Maturity and Time

In today’s times, Socrates is regarded as one of the most influential philospher in history. If he were alive today, he would be regarded as a hero and would be treated as one.  However this was not the case in ancient Greece. Socrates was too mature for his time, even though he was a citizen of Ancient Greece, one of the most influential and important civilizations in history. His views were considered to be radical and nonsensical. While his execution would be ridiculous and impossible today, there are many differences between our society and the one in Ancient Greece which made his death sentence acceptable in that time.

The lifestyle today is completely different the one two-thousand years ago.  Everything was different in those times including technology, government, policies and way of thinking. Some people might say that the people of those times were ‘stupid’ but that would be the equivalent of calling a baby ‘stupid’ for not being able to do what adults can do. Humanity was and still evolving. Our understanding of our surrounding grows each day even though we don’t realize it. If you introduce something that is too mature or extreme to someone, they obviously reject it. In fact this is shown when even the accuser does not even understand Socrates’ teachings. Socrates’ thinking was too advanced and did not make sense to the Greeks’ simple way of life. It also could not be helped that human rights were underdeveloped. The State arrested Socrates not only because of his ideas but also because of his influence on other people. They feared that their own powers would diminish because of Socrates. To the State, Socrates was just another annoying bug, waiting to be squashed.

In fact, I think our current government would be scared as well if a single man or an organization gained support against the government and if the law didn’t prohibit them, they would get rid of him to. A subtle example of this would be the presidential candidate, Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Ron Paul’s unorthodox libertarian views, such as his views in foreign policy, the war on drugs and the federal reserves, has gotten him shunned from other Republicans and the mainstream media. His growing support his undeniable but news organizations like Fox News and CNN continue to ignore him as he wins polls after polls. In this case, the opposing state would be the government, the media, and to some extent corporations. If somehow the same thing has happened in the same Ancient Greek state, Congressman Paul would not have been a Congressman but more importantly he would have been almost immediately executed. This is also taking place in a nation that prides itself in ‘free’ choices and opportunities. This is not an attempt to bash and denounce the United States but to show that even our society is corrupted and wrong. A future generation might see us and criticize how ‘stupid’ and ‘ignorant’ we were.  We just have to realize nothing is perfect and take everything into perspectives. 

What is makes a man, a man

    Recognizing a masculine object or habit is quite easy in today’s standards. In fact there are too many to name but some of the most common include being muscular, tall, hairy, beer, knowing how to fight and even to not only woo but fornicate as many girls as possible. Or at least this is what most people THINK and NEED to be. In today’s society wrestlers, soldiers and Chuck Norris are generally considered to be masculine figures. This is because these figures are defined as manly in society and the media, however I think there is many different ways masculinity can be defined as. I think the interpretation of masculinity is a personal definition. The rough definition of masculinity is having the trait of an ideal man and while Tom Cruise might seem ideal to many, it might not to others. For example, most people would say that ballet is a feminine art form but male ballet dancers are known for their strong and fit physique.  If someone wishes to be a wrestler than that would be masculine to that person however if someone else wants to be knitter, then that would be considered masculine for him.
    However society’s view of masculinity is all around from cartoons to advertisements, and it usually depicts a tall, handsome, masculine man. It is even the same way in folklore and pictures. Being surrounded by all these images makes us want to be one of them, labelling them as masculine for other men to envy. This makes it unfortunate for many men who might be short or who might not have the perfect chiselled jaws. Just like how someone might argue their perception of beauty, I think the same can be done for masculinity. If someone does not fit the society’s requirement of beauty or masculinity or is uncomfortable  with it, there is no reason to force yourself to be that way. One might argue than that might be feminine and undesirable by society which is unfavoured since being masculine as a man is a positive thing. That is why society’s view of masculinity does not represent the entire ideology of masculinity but only a certain part of it. However this only applies to physical and personal preference of masculinity which are parts that make up the ideology.
    The other important part of masculinity is the attitude. This is different from what you personally desire and prefer to how you approach it. For example if someone wants to be a fireman but is too shy or not confident enough to go through it that makes the person shy and effeminate. In the simplest terms, masculinity is about self-confidence , courage and dedication to change or accomplish what you want to do. Winston from 1984 is a great example from this as believes that his society is flawed and instead of accepting that, he tries to change what he believes is best for him and everyone. The fact that he had the courage to stand up to the most powerful organization makes him in my definition masculine. In this case, a 6 foot, 200 pound, muscular man who was too afraid to stand up and make a change to what he believes makes him less masculine than someone like Winston. Masculinity should not be about what the man looks like or prefers to do but about his self determination and bravery.

