1
   

Goverments Within Literature

 
 
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 08:09 pm
Here I ask for your opinions on goverments either repersented in books or created as the fictional goverment theory inside the story.

This is a place where true sharing of philosophies on theoretical goverments should be placed. Please feel free to post whatever you want on the subject. Mainly i am looking for a good argument, so if you can think of something controversial I beg of you to post.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,357 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 10:03 pm
@Maud Dib,
Maud' Dib;161491 wrote:
Here I ask for your opinions on goverments either repersented in books or created as the fictional goverment theory inside the story.

This is a place where true sharing of philosophies on theoretical goverments should be placed. Please feel free to post whatever you want on the subject. Mainly i am looking for a good argument, so if you can think of something controversial I beg of you to post.

Does history count since that is all fiction???
Maud Dib
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 08:22 am
@Fido,
Fido;161541 wrote:
Does history count since that is all fiction???[/QUOTE/]

I just wanna see which goverment in theory would be more superior in your mind. If you use history thats fine by me.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 07:02 pm
@Maud Dib,
Maud' Dib;161679 wrote:
Fido;161541 wrote:
Does history count since that is all fiction???[/QUOTE/]

I just wanna see which goverment in theory would be more superior in your mind. If you use history thats fine by me.

There is only one form of government, and that is democracy... It has its strengths and its weaknesses, but once it goes by the boards, turns into republicanism or something worse, there is little chance of having self government back...It is the greatest advance of ancient society, but entirely necessary and natural, as an outgrowth of the family, and etended family groups... It is defensive as a form of social organization while later forms of rule come from a stage of violence and raiding which brought about inequalities in wealth which ruined political and social equality...When the strong began to rule the wise had to step aside...
0 Replies
 
michael88
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 02:53 pm
@Maud Dib,
The book "the giver" interested me in terms of the gov. the characters were living in. The way the gov ran was suppose to create a utopian society. But as you read the book more and more you realize it's a dictorship and not even close to a happy society. The people in the gov chose the jobs for you, the clothes you wore, the person you married, and the child you adopted.

This was suppose the elimate "mistakes" so people didn't go in the wrong job or chose the wrong mate. The people in the gover had no pain but at the same time they had no happiness. I came to the conclusion that in order to have happiness we also must have pain and the gov should also not disturbe peoples lives and right of freedome.
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 03:19 pm
@michael88,
In a more optimistic age they used to write utopias such as Thomas Moore's Utopia and Francis Bacon's New Atlantis. Both were written as fictional accounts of some undiscovered country and also as a hope of what the world might someday become. Somewhere along the line, mid 19th century perhaps, Utopia fell out of style and was replaced by Distopia which includes of course 1984 and Brave New World.

It's an interesting shift and it reflects a general loss of optimism, what some call the failure of the enlightenment.

Or perhaps the Distopian literature is just so much more interesting to read. The ideal society would be a great place to live but somehow very boring to read about. While the opposite is true of the distopian society.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 03:22 pm
@Fido,
Fido;161541 wrote:
Does history count since that is all fiction???


So said Robespierre, and we all know what happened to him. Or do we?
0 Replies
 
Maud Dib
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 03:07 pm
@Maud Dib,
Fido

As you state that the only form of goverment is a democracy i would tend discourage that idealism. A democracy has one major flaw, and even if it is one flaw, it is flawed none the less. That is, it is based on majority. In case you never fully relized this, there are always people who disagree. Skeptics and intellectuals will never fully except any goverment, and because of this they are hindered in today's society, which is where we come to people like you who simply fall in line with majority.

I understand that this has defied all reasons for creating this post, but i felt like you should hear that. Goverment always fails, and that is one lesson of plausible literature that gives off a good repersentation of human emotion.
Martin Timothy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 07:56 pm
@Maud Dib,
Maud' Dib;161491 wrote:
goverments .. repersented .. I beg of you to post.


Since it is that important ..get a spell checker!
0 Replies
 
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 08:15 pm
@Maud Dib,
Maud' Dib;166189 wrote:

I understand that this has defied all reasons for creating this post, but i felt like you should hear that. Goverment always fails, and that is one lesson of plausible literature that gives off a good repersentation of human emotion.

Government always fails? Can you give an example of something that has succeeded in its stead?
Leonard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 08:22 pm
@Maud Dib,
Maud' Dib;161491 wrote:
Here I ask for your opinions on goverments either repersented in books or created as the fictional goverment theory inside the story.

