Holy shit he is right about everything

he is right about everything but anarchism is the only acceptable condition for humans to live in dumb fucking simp

I don't think he's right about everything but he makes so many damn good points is a shame he's not read as often as Locke or Roussy

Name something he's right about. And preferably tell us which of his premisses are correct, not his conclusions

Not the OP, but basically all of his premises are actually more amenable to application today than they were during his time, simply due to automation and to the nature of current market-intermediated relations. If anything, Rousseau and Locke are losing their relevance and men born outside of the "machine" or at least peripherally to the developed world, are looking more and more like the savage descriptions of the natural man of Hobbes, insofar as compared to contemporary societies.

Bumping for Hobbes, I wish more people read him:
> the offence men take, from contumely, in words, or gesture, when they produce no other harme, than the present griefe of him that is reproached, hath been neglected in the Lawes of the Greeks, Romans, and other both antient, and moderne Common-wealths; supposing the true cause of griefe to consist, not in the contumely, (which takes no hold upon men conscious of their own vertue,) but the Pusillanimity of him that is offended by it.

One place he's wrong is that a rational, self-interested agent wouldn't be willing to die for their country, because the reason he's okay with being part of a state is to avoid dying in a state of nature, so there's a question of how Hobbes's leviathan can actually wage war without violating the (very narrow) conception of liberty its supposed to respect

People are individuals. It is entirely possible for both views to be correct and that a singular mankind is illusory.

Any prerequisite reading before reading Hobbes? I've had Leviathan forever but haven't gotten to it

not really desu. he doesn't rely on the greeks or the bible that much and in a way is the starting-point to early modern political thought. you could maybe read machiavelli if you want, but he's not by any means a necessary prereq

You don't need anything, in fact it might be considered a starting point for political philosophy. He spends the first chapters scrutinizing and painfully defining terms very carefully.

Isn't it interesting that we seem to be going further and further back in history to find some wisdom, direction and truth.

Why are the enlightenment and age of liberalism philosophers so heavily memed and criticized on here? I seriously doubt we can compare the e-celebs of today to the great thinkers of yesterday.

You should have basic understanding of aristotle's metaphysics and aquinas. Leviathan is primarily a reaction against those thinkers. It's pretty much about discarding old metaphysics. Lots of people see Machiavelli as a precursor so you can look into that as well but not super necessary. People saying there are no prerequisites are brainlets

good post thanks user

bullshit. Aristotle and Aquinas are by no means necessary prereqs for Hobbes. It might be helpful to get a general idea of what Scholasticism was and what the Four Causes are from wikipedia, but you don't need to read every single possible precursor and influence to understand a work. especially if all you care about is Hobbes's political philosophy where you maybe should know from Genesis and Exodus how covenants work, but you don't really need more

Telling someone to know Aristotle and Aquinas before reading Hobbes is hardly telling them to know every single influence. The majority of Leviathan is about rejecting the scholastics and if you don't have a familiarity with them you will not understand why It mattered. Aristotle says the state is the teleological end point of man. Hobbes says the state comes from fear of death. That's a remarkable shift in political thought that still has ramifications. Can you read Hobbes with no background on anything? Sure, why not. But user asked for prereqs

>Aristotle says the state is the teleological end point of man.

wait u mean hegel was just repackaging some crusty old aristotle in shitty prose?

My bullies taught me otherwise.

Yeah, but we can easily construct a model after his one. Such that it incorporates shared perceptions and values, and psychology.

Shit this is what Hegel was trying to say? I mean just write words man wtf was he on lololo

I think this is always the case for most of [written] history, what with Newton "standing on the shoulder of giants" and Hobbes himself writing in opposition to the metaphysics of his era (which is technically still looking into the past for guidance, if only to choose another way). With that said, I do agree that we are somewhat damping our capacity for insight with overexposure to "fast" media (e.g, if I take a week to write about yesterday's news it's going to be very detailed and throughout, but a week is hardly acceptable for today's standards, and I must deliver a shitty piece of rushed opinion ASAP).

> damping our capacity for insight with overexposure to "fast" media
I wonder how long these guys actually sat and thank....just playing things over in their mind for god knows how long waiting for the dots to connect and that eureka moment.

As opposed to reading something today and going "whelp that sounds right and confirms my bias' this is now what I believe, good luck shaking me from this tree!".

This.

>le ebin choo choo man
Jesus Christ.

>made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind
Yes. Better genes, better memes.

>I don’t like the implications of his theories so he’s wrong.

Kys.

>thinks Rousseau is a serious philosopher

The wages of a soldier can compensate this fact. It's similar to crab Fisher men or lumber jacks who are paid high wages in exchange for work that is likely to compensate this fact.

Sexual selection may also factor in as if some one can present themselves as protector to woman, signalling this virtue through warfare, he will be more likely in obtaining a higher status woman.