This is where optimism will come into pay. If you say and believe things will get better, then you can keep hope alive. I'll use inflation for example. Inflation has had a negative effect on a lot of our lives (nothing too horrible, but its still pretty uncomfortable), but its still best to believe that the economy will get better. In terms of being a utopian, I agree and I believe picturing better things for the world will motivate change and influence others to possibly help a situation be better.

Optimism is necessary for a positive outcome and gives a situation hope; without it there is only negativity. If you remove optimism and pessimism I believe you will have no motive for anything, so I don't agree with this mindset.

I believe that this applies to dystopian literature mainly, because some literature about dystopias has either a message (or warning) about how human behavior is and what will happen if things never change.

This quote brings me back to the first weeks of class to when we were defining what a dystopia is and what are examples of it. I feel like we have no choice, but to live in a dystopian world because an utopia is perfect and our world can never be perfect; however, we still have a world that is close to a utopia, but not an actual pure utopia.

A person can be amazed and fixated on a person's talent, set of skills, philosophy, etc., but what tends to happen is they try to achieve similar things to the person that they know is ahead of them and as a result, they will think because they are progressing and thinking more towards their goal, then others are not up to par with them. It can lead to arrogance, but this is something that can happen unintentionally.

Those who have physical strength does not mean they have superiority or natural given dominance. What a person lacks physically they can make up for mentally. A man with a well thought plan or the skillset to think strategically can come out on top against anyone who's main asset is bodily strength.

I agree that ideas that were introduced in movements never truly die because some groups or individuals will take them and revive them or build on them because of their own desires to change something or think a certain way.

I can see a connection to 1984 with this. Nobody in either situations have any rights, not even the right to think for themselves. The party stripped that away and Ur-fascism does the same thing according to Eco.

Pointing out that Mussolini's lack of philosophy is key because he made a lot of his points and persuaceve action through the speeches that he delivered. He had a violent nature and only supported any idea or thing that supported his Fascist way of ruling, such as only allowing bishops who welcomed fascism.

I view this statement to be saying that a person become unstable when they are forced to fulfill duties in society such as following certain standards of living, standards of religion, and many others ideal things. The forceful nature of trying get an individual to conform or comply to the way a society is can take a toll on a person's behavior or mental being. I am not suggesting that a person disregard their responsibilities in a society, but only pointing out that the things in a society that a person doesn't necessarily connect with, such as a status quo for something, shouldn't be forced upon that person and when they are not forced or pressured, then they will have a good chance of being in a happy space again.

This part of the reading sticks out to me because its highlights how certain groups that experience oppression are not just thrown into the entire mix of oppressed groups. Black people have an identity that's unique to them and its not just because they are black, but the composition of their culture and, of great importance, their history. In context, some social groups are deeper than appearance, but its rather the composition of history, social customs, and other factors that makes them unique and give them their identity