Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Both Hobsbawm and Freud explain the origins of modern society- though they…

- - - - "exceptions can always be followed"
        
        Nations exist not only as functions of a particular kind of territorial state or the aspiration to establish one – broadly speaking, the citizen state of the French Revolution – but also in the context of a particular stage of technological and economic development.
        (pg 10).
    - - better to define a nation by its members' consciousness
        of belonging to it"
      - PROBLEM: subjectivity is very hard to pin as a human understanding. What stops an intentional construction of nationalism (which can later be brought by people as an objective truth) from a subconscious understanding is choice.
        
        "Choice" then, can be masked as truth. A man would never believe it to be just his emotions, he would profess it as a truth
        
        "No serious historian of nations and nationalism can be a committed political nationalist... while unable to make contributions to evolutionary theory... Nationalism requires too much belief in what is patently not so. (pg 12)
        
        HIS RESPONSE-
        
        we dont have much of a choice- its much better to be agnostic and accept that a nation is flawed rather than try to find an impossible reality.
        
        And it does still have some background or strength to it- the nation-state
        
        pg 181- 'the idea of "the nation", once extracted, like the mollusc, from the apparently hard shell of the "nation-state", emerges in distinctly wobbly shape
  - - - psychoanalysis- the conflict between the desire to ravage and maintain order comes with the creation of defense mechanism to prevent the id from dominating
        
        these defense mechanisms also brings out in us a sense of guilt if we do not try to follow them
        
        when the conflict becomes too much and the defense mechanisms become too restrictive. the individual shows mental health symptoms
      - BUT- their is no one human nature
        
        It is only a theory of individual pathological disturbances
        
        applying it in its entirety is theoretically illegitimate
        
        In what way you as an individual have to relate to the social field in the sense of the anonymous social self (i.e. not in relation to the others but what can later be described as normal)
        
        so, only apply the issues relevant to the creation of interpersonal bonds, they are less reliant on a singular human nature and more reliant on the result of human contact rather than whats internal
        
        the only thing that is needed for an internal issue has to be the creation of love bonds, and that the love bonds can be extended further, this is where Hobsbawm's supplementary text can support the connection between the state and the person
      - No such reason as to why it is necessary
        
        when the complexity of human nature is simplified to an analysis of when neurosis is too strong comes from three failures
        
        The context of the authors settings
        
        The end of multinational empires around the end of world war 1
        
        The circumstance with which each philosopher had to go through only demonstrates an implicit bias with how they viewed human nature, and therefore were not adequately neutral enough to learn about some universal characteristic.
        
        the rather irrelevancy of any existing similarity to a human's mindset
        
        Finally, if there even is something of a common trait within everybody’s human nature (such as possibly desire), the individual experiences each person has will make that characteristic mute. “although they may partake of a common human nature, they develop very different aspects of that nature; they hardly seem to be of the same species, so little do they agree about what is important in life” (Plato 7758).
- - - - his purpose for civilization is to provide a good of safety because we are inherently brutish, and that this comes at a cost of our sexual tendencies
        
        Present-day civilization makes it plain that it will only permit sexual relationships on the basis of a solitary, indissoluble bond between one man and one woman,
    - - our desire of protection comes from the original need to find a
    - - it is based on survival rather than happiness
        
        People give the name ‘love’ to the relation between a man and a woman whose genital needs have led them to found a family; but they also give the name ‘love’ to the positive feelings between parents and children, and between the brothers and sisters of a family, although we are obliged to describe this as ‘aim-inhibited love’ or ‘affection’.
      - It can only spread as thin as the lobe bonds would have em
        
        A love that does not discriminate seems to me to forfeit a part of its own value, by doing an injustice to its object; and secondly, not all men are worthy of love.
  - - - It would have to allocate it to as much peoplea s possible while still maintaining a level of authority over them
      - the project of nationalism then is to find a group with similar characteristics, such as language and ethnicity and propagate it to the people of a particular territory
      - This nationalism project can only stretch as far as the resources could, but also as far as the love bonds could maintain an identity
    - - In policy terms this meant the belief that only the allocation of resources through the market was optimal, and that by means of its operation the interests of individuals would automatically produce the interests of the whole – insofar as there was room in theory for such a concept as the interests of the whole community.