Hi David! I wanted to say tysm for all the videos you make. I'm a philosophy student and when I need to study really hard material I watch one of your videos to help break it down. Your explanations are incredible. And you are definitely the best youtuber that helps with my learning. So ty!
So, Thomas Hobbes can be seen as proposing a steady state model. You chose a framework and you ate stuck with it while Locke is talking about real-time optimization and hence represent a more dynamic model of governance!
I'll play Devil's advocate a little bit. Taking a sort of Rawlsian approach, everyone should side with Locke because if we're unhappy in our system then we need the ability to change it and chances are we would not be born to be the sovereign. However, is what Locke proposes ... real? I don't have an exact word for it. What is the consent of the people? Who gets to speak for the people if it's not an absolute sovereign? What happens when a group of people bound by some arbitrary border possesses wildly divergent points of view? We don't get a revolution against a sovereign because our quarrel is with each other. What is revolution against the people if not a war of all against all? I wouldn't bind myself to Hobbes's theories given all the points of view available, but in regards to Locke vs. Hobbes I don't think the choice is crystal clear. It seems that a powerful sovereign who possesses but rejects absolute power a la George Washington is needed to create a Lockesian style of society and when Lockesian ideals fail the society instead of a revolution we find a return Hobbesian rule.
I think they are both right to an extent. Hobbes is correct in that we give over a monopoly on violence to the state as a type of social contract. Where Locke is correct is both that human nature tends toward peaceful units with periodic enemies and that the state is ultimately accountable to provide certain benefits to the citizens Furthermore, expanding the size of the peaceful unit is tied directly to identities. For example, clans are small units or feudal states are small units while national churches provide a larger identity and a larger state. The beauty of the United States is creating an identity through commitment to the constitution and the founding principles without religious or ethic boundaries.
Hi David!
I wanted to say tysm for all the videos you make. I'm a philosophy student and when I need to study really hard material I watch one of your videos to help break it down. Your explanations are incredible. And you are definitely the best youtuber that helps with my learning. So ty!
I hope you one day can change the format to be even more lecture-y like Rick Roderick's old tapes. Thanks professor
Great survey and indepth analysis of both the philosophers!🙌
So, Thomas Hobbes can be seen as proposing a steady state model. You chose a framework and you ate stuck with it while Locke is talking about real-time optimization and hence represent a more dynamic model of governance!
I'll play Devil's advocate a little bit. Taking a sort of Rawlsian approach, everyone should side with Locke because if we're unhappy in our system then we need the ability to change it and chances are we would not be born to be the sovereign. However, is what Locke proposes ... real? I don't have an exact word for it. What is the consent of the people? Who gets to speak for the people if it's not an absolute sovereign? What happens when a group of people bound by some arbitrary border possesses wildly divergent points of view? We don't get a revolution against a sovereign because our quarrel is with each other. What is revolution against the people if not a war of all against all? I wouldn't bind myself to Hobbes's theories given all the points of view available, but in regards to Locke vs. Hobbes I don't think the choice is crystal clear. It seems that a powerful sovereign who possesses but rejects absolute power a la George Washington is needed to create a Lockesian style of society and when Lockesian ideals fail the society instead of a revolution we find a return Hobbesian rule.
David this is supposed to a 4 way match u are forgetting Rosesseau and Hume
Thomas Hobbes was the more correct regarding how the modern state actually works IMHO
Hi guys, I coudn't find Leviathan part 5/5
I think they are both right to an extent. Hobbes is correct in that we give over a monopoly on violence to the state as a type of social contract. Where Locke is correct is both that human nature tends toward peaceful units with periodic enemies and that the state is ultimately accountable to provide certain benefits to the citizens Furthermore, expanding the size of the peaceful unit is tied directly to identities. For example, clans are small units or feudal states are small units while national churches provide a larger identity and a larger state. The beauty of the United States is creating an identity through commitment to the constitution and the founding principles without religious or ethic boundaries.