Who was right about the state of nature, Hobbes or Locke?

File: 760 KB, 1200x1844, leviathan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Apr 22 23:03:10 2018 No.11045814 [Reply] [Original]

Who was right about the state of nature, Hobbes or Locke?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 22 23:05:18 2018 No.11045824 Who was gayer?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 22 23:10:28 2018 No.11045832 Hobbes

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 22 23:19:51 2018 No.11045859 Locke Hobbes was just edgy emo

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 22 23:24:41 2018 No.11045881 Rousseau

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 22 23:26:09 2018 No.11045888 >>11045814 desu Hobbes but Locke had some interesting ideas.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 22 23:27:50 2018 No.11045894 >>11045881 >believing in the myth of the noble savage How about no

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 22 23:29:55 2018 No.11045898 >>11045888 >>11045832 >we need an absolute monarch to not kill each other

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 22 23:30:56 2018 No.11045906 >>11045814 None

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 22 23:31:30 2018 No.11045909 Rousseau > Hobbes > Locke Locke is just boneless whatever

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 22 23:37:14 2018 No.11045927 Hobbes had autism and anyone that thinks Hobbes is right about the state of nature also at least have aspergers. No reasonable person who isn't an angsty teenage edgelord thinks people are completely amoral and only acting nice because authority

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 22 23:40:13 2018 No.11045943 >>11045814 Both of them are wrong, but Hobbes is closer to being right.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 22 23:41:09 2018 No.11045948 Say what you want about French metaphysics/moral philosophy, they are usually pretty weak. There is literally nothing better than French political philosophy and economics. The king is Rousseau, he is absolutely astounding.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 22 23:42:12 2018 No.11045955 File: 63 KB, 600x600, 1511010402390.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11045814 Do your intro political philosophy homework yourself, OP.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 22 23:45:00 2018 No.11045968 >>11045898 His argument isn't that we NEED an absolute monarch, just that its the most efficient form of government since it achieves most directly what he views the purpose of government is.

Anonymous Sun Apr 22 23:55:51 2018 No.11046001

>>11045927
Hobbes' argument isn't that people are amoral, or malicious, but rather that without a central authority to guarantee security, people must naturally take account of their own security. Since the highest value to the average person is their own life, they will naturally put the maintaining of that above all else—which includes not only preventing personal harm, but harm to the things which have value in maintaining your own well being i.e. food supply, shelter, ect. However, as the only way to secure these necessities once gained is through gaining more power, or "building walls around walls", so to speak. This is the heart of the struggle of all-against-all: not the lust for power, but the fear of ones livelihood. As one can never guarantee anothers intentions in regards of what is most important, ones life, there cannot be unconditional trust. The prisoners dilemma and all that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 22 23:58:49 2018 No.11046014 >>11045948 Who are some good french political philosophers?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 00:01:33 2018 No.11046026 >>11046014 Alexis De Toqcueville Jean-Jacques Rousseau There was also the Lausanne school for economics, which was headed by Walras and Pareto. That was an unbelievably rigorous school for economics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 00:03:26 2018 No.11046034 Burke>Hobbes>Locke> Rousseau

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 00:04:28 2018 No.11046038 >>11045948 >French economics Like?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 00:07:02 2018 No.11046055 >>11046038 see >>11046026 The Lausanne school approached economics like a science: the way it should be approached.

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 00:11:45 2018 No.11046074

>>11046055
>economics like a science
The idea is interesting but I don't really buy it. Economics depend on a lot of agents to be summarized by a huge macroeconomic theory. Maybe with information chains buying patterns can be predicted easily and more valid theories can thrive from it

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 00:22:24 2018 No.11046106 >>11046055 >this is what people who get econ degrees tell themselves while they help child rapists and coke money launderers push propaganda

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 00:22:32 2018 No.11046108 File: 62 KB, 396x691, 1520870121523.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11045909 Rousseau is the worst out of the three

OP Mon Apr 23 00:29:44 2018 No.11046125

I felt bad for posting such a lazy shitty thread even though that is our modus operandi.

