Guess those of Salen forgot as well🤣

@@33_milly93 lol

Please do not be confused - if you frame 'love' in the right way (from the perspective that love is absent, or that love is directed towards the wrong person or institution or ideology), everything I talk about is about love - I just haven't used that word specifically! This is a society in which collective love is absent. It is a society in which love for power, revenge and ideology inhibits love for one's neighbours. It is a story about the capacity for mass hysteria (or fear) to obstruct communal love. And perhaps most significantly, it is a story about the potential for a flawed individual (such as Proctor) to be redeemed by loving their own moral integrity (and legacy) more than they love their own life.

Means a lot that you noticed that perspective!

Thank you so much, glad it helped :)

Thank you!

Thank you so much!

100%. Listen closely to how this video describes the cycle of power - what it's essentially saying is how power is CORRUPTIBLE. The play explores this in the context of a theocracy; that is, in a society where power lies in a hierarchy of religious values. Consider how fear is leveraged to serve the corrupt motivations of different individuals throughout the play; whether it's Abigail, Reverend Hale or the judges. These people betray truth in order to pursue self-serving objectives: the corruption of truth, morality and integrity.

Also, try not to view 'themes' as mutually exclusive and be sure to look to the substance of what is being said rather than being caught up on the specific words used; just because the word 'corruption' isn't explicitly mentioned here, the entire video is about corruption!

Perhaps, but that also has problems. Who would lead these lines of power? Eventually, people want to be guided, and people want to guide, but people are also corruptible. It's about ensuring enough democratic safeguards are in place (which cannot be overcome by people in power) so that the extent to which power could be exploited is greatly limited and quickly exposed.

@@jeddle Nobody would rule, that is the point. I don't necessarily see your point that humans desire to be ruled. Certainly people desire to teach and to learn from others, but the capacity to learn, teach and take advice are a far cry from leadership. Think about it. In, say, your own personal group of friends, there is likely no explicit "leader" (what would a friend group with an autocratic, authoritarian leader even look like?), though you may be willing to learn and take advice from one another. I believe that it should be in the hands of communities as a whole, as well as their individual members, to participate in the running and development of themselves.

@@erinv3492 I completely see your point, however I think in reality it can be very hard to execute what you're suggesting at scale. Certain matters, for instance, national security, will lead to certain powers and responsibilities being granted to certain people at some point. I think democratic representation, which is subject to substantial democratic safeguards that transcend the power of any individual or group, offers a decent solution. But this is certainly something I am far from an expert on, so appreciate your perspective!

@@jeddle In a world without nations, or power structures to exploit, what would national security even be necessary for? What would, say, a spy who desired to topple a city which operated without hierarchies even do? Go to the democratically organised community defence group and suggest actively foolish things? If the question is to defend against an army, then, as we can see in the real world, there are many who are willing to take up arms and lay down their lives in order to defend their homes and those that they care about, and there need not necessarily be any hierarchies in such a locally organised system. And no, having a group of strategists does not count as a hierarchy, if there is nothing to enforce their authority. Honestly, I believe that such a society would be more secure against outside threats than a large-scale representative republic, as we have now, as there are structures to exploit. What do you think?

🤔 the best one I can think of: ignitehsc.com.au

So kind, thank you Gen :)

Not rude at all! Have taught English literature for 7 years to thousands of students (privately and in groups) and undertook an in-depth study of this particular text before presenting this :) Insofar as the quality of my teaching is concerned, you’ll have to watch the video and be the judge!

@@jeddle thanks sir, i am studying this book soon so these videos are very useful ! thanks again :)