Revised: Tall, Dark, and Handsome

Masculinity is a concept that varies from time to time. However, the true essence of what defines a male still remains. A "true man" is one who provides for his family, has the physical stature that society deems appropriate, and remains dominate over females. These traits do vary over time. Long ago, it was typical of a man to have a family. However, recently there are men that remain unmarried and do not have families. Therefore, the fact that they must provide remains unfulfilled. However, in their own homes their parents might place some expectations upon them. This could include helping his father, or if he does not have a father, helping his mother. In these cases the son is seen as the backbone of the family, next to the father. A son is expected to help his family as much as possible. As for those males that do not have families, they may be expected to have these qualities in them, although unused. In recent times this trait does seem untrue as women are also beginning to become dominating figures in society and it is not necessary for there to be a ‘man’ in the family. Another way for a man to provide for his family is to provide them with protection. Long ago there use to only be men in the army. They would go off to war to protect their country. Thus, in protecting the country they are protecting their families. This also ties in with men dominating over women. Although this is drastically changing in today’s time, it was very typical. In The Epic of Gilgamesh which was set long ago in the past, one of the ways that the protagonist Gilgamesh asserts power over the villagers by raping their women. By asserting power over the women he is able to show his masculinity. Although this does not happen as explicitly as then it still happens. In wars often times the soldier’s rape the women of the opposing country. They do this to show that they have in one way dominated over the other country, and to de-masculinize the enemy. By raping the women of the opposing country they are sending a message to the country that basically says ‘you are less masculine then us because you can’t even protect your women from us.’ This shows that by dominating over women a man’s masculinity is ‘heightened’. Moreover, countries are usually spoken about as if there are women. For example, Mother India, Mother Russia, and Mother Germany. When speaking about countries textbooks even tend to use the pronoun she. Thus, as soldiers are typically male, the males are protecting the female country. However, this is changing because an increasingly larger number of women are joining the military, and the police force; however it is still found in today’s media. For example, superhero movies are constantly portraying the image of a ‘damsel in distress’ who the man has to save. Some examples would include, Spiderman and Mary Jane, Superman and Lois Lane, Batman and Rachel Dawes. This view is further encouraged in George Orwell's 1984 by the dominate view of Big Brother. Big Brother is seen as an authoritative figure that is there to protect the society. This comforting and protective figure is a trait that society wants their men to portray, and they do so. Another trait that society seeks from their men is for them to be well-built. This is also shown in 1984. Winston is constantly complaining about his weak body. These traits are seen as not what a man is supposed to be like; in fact they are the exact opposite. It is no coincidence that Big Brother, who is seen as a man, is the leader, and not Winston. This view of masculinity is shown through every aspect of media that there is. For example, Gilgamesh is a strong and handsome man who goes around asserting his dominance. This can also be seen in today’s media. Men are shown has having the rock hard abs, the large muscles, and drastically killer good looks. Some examples would be Ryan Reynolds, Bradley Copper, and Vin Diesel. This is the ideal view of masculinity today. Personally, I believe that today’s view of masculinity comes from the old view. The strong man that is dominate today probably has to do with the fact that the presence of muscles proves that this man is capable of protecting his family/country, and can be a ‘protector’ of the women in his life. Although many aspects of masculinity have changed with the emergence of women as a dominate force, the basics still remain even in today’s society.

