Is Bataille 's Philosophy Something We Could Realistically Live By? Critically Discuss

He defines justice and talks about relativeness of wealth or poverty : “Wealth is the parent of luxury and indolence, and

Disney’s Pixar film, A Bug’s Life, is much more than meets the eye. The film is not only an animated comedy; it holds deep sociological theory within its plot. Many of the major themes and concepts of the movie can be viewed through the lens of the famous theorist Karl Marx. Marx’s theory is famous for focusing on how society functions. In particular he concerns himself with how capitalism, the working class, and the revolutions create problems in our society. My paper will analyze how Marxian theory and concepts fit into major climactic scenes of the film.

The article begins by detailing the human desire for social power and how, through class, certain forms of power are achieved. He contends that the pursuit of social power is essentially an attempt to acquire social honour. Weber also mentions that power does not always lead to social honour and uses the notion of the

He begins with comparing the scenario that “ there is nothing to be done when the temperature outside is 85 degrees, and indoors the air conditioner has broken down; obviously when that happens there is nothing to do, except perhaps curse the day when one was born.” With the polar opposite of “ But when the temperature outdoors is below freezing, it takes a positive act of will on somebody’s part to set the temperature indoors at 85 degrees” (3). The usage of these sarcastic remarks shines light of the issue that society could be in control of the very factor that is oppressing them, yet choose to relay silence in fear of creating a bigger affair then

When people decided to gather, communicate, and cooperate to make their livings around beasts, they also had to decide the ownerships of trophies. That was the time when the idea “property” was invented. Many wise men in the past, while thinking about a better format for people living together, argued meanings of property to people. British philosopher John Locke in his work Second Treatise of Government separates property as public goods shared by all humans and necessities for living created via labor. The value of property has changed over time, when later French philosopher Voltaire in his novel Candide, or Optimism expresses that property becomes for what people in a world where Candide lives keep fighting: land, gold, and even ownerships of women. Necessities and public goods becomes luxuries. Voltaire’s work shows this trend and it can explained by the worry about the risk of losing current living standard in the future when easily accessible things are no more available to everyone. In fact, Candide also reflects scarcity of property, a nature which Locke never mentioned. Thus Candide is a strong critique to Second Treatise of Government for the nature of property when Voltaire demonstrated scarcity in material and philosophical ways in Candide.

Society is built and run on social and moral obligations and while these two are closely related, both impact cultures around the world in different ways. Marx’s Communist Manifesto and Mill’s On Liberty demonstrate the relationship these obligations have with successful and unsuccessful social constructs. For the purposes of this paper, a moral obligation is a consideration of what is right¬¬¬ and wrong and can vary depending on pressures from external sources such as religion, while a social obligation is a responsibility the individual has to act to benefit the best interests of their class as well as supporting the stability between society and the individual. Marx and Mill differ greatly in their opinions on the role and effects of

John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, two philosophers with differing opinions concerning the concept of private property. Rousseau believes that from the state of nature, private property came about, naturally transcending the human situation into a civil society and at the same time acting as the starting point of inequality amongst individuals. Locke on the other hand argues that private property acts as one of the fundamental, inalienable moral rights that all humans are entitled to. Their arguments clearly differ on this basic issue. This essay will discuss how the further differences between Locke and Rousseau lead from this basic fundamental difference focusing on the acquisition of property and human rights.

John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, following their predecessor Thomas Hobbes, both attempt to explain the development and dissolution of society and government. They begin, as Hobbes did, by defining the “state of nature”—a time before man found rational thought. In the Second Treatise[1] and the Discourse on Inequality[2], Locke and Rousseau, respectively, put forward very interesting and different accounts of the state of nature and the evolution of man, but the most astonishing difference between the two is their conceptions of property. Both correctly recognize the origin of property to be grounded in man’s natural desire to improve his life, but they differ

Capitalism is, tautologically, private ownership over the means of production. On face, the notion of a capitalistic society epitomizes the essence of freedom; ownership entails control, power, and potential for bargaining. I contend, however, that a holistic analysis of the capitalist institution exposes the foreground as an ugly facade. In short, I will show that capitalism not only brings out the worst in people, but also, sustains a pathological cycle of violence. I will first provide a framework discussion of my analysis, summarize the hypocrisies and development of capitalism, and then demonstrate the horrific result of value-driven trade.

In a specific adaptation of the debitor-creditor relation that was discussed earlier, we owe our ancestors a debt of gratitude for making our society prosperous, at least to the extent that we continue to exist. The more prosperous the society in which an individual find himself, the more debt he find himself owing. It is this situation man is forced to suppress his natural instincts, particularly his will to power, in order to be a social animal reaping the benefits of society. This ironically is done for the sake of survival. “I regard the bad conscience as the serious illness that man was bound to contract under the stress of the most fundamental change he ever experienced—that change which occurred when he found himself finally enclosed within the walls of society and of peace... in this new world

Political philosopher John Locke ideas and theories serve as a foundation in our democratic world. In the Second Treatise of Government sovereignty is placed in the hands of the people. Locke argues that everyone is born equal and has natural rights in the state of nature. He also argues that men have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. The central argument around the creation of a civil society was with the protection of property. In this essay I will explain Locke's theory of property and how it is not anything other than a "thinly disguised defense of bourgeois commercial capitalism." This statement is defended through Locke's personal background and his justifications for the inequalities of wealth.

In The Ruling Class and the Ruling Ideas by Mark and Engels discuss that the ideas of a particular historical time are designed to serve the ruling class. This reading proves the presence of ideology within society to explain how it serves the ruling class. “The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production…” (Marx and Engels, 1970, p. 39). Within The Beauty and the Beast, the prince used the working class in order to improve his way of life. This signifies that within this period of time, there was a limited amount of independence that separated the ruling and working class because of the control of the means of material production that the ruling class had over the working class.

It is important to realize how society works because it helps us to better understand how the film views the economic system that produces people like Travis. It also helps us to better understand what it is like to be like Travis who falls under the Proletariate category. For instance, the use of social structures and the idea of the lower class revolting. Taking this into account is important because it helps us to better understand how the film views the economic system that produces people like Travis. This paper argues that the film illustrates Marx's ideas in order to critique the capitalist

It is fairly apparent that a number of political overtones dominate Emile Zola's novel Germinal, which is the 13th book of nonfiction within the writer's Les Rougon-Macquart, a 20-volume series of novels. The author published this work of literature in 1885, less than 50 years after Marx and Engels unveiled the Communist Manifesto which was still plenty of time for a number of the ideologies propagated in this manuscript to take hold of popular culture and political theorists alike. In fact, one could successfully make a claim that the central theme of Germinal actually revolves around the conceptions of class antagonism that is an inherent part of an exploitative, bourgeois society such as that depicted in the French coal mining town in 1860, the setting for Germinal. A thorough analysis of this literary work illustrates that there are several instances of class antagonism, which are central to the plot of this book and provide its primary theme.

John Locke’s views on property and liberty, as outlined in his Second Treatise of Government (1690), have had varying interpretations and treatments by subsequent generations of authors. At one extreme, Locke has been claimed as one of the early originators of Western liberalism, who had sought to lay the foundations for civil government, based on universal consent and the natural rights of individuals. [1] Others have charged that what Locke had really done, whether intentionally or unintentionally, was to provide a justification for the entrenched inequality and privileges of the bourgeoisie, in the emerging capitalist society of seventeenth