The Power Of Equality

Barker's Notes

- (A) The difference between Rousseau's and Hobbes' 'natural' men is that Rosseau is harkening back to the primitive man, whereas Hobbes envisions 17th century man, and how he would react if the entrapments of civilisation completely vanished. Therefore I think its a bit unfair to compare one with the other.

- (B) I'm not sure if nakedness and lack of medicine are really assets to the savage man, though I can understand how the savage is no doubt stronger than the modern civilian (if less cultured).

- (C) I was left thinking that the savage man will also not have any concepts of freedom/morals. The more complex ideas we have of freedom and morality are human-generated constructs, in tandem with the human constructs of the sovereign/ruling government.

- (D) Considering how peaceful the Rousseau's state of nature is to Hobbes', it's interesting how Rousseau's formation of the state through revolution is a lot more violent than the social contract's desire to promote peace in the Leviathan. It's almost like Hobbes decided to flip that book on its head.

- (E) Just as fear was the 'good guy' in Leviathan, leisure is the 'bad guy' in A Discourse On Inequality. Which makes sense, as I rarely get fearful (or feel like I'm a productive member of society) while I'm watching old episodes of Flying Circus.

- (F) This book should have ended with a 'to be continued....' as I was left thinking it'll be interesting to find out what solutions to this state of inequality Rousseau has in mind, though apparently that's sorted out in his Social Contract. 

Hobbes' Leviathan vs. Punk Rock

Alternate title:

I Knew Hobbes Was Trouble When He Walked In (Trouble, Trouble, Trouble)

Needless to say, my understanding of Hobbes before yesterday's lecture was minimal at best. I get it a bit more now, but still, I reckon if you want some actual enlightenment on the contents of this book, it'd be best to scroll down to the blog post below mine.

Whenever faced with the intellectual demands that a comes with a book like Leviathan, my mind inevitably shifts to something that doesn't require thought, like punk rock. But then, with a flash of minimal inspiration, I realised that when Johnny Rotten sang

"I am an antichrist, I am an anarchist"

he was talking about the direct opposite of Hobbes' State = God analogy! The Sex Pistols, therefore, must have been scholars of the Hobbesian variety, and with their decree of destroying passersby, Johnny Rotten was fully acknowledging that sudden and violent deaths would result form his anarchistic ways.

The band Crass, on the other hand, promoted anarchism and pacifism as ways of life, saying things like

"External control are you gonna let them get you?

Do you wanna be a prisoner in the boundaries they set you?"

but also telling the embittered 'common man' who wishes for a bloody revolution that

"freedom has no value if violence is the price

Don't want your revolution, I want anarchy and peace."  

Hobbes, however, wouldn't be too happy with Crass. He'd say that the 'boundaries' (which involve fear) are necessary, and that violence is only other outcome.

Indeed, I think the idea of Hobbes getting cosy with any anti-capitalism and anti-establishment music from the likes of Fugazi or Refused would have been a definite no-no. What he would have thought of The Buzzcocks' 'Orgasm Addict' though, still remains to be seen.

Hopefully I'll have an even better grasp of this book by the end of the week. I wonder if any reproductions of the book have ever been attempted with a more modern vernacular and clearer arguments. I'm sure I'd enjoy reading that a whole lot more, as it's hard to follow Hobbes' traynes of thought when his now outdated diction gets in the way. 

  

The Hitler Conundrum

Hmmmm... A jewish woman at the start of the 20th century.... a man named Adolf.... let me guess, a comedy?

Well, the book certainly wants you to believe that Blanca's dead husband was the man himself. Everything points to it, he's christian, he's Austrian, he was born around the same time, his name is Adolf, and (and this is the big one) he wants to "eliminate" the Jews. It would have been exciting if the book had gone all 'Inglorious Basterds' and actually had Blanca kill Hitler. It's only after his death that you finally get his last name casually revealed via a wanted poster.

It makes you wonder why a woman who spent the majority of the film depicted as frail and passive suddenly becomes an axe murderer/church arsonist.

I noticed that this book won the National Jewish Book Award. It places judaism in positive light in that once Blanca leads the bosom of her religion she becomes lost, disenfranchised, and clearly weakened. This kind of assimilation could be applied to the debate concerning the native population of Canada.

It's a very sad book (of course), and I'd likened it to Schindler's List in that the dire subject matter means I don't want to read it again any time soon. There are no happy points (besides the central mother-son relationship) to cling on to, and there are many premonitions of the Holocaust. Appelfeld's shows that it's these kinds of relationships and attitudes that planted the seeds for the Holocaust, and if this is how bad it was for just one woman, it's near-impossible to comprehend the bigger picture.

