Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leviathan (1651)

gutenberg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#51

Post by aestetix »

libraryofbabel wrote: post #3

As an ex historian I love how this famous 350yo work of political philosophy is just sitting at #7 on HN with absolutely no context on why it was submitted. The great debate of political philosophy coming out of the 17th century was between Hobbes (anarchy is horrible, humans aren’t nice to each other, best to give up your freedoms to a strong sovereign/state for protection) and Locke (liberty is best, people are rea…

I'd argue this is too expansive of a view. It's a debate specifically coming out of the English Civil War, and specifically focusing on the tension between Parliament and the Monarchy. If you read Clarendon it becomes extremely obvious. Hobbes (like Clarendon) took the royalist view defending the king, and Locke set for an argument for parliament.

Some of it doesn't translate super well into modern times. For example, Locke barely touches upon judiciary. The modern notion of separation of powers came (I believe) from Montesquieu.

I will say that Hobbes gives a far more comprehensive argument than Locke does. And some of Locke's details, including his anthropology of the origin of commonwealths, is demonstrably false.

Either way, glad to see Leviathan here!

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#52

Post by neomantra »

cess11 wrote: post #44
neomantra wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watching that again reminds me that this guy is so poorly educated and not learned. Sure he was an engineering student at UIUC and wrote a neato browser, but wow he does not know history or philosophy well. But he does the grifter trick of making coy observations like that 1920s bs. And he had so much time and wealth to improve those insights! Or, he knows but this narrative makes him feel better about his behavior.

I'm not so sure he is grifting, do you have any clips where he slips and shows himself to be knowledgeable of his society and its history? I have a similar view of Musk, Thiel and Karp, and some others I can't be bothered to remind myself of. Perhaps the Mandelsons belong to this crowd, but I suspect the Kochs have a bit more of an intellectual slant. It's known to take a lot of discipline to keep your mind sharp and…

It's a grift tactic (even the exact type of laugh when he brings up Freud), but I agree with you that he's not literally grifting, more like a white-washing.

Thanks for bringing up Meditations -- it was gifted to me three years ago. Although I roughly knew Stoicism, it was my first time reading it. It helped reaffirm my focus on OSS as a channel for personal improvement and contribution to society. With so much world chaos, probably a good time re-read it.

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#53

Post by cess11 »

neomantra wrote: post #52
cess11 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure he is grifting, do you have any clips where he slips and shows himself to be knowledgeable of his society and its history? I have a similar view of Musk, Thiel and Karp, and some others I can't be bothered to remind myself of. Perhaps the Mandelsons belong to this crowd, but I suspect the Kochs have a bit more of an intellectual slant. It's known to take a lot of discipline to keep your mind sharp and…

It's a grift tactic (even the exact type of laugh when he brings up Freud), but I agree with you that he's not literally grifting, more like a white-washing. Thanks for bringing up Meditations -- it was gifted to me three years ago. Although I roughly knew Stoicism, it was my first time reading it. It helped reaffirm my focus on OSS as a channel for personal improvement and contribution to society. With so much world…

If that's your thing, maybe complement with Augustine's Confessions. He had a somewhat complicated relation to stoicism but was one of the most important patristic writers to make use of stoic ideas.

It's a document that details an interesting person, who takes both ethics and himself very seriously, much more seriously than is common in the contemporary occident.

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#54

Post by libraryofbabel »

aestetix wrote: post #51
libraryofbabel wrote: post #3

As an ex historian I love how this famous 350yo work of political philosophy is just sitting at #7 on HN with absolutely no context on why it was submitted. The great debate of political philosophy coming out of the 17th century was between Hobbes (anarchy is horrible, humans aren’t nice to each other, best to give up your freedoms to a strong sovereign/state for protection) and Locke (liberty is best, people are rea…

I'd argue this is too expansive of a view. It's a debate specifically coming out of the English Civil War, and specifically focusing on the tension between Parliament and the Monarchy. If you read Clarendon it becomes extremely obvious. Hobbes (like Clarendon) took the royalist view defending the king, and Locke set for an argument for parliament. Some of it doesn't translate super well into modern times. For example…

Oh for sure, both thinkers were products of the English Civil War and its aftermath (and see my comment below about reading Quentin Skinner for all the context on Hobbes). I’d add that Locke (who was writing later than Hobbes) was all wrapped up in the 1688 “Glorious Revolution” too.

