Despite already having finished it and not being able to change it, i was curious how on earth everyone else attempted this question,
i mean in retrospect it says freedom is important to two binary opposites the individual and society (without capitals as the module) yet intimdation is crucial.
the majority of ppl in my class focused on the individual aspiring to freedom yet pressured to confrom through society's intimidation.
Where as i personally read it as freedom yeah that means inidividaul its at the heart of the individual , while intimidation is crucial. i saw it as the individual's utilisation of intimidation to pressure society to modernise, to transform and change.
are we both right?
anyone have something different or original or are both theories wrong?
the question was ridiculous beacuse freedom is at the heart oft eh concept yet intimidation on the part of the individual isnt important at all - yet we couldnt argue this due to the question being "the extent" to which ......
thoughts?
i mean in retrospect it says freedom is important to two binary opposites the individual and society (without capitals as the module) yet intimdation is crucial.
the majority of ppl in my class focused on the individual aspiring to freedom yet pressured to confrom through society's intimidation.
Where as i personally read it as freedom yeah that means inidividaul its at the heart of the individual , while intimidation is crucial. i saw it as the individual's utilisation of intimidation to pressure society to modernise, to transform and change.
are we both right?
anyone have something different or original or are both theories wrong?
the question was ridiculous beacuse freedom is at the heart oft eh concept yet intimidation on the part of the individual isnt important at all - yet we couldnt argue this due to the question being "the extent" to which ......
thoughts?