[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 330 KB, 588x223, 1576142274753.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16034418 No.16034418 [Reply] [Original]

Who was right?

>> No.16034438

>>16034418
None. Governance is distraction from truth and government being the imbuance of truth particularly through the masses is a clear issue which we don't afford as a measure for anything except it and economics.

>> No.16034441

>>16034418
De Maistre.

>> No.16034458

50% Hobbes, 40% Locke, 10% Rousseau

>> No.16034466

Rousseau.

>> No.16034475

>>16034418
their moms

>> No.16034479

>>16034466
The only wrong answer

>> No.16034583

DON'T TELL ME WHAT I CAN'T DO!!!!!

>> No.16034618

>>16034418
Rousseau was right about the state of nature.
Locke was right about the function of government.
Hobbes was right about everything else.

>> No.16034622

>>16034418
Vico

>> No.16034627
File: 52 KB, 500x500, artworks-000056442567-npve3r-t500x500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16034627

Find out

>> No.16034673

>>16034458
Based. Found myself agreeing mostly with Hobbes but he was too pessimistic. Rousseau was naive but had some worthwhile ideas.

>>16034466
Cringe. Are you a 17 year old Marxist?

>> No.16034689

>>16034418

Spinoza

>> No.16034751
File: 35 KB, 324x499, 51x8ErJCtxL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16034751

All of them.

>> No.16035241

>>16034418
De Jouvenel

>> No.16035320

>>16034479
No he's the only correct answer.

>> No.16035363

>>16034418
None of them because liberalism and the enlightenment are and were fake and gay

>> No.16035364

>>16035363
>>16035241
This

>> No.16035370

>>16035363
idk anon, seem to have gotten pretty popular, and if we go by survival of the fittist...

>> No.16035382

>>16034441
and Filmer

>> No.16035397 [DELETED] 

>>16035370
That's circular reasoning

>> No.16035406

>>16035370
That's just question begging

>> No.16035418

>>16034418
Hobbes, obviously; though he was wrong about all men being equal. If a literal retard can have me killed by gaining sympathy from a group of other people, he is not my equal - though this is the logiv that Hobbes uses.

>> No.16035437

>>16035363
Why do morons who haven't even read the texts respond to the thread? This post shows zero understand of... anything. kys.

>> No.16035462

>>16035418
hobbes's definition of equality has nothing to do with status or worth. he simply meant that in the state of nature everyone is equally capable of killing anyone else. this equality implies that the strongest man is not strong enough to be be fearless, and the weakest man is not weak enough to be unable to compete. it's a free-for-all where everybody has a chance to gain something at the cost of someone else.

it was locke that introduced the definition of equality that we commonly hold today, since locke's ideas were so influential in building the liberal democracies we live in presently.

>> No.16035673

>>16034458
Pretty much but I'd hesitate to give Rousseau even 10%.

>> No.16036134

>>16034418
Rousseau
>Instant seeth from Burgers and Rosbifs
based

>> No.16036139
File: 154 KB, 553x460, 00F55E18-4CBA-4533-94E0-D74881F4705C.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16036139

>>16034418
Yer mum