/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19373550]

refute this book

hint: you can't

[Anonymous No.19373555]

She’s going to show up and post that picture she stole from me of the two leviathan books

[Anonymous No.19373584]

>>19373550
Is there even something to be nothing refuted, everyone that "refutes it" goes for the foundations that humans are either naturally good or evil, that you can or cannot give away your rights (if there are any), that there shouldn't be a single sovereign (which isn't even the point of Leviathan, since any body becomes one). None of it is truly important, there never was a literal signing of the social contract just like Adam was never literally thrown out of a garden
Its a hypothetical and symbolic representation of state building and its ruling
>>19373555
He* posted it a million times and never explained even whats the book about

[Anonymous No.19373595]

>>19373550
Lawlessness doesn't disappear because you have a state; it just changes form. Fear isn't enough to stop men from being rash, or militaristic. The state can be just as destructive as a lawless person

[Anonymous No.19373603]

>>19373550
Literally everything wrong with gommunism.

[Anonymous No.19373607]

>>19373550
I leave my door unlocked at night.
Checkmate Hobbes

[Anonymous No.19373665]

>>19373550
That is a very nice etching. Hatching on metallic sheets has always such a nice effect on it

[Anonymous No.19373706]

>>19373550
The problem with Hobbes is his belief that confict is essentially a conflict for objects or resourses. Of course this isn't quite true, as the more interesting mechanism is how beings come to assume the reciprocal likeness which leads them to desire the same objects. Fratricide might serve as the archetypal example of conflict borne not of external circumstanses, but of the likeness between the two. That being said everyone should still read him.

[Anonymous No.19373718]

>>19373550
>The gov't is a giant multi headed serpent.
Well, I haven't seen it myself.

[Anonymous No.19373775]

>>19373550
I had a backpack stolen from my car and inside the backpack was this book and a few of my other classics. Fucking pissed me off. Also had an early copy of unedited Shitkickers in there.

[Anonymous No.19373858]

>>19373550

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19373864]

>>19373550
>>19373555
Nice trips

>>19373584
It’s about the birth of what we now call “civilization”. And it demonstrates just how barbaric the foundations of it are. Yes, I read it. What else do you need?

[Anonymous No.19373872]

>>19373858
>New History

No, thanks.

[Anonymous No.19373885]

>>19373550
My personal copy is an 1890s print

[Anonymous No.19374211]

>>19373885
post a picture of it

[Anonymous No.19374635]

Why is the u in malmsbvry if they can make C how come they can't make U? Or is it stylized like muh latin larper

[Anonymous No.19374913]

>>19373550
1/4

[Anonymous No.19374916]

>>19374913
2/4

[Anonymous No.19374919]

>>19374916
3/4

[Anonymous No.19374921]

>>19374919
4/4

[Anonymous No.19374989]

>>19373550

What makes you think absolutism can't be refuted ? The fact there's barely any absolute monarchies left is proof to that. Hobbes was afraid of chaos and thought that unless some supreme authority rules over everyone with an iron fist, things will go to shit with revolutions, etc (he lived in England during the war between the parlament and absolutists and fled to France until it ended).

Also, he unironically says that no matter what the ruler does to his subjects the actions can't be condemned because the subjects all agreed to give this power to the ruler.

Hobbes' political theory is just dog shit.

[Anonymous No.19375001]

>>19374989
>he unironically says that no matter what the ruler does to his subjects the actions can't be condemned because the subjects all agreed to give this power to the ruler
>>19374913

[Anonymous No.19375043]

>>19375001

It's irrelevant. Hobbes holds exactly what I said, I don't care about the paradox that's an ulterior discussion. The whole political theory of Hobbes starts from the premise that all people are inclined to do harm and they need someone to check on them, which might be true only to a point in the sense that the human nature holds in itself the possibility of individuals that are inclined to do evil, but this is not a universal feature of humans that actualizes in every member of humanity, only in certain individuals and even then it's because of other factors. In fact, no one is born evil, people become evil due to other factors.

Moreover, Hobbes' natural state is more of a mental experiment, a starting position which doesn't seem to have an anthropological support. Human individuals don't have the tendency to live isolated from others, in fact you could say people lived in something similar to societies but on a much smaller scale as bands or groups.

So Hobbes assumes that humans don't act morally when not under the absolute control of an authority, yet we know nowadays that most people do act morally to an extent (as in they don't harm others deliberately) while they live in democracies, not absolute monarchies. For Hobbes democracy was dog shit because if the ruler of the state doesn't hold ABSOLUTE power then there will always be chances of other forces to interfere in the ruler's decisions (see parlamentarians vs absolutists / royalists).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War

I recommend you read up on this bit to understand the position of Hobbes. The english civil war was triggered by Carol I's decisions to disregard the parlament and tax his people to fund a war in Europe. Hobbes lived in this period and even worked for royalists in his life (he even tutored Carol II while in exile in Paris which would be the future king of England). He ran to Paris because he was afraid to not be killed since he supported the royalists.