Locke:
>what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature
>The state of nature has a law of nature(reason) to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions
>the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation

Hobbes:
>From an(this) equality of ability arises equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end endeavor to destroy or subdue one another
>Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man
>as long as the(this) natural right of every man to every thing endures, there can be no security to any man, how strong or wise soever he be, of living out the time which nature ordinarily allows men to live. And consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason(this is what Hobbes calls a "law of nature"): that every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it

Their main difference(in my reading) comes from their conceptions of the law of nature(which they both say comes from reason). It is probably their intent that their laws of nature be as universalized as possible. In this Locke takes reason farther than I actually expect it actually goes. With common culture and tradition perhaps his is valid conception of man without the state, but culture and tradition are artifacts of society. Locke might have an accurate picture of reason in certain first world countries if their governments disappeared today. But this is "reason" that is not truly universal and thus not a valid law of nature.

>>	OP Mon Apr 23 00:43:48 2018 No.11046205 >>11046108 I'm not that guy but care to elaborate on why you don't like Rousseau? I found him more clever and insightful than Locke.

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 01:34:09 2018 No.11046431

>>11046106
>>11046074
Economics is not politics, morons. When you deal with indifference analysis you deal with hyperspace, and various partial derivatives/integrating factors to explain concepts.

The overall idea of mathematical analysis is that everything is related and linked in systems of equations. Much like particle physics

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 02:00:16 2018 No.11046513 >>11045927 Well, good thing Hobbes isn't an angsty teenage edgelord.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 02:14:23 2018 No.11046570 >>11046431 Economics isn't math and it isn't a hard science like physics either no matter how triggered you get. Its much like sociology.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 08:18:13 2018 No.11047417 >>11046125 >It is probably their intent that their laws of nature be as universalized as possible What do you mean by this?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 08:23:52 2018 No.11047437 >>11046205 bc he was just flat out wrong about how humans act in the "state of nature"

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 08:25:20 2018 No.11047439 Hobbes > Locke >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rousseau

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 08:25:51 2018 No.11047441 >>11046431 >economics is not politics lmao

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 08:34:18 2018 No.11047467
File: 478 KB, 1280x720, WIN_20180223_23_27_45_Pro.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11046570
Which can be mathematical. But it's a good thing explaining indifference spaces is nothing like statistical analysis.

It's almost like everyone on /lit/ who talks about mathematical economics misinterprets what it is every single time they fucking opine on the subject. It's definitely not a bunch of words, that's for sure. And it isn't econometrics either. Learn, you fucking hamsters. LEARN

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 08:35:25 2018 No.11047469 >>11047437 Rousseau said that humans act according to whomever is stronger in nature. The strong prevail. How is this wrong?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 08:46:17 2018 No.11047494 >>11047469 He had a conception of the levels of peacefulness and cooperation in pre-agricultural societies that was literally disproved by 20th century anthropology. His ideas are outdated.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 08:47:26 2018 No.11047495 >>11047494 >He had a conception of the levels of peacefulness and cooperation in pre-agricultural societies Wrong. I don't know where you're getting this, but it's wrong.

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 08:48:55 2018 No.11047497

>>11047495
>>11047494
Just read The Social Contract. He'll argue that the brutish physical superiority of nature has been supplanted by a struggle for wealth in civilization.

The people with the 'noble savage' theory of Rousseau are just as retarded as the 'Machiavelli was evil' people.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 08:51:36 2018 No.11047501 >>11046001 >Since the highest value to the average person is their own life, Too much of a sweeping generalization desu

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 08:52:00 2018 No.11047504 >>11046431 >All agents are super rational > muh derivatives Economists are a joke

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 08:57:00 2018 No.11047515 >>11047497 Even in The Social Contrast he posits that human beings were freer and happier in what he considered to be a "state of nature."

