/lit/ - Literature

Rousseau wont lay down his weapon for peace because he understands the dangers of society on natural man. And if Rousseau doesn't, neither will Leviathan. Hence throwing them into the warre of all against all where everyone has a right to everything, and in self-preservation, will fight ceaselessly.

>>16147147
>>16147440
>Berserk Forces playing in the background

>>16147440
ありがとう anon. Wasn't aware who the lil dude was.

>>16147147
Isn't the gif a battle between Locke and the Leviathan?

>>16147587
See >>16147440

>>16147587

No.... whole point of the post was that didn't make sense. Turns out lil guy is R.

>>16147147
thats a battle betwen either locke or rousseau against Hobbe’s idea of nature as inherently violent.

>>16147147
"I hope the Leviathan wins, but I hasten to add that I am in fact a Filmerite"

>>16147147
What cartoon is this from? A youtube vid?

>>16148003
It is /lit/ OC.

>>16147147
We need more /liti/

>>16148174

>>16148003
It’s a parody of metal gear rising revengeance

>>16148211
Nice

>>16148410

>>16147147
I interpret this image as the right for anyone to self-defend, even if they are being attacked by the (otherwise almost all-powerful) Sovereign. Wasn't it one of Hobbes' rules of nature that no-one can be forced willingly to give up their own life?

>>16148464
no.

>>16148464
>Wasn't it one of Hobbes' rules of nature that no-one can be forced willingly to give up their own life?
Yes.

>>16148464
>>16148493
i think you might have mixed something up. the sovereign still has right of life and death over the particulars of the body (indiviguals)

>>16148508
No, the sovereign breaks the social contract if they try to take the life of an individual under their power. Hobbes states specifically that an individual has the right to resist if the state attempts to kill them. If this thread is still up 6 hours from now I'll give you a direct quote, as I don't have access to my copy of Leviathan at the moment.

>>16148464

Rule 1 I think....too dark in my room to find my book :3

>>16148604
i dont deny that the infivigual has aright to resist, but i also think there is a specific oart where the sovereign can kill him anyways, its just its not necessary for the condemned to be willing.

>>16148604
What if the individual is a traitor, criminal, or anything similar? It will be their human nature to fight for their life against the sovereign, but the sovereign nevertheless has the right to destroy them, and citizens must uphold that right, to maintain the social contract.

>>16148279
This. You would think the [rules of nature] would tip people off.

>>16149202
The art style looks like Brad Neely's, thought he might have made something about Hobbes.

>>16147147
Wasn't Hobbes all about the function of society to being to oppose the state of nature?

>>16150053
no he was the stuffed tiger

>>16148917
>>16148949
Looking into it you're right. I was too hasty in saying that the sovereign doesn't have the right to kill a subject, rather that no one doesn't have the right to resist being killed by the sovereign. It's a minor distinction, but an important one. Once the intention of the state is to kill the subject, then enter into the state of warre where the individual can do all in their power to resist.
>For by that which has been said before, no man is supposed bound by Covenant, not to resist violence; and consequently it cannot be intended, that he gave any right to another to lay violent hands upon his person. In the making of a Common-wealth, every man giveth away the right of defending another; but not of defending himselfe. Also he obligeth himselfe, to assist him that hath the Soveraignty, in the Punishing of another; but of himselfe not. But to covenant to assist the Soveraign, in doing hurt to another, unlesse he that so covenanteth have a right to doe it himselfe, is not to give him a Right to Punish. It is manifest therefore that the Right which the Common-wealth (that is, he, or they that represent it) hath to Punish, is not grounded on any concession, or gift of the Subjects. But I have also shewed formerly, that before the Institution of Common-wealth, every man had a right to every thing, and to do whatsoever he thought necessary to his own preservation; subduing, hurting, or killing any man in order thereunto. And this is the foundation of that right of Punishing, which is exercised in every Common-wealth. For the Subjects did not give the Soveraign that right; but onely in laying down theirs, strengthned him to use his own, as he should think fit, for the preservation of them all: so that it was not given, but left to him, and to him onely; and (excepting the limits set him by naturall Law) as entire, as in the condition of meer Nature, and of warre of every one against his neighbour.
So the right to kill is the extension of an individuals right to do everything in their power to secure themselves, which the sovereign inherited through the social contract and second law of nature.
I was confusing it with the fact that the sovereign has no right to ask a person to kill themselves
>It is manifest that every subject has Liberty in all those things, the right whereof cannot by Covernant be transferred. I have shewn before in the Chapter, that Covenants, not to defend a mans own body, are voyd. Therefore, If the soverign command a man (though justly condemned,) to kill, wound, or mayme himselfe; or not to resist those that assult him; or to abstain from the use of food, ayre, medicine, or any other thing without which he cannot live; yet hath that man the liberty to disobey.
I'm sorry for misleading you all.

>>16147147
Post Leviathans