‘Questions of Conquest’ by Mario Vargas Llosa and Chapter 7 of ‘Freedom and Democracy’ both discuss the idea of one’s personal control in regard to society. This is very closely related to ‘We’ since we is a novel based upon the idea of a utopian civilization, where power of individuals are alleviated so that the government can have more control over the people. ‘Questions of Conquest’ talks about a case in history that demonstrates the hostile nature of human beings, and the explanation for it in regards to individual sovereignty. ‘Freedom and Democracy’ takes a more modern approach on this topic and discusses how there can actually be no such thing as absolute freedom due to many factors of influence that we face when growing up.
Llosa outlines how back in the day, humans did not have that much power over their own actions because their moral and social code depended entirely on the social group that they belonged to. Nowadays we may criticize the harsh actions of the Spaniards. The article talks about how many of the Indians allowed themselves to die, which could imply that they had no control. It talks about how many of the Indians did not have the ability to make the choice between life and death due to the fact that they had to follow many rules that their culture ordered them to pertain to. Those with power turned the people into some sort of machinery, and kept strict rules in order to maintain discipline and prevent rebellious actions. There were of course many rebels, however, the harsh methods of the Incas proved to work when controlling a society.
I found the ideas in this article to be very thought provoking, for it talks about how in history there was almost no such thing has self determinism, since people were so closely tied to their community and religious rules. This relates to ‘We’ because this is the exact tactic that the Benefactor used in order to control their society. This leads me to the assumption that humans interpret history as a cycle, or some could say a pendulum. Zamyatin might have taken the idea of absolute power from history, like the example presented in ‘Questions of Conquest’. He may have thought that humans will need to return to their old habits in order to control the barbaric and animalistic factor of human nature.
The “Freedom and Democracy” chapter takes a different and more modern approach on the idea of individual sovereignty. The author looks at this issue from a psychological and philosophical point of view. The psychological view relates very much to the idea of the ‘invisible bag’ where a human being is born with a complete personality and due to societal specifications, starts putting away parts of their personality as they grow older. The first example that the author brings up is about children, and how they learn to control their hostility. It continues to talk about how humans make choices based on what they think is right or correct, and they may even base what they want on these specifications.
I found this to be a relatively harsh observation, for it is stating that there is no such thing as free will and everything is based on the idea of determinism (a philosophical term, although discussing psychology). The article explains how everything we do is under the influence of something else, meaning that humans themselves don’t have any personal say in their actions. This leads to the question of whether or not we even have a personal identity. I disliked this argument because the author is questioning my identity. The author is saying that none of the choices I make are solemnly based on what I truly want, because what I want is simply what society is making me think I want. I believe that all humans have a personal identity, and their desires are based on factors other that societal influence.
The article also looks at this from a philosophical viewpoint. This is in relation to the idea of determinism and free will, and whether or not that constitutes whether one has a personal identity. Personally, I feel that free will, although somewhat existent in our society (in my opinion), does not constitute whether or not one has their own individual sovereignty. The article discusses Descartes proof of his existence, being ‘I think, therefore I am’, and even if one doubts this statement, in the act of doubting, one is thinking and therefore they exist. I believe this is the true idea of individual sovereignty, the ability to having one’s own thoughts even if based off of certain influences.
All in all, both articles look at the idea of one’s personal existence and sovereignty in very different ways. One from a historical viewpoint and another from a modern (psychological and philosophical) viewpoint. It was hard to see their connections at first, but when understanding the main theme of both articles I was able to see the connection between the two, and the reason for the ordered reading. The idea of whether or not one is actually in control is very complex, and sometimes not too appealing to thing about; however, it is a very interesting philosophical debate of which humans will not able to draw a conclusion on for a very long time.
No comments:
Post a Comment