The final prompt for Brave New World; I'm actually kind of sad. I really enjoyed reading it and I had hoped for more classroom discussion on it; perhaps a socratic seminar? Oh well enough with the sentimental hogwash and on to the real reason for posting; because it was assigned. The final prompt asks to dicuss in detail some similarities between Brave New World and modern American society; since I truly enjoy comparing anything to our own civilization bear with me as I might go a little bit crazy.
While we are not yet to the point of cloning hundreds of men and women to do menial labor and mind numbing tasks the sceintific industry shows signs of at least uncovering that technology. As we grow more and more familiar with the genetic construction of the human being and scientific procedures like cloning become more sophisticated it is not out of the realm of thought that we might one day begin cloning humans; this is not quite the manner in which Huxely's humans are created but we already have test tube babies; a good friend of mine was one, so it is definetly within sight that we might simply take our ability to create life by using sperm and egg dontations to the next level by applying the science of mass production to it; why not? Its already a buisness for hundreds of couples that can't have children or same sex couples that can't have children for obvious reasons; it is not beyond thought that they might one day be turned to the more insideous task of creating hundreds of mindless drones for menial labor. As for the elimination of disease and endless youth until death we devote billions of dollars a year to surgery's and anti aging products; human beings are in a constant battle to defeat old age and it is not out of the realm of thinking that we might one day achieve this as our success continues in these fields. As for disease there's a vacination for almost everything these days; viruses seem to be the only major opponent left besides some types of cancer and it isn't out of the realm of thinking that if society could change it's habits and mannerisms we might one day eliminate all disease on earth; that is after all out goal; we devote billions in research dollars every year to finding the cause of the millions of devastating bugs that are in a constant war with human beings for dominance on this globe. With technology becoming more and more effective at creating medicines that can eradicate even the most stubborn of diseases I can see that the future could easily hold a world without disease. With that I'll leave the topic of human health and eternal youth for you to ponder about; I haven't stated whether or not I thought that any of this was good or bad, I don't want to take up to much space, instead I'll make me sentiments known in a more condensed form at the end.
Let's talk about sex; the age old questions of celibacy and chastiy come popping up as soon as I pound this out on the keyboard. In Brave New World the ultimate physcial pleasure is at your fingertips, literally with the feelies, for you to enjoy and partake in whenever you desire and with whomever you desire. Modern society hasn't quite caught up with the sexual culture of Brave New World, especially concerning premature adolescent sexual activity, but we have quite the sex culture of our own. Sex icons litter movie screens and television shows; literature is filled with sexual images and everyday conversations are easily found to have thousands upon thousands of sexual Innuendos, metaphors, and allusions. Sex is frequently cast in both a positive and negative light with many people aruging that sex is something that is special and that sexual desires should be restrained until after marrige; this makes things quite difficult for those that cannot marry but I'll leave it at that. With a moral culture still hampering the sexual revolution in America we have not yet reached our full potential as a sex culture; however it is not out of the range of logical thought to think that drastic events might make us reshape our thinking of sex and what it means to interact physcially with eachother. I for one feel that of all the similarities that this is the most striking and the most relevant as a topic of discussion; America is a culture that is more than obessed with sex, it is addicted to it. But I'll leave it at that since I promised to reveal opinions later on.
As far as government there is no similarity between the complete control of Brave New World and the chaotic but rather organized chaos that is the Democratic government of the United States. However I will say that drastic events (In Brave New World the Nine Years War) can change that quite easily even in countries that have a history of democracy; that goes for any type of government however.
The obssesive use of mass production is vaugely foreshadowed by huge super stores like Wal-Mart and Target but society is still by and by a free market place and open to new buisnesses though admittedly it is getting harder for new buisnesses to compete with the growing power of larger corrperations though the world Huxley predicts is still quite a ways away.
As far as the family unit goes the traditonal family unit is still intact in American society though war, disease, poverty, religion, money woes, children, and drastic changes in the last hundred years of society have put it under great wear and tear. In the future the role of the family may be different; it all depends on how we continue to view the family and whether or not there is room for change; Will we allow same sex couples children? Can we accept single parent families? Will our orphanages ever be empty? Will the divorce rates ever stop their seemingly endless sky rocketing? Will marrige and traditional values always govern our society or will we adapt and change in a world that seems to be changing each and everyday? At this point in my life I can't say whether or not that I think that the family unit will ever end up an extinct item; it has always survived even the most cataclysmic of changes in social structure; it will take something big or something slow and gradual to erode the huge hold the family unit has upon society.
