/lit/ - Literature

>>16881799
Most of it was drawn from Economy and Society, not Protestant Ethic. But ES is very eclectic and not entirely cohesive work, so i think it's something to be read in parts rather than cover-to-cover. The most important parts in my opinion is the entirety of Part One, then for Part Two chapters I, II, IV, VII, IX, X, XI, and XIV. But it contains within it practically independant works (part two, chapter VI is a book length section on the sociology of religion, then VIII on Economy and Law). Useful if you're interested in those subjects, but otherwise not all that important for the central point.

>>16869141
I remember you mentioning it in another thread. I'm looking forward to reading it.

>>16742158
>>16742163
>>16742182
These aren't really what i'm looking for. Oxford Handbooks don't contain key articles but rather commissioned chapters on general topics. If i were to read that kind of survey, i'd rather it be a monograph than simply a chapter. Though, they may be a useful springboard for finding the key authors, texts, and articles. Thanks anyway.

That actual text—that is, the excerpts from Rousseau that are being discussed—is his first discourse. Which was okay, but it was really just the 'dignity of poverty' meme you see echoing through political thought rehashed.

Phaedrus and Gorgias.

>>16560735
>>16560984
>>16561652
>>16564508
Thank you all for the kind words.

Unfortunately i haven't read Spinoza (yet) so forgive me if my comments are misguided.
By Priority i assume he means metaphysical priority. Think of it like a grounding claim. So in modal parlance, there is no possible world where form exists but substance does not. Presumably, there is a possible world where substance exists but form does not. As long as you are not a Platonist about properties, i think this is an intuitive position. Substance itself is somewhat mysterious and difficult to imagine. I guess imagine the universe after heat-death—there would be no form, but presumably there would be something left over, and that something is substance (space time? I don't know that much about physics) Distinguishing between particular forms and Form may be useful. Something can lose and gain forms without changing its underlying substance, but still have Form. For example, you can mold a piece of clay into a vase or a statue or whatever. But in every case, the clay itself doesn't change. The clay has a Form in all cases, but there is no single form that doesn't exist without it, and does not exist contingently (where as the clay in all cases exists necessarily). So perhaps Spinoza doesn't consider Form in the universal sense, but forms as particulars (again, i haven't read him so don't take my word for it)
If we consider it similar to bundle theory, the substance/thin-particular is that which must exist for properties to attach to. Necessarily, this substance cannot itself be a property as otherwise it be included in the bundle. If a bundle is capable of losing and gaining properties, then, through diminution, we would have to assume that it can survive the striping of all its properties and relations. Form, intuitively, is either a property or a relation. I assume being a monist you have to adopt some kind of embodied universals rather than free-floating universals. Substance is that monistic 'thing' which all things are. So if properties aren't embodied within substance, they do not exist at all. Substance, being capable of self-generation, needs not to have form to bring itself about.
But honestly it is difficult to say much without having read Spinoza. Take this all as mere speculation.
This was just a drawn out way of bumping your thread.

>>16544702
What context do you want to write it in?
>>16544631
As long as you know the limitations of the method of inquiry, there is nothing wrong with political science. It has its own virtues.