Month: June 2018

Desensitised to all we’re told?

Now we’re told so much, all the time, it seems likely we exist somewhere between being overwhelmed by or desensitised to it all. The idea of being able to correctly interpret, weigh up, and respond to everything we’re seeing and hearing seems almost impossible in a way.

Human attention – where it’s focussed, how much we have, and whether there’s any to spare – is presumably a finite resource; a limited and valuable commodity within personal life, business, and social or cultural conversations. And, if we don’t have unlimited capacity, then filling that up with pointless, unsettling things could be seen as a little troubling.

The risks of that may become most apparent when we look to the needs of citizenship: those areas of life where we’re called upon to understand things, see what’s happening, and contribute to our common direction. The ability to read and respond to reality must largely depend on holding a balanced perspective of all that’s going on and what matters most within it (see Notes One).

Which, stepping away from the weighty responsibilities of democracy, highlights the need for a thorough understanding of all life throws at us through its various channels. So much in life is truly important, and we often only get one chance to do the right thing; yet all those choices add up into patterns of behaviour that become a thing in themselves: social or economic forces with their own momentum and expectations (Note Two).

Within all that, the question of how we’re using our minds seems an obvious yet possibly overlooked one (Notes Three). Do we just ‘switch on’ the channel that is the human mind – the transmitter, receiver, flashlight, or some other metaphor – and attempt to process all that crosses its path? Is everything to be given the same weight, the same consideration, or can there be some filtering process of active discernment?

I would’ve thought there’s a risk we’d burn out, either in the processing or filtering stages: that we’d stop listening, resign ourselves to the meaninglessness or indecipherability of many messages and our seeming incapacity to even make a difference once we’d managed to reach some degree of certainty (Note Four).

In that light, what are we doing? Why is the ‘modern environment’ so full of relatively unimportant messages that seek to distract, coerce and redirect the human mind? And does it matter if we’re simply letting our thoughts be absorbed and caught up in some quite frivolous, unproductive and unintelligent ways of relating to reality? Given we ‘know’ that stakes are high, it’s a bit mysterious to me.

If, picking up the words of Huxley, “only the vigilant can maintain their liberties, and only those who are constantly and intelligently on the spot can hope to govern themselves effectively by democratic procedures”, then where does this leave us? Socially speaking, can we afford to buy into ways of communicating about life that risk undermining our capacity to form a reasoned, comprehensive sense of where we might be headed?

Notes and References:

“Brave New World Revisited” by Aldous Huxley, (Random House, London), 2004 (originally 1958).

Note 1: “Brave New World Revisited”
Note 1: Media within democratic society
Note 2: What if it all means something?
Note 3: What are we thinking?
Note 3: David Bohm, thoughts on life
Note 4: Right to question and decide

Building on the idea of how we might respond to life, there’s Responsibility in shaping this reality.

Ways to share this:

How things change

Thinking of culture and its role in reflecting social standards, it’s clear things are changing fast: attitudes that were apparently commonplace and unchallenged quite recently now come across as problematic at least.

Not to tap the hornet’s nest too much, I’m thinking of issues such as age or gender. How phrases like “be a man” appear so stereotypical, limited and disempowering; then all the views around women that focus on appearance, downplaying other intellectual, social or emotional qualities (Notes One). As if it’s reasonable to simplify people that way, making light of certain things yet emphasising others.

But maybe it’s great things are now starting to seem so “wrong”, because it shows we’re changing. Of course, it’s also showing that, even recently, ideas like this were seeping into minds, attitudes and relationships without much awareness (Note Two). It’s confronting to think how many unexamined prejudices or patterns of behaving have been presented as socially acceptable, culturally approved, ways of being.

Given that seems the case though, how could we move forward? Do we somehow hold onto that jarring dissonance, refusing to admit we might’ve been mistaken; or is there some way to allow change to happen without it threatening our collective sense of self or moral foundation? Can a society admit mistakes without completely losing its footing?

At times it feels like this earthquake, this gentle or dramatic tearing away from how things have been: unchallenged, flawed, imperfect. This sense of how people’s lives, ideas, careers, identities, relationships, so many things, have been tied up in these ways of thinking that modern society has, to a large extent, been built upon.

How can we feel about a society or culture that sheltered or encouraged attitudes we’re beginning to see as unacceptable? As our moral, social or ethical compasses re-tune to this new awareness of what was or is happening, what’s the right way to relate ourselves to a past we may not have seen as we now do? How might we withstand that kind of ethical tremor?