The true meaning of happiness

Topic 2

    Sigmund Freud’s description and definition of happiness can be difficult to comprehend. It is difficult not because of the usage of the language or complex wordings but it is difficult because it takes on a fundamentally understood and simple ideology and refines its meaning to what most people have never thought about.  At least in my case, my understand of happiness was vastly different than what Freud said in his book, “Civilization and it’s discontent.” He introduced new ideas and a different view about the human mind and psychology with his book when it was first introduced. In my previous understanding I believed happiness was something easily obtainable if the person really desired it and that society supported that. Freud’s unorthodox view completely juxtaposes those thoughts with solid evidence backed by history and sociology. Freud describes happiness, in the simplest sense, “ a problem of the economics of the individual’s libido”(page 54) and that a complete, fulfilled happiness “cannot be fulfilled.”(54). What this means is that while happiness is possible to obtain, it is very limited and that one cannot be “fully” happy for a number different reasons.
    One of the most prominent and common term used in the book is the word libido. Libido, by simple definition, is a person’s sexual desire. Another word that Freud frequently uses is ego, or the thoughts of an individual that controls planning. Freud often relates the two words together as to say that our basic desire of happiness comes sexually. He explains that deep inside, we all have could or even have a desire of viewing another human as a“sexual object”(90) or to “seize his possessions, to humiliate him, to cause him pain, to torture and to kill him.” This has been proven through history where soldiers would pillage, kill and rape when they were no forces stopping them. Man did this to satisfy their every little desire even though it meant the suffering of others.. To prevent such atrocities, Civilization was created, or as Freud called it, the “whole sum of human achievements and regulations intended to protect men against nature and "adjust their mutual relations.” Civilizations therefore create laws that limits human behaviour that could harm others. However as freedom of our choices decreased, so did the actions that would make us happy. In fact, Freud explains that “what we call our civilization is largely responsible for our misery.”(58). He even adds on that “we should be much happier if we gave it up and returned to primitive conditions.”(58). Freud then explains that we try to find other ways to fill the empty gap left by the limitations put on by civilization.
    Freud actually did not complicate the meaning of happiness but brought it to most basic form, the sensation of achieving our most hidden and primitive desires. In a way, I agree with Freud that society puts limitations on our most hidden desires that keeps us from being fully happy. However, I think there are other ways to fill these gaps efficiently and that society provides as more happiness than Freud makes it out to be. Society brings people together and I believe the desire to create chaos can be replaced with the desire to better the oneself and the civilization itself. Freud mentions the same thing in the form eros vs. the death drive but seems to have more of pessimistic and negative view about it. I believe as time passes, humans learn to better themselves and start losing our primitive desires. The development of human rights and common morals is proof of humans bettering themselves through time. “Civilization and its discontent” provided interesting points that I would never have thought of and changed my perception of true happiness but I believe humans are better and more mature than what Freud makes us out to be.

Reality vs Morality ver.2

The answer to this question might seem obvious to most people as it is unthinkable and unjust that a child must go through inhumane conditions for everyone else's happiness. In fact I think many would agree that no one with an ounce of self respect could know about a skinny boy that has "no calves to it's legs", (Le Guin 3), "sits in it's own excrement"(3) and "lives on a half-bowl of corn" and still stay. This view is also further backed up by the poll on the blog as almost fifty percent of the class said they would leave. 

