Government according to Hume was inadequate because it suffered from not being either a full monarchy or a full republic. Government today has improved because It has axed off those two conflicting offices. Though the monarchy still stands it is largely symbolic and holds no real power or sway over the people. Government doesn't have to cater to a monarchy. The people do also get a bit of a voice through their representatives. I believe Locke would agree with the social contract setup by government and the people, even though it is a bit frightening. We, the people, have given up a lot of our independence and privacy in order to be protected by our governments. According to Locke this is exactly what should happen, the people should give themselves over to a just government. It is the price we pay.

I think both Swift and Fielding would detest social media and see it for the fraud that it is. I think they would see how superficial it is and abhor the idea that people are only pretending to live and do as opposed to actually doing.

A modest Proposal:

Much like we have see and eye dogs I believe we should have see and eye homeless people. Homeless may be inconvenient they clutter the streets as we walk and beg for resources like food and clothing. Perhaps we supply them these things in an effort to acquire their servitude. The see and eye homeless will assist those who need it. They will clean, cook, pick up groceries and wash cares. No longer will they crowd around on our streets and not give back to society. No longer will they ask for things they haven't earned.

Im not sure if I formulated this proposal right. My intent was to show to absurdity of having homeless people on the streets while there are so many people that need help in homes. People can barter their help and receive basic necessities. things that we freely supply to animals. I know homelessness is not necessarily all due to joblessness but this is for the portion it applies to. There isnt much humor but I find homelessness hard to joke about.

Journalism



I believe there is a major difference in journalism. The first difference is consumption. In the 18th century journalism was one of the only mediums used to get news out to the masses. Now there are multiple mediums available to get information out. When I write for a public audience my voice changes dependent upon who I am writing for. I like to laugh therefore I like to make others laugh. I don't subscribe wholesale to Dryden's definition of wit so sometimes my public voice is raunchy and bold. Other times my public voice must remain professional, tight, and controlled. When writing for an assignment I still attempt to keep humor in my voice I just make sure I follow as closely to the proper literary conventions as I can.
Journalism is now not only a source of entertainment and new it is also a source of advertisement. Not only selling services and necessities i would argue that the majority of journalism aim is to convince the general public to buy something. I would not have said the same of journalism in the 18th century.

To begin discussing Dryden and Pope's take on wit I think I must first discuss structure. While both are considered major touch stones in 18th century poetry I do believe there is a fundamental difference in the construction of the works which according to J.M. Robertson is essential to understanding the work. The fact that the Dunciad was written and edited over the course of Pope's lifetime both influences and may change the meaning of the work. Dryden's Mc Flecknoe was not written in such a way. Dryden spoke as an authority on wit, his opinion did not seemingly evolve over time. His opinion being that vulgarity and aggressiveness was not needed to convey true wit. From my understanding of Pope, I believe he would disagree, kind of. Pope seems to be of the opinion that the works impact and critics play a part in determining what a work will mean over time. The work itself can be anything. It does not necessarily have to follow any pre-prescribed formula or pattern to be deemed great or of proper wit. This seems to be evidenced by the following lines written in An Essay on Criticism:

Some beauties yet no precepts can declare,
For there's a happiness as well as care.
. . .
Some lucky license answers to the full
The intent proposed, that license is a rule.
Thus Pegasus, a nearer way to take,
May boldly deviate from the common track
Great wits sometimes may gloriously offend
And rise to faults true critics dare not mend:

The Amorous Lady was a wonderful poem. I truly enjoyed it. In this poem an anonymous woman argues for her right to be a creative artist with no constraints. The poem points out how people were taught with strict rules and guidelines about how to write. The amorous woman rejects all of the standard conventions an refuses to follow those rules. I appreciate this poem. The idea that a woman, even an anonymous woman decided to stand up to the patriarchy and assert herself in such a bold manner is exciting. During discussion it was said that this particular piece was published outside of Europe on the islands specifically. This to me shows how infested with men the publishing scene was during those days. I doubt such a poem would have published in Europe even if it had been submitted.

In England men appear to dominate the literary scene. Not only dominate but set the tone and the rules for what is and is not proper. Amorous Lady is a glorious poem that spits in the face of what is and is not proper. The woman that crafted this piece is not only fighting for the right to make artistic decisions as she chooses she is also fighting for freedom. This may seem like a stretch for some but I do not think so. Women have been taught conformity since the beginning of time. To buck against those standards and refuse to live and act as one chooses is a fight for freedom. My reaction to this poem is pleased. I was pleased by seeing such and assertion of equanimity from a woman so many years ago. Also by publishing outside of England this woman shows ingenuity. Not only is she taking steps to free herself from conformity she is also finding avenues to make her actions public. She will not be free in silence. The publishing of the piece shows other women what standing up for oneself and ones craft looks like.

John Locke

John Locke belief initially is that everyone must be on an equal playing field. Locke described the quest for  knowledge as a journey. The process of seeking knowledge being the most important part of the process. Locke's thought process was convoluted and confusing I will attempt to break down some of the major concepts as I understand them. Determinate changes: According to Locke determinate things  are fixed. Like a table and chair. Yet dependent upon the mind that conjures the thought the same table and chair can mean any number of things. Because of this we as communicators must strive for words that have more universal and concrete meaning.
Most of Locke's writings seemed to be in response to the world around him. The monarchy was losing power at the time of some of Locke's musings. This allowed Locke to " lean unto [his] own understanding. Locke determined that reason and religion were antithetical to finding truth. In order to find truth we need to discuss determinate ideas using clear and concise language. The antithesis of this is religion.
Locke believed in natural law,  natural law being we eat and we reproduce,  unchangeable. In the natural order of things only man has the ability to think land reason therefore wo/man is the superior being because we were born human under natural law.
 Locke’s ideas helped England to set the basis for our legal system, today. Laws at that time were
not codified at the time but due to his way of thinking we were allowed to set in stone some procedures and laws that were concrete and sseperated from enthusiasm.
majority rule separation of legislative etc. right to life liberty and property natural law discovered by reason alone god laws only to whom it is revealed

Lockes ideas also helped to spark the flames of a budding revolution. He believed absolute monarchy is inconsistent with each man born with natural rights. Men only gave them up with tactical consent or when they joined a civilized society.



.