Interview with the Luddite :: Lunsford Interveiw Luditte Essays

Interview with the Luddite In Andrea Lunsford's introduction she gives a brief background on both Kelly and his interviewee, Kirkpatrick Sale. From her descriptions it is very clear on how different the beliefs of these two men are from each other. Lunsford seems to be fascinated by how the interviews in Wired magazine, which she sort of reluctantly subscribes to, have all ended up in a debate or argument. And the one "which you are about to read,["Interview with the Luddite"] is no exception," she says(243). In this paper I will discuss the different claims of each of the two men and weigh them against each other for validity and persuasiveness. While reading "Interview with the Luddite" by Kevin Kelly I immediately sensed a feeling of sarcasm on Kelly's part. From the title alone I could tell that Kelly was either not looking forward to the interview, or he just could not wait until he could sit down with this guy and pick him apart. He uses the term "the Luddite" in such a generalized sense that it almost makes the interviewee sound so unimportant as a person. Since there is more than one Luddite on the planet he could have used the word "a" instead of "the" when referring to this person he was about to interview. The very first question Kelly asks Sale is an accusation and comes across very harshly to the reader. He asks, "Other than arson and a lot of vandalism, what did the Luddites accomplish in the long run?"(243). After reading this first question, I felt a little sorry for Sale, and I was mad at Kelly for asking such an abrupt question. But my sympathy soon ended when Kelly continued on in the interview. Sale proudly explains and defends the beliefs of his group, the Luddites. But it is clear that Kelly has a strong opposing opinion. He immediately wants to weaken the character of Sale so that the reader is liable to side more with Kelly, himself. This is a very effective strategy on Kelly's part because I found myself agreeing with him more than I did with Sale. When Kelly asked if Sale considered himself a modern-day Luddite, Sale said yes. Sale argues that this is so in the sense that the Luddites of today had not resorted to destroying property, but used books and voices to help raise the consciousness that technology is bad.

