/lit/ - Literature

both are fucking stupid cunts

rousseau

>>7097060

Both are highly influential, but I consider Hobbes' Leviathan to have more impact on government and societal organization.

>>7097092

Does influence alone make Hobbes better? If he had his own way we'd all be living under absolutist monarchist rule right now (and writing about how wonderful R Dear Leader's balls taste rather than this nonsense).

Besides Rousseau was influential on the formation of the American and French republican governments - and by extension liberation movements in a broader sense.

>>7097060

Rousseau, probably, although the differences between the two is overplayed. The real juxtaposition is Hobbes and Locke.

>>7097107

True, but Rousseau's ideas seem highly implausible and naive. Also, it was Locke's version of the social contract and governmental organization that mainly inspired the 18th century Atlantic revolutions, together with Beccaria and Montesquieu. To me Rousseau's ideas illustrate the failed optimism and naivety of the Enlightenment.

>>7097118

B-b-ut liberty, freedum and noble savages!

>>7097111

Locke and Hobbes didn't have wildly differing worldviews, outside the question of monarchy, did they? (I might be wrong.)

>>7097136
>Locke and Hobbes didn't have wildly differing worldviews, outside the question of monarchy,

Hobbes's views could also be interpreted as an authoritarian and monarchical social contract. If were contrasting political views, I'd say Hobbes and 19th century anarchist philosophers like Bakunin.

Hobbes totalitarian views about humans nature made possible the contrast rousseau illustrate on his work, the individual rights, liberty as a form of education etc

Hobbesian realism is the dominant view in international relations, whether people recognize it or not. He was also a much better writer than Rousseau, and one of the best in the English language.

>>7097136

I was referring to the question of is man naturally good or evil; Locke thought man naturally had conceptions of justice, or at least, that he would in the state of nature. Rousseau one-upped them both with his historicized account.

>>7097118

Rousseau was anti-enlightenment, and deeply pessimistic about the possibility of political regeneration; if you read his actual practical recommendations on politics (on Poland and Corsica) he's somewhat conservative. In fact, to me, the second discourse is more akin to a naturalised account of St. Augustine's interpretation of the biblical fall of man, rather than enlightenment optimism run amok.

>>7097272

>Rousseau was anti-enlightenment, and deeply pessimistic about the possibility of political regeneration; if you read his actual practical recommendations on politics (on Poland and Corsica) he's somewhat conservative

If you perceive history in the progressive sense (a la Marx), then sure, Rousseau was conservative, if not reactionary. But what he had to say about universal natural rights, and his triumphing of those disadvantaged groups of the 18th century (women, the indigenous and poor) were incredibly enlightened. In line with other Enlightenment figures such as Paine and Diderot.

>>7097107
The state that Hobbes thinks is real, might not have been the pre-civilizational living that happened, but it is observable in a post-collapse situation. So yes, Hobbes got something right.

Also Rousseau and Hobbes agree on more things than Rousseau and Locke.

>>7097063

I second this oppinion.

Still like Hobbes somewhat more.

>>7097223
>realism
>not constructivism

>>7097712
>I am a payed anglo NGO shill

I can't wait the whole of the EU goes full Putin on your kind