Religion is on the down slope; while new age christian churches are gaining power in the United States the rest of the western world is becoming less and less religious. Even in the United States the growing number of the non religious is increasing in exponential numbers. The grip of religion upon the United States has always been shaky and now it seems to be rapidly losing it's grip; other than the sexual revolution I predict that religion is the most likely to go; it has to change drastically if it has any hope of truly surviving. Religion, I predict, at the least it's radical elements, will destroy itself and consume itself in a world that no longer truly puts stock in a religious life; to many elements are conspiring intentionally and unintentionally against it. I would suggest here that the drastic change needed to change society to perhaps a more Brave New World context, might come from some religious war in the United States.
As far as drugs are concerned, SOMA if you will, could indeed become a staple of American society but again I really think that you would have to remove many other components before you could ever institute a government approved "high" if you will. That is what SOMA is for after all. But I can see it happening, drug abuse, non-perscription and perscription, is on the rise and shows no signs of stopping despite the efforts of the "drug war" that we've been waging.
So, with my comparisons laid bare, here are my final thoughts. Do I think that the elimination of all disease and the end of aging would have a negative effect on society? No, I think that it would have a positive effect indeed on society. Not only would it clear up countless suffering and save millions of lives it would eliminate the need for a burdensome medical and food and drug administration that costs the economy billions of dollars. Right now it is neccessary to spend that money to save lives but I would not shed to many tears to see it go along with the insanely expensive costs of medicine and hospital care required for the ill and the ailing.
Do I think that the sexual revolution, especially one akin to Brave New World, would have a negative impact on society? Yes, I feel that commercializing sex anymore than we already do could have profound reprecussions for society. Teenage pregnacy is already a huge problem and it only seems to get worse as time goes on; teens have sex more and more every year and it gets rampant. I think that sex doesn't have to wait for marrige and that if you are in a committed relationship that you know is going somewhere you can have sex if you are cautious about it. You know, were protection, make sure your partner doesn't have and STD and all that good stuff. But to allow free sex with anyone and everyone? Why? You don't get any true satisfaction out of that; at least I wouldn't. I find the whole idea of orgies and sex with a different person every day rather repulsive and disgusting. Sex is something special and shouldn't be treated as a product that you can have whenever you want.
Do I think that the disolvement of the traditional family unit, a man women and their 2.5 children with the white picket fence, will have a negative impact on society? Yes, because I feel that families provide desperately need care and comfort as well as support and valuable life lessons for children. However, I feel there a great need for change and that the traditional family unit is not the sole staple or the most important in society. Nor do I feel that straight couples should be the only couples raising children or allowed matrimonial benefits; the divorce rate continues to sky rocket and children and parents both suffer because of it. To me this shows that the family unit can no longer function with its age old principles that the churches continue to preach. Man and womens roles are changing and so is the role of the children. With values changing and society changing the family unit needs to change with them if they hope to survive. The traditional family unit needs a new set of values that allow for comprimise and flexibility and couples that marry and have children need to rethink their situation and their future plans and goals for eachother. Love is all well and good but you need financial security and a place to live for a family. You have to be able to support each other as well as love each other and you have to be able to bear the rough times as well as the good. I think that people think the family unit holds together on its own as it did in the days of old. I feel that the traditional family unit rests to much on worn out principles that are no longer part of society and that if if hopes to survive it needs to revamp itself.
Do I feel the loss of religion would have a negative effect on society? NO! I feel that, as of now, it would have a positive effect on society to do away with the age old concepts preached by these new age christian loonies that are so intent on political and social control that they are willing to persecute, torment, and condemn innocent people who love each other for who they love. Or they attack art, theatre, music, literature and cling to forgotten ideals and idiotic goals of a world where religion reigns supreme and all worship as delusioned fools. That's the future they strive for and they actually believe that the rest of us are going to burn in an eternal pit of flames if we don't step in line, go underground, and try our best to be good little drones. I feel that religion needs a serious reworking of it's entire outward and internal structure and if it doesn't happen within the next fifty years or so I predict that Religion will experiance serious conflicts, far more so than now, with society was it continues to change and move away from the old ideals. Is there a place for religion in society? No, not this new and rabid form, nor for the ancient ways. There are those that are changing and changing their message and perhaps they will survive and go on. But this new age fundamentalism and radicalism cannot last long. If it does I have other predictions for what society might end up as.