Hobbes Vs Rousseau

Thomas Hobbes' imagined â€Å"state of nature† is full of â€Å"masterless men† (p. 140). Jean Jacque Rousseau's imagined â€Å"state of nature† is full of radically independent, solitary individuals who are innocent of good and evil. How does Hobbes come to that conclusion about man in the state of nature? On what kinds of evidence does he rely? How does Rousseau come to his conclusion about individuals in the state of nature. On what kind of arguments does he rely? Compare and contrast their imagined states of nature making sure you reference the evidence they draw upon to build heir argument.It is important to remember when relating Hobbes and Rousseau and their ideas of the natural state that they are not speaking of the same thing. Hobbes defines the state of nature as the time when men lived without a common power. Men would constantly be at war with each other, and the elements around them. There would be no laws or authority and without them, men would be lieve that everything is theirs. It is very similar to the mindset of a child. Children are not born with a natural inclination to share. That is something that parents must teach them as they grow.Greed is naturally instilled in men and because of this men have been fighting and violent even before societies were developed. Men were fghting, stealing, and murdering each other for survival. Rousseau argues with Hobbes. Rousseau describes a hypothetical time when society did not exist and men only acted on their natural instincts which were peaceful and timid. Men would not have any sense of right and wrong because they had not been molded by societys standards yet. Hobbes states that in the state of nature men would be fearful and greedy and because of this it was necessary for societies to exist.Humans need protection from each other because instinctually we are violent and pose a threat to others. Men naturally crave property and self-preservation and in this environment peace is not possible. When men come together to form societies social contracts are necessary to guarantee the protection of rights of each man. Once a social contract is established man gave his rights over to the sovereign. A social contract is an understanding in which multiple individuals come together and give their rights to one man.Once the individuals give their rights over them become one sovereign. The rights and rotection of a single individual is no longer important; only the protection of the sovereign as a whole. This is when men could begin to live their lives without fear. Once order was imparted on the people or a society they would live in harmony with each or be forced to leave. If this occurs that individual would no longer be under the protection of the sovereign. Hobbes believes that there are three principles that cause violence: competition, glory, and difference.If one man sees another with an item that he craves competition will take over and he will take the item using force or other means. Glory drives a man to be superior. Without a firm authority established one will be driven to be the most powerful. Rousseau disagrees with Hobbes and insists that in the state of nature the only factor is survival. In this case I believe that Hobbes is thinking too much from a society stand point and he is also contradicting himselt. Society molds us into competing tor glory. In the state ot nature this would not be the case.Hobbes and Rousseau both agree that in the state of nature reason and inequality do not exist yet and it would not be possible for man to understand that he should be more powerful than another. If inequality does not exist then it ould not be possible for one man to be more powerful then another. In Rousseau's natural state men are solitary, timid, and greed doesn't exist because society has not corrupted their innocence yet. Rousseau believes that human nature is inherently good and it wasn't until societies began to establish that human's instincts became corrupted.When man is in its natural state they are solitary and have no sense of ownership over anything. They struggle with their environment and their natural conditions. Individuals are looking out for themselves and self- preservation is guiding them, Just as in Hobbes natural state, however Rousseau says here is no violence between them. Rousseau compares man to animals by saying man needs to satisfy their physical needs for survival, however we have a natural repugnance for seeing others in pain. Because of this we would never harm another person for our own selfish desires.Language does not exist yet because people are solitary and keep to themselves. Because of this reason does not exist. Without reason there is no Jealously, inequality, or other negative emotions that lead to violence. This seems too optimistic to be accurate. Compassion would exist to an extent but self-preservation will always be more of a priority. If a man has to cause pain to another because there are limited resources then so be it. For example, let's say it was winter and a man found a small cave. There was already someone else in there and it was only big enough to fit one.Rousseau believes that since men have no sense of ownership, and are solitary creatures that one would simply leave because they don't have to reasoning to think, â€Å"l was here first, so it is mine. † Hobbes would say that men are violent and greedy and in this situation violence would occur. Men are born with a natural instinct to survive and because of this both men would fght over shelter. Humans would not do harm Just to be â€Å"evil† because good and evil would not exist yet. Once families started to form humans had more time to do other activities and with this came reason and inequality.Rousseau gives the example of a dance around a fire. One man will look at another and see that this man is bigger than another and reason would lead him to believe that one must be better than the other. Once inequality is established man has a need to be more powerful then another. Another factor that leads to inequality is the ownership of land. Rousseau states, â€Å"The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said â€Å"This is mine,† and ound people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society.From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody. † Once man owns land and inequality has set in men will become greedy and want more believing that owning land is a symbol of power. Man ill begin to want more wealth and glory and this is when violence starts.The natural instincts of being solitary and peaceful hav e been corrupted by the society and humans have now been molded into greedy power hungry people. Rousseau states, â€Å"l must make everyone see that bonds ot servitude are tormed trom the mutual dependence of men. It is impossible to slave a man without first putting him in the positions of being unable to do without another person. Rousseau believes that when men live alone they cannot be corrupted because they rely on no one but themselves for survival.Once men come together and form families and societies they become enslaved by dependence into that society. After looking at both ideas I believe that Hobbes is not most accurate in his thinking. Rousseau has an optimistic, humanist way of looking at men, but I believe that it doesn't matter how far back in history one goes, men were always violent, greedy, fearful creatures. Just because reason didn't exist does not mean that men wouldn't have a wanting for resources that weren't theirs. Men may not have been able to reason why they wanted something, but the greed was still there.Society and social contracts did not cause or mold our greediness, and violence like Rousseau believes. Those instincts were instilled in men from the beginning as a way of survival. It is impossible to have any absolute truth over who is right in this argument. Once man has been civilized the effects cannot be reversed. We would never be able to go back to the state of nature and this is why the debate is still continuing today. Nature vs. nurture is a topic that is debated today because it is impossible to know for sure what is instinct and what has been molded by our society.

