have any problems with happiness. But add in the fact that we live in civilization and not in clans (isolated family dynamics), society makes stereotypes that deem certain things binary and condemn those against it.

I find it interesting that people can change the function of things based on what they need/want and that happiness/enjoyment/contentment can go against the typical function of certain things

I think Freud is asking good questions. We are selfish beings always striving for our happiness but also wanting to fit in a group. Is there a correct balance between the two or can happiness achieved without civilization?

I think that when he says this the "god" he refers to are those human-made ideals that seem unattainable rather than a deity. So with technology people are defying what they thought to be impossible and defying nature and becoming more ideal (more like the gods in their eyes).

this goes back to what another peer said about humans making the after-life a priority over our current life and this along with the statement right before it makes the idea of utopia being uncommon more understandable.

I think this means that material wealth and power plays a role in our happiness, but it isn't the only one and so when he stated earlier that the new land seemed happy and simple, this emphasizes that the happiness did NOT come from power and materials.

I think this is interesting to think about because expectations of society wear us down and stresses us out, but the paradox is that we created all these expectations and thus the stress upon ourselves. If happiness is defined as being content, is it with oneself or with those around us or maybe even both? But it seems here that the happiness that Freud suggests is of oneself in which we define the expectations we should have of ourselves rather than society. BUT we are a product of our society so it is hard to isolate individual expectations from societal.

so he's saying that we can't control nature and we can't control physical capabilities, but the one we can control (our relationships with each other) is lacking. Is he trying to say that we are lacking in social regulations as an innate part of our human nature? Do we choose to be blind because it benefits ONE of us (ourselves) but NOT EVERY ONE of us?

I think that this in interesting to say because we are limited to our knowledge and power BUT we have worked to extend that limit beyond our times. I'm sure that if Freud saw us today, he would be astonished by how far we've gotten. The limits he sets seem relative and with how we have evolved those limits evolve with us

does he mean the power of nature within ourselves (human nature to do things or the power of nature outside of our control?

this answered my previous questions of whether Young thinks groups would be actually dividing people rather than unifying them, but contrary to what Young states, is it possible? if not, is the converse (in which viewing individuals as one giant group) possible? i think that that what Young states is an ideal, but is not possible since in our current lives, groups are essential to our identities. she later mentions this too and says that all groups should be respected and not oppressed. she also states that groups may form from oppression but group differentiation is not oppressive. I think this again just goes to the idea of respecting other groups and individuals.

Is there a way to do both at the same time?

i find this highly interesting because the labels that we create for new groups often define who we are (not sure if this is a bad thing or a good thing). these "transformations" are like realizations because you might be changing groups but if that is where you truly feel like you belong then wasn't always there, just not realized?

because groups are so conceptual and based off social relation, do yall think that because more groups form people might be more divided? I think colorism was mentioned as a division in Black people which gives me a view on how groupings could be negative. i think a positive aspect might be that it gives people in those certain groups recognition they might not find elsewhere. but is that a selfish reason for grouping--wanting to stand out/feel special?

on the previous page i found that her pointing out that "oppression is the evil perpetrated by the Others" very insightful as to why

1960s: oppression is systematic constraints on groups; (80s) oppression refers to injustices as a result of assumptions and reactions of well-meaning people in everyday life => this statement reminds me of implicit bias which I encountered in psychology, where subconscious thoughts affect our daily lives.

I find it interesting how the definition of oppression evolves as more micro-aggressions are discovered.

"the conscious actions of many individuals daily contribute to maintaining and reproducing oppression, but those people are usually simply doing their jobs or living their lives, and do not understand themselves as agents of oppression" this quote immediately brought me back to her opening quote about people who don't see the glass and don't realize they're not seeing the glass. she also pointed out that "for every oppressed group there is a group that is privileged" which I found very resonating because in my definition of dystopia I painted out people in power who benefits off of the oppressed.

I find it interesting that she points this out because in the microlecture on dystopia, we saw that people like to explore the idea of dystopia and how they can create worlds based on the types of issues that seem the most inhumane, but in real life, issues that could be included in their imaginary (maybe philosophical) discussion and/or creation of a new story world are like she stated rarely pointed out besides in titles to make a point.

I think that many people today define injustice as oppression now. she says that oppression is rather a "central category of political discourse" perhaps meaning that if it is embedded in the system then justice is relative to the social structures in place. As a result, oppression focuses more at the individual (peoples) rather than the whole (that i think she implies justice has).

this sentence really clarified the definition of justice that she had just previously stated. I did not understand it so providing the converse (the opposite) was helpful in deciphering out the meaning of justice.