Well that wraps up my last post. Feel free to go to town on me though I know I wrote to much.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Brave New Blog
Connections between Brave New World and Utopia are loose. Perhaps the most notable would be that in both Utopia and Brave New World people live in totally controlled societies. Another vague connection might be seen in crime and disease for in Utopia these things exist only rarely and in Brave New World they do not exist at all; or a connection might be drawn in the fact that both societies strictly regulate the information available to their citizens and only privileged members are allowed to view certain materials. Another connection might be found in the attitudes of the people in Utopia and Brave New World where everyone seems to be locked in this eerie state of blissful unawareness. People don’t seem to truly care about anything as long as they are satisfied in their physical and mental wants; though in Utopia there are quite a few significant differences in how those needs are satisfied. The love of work in both societies is also quite similar; everyone loves their job and loves to work; a lack of leisure time is also noticeable in both Utopia and Brave New World in the form of reading, thinking, writing, or exclusive conversation.
As to what might be good in Brave New World there are actually a few things that I like about the dystopia, the most notable would be the elimination of disease which consumes vast amounts of human lives and causes uncounted human misery and pain that just adds to all the other misery and pain that we suffer as we go through life; this also eliminates the need for healthcare and health insurance and all those bothersome trips to the doctor and the hospital for minor sniffles and cuts; with vaccinations for just about everything under the sun we’ve finally conquered our greatest foe.
I also enjoyed the eternal youth aspect of Brave New World in which aging has been eliminated by science; face it, no one wants to grow old physically; I don’t want to live forever but I could certainly go without arthritis, back problems, diminished hearing and eyesight, and the general decay of my body and all its functions. Living with the beauty and vitality of my twenty year old self makes me quite anxious and happy indeed.
*Note* I have refrained from putting any problems that might arise out of the “good” in Brave New World so in no way do I think that any “good” in Brave New World is attained without terrible price but I would say that eternal youth until death and the elimination of disease are scientific advancements that I would not mind having available; without, of course, the negative side effects I might have a chance to talk about later on an additional post.
The most disturbing trait by far in Brave New World is two things (Sorry I couldn’t pick one) those being the conditioning and the obsession with a sexual subculture. The conditioning just because from birth to death you’ve been brainwashed to serve ten men (maybe a women or two) and you cannot do anything about it; any attempt to change the social structure is impossible because everyone else would treat you as an exile and you’d be ostracized from society. That kind of imprisonment just scares the crap out of me; my independent thought is my most prized possession so I get completely out of joint when I read about any society where it no longer exists or, even worse, that gave it up just for comfort and false happiness!
The sexual culture obsession also bothered me quite a bit. Sex is an essential part of human existence (Obviously) and essential in relationships; sex performed merely for pleasure in copious quantities takes away all the intimacy and love that make sex so wonderful and beautiful; sex for pure pleasure is okay within a relationship but sex merely for having sex disturbs me especially with multiple partners some of whom you may not even like let alone want to touch naked. Ugh, how could anyone enjoy that?
As to what might be good in Brave New World there are actually a few things that I like about the dystopia, the most notable would be the elimination of disease which consumes vast amounts of human lives and causes uncounted human misery and pain that just adds to all the other misery and pain that we suffer as we go through life; this also eliminates the need for healthcare and health insurance and all those bothersome trips to the doctor and the hospital for minor sniffles and cuts; with vaccinations for just about everything under the sun we’ve finally conquered our greatest foe.
I also enjoyed the eternal youth aspect of Brave New World in which aging has been eliminated by science; face it, no one wants to grow old physically; I don’t want to live forever but I could certainly go without arthritis, back problems, diminished hearing and eyesight, and the general decay of my body and all its functions. Living with the beauty and vitality of my twenty year old self makes me quite anxious and happy indeed.
