Should I read any prerequisites before reading the Leviathan, IQfy?
 |
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
Should I read any prerequisites before reading the Leviathan?
Comments are closed.
Should I read any prerequisites before reading the Leviathan, IQfy?
|
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
Comments are closed.
Does he BTFO libertarians and ancaps?
no because darwin basically btfo all his assumptions. if the humanity did not cooperate and some sort of ethics were not ingrained we would've never made it here. hobbes thinks the mayhem without the centralized government is a hell no one escapes from, but today we know that is precisely what humanity have made it out of.
So the government is bad in his view?
no, what I am saying is he failed in his mission to btfo ancaps.
>humanity made it out of darwinian mayhem by forming centralized governments
How does this btfo him?
very poor and silly way to look at it. history of centralized governments are fairly new, at no point they were there to help humanity in the dark hell of prehistoric times of carnage. they are unnatural, newly formed parasites.
What a hobbesian analysis of history
Humanity was at its most hierarchical prior to society
So you think family was an uncentralized form of ruling?
it was certainly more decentralized.
It absolutely wasn't. It is much more today. Read for instance Fustel de Coulanges' book.
Darwin’s problem (and also Hobbes by extension) failed to understand that humans neither cooperate or conflict with one another but only do so for individual gains, which ever one is optimal. At the end of the day, what benefits the subject is what’s most important.
>humans neither cooperate or conflict with one another but only do so for individual gains, which ever one is optimal
This is literally Hobbes' point.
Lmao you didn't read either Darwin or Hobbes
Yeah it’s called going backward. Are you moronic??
The Pineapple War by Thoosidudees
You don't really need to read anything before reading Hobbes.
Ideally you should be aware of both the historical and philosophical contexts in which the work emerged. Reading about how the Reformation led up to the religious wars and then through ecclesiastical and theological scepticism to the rise of philosophical scepticism will give you a very solid background to put in place Hobbes's thought.
Some Descartes and the first few chapters of Burtt's Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science would be helpful
Also Dialogue on the Two World Systems and maybe Husserl's Origin of Geometry
Absolutely no prerequisites are needed for Hobbes. He is an exceptionally original thinker who was mostly working out of his own thoughts .
He was profoundly in dialogue with the new science and mathematics, which is why he felt the liberty to work out his own thoughts. He felt that the scholastic tradition was completely discredited and it was open season for just re-thinking everything.
Some passages from Aristotle’s Politics wouldn’t hurt.
How about post-requisites, things that you read after the Leviathan?
He's mentioned in Graeber's "Debt. First 5000 years" book:
> ... Thomas Hobbes, whose Leviathan, published in 1651, was in many ways an extended attack on the very idea that society is built on any sort of prior ties of communal solidarity.
> Hobbes’ ultimate argument—that humans, being driven by self-interest, cannot be trusted to treat each other justly of their own accord, and therefore that society only emerges when they come to realize that it is to their long-term advantage to give up a portion of their liberties and accept the absolute power of the King—differed little from arguments that theologians like Martin Luther had been making a century earlier. Hobbes simply substituted scientific language for biblical references.
I don't remember where I heard it, but somewhere I heard the idea that Hobbes' main point in Leviathan, about people being inherently unfriendly towards each-other and prone to war and chaos - he came to that conclusion under the impression of the events that he was a witness of.
He witnessed war and chaos and concluded that people are inherently prone to war and chaos. That's where he's not right.
Post-requisites being the Appendix to Part 4 of Spinoza’s Ethics, Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality, Hegel’s Elements of the Philosophy of Right, and Marx’s Contribution to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.
Wow thanks for wiping out the very small interest I had in Graeber. Also, I think it is obvious that man has always engaged in war, like isn't this one of the main causes for Neanderthal extinction? Like we were doing this even before our own actual species.
> Wow thanks for wiping out the very small interest I had in Graeber.
weird flex but ok
> Also, I think it is obvious that man has always engaged in war
yeah, and you're writing it while sitting in the trenches, right?
or maybe you're chatting with me while piloting a war plane?
what if your beliefs become self-fulfilling prophecies?
why believe in everyone being everyone elses enemy unless you want an atomized people without the sense of community?
It was not a flex, but ignoring the historical and philosophical background of Hobbes' time and reducing it to a Bible mania is awful.
>yeah, and you're writing it while sitting in the trenches, right? or maybe you're chatting with me while piloting a war plane?
Not even Hobbes said it was 24/7 war engagement, what a dumb rejoinder. Also, the formation of the State or of any sovereignty making this rule of warfare diminish and change from the internal to external was Hobbes' point.
> ignoring the historical and philosophical background of Hobbes' time and reducing it to a Bible mania is awful.
Graeber was talking about where the notion of self-interest comes from in the context of that quote.
He's not reducing it to Bible mania, he's saying that they are both claiming the same thing each from their own perspective, one is religious, another materialistic.
> Not even Hobbes said it was 24/7 war engagement, what a dumb rejoinder. Also, the formation of the State or of any sovereignty making this rule of warfare diminish and change from the internal to external was Hobbes' point.
In other words, it's a matter of fantasizing, imagining, highlighting what you want to highlight and ignoring what goes against the fantasy.
