/lit/ - Literature

Yo Transcendental, do you know what Kant means by 'empirical consciousness' in this passage, B144:
>A manifold that is contained in an intuition that I call mine is represented as belonging to the necessary unity of self-consciousness through the synthesis of the understanding, and this takes place by means of the category. This indicates, therefore, that the empirical consciousness of a given manifold of one intuition stands under a pure a priori self-consciousness, just as empirical intuitions stand under a pure sensible one, which likewise holds a priori.

>>14620329
>Liberal orthodox
>liberal
>orthodox

>>14484265
not that anon, but it would be from economy and society. that said, i don't think weber's ideas overlap yours much at all though.

>>14432023
what rousseau wanted to do with the social contract was to preserve an equality and liberty between citizens free from arbitrary domination. to do this, he needed a method of transforming 'natural liberty' and 'natural equality' into 'civil liberty' and 'civil equality'—the solution he came up with was a social contract founded on 'the general will'. the general will is 'the good will of all directed towards the good of all', and is meant to serve as the sovereign of any political community. what this basically means is that if any decision made by the government is to be legitimate, it must be in accords with the general will: that is, the good of all, as any rational individual would will it if they were free if their particular will. by submitting to the general will, each citizen is equal with each other (because everyone has submitted to it, from beggar to prince), and retains their freedom as the general will is necessarily their own 'best' will. the general will is to be contrasted with the particular will and the corporate will, which are wills made by individual or corporate interests towards their own end, at the expense of the rest of the community; the reason rousseau didn't like hobbes' social contract is because he thought it was founded only on the particular will of each individual towards their own self-preservation, with no regards to the good of all. to be clear, this talk about the general and particular will relates to political matters, not everyday life. it would be kant who made it an individual maxim. so in the case of the transfer of property, it is wrong for the monarch because they are operating on self interest at the expense of all (particular will), whereas transfer of property made under the general will is definitionally for the good of all, and hence legitimate. rousseau is notoriously contradictory on certain issues, or at least he is accused of being. if you have any other questions, feel free to ask.