*Note* I have refrained from putting any problems that might arise out of the “good” in Brave New World so in no way do I think that any “good” in Brave New World is attained without terrible price but I would say that eternal youth until death and the elimination of disease are scientific advancements that I would not mind having available; without, of course, the negative side effects I might have a chance to talk about later on an additional post.
The most disturbing trait by far in Brave New World is two things (Sorry I couldn’t pick one) those being the conditioning and the obsession with a sexual subculture. The conditioning just because from birth to death you’ve been brainwashed to serve ten men (maybe a women or two) and you cannot do anything about it; any attempt to change the social structure is impossible because everyone else would treat you as an exile and you’d be ostracized from society. That kind of imprisonment just scares the crap out of me; my independent thought is my most prized possession so I get completely out of joint when I read about any society where it no longer exists or, even worse, that gave it up just for comfort and false happiness!
The sexual culture obsession also bothered me quite a bit. Sex is an essential part of human existence (Obviously) and essential in relationships; sex performed merely for pleasure in copious quantities takes away all the intimacy and love that make sex so wonderful and beautiful; sex for pure pleasure is okay within a relationship but sex merely for having sex disturbs me especially with multiple partners some of whom you may not even like let alone want to touch naked. Ugh, how could anyone enjoy that?
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Finale
We come to our final portion of Sir Thomas More's essay and I can finally say that my thoughts culminate in this manner, that I agreed with little and was perturbed by the rest. Let us begin with that oh so contreversial subject, love.
Concerning Marrige and Love - The Utopians forbid anyone from falling in love before the age of 22 if they are male and 18 if they are girls, anyone who transgresses against this is forbidden to marry. The ages mentioned above are also the set limits for Marrige, no one may marry before he or she reaches the proper age. An even stranger prerequisite for Marrige is that both man and wife must see eachother naked before they can be married.
My thoughts on Marrige and Love - Love cannot be controlled, defined, or explained by Men or Women to other Men and Women; it can come at anytime and for anyone; forbidding love is impossible because it is a concept used to describe an emotion that people feel when an attraction to another is sparked. You cannot "outlaw" love until a certain age. As for Marrige I think that it is indeed proper to set age limits but I would feel better if they were just a little bit closer together; four years doesn't seem like much but considering the amount of maturing that happens in those four years I would say that maybe 20 and 22 would be more suitable. In response to the requirement that you have to see your partner naked I have always been a firm believer that if you are in a relationship in which you are committed body and soul to another then intercourse and sexual interactions should be permissable and not condemded. A huge part of Marrige is sex and if you don't know your partner's sexual habits or how they handle it then you have just one more obstacle to overcome. So being naked before you get married isn't so strange a requirement after all I guess.
Concerning divorce - Anyone who is at fault is stripped of their freedom and forced into slavery while the party without guilt is allowed to remarry.
My thoughts on divorce - Slavery is wrong in any shape and form and should never be a punishment. It would be better to put them in the service of the wronged party, like an indentured servant, to serve a specific sentance yet still be paid and allow to live in their own home and still not be allowed to remarry. The same should go for the person they cheated with.
Concerning Lawyers - They are all deceitful and cannot be trusted and so no man may be a lawyer in Utopia.
My thoughts - My uncle is a lawyer and one of the most honest people I know. If you take away the lawyers and have people represent themselves then you must bear with the fact that not everyone will have the same knowledge of the law and that could be a disadvantage for people that have been wronged. However, if crime doesn't occur often there is little need for the courts and so the occasional court case would be inconsequential.
Concerning War - The Utopias share a common disdain for war and all things connected with it and in all their actions they do all they can to avoid engaging themselves in war having constructed their society in such a way that conflict can be negated and greed for more territory is discouraged and frowned upon so people do not desire more and there is no need for large armies to aquire new territory. However all the citizenry are trained in the art of war in case of such an occurence.
My thoughts - this is the most ironic part of all; Utopia doesn't have war; yet everyone is trained in how to fight...why? Their island is a virtual fortress, impenetrable by land or sea and the technology for air battle is still centuries away; why would you need to keep your people armed and ready for battles that are never going to come? I didn't know what to make of it except to assume that perhaps Utopia isn't as impregnable as we are led to believe and that in the slight chance an invasion even got to the island the Utopian's would be ready to handle it. It was still odd though.
