But because they uphold thereby the industry of their subjects,there does not follow from it that misery which accompanies the liberty ofparticular men.12
The job to protect the citizens outweighs jealously and due to rules, the people leading a society have to follow them which prevents war due to jealousy.
Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a common power tokeep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such awar as is of every man against every man
Without law and order (which government provides), there is chaos (as mentioned in the micro lecture).
So that in the nature of man we find three principal causes of quarrel. First,competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory
I agree with the author's claims. These three reasons are why government is important. It allows people to have order and keeps drastic internal conflicts at bay. It is natural for people to have differences which is why if you give people the freedom to act on those differences, it leads to trouble. A like mind is important for society.
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
It is human nature to be self-centered and to think you know best. It is interesting how the author points out that even though people admit differences between them and other people, yet believe they are wiser, that is a trait that makes men equal.
Women represent the interests of the family and of sexual life. The work ofcivilization has become increasingly the business of men, it confronts them with ever more difficult tasksand compels them to carry out instinctual sublimations of which women are little capable.
This lowkey sounds like what a man from The Handmaid's Tale would say. I wouldn't be surprised if he supported how women were treated in that book. Freud likely would not consider the way they treat women in the book as oppression but instead, women being in their rightful place.
Even so, the behaviour of human beingsshows differences, which ethics, disregarding the fact that such differences are determined, classifies as'good' or 'bad'.
This reminds me of the philosophical question of is 'good' or 'bad' subjective or objective? If it is subjective, then can we really label anything as 'good' and 'bad'?
In fact, primitive man was betteroff in knowing no restrictions of instinct.
I feel like primitive humans may have been happier than contemporary human civilization due to the fact that we are all extremely comfortable with our easy access to food, no need to defend ourselves from nature every day, and so on. Comfortability makes us disregard all the good happening in our life because it seems so small. However, if we were fighting for our life every day, we would be happier about the smaller things.
so on
North Korea, South Korea. Palestine, Israel. Both are geographical neighbors but have issues due to different belief systems. This goes back to our problem of individuality.
It is always possible tobind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over toreceive the manifestations of their aggressiveness.
Freud claims that there is no way to have a world free of aggression because that is a part of male natural behavior. This can be supported by the fact that most wars in history were started by men
The liberty of the individual is no gift of civilization.
Individuality is a gift and a curse. We love to protect it but it is the main reason why we do not have peace. Due to us all having different belief and moral values of what is "right", one person's hero can be another's enemy
on the contrary,human beings exhibit an inborn tendency to carelessness, irregularity and unreliability in their work, andthat a laborious training is needed before they learn to follow the example of their celestial models.
Humans are spoiled in life. Since we do not have to work for our basic necessities, anything, such as a job, that we find unstimulating, we don't do to the best of our ability.
Does it meannothing that medicine has succeeded in enormously reducing infant mortality and the danger ofinfection for women in childbirth, and, indeed, in considerably lengthening the average life of a civilizedman?
As a society we tend to underappreciate the small things that should make us happy. We are sad when we hear about a baby dying but we never celebrate how many lives are saved. It's as if we hyperfocus on the bad and fail to try and focus on the good.
This contention holds that what we call our civilization is largely responsible for ourmisery, and that we should be much happier if we gave it up and returned to primitive conditions.
This is actually something I have pondered about. If we were to go back to our primitive ways, would we get along better? Would our fight for survival cause us to come together for a common cause? Does this mean that comfortability in human society has caused us to be selfish and unaware of the suffering of others? My answer leans towards yes.
pg. 51 A lot of marginalized communities are marginalized due to stereotypes (stereotypes are discussed further on pg 55). For example, people stereotype women as emotional so that is why they could never be president. "They may start a war." Yet, statistically, men have started more wars than women leaders. Men have been the main cause, especially in current day, of the distress of the world.
After reading this article, I wonder if in order to be a dystopia, must there be all " five faces" of oppression?
"Violence is a social practice" Bullying is a form of oppression by this definition. That makes sense though because when bullying happens, it makes the person being bullied feel lesser than and will likely continue to fear being picked on.
"The culturally dominated undergo a paradoxical oppression, in that they are both marked by stereotypes and at the same time rendered invisible" (55). What is terrible is that stereotypes have become so ingrained in our society that we have started to stereotype ourselves as a way of justification of whether or not we fit in a certain group of people.
he self is a produce of social processes,not their origin.
I feel as though this line could be interpreted in a few different ways based off of other people's comments. I am especially interested in the author's meaning by "origin". I interpreted origin to mean biological make up. If this is the case, I would disagree in saying that we are entirely the product of social processes because your biology can also influence the social processes. Addiction is a good example. Some people are more likely to become addicted than others.
A social group is defined not primarily by a set of shared attributes, but by a sense of identity.What definesBlack Americans as a social group is not primarily their skin color; some persons whose skin coior is fairly light, for example, identify themselves as Black.Though sometimes objective attributes are a necessary condition for classifying oneself or others as belonging to a certain social group, it is identificationwith a certain social status, the common histor y that social status produces,and self-identification that define the group as a group
Sometimes, people are excluded out of social groups due to the typical features being different and upbringing being different. For example, biracial individuals struggle to fit into a certain social group because their belonging to the group comes into question due to differences in upbringing and how they look.