It could be that moral understanding and social values are always ‘evolving’; with law and cultural dialogue tending to chart their course alongside that (Notes Three). But then it’s also likely many would’ve been quite seriously hurt as we ‘waited’ for our ideas to catch up and assume the correct relationship to reality.

Navigating shifting values, without unduly justifying things or crippling people with shame, can seem impossible to achieve. We may expect people to shift faster than they feel able, given the psychological foundation we might be insisting they reassess. It’s not easy to see you’ve been wrong, and these conversations must be some of the more complex ones our blended societies have recently faced (Note Four).

But, also, change is exciting: that it’s even possible on personal let alone collective levels. Things might be happening fast, fact and opinion flying in from all directions, but surely that means we have the chance to match our ideas up better to these realities.

Notes and References:

Note 1: “Women who run with the wolves”
Note 1: “Wisdom” by Andrew Zuckerman
Note 2: Writings on Education
Note 3: Responsibility in shaping this reality
Note 3: What is acceptable?
Note 4: Testing times

Talking more about the question of change, there’s Can we reinvigorate how we’re living?

Ways to share this:

We’re all vulnerable

In youth and age vulnerability is obviously more apparent. They are times we might be unable to defend ourselves physically or psychologically from things we encounter, things that leave their mark. Times we’re much more reliant on those who happen to be around us. But maybe we’re always vulnerable – in our past, present, or some future moment – simply as part of being human?

That could be framed in terms of mortality: how physical existence is inherently precarious, susceptible as we are to illness or accident; but also those social, personal and interpersonal realities that can affect us deeply at any point in our lives.

Every stage of life presents us with differing needs and risks. In youth we’re so dependent on environment, on ideas and people we encounter; experiences which have power to shape us for life. Then, our strengths, weaknesses or wounds can become compounded by paths we take into adulthood: our relationships, patterns of behaviour, inner stability or worth. So much in life builds on what’s gone before.

So it could be reasoned we’re always, in a way, vulnerable. It seems many, if not most, people have areas of physical or psychological insecurity that could be exacerbated or shored up during the course of a lifetime. Much as we might like to insure against or push it from our minds, we all have that impactful past and live in anticipation of a more dependent future.

In many ways, our relationship with the world is slightly tenuous: we need to form social, emotional and practical ties within our environment to meet our needs for shelter, psychological security, and so forth. Our ability to understand how to do so – to recognise both our strength and vulnerability – might be the territory of education, therapy, or social networks.

In that light, how should we act? How should we treat others, and ourselves? Knowing we’ve all been influenced by the past and may bear some wounds as a result; knowing we can all be hurt now, by ourselves or by others; knowing that everyone’s just as vulnerable, much as we might seek to cover it up (Notes One). How we relate to others and deal with all that’s making its way into society are fascinating, if confronting, questions.

Because, arguably, dealing with vulnerability is the foundation of law, regulation and human rights: all the ways we expect and rely on such principles to underpin our shared existence by keeping everyone safe, ensuring that practices or people who pose a risk are ‘controlled’ somehow, and hopefully spreading social values that sustain ‘good’ ways of living alongside one another (Notes Two).

Dealing with human nature presumably comes down as much to relationships and attitudes as it does to social systems we may all turn to when needs arise. At times, we all need different levels of support, consideration or care. But the extent we may be able to contribute to the security, stability and strength of society through everyday actions might also be worth considering.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Living as an open wound
Note 1: Beauty in unexpected places
Note 1: Masks we all wear
Note 2: How we feel about society
Note 2: Laws and lawlessness
Note 2: Dealing with imperfection

Parallel to this, some of Emerson’s thoughts around what it is to be human were explored in The idea of self reliance.

Ways to share this:

Testing times

Looking at life now, there’s this astounding picture of a globe filled with billions of people each, potentially, able to communicate with all others. While modern technology’s clearly not without its challenges, the opportunities it’s brought for creating a genuinely global conversation about our existence are amazing to consider.

But then, it’s not like we’d mastered things before those floodgates opened: society clearly still had more than a few threads we’d not quite figured out what to do with (see Notes One). In the West, we may’ve had the ‘essentials’ of these social systems – democratic government; economic theories; health, welfare and education; the public voices of media and culture – but technology’s now testing all that to the limit.

Many issues hadn’t been resolved: dealing with differing beliefs and values; attitudes towards such differences; and the conflicted legacy of our shared histories. It takes great courage and honesty to address these things – to admit mistakes or other ways of approaching life – because it presumably threatens our sense of self and our justifications to do so.