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 09:00:13 2018 No.11047523 >>11045927 >every time a famine breaks out people literally start eating children >'dude humans are good boys who dindu nothin'

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 09:05:20 2018 No.11047547 >>11047501 What do you think the average person values over their own life?

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 09:13:55 2018 No.11047564

>>11047515
>>11047515
Absolutely wrong.

Never make this argument again after this post

The Social Contract, Book I, Chapter 6

>I assume that men reach a point where the obstacles to their preservation in a state of nature prove greater than the strength that each man has to preserve himself in that state. Beyond this point, the primitive condition cannot endure, for then the human race will perish if it does not change its mode of existence.

I mean, what the fuck would you do if I wasn't here. Here is a quote basically stating that Rousseau saw civilization as necessary. Again, where would this board be without me? You would all be running around saying Rousseau's principle of the 'noble savage', that Machiavelli is 'evil' and that Economics isn't a science like the REST of academia. Clearly colleges have many things wrong these days, including evolution, but at the very least I would expect a literature board to understand what's wrong here.

No, you cannot summarize a political philosophers outlook in a single sentence. Get the fuck outta here with your bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 09:15:12 2018 No.11047567 >>11047504 No, marginal economics does not state perfect knowledge exists. Imperfect knowledge has to exist for the Walrasian utility curve to even be a thing. Holy FUCK you're retarded.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 09:15:27 2018 No.11047568 >>11047504 the ironic thing no economists think agents are rational anymore, that is a belief clung to by teenagers after their boomer parents make them read Rand

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 09:25:32 2018 No.11047600 >>11045814 Girard

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 09:26:18 2018 No.11047602 >>11046125 Good thread

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 10:53:20 2018 No.11047938

>>11047417
I mean that as general principles of reason they should be accessible through reason to anyone and be uncontroversial, if people before being influenced by society won't figure them out they are hardly "laws of nature" and will obviously not be a sound foundation for a conception of a state of nature to understand society relative to.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 11:27:41 2018 No.11048060 File: 81 KB, 748x939, 1521184709207.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11047564 >evolution >wrong >"where would this board be without me?"

>>	Sage Mon Apr 23 11:57:20 2018 No.11048189 MDD

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 11:59:06 2018 No.11048199 >the state of nature no such thing

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 12:01:08 2018 No.11048207 >>11048060 >implying this isn't quickly becoming a movement your 'nerd culture' is no longer a part of. Nice try, fag. I'll bet you still watch Anime and collect POPs

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 12:15:03 2018 No.11048276 >>11047564 lol is this an icycalm parody

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 12:16:35 2018 No.11048281 >>11045814 Hobbes if you are poor, Locke if you are rich.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 12:18:55 2018 No.11048292 >>11048276 No, I am literally stating that the Noble Savage is incorrect. But I didn't stop there, I called him a retard for saying it too.

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 12:19:08 2018 No.11048296

>>11048199
This is already addressed by both Locke and Hobbes. Instead of restating an objection they already answered respond to their answer(I know you didn't read them).
>>11047564
Yet nothing in that quote contradicts the noble savage. Did you really think you could get that past us by sperging out?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 12:20:43 2018 No.11048301 Hobbes. Anyone naive enough to believe in the goodness of "man" deserves what they get.

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 12:23:16 2018 No.11048312

>>11047564
calling economics a science is embarassing and machiavelli was evil you twit

no scientific method, no extreme accuracy .97, no concrete variables, no physical correlates, ten trillion moving parts, random crashes is not science its astrology (which can at times be useful)

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 12:24:01 2018 No.11048317

>>11048296
Okay how about this

Book I, Chapter 8

>The passing from the state of nature to the civil society produces a remarkable change in man; it puts justice as a rule of conduct in the place of instinct, and gives his actions the moral quality they previously lacked.

