|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| cerulean808 wrote: |
Kuros
| Quote: |
| Dude, Hobbes argued that the central power had to be above everyone else to act as the executor of contracts. In other words, he had to be beyond contracts and beyond the law himself in order to enforce the law upon everyone else. This is one of the central formulations of his theory. |
The absolute ruler like I stated...
In a nut shell your saying ' ( At the international level ) I can't see Hobbes Leviathan anywhere around here, can you? So like bucheon bum thinks, its true, we must be in Hobbes State of War.'
Only if you buy into Hobbes argument. I don't. Not his State of War, not his Leviathan, not his take on human nature.
At a certain point in history Hobbes was putting together a particular political philosophy. Makes interesting reading as part of the history of philosophy. Providing a philosophical foundation for contemporary politics? Forget it. The problems with it come out loud and clear with your qualifications Kuros; 'in so far as', 'AMONGST NATIONS'. I guess the appeal to conservatives like yourself is the negative view of human nature in Hobbes and the subsequent authoritarian mentality.
I might agree on a Lockian State of Nature. At least in that version individuals have some inherent self restraint and humanity. I believe that's a much more accurate description of human nature. After all the development of international institutions and laws has derived most of its momentum from the experiences of the first half of the 20thC culminating in the Holocaust, and the desire to never see that repeated, surely a postive reflection on human nature. There's huge obstacles and a long way to go. |
Alright, well we agree on some things. Namely, that Hobbes provides an inadequate philosophical foundation for contemporary politics. Since you seem willing to cast off the Hobbesian framework rather than debate how it would be applicable today, I'm happy as well to do the same.
The Lockian state of nature is certainly more compelling than the solution he proposes, namely, a sort of inalienable right to property stemming from owning one's labor, the right to owning one's labor however somehow applying to paternal right over the son (I thought it was woman who did the labor, but in a situation of shared labor, we can see the Lockian solution begin to unravel).
| Quote: |
| What's the alternative? 'The powerful do as they can, the weak suffer as they must'. You, TUM, bucheon bum and the usual suspects seem satisfied with that arrangement. Sad |
Don't go patting yourself on the back just yet for your sterling sense of humanity. There's a wide gap between saying 'The powerful do as they can, the weak suffer as they must,' and holding some of the positions you hold, and I'm comfortable in saying on BB and TuM's behalf that we all are somewhere in between. Personally, I've started threads in objection to the US' treatment of internees in the war on terror, and I do not believe the weak should suffer as they must even under US hegemony.
HOWEVER, that's a long ways away from painting the present Iran-regime as a victim state that is a direct product of American 'crimes'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