Really, with technology, it seems that whatever stage society had got to at that point was simply dialled up. As if we’d had some time to sort things out, then this whole other system amplified it all and began transmitting these competing frequencies at the same time (Notes Two). What were once quite contained personal, social or national conversations suddenly became incredibly complex and public.

It hardly seems surprising that individuals as much as societies are going to be tested by such a thing happening. Having everything thrown open into an environment of almost complete transparency was always going to be confronting: there’s no place for people or organisations to hide, so having that new demand for accountability is going to expose whatever moral, ethical or social standards we did or didn’t have figured out.

Then there’s how well we’re able to convey our true meaning in these forms, and how open we are to receiving possibly contradictory messages in return. It’s beautiful to think we might be able to share our thoughts, values and experiences with others and reach mutual understanding of our points of view, what matters to us, and our dreams for the future. But it’s not easy in practice.

It just seems we have an awful lot of work to do, and an awful lot to distract us as we attempt it. Technology may place tools for connection and information at our disposal; but also knows exactly how to tempt us with every possible amusement, novelty and vice. Even if we cut through that and focus our attention, there’s then the challenge of understanding, discernment, and relating our ideas to life as it stands (Notes Three).

And it all matters: it’s the complex relationships between people and the planet that sustains us. It’s not something we can defer; all this has to be taken in hand and resolved, hopefully quickly and thoroughly, if we’re to create a world that works for everyone.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Complexity of life
Note 1: Created a system we seek to escape?
Note 2: Value in visible impacts
Note 2: The potential of technology
Note 3: Responsibility in shaping this reality
Note 3: Entertaining ideas & the matter of truth
Note 3: Seeing, knowing and loving

Looking in quite a different light at the project of society, Plato & “The Republic” considered principles that underpin our common existence.

Ways to share this:

Entertaining ideas & the matter of truth

Living in times where facts are frequently drawn into question, the sense of what’s truthful as opposed to simply compelling or entertaining seems to be under quite considerable pressure. When all is said and done, does it matter what we think?

It’s fairly commonplace to hear that it doesn’t, that culture’s all just stories and what we choose to absorb is a personal prerogative. And that’s the thing: it’s true we can think whatever we choose (see Note One). But surely the question of whether it matters is slightly different, and rather more difficult to answer.

Reality – the past or present – must have a truth to it, however complex and interwoven it all might be. There are clearly almost countless perspectives, interpretations, threads or trends we might choose to prioritise as we look at events from different angles, in the light of how they affect or were affected by different individuals. It’s not really a straightforward narrative, an easy story to tell.

In many ways, time’s this quite thrilling convergence of people, ideas and places as ‘whatever life is’ works itself out. Faced with that, choosing any single storyline is going to offer partial truth at best; far less than the coherent, multifaceted representation that would be ‘truth’. So holding any narrative up against reality can easily lead to pointing out all the things that aren’t being said or acknowledged.

Beyond that, does it matter if we entertain notions of Brad Pitt and Wonder Woman fighting in WW2? Does this re-working or re-casting of history help or hinder us in grasping the truth of things? Might having such pictures in our minds desensitise us to the reality of countless ‘more ordinary’ souls deliberately laying down their lives for their values? (Notes Two)

And, with the representation of modern society, are stories we’re being told and their inferred meanings encouraging us to understand, integrate and move forward? Or are they more often perpetuating stereotypes; feeding on prejudice or insecurity? It’s surely important to ask whether the ideas we’re shown around appearance, race, gender, poverty and so forth are fair or particularly helpful in navigating life (Notes Three).

If we were to view culture as a reflection of reality – a map of sorts for understanding the world we all live within – does the truth of it matter, or can that be swept away and replaced with some other story if we’d rather? Is culture now more about escapism and light relief than some sense of having a shared narrative, common interpretation of meaning, and moral evaluation of social or personal worth (Note Four)?

Modern living seems to value neutrality more: that truth or meaning comes from our interactions, our responses, to all that’s freely on offer. Our ability to think the right thoughts about cultural and social realities, past or present, might then be what truly matters (Note Five). Whether we’re looking at partial truths or re-written ones, keeping in mind how anything relates to reality could be the more important question.

Notes and References:

Note 1: What are we thinking?
Note 2: Meaning in culture
Note 2: History’s role in modern culture
Note 3: Masks we all wear
Note 3: Beauty in unexpected places
Note 4: Plato & “The Republic”
Note 5: What is real?