This is a place where true sharing of philosophies on theoretical goverments should be placed. Please feel free to post whatever you want on the subject. Mainly i am looking for a good argument, so if you can think of something controversial I beg of you to post.


If you want something controversial (at least within the philosophical community), you should take a look at Anthem by Ayn Rand. There is plenty of criticism of collectivist or socialist governments. Also, only plural pronouns are allowed in the society described by Rand to emphasize equality. All of the names include a patriotic adjective/noun followed by a number, and everyone in society is taught to be the same. There are also plenty of mythological allusions if you are interested in that. Even if you dislike Rand and/or Objectivism, reading Anthem is worth it.
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 08:25 pm
@Leonard,
The ten most terrifying words in the English language are: "I hate all governments and I am here to help."
Maud Dib
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 08:29 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;167148 wrote:
Government always fails? Can you give an example of something that has succeeded in its stead?


A person. An individual can succede ( I reely donnt kare if'n i spell sumthin rong), but People will fail. A person is remembered, Groups of people are not. They will eventually fall down to the person who created the organization in the first place. You see it re-occur all throughout history. Hitler, Napolean, Lenin, Ceaser, Washington, Jefferson Davis, and Churchill are all prime examples of this. There are even people who have faded into history, but their goverments have nearly been erased entirely. Gilgamesh was a man who practically created organized law, and yet people dont remember his empire, just what he was able to do within his life.

And now I ask if you can think of a goverment that was never defeated in war that had not eventually lost power from within?? If we havent created a stable goverment within goverment's huge life span so far, I doubt we ever will.
mister kitten
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 08:37 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;167152 wrote:
The ten most terrifying words in the English language are: "I hate all governments and I am here to help."

Terrifying only when combined in that specific way. Alone, they're not so bad.

The book Feed by M.T. Anderson was weird. Culture had evolved (devolved, in my opinion) to where computers were in everyone's brains and advertisements streamed endlessly. There was a lack of government in the book. Might have been because the author didn't want one, or might have been because the author didn't need one.
0 Replies
 
Maud Dib
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 08:39 pm
@Maud Dib,
:poke-eye:One more thing, and this is directed at Deckard. Your intellegent, alot more than some of the other Marxists on here. Your like Lenin vs. Stalin and I like that. But the difference between you and me is we have to diffent versions of a "perfect world". Your like 1984 and Im Brave New World. Thats why you and I are simply going to circle this conversation for eternity.
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 09:19 pm
@Maud Dib,
Maud' Dib;167153 wrote:
A person. An individual can succede ( I reely donnt kare if'n i spell sumthin rong), but People will fail. A person is remembered, Groups of people are not. They will eventually fall down to the person who created the organization in the first place. You see it re-occur all throughout history. Hitler, Napolean, Lenin, Ceaser, Washington, Jefferson Davis, and Churchill are all prime examples of this. There are even people who have faded into history, but their goverments have nearly been erased entirely. Gilgamesh was a man who practically created organized law, and yet people dont remember his empire, just what he was able to do within his life.

And now I ask if you can think of a goverment that was never defeated in war that had not eventually lost power from within?? If we havent created a stable goverment within goverment's huge life span so far, I doubt we ever will.

I'm a terrible speller so I don't mind if you misspell some words now and then but you should probably start spelling it G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T or else people will start to think you are talking about something else. It is a bit annoying and doesn't exactly further your argument but quite the opposite. Make an effort.

Fame and importance are two different things. We remember the names of individuals but we also remember groups and movements. Not all great men and women are remembered. There are more forgotten heroes than remembered heroes. I think you are espousing the great man theory of history but you aren't all that articulate so I can't be sure. But don't worry if you have difficulty spelling and articulating your thoughts to others; you may still be famous someday.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 09:23 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;165017 wrote:

Or perhaps the Distopian literature is just so much more interesting to read. The ideal society would be a great place to live but somehow very boring to read about. While the opposite is true of the distopian society.


For me, Brave New World is hard to classify. I must admit that the monkey in me is attracted to its Opia....

---------- Post added 05-21-2010 at 10:25 PM ----------

Leonard;167151 wrote:
If you want something controversial (at least within the philosophical community), you should take a look at Anthem by Ayn Rand. There is plenty of criticism of collectivist or socialist governments. Also, only plural pronouns are allowed in the society described by Rand to emphasize equality. All of the names include a patriotic adjective/noun followed by a number, and everyone in society is taught to be the same. There are also plenty of mythological allusions if you are interested in that. Even if you dislike Rand and/or Objectivism, reading Anthem is worth it.