Also listen to this you pseud
https://vocaroo.com/i/s1ADJO9J4JyH

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 12:25:44 2018 No.11048323
File: 429 KB, 1280x720, WIN_20180422_21_59_25_Pro.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11048312
>Economics
>not a science

Literally all it deals with is phenomena in a vacuum. When it deals with indifference curves, it deals with largely determinate functions whose values are determined by the obstacles and indifference varieties of the system.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 12:39:12 2018 No.11048385 >>11048323 Yeah but that makes it useless

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 12:40:18 2018 No.11048391 >>11048385 Nonsense, physics is studied in a vacuum

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 12:42:09 2018 No.11048399

>>11048312
>Machiavelli was evil
Wrong
>>11048317
I agree that calling Rousseau's conception of man in the state of nature a "noble savage" is an oversimplification that is essentially a falsehood. But it does have that aspect in places. I doubt any serious university would have professors making this mistake, maybe at some backwater community college, my professor emphasized paradox in Rousseau.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 12:44:45 2018 No.11048414 >>11045814 Neither. Social contract is one of the dumbest memes to come out of the Enlightenment. Burke got it right, and even he was preceded by plenty of others like Ibn Khaldun.

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 12:49:52 2018 No.11048441

>>11048399
My point is, universities are not the end all be all of what is correct.

I see the oversimplification of political philosophy the most at universities and colleges, where they think they can summarize the entire philosophy of a political philosopher in a single term or phrase. Clearly you are smarter than that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 12:55:09 2018 No.11048461 >>11048391 Economics by ita very subject of study should not be studied in vacuum, thats why its useless

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 12:58:02 2018 No.11048473

>>11048461
Economics looks at a static state of economy, through a vacuum, then it uses a groping process to determine how different prices gravitate around equilibria, supposing nothing else to move.

Every single variable in economics can be thought of as gravitating, but never reaching, equilibrium. It's actually more unstable than physics, meaning the only way you can study the underlying phenomena is THROUGH a vacuum.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:06:27 2018 No.11048510 >>11046431 >Economics is not politics, morons PURE

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:11:17 2018 No.11048532

>>11048510
Yeah, okay. Pure economics is not politics.

I suppose the 'concrete phenomenon' of economics has a fair amount of syndicate-producer competitive phenomenon, as well as class struggles in general and how they operate. This is where economics crosses over into politics and sociology, here. But NOT when it's in a pure mathematical vacuum.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:22:00 2018 No.11048586 >>11045814 Hobbes was right about the state of nature, Locke had a better solution.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:22:16 2018 No.11048589 >>11045814 Hobbz

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:31:33 2018 No.11048638 File: 81 KB, 722x950, 1524504693805.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11048532 No he didn't mean that...

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:34:09 2018 No.11048648 >>11048638 How do you know what he meant? You aren't him. :P

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:37:15 2018 No.11048657 >>11045927 your brain has been poisoned by memes

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:38:47 2018 No.11048665 >>11048296 >This is already addressed by both Locke and Hobbes. Really? Did they figure out quantum mechanics in the 17th century?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:42:09 2018 No.11048684 Schmitt

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:44:29 2018 No.11048696 >>11048207 absolutely none of that is true you fucking mong. I bet god made you special faggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:45:29 2018 No.11048697 >>11048696 Technically, God makes everyone special and unique. And I'm not gay.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:45:53 2018 No.11048700 >>11048665 You wouldn't know if they did because you never read them, which would be fine if you didn't insist on embarrassing yourself by floundering around like a retard.

