Book │ #5 Society

Personal reading experience records, there are many personal thoughts.

society

Society is an organized whole that, through norms, dictates the relationship between individuals.

Organised whole : Society is not a patchwork of individuals , but individuals define each other through their relationship to each other .

"Individual patchwork" refers to random patchwork regardless of the characteristics of an individual. "Individuals define each other by their relationship to each other" is to classify through the characteristics of each individual. For example, according to the social environment, some people like opera, or like golf. Defined in terms of power, ideas, and tastes of self relative to others.

Through norms, regulations... : Society assigns different values to actions, objects, and knowledge, and the closer to social norms, the higher the value.

Fashion is loved by the public because it conforms to public requirements (that is, social norms), such as fashion, seasons, and so on. Therefore, the price of the current season or fashion will be higher, and the out-of-season clothing will be discounted. So society will determine the value of each item according to its own norms.

Relationships between individuals : Society is not the sum of discrete individuals, but is united through relationships between individuals.

As mentioned above, groups are classified into groups by characteristics, and these groups reunite and influence each other to become societies. Such as liberals and conservatives, pro-sex and anti-sex, or use social status, preferences, tastes, etc. to classify. Then all groups combine and influence each other to become society.

-

Why enter society?

"Individuals cannot ensure their own survival. Families respond to some needs for protection and division of labor. Does society respond to other needs?"

On the basis of the above paragraph, I think the book is expressing, because of safety and efficiency, "you just have to enter the society", but this seems to stop at "family", so at the end it talks about "whether there are other needs of human beings met? ".

1) To live together under just laws

Society enables human beings to develop their own abilities, such as language, reason, and in society, the perception of justice and injustice, and the free choice to obey the law.

Aristotle <br class="smart">From "Politics"

 "Humans are the only animals that have language. Animals express pain or pleasure through sound. But language exists to express good and bad, and therefore to express justice and injustice. Because unlike other animals, what makes humans special is that , only human beings have the ability to perceive good and evil, right and wrong, and other such ideas. These communities form the family and the city-state.”

The book is not only the above paragraph, but there are three total paragraphs. I will only list the last paragraph. I probably said that society and city-states are absolute existences in the human world. If there are human beings, there will be society. . The book also proposes that to understand Aristotle's texts, one must first understand his assumption that "man is a political animal", so society can allow man to realize his nature. And as long as a man leaves the city, he deprives him of the integrity of his humanity.

Q: If you just agree that "society exists only for the survival of human beings", it is not correct. Why? What exactly does this text think of the function of society?

In the chapter entering Aristotle, the book gives a passage "Society is the condition of happiness". From this point and the above section from "Politics", we can know that the existence of society is not just for the survival of human beings.

Survival is not just simply living in this world. People can express their thoughts using language, and have moral concepts such as perception of good and evil, right and wrong, and various desires. In order to achieve true happiness, in order to complete a person, society exists, so enter society.

-

my thoughts

Are people.. political animals? Do you have to communicate with other people?

Assuming food and security are guaranteed, can humans survive in this world?

I think this question seems a bit complicated? There are two assumptions, one is that this person was born completely alone, and there is no other human being in the world except him. The other is that this person was born in a world full of people, and also communicated with various people in society, and then something happened that caused him to live alone from now on.

If it's the first, that person doesn't know what it's like to communicate with others, so maybe there's no need for that? If it is the second, because he was born in a world that needs to communicate with others, if he is the only one left, he is likely to have a nervous breakdown? If there is a nervous breakdown, it means that people need to communicate with others, and people are political animals.

All in all, I can probably understand what this chapter wants to express about the question of "Why enter society?"

People cannot simply live in this world. In addition to safety and food, they also need to communicate with other people in order to obtain real happiness and to truly feel "alive", so they enter the society.

2) Humans live in society for exchange

Here is simply to do all kinds of exchanges through work.

For example, an employee offers his or her major in exchange for an employer's salary. Then, after the employee gets paid, they go to the snack bar to exchange the money for food made by the boss using his cooking ability. The snack bar owner exchanges money with the farmer for food ingredients. Among them, employees, snack bar owners and farmers will also make various exchanges with other people, which becomes the literal meaning of "human beings live in society for exchange".

The book also mentions that "as long as you follow your own interests, through exchange, everyone can benefit." Can this be achieved in modern society..?

Adam Smith

 "We don't get dinner for the kindness of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker. They do it for their own benefit. We don't appeal to their kindness, but to their selfishness. We never talk to them about our needs, Only speak of what is good for them. Only beggars will live by begging for the kindness of others.

Q: In addition to economic interests, what other interests enable people to cooperate with each other?

personal interests or personal desires.

