Society and I

             Through Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud’s views on civilisation we see that humans are unable to care for themselves. After watching Century of the Self I came to realize that we, the masses, no longer think individually. We think as a whole. We may view each other as different, or even view ourselves as unique, but what makes us unique? The clothes we buy, the food we eat, or maybe even who we hang out with? But these factors only guide us into becoming part of the masses.

            The clothes we buy drive the masses closer to becoming one. We have similar styles to those around us, and that dictates what will be sold. When companies and corporations understand what the mass demands, they supply us with our demands. For example, when UGG Boots came out, every girl needed to have them. However, now there are cheap knock offs sold in almost any store. Even as winter begins to settle in, students on campus will be seen wearing trench coats. The fact that this is so predictable should give the masses an incline to step away from becoming uniform. Sadly, the fact is that humans like to think they know everything, paraphrasing Socrates; poets may write, but they may have no understanding of their work. 

            The food we eat, although it may not seem like it, plays a key role in society. From places where we hang-out, to dates, or even just grabbing a bite to eat, we choose these places because of the advertisements embedded in our brains. We choose to go to Macdonalds when we’re hungry because it is fast, consistent and convenient. However, we may go to Chop or Moxies for a date, because of the ambiance. If no one wants to leave the house, take-out is available too. And no longer does take-out pertain to just pizza, but nowadays take-out applies to many other companies. 

            Those that we hang out with have the greatest influence on how we live our lives. For example, if a friend were to be interested in clothes, odds are you would be too. We are not as unique as we would like to think we are, nor are we smart enough to tackle the world by ourselves. Freud suggests that in a civilization in order to promote uniformity individuals must sacrifice some personal happiness. Freud believed that if we were to embrace our true impulses we would lose control of ourselves. 

            Individuals of society have fallen towards the masses. We no longer have the ability to separate our lives from those around us. Sigmund Freud and Edward Bernays played a key role in this movement, but through this they formed a uniform society. I would like to believe that humans have the ability to take care of themselves, but after seeing Century of the Self and how easily we could be manipulated it is hard to believe.

Reasonably Guilty?

In today’s courtrooms we are not so eager to thrash the gavel in order to give a verdict. Courts nowadays have many new rules and laws by which they must abide, but two laws constantly obscured my thoughts as I was reading. Habeas corpus is the legal right to appear before a judge; however, Socrates was unable to appear before a judge and instead was greeted by many men who had already formed biased opinions of him. At first I thought that these men were in the audience. Then I came to realize that they had to vote, which made me come to the conclusion that they were in a jury. Then Socrates set me straight when he addressed the Athenians as “judges,” even explaining his right “in calling [them] judges” (Church 42).  These men were far from judges. The judges I know have a high regard in today’s society. They make important decisions that normal citizens cannot come to agreement upon, or in cases such as Socrates they must decide our fate. For crimes judges will let us appeal, look at our history, and look into all the minuscule details in order to come forth with a decision. These men sat through a short plea and hastily made their decision. A man’s life was at risk, and it seemed to me as though these men barely had the respect let alone the decency to listen to his argument at all, for if they did Socrates needed not to remind the Athenians “to not interrupt [him] with shouts,” (Church 33). On top of this, a law by which all countries must employ is that every person has the right to a fair trial, if a country does not follow this standard it is a violation of the Human Rights Act. I understand that these laws are in place today because of history’s mistakes, but I have grown up in this society. This is my opinion, and I have the right to voice my opinion just as Socrates should have had his, but was so wrongfully denied. The other legality that came to mind was the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt which meant the defendant in a criminal case, such as this, could not be found guilty unless a solid factual case proved him to be guilty without any doubt. It is clear that those who sided with Socrates believed he was innocent, but those who did not were in majority. Had this been just a regular civil case, beyond a reasonable doubt has no grounds, the judge just needs to be inclined towards one area. Socrates however was not a civil case. He was a living man. He was not a material good, but another living breathing human. Had this case been taken to court fairly, I would not be so bothered by it, but seeing as this man’s fate sealed before he even had a chance to redeem it was sickening, revolting even. I cannot even comprehend how the men in that court could just turn away from a man pleading for his life. In short, my opinion of the trial being fair is far true. As for the charges, in my opinion they seem ridiculous, but once again I am not from that time period so I cannot truly argue that I understand the issue. What I do understand is Socrates denies embellishing his stories, but when I was reading I did not have sufficient evidence that stated he was free of the crimes the plaintiff accused him of. This is when I realized that the book is set up in order for the reader to feel sympathy. And despite what Socrates said, he seemed to embellish his story slightly. The book is set up so the Euthyphro displays Socrates as a caring individual who does not give up on his friends. I do not deny that this is true; I am just making a note. It establishes that Socrates makes efforts to guide Euthyphro away from making a mistake, despite the urgency of his trial. The body, the Apology, displays Socrates being innocent and neglected. And finally the ending shows that there are many writing this, and that the writings came from one of his followers. This bias has led me to believe that I am not receiving all the information that was there in that time. I cannot assess the charges without the information, but by what is provided to me, I believe that Socrates could not be guilty of the charges laid against him purely because of his characteristics of being a kind, honest, witty and pure man. I hope that Socrates is up there indulging himself in conversation with the likes of Homer, may he rest in peace.