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:49:37 2018 No.11048722

>>11048697
We are more alike than we are different.
And why are our genes so similar to chimps you fucking idiot?
God did it with his love? dumb faggot, lick my asshole why would anyone care about your fluffy philosophy theories when you dont even understand the sad state of our reality.
atoms and matter faggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:51:10 2018 No.11048730 >>11048722 >sad state of our reality. That you have to watch me get women and you can't get laid. That's basically what you're whining about.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:51:57 2018 No.11048732 >>11048700 >You wouldn't know if they did lmao I bet they were newtonian faggots at best, if they were smart enough

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:53:54 2018 No.11048742

>>11048730
i once had the luck i experienced in being born in my status, by a famous musician and college professor, as being as likely as landing on the penny of my choice after laying them individually in a straight-line from san francisco to chicago.
God isn't what you think it is tardo.
With that said, youre a faggot. I'm rich and handsome too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:55:29 2018 No.11048749 >>11048742 Haahhahahahaha keep justifying your jealousy by pretending you can get women by staying in the same spot. God did make me special huh? Not you in the way I am though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:56:19 2018 No.11048757 >>11048749 No youre just delusional and sad. I just want you to feel like an idiot for believing sky daddy will save you. Enjoy your inferiority complex.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:56:52 2018 No.11048762 >>11048757 Hahaha

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 13:57:44 2018 No.11048767 File: 293 KB, 470x470, 1521953537574.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11048762 >being this mad and scared

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 14:00:29 2018 No.11048786 >>11048767 >still wanting to get the last post I have already killed a thread today, don't make me kill this one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 14:02:13 2018 No.11048794 >>11048786 I always win when it comes to retards like you, sorry bro. It's one my missions in life to squish that certain type of megalomaniacal autist who somehow believes he's a chosen one of some sort. It makes me lol.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 14:03:01 2018 No.11048803 >>11048794 You haven't yet, that's for sure. Now it's time to go to my job you all know I have.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 14:03:28 2018 No.11048805 >>11048803 lol wagecuck. god will deliver you faggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 14:04:48 2018 No.11048810 >>11048805 >not working and being a productive member of society >reply is TWO FUCKING POSTS AWAY Raging

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 14:08:45 2018 No.11048824 >>11048810 classic pleb. complains and attempts to look busy. retreat to the comfort and lies from whence ye came and never again speak down to the non-believers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 14:33:55 2018 No.11048920 >>11048824 >>11048810 >>11048805 >>11048803 >>11048794 >>11048786 >>11048767 >>11048762 >>11048757 >>11048749 >>11048742 >>11048730 >>11048722 >>11048697 Well, well, well, if it isn't reddit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 15:13:37 2018 No.11049098 >>11047568 Super rational is the term used in game theory to describe a player that will always play his cards the same way which most economic models assume to be true

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 15:14:49 2018 No.11049106 >>11047567 Once you study actual math ypu will understand what super rational means. Brainlet

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 15:18:12 2018 No.11049120

Locke’s position without his specific limitations upon the sovereign is essentially Hobbesian, but his insistence upon inalienable rights make an unlimited authoritarian government unacceptable.
This would seemingly lead to what Hobbes’ feared most; revolt causing society to disintegrate into the state of nature, with multiple sources of authority at odds with each other. Locke argues that the society will not enter a state of nature. When a government fails or is removed from its duties of creating laws, the power and responsibility to do so “devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and by the establishment of a new legislative (such as they shall think fit), [to] provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society”. This is the conclusion of Locke’s argument for the right to revolution. It is built on the belief that the government's purpose and legitimacy is based entirely on the will of the people, and can be rightfully dissolved should its injuries become unbearable. The beauty of Locke’s argument comes from its assertion that revolt is, “the restoration of an existing degree of legality rather than a primitive doctrine of tyrannicide. Meaning, lawful society never is actually maintained by revolt. However, Locke seemingly glosses over the possibility that the deposed government (which is still only in name disposed) and the new government might be near equals. In this case we can look back to Hobbes’ state of nature; which tells us when there are equals with no supreme power to enforce laws, there will be war. Or, we can look back to Hobbes’ own context, and the English Civil War to see the theory in action.

