The philosophical ethics of Game Of Thrones
Hobbes, an English philosopher, believes mankind's nature to be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short as described in his book, The Leviathan.
This is why people adhere to social contracts (ceding some rights in return for protection from a governing body) in order to avoid a crippling struggle.
This is a professional note extracted from an online article.
Read more efficiently
Save what inspires you
The 'Show, don't tell' rule is especially pertinent when it comes to immoral acts.
Until a book becomes moving pictures, any moral issue with it doesn't seem to reach national press levels, because it shows these contentious issues to a wider audience. If you show the act, but don't tell anyone what to think about it, the fact that an author or film-maker hasn't clanged down a big sign saying 'And this is bad' is tantamount to advocation.
A Song of Ice and Fire might very well deliberately echo Leviathan. The notion that, without protection from the Iron Throne, the land falls into an every-man-for-himself struggle does echo the ideas laid down in Leviathan.
From a purely technical point-of-view, a subtext is good.
From a moral point-of-view, it depends on what that subtext is.
Your subtext can be as clever or as repulsive as you want, because most people just want to be entertained.
SIMILAR ARTICLES & IDEAS:
It's a cold-war set in space, with politics aligning towards left of center. It showcases the dangers of nationalism, with great leaders ending up causing enormous damage and harm because of th...
It's focuses on the survivors of humans in devastated colony worlds. The politics of this series reflect the left-wing reaction to the war on terror, stressing on the significance of democracy and civilian leadership.
The old ‘70s series, and it’s newer remake have, surprisingly different political ideologies, with the same basic story line.
... which is based on George R.R. Martin’s book series "A Song Of Ice And Fire", addresses a range of diverse political issues.
Most of the people hungry for power are showcased as maniacs and reflect on the wrongdoings of global political elites and career politicians.
2 more ideas
It means focusing on and committing to the fundamentals, instead of wasting time, money, or energy on details.
A minimalistic approach can be applied to consumption, goals,...
Obtaining a new possession often creates a spiral of consumption which leads you to acquire more new things.
As a result, we end up buying things that our previous selves never needed to feel happy or fulfilled.
When it comes to getting things done, options aren’t always a good thing.
When everything is a possibility, it actually becomes harder to make the right choice. Meanwhile, when we place a constraint on ourselves, it can become much easier to get something done.
2 more ideas
Machiavelli ends his treatise The Prince invoking a "redeemer" who shall save enslaved Italy from the domination of foreign powers that have left her gravely wounded and "almost without...
Her character development throughout the seasons unfolds within a dynamic that probes fundamental questions of politics and leadership.
Machiavelli examined the same questions in the 16th century in his treatise, The Prince. Daenerys may be a version of the redeemer he talk about in his treaty.
First instruction to maintain power and preserve order: The prince does not have free range to conduct evil, but must strive for goodness as the primary measure of actions.
Daenerys gives conquered soldiers a choice: "Bend the knee and join me. Together, we will leave the world a better place than we found it. Or refuse and die."
4 more ideas