I liked the thought on page 236 after talking about Hobbes and Rousseau’s different views of nature that different views reveal “much more about the observer than about what is objectively out there.” This made me think about how I see nature, and how we ought to function as a society, and more importantly, why I think that way.
Personally, I believe in a limited government role in civilian life, and that the government should be able and willing to protect the rights of its citizens. This isn’t because I’m a staunch Malthusian; it’s because I don’t believe that most politicians enter into power with the intent to uphold the values of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, nor do I believe that governments tend to spend money as efficiently as a business.
But I have to recognize that that viewpoint is largely shaped by the context I’ve grown up in. I’ve grown up into a political climate of disproportional corporate influence, loss of civil liberties in the name of security, and constant gridlock between parties that refuse to acknowledge the fact that we are nearly $19 trillion in debt. Others have probably recognized the same things and come to different conclusions. For example, if you support Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, you probably do trust a large, centralized government to address issues efficiently, but recognize the same problems I do with the current establishment. So many of us just want to solve the issues we see, and because of that we might have common ground despite pitting ourselves against each other.
This is an interesting reflection; in a sense, rather than espouse an ideological belief in how important it is for institutions to constrain, control, and direct human populations towards higher levels of accomplishment and efficiency, you view that capitalism by “nature” will lead to a more favorable result. We share the common ground: we all want to get problems solved. But we differ in the varying levels we put in the corporate sector, the public sector, and ideals such as the “common good” and the “invisible hand.” And all of this hinges won what we think of as the “natural” tendency of human beings and of society–which isn’t “natural” at all, but just a way we use ideas of “nature” (self-evidently true, “just there,” etc) to justify various instances of culture. Or that’s at least, what our fair authors would say.
Quick tip: in these posts, I know you’re talking to a very specific audience (our class) but try to direct the “voice” of the post to a broader audience. This means you need to introduce ideas more fully rather than just give a page number.