Personally I do not think I would leave Omelas. While I believe the “just” or “right” decision is to leave Omelas, realistically it would be easier said than done. If everything else about Omelas is as perfect as it sounds, with all "the festival, the city, the joy"(3) it would be a lot harder to leave after actually being part of such society. It's difficult to judge something without actually experiencing it. This might seem contradictory to my opinion as it gives me no justification to say that I would stay in Omelas without actually having lived there, however there is more to it then just that point.

We take our society and living conditions for granted as we live in an almost perfect or at least vastly better than those living in todays third-world countries. To a citizen living in Somalia for example, our society might seem almost perfect or even utopic, in the same way we initially viewed Omelas. However our comfortable way of life comes with a price. For food and basic living conditions, children from poor families are forced to work to produce goods for richer countries. These children work under harsh working conditions as they work for hours with very minimal pay. There are millions of children who have almost "no calves to it's legs", (Le Guin 3), "sits in it's own excrement"(3) or "live on a half-bowl of corn" in the real world. This is a well-known global issue and yet people still buy products from these countries, indirectly funding the business of child labor. Whenever we see advertisements or promos about the kids in poverty, we "brood over it"(4) or even burst "in tears"(4) but only hours after we forget about it. In this way, Omelas becomes a vague representation of reality as many people live in great conditions while knowing it is in expense of others' suffering.  We get along with our lives and continue to buy these products even though I'm fully aware, because those items became a part of my lifestyle. That is why I am hesitant on leaving Omelas because change is difficult. If I can't change my way of life in the real society, then it would be ridiculous to claim that I would in an utopic one. Those who would leave however, are the strong-willed whom, in comparison, strictly buy local goods and participate in programs and campaigns to stop child labor. 

Unfortunately, I do not think most people would change their own lives for the sake of others. Many people, including myself, would attempt to leave Omelas but I think most would come back. Changing a lifestyle that has been engraved in our minds for years is more difficult than it sounds.

Reality vs Morality

Q1

The answer to this question might seem obvious to most people as it is unthinkable and unjust that a child must go through inhumane conditions for everyone else's happiness and that staying could be viewed as being selfish for taking advantage of the child. This view is also further backed up by the poll on the blog as almost fifty percent of the class said they would leave. 

Personally I do not think I would leave Omelas. While I believe the “just” or “right” decision is to leave Omelas, realistically it would be easier said than done. If everything else about Omelas is as perfect as it sounds, then it would be a lot harder to leave after being part of such society rather than making a quick decision behind the computer. It's difficult to judge something without actually experiencing it. This might seem contradictory to my opinion as it gives me no justification to say that I would stay in Omelas without actually having lived there, however there is more to it then just that point.

We take our society and living conditions for granted as we are living in an almost perfect or at least vastly better than those living in todays third-world countries. To a citizen living in Somalia for example, our society might seem almost perfect or even utopic, in the same way we initially viewed Omelas. However our comfortable way of life comes with a price. For food and basic living conditions, children from poor families are forced to work to produce goods for richer countries. These children work under harsh working conditions as they work for hours with very minimal pay. They struggle to make anything from carpets to Nike shoes. The stakes are even higher as it effects over one hundred million children around the world. This is a well-known global issue and yet people still buy products from these countries, indirectly funding the business of child labor. In this way, Omelas becomes a vague representation of reality as many people live in great conditions while knowing it is in expense of others' suffering. I buy these products as well even though I'm fully aware, because those items became a part of my lifestyle. That is why I am hesitant on leaving Omelas because change is difficult. If I can't change my way of life in the real society, then it would be ridiculous to claim that I would in an utopic one. Those who would leave however, are the strong-willed whom, in comparison, strictly buy local goods and participate in programs and campaigns to stop child labor. 

Unfortunately, I do not think most people would change their own lives for the sake of others. Many people, including myself, would attempt to leave Omelas but I think most would come back because changing a lifestyle that has been engraved in our minds for years is more difficult than it sounds.