Concerning religion - The citizens of Utopia are allowed to follow any religion that they choose too and no one religion of the state is forced upon them.
My thoughts - This was perhaps my favorite part; I have alwasy believed in the freedom of choice when it comes to religion; it's worked well enough in the good old USA.
Concerning death - The people can choose to either be sad for the dead or joyful that they have moved on.
My thoughts - I thought this section rather boring. I didn't feel as if it described anything worth talking about; how people greive is akin to how they love; we all do it in different manners; there really isn't any need to try and catagorize how it's done.
Concerning Marrige and Love - The Utopians forbid anyone from falling in love before the age of 22 if they are male and 18 if they are girls, anyone who transgresses against this is forbidden to marry. The ages mentioned above are also the set limits for Marrige, no one may marry before he or she reaches the proper age. An even stranger prerequisite for Marrige is that both man and wife must see eachother naked before they can be married.
My thoughts on Marrige and Love - Love cannot be controlled, defined, or explained by Men or Women to other Men and Women; it can come at anytime and for anyone; forbidding love is impossible because it is a concept used to describe an emotion that people feel when an attraction to another is sparked. You cannot "outlaw" love until a certain age. As for Marrige I think that it is indeed proper to set age limits but I would feel better if they were just a little bit closer together; four years doesn't seem like much but considering the amount of maturing that happens in those four years I would say that maybe 20 and 22 would be more suitable. In response to the requirement that you have to see your partner naked I have always been a firm believer that if you are in a relationship in which you are committed body and soul to another then intercourse and sexual interactions should be permissable and not condemded. A huge part of Marrige is sex and if you don't know your partner's sexual habits or how they handle it then you have just one more obstacle to overcome. So being naked before you get married isn't so strange a requirement after all I guess.
Concerning divorce - Anyone who is at fault is stripped of their freedom and forced into slavery while the party without guilt is allowed to remarry.
My thoughts on divorce - Slavery is wrong in any shape and form and should never be a punishment. It would be better to put them in the service of the wronged party, like an indentured servant, to serve a specific sentance yet still be paid and allow to live in their own home and still not be allowed to remarry. The same should go for the person they cheated with.
Concerning Lawyers - They are all deceitful and cannot be trusted and so no man may be a lawyer in Utopia.
My thoughts - My uncle is a lawyer and one of the most honest people I know. If you take away the lawyers and have people represent themselves then you must bear with the fact that not everyone will have the same knowledge of the law and that could be a disadvantage for people that have been wronged. However, if crime doesn't occur often there is little need for the courts and so the occasional court case would be inconsequential.
Concerning War - The Utopias share a common disdain for war and all things connected with it and in all their actions they do all they can to avoid engaging themselves in war having constructed their society in such a way that conflict can be negated and greed for more territory is discouraged and frowned upon so people do not desire more and there is no need for large armies to aquire new territory. However all the citizenry are trained in the art of war in case of such an occurence.
My thoughts - this is the most ironic part of all; Utopia doesn't have war; yet everyone is trained in how to fight...why? Their island is a virtual fortress, impenetrable by land or sea and the technology for air battle is still centuries away; why would you need to keep your people armed and ready for battles that are never going to come? I didn't know what to make of it except to assume that perhaps Utopia isn't as impregnable as we are led to believe and that in the slight chance an invasion even got to the island the Utopian's would be ready to handle it. It was still odd though.
Concerning religion - The citizens of Utopia are allowed to follow any religion that they choose too and no one religion of the state is forced upon them.
My thoughts - This was perhaps my favorite part; I have alwasy believed in the freedom of choice when it comes to religion; it's worked well enough in the good old USA.
Concerning death - The people can choose to either be sad for the dead or joyful that they have moved on.
My thoughts - I thought this section rather boring. I didn't feel as if it described anything worth talking about; how people greive is akin to how they love; we all do it in different manners; there really isn't any need to try and catagorize how it's done.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Part Two
"Freaked out" would be the best reaction that I had to the second part of Utopia. The immense control over the culture is astounding, following the example of my peers I'm going bullet in my analysis.
