Controlling the Masses

2. For both (or either) Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud, can we be trusted to take care of ourselves?

Can we be trusted to take care of ourselves? Of course we can! We do it on a daily basis. Most people do a fine job of not only taking care of themselves, but also taking care of others. This would be a common answer among most to such a question. But how much control do we really have?

Sigmund Freud appears to have had very upfront opinions about human beings. It is my opinion after reading Civilization and its Discontents that Freud was rather sinister in the sense that when discussing people, he seemed negative and pessimistic. It appears as though this sort of outlook was common in the family however. After watching Century of the Self by Adam Curtis, we learn about Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays. The man who singlehandedly developed a way to create consumerism, all the while calling anyone that fell into his trap stupid. Between the two of them, it becomes evident that both have very strong opinions about human beings and feel that we cannot be trusted to take care of ourselves. Right in the first twenty seconds of the film, Curtis states what Freud believed; that because of the sexual and aggressive forces deep within humans, we need to be controlled. If not, chaos and destruction would soon ensue. This idea has since been used by people in power to attempt to control groups of people. One of first people to use this theory was Bernays. He took what Freud thought and then used it to control American citizens and get them to buy unnecessary products.

Keeping this in mind then, let’s return to one of my original questions: How much control do we really have? After watching Century of the Self I no longer feel confident answering such a question. I believe that thanks to Freud and Bernays we are being so easily controlled; but not only are we just being controlled, we are being controlled well because many of us don’t even realize what is going on.

Side note: Wouldn't it be interesting, if Bernays was still alive today, to hear what he think of the mess he created (mass consumerism, debt, etc)? I think so.

Just Decisions

1. Do you think these charges are legitimate?  Is this a fair trial?

   When deciding whether or not the charges against Socrates are legitimate, one must consider the time period. One of the charges that Socrates was faced with was creating gods of his own while not believing in the gods of the state. In today’s context, the charges would most likely be considered illegitimate because we have the freedom to believe in whatever we choose. If one decided to invent their own god(s) or choose to not believe in anything at all, that would be acceptable because we are all given religious freedom.  As a matter of fact, it is common for people to all have different beliefs.  The other charge is corrupting the young.  This charge too would be considered illegitimate because he is not doing anything wrong.  It is not as though he is forcing his opinions and thoughts upon anyone, instead people go to him looking for answers and to hear what he has to say. The decision that the charges would be illegitimate only applies to modern times however as I stated earlier. The case is different though when we go back in time.

    We have to consider the time period when this whole trial took place. The gods played a very significant role in the daily lives of the Athenians, therefore for someone that is as respected as Socrates is to say that he believes in different gods, could indeed be a great concern. Not only because he himself does not believe, but also because he has a great influence over many people. Just look at Plato for example; the man dedicated his whole life to recording the words and thoughts of Socrates. There is no doubt that it was worrisome that their beliefs were being questioned and so it was Meletus that chose to do something about it.  With this in mind it is my belief that the charges were legitimate no matter how wise or clever Socrates was, he was going against the ways of the Athenians and therefore it is evident how the Greeks would have felt.

   In terms of the trial being fair or not, I believe it was.  When I think of an unfair trial, I think of a situation where a trial really does not occur at all. By this I mean that before it even begins the decision is made. Not only was Socrates given the opportunity to defend himself, but he was also given the chance to do so in front of 501 Athenians. It was not as though he stood in front of 20 people that held his fate in their hands, there were plenty of people there for him to convince that the charges were unjust. Unfortunately for him though, what he repeatedly stated as not being arrogance, came across as arrogance. To the Athenians, it may have seemed like he was in a way mocking their intelligence because he spoke in such a way. After the verdict has been revealed, Socrates was even given the choice of prison or exile but rejected both. Instead, he proposed paying a fine. When that is denied, he is finally given the death sentence. It is for these reasons that I believe that the trial was fair.