Our class discussion about why More chose to write Utopia in such a conversational tone
that mixes fiction and non-fiction has stuck with me. As a lover of language and
the power of words, I find it extremely interesting to discover how a piece was
accepted by its contemporaries as well as those of us reading it today. I think
that in certain cases that these two concepts interact in an exciting and
intriguing way. To me it is mind boggling that a piece of writing about issues
that were relevant over five hundred years ago can still be applicable today.
In many ways it also makes me sad to face the reality that many of the wrongs
of More’s time have still yet to be righted in our own time. It also works simultaneously to transport us
back into More’s society where he could not speak freely about his ideas
without fear of punishment. In a strange way it both connects and separates us
from them.
In dealing with the content of Utopia specifically, I find myself agreeing with More’s ideas more
often than disagreeing. I also am far more appreciative of the humorous and
informal narrative over our previous dissertations. This actually illuminates
an interesting point. Perhaps I am not solely more inclined to agree with More,
but I appreciate his delivery so I feel less negativity towards his ideas. What
is a specific section then that stand out to me as troublesome?
Like a blaring red light, More’s alternative suggestion for
the punishment of thieves sticks out to me in the text. I appreciated his
earlier consideration and concern for the poor and how and why they’ve become
poor. With this introduction into the topic I expected More’s solution to be
more compassionate and humane. However, his proposal to commit the man who
steals to a life of hard labor does not strike me as a punishment comparable to
the crime. More does make it clear that “If he works hard, he’s not treated at
all badly. He has to answer to roll-call every morning, and he’s locked up for
the night-but otherwise, apart from having to work very long hours, he has a
perfectly comfortable life” (30). Throughout class discussion I came to a
better, or more appropriate, realization that in More’s time period that this
was considered a kind punishment. But for me it begs the question about what
makes life worth living? In theory this punishment is acceptable because the
man will have shelter and food to eat. However, he will be kept from his
family, possessions and likely any form of entertainment or pleasure. In this
case is his life really of any worth to him? Or is his worth being measured by
his servitude to his country? I know that this is a place where past merges
with present and the cultures and times are different. Still, I think that in a
small way this concept is one way to look at whether or not we are making
decisions that are for the benefit of the one or the whole.
Image #1: http://salesmomsnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Speak-Your-Mind.jpg
Image #2: http://nearemmaus.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/gadamerpicture.jpeg
Image #3: http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/cartoon-meaning-of-life.jpg
I really liked the way that you worded this. There is something about the way that he presents these issues and the solution to them that makes the reader appreciate what he has to say.The punishment of hard labor for a theif is reasonable in my opinion because the penalty in More's time wouldve been death so either way, I feel like the person who committed theft would have been equally worthless to his family, I mean what would he be able to do for his family if he were dead?
ReplyDelete