[Anonymous No.19375060]

>>19375043

Carol I -> Charles I
Carol II -> Charles II

Used the romanian names accidentally.

[Anonymous No.19375131]

>>19375043
You make a good point there. Hobbes’ political theory, as it happens with most contractualists like Locke and Rousseau, is founded on the premise of the author’s view of human nature.

Hobbes holds it as a evil one, prone to the bellum omnium contra omnes, while Rousseau e.g. holds it as a good one, that gets corrupted by the same society that we adhere to solely for pragmatic terms.

Which of these contractualists would be right, if any of them, is a matter of discussion. I’m honest to say I don’t know what is the contemporary academic consensus on this, considering that contractualism itself is a matter long forgotten in modern general theory of the State. I’d love someone’s input on this

[Anonymous No.19375136]

>>19375043
>inclined to do evil
i hope u do remember that using words like 'good' and 'evil' can easily get into word play territory.a better choice of words could've been something like 'existence and survival'

[Anonymous No.19375160]

>>19375043
>the premise that all people are inclined to do harm and they need someone to check on them

Prove that scientifically and then Hobbes is irrefutable.

[Anonymous No.19375168]

>>19375160
>Prove that scientifically and then Hobbes is irrefutable.
not that anon but hey tribalistic nature as seen in chimps should be sufficient to show that anon's point.

[Anonymous No.19375193]

>>19375136

When I say evil I'm strictly referring to physical threats since Hobbes also refers to this as the most important one. Of course in a broad sense evil can be a lot of things, not necessarily death. The words good and evil is very open to interpretation, I agree, but I'm referring stricly to keeping one's physical integrity in the context of Hobbes' work.

>>19375131

I don't think there's a consensus, but Hobbes' view on human nature seems to be too radical. If anything human nature is very rarely situated in the extremes (serial killers or "saints"). Rousseau and Locke have more measured approaches (more in tune with the Englithenment principles I suppose).

[Anonymous No.19375198]

>>19375160

I don't understand what you want to say. I was presenting there what was the point on which Hobbes' political theory is built upon. That wasn't my opinion, it's the opinion of Hobbes. I'm actually saying Hobbes is refutable (as I have shown). Absolute monarchy as a model to rule society is no different than totalitarianism in principle.

[Anonymous No.19375228]

>>19375193
>When I say evil I'm strictly referring to physical threats since Hobbes also refers to this as the most important one.
>In fact, no one is born evil, people become evil due to other factors.
ok then,how do u explain the behaviour of niggers and sandniggers bucko?or even this
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/03/15/first-worldism-part-5-the-european-revolution/

[Anonymous No.19375294]

>>19375228

What is there to explain ? I already answered to it. People are not born evil, they become evil. Niggers and sandniggers are not born evil people, they become evil because of social / cultural factors (shit families, experiences like being treated like trash, religious indoctrination by other members of society, etc). But in itself ,no single human is born evil. It's enough to watch babies to realize this. Humans are born like an empty board on which experiences accumulate. What kind of life you experience as an individual (where you grow up, what kind of family you have, etc) influences heavily the kind of person that you'll be.

[Anonymous No.19375298]

>>19375294
did u even see that link?

[Anonymous No.19375307]

I don't know anything about the book and I never will

[Anonymous No.19375310]

>>19375298

It doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.19375322]

>>19375310
wut?just wait for 30-40 secs .

[Anonymous No.19375351]

>>19375322

I just manually googled the title and it worked.

Giving a quick glance (I'm at work), it seems to be an argument on how certain races are inclined to commit more crimes. I don't like niggers either, but this is not a sound argument at all.

Both niggers and whites are pretty much similar as human structure, only that blacks have a much more toxic culture that promotes violence. You can compare american niggers with niggers somewhere else and see that they behave differently. Culture and society plays a big part into forming people. For all the niggers that commit crimes, there's also a lot of other niggers that don't commit crimes. If it was biological that all niggers have an urge to commit crimes, then all of them should do it, since it's biological, no ? Yet not all do this, which means what influences the crime rate is not something biological, but other factors which makes someone see crime as an acceptable action.

[Anonymous No.19375398]

>>19375351
>You can compare american niggers with niggers somewhere else and see that they behave differently.
um does uganda,south africa,zimbawe and somalia ring a bell?
>If it was biological that all niggers have an urge to commit crimes, then all of them should do it, since it's biological, no ?
normal distribution of traits with a shifted mean,no?
>crime rate is not something biological
>other factors
good genes create good environments and shit genes create shithole environments.there are obvious exceptions to this like the case of ussr or dprk or china but even in these cases,the 'genetics' argument still holds true.y do u think the occurence of 'herd mentality' increases as u move eastwards?that site may have some useful info on this

[Anonymous No.19375402]

>>19375294
>Humans are born like an empty board on which experiences accumulate.
Kill yourself Lockean.

[Anonymous No.19375444]

>>19375131
>that contractualism itself is a matter long forgotten in modern general theory of the State.
So forgotten it is taught in every single theory of the state course on the face of the earth

[Anonymous No.19375500]

Quick question bros:
Do I need to read the Bible to fully understand this work?

[Anonymous No.19375555]

>>19375402

I'm not lockean but no human is born with any experience. Do you remember the moment of your birth or the very first years of your life ? No. You can't even pinpoint the moment you became self-aware. Humans learn from their parents and their other peers in society about what is considered normal behavior etc. If you have a bad life up to your young adulthood, then as a person it's more likely you'll be inclined to violence than if you had a family that cared about you. In that sense humans are like an empty board. What you experience during your life since birth is changing who you are as a person, only a retard would argue with this. The very fact people don't have the same identity / personality is enough proof of this. Different environments create different people.

>>19375398

>um does uganda,south africa,zimbawe and somalia ring a bell?

Yeah, you pointed to me poor countries where corruption is rampant and people live in shit conditions because of it.

>good genes create good environments and shit genes create shithole environments

Blacks in America have a history of being enslaved and marginalized which made their life hard which in turn led to them having to appeal to crime due to hardship. In turn when they had kids they weren't good fathers. Absence of a father figure or good education led to their kids being criminals too and so on. Of course that's not a rule for eveyone. Some people do break the cycle, but it's pretty difficult when you're poor and bitter to not become a criminal (not necessarily murder, but theft, drug selling, etc). These are the failings of the system that doesn't take care of its own people. America is the heaven of capitalism and no one gives a shit about individuals because capitalists believe things magically solve themselves.

>y do u think the occurence of 'herd mentality' increases as u move eastwards?

As for herd mentality that's present everywhere. But in the orient you could argue that islamism is a much more restrictive religion than christianism. People are taught to respect the religious tenets. Authority is held in a much higher regard, thus the "herd mentality". If anything this is not something biological, but the nocive effect religion can have on people.

The whole subject is more complex than what you or me portray, there's probably a myriad of small factors which can influence people to be in a certain way rather than another. Maybe there might be something biological too, but believing that this biological difference is to blame for everything is wrong, it's just a small part among many other parts (factors).

[Anonymous No.19375627]

>>19375555
>Yeah, you pointed to me poor countries where corruption is rampant
and y do u think certain countries are blatantly more corrupt than others?y do u think certain countries have more people who have high proclivity in indulging in impulsive behaviour,who can't delay gratification,who're not diligent,who're not open minded and tolerant,etc.?
>islam
oh and y do u think people of certain ethnicities find islam more attractive than say christianity?
>America is the heaven of capitalism
kek ,no;especially not now ,unless of course u count cronyism as capitalism that is(i could be wrong on this part though).


y do u think countries with a much higher average IQ than their lower IQ counterparts?
i honestly think u're deliberately b8ing to get more (you)s.

[Anonymous No.19375655]

>>19375627
>y do u think countries with a much higher average IQ than their lower IQ counterparts?
are more wealthy?**

[Anonymous No.19375676]

>>19375627

Some countries are more corrupt than others for a myriad of reasons as well. Look throughout history. It's the same reason for eastern and western europe. Eastern europe was kept under Soviet union control and didn't develop while the west developed.

Why is India trash ? Because british colonialists plundered their resources and did a lot of shit wherever they went. Same with Africa. Spain and UK came to Africa to get resources and exploit the people and America even brought slaves.

Power imbalances lead to inequality between countries. Some countries can become severely handicapped in their development if another country takes their means to develop.

>oh and y do u think people of certain ethnicities find islam more attractive than say christianity?

I didn't say anything about finding attractive. I told you that people are raised to be religious like that. Just as most people in Europe are raised as christians, so are people in the Middle East raised as Islamists. It's not something about preference, it's something inculcated in them through education and other standards. Once it becomes part of your identity, it's difficult to change it.

>y do u think countries with a much higher average IQ than their lower IQ counterparts?

This is answered by the first answer as well.


Why do you type like a teenager ?

[Anonymous No.19375705]

>>19375500
Like pretty much any book on western philosophy (or really, any book post-medieval) the bible will give context/background on the "story". It's just like reading Plato's thoughts on ethics/the state, it gives a fuller experience knowing how we got to the point that Hobbes is arguing.

[Anonymous No.19375733]

>>19375676
>Why is India trash ? Because british colonialists plundered their resources and did a lot of shit wherever they went. Same with Africa.
kek
https://www.altcensored.com/watch?v=QAXPIhnQocM
https://www.altcensored.com/watch?v=BmUwCiBZJ3I
https://www.altcensored.com/watch?v=9kgsfJ2ZSQg
https://www.altcensored.com/watch?v=Z9yskAcICx4

i'm not going to bother replying to ur b8 posts anymore anon.au revoir

[Anonymous No.19375753]

>>19375733

You'll grow up eventually.

[Anonymous No.19375860]

>>19375733
So this Ryan Faulk guy (Alt Hype) is some dumb dumb that got schooled on r/badhistory (of all places). Why should anyone take him seriously?

[Anonymous No.19376360]

>>19373550
his cock was nasty brutish and short