/lit/ - Literature

I can DL... 2pl8

>>18127836
This isn't a Lasch thread...

>No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
>Am an attendant lord, one that will do
>To swell a progress, start a scene or two,
>Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
>Deferential, glad to be of use,
>Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
>Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
>At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
>Almost, at times, the Fool.

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

>>17232339
>K-on is trash
rude

>>16334305
fuck, away is two syllables

>>16319185
Sorry, i'm obligated to bully you to keep up standard. Know that i take no pleasure in it.

>>16318776
>your
I meant you're, fuck.

>>16245230
>>16245236
d-delet this

>>16235026
I guess I am just being dumb... I want to travel after COVID is over anyway, so I will need a day bag. I guess I will take a look at the bags you suggested. Thank you.

>>16199445
Computers not composers....

>>16192862
What's the difference?

>>16179946
I'm sorry Schierke poster, i'm a non-fiction poster and have been for years. But i effort post and do my best to keep it book-specific. Please forgive me.
Twitter refugees are at least as big a problem as redditors on this board

>>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.

>>16134742
>the goodwill is good, not through its serviceability for the attainment of an intended end, but only through its willing, i.e. good in itself, and considered for itself, without comparison. it is to be estimated far higher than anything that could be brought about by it in favor of any inclination, or indeed, if you prefer, the sum of all inclinations. even if through the peculiar disfavor of fate, or through the meager endowment of step-motherly nature, this will were entirely lacking in resources to carry out its aim, if with its greatest effort nothing was to be accomplished by it, and only the goodwill were left over: then it would shine all by itself like a jewel, as something that has its full worth in itself. utility or fruitlessness can neither add nor subtract from this worth.
This passage. I think it is such a beautiful sentiment.

>>16123365
I think that democratization theorists (of which Huntington is a core proponent) put too much stock in apparent formal change in governmental systems and too little in the substantial underpinning of those systems. Most of the so-called democracies that emerged in the third wave were really just disguised dictatorships under the guise of a democratic system. In The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu not only outlines the three forms of legitimate government, but also what is necessary for them to operate (monarchy-honour, aristocracy-restraint, republics-virtue). This is couched in 18th century verbiage, but the point to be drawn from it, a simple point really, is that political structure is nothing without the supporting political culture. But political scientists tend to be drawn towards quantifiable variables and statistical methods, which—while being power instruments in the right context—fail to capture important aspects of politics. A similar problem exists in sociology. There are of course Political Scientists that focus on Norms, but they're pushed out by the chicago-inspired method for various reasons (mostly to do with funding and the development of programs like SPSS). Huntington is far from the worst offender in this sense, but his waves of democracy failed to account for the difficulty in actually creating a successful democracy (especially in countries with a long history of autocracy). This is post-hoc explained later as "democratic backsliding" but the reality is that there was no democracy to begin with. The third wave was merely apparent. He, like other modernization theorists, thinks modern economies have a bias towards democratic political systems. This stems from a correct intuition that wealth and power are intimately intertwined, and as non-governmental wealth production increases so too will demands for power sharing from those groups (also known as representation). But the incorrect assumption was that autocratic systems were unable to integrate these elements into the government without ceding power. It's easier to see this with hindsight of course, but there the vestigial impact of this thinking is still kicking around in political science and has led to disastrous foreign policy decisions.
I guess i don't like his other works because i sit in a different camp in regards to political development and research methodology.