Revised: The Pursuit of Happiness

According to Sigmund Freud civilization is condemned to discontent. Freud believes that humans are dangerous and violent creatures that need to be controlled and contained. Society controls and contains humans and diverts us from our natural violent nature. In the documentary by Adam Curtis we were introduced to Edward Bernays, who found a way to contain the violent humans through consumerism. Every primal instinct that humans have is met through prescribing meaning to inanimate objects. Furthermore, society also contains humans with its laws and social norms. Certain taboos restrain humans and their needs. The deep inner desires of humans are repressed within the id. The id contains all our horrible and shameful wants and desires, and if fully released would result in chaos. The ego represses the id and conforms to societies norms. Thus, humankind has a general hatred towards society. Also, this is why we punish those that are different so severely. For example, a gay man is subjected to harsh treatment and ostracized from his peers. The other members in society do this because this man represents their repressed desires. They are afraid of the new emotions that this man brings up within them. They are confused because these thoughts are not allowed, they are meant to be repressed. This is also true in the case of lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people. They cause an arise of forbidden emotions in people. Thus, they are the victims of various punishments from others. People are constantly conscious of their emotions and what is normal and what is not. When they are made aware of something not normal they chop it down at its roots, afraid of what havoc it may cause. This paranoia and constant monitoring of ourselves is done by the ego which is attempting to accommodate the superego. The superego represents the norm, and what society wants us to be. This comes into conflict with the id, which the superego refuses to recognize. The superego and id are in constant conflict with each other. When I go to the food court and want to buy lunch, I am tempted to buy something very unhealthy, like ice cream. However, I don’t buy the ice cream, because if I did I would feel guilty. This guilt would come from my superego that wants to fit into society’s norm. If I bought the ice cream I could possibly gain weight which would not be the ideal that society has set. However, even if I don’t buy the ice cream I am still not happy that I showed self-control. I am still tempted for the ice cream. This is my id that is longing for the ice cream, but remains unhappy when I do not get it. Our ego is what tries to balance this conflict. The ego attempts to pacify both superego and id, and through this process remains unhappy itself. Neither the ego, superego, nor the id ever remain truly happy, which in turn causes us to never truly remain happy. However unfortunate this may be we must to preserve our civilization, and this is the only way for humans to control themselves. Otherwise, the primal instinct will take over and there will be chaos everywhere. In order to have civilization it is vital for humans to remain discontent. Of course, we do not see ourselves as continuously unhappy. We make do with the objects that we buy. If I buy a new jacket it'll make me feel better about myself. This mentality is why we spend the way we do. We no longer buy for need, we buy for want, and we buy to placate the id in its search for happiness. However, this does not allow us to be happy. Have you ever been content with just one nice pair of shoes? I haven't, and I doubt I'll be content with all the shoes in the world. The repression of the id leaves a void that will never be filled, no matter how many shoes I buy. Humans will never be happy as long as we repress our true selves. However, would the chaos created be worth the happiness?

Revised: The Trial of Socrates: Innocent or Gulity?

In Plato's Euthyphro the audience is told that the great thinker Socrates is being sued. He is being charged with corrupting the youth introducing new gods, and creating new gods. Now one may wonder why someone would charge a man like Socrates. Are these charges actually legitimate? In order to establish this, the time period and events leading up to Socrates persecution must be examined. At this time the Peloponnesian War was taking place, which meant that the nation was in great stress. With all the men at war the people were dependent on the youth to be the driving force of their society. Amongst all this we have Socrates charged with corrupting the "precious" youth. Even though the charges may be utterly false, the fear of corruption has struck the society. Therefore, in this time of great peril and distress the paranoia of the people regarding their youth is just. Socrates just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Whether or not the people were rational regarding the prosecution is a different matter. The people could have examined the matter and truly examined whether or not Socrates was corrupting their youth. This argument is also valid in the terms of new gods. The people only had the gods to turn to in the time of distress and war. With their faith shaken the persecution of Socrates is understandable. Furthermore, Socrates’ was highly intellectual given the time period. The way he spoke was highly elevated and at times confusing. He spoke in a method now known as the “Socratic Method.”  This method often confused people and lead them to find Socrates annoying and pest like. This could have also been a factor in the prosecution of Socrates. People are more likely to go against someone that they find annoying even if they are in the right. Therefore, indirectly, Socrates is also a contributing factor in his prosecution. This combined with the situations leads to the prosecution of Socrates. However, can this be characterized as a fair trial? In the minds of the Athenians it probably was. The court system that was in place at the time was also fair. Socrates did have the right to defend himself, and after the court proceedings he was found guilty. However, the court system could also be questioned. Perhaps the jury had already made up their minds about whether or not Socrates was guilty. Therefore, Socrates’ defense might not have made an impression on them. Currently, I am undecided on whether or not this is a fair trial. The charges are disputable; however, given the mental state of the citizens, can we really blame them? The trail itself was fair, it’s not as if they just through Socrates in jail; they gave him a chance to defend himself. However, his defense may not have made a difference on the predetermined decision. Determining whether or not this trial was fair is difficult. There are many factors that can contribute to both sides of the argument.

Revised: Gulit in Omelas?