Ways to share this:

Able to see what matters?

With society, we need to know what’s important: paths taken, decisions made, values put at the forefront, and ways life’s evolved. It’s a lot of information. There’s history in all its grand arcs, little moments and general trends. There’s knowledge of the world, through the sciences; knowledge itself in maths, reasoning or philosophy; then culture, with all its expressions of experience and emotion.

As the volume of information being created increases, it may be tempting to forget all that and focus on what’s presenting itself to us now (see Note One). In the overwhelming chatter of a few billion people talking at once – possibly pursuing worthwhile and important things – how can we be sure of what matters?

Modern life’s essentially this massive conversation of competing agendas. On global as much as social levels, many things really do matter: how we treat others; impacts our actions are having; ideas we’re living by; and the standards being tolerated, encouraged or fuelled. Now we’re able to have a fairly open conversation, it’s surely absolutely right that many of those problems, imperfections and injustices get brought to the fore.

But what then? We cannot change the past. While the paths of Western civilisation are without doubt highly problematic, they’ve brought the scientific, technical and economic activities that now shape the globe in terms of communication, trade, international relations, exploitation, waste, and countless other terribly significant human and natural consequences (Note Two).

An arguably quite careless pursuit of wealth and power has created this global web of unequal relationships and questionable justifications that may take a while to unpick and even out (if that’s even permissible). Generations have now been guided, conditioned and informed by this way of thinking and acting: stories we’ve been told about our interests, acceptable ways of being, and expectations to have of life.

People generally seem to accept what’s handed down, adopting something like that way of thinking and stepping into established social and economic patterns. So, year on year, this is slipping into how we are as people, rippling out into the wider national and international worlds we’re all operating within (Note Three).

Identities are shaped by ideas we receive and the meaning with which they’re imparted. So are the full heritage of the past, the lifetimes of effort behind vast leaps of recent centuries, and the responsibilities of power all being conveyed? Or do we tend to focus on conclusions, outcomes and their current applications?

The human legacy is weighty. Faced with that, deciding to externalise knowledge and learn instead how to access it appears logical. Otherwise, you’d either have to spend time learning everything or trust someone to offer a manageable yet truthful overview. Balance is challenging to achieve; hence why education might tie itself in knots.

Ultimately, the past places in our hands stunning capacities alongside considerable difficulties; and, situations shifting fast, it may be tempting to push aside much of that and forge onward (Notes Four). But would doing so be running some serious risks?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Technology & the lack of constraint
Note 2: At what cost, for humans & for nature
Note 3: The conversation of society
Note 4: Can we reinvigorate how we’re living?
Note 4: Dealing with imperfection

Ways to share this:

Concerns over how we’re living

Thinking about life, society, and what it means to be human is essentially all my writing here is about – trying to understand what’s going on, how we got here, and what might matter most going forward.

And, in that, it’s probably clear to say there’s cause for concern (see Notes One). It often seems to me that we’re living within systems we might not fully understand – things like economics, technology, social structures, culture and media realities – and generally being asked to defer to others, to experts, in order to form our ideas and make our decisions.

Which in many ways is understandable: life has been developing so quickly in almost every direction, creating these fields of specialisation that are far beyond the thorough comprehension of ‘most people’. In light of that, it’s fairly obvious the fullest level of understanding rests in the hands of those working in each particular field.

But then there’s the question of to what extent that fragmented understanding creates a state of dependency and necessitates a large degree of trust. Outside all those isolated pockets of intelligence, is there a truly robust overview capable of holding it all in place?

It seems you either need individuals capable of containing that ever-growing wealth of understanding within a workable yet flexible ‘worldview’, or an extremely trustworthy institution able and willing to offer the same. The level to which education, culture and the media can or do offer those things is a challenge to answer.

I mean, how are we supposed to judge things? If every avenue of human endeavour is hurtling at full speed in its own direction with only market forces or relatively slow-moving government regulation to keep it in check, how are we ever to evaluate each course of action as well as the overall picture being created?

It may be reasonably ‘natural’ then that we conceive of our role as one of filtering the information we’re presented and forming some sort of logical assessment of our choices and where we stand. Which clearly raises issues of trust (in others, information and the agendas of those offering it), and draws into focus our capacity for discernment and independence.

