[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
>> No.17186264 [View]
File: 949 KB, 500x282, 1587263951724.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>JIDF agents get paid by the (You)
kinda jelly ngl

>> No.15278652 [View]
File: 949 KB, 500x282, 1536850632816.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

whether it did or didn't, individual or societal change still has nothing to do with it.

>> No.15268109 [View]
File: 949 KB, 500x282, 1536850632816.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

maybe exciting is a more appropriate word and attractive, actually.

>> No.14364535 [View]
File: 949 KB, 500x282, 1536850632816.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.13729815 [View]
File: 949 KB, 500x282, 1566442380245.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>STEMfag with a low capacity in thinking possible worlds


>> No.12993859 [View]
File: 949 KB, 500x282, 1536850632816.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

if that's what you took from Leviathan then you need to work on your reading comprehension. Hobbes says you can confer sovereign power to either a monarchy or an assembly of men, and both constitute a legitimate contractural authority as long as they are the sole authority and they facilitate civil society. Yes, Hobbes prefers monarchy, but not even he says it is the only choice.

>> No.12349203 [View]
File: 949 KB, 500x282, 1543791054609.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

If you are practised at it, typing allows you to write more quickly and legibly than pen and paper. Of course the most important thing is to write, no matter which way you find to be the most comfortable for you. Never mind how others approach it, follow your own muse. Isaac Asimov always wrote in longhand, for example, at a time when typewriters were ubiquitous...

>> No.12181011 [View]
File: 949 KB, 500x282, 1543791054609.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It is a question of singular or plural.

>> No.12171082 [View]
File: 949 KB, 500x282, 1536850632816.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

That said, there is a single paragraph that would suggest otherwise. The idea only appears once in De Cive, is completely absent from Leviathan and Behemoth, but does make a lot of sense in Hobbes’ systematic thinking:
>“Now what we call the laws of nature are nothing other than certain conclusions, understood by reason, on what is to be done and not to be done; and a law, properly and precisely speaking, is an utterance by one who by right commands other to do or not to do. Hence, properly speaking, the natural laws are not laws in so far as they proceed from nature. But in so far as the same laws have been legislated by God in the Holy Scriptures, as we shall see in the next chapter, they are properly called by the name of laws; for Holy Scripture is the utterance of God, who issues commands in all things with the highest right.” (De Cive, III, 56-57)
So, this would imply that Hobbes’ laws of nature are only valid AS LAWS within a Christian Cosmology. But, it wouldn’t prevent a secular commonwealth being formed according to the rules of nature, as long as there IS a Christian God. I’m not sure if that counts as an overt Christian dogma underpinning it, interpret it as you will.

Annnnd, that's it.

>> No.11787203 [View]
File: 949 KB, 500x282, 1536850632816.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

No, that's normal for an ideology. All ideologies have at their centre particular ethical/metaphysical/ontological axioms upon which they pivot. These axioms are necessarily irrational (or maybe arational would be a better description)—that is, they are principles which are not derived or supported by rationality per say, but rather rationality is derived from and supported by them. Ideologies are interpretations of reality which seek to explain the laws which govern society at its fundamental level; the axioms are the societal prime-movers, that influence all other things without being influenced by them. For liberalism, these core axioms are: Liberty, Equality, and Meliorism. As ideologies lay claim to knowing the correct interpretation of the world, they are naturally Universalist. The two topics you mentioned—race and sex—are topics which grind against the axiom of equality (and to a degree meriolism). As these topics are held as self-evident truths, it is natural that any discussion about biological or sexual essentialism will end up being taboo. It should be noted here that the equality propounded by liberalism isn't literal equality, but rather valuing all humans as equal (this is a hold-over from the fight against structural aristocracy and monarchy). So in that sense there is the acerbic response against such topics is a reaction against the potential use if such information rather than the truth itself. An ideology can compromise on some things, but it can never compromise on these core values: as to admit they are wrong would be to admit that the ideology is not reality (this is why contradictions are the deadliest poison to any ideology, and cause ideologues great internal agony). Now, i'm not going to comment on the validity of "race realism" or "sex realism" because i know nothing about genetics, biological evolution, psychology, or the topics one would need a grounding to find the truth, and i would hope that you wouldn't either. All i'm saying is that there is nothing in the behavior of "the left" which is unnatural for an ideology nor something exclusive to "leftists"; it's only that "the left" currently has effective hegemony and wish to keep it, as all ideologies do.

View posts [+24] [+48] [+96]