Robots

For both (or either) Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud, can we be trusted to take care of ourselves?

       After looking at Curtis and Freud’s views on civilisation, it appears to be highly unlikely as well as risky to let humans take care of themselves. At the beginning of the video, Century of the Self, it states that, “this series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy.” When looking at Curtis’ video Century of the Self you can dramatically see how people are practically brainwashed as consumers. A Wall Street Banker, Paul Mazer, declares "we must shift America from a needs- to a desires-culture” (Century of the Self) in the 1930’s; this statement expresses the particular values in a civilisation and whether it is for the benefit of the society, or not is another matter. It demonstrates the control that civilisation has in directing individuals how they want them to live.

       Looking back on the stock market crash, people needed to go back to consuming what was a necessity in their lives and it was devastating. It was as if once you took that step forward into a glamorous consumer lifestyle, it is difficult to go back to a simple way of being. Obviously there were a lot more complexities to it, but I’m trying to propose that it’s hard for people once they live a materialistic lifestyle to go back to a simple necessity-consumption-only lifestyle. The government and media have such a powerful influence in pushing people to move forward, thus it makes it extremely challenging for some to genuinely take care of themselves when now people rely heavily on something they cannot control.

       For example, now with cell phones when someone’s cell breaks it is dramatically compared to the end of the world for some people and they feel as though they have lost all communication with people out of their sight; which is horrifying for them. However, weren’t people surviving just fine less than fifty years ago without them? People have built such reliance on technology and for possessions to work instantly that when they break down they don’t know what to do anymore. This I believe to actually hinder human development, some people are losing their ‘street smarts’ so to speak, or even their common sense.

       Freud suggests that to be involved in civilization an individual must sacrifice some personal happiness in order to promote the interests of social unity and cohesion in their society. He believed we would be completely out of control with our true impulses, thus to be civilized we must do without the two vital claims to our instincts: sex and violence. Clearly, Freud believed we cannot trust ourselves and if someone is to participate in a society they must be civilised. Since people must live together in society, it is hard to strive for happiness while trying to avoid suffering or displeasure by not indulging in our impulses.

       Overall, I’d like to believe that humans can be trusted to take care of themselves, but after learning of Curtis and Freud’s views it seems as though it is virtually impossible for individuals to exist in society and live completely harmoniously with their impulses. Since civilisation controls these ‘dangerous’ impulses, it demonstrates civilisation’s influence in the ability to control individual lifestyles to an extent (example, making them consumers). After watching the video, I thought that it was a saddening picture, watching people being directed into a way of life like robots. However, I think now if people were to start being trusted to take care of ourselves, we would not know what to do, or where to start.

So This Is Where Obi Wan Kenobi Gets It From!

Do you think Socrates is a man who is willing to die for his personal and philosophical beliefs, or do you consider him to be 'playing' the martyr figure in the extreme sense? The former has connotations of personal conviction whereas the martyr-figure, in this instance, to quote a nearby dictionary (Apple's), is "a person who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy or admiration." Can we separate the two?

      Although it is difficult to decipher whether Socrates is an extreme martyr, or not, I believe Socrates is a man willing to die for his personal and philosophical beliefs and is not milking the martyr role. However, I want to be clear that I do not believe he is seeking out his death. Socrates believes that “wherever a man’s station is, whether he has chosen it of his own will, or whether he has been placed by his commander, there it is his duty to remain and face the danger without thinking of death or of any other except disgrace” (34). This shows how Socrates station and path selected by the gods has leaded him here, to court, and he is going to continue his way of being with his beliefs even with the setback of the wrongful accusations.

      In court, Socrates informs the jury about his process and cross-examining people who consider themselves wise. His results found that neither his subject nor he knew anything worth knowing, but his subject thinks he has knowledge when he really does not and Socrates does not think he has any; thus, Socrates is clearly wiser than his subject for not believing he has something when he does not. Socrates later compares his results with views on death, he says “for death my friends, is only to think of ourselves wise without really being wise, for it is to think that we know what we do not know;”(35) people do not know if death is the greatest thing for a person, but instead fear it as if it’s the worst evil. This shows ignorance thinking that we know what we do not know.

      Socrates goes on to say he does not “care a straw for death,” but does care “very much about not doing anything unjust or impious” (39).Socrates’ defense is that he never did anything unjust, but it is the anger of those he proved to have little wisdom that has brought him to court. Socrates does believe in the gods and refutes all his accusations and actually flips it on Meletus accusing him of charges. Socrates knows if he is to be convicted it is due to prejudice and resentment, but he continues defending himself and trying to convince the court of the truth. He is not looking for the court’s sympathy during his trial. This is clear since he informs them that even if he is to be acquitted he will not stop his process, he clearly states “I will not change my way of life; no, not if I have to die for it many times” (36). By stating this I feel he is able to receive some admiration, thus his votes which are closer together than imagined.

      In the end, Socrates reminds me of Obi Wan Kenobi from Star Wars, in the sense of how calm and collective he is during his trial. However, Socrates ‘jedi mind trick’ is his use of language and asking questions to prove his point. Both of the wise men finish their lives defending their beliefs and educating their followers. This leaves the wise men gone, but their followers carrying on their messages. In all, I believe Socrates was ready and willing to die for his personal (justice) and philosophical (wisdom) beliefs.

Original-The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas

Sorry for the confusion! I revised my other Omelas post after Patrick commented on it, but here is my original copy.

Question One: If you were a citizen of Omelas, would you stay or would you walk away?

After my first read of the story The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas by Ursula K Le Guin, I thought that perhaps the people who walked away from the town were taking a plunge into their own exile the same alienation which the imprisoned child in the town faces. I also considered though, wouldn’t that make them cowards for just walking away from the town? Simply leaving the child there and frankly running away from their problems? I agree with the second option, that the people who walk away from Omelas are running away from their problems without doing anything to help the situation- it is selfish and a useless effort to fix any issue. However, the ones who stay in Omelas are also selfish in the sense that they just learn to live with the poor child’s emotional and physical abuse and believe that the child’s suffering keeps their town flourishing.

             Thus, if I were a citizen of Omelas I would like to believe that I would be heroic, take the child with me and leave forever, or perhaps take the child out of its claustrophobic room and stay within the town and face consequences there. Maybe nothing would change in the town; maybe everything will still flourish and the child can live freely. It is a Utopia isn’t it? So why not?

            In order to fully answer my question of “would I walk away from Omelas?” I need to reflect on question number three as well: to what extent is Omelas an analogy of our own society? Simply because although I say I want to be heroic, Omelas can be related to our modern society. The fact is we all wear clothes (at least the majority of the time). Where do those clothes come from? Maybe some from your grandma, but others come from sweatshops in undeveloped areas of the world in which some employees are young children. Do people still wear clothes? Yes, including myself. My point is that I’m not doing anything about it, I could boycott Nike or another name brand, but honestly I do not know which stores exactly do sell clothes by underdeveloped areas, probably quite a few though. This makes me stuck in my own Omelas in which I know the problem exists, but I’m not truly doing anything about it. I absolutely hate to admit that sad truth, but I believe I am also stuck in Omelas.