Within that, do we become fairly passive ‘consumers’ who entrust themselves to the ultimate wisdom of modern society? Is there more to life than that? Is it possible for humanity to rise above such fragmentation and begin to chart a potentially wiser course? We might resign ourselves to juggling the competing demands of life and generally going with the flow, but who knows where that might lead (Notes Two).

None of these are easy questions, but they’re important ones (Notes Three). As in many of the posts mentioned below, we surely are often placing our trust and our future in the hands of business or the willingness of others to regulate it. If we hope for a future that works from a human perspective, it may be we need to take a different role in bringing that about.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Economy & Humanity
Note 1: The web and the wider world
Note 1: Human nature and community life
Note 1: Nature speaks in many ways, do we listen?
Note 1: Modern media and complex realities
Note 2: What we bring to life
Note 2: Right to question and decide
Note 2: Complexity of life
Note 3: Responsibility in shaping this reality
Note 3: The need for discernment
Note 3: Can we reinvigorate how we’re living?

The idea of what it takes to make changes, and forms that’s taking in our times, were explored a little in Patience with the pace of change.

Ways to share this:

Beauty in unexpected places

Speaking from personal experience, the greatest humanity – moments of genuine consideration, awareness, concern, joy or presence – can often appear in most unexpected places.

I’m thinking of times people who are generally disparaged, misrepresented or undervalued by society and its cultural or economic systems have displayed qualities that are often quite lacking within society as a whole; things like kindness, courtesy, empathy, humour, consideration for the experiences and feelings of another.

Times when you realise someone else has noticed you and your situation, and chosen to reach out with words or gestures of humanity rather than cold indifference. To me, such moments are truly beautiful – as if something were suddenly shining through that you just weren’t expecting to see there (see Notes One). As when a flower emerges, somehow, within an expanse of concrete; showing life can find a way.

And, thinking about that, I realise judgement must also fall on me for not having expected it: that I was looking at life and prejudging in some way where such beauty or character would reside. Apparently, the human mind likes to create patterns, stereotypes, to understand and navigate its environment. This sense of whether we should expect the best or the worst that can, quite clearly, drift into labelling rather than looking.

It’s the stuff of culture, I suppose, that codifying of social realities (Notes Two); all the ways we look for trends, often judging people and simplifying the complexity of their existence as we do so. The degree to which our desire to reduce life to more manageable labels may ‘help’ us in some ways but hinder us in others seems worthwhile getting to grips with: at what point are we reinforcing or anticipating certain things?

I can see that the mind might well employ itself by creating, drawing upon or falling back on such ‘codes’ in order to navigate life successfully, safely, skilfully – to take advantage of opportunities while avoiding unnecessary risks. Maybe, in the past, smaller communities could generate such a code without it being too problematic? Culture can be seen as having helped create social cohesion through common narratives.

But now life’s so wonderfully merged, blended and combined, can we ever reach ‘labels’ that aren’t causing problems? I’d have thought it almost impossible to develop any code that might match the richness of human diversity and experience; and that any such attempt would likely be offensive to many while also not giving much true insight into the complexities of life or its potential (Notes Three).

Which in a way brings me back to my point: that, beyond the surface, there’s so much more to people than we give credit for. Surely we never really know what stands before us unless we take the time to. There’s both beauty and ugliness in our midst, but knowing one from the other isn’t as easy as it might appear and mistaking the two could cause further problems

Finding our way – appreciating what’s right before our eyes – is an interesting challenge.

Notes and References:

Note 1: The human spirit
Note 1: Worthless, or priceless?
Note 2: Culture, art & human activity
Note 2: Masks we all wear
Note 3: The worth of each life
Note 3: Seeing, knowing and loving

On a slightly separate note, “The Spirit of Community” explores attitudes that might help bind us together better; as did Community as an answer.

Ways to share this:

Relating to one another

Conceivably, we could relate ourselves to any other person in life. We might attempt to do so genetically or historically through delving into a family tree; socially or economically through some sort of comparison of our relative status, power or security; or maybe more personally through exploring common interests or social ties.

It’s one way of looking at what we’re doing ‘all the time’: relating to people, finding meaning, establishing a sense of what we can offer each other, maybe forming partnerships or contracts. All the ways we might forge connections for personal, emotional, social, professional or economic advantage. Life could be viewed as those webs of relationship, overlaying and intersecting in various ways.

Presumably it’s quite a ‘valuable’ way of looking at life, as otherwise industries wouldn’t invest such resources into mapping how it’s all playing out online: how social connections influence choices; who has most power and how they might use it to affect the decisions of others; what all this says about us or human nature more generally.