How America Should Perceive The Second Amendment Essay

One of the most controversial topics in American society today is gun control. This issue has many people debating how America should perceive the second amendment. Many view the second amendment as outdated, irrelevant, or possibly dangerous in today’s society. Others believe the founding fathers’ beliefs and reasons for including the right to bear arms are often misinterpreted resulting in a fight to protect its place in the Bill of Rights. The pushers for more gun laws and the NRA are in unending debate on whether or not the second amendment continues to be relevant today. In order to understand each side’s perspective, one must know the history of the second amendment, its evolution, and how it relates to today’s society. After the American Revolution, the founders set up a form of government under the Articles of Confederation. Eventually, this system used to run a nation would fail drastically thus leading to the formation of the Constitution of the United States of America. The founders saw the need for a stronger federal government and the Constitution embodied that concept much better than the Articles. However, the increase of the government’s powers was not a universally favorable idea. This sparked debate between the federalists and anti-federalists on whether or not the constitution should be ratified. While the federalists pushed for the ratification of the constitution, the anti-federalists believed the government should have limitations placed on it thatShow MoreRelatedEssay about The Debate Over Gun Control1274 Words   |  6 Pagesthe United States of America, we as people have certain guaranteed rights, and one of those is the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states, â€Å"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.† This amendment has been a crucial issue throughout the history of this country a nd still continues to be of vital importance today. Today there are several conflicts with this amendment the 1st being a law-abidingRead MoreCapital Punishment And The Death Penalty1708 Words   |  7 Pagesjustice to the people. However, many people see the death penalty as a brutal action which no human should have to face, guilty or innocent. After the death penalty travelled around the world, it became very popular in America leading to many Supreme Court cases and protests. Endlessly, people have argued their viewpoints about whether the death penalty is constitutional in relation to the 8th amendment which states no â€Å"cruel or unusual† punishment. Politicians from every state including Harry ReidRead MorePersuasive Essay On Gun Control1308 Words   |  6 Pagesof your surroundings. suddenly you hear footsteps quickly approaching you from behind. when you turn around you see a masked man with a knife. You have only 5 seconds to act, what do you do. This situation can happen to anyone. Fortunately there is an easy solution in this situation. if you had a sidearm you could draw it in that 5 seconds and ward away the attacker. Wouldn t you feel safer with a firearm? Because, i know for a fact i would be. The United States has always been a firm believer ofRead MoreAnalysis Of Allah Hu Akbar 1089 Words   |  5 Pagesâ€Å"God is great.† The media is wrongly portraying Muslims as terrorists, Muslims follow the religion of Islam and since the attacks of 9/11 on the twin towers. Muslims, especially in America, are suffering from discrimination from babies being forced off domestic flights to American Muslims who were denied the second amendment of bearing arms. Even famous musicians have been denied entry in the U.S because of their Islamic name, and Muslims not being served un-opened cans of Coca-Cola as â€Å"it could be usedRead More Prevent Coercive Prayer In Public Schools Essay1392 Words   |  6 Pages Prevent Coercive Prayer in Public Schools The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads: quot;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.quot; This amendment, commonly called the Establishment Clause, forms the foundation of the right of every American to practice their chosen religion freely and without the interference of the government. In 1947, the Supreme Court issued a statement emphasizingRead MoreShould Public Debt Be A Nation?944 Words   |  4 Pagesopinion, America is currently struggling greatly in advancing ourselves as a nation. With that being said, 2016 is a special year due to the fact we have the obligation of electing a new president. Numerous amounts of people will be voting for their reputable parties; meanwhile, countless amounts of people will cast their vote for who they personally like. However, the vast majority of the population doesn’t look into the legitimate issues our nation currently possesses. Citizens should be lookingRead MoreDo Guns Necessarily Lead to Crime Essay1244 Words   |  5 Pageshistory for as long as people can remember. For most individuals guns are supposed to be very dangerous and unsafe; Though, that is not true. Guns can be hazardous, but only if they are in the wrong hands. Owning a gun is a right that every American should take pride in having. Guns are used for self-protection, hunting, law enforcement and other practices. However, recent incidents, like mass shootings, have caused a change in opinions and demand for gun control. Obama’s proposals sought to reformRead MoreMapp V. Ohio ( 1961 )1619 Words   |  7 Pagesthe Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures,† which cannot be used in the law on the state level or in criminal prosecutions in state courts, and in addition, federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts (MAPP v. OHIO. They Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.) The Supreme Court successfully completed this by use of selective incorporation. In Mapp the association was within the incorporation of the provisions, of the Fourth Amendment which areRead MoreThe First Ammendment and Dealing with the Separation of Church and State1741 Words   |  7 Pagessupporting the teaching of creationism in public schools. It appears the United States government has had a history of favoring Christianity. The United States governments favoritism of Christianity is a clear violation of the First Amendment. This amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There is another reference to religion in Article 6, Section 3. This clause states the United States and the severalRead MoreEffects Of The School On Presidential Races1465 Words   |  6 Pagesdiffer over its worth as a preserver of federalism or as an obstacle to the rule of one-individual, one-vote. All spectators concur, in any case, that at regular intervals the voters of America should be helped to remember the ins and outs of the Electoral College framework before they cast their tally for President. How It Works: Americans pick their President in a confused arrangement of steps that have advanced from Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, through different corrections, government