Concerning the culture -- A uniform culture is not only odd it's unhealthy, a lack of interesting differences that may cause division but can also encourage growth and new improvements to society is frightening, its as if people no longer wish to consider gaining new knowledge.
Concerning learning -- Everyone has a love of learning? I would love to see a society that had dedicated itself to the pursuit of knowledge but I would like to know, especially since it was written in 1516, where they drew the line as far as what they were allowed to research. I would enjoy such a society hower.
Concerning the family -- Okay, this is where I lost it. Shipping children around as if they were cattle? An utter disregard for the family unit? It's as if the parents don't care about their own children. A specified family size? How odd and unusual, I couldn't see how it served any particularly useful purpose.
Concerning clothing -- Another point that showed a lack of variety was that all garments worn by Utopians were of the same make, even those of the rulers. They looked down upon those who wore flashy clothes or clothing that stuck out. This struck me as snobbish and more of "You're too good for everyone else" attitude towards fashion which is ridiculous.
Summary -- I felt as if I was reading "Brave New World" except it was written four hundred years prior to it's actual publishing. The whole society, as good as the structure of government might be, was deluded and watered down to the point of being frightening. There is little variety in the culture, none actually, no art or inspiring entertainment, nothing to provoke new ideas or thought outside of a limited range which suprised me because he said that everyone had a love of learning. Of course with the knowledge allowed in and taught in the schools controlled one could easily still maintain a love of learning and their subjects. Peaces, for Utopia, is achieved, but I do not think that I would like to live in such a drab and controlled enviorment.
Concerning the culture -- A uniform culture is not only odd it's unhealthy, a lack of interesting differences that may cause division but can also encourage growth and new improvements to society is frightening, its as if people no longer wish to consider gaining new knowledge.
Concerning learning -- Everyone has a love of learning? I would love to see a society that had dedicated itself to the pursuit of knowledge but I would like to know, especially since it was written in 1516, where they drew the line as far as what they were allowed to research. I would enjoy such a society hower.
Concerning the family -- Okay, this is where I lost it. Shipping children around as if they were cattle? An utter disregard for the family unit? It's as if the parents don't care about their own children. A specified family size? How odd and unusual, I couldn't see how it served any particularly useful purpose.
Concerning clothing -- Another point that showed a lack of variety was that all garments worn by Utopians were of the same make, even those of the rulers. They looked down upon those who wore flashy clothes or clothing that stuck out. This struck me as snobbish and more of "You're too good for everyone else" attitude towards fashion which is ridiculous.
Summary -- I felt as if I was reading "Brave New World" except it was written four hundred years prior to it's actual publishing. The whole society, as good as the structure of government might be, was deluded and watered down to the point of being frightening. There is little variety in the culture, none actually, no art or inspiring entertainment, nothing to provoke new ideas or thought outside of a limited range which suprised me because he said that everyone had a love of learning. Of course with the knowledge allowed in and taught in the schools controlled one could easily still maintain a love of learning and their subjects. Peaces, for Utopia, is achieved, but I do not think that I would like to live in such a drab and controlled enviorment.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Hurray for Raphael
Beginning on page three Sir Thomas More, and his friend Peter, are listening to Raphael recount his travels to many countries. When he finishes Peter comments that he is suprised that Raphael had not yet aligned himself with any king or prince because his knowledge would most certainly make him a most useful and important vassal to any ruler. This would increase the fortunes of the monarch and by such Raphael's fortunes and those of his friends. Raphael replies by saying that he has already paid his friends all that was due to them freely and while he was still young enough and he would rather his friends be content with that then see him enslave himself to any king. Peter replies by saying "Soft and fair, I do not mean that you should be a slave to any King, but only that you should assist thetm, and be useful to them." To which Raphael replies "The change of the word does not alter the matter." Peter is insistent however and says that he cannot see to what other end that Raphael could possibly use his knowledge for or how he else he could increase his happiness. Raphael admonishes him saying that he is happier being free from the bonds of servitude and that his loss to government is of no great consequence to him for to many people serve only to gain the favor of those in power and it is better if they are not troubled by him or men like him. More applauds Raphael's disregard for power and wealth but goes on to suggest that if not for his own happiness should he serve a king then he should serve a king for the good of the public for he could, with his vast knowledge, persuade the king to great and noble works for the general public. More feels that Raphael's knowledge alone qualifies him for the post even if has no experiance in politics before this. But Raphael corrects more on both accounts saying that the public would be improved one bit when he had sacrificed himself to it's service by the side of any ruler. Nor does he have the power to move