If you ask a person on the street, any random person, they would probably say they enjoy the benefits of society. By choosing to live together in a group, we have been able to not only evolve as a civilization but also to enjoy the benefits of it as well. We're able to specialize our tasks and learn different trades, we're able to make different goods and provide a multitude of services to others. Most of all, we've been able to have leisure time and money to ourselves, to use and spend the ways we see fit. Everyone that lives within the United States enjoys the benefits of human cooperation and organization, but would you think that living together, in places like towns and cities, would bring out the worst in us?
They'll claim it's the city that changes Finn. But what if it's actually Finn changing the city? Adventure Time.
Now you'll get to watch out group tear into it like a fox into chickens (quite the noble savage, isn't it)? \
First of all, the idea of "noble savagery" is at it's best, unrealistic. While it's very clear that when Rousseau crafted his ideas, he was thinking of humans as higher than other animals. But left on your own, to your own devices, what else is there to follow but your basic instincts. Society, even if you does enable our vices, also has countermeasures that work to balance out and neutralize them as well. In a world crime-fighting has no clear definition and is left to kangaroo vigilantism AND in a world where we are left to provide everything needed for basic life by ourselves, do you think people will continue to hold themselves to morals and statutes? Do you really think that in a world without the mass conveniences that any society at any level enjoys today that we could maintain the standard of life and happiness that we have right now?
The closest example to society being sent back to the brink would be because of an Apocalypse-type event happening to the planet. This has at least been well documented in literature and the visual arts, and we can all pretty much call how this one ends. Let me jog your memory:
The closest example to society being sent back to the brink would be because of an Apocalypse-type event happening to the planet. This has at least been well documented in literature and the visual arts, and we can all pretty much call how this one ends. Let me jog your memory:
All in all, while I can agree that some of the ill wills of humanity can be solved by simple dissolving society, We all pretty much feel like it provides a lot more help than it does harm. Despite all of our faults, we feel like there's nothing better than a good ol' (stable) society.
Freebies of the Day
(CAN WE PLEASE SWAP BOOKS NOW ANYONE PLEASE PLEASE. I'm so tired of discussing "what if" topics and things that aren't generally relevant to daily life. -_-)
Discussion Question: Can anyone think of any instance (fictional or historical) where a society was better off living in smaller quarters?
Factual Question: Rousseau's name to the collective thought that is ultimately good for society is called the (General Will)
I'm with you, Morgan, in two senses related to your post. First, I agree that while society has its flaws it obviously makes our lives much better than they would be without it. If this was false, well we would have never made it as far as we have. Second, I am also ready for topics that aren't so much "What if". I could go for something more relevant to my life.
ReplyDeleteThere are definitely pros and cons to having a society. However, in this case, the pros out weigh the cons. I think something Rousseau didn't think about as a human instinct is the instinct to interact. The desire to not be alone or ,maybe, a fear of being alone is something we all have. Society benefits mankind in the sense that man is no longer alone. We can interact with each other all while advances our selves. The disadvantages of society, such as the societal norms created by the media, are ones that mankind can overcome. It just depends on their willingness and determination to do so. Also, I quite like the "what if" topics but I could do with something more relevant to our every day lives.
ReplyDeleteAll these pros to society that have been brought up have only been beneficial to our species alone. I understand that we're discussing this concept as it relates to the intangibles in human beings, such as good vs. evil, integrity, etc. But I think our worst vices dwell in our parasitic habits. Civilization, in my opinion, is terrible. It has so far only led to human beings boosting their ego, getting off on the pursuit of intelligence and happiness, and consequently draining the world of its resources. I know I sound like a hippie but whatever. I agree with Rosseau by definition I guess, because to me, vices aren't how we affect other human beings, or how our actions relate to our concept of morality; our true vice is our sense of not being bound by the world around us. All other species demonstrate a sustainable balance with nature and its resources except for us, because we figured out how to mass colonize by unnatural means. I can see why Rosseau brought up the General Will thing, to be practical and what not, but I don't that General Will should be what the rest of the world wants, not what the human population wants.
ReplyDeleteAnswer to Morgan's DQ: I'd say Japan was better off as an isolated country. They seemed way cooler back in the old days.
FQ: T or F - According to Rosseau's philosophy, we are free when following the general will, even if we are being forced to follow it.
link: not an internet link but more of a suggestion. The Stand, by Stephen King, is a good book in my opinion and addresses the idea of whether or not vices are created in civilization. Yes, it's an apocalypse novel.
EDIT: ..., but I think that the General Will should be...
Delete