Tom.

The Republic, Book X - tl;dr

         "And that," I concluded, "Is why justice is preferable to injustice."
         "Wow, Socrates," spoke Glaucon, "You're so smart, I just want to lick your face."
         Adeimantus nodded in approval, "I wish I could have but a fraction of your intellect! But Socrates, perhaps we should now break to get some food or sleep. Myself and Glaucon have been blindly agreeing to everything you've said for at least sixteen hours now."
         "But my dear Adeimantus!" I replied, "We're so close! I just have to slag off the painters and poets, dubiously try to show how the soul is immortal, and tell you a story that once again says how philosophers, myself included, are just better than everyone else, including both of you.
         "I can't wait to hear it!" Fervently agreed Glaucon.
         "Well, it is common knowledge, of course, that poets are lying jerks that are wholly responsible for everything bad I've mentioned thus far, and when I make my city I'll kick them all out, and..... Adeimantus, why are you crying?"
         Glaucon spoke up, "Didn't you know, Socrates? Adeimantus has been fond of dabbling in poetry in his spare time."
         "I'm such a failure!" Wept Adeimantus.
          As I gazed upon my sobbing friend,  I became overwhelmed with guilt."Oh my, Adeimantus, I'm so sorry. I was only pulling your leg, that's all. Didn't you know I was joking? To think, me, Socrates, condoning eugenics and infanticide! Ha-ha! Haven't we all had a good, humorous time guys? Guys?" Once again I looked at my two companions, to find they had both collapsed from exhaustion.

The End

Big, Bad, Penelopiad

Firstly, thank you Atwood for condensing your lovely Canadian writing into a slim book with large margins. You are now almost at a Neil Young-tier of Canadian awesomeness.

I like the modern perspective on it all - in the Odyssey, the soldiers of Troy are never viewed as "vets" who have been scarred from the war. When the mythical is contrasted with the mundane on page 83, we are certainly more inclined to believe the mundane, given how grounded the Penelopiad is compared to the Odyssey. Gods are mostly dismissed by Penelope in this reading, giving us a sceptically modern, perhaps atheist view of the divine. The entire story of the Odyssey is shown to be a lie 'concocted' by bards, done only to extort gifts for framing Odysseus in the most positive light. Reading all this should make me want to tell Atwood to stop ruining all the magicy, greek-godly fun, but she does also highlight one other aspect of the Odyssey that makes me want to side with team Atwood...

"drum roll"

The imbalance of the sexes is a big theme in the Penelopiad, what with Penelope frequently biting her tongue, the swan-rape, general abuse of Penelope's maids, and Odysseus probably sleeping with all sorts of people while his wife remained faithful (or did she!?!?!). Social justice is incompatible with The Odyssey, as well as most other works in the ancient literacy cannon, and bringing feminism (as good as feminism is) into The Odyssey seems like a bit of an easy target. Of course the sexes were unequal back then, the sexes are still unequal today, and raping/hanging your female servants isn't even a thing now!

I'm not sure how I feel about the maid interludes. It's quite clever how they're all written in different styles, but segments such as the Anthropology lecture feel a bit unnecessary.

 Many of the twists that Atwood introduced seem perfectly logical, especially from our modern perspectives. Penelope would be laughing at her now-desperate father as she departed for Ithica, and Autolycus probably did set the boar on Odysseus himself.

Telemachus seems really arrogant and unlikeable, a cocky teenager who's always dismissing his own frail, lonely mother. It's basically the same view as given in The Odyssey, but in The Odyssey he's also a lot more (cue trumpets) HEROIC. The rug is also pulled under the story's titular character, as the maids suggest it was Penelope who was responsible for their deaths, making The Penelopiad's narrator decidedly unreliable. We get told all this, after the book has convinced us that Odysseus is an unreliable narrator. So who's actually telling the truth? Is it nobody? Tell me Atwood! You crafty Canadian, you.

Tom.

Intro Page

Hi Everyone

Isn't Kierkegaard difficult? Just thought I'd put that out there, because now whenever I try and think about ArtsOne now I just imagine a Danish philosopher kicking me repeatedly while screaming "what do you mean you don't know what teleological suspension is? Foolish student!" repeatedly.

On that note, I should recommend Sparknotes for those that haven't read it. It's a lifesaver.

Anyways, should I be talking about me? I'd rather get to know everyone in person. Plus I am slightly boring.

I do really like music (listening, that is, rather than playing), and have been blogging about musical things for about a year now (though that'll definitely get put on hold, what with all this work on the horizon). I'll leave you with a video of the song I'm listening to right now!

P.S. My main goal for this year is to learn how to type with more than two fingers