Having read Ursula Le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" I have come to question the concept of guilt. Is it truly possible for one to feel constant guilt about the misery of others? Personally, I don't believe it is. Some people think that guilt stays in the back of your mind nagging at you. However, guilt is such a strong feeling that it can't stay locked up in the back of one’s mind. Guilt washes over people and engulfs them like a tidal wave so it cannot simply remain in a confined space. For example, when I’m watching TV and a commercial comes on about children in Africa I feel guilty. I feel horrible about sitting there with all my privileges while someone in the world is striving for a drop of water. However, that guilt is not constantly present with me. I get preoccupied with other things and forget about whatever was troubling me a moment ago. Out of sight out of mind. I know that it sounds horrible but it’s true, or at least in my case. Other people rationalize their minds until the guilt is expelled. As Le Guin mentions there is no guilt in Omelas. The people that come to meet the child either walk away from Omeals or cope with the mistreatment of the child. They find multiple ways to justify what they are doing. Some people reassure themselves that they are doing what is best for the community as a whole. Others dehumanize the child by calling it primitive and imbecile, questioning its ability to feel joy. These are simply excuses used to eliminate the guilt that they feel for the child. Many of us use this technique when we feel guilty about something. We would find excuses to justify any type of behaviour. Our justification of this behaviour allows us to not feel any guilt. For instance, when I am walking downtown with my friends we often pass by the homeless people. Although unspoken we all feel guilty about having a home when others do not. We may cope with this by giving the person some money or by simply walking past. Those that give money then feel better about having things that others don’t. In their minds they have done what they could and thus the guilt is expelled. By giving the money they feel like they have helped this person and that is all that is required of them. However, it is not as if they have given this person an actual home or even provided enough money for an actual meal. In this way they pacify their feeling of guilt. Another option is to just simply walk past, which many people do. These people typically believe that if they gave money the person would just spend it on drugs. In addition, they may believe that the person obviously did something wrong which caused them to lose their home. My parents and some of my friends often take this approach; they believe that the person must be a drug addict. In this way they believe that they do not need to feel guilt at the misery of this person. The idea that humans are continuously dismissing guilt may not be true for some. There may be some people who have guilt continuously festering in their minds. Guilt may be always present in the mind however, it may change forms in order for us not to recognize it. This may also apply to other emotions. Are humans always happy but they are only expressing it at appropriate times? Perhaps we always have guilt but it is hidden and thus we do not recognize it. We may only experience the guilt when the time is right. In this way it is possible for guilt to always be present with us and therefore it is able to surface rapidly when we encounter a situation where guilt is appropriate. Our brain expels guilt no matter what. It is an unpleasant emotion and we do whatever is necessary to get rid of it. No one can constantly feel an unpleasant emotion such as guilt.

Tall, Dark, and Handsome

Masculinity is a concept that varies from time to time. However, the true essence of what defines a make still remains. A "true man" is one who provides for his family, has the physical stature that society deems appropriate, and remains dominate over females. These traits may vary over time but the values are still in our modern day society. People are reluctant to accept multiple masculinity's. They are fixed on one view of masculine. For example, the view in popular culture is of the tall, handsome, and well built man. This view has not changed over time, in fact it has only been encouraged by the media. This view is further encouraged in George Orwell's 1984 by the dominate view of Big Brother. Big Brother is seen as an authoritative figure that is there to protect the society. In modern society this is also true. Soldiers are predominately male and their job is to protect society. This comforting and protective figure is a trait that society wants their men to portray, and they do so. Furthermore, the strong and handsome man is also portrayed in 1984. Winston is constantly complaining about his weak body. These traits are seen as not what a man is supposed to be like, in fact they are the exact opposite. It is no coincidence that Big Brother, who is seen as a man is the leader, and not Winston. This view of masculinty is shown thrugh every aspect of media that there is. For example, in the beginning of the course we read Gilgamesh, an epic that clearly portrays the typical male values. Gilgamesh is a strong, and handsome man who goes around asserting his dominace. This is exactly what society wants their men to be like. Perhaps not in that exact way, but with the same essentail features. Dispite all the movements for multipul masculinites the typical view is still dominating. These features will always be applied to men no matter how society changes.

The Pursuit of Happiness?

