SUMMARY: I really like this article. Defining something as undefinable as the self is really difficult and hard to wrap your head around, but I feel like the network self really allows for nuance and exceptions that containerizing ones self does not. We truly are made up of every single thought, experience, opinion, event that has happened throughout a lifetime. Imagining the complexity of the web that makes me me is incredibly difficult, and will probably only get more difficult as I continue throughout my life.

and it allows so much nuance in ones own perception of themselves. i really like Wallace's definitions.

and who they WERE now becomes a point in their perception and awareness of who they ARE and how people perceive who they are.

because our perception of the way that we have changed over time is a factor that makes us us as well.

we are always the same self. perhaps this is determined in some way by our biologica traits/tendencies towards different personality traits. then society switches these various traits on or off?

and no box that can neatly define it.

i think this brings up an interesting point about political ideology, although it might be a stretch. ones own personal political ideology doesn't matter. nazi's can call themselves socialists all they like, but they will never be socialists in a real socialists eye no matter how hard they want to say they are. people say "donald trump is too dumb to be a fascist" but regardless he still is because his actions communicate those tendencies regardless of the intention behind them.

as we grow and change so do our feelings about our past. they can also diminish or vanish completely or we can feel newly about something we never had before.

i really like this definition.

succinct way of descibing it.

throughout ones entire life. thats a lot of potential change.

and people dont like being defined by others. people want to live THEIR truth not somebody elses. perhaps politics attempts to prescribe the way people SHOULD feel about something

but the way you feel about being defined in certain ways also makes you who you are. and this changes over lifetimes as well.

but in the presence of her niece or nephew the importance of being an aunt becomes stronger. and when hubby is not around, the importance of her being a wife diminishes.

interesting point. because something that you feel heavily impacts your perception of another trait about yourself may end up having no connection later on in life.

with varying strengths and connections that could change on a day to day basis.

that is also simultaneously very disorganized. people and feelings are messy and are constantly changing.

this is a very complicated web to wrap my head around. but it totally makes sense and thats the point. is that is impossible to truly boil down it down to a few things that make you you.

and i think it could possibly be boiled down to how you feel about the traits you ascribe yourself and the traits others ascribe unto you. and how strongly you feel something describes you.

people don't like to be defined by the others around them.

because who you "are" doesn't really change, just your perceptions of events, your past, people, change.

good. because I think this is limiting. people don't fit into neat little boxes. there's always a contradiction or nuance within the self. so leaving it more open ended makes sense to me. everything makes up the network self.

but this is the most important aspect i think. who are we if not social creatures?

because it is kind of reductive to try and force all people into well defined little boxes. removed the humanity and imperfectness from psychological analysis. everything is a grey area.

leaves it up to interpretation. and anyone can derive their own meaning of the self based on how strongly they feel the different facets of their perspective affect their personhood.

makes me think about the argument of "man in his natural state" because in this day and age, what are we if not how we come across in society. we're very far removed from nature and even our perception of wat nature might be is influenced by society.

i think the societal pressures on the self ARE what makes it. or at least it should be. people SHOULD care more about what others think of them, i think it perpetuates a more caring and conscientious society.

but our self is made up of a conglomeration of everything we have experienced is it not?

can one transition between different containers throughout their life? eg different perceptions and identities. isnt it our perception changeable so its somewhat foolish to try and confine ourselves into one limited scope of perception?

right, because our perception of things that happen us effect us in specific ways because of our unique life experience.

and based almost entirely on the individual perceptions of a few people.

individual decisions are made based on ones individual perception which comes from all the facets of ones identity?

multiple identities in part make a person in full.

HAAhaha

SUMMARY: the colonists desperately wanted a way to control the government. this is obvious. but as America diversified and democracy strengthened, a monarchy was no longer an effective governing tool. A distinct American culture was emerging, that paralleled global antimonarchy sentiment. "The People" were realizing that they were entirely capable of ruling themselves. however, at the time, a monarch was given rule simply because he was there. just because he WAS. is this not the same justification for capitalism? it works because it has structured the global economy, and the global economy structures the world so we need capitalism to make it function. its this kind of self fulfilling prophecy.

this sentence is interesting because it can be both PRO and ANTI war. the invasion of the middle east by the US could be interpreted as desolation and tyranny so why would we do that? but then it only applies to US citizens? so then are they really inalienable?

however, it is ok to transport shiploads of people from Africa to be subjugated for pretended reasons?

the colonists desperately wanted to wrestle control from the Kings incompetent hands in any way they could.

this speaks to a much larger social shift in American culture. People no longer believed they NEEDED a king; he was ineffective and so far away. the strength of his imagined rule had diminished, and his only imagination in the eye of the people was one of mistrust and hatred.

well of course they did, they believed in the monarchy and divine rule. anything else was inconceivable.

people deserve a right to be governed effectively. and what does that mean for incompetence? doctors can be sued for malpractice, regardless of its intention.

definition of a tyrant? this document as with all political documents are a relic of their time. definitions of tyranny change. i wonder how the founding fathers would view the US today.

how do you actually define prudence when you get down to it; and to what ends can you change the governemnt.

is it necessary to dissolve our political bands now? they are keeping us separate and fighting amongst ourselves

also men for instance

right, because it is just a result of a system that is designed to oppress individual groups. Revolution is the language of the oppressed.

white people probably beat the black people as a form of agency. Violence in opressive regimes is usually not just one sided, just asymmetric. and people just seem so committed to get revenge.