I really enjoyed Anthem. She is really terse there. I like the creative use of pronouns, the clean style. And of course the message of individual courage and excellence is not missed...
Martin Timothy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 09:36 pm
@Maud Dib,
Maud' Dib;167158 wrote:
You[']r[e] intelligent...


:bigsmile:

Look I know you blokes don't know me and it might seem like I'm just barging in, however if you wish to be taken seriously you should get your spelling and punctuation right before taking the high road on critical thinking!!
0 Replies
 
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 10:36 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;167173 wrote:
For me, Brave New World is hard to classify. I must admit that the monkey in me is attracted to its Opia....

Nietzsche: "Man does not strive for pleasure, only the Englishman does"

The citizens of the BNW are very shallow except perhaps those who go off to live on the island. The idea of the island is intriguing. I am reminded of something Andre said in "My Dinner with Andre".

Quote:
new
I think Alistair McIntyre voiced a similar idea about islands of civilization in a the coming barbaric age in "Beyond Virtue".

Andre and McIntyre are talking about a savage and barbaric time but there are different kinds of savagery and barbarism. The Brave New World is juxtaposed with the reservations of the old savages which the citizens of BNW consider backward and left behind. This juxtaposition is of central importance to the theme of the novel. New savages and old savages. Even after all the genetics and social engineering the new savages are really no different in essence from the old savages; it could even be argued that the old savages are more human than the new. The only difference is that the environment has changed. In the case of the new savages everything is prearranged and perfectly ordered. Nature, including human nature has been conquered.

The screenwriter Chayefsky reiterated this point in the movie Network:
Quote:
The world is a business, Mr. Beale! It has been since man crawled out of the slime, and our children, Mr. Beale, will live to see that perfect world in which there is no war and famine, oppression and brutality --one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock,all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 05:35 am
@Maud Dib,
Maud' Dib;166189 wrote:
Fido

As you state that the only form of goverment is a democracy i would tend discourage that idealism. A democracy has one major flaw, and even if it is one flaw, it is flawed none the less. That is, it is based on majority. In case you never fully relized this, there are always people who disagree. Skeptics and intellectuals will never fully except any goverment, and because of this they are hindered in today's society, which is where we come to people like you who simply fall in line with majority.

I understand that this has defied all reasons for creating this post, but i felt like you should hear that. Goverment always fails, and that is one lesson of plausible literature that gives off a good repersentation of human emotion.

Majority rule is not democracy, but it is democratic in the sense that it is presumed the ciitizen have a voice in their own affairs... But; the appeal to the majority is corrupting in the sense that all rights are in danger so long as a majority can be turned against the rights of the minority... So long as no rights are seen as inalienable, and unassailable the little people will always have to defend against those with smaller minds... And since it takes money to confuse, to spread propaganda, misinformation, and fear so money will always control government, again, by a slim majority... Our government is not our friend, but an enemy posing as our friend...It gives us enough when we give it all... To keep the poor from riot or starvation it takes from those slightly better off than poor, which makes it easy for the rich to end up with everything...Taxes do lead to the division of society between rich and poor, and because the poor cannot know justice, or demand it, they are in no position to self govern...

Wealth in a society destroys democracy, so the question to answer is this: How can a people have democracy without suffering the influence of wealth and power in their government...No one can say that the influence of the wealthy in ancient Greece or Romes, or in revolutionary France or England was good for the whole society... Wealth governs for its own benefit, and clearly they are the enemy of the people... And yet they are, the wealtthy are the natural leaders of society because having wealth they have the respect and admiration of the masses...We do not see them as leading to the destruction of the environment and to war and to injustice... Instead, we want to be like them: Lazy, Criminal, and respected without merit... So things will have to fall hard before we can settle for a true democracy where each person has a voice, and no one leaves the table before consensus is arrived at... Consensus is the weakness of democracy, true democracy, and its strength, since without justice there is no consensus, and without consensus there is not justice, but it takes time, and hurts a speedy defense... But what defense have we need of but against our own rich...If we could control them, we could easily manage all other enemies...
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Goverments Within Literature
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/17/2019 at 02:22:49