Life ‘is’ relationship, in a way. It’s where we express ourselves, find recognition and hopefully belonging; shaping the lives we lead and paths we take. In so many ways we’re giving life social meaning through what we engage with, the priorities we act upon, and how we’re rubbing shoulders with one another each day.

Maybe that idea of human relationships has ‘always’ come down to notions of status, power and influence? It’s certainly one way of seeing people: focusing on specific measures of social, personal or economic potential, and evaluating where we stand in relation to that. Viewing others strategically in terms of your own ends or expectations has never sat comfortably with my views on life, but I see it’s a reality in many ways.

Beyond that though, it is of course true that we all stand in relationship to one another. We might tug at the threads in different ways to understand ‘how’ exactly, but in almost any avenue of life we’d likely be able to establish some sense of our relative positions. In terms of politics, consumer choices, cultural preferences, personal priorities, lifestyle, we could map out where any two people stand.

It’s interesting, as clearly people can be ‘evaluated’ in terms of interests and patterns of behaviour. It’s the stuff of data profiling, workplace personality assessments, online dating algorithms, and so on. It’s one way of approaching self-development: to chart how your life looks right now and where you’d ideally like to make changes. We ‘can’ be mapped, to a fairly large extent.

As is probably clear from my writing, it’s not how I choose to look at life (see Notes One); but I acknowledge it might offer a certain level of insight. From my perspective, I see it as more insightful to think in terms of agency: that we might take hold of ourselves in new ways to creatively embody the values that matter most to us within those social, ecological or economic relationships.

Notes and References:

Note 1: What we bring to life
Note 1: Worthless, or priceless?
Note 1: How we feel about society
Note 1: Having boundaries
Note 1: The creativity of living

Ways to share this:

Plato & “The Republic”

Having never formally studied philosophy I’m not sure what you’re ‘supposed’ to say about it, but Plato clearly raised intriguing questions around life, how best to go about living it, and what it might all mean for society.

“The Republic” is undeniably a very different way of looking at the social structure: governing people out of philosophical wisdom rather than purely individual interests. But having talked before of how thought shapes our lives, informing social realities as much as our responses to them (see Notes One), it’s interesting to contemplate these at-times confronting notions of how we could live.

In terms of education, Plato viewed it as having great importance for the ideas, attitudes and qualities making their way into society through the development of individuals toward becoming responsible citizens. He argued that, early impressions leaving a permanent mark, society should be very careful of what’s imparted to young people through education and culture if flaws were to be corrected rather than enhanced.

“It is in education that disorder can most easily creep in unobserved… because it gradually makes itself at home and quietly undermines morals and manners; from them it issues with greater force and invades business dealings generally, and then… spreads into the laws and constitution with complete lack of restraint, until it has upset the whole of private and public life.”

Talking at the level of ideals, it’s a discussion that plunges into many weighty realities around the role of parents, leaders and educators; making connections and suggesting courses of action that seem quite alien to the modern mind. But ideas of social order, personal development, citizenship, and how good education might help heal society are still important and timely concerns (Note Two).

And while Plato’s arguments around culture would likely now be characterised as censorship or propaganda (shaping stories to represent socially valuable qualities), this seems to arise out of concern for the strong influence cultural ideas can have on our feelings about life. His aim being the cultivation of ideals and attitudes (courage, respect, self-control) that might ultimately serve us and society well (Notes Three).

Which is interesting, this whole sense of trying to imagine a society that serves both individual and collective interests. The extent to which we act out of personal self-interest or concern for common social realities must be this age-old battle of any human community (Notes Four): “Is there anything worse for a state than to be split and fragmented, or anything better than cohesion and unity … And is not cohesion the result of the common feelings of pleasure and pain which you get when all members of a society are glad or sorry at the same successes and failures?”

Obviously, modern society’s taken different paths from many of these ‘suggestions’, but the question of what’s best and how well society is holding together, serving us all in the long run, or helping eradicate rather than create problems isn’t seeming so entirely different from two and half thousand years ago.

Notes and References:

“The Republic” by Plato, (Penguin Classics, London), 2007 (originally around 375 BC)

Note 1: What if it all means something?
Note 1: What is real?
Note 2: Ideas around education & responsibility
Note 3: Meaning in culture
Note 3: Dystopia as a powerful ideal
Note 4: Human nature and community life
Note 4: People, rules & social cohesion

Ways to share this: