/lit/ - Literature

>>13961574
yes'sir!

>>12354684
Does that mean we could mass coordinate ordering the book in to one or several stores to trick them into putting them on their shelves? Simulate demand so they stock it normally?

>>12171057
The social contract is a product of the laws of nature, especially the first two. As such, the contract that forms the foundation of a commonwealth is based on reason rather than any explicit divine mandate. Under Hobbes’ definition of a contract, both parties must recognise the contract for it to be valid. What Is important about this for our question is that this definition of a contract precludes the possibility of Man making contract with God. Hobbes notes this in Leviathan, saying “To make contract with god is impossible, but by Mediation of such as God speaketh to, either be Revelation supernaturall, or by his Lieutenants that govern under him, and in his Name: For otherwise we know not whether our Covenant be accepted, or not. And there-fore they that Vow anything contrary to any law of Nature, Vow in vain; as being a thing unjust to pay such Vow. And if it be a thing commanded by the Law of Nature, it is not the Vow, but the Law that binds them” (Leviathan, XIV, 97). So what Hobbes is doing here is precluding any possible religious authority claiming sovereign power. One cannot claim sovereignty by right of God above the civil sovereign, or claim that the civil sovereign’s laws are contrary to divine laws, because there cannot possibly be any contract between and individual and God, and hence no laws or obligations. So, the Laws of Nature are the only way we can know God’s will; those laws just so happen to force the subject to respect the Civil sovereign and their laws; and that the sovereign authority is a product of divine law. Hobbes very much has the view of giving unto Caesar what is Caesars.