the thesis seems to be that hobbes’ premise of people being naturally at odds with one another contradicts the idea of authority of the government because the government’s power is wielded by some of the very people who are at odds with others.
i haven’t read hobbes in a long time, and i’m not going to read it again, but the way i remember it he presented the formation of states as inevitable. people are stronger or weaker than each other 1v1, but they’re still so close in power that a 2v1 or 3v1 will always favor the greater number.
so men, in their conflict with one another, inevitably form posses. the biggest posse always wins. so the posses become bigger and bigger until it is one big posse confined by geographical barriers, whose job it is mostly to ensure posse members play by the rules that had to be instituted in order for the posse to survive long enough to become large. that becomes a nation-state. someone has to be in charge of the posse, he or they become the sovereign.
it’s possible hobbes applied some kind of “just so” rationalization to suggest that because this is how things go it’s natural or what God intended or ideal or whatever. i don’t remember.
but all the same this essayist misses the point. the social contract is not a solution that was proposed and accepted to solve our human problem. the situation existed before hobbes described it. it’s cause and effect. something that comes about organically, whether you propose it or not.
if we took the takedown of hobbes aspect out of this essay (which, to me, seems like the academic equivalent of posting under a popular hashtag in hopes that someone will notice you), and just focused on the apparent contradiction - sovereignty is a weapon that makes people unequal - it’s like yeah, that’s a kind of sad and tragic aspect of the human condition. is there a “so what?” in the second half of the essay?
i think with the exception of failing empires (you are here), you could argue that the people who end up sovereign are typically better than those they are sovereign over. this numbnuts essayist probably wouldn’t say that, because at heart he’s a liberal. believes in the blank slate. believes we’re all the same it’s just education. believes a peasant could learn to be a king. look at his picture. the physiognomy.
Log in
the thesis seems to be that hobbes’ premise of people being naturally at odds with one another contradicts the idea of authority of the government because the government’s power is wielded by some of the very people who are at odds with others.
i haven’t read hobbes in a long time, and i’m not going to read it again, but the way i remember it he presented the formation of states as inevitable. people are stronger or weaker than each other 1v1, but they’re still so close in power that a 2v1 or 3v1 will always favor the greater number.
so men, in their conflict with one another, inevitably form posses. the biggest posse always wins. so the posses become bigger and bigger until it is one big posse confined by geographical barriers, whose job it is mostly to ensure posse members play by the rules that had to be instituted in order for the posse to survive long enough to become large. that becomes a nation-state. someone has to be in charge of the posse, he or they become the sovereign.
it’s possible hobbes applied some kind of “just so” rationalization to suggest that because this is how things go it’s natural or what God intended or ideal or whatever. i don’t remember.
but all the same this essayist misses the point. the social contract is not a solution that was proposed and accepted to solve our human problem. the situation existed before hobbes described it. it’s cause and effect. something that comes about organically, whether you propose it or not.
if we took the takedown of hobbes aspect out of this essay (which, to me, seems like the academic equivalent of posting under a popular hashtag in hopes that someone will notice you), and just focused on the apparent contradiction - sovereignty is a weapon that makes people unequal - it’s like yeah, that’s a kind of sad and tragic aspect of the human condition. is there a “so what?” in the second half of the essay?
i think with the exception of failing empires (you are here), you could argue that the people who end up sovereign are typically better than those they are sovereign over. this numbnuts essayist probably wouldn’t say that, because at heart he’s a liberal. believes in the blank slate. believes we’re all the same it’s just education. believes a peasant could learn to be a king. look at his picture. the physiognomy.
there, would starjello say THAT? i don’t think so