princes to acts of public improvement for they are far to concerned with matters of war which he confesses he knows little about and cares of not a whit. He then goes on to say that trying to propose anything in court would be futile for all the other members would oppose his position for they would feel that their own reputations would suffer should his proposal be recieved with favor and then be successful. Raphael goes on to discusses, in reference to a meeting in England, his encounter with just such a man who was remarking upon the fact that common theives are put to death for their crimes. Raphael said that this was unjust and also against the common good and recommends instead that they be taught trades so they can earn a living by honest work instead of by theft. The lawyer replies that there are oportunities enough and that those that do not take part in them must have their minds bent towards ill acts. Raphael admonishes and says that many are unable to work most trades since they have been mutilated by war and having been thus incapacitated in their youth and were never taught a trade find themselves unable to work and then, having grown old, unable to learn a new trade, what can they do but steal? "But since wars are only accidental things, and have intervals, lut us consider those things that fall out every day (6)" Raphael says. He goes on to say that Noblemen often enough make themselves into perfect theives because their wealth makes them idle and when their lord dies and they are turned out after spending their wealth they are neither accepted by their own class or the poor because men of quality do not asscociate with the fallen and the poor know that those that have lived in luxury are ill suited for the back breaking labor required to scrape out a living. The lawyer replies that these men should be held in high esteem for they furnish the furnaces of war as able bodied warriors. To this Raphael says that the lawyer might as well cherish theives for soldiers in times of peace tend to revert to their old habits before war when the country cannot provide for them and they still having no training in any job that might serve them in peace. Because of this countries that keep standing armies, like France, are forced to continue to look for ways to sate the lust for battle that these "beasts" constantly crave since they cannot revert back to civilian life after war. But this, Raphael goes on to say, is not teh only cause of theivery and the assembly asks him what the other source might be. "The increase of pasture" he says. Because noblemen continue to gobble more and more land in their avarice they push more and more men off the land who have been trained in the arts of agriculture all their lives. Their homes and possessions are bought for a pitiful price and this not enough to afford new land and new homes. As the land vanishes so does any opportunity for new work for men who know no other way of living other than farming and when they have no money and no work what can they do but steal, and be hanged, or beg, and be put into prison as idle vagabonds. This also impacts the price of corn because with no more customers with money to buy farmers must drive up prices to make ends meet and by driving up prices they slowly shrink the market more and more. In the end the greed of men leads to the collapse of the economy by forcing men off their land and depriving them of work and money to purchase. A cardinal, who was present, then asked Raphael if death was not the answer for thievery then what was? Since death does not stop people from theft what will restrain them if they think their lives are safe regardless of their crime? Raphael said he favored a version used by a people that he had met during his travels in Persia. The Polyerits sentance thieves to pay restitution in the amount of goods that they own to the owner in whatever amount that was taken. The rest of their possesions are given to their wives and children and they themselves are sentanced to a life of public service. They are free as they work and unless they are idle or destructive they are not chained or whipped. At night they are shut up but they suffer nothing but constant labor and since they work for the good of the public they are treated well, even favorably. The are identified by their clothing and their hair, which is cropped, and also by a small cut of flesh that is taken out of one of their ears. They cannot handle money or weapons or they will be instantly put to death and any freeman that participates in supplying them with either is stripped of his liberties and put into service himself. If freemen discover such crimes they are rewarded with money and if other slaves (as they are called) turn in conspiritors they are rewarded with liberty. The laws are effective for they are not to harsh and they are not so easy as to discourage reform or allow for criminals to becoem repeat offenders. At the end of this however the assemlby, aside from the Cardinal, were still of the opinion they had been at the beginning. As soon however as the Cardinal gave slight credence they gave murmurs of agreement though they had not approved of it when Raphael spoke of it and by this Raphael illustrated that his knowledge and counsel would not be appreciated by any in the court and he would be so caught up in trying to make his ideas look more credible than the others that nothing would ever get done. When More still persists that he could do good in the court of a Prince Raphael goes on to give several examples of instances where his good council would be both mocked and refused. Men are too concerned with gaining more possesions for themselves according to the maxim "A prince can never have to many treasures" to listen to good council that would not themselves profit. Anyone who goes against the common thought will be thought a traitor and a spy and would be cast out in disgrace. He would spend more time trying to cure the madness in others and keeping himself sane than he ever would aiding the public or the nation.