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 15:19:16 2018 No.11049126

>>11049120

Thus, Locke’s political system is prepared to risk bloody civil war and an overall return to Hobbes’ state of nature within a nation, all for the right to revolt. While Hobbes is willing to risk possible tyranny in order to maintain peace. Both arrive at remarkably similar yet contradictory conclusions as they both maintain the necessity and inevitability of government by consent; yet disagree on the proper extent of its powers. Hobbes’ understanding of nature and his personal experiences informed the rest of his theory, which concluded that civil society was impossible without a supreme authority that wielded, without checks, the masses power. This authority could never be challenged or else there would be inevitable and intolerable war. While Locke fully acknowledges that society needs a supreme government. He believes this government can be replaced and society will still remain. Their contradictory theories come from different goals. Hobbes, above all wished to stave off war, and Locke’s arrangement does leave room for a civil war to occur. Locke on the other hand is more concerned with the liberty of the people that could possibly be encroached upon by an all-powerful state. Both these theories as so compelling and so foundational that even today there is no clear dominant ideology. Rather all states and actors on this planet are located on a sliding gradient between the two. Our political spectrum is defined by them, our international order is divided by them, and our individual thoughts on morality are informed by them. Hobbes and Locke are the difference between Syria and Tunisia, the European Union and the Russian Federation. Their thoughts, though aged, are still as immortal as the Leviathan itself.

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 15:20:25 2018 No.11049130

>>11048323
That’s all bloviating nonsense, there is no experimentation, there are no controls, there is no predictive value and it absolutely does not discern NATURAL LAWS which are unerring and physically present in the background mechanics of the universe. You do not study nature you study your rationalist interpretation of human systems. Fuck off faggot, until you can predict sales or demand at the accuracy which we can predict the fucking point of contact on a line for a photon wave, you are not a scientist. Seriously consider how far from a physicist that you are. they take real objects in space and predict what will happen to them, then do the experiment and then rigorously confirm or refute their own hypothesis while creating laws which happen to also allow for more experiments which are falsifiable. Does economics do that? did austrian economics reveal an immutable law that led to more experiments? has neo-keynesian predicted anything or even discerned any unerring mechanisms in nature itself? not in numbers, in the world as it is? fuck no

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 15:21:55 2018 No.11049138

>>11048473
again if you cannot create controls, which economics absolutely cannot do, fixing variables in a mathematical space is not a control, making a control is a control and requires physical experimentation, then you are no a scientist, you do not make falsifiable hypotheses you do not conduct experiments you do not deal with physical systems. fuck off

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 15:22:57 2018 No.11049143 >>11048399 its not wrong, Machiavelli was evil, de Maistre and Schmitt were evil. your contrarian gotcha logic can hang

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 15:28:32 2018 No.11049172 >>11049126 didn't have time to read this though I want to point out that this anon sounds very very smart. where did you graduate from anon?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 16:36:45 2018 No.11049539 >>11049172 a university

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 16:57:39 2018 No.11049610

>>11049126
>>11049120
No... Locke has a DIFFERENT conception of the state of nature and a DIFFERENT conception of man from Hobbes. Nowhere in Locke's theory does he say there would be a return to Hobbes' state of nature because he has his own concpetion. This is why their theories differ.
>>11049143
Read them before you post reddit scum

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 16:59:39 2018 No.11049621 >>11049539 of Shitburg?

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 17:02:22 2018 No.11049637

I think Locke was right about cooperation, but I think Hobbes was correct in the grand scheme of things.

Whenever a centralized authority falls apart, things do indeed look like a war of all against all for until someone seizes power and restores order.

I mean, immediately after Saddam was toppled, the insurgency almost completely destroyed the country.

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 17:07:53 2018 No.11049659

>>11049610
Hobbes concludes that without an absolute, all-powerful, and unchallengeable government there can be only be illusory, and temporary peace, this means the state must be able to strongly resist any attempt at revolution.