He is. He is not taking into account the scientific and philosophical crisis of scepticism, which involved everyone in the European intellectual milieu from the last part of the Renaissance to the late 17th century. It has nothing to do directly with Luther (Luther causes issues even to our day, so obviously there is some connection between the two), it is not just a materialistic rendering of a Luther's religious views or whatever, this is just moronic.
You said: ''he saw war and inferred people are bad''. Jesus fricking hell. I won't even address this, this is just too ridiculous, like read a history book. But Hobbes' worry concerning civil war was due to his insight that theological principles will beget skepticism and obstruct political, practical principles.
You are tripping on such a small detail for some reason.
Graeber doesn't say that Hobbes was trying to preach Luther's word or something. He just notes that there is a similarity between their ideas.
He is not claiming that Hobbes was influenced only by Luther and nothing else.
> You said: ''he saw war and inferred people are bad''.
yeah, I heard it somewhere, don't remember where I heard that.
idk, you're essentially saying the same thing only with more words.
the point is that he witnessed concrete circumstances and extrapolated from them and made a universal claim.
that's the problem with him.
First, concerning the fact of the historical relevance of the religious and English civil wars in Europe for Hobbes (what he witnessed), this was not the fact from which he inferred constant war, anyone knows war has always been present, people wrote about wars happening in their times since the fricking Egyptians and Sumerians. Hobbes’ point is that religious beliefs and theological reasonings don’t serve as political principles because in practice they generate conflict. This was what he took from the times he lived in and from which he could construct the principles for the reason of the State.
His views on man as prone to violence and chaos was grounded on his Empirical materialism.
So I’ll quote the guy directly again:
>was in many ways an extended attack on the very idea that society is built on any sort of prior ties of communal solidarity
This was not even true since Hobbes’ atomistic individuals can be led by natural reason to form groups and societies in order to increase their chances of living more. The point was that these groups wouldn’t live in the peace modern States do today.
I think it is pretty unintelligent to note similarity of so general an idea between two influential thinkers, like woa this guy thought people were egoistic and wooooah this other guy thought too and his influence was huge so like woa they so related. Why not trace this idea through empiricists, mechanicists? It would be much more interesting and worth taking of the reader’s time.
Looks like you just want to deny, deny, deny everything.
"No, he didn't say that. No, he didn't mean that. No, he wasn't influenced by the war that he witnessed"
What I'm more interested in is the main takeaway.
And for me the main takeaway is that he was too eager to make a universal claim and that was his mistake.
That claim became a meme and something like an archetype, that's why I'm more interested in it.
We could say that the natural state for humans is just chill.
"Just chill and relax, bro, plenty of food everywhere."
And then, when something happens, it changes to "oh no, something happened, let's move"
That's natural state for humans.
Why should I fantasize about people being constantly at each others throats all the time?
Universal claims are what generally follow from philosophical inquiries. You yourself showed you barely know where those universal claims come from, yet just want to affirm they were baseless, made by too eager a thinker.
You don’t seem smart and can only indeed be interested in memes and “archetypes”, in, as you say, “what you’ve heard from others”. The ideas themselves? Not so much.
The rest of your post confirms you didn’t understand my previous post, or you didn’t even read it, you just want to say thinkers you disagree with (or thinkers you’ve heard other people comment about) fantasize about things. Whatever, you are a waste.
you're too concerned with me and whether I'm stupid or not.
your posts seem too manipulative.
I started to talk about the main takeaway and suddenly you're not interested anymore.
look, it doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong, who's stupid and who's smart.
is there a basis for a claim that people are inherently enemies to each other?
and if some thinker writes a book claiming that but doesn't prove that and it all boils down to "because I said so" - then he can frick off, and you too if you want me to manipulate me into that mindset.
Just because you think humans are "good-natured" and "peaceable" doesn't mean they are.
History, in fact, begs to differ. This, even accounting prehistory which we have found many battlefields of archaeologically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_by_duration
Just because you list conflicts doesn't mean that you can make far-reaching conclusions about human nature and human condition.
Yes I can.
You mean you can fantasize? Of course you can.
You're the one fantasizing, schizo, I'm using logos for my arguments.
logos-shmogos
- Genesis
- Exodus
- Leviticus
- Numbers
- Deuteronomy
- Joshua
- Judges
- Ruth
- 1 Samuel
- 2 Samuel
- 1 Kings
- 2 Kings
- 1 Chronicles
- 2 Chronicles
- Ezra
- Nehemiah
- Esther
- Job
- Psalms
- Proverbs
- Ecclesiastes
- Song of Solomon
- Isaiah
- Jeremiah
- Lamentations
- Ezekiel
- Daniel
- Hosea
- Joel
- Amos
- Obadiah
- Jonah
- Micah
- Nahum
- Habakkuk
- Zephaniah
- Haggai
- Zechariah
- Malachi
- Matthew
- Mark
- Luke
- John
- Acts
- Romans
- 1 Corinthians
- 2 Corinthians
- Galatians
- Ephesians
- Philippians
- Colossians
- 1 Thessalonians
- 2 Thessalonians
- 1 Timothy
- 2 Timothy
No need, Spinoza and Pufendorf blew him the frick out anyway
Spinoza literally sucked Hobbes’ wiener.
Read Plato’s Crito because the book is essentially a Tl;Dr remake of that one.
Nope, is created with you in mind