Nongoloza could see how disingenuous this move from the guards was. He immediately gives some BS answer ("lost his footing on the softer ground of sympathy") and then just terrorized the guards from the inside. In other words, his disingenuity was a direct result of the guards'. The language of the oppressed often is just a mirror of the oppressors'.

Too little too late. Nongoloza is not going to change his perception of the guards just because they switch up his treatment. Must start with persuasion. Cannot coerce first and the persuade because then it is obviously disingenuous.

elitism is the embarrassing secret that democracy hides?

the so called "class war" and the "race war": are tightly intertwined. I am a white guy talking about this, but I do believe that the race war is often wrongly prioritized over the class war. Even though this white guy was his boss, they are still in a very similar economic position. There is a million other factors that influence this point, but largely, the problems that face minorities are often compounded by economic ones. Increasing the well being of the lower classes would ALSO increase the well being of minorities because they are doubly impacted by both racial and economic hardship.

"righteous" violence often goes too far. It is easy to lose your grip on violence tendencies. Is it part of human nature to have this limitless anger that we seemingly cant control? Why is it so easy for us to get carried away?

Violence is instant gratification, cooperation is delayed gratification

why? what makes a soldier truly ready to die for their cause? to become a martyr?

this is what is holding us back in the US. the fact that we don't have an umbrella group to actually represent the lower in the class war. Culture war has made people increasingly divided and a unified coalition cannot emerge because people MUST have their specific interest met or else they will lose interest. There is no semblance of solidarity or patience within US politics. It is an all or nothing mindset.

violence is the language of both oppressors and the oppressed. however this violence is often framed as "revolutionizing" or "senseless" depending on the context. Radicalization following senseless violence leads to a revolutionary spirit within the oppressed. Afghan fighters are radicalized by the senseless violence committed by US soldiers.

solitude is defined as a chosen loneliness? one where someone is not alone with just their thoughts, they are preoccupied with something else.

but it is different because one is not alone with their thoughts, they are with someone elses?

ideology is the only way terror within society is formed. ideology often demonizes the other side and exists ONLY in opposition to another. similar to false dichotomy in the axiom of morality?

"everything that comes out of trumps mouth is the truth"

this speaks to the MAGA party? perhaps they dont really have an ideology even though. they just hang on every word that trump says.

because it has weaponized loneliness?

is this why it is kind of hard to describe with language?

secularity is associated with selfishness here if the axiom of morality is applied. so society started to move more towards selfishness, and by extension capitalism, as religion began to "fall out of fashion"

this speaks to the axiom of morality. a state that humanity oscillates between. one cannot have togetherness without loneliness, in the same way that selfishness cannot exist without altruism. capitalism has crystalized selfishness into a permanent state of being.

aside from purely being a sin, loneliness is also not necessarily as enjoyable or productive. togetherness and community also serve a utilitarian purpose for humanity's survival and general wellbeing.

too far away from gods light. but why were they afraid of people straying from gods light. shouldn't they be able to find him in true loneliness?

instead she should read her prayer book so nobody thinks she is thinking too hard. loneliness was seen as a bad thing. an evil thing. because one might think and contemplate on their place within society. is this perhaps because in the 1600s, society was largely controlled by religion. If people started to think too hard about something other than the bible, the church might lose its influence on society.

everyone feels a different way about being alone. Everyone likes or dislikes it to a different degree.

longing for companionship versus attempting to find companionship within?

speaks to the intrinsic duality in modern morality between, in this case, loneliness (individuality) juxtaposed with (collectivity) companionship. One needs to have some time by themselves to enjoy the time they have with others.

Crito fears the disgrace of his memory and the way he treated his friends. Rumor is the greatest evil in tarnishing a mans reputation. Especially Posthumously

The opinions of many are not influenced by true intentions of the criticized. The Greatest Evil in this instance is the tarnishing of one's reputation by the many.

people in society are confused, uneducated, or lack a sense of morality, governments create more and more laws to try to fix everything. However, each new law ends up being a mistake because laws can't solve the deeper problems that come from people themselves—like their need for better education and stronger values. The quote is saying that laws are not the answer to everything, and real change has to come from individuals improving themselves, not just from making more rules. Even though this idea comes from someone who was involved in creating laws, it still highlights the problems in society where too much is expected from laws.

politics is simply the transfer/organization of powers between different people. the organization of the family unit proves that man is a naturally political animal

every city/organization of society is built on the assumption of natural organization between families. this is how they function properly

the gods themselves are a reflection of societies stratification

living quarters, reproduction, something to do labor. these are the fundamental tenets of societies organization.

women and slaves both fulfil a purpose in society. but that purpose is different. woman's purpose in society is to obey natural laws and reproduce.

it is equally advantageous relationship for both slave and master. master relies on slave labor: slave relies on master to be told what to do???

it is human nature for some people to be designated as leaders. leaders are inherent to human society

first unit of organization is the familial unit. marked by human nature to reproduce through male and female.

different bodies/structures of government differentiate themselves by the group of people/amt of people who reside at the top

aristotle does not think that the principles of a family, society, etc. are the same.

cities are created on the basis of this supposed good purpose of coming together

"good" is inherent to human nature. organization and social stratification is an extension of that good.

a city is different from a family. cities have an everchanging center of control wherein a family has a permanent head of the household constituted by humans natural instincts.