But some works transcend the specific details of their historical origins and authorship and contain ideas that echo down the centuries. Locke’s ideas were instrumental in founding the United States and feed into much of modern liberalism. And I can read Hobbes here today in the 21st century and still find the pessimistic core of his book powerful and relevant, even while ignoring much of the book because it’s full of the parochial concerns of 17th century England. That was really what I was getting at: not “this is the exact meaning of these works in the 17th century”, but “here is the tension of ideas these books bequeathed to us.”

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#55

Post by coolcoder613 »

kruffalon wrote: post #12
libraryofbabel wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh totally. I actually don’t like Locke’s position much either, he’s too libertarian for my taste (I would like the state to provide healthcare &c &c). But if I had to choose I’d choose Locke over Hobbes. Hobbes is… real dark.

Such elegance, or snobbery or at least some kind of beauty... Using "&" literally in 2026 smells of wonder, well done, thanks! Do you do it sometimes in regular English words too or just in &c? Please give more examples (if you have any). This will be a great day, starting of like this: a written play with words; i like it!

&c as an abbreviation for etc was very common historically. For example, look at the OP. It would not normally be used for an et that is not the latin et (and), as in et cetera. Its use for an 'and' in latin carried over to english, for some reason, and that usage has stayed with us.

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#56

Post by PearlRiver »

PowerElectronix wrote: post #19
libraryofbabel wrote: post #3

As an ex historian I love how this famous 350yo work of political philosophy is just sitting at #7 on HN with absolutely no context on why it was submitted. The great debate of political philosophy coming out of the 17th century was between Hobbes (anarchy is horrible, humans aren’t nice to each other, best to give up your freedoms to a strong sovereign/state for protection) and Locke (liberty is best, people are rea…

Wouldn't it make more sense to want less government and more freedom if one doesn't trust people?

Imagine you grow up in a pedo cult and one day black vans drive on the ranch with FBI agents.

Government bad is such an insufferable American take and I scream every time I hear it.

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#57

Post by nandomrumber »

krapp wrote: post #33
nandomrumber wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No amount of government is going to help you there.

Some amount of government helps to some degree, otherwise government and anarchy should be indistinguishable, which is obviously not the case.

What we have now, wherever you are in the world, is, in my approximation, merely a slightly more evolved version of anarchy.

We are only three missed meals away from the marauders coming for your dog.

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#58

Post by nandomrumber »

kruffalon wrote: post #48
nandomrumber wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'm confused. Did you understand the comment you replied to as me being negative or did you reply to the wrong comment? I'm well aware that I'm a cunt at times, but I'm having a hard time seeing that in this instance. My intention was to be celebratory towards something I found truly elegant. (Maybe it is common to use "&" to write "etc" or anywhere where you'd normally use "et" but afaik I have never seen it before.…

Are you a human?

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#59

Post by PowerElectronix »

pnut wrote: post #22
PowerElectronix wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it make more sense to want less government and more freedom if one doesn't trust people?

If you don't trust individuals, you're going to need an institution (or private security) to protect you from them. Police, laws, etc.

But those public institutions only give power to individuals. Bad actors are gonna orbit to those positions and abuse them as much as they can.

Private security is a different thing, as the power given is just wages in exchange for a good service, so individuals seeking power wouldn't want to "just have a job" at those.

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#60

Post by PowerElectronix »

nandomrumber wrote: post #57
krapp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some amount of government helps to some degree, otherwise government and anarchy should be indistinguishable, which is obviously not the case.

What we have now, wherever you are in the world, is, in my approximation, merely a slightly more evolved version of anarchy. We are only three missed meals away from the marauders coming for your dog.

Don't confuse anarchy with barbarism. Anarchy gives you the linux kernel while barbarism is being sacrificed to your neighbours gods when it doesn't rain in a long time.
Post reply on HN