According to Sigmund Freud civilization is condemned to discontent. Freud believes that humans are dangerous and violent creatures that need to be controlled and contained. Society controls and contains humans and diverts us from our natural violent nature. Edward Bernays found a way to contain the violent humans through consumerism. Every primal instinct that humans have is met through prescribing meaning to inanimate objects. Furthermore, society also contains humans with its laws and social norms. Certain taboos restrain humans and their needs. The deep inner desires of humans are repressed within the id. The id contains all our horrible and shameful wants and desires, and if fully released would result in chaos. The ego represses the id and conforms to societies norms. Thus, humankind have a general hatred towards society. Also, this is why we punish those that are different so severely. For example, a gay man is subjected to harsh treatment and ostracized from his peers. The other members in society do this because this man represents their repressed desires. They are afraid of the new emotions that this man brings up within them. They are confused because these thoughts are not allowed, they are meant to be repressed. This is also true in the case of lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people. They cause an arise of forbidden emotions in people. Thus, they are the victims of various punishments from others. People are constantly conscious of their emotions and what is normal and what is not. When they are made aware of something not normal they chop it down at its roots, afraid of what havoc it may cause. This constant paranoia is why humans can never truly be happy. We have to preserve our civilization, as it is the only way for humans to control themselves. Otherwise, the primal instinct will take over and their will be chaos everywhere. In order to have civilization it is vital for humans to remain discontent. Of course, we do not see ourselves as continuously unhappy. We make do with the objects that we buy. If I buy a new jacket it'll make me feel better about myself. This mentality is why we spend the way we do. We no longer buy for need, we buy for want. However, this does not allow us to be happy. Have you ever been content with just one nice pair of shoes? I haven't, and I doubt I'll be content with all the shoes in the world. The repression of the id leaves a void that will never be filled, no matter how many shoes I buy. Humans will never be happy as long as we repress our true selves. However, would the chaos created be worth the happiness?

The Trail of Socrates: Innocent or Guilty?

In Plato's Euthyphro the audience is told that the great thinker Socrates is being sued. He is being charged with corrupting the youth and introducing new gods. Now one may wonder whether or not these chargers are legitimate. In order to establish this the time period and events leading up to Socrates persecution must be examined. At this time the Peloponnesian War was taking place, which meant that the nation was in great stress. With all the men at war the people were dependant on the youth to be the driving force of their society. Amongst all this we have Socrates charged with corrupting the "precious" youth. Even though the charges may be utterly false, the fear of corruption has struck the society. Therefore, in this time of great peril and distress the paranoia of the people regarding their youth is just. Socrates just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Whether or not the people were rational regarding the prosecution is a different matter. The people could have examined the matter and truly examined whether or not Socrates was corrupting their youth. Moreover, if Socrates was actually corrupting the youth the case still fails to stand firmly against criticism. People take discussions for themselves, and that even under the influence of someone else, they have the capability for self determination.This also stands true with regards to the youth of that time. Therefore, Socrates could not have fully corrupted the youth because they all have the capability for self determination. This argument is also valid in the terms of new gods. The people only had the gods to turn to in the time of distress and war. With their faith shaken the persecution of Socrates is understandable. However, again we can analyse the rationality of this charge. The fact that Socrates has introduced new gods should not worry people unless he pressurizes other to also believe  in the new god. Moreover, their belief in this god is truly up to them and not whether or not Socrates believes. As shown, the charges against Socrates are both just and irrational. Currently, I am undecided on whether or not this is a fair trail. Given the mental state of the people at the time one can understand these charges. However, on further examination one realizes that these are not legitimate charges and they can be refuted. I think that this is a case of the needs of the many overpowering the needs of the one.

Guilt in Omelas?

Having read Ursula Le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" I have come to question the concept of guilt. Is it truly possible for one to feel constant guilt about the misery of others? Personally, I don't believe it is. Some people think that guilt stays in the back of your mind nagging at you. However, guilt is such a strong feeling that it can't stay locked up in the back of ones mind. Guilt washes over people and engulfs them like a tidal wave so it cannot simply remain in a confined space. When I am watching TV and a commerical comes on about children in Africa I feel guilty. I feel horrible about sitting there with all my privileges while someone in the world is striving for a drop of water. However, that guilt is not constantly present with me. I get preoccupied with other things and forget about whatever was troubling me a moment ago. Out of sight out of mind. I know that it sounds horrible but its true, or at least in my case. Some people may not find that true, but they probably have another way to expel the guilt. As Le Guin mentions their is no guilt in Omelas. The people that come to meet the child either walk away from Omeals or cope with the mistreatment of the child. They find multiple ways to justify what they are doing. Some people reassure themselves that they are doing what is best for the community as a whole. Others dehumanize the child by calling it primitive and imbecile questioning its ability to feel joy. These are simply excuses used to eliminate the guilt that they feel for the child. Many of us use this technique when we feel guilty about something. We would find excuses to justify any type of behaviour. Our justification of this behaviour allows us to not feel any guilt. Our brain expels guilt no matter what. It is an unpleasant emotion and we do whatever is necessary to get rid of it. No one can constantly feel an unpleasant emotion such as guilt.