As mentioned above, those businessmen are not in business because of their kindness, but because they want something, maybe more money, a better life or something. It is because of personal interests and desires to cooperate with each other.

Q: Why did Adam Smith believe that forms of exchange build society more than gifts.

From the book "The Theory of Wealth" provided in the book: "Applying to others' self-interested mentality to persuade others that their own demands are also beneficial to them, and the chance of success will be higher. Give me what I need, and you will get yours too. want."

Adam Smith is mentioned in the book as one of the founders of individualism, so I don't think it's surprising that he thinks so.

-

my thoughts

I think we should not ask, "Do people live in society for exchange?", but to ask, "Are people individualistic?"

Because "people live in society for exchange" is based on "people are individualistic".

We do everything, eat and sleep, study and work, get married and have children, etc., and do all the things in this world. Is there any thing that is not because of "meeting personal needs"? Thinking about it for a moment...it doesn't seem like it? Even if there are some charitable groups or figures, they help the disadvantaged because of great love? Or is it for personal benefit, for the benefit of that group?

Or if they find valuables today, some people will send them directly to the police station. Are they doing this...to meet a personal need or to really help others from the heart? If you don’t send it to the police station and put it away by yourself, but the owner of the item has called the police and is found to have not sent the picked up item to the police station, you may get into some trouble, or your pure conscience will feel uneasy, so send it to the police station. Go to the police station. So the act of sending to the police station may be to meet personal needs?

Perhaps the question that should be asked is, "How can we determine whether it is from the heart or to meet a personal need?"

It feels like it's going to be more and more...

In short, this chapter.. um... can think about it again.

3) To learn to live together

Aristotle believed that human beings are inherently good and should live in harmony. Adam Smith, on the other hand, believed that individuals are selfish and socialize with others only for exchange. Kant, on the other hand, combines the two viewpoints and believes that we all pursue interests at the beginning, but as we grow up, individuals will embrace the idea of "common interests", and society responds to the desire for social interaction and the independence of the individual at the same time.

Kant <br class="smart">The following is an excerpt from The Idea of Universal History from the Perspective of Universal Citizenship

 "The means by which nature realizes the development of all its endowments is the antagonism of these endowments in society, so long as this antagonism is ultimately the cause of the lawful order of society. I understand this antagonism here as 'human beings' non-social sociability", that is, the tendency of human beings to enter society, yet this tendency is combined with a constant resistance that constantly threatens the division of society.

Yet it is this revolt that awakens all the strengths of man, and drives him to overcome his tendency to laziness, and, driven by the desire for fame, domination or possessiveness, to fight for a place among his unbearable and inseparable fellows . This is the first step from barbarism to culture, which actually exists in human social values. As a result, all talents are gradually developed, tastes are gradually formed, and even through continuous enlightenment, a mode of thinking begins to be established, which gradually transforms the crude natural endowment of morality into a definite practical principle, and also makes society from a pathological state. The coercive agreement of learning is finally transformed into a moral whole. "

Q: What thesis is the text based on that it is reason that brings human beings into society?

"The Asociality of Human Beings"

It is explained later that human beings have a tendency to enter society, but this tendency continues to rebel against a force. And this power, as explained in the second paragraph, people will have various desires in comparison with others in society. Here is my own interpretation. Because people are lazy and don't want to do too many troublesome things, but if they want to satisfy their desires, they must do those things, so they hesitate between doing and not doing them.

So if people are social animals, it is inevitable to enter the society, but more troubles will arise because of various desires. This is what I understand to be the "non-social sociality of human beings".

There is another idea, the back is the same, just a little change in the front. Humans must enter society in order to survive, but humans are not social animals. In order to survive, I had to enter society, and I felt it was a hassle.

Or am I wrong? Is it something called "natural endowment"?

Q: Why can't individuals build society entirely by their will?

Q: What kind of progress has the "non-sociality" of human beings brought about?

Q: For Kant, morality consists in never treating people as means, but as ends. Will society necessarily move towards morality?

To be honest, I don't know how to answer the last three questions at all... Maybe I want to check it out later..?

-

my thoughts

I can probably understand what this paragraph wants to express, but I don't know if my understanding is correct.

Because human nature is good, and entering the society is inevitable, of course, at the beginning, you may see all kinds of things because of entering the society, which may make people a little repelled or afraid to enter the society, but after time, various Desires, values, tastes, morals, etc., will start to think about entering society, or society itself is necessary and inevitable. It is also because of society that a variety of values, tastes, and morals arise, and people continue to survive in these societies of different ideas.

Well... maybe so? I also don't know if I'm expressing or understanding correctly...

Check back in a while.