Maculinity- The Man's trait

Masculinity is a trait of behaving in ways considered typical for men, such as adventurous, strangeness, toughness, and bravery. These days, because of sexual equality society, it is hard to say that masculinity classified as man’s trait. But in the past, masculinity was such a man’s property.

In the advertisement, companies use masculinity to represents the real man. The cowboy is one of the well portrayed figures of masculinity. Cowboy is represented as a tough and silent guardian of the frontier. For instance, before the cigarette advertising was banned in the US, Marlboro used the cowboy figures in their advertisement to emphasize the masculinity of their product, to make consumers looks cool as much as cowboy.

According to George Orwell’s 1984, it is hard to say that Winston Smith, who has opposite ideas against Big Brother, was a perfect figure to portray masculinity. Through the story, Winston exposed his weakness such as worried about that the likelihood to be captured and tortured by the Thought Police because he committed thought crime. Also, he afraid of mouse and Julia, when he thought she was a political spy. Those matters decline the masculinity of Winston, but some masculinity traits was arise from Winston. Winston wrote diaries, which prohibited by the government, and began his small rebellion against the government, himself. Also, masculinity was largely exposed, when Winston declared that he is an enemy of the Party and wished to join the Brotherhood. When he captured by the though police, through the torturing sessions, he exposed his weakness, but at that moment of declaring that he hates Big Brother, he was the bravest and adventurous man in Oceania.

possible to be happy?

For both (or either) Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud, is it possible to be happy? Why?           

              According to Civilization and its Discontents written by Sigmund Freud, he argues that the true happiness is based on our primary instinct, such as aggression and sexuality. However, when human get started to civilize and the ego was arising in their mind, human started to controls this primary instinct. Because human controls their id and to limits their happiness themselves, civilized human could not be happy. Then according to Freud’s argument of happiness, our happiness is imitated? And animals that they avoids to control and express the primary instinct, their happiness is more valuable than human’s? In other words, human finds their happiness from music, sports, movie and other civilized materials were worse than dog’s happiness from chasing the thrown ball? There is not single person to agree to this idea. So, being happy is not caused by the quality of happiness, maybe it caused by the continuous happiness. Because, human cannot express their primary instinct in anytime, because of our society law would catch judge reckless expression of aggression and sexuality. The law that civilized human constructed gives pressures on the human to control and repress their primary instinct.

 The human’s intelligent is developed through the long periods of human evolution. Because human has high intelligent, there is no limitation in human’s desire. For example, the savage animals such as lions, when they are full they are not hunting anymore. Otherwise, for humans, we could not content on our happiness that exist now, try to find more and better happiness. If I won the lottery, I might feel pleasure, but it doesn’t mean that I do not want to win lottery anymore? Maybe I still want to win lottery if I could. As we seen, animal lives for the present, but human lives for the future. Thus, human’s desire has no limitation.

 In my opinion, because of our unlimited desire and limited primary instinct, it is possible to feel the happiness at a moment, but not continuously. Therefore, I think it is impossible to be happy that defined by Freud.      

Socrates' Charge and Trial

#1. Do you think these charges are legitimate?  Is this a fair trial?

I think the charges of Socratescan be legitimate,but the trial is certainly unfair.Historically, sacrilege was one of the serious crimes at that time in Greece. It can be legitimate charge when he committed. However, through Socrates’ argument in the trial, there is no reason to Socrates to stand on the trial. Because with his dialogue method, which asking question after question to someone, expose their ignorance, then guide them to reach at different conclusion, which they argued at first, Socrates prove his innocence. Meletusprosecuted Socrates, because he thought that Socrates was corrupting the youth by teaching them not to believe in the gods. But in the trial, Socrates argued that he is neither a corrupter nor an atheist.

             At first, through the conversation with Meletus, he tried to shows his innocence about the charge of corrupt the youth. Socrates asked to Meletus“Does anyone like to be injured?” and Meletus answered “Certainly not.”Then Socrates asked well, then are you prosecuting me for corrupting the young and making them worse, voluntarily or involuntarily?”Meletusresponded,“For doing it voluntarily.” (Apology, Pg.31) But Socrates denied Meletus’ argument because it can’t be happened. There is no reason to corrupt the youth voluntarily, even he knows that he will be injure by them, when he make them evil. Then he said “If I corrupt them involuntarily, the law does not call upon you to prosecute me for error which is involuntarily, but to take me and aside privately and reprove and educate me…But you avoided associating with me and educating me.”(Apolgy, Pg.31) So, Socrates shows that his charge of the corrupter is invalid when he does that involuntarily. Also Socrates denied that he is an atheist through his argument that if divinities are gods, and he believes in divinities, therefore he believes in the gods.

             Socrates clearly proved his innocence of his charges, but he is condemned to death that shows the trial is unfair. At the first part of “Apology”, Socrates kept begging to people in the trial that to remove the prejudice against him. That prejudice made by people who think there are wise people themselves, but exposed their ignorance by Socrates. People who evaluate themselves as wise, they have huge pride about their intelligent, but if someone exposes their ignorance, they might feel shame.  And who likes someone that who gave disgrace on his or her pride? Maybe no one likes that person. Also people who accused Socrates were one of them. I think for fair trial, the judgment must ignore the prejudice and revengeful thoughts, but as we saw the Socrates’ trial was not. Because of that reason, I believe that Socrates’ trial is totally unfair.

Le Guin Blog Topics #1. If you were a citizen of Omelas, would you stay or would you walk? .

When I read “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas.” written by Ursula Le Guin, I felt disgust at the people of Omelas’ greed and cruelty. If I was one of them, I am pretty sure that I walked away from Omelas. However, after the lecture, with my critical thinking, I was confused about my decision. Perhaps, Omelas was the closest image of the utopia, but it wasn’t a true utopia. However citizens of Omelas made their utopia through sacrificing a child. There is no doubt; it was the best decision for the majority of Omelas. Because, around our society, the perfect decision to satisfy everyone, is almost impossible to exist. So, sometimes we have to sacrifice minority for majority. Also, I think, it is not the right way, that I gave freedom to child; in that case I might destroy other’s happiness. I think that is more cruel decision to Omelas’ society.

Under the morality, no one would decide to stay in Omelas. It wasn’t a simple question, because when I walk away from Omelas, I have to throw out everything. Also, I don’t think there is any improvement to child’s tragedy even though I left Omelas. Also, people who left Omelas can’t blame people who don’t leave Omelas. People who stay in Omelas, they accepted the truth of Omelas and they still ignored child’s tragedy. Thus, whether people leave or stay is meaningless to the child. Then there is no difference, why would I have to leave, even throws out my happiness? I might ignore the truth, because I don’t want to wake myself from the sweet dream, even I realized that I’m in the dreaming.