[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.17 MB, 1200x1914, 1200px-Leviathan_by_Thomas_Hobbes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15914437 No.15914437 [Reply] [Original]

This is unironically better than all Enlightenment books together. The Enlightenment was a disaster and a cope for philosophy. The Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution shits on everything "rationalists" and "empiricists" ever produced. The only one who wasn't a complete hack was Hume. The 18th century sucks major dicks

>> No.15914443
File: 9 KB, 233x217, 1569302027278.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15914443

NOOOOOO YOU CANT HECKIN DISS MUH ENLIGHTENMENT WHAT ABOUT MY FOUNDING FATHERINOS AND MUH RIGHTS

>> No.15914491

>>15914443
>MUH RIGHTS
The enlighenment retards just bastardized hobbes' natural rights anyway

>> No.15914499

>>15914437
I thought Leviathan was considered part of Enlightenment philosophy. The style of the book is at least pretty similar, he just makes up his own systems of how humans and society function by arguing from principles and evidence and reason, and then elaborates a complex preferred system.

He supports monarchy but there is nothing inherently anti-enlightenment about that. It is clearly different than like divine right of kings style justifications for monarchy that argued from scripture, as well as theories of human nature that take scripture as the bedrock.

idk quite what the definition of enlightenment is though

>> No.15914553

>>15914499
Enlightenment is not clearly defined but people tend to exclude him a lot. Even in official works, Enlightenment philosophers often omitted him despite being obviously inspired from him. The traditional narrative is the 3 rationalists and the 3 empiricists being reconciled by Kant and then leading into into Romanticism and the 18th century

>> No.15914570

>>15914437
You mean the book where the author literally says that everything is just a casual chain the end of which resides in god's hand meaning all human choice is predetermined? Oh, okay

>> No.15914636

>>15914437
>Everything after the old days is cope
Cope yourself.

>> No.15914638

>>15914570
Yeah that book you retarded pseud

>> No.15914662

>>15914636
? The 20th cetury was a million times more based than the Enlightenment

>> No.15915232

>>15914553
>3 rationalists and the 3 empiricists
so I reckon that Descartes and Berkeley are in camp R, Locke and Hume are in camp E
who are the other two guys?

>> No.15915256

>>15914437
Hobbes was a leading figure of the enlightenment, brainlet.

>> No.15915262

>>15915232
Spinoza and Berkeley

>> No.15915269

>>15915256
Yeah you can interpret the start of the Enlightenment however you want but if you weren't mentally challenged that wouldn't be a barrier to understanding the point you dumb motherfucker

>> No.15915275

>>15914553
People mistook Kant by thinking he was an atheist by saying the past was a spook and what matters is only the now, which makes the classic metaphysics argument of "The first cause" to impossible to rationalize. Dude did believe in God personally but his answer was "Let's what happened when we die lol"

Another misconception I that Kant wanted to create his own theology that places the empiricists and rationalists into one umbrella. But people took it as an attack on rationalism.

>> No.15915296

>>15915269
You have no point. Your post makes no sense at all.

>> No.15915311

>>15915275
There were plenty attacks on everyone including rationalists from Plato to Leibniz. Not sure what you're saying
>>15915262
>Berkeley
Leibniz*
>>15915296
Fuck off retard

>> No.15915324

>>15915262
I did count Berkeley, thanks for caring tho
>Then the debate, Rationalism vs. Empiricism, is joined. The fact that philosophers can be both rationalists and empiricists has implications for the classification schemes often employed in the history of philosophy, especially the one traditionally used to describe the Early Modern Period of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries leading up to Kant. It is standard practice to group the major philosophers of this period as either rationalists or empiricists and to suggest that those under one heading share a common agenda in opposition to those under the other. Thus, Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz are the Continental Rationalists in opposition to Locke, Berkeley and Hume, the British Empiricists

>> No.15915851

>>15915311
>Fuck off retard
Says the literal retard who doesn't know what the enlightenment is.

>> No.15916022

>>15914638
It's okay friend, I know your insult is a result of causes beyond your control

>> No.15916109

>>15915269
this

lit is literally the most retarded board, it's fucking crazy
my guess is 99% of posters are bots or shills sent here to be retarded

>> No.15916233

>>15914437
Hobbes is very straightforward, he truly has a commanding vision.
As far as I have read, his way of describing things in a succession of evolution steps was revolutionary.

His account does come up a bit short in the modern era as centuries of evolutionary thought could flesh out the causes for man's behavior by instinct and the genesis of races and nations and their preservation by culture and spirituality.
For some reason I don't think anyone has done this.

>> No.15916914

>>15914570
how do you know that everything isn't a casual chain the end of which resides God's hand?

>> No.15917367

>>15916914
because it would be a CAUSAL chain

it doesn't have a beginning or end
you can stop looking wherever you want but enjoy going extinct when some other creature knows something deeper than you

>> No.15917515

>>15914553
>The traditional narrative is the 3 rationalists and the 3 empiricists being reconciled by Kant
i think you got the “enlightenment” horrible confused with the larger topic of early modern high philosophy. the 3 rationalists and empericists are less associated with the main ideas of enlightenment (besides Locke who definitely was) and more with the fundamentals of modern philosophy. the “enlightenment” philosophers are more like that of Rousseau, Locke, Voltaire, Paine and the like. the proponents of radical individualism and natural rights. they were more involved in the political sphere and rabble rousing. you would be hard pressed to find people in the french revolution championing Leibnitz, but it wouldn’t be out of place for someone to quote Paine, Even though someone like Leibnitz was far more important to the sphere of achademic high philosophy.

i think you confused the social movement of the enlightenment with the wider early modern developments in philosophy.

>> No.15917896

>>15914437
Why restrict yourself to 'the enlightenment'?
Leviathan is unironically one of the two greatest pieces of political philosophy in history (the other is Aristotle's Politics).
Primarily because Hobbes takes human beings as they actually are, with all their flaws, unlike others who often appear to be thinking about some race of fictional beings (communism is the obvious offender here, but this also applies to moderns like Rawls and many others).
Leviathan is even greater than Republic as political philosophy.

>> No.15917986

>>15917896
Schmitt is up there as well, especially if you're concerned about political realism.

>> No.15918157

>>15914437
cope1 | kōp |
verb [no object]
(of a person) deal effectively with something difficult: his ability to cope with stress | it all got too much for me and I couldn't cope.
• (of a machine or system) have the capacity to deal successfully with: the roads are barely adequate to cope with the present traffic.

>> No.15918164

>>15914437
What about Kant? He's pretty based. The greatest philosopher since Kant, and most definitely of modern times.

>> No.15918433

>>15916233
Yeah he doesn't take genetics in account but neither does any Enlightenment thinker so I don't see the relation.

>> No.15918442

>>15916914
He's obvioulsy a pseud. It's perfectly fine of Hobbes to take a position on unknowable things (transcendent metaphyics in Kant's terminology). That retard just wants to appear smart

>> No.15918480
File: 98 KB, 1040x320, Screenshot 2020-07-21 at 08.57.32.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15918480

>>15917515
Both are Enlightenment from different perspectives. I am talking about the one with actual philosophers championing reason, departing from the church, and disecting knowledge.

>i think you got the “enlightenment” horrible confused with the larger topic of early modern high philosophy.
I think got a "horrible" narrow understading of enligthenment. Is it from your highschool textbook?

>> No.15918486

>>15917896
>Leviathan is even greater than Republic as political philosophy.
This

>> No.15918494

>>15918164
Kant is ok but overrated because most people don't understand him and it helps them pretend that philosophy is "something more." Leviathan > CPR