Thus ends that lengthy summary and now I can proceed with my own thoughts. I found myself in agreement with almost all of Raphael's own conclusion and I especially liked the system used by the Polylerits in regards to criminals. I however do not feel that such remedies would be kindly recieved and that we as a society are insufficently structured to every implement such things. Most of what he writes however is common sense, at least to me. Land dissapears and prices rise and more people lose their homes and their livelihood for little money. What money they are given must go the enormous amount of debt they've accumulated through the purchase of equipment and livestock and seeds and land, which they had no means to purchase in the beginning without the aid of high interest loans, to put it into a less dated perspective, since sheep farming isn't such an issue in the Untied States. His advice is relevant however in the economic sense. His replies to More's insistence that he serve a government were also in accord with my own thoughts. The body politic is not concerned with the good of the people but their own good as individuals and how they might retain and increase their own wealth and power, its a dog eat dog world, a capitalist society, and I know that counsel would be ill-recieved by those in power. Their own reputations are more important than the well being of the nation and it's citizens, even though in the United States the delegates elected ought to feel slightly more motivated to work for the people since the will of the people propelled them into power. However, even if they were so inclined, the conflicting interests of a divided body make such improvements nearly impossible and not in any noticeable way. However the difficulty of change is also a protection and I would say that in the days of Sir Thomas it would have been less a protection against dictatorship, but rather a hinderance to much needed progress. The obessesion with war, the chief means in those days of aquiring more power and wealth, also would make suggestions of peace rather difficult to accept and listen to since power and wealth were how men are judged. Thus I think that though his suggestions are good and though I am in accordance with him upon almost all his issues, I don't feel that such remedies could be implemented in modern society because the soical structure would not allow it as it would require renovation far to exstensive and time consuming for our modern day attitudes.
Thus ends that lengthy summary and now I can proceed with my own thoughts. I found myself in agreement with almost all of Raphael's own conclusion and I especially liked the system used by the Polylerits in regards to criminals. I however do not feel that such remedies would be kindly recieved and that we as a society are insufficently structured to every implement such things. Most of what he writes however is common sense, at least to me. Land dissapears and prices rise and more people lose their homes and their livelihood for little money. What money they are given must go the enormous amount of debt they've accumulated through the purchase of equipment and livestock and seeds and land, which they had no means to purchase in the beginning without the aid of high interest loans, to put it into a less dated perspective, since sheep farming isn't such an issue in the Untied States. His advice is relevant however in the economic sense. His replies to More's insistence that he serve a government were also in accord with my own thoughts. The body politic is not concerned with the good of the people but their own good as individuals and how they might retain and increase their own wealth and power, its a dog eat dog world, a capitalist society, and I know that counsel would be ill-recieved by those in power. Their own reputations are more important than the well being of the nation and it's citizens, even though in the United States the delegates elected ought to feel slightly more motivated to work for the people since the will of the people propelled them into power. However, even if they were so inclined, the conflicting interests of a divided body make such improvements nearly impossible and not in any noticeable way. However the difficulty of change is also a protection and I would say that in the days of Sir Thomas it would have been less a protection against dictatorship, but rather a hinderance to much needed progress. The obessesion with war, the chief means in those days of aquiring more power and wealth, also would make suggestions of peace rather difficult to accept and listen to since power and wealth were how men are judged. Thus I think that though his suggestions are good and though I am in accordance with him upon almost all his issues, I don't feel that such remedies could be implemented in modern society because the soical structure would not allow it as it would require renovation far to exstensive and time consuming for our modern day attitudes.
For Hannah
I actually stole this idea from Hannah so I'm giving her credit in the title of the post; I just wanted to make sure that my blog was working since I've been having some trouble adding people and such.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)