John Locke takes a contradictory stance to this conclusion, he maintains that the right to revolution is crucial and undeniable to citizens. Firstly, Locke argues that the state of nature is different from what Hobbes believes. Locke’s imagined world has laws and morality and these are ideally enforce by the people. This state of nature has drawn criticism as being based upon a rather unscientific, “teleological account of men’s moral resources derived from their performance in the most ‘civilized’ of contemporary societies”. What Locke does prove with his conception of the state of nature is that there is a standard to judge sovereigns, without needing sovereigns to “validate it on earth”. What this shows is, “that men need, and are capable of providing, not only a remedy for the inconveniences of a state of nature, but a remedy for the inconveniences of government”. Using this logic Locke argues for the right of revolution by the people to enforce the laws when their leaders transgress them.

Unlike Hobbes’ who describes only two states: civil society and anarchy. Locke identifies a third state, the state of war. This state is the one which humanity must avoid, “And here we have the plain difference between the state of Nature and the state of war... [one] a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation; and [one] a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction”. The state of war is caused simply by the use of violence against a person, thus breaking the laws of nature. It is here where Locke delivers the total repudiation of Hobbes’ absolutism in favour of natural rights. Locke explains in chapter XIX all the cases for which a government may be dissolved and they read as a list of the necessary characteristics of a Hobbesian state. In Locke's mind the act of a sovereign even attempting to gain absolute power over its citizens is an act of war, as “the whole purpose of absolute power is precisely to prise away from the individual his own freedom and open him to unlimited and immediate exploitation”. Another important reason for revolution is, “whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people”. What any of these actions do is put the wayward government in a state of war with the polity, and furthermore removes the “vicious princes” from the boundaries of civil society. In other words, the people can rightfully rebel when their rights are infringed upon.

>I agree with you that lockes was different, but it is not as good as Hobbes'

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 17:15:13 2018 No.11049682 >>11049610 i have read them you dumb faggot, they’re not esoteric in any sense. schmitt, hobbes and machiavelli are evil should have all their works burned, statism is the most vile affront to consciousness in existence.

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 18:33:19 2018 No.11050027

>>11049659
Why would Hobbes say men do not have reasonable suspicion when they form the covenant to make a sovereign, isn't it questionable that the covenant is validated by the very civic force it erects and why do they erect it contrary to their passions? Do I understand correctly that men follow the fundamental law of nature(and also the second) even in the state of nature and the rest only are followed under the terror of the state(wherein they both safe to follow and pursuant to the fundamental law)?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 23 18:35:29 2018 No.11050039 >>11047501 just kill yourself for the sake of humanity please

Anonymous Mon Apr 23 23:05:20 2018 No.11051268

>>11050027
I think for your question you need to step back and remember that for both Locke and Hobbes, these states of nature never existed, humans have always organized in the ways described. In the real world, of course people will be suspicious, this is why there are politics.

People erect covenant's because they have a expectation that it will be better with than without it.

As Hobbes’ explains those who have entered into a commonwealth and created a state:
"Cannot lawfully make a new covenant, amongst themselves, to be obedient to any other, in any thing whatsoever, without his permission. And therefore, they that are subjects to a monarch, cannot without his leave cast off monarchy, and return to the confusion of a disunited multitude."

Without a supreme power to ensure and compel all participants to follow contracts, laws and morality, all those things would become essentially voluntary and would cease to exist, “Why should anyone authorize another to define right reason for him? The hope of peace among individuals rests in a common sovereign power able to punish them. Otherwise - like nation states- they will attack each other whenever it appears advantageous”. If anyone in the state has the power to ignore, or disagree, or overthrow the sovereign, then by Hobbes’ definition the whole country is always in the condition of war as at any time the contract could be broken.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 24 00:21:49 2018 No.11051541 >>11051268 >man is the workmanship of God yeah ok this will work great yep nobody will question that >then kick them out! see my letter on "toleration" dropped

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature