Thomas Hobbes Puns

Its considered a hugely influential work now, but was it like that from the start? What was so special about it?

I went to the Wikipedia page of Thomas Hobbes to learn a bit more about the person. I noticed that in a picture of his tomb which is in Latin his name is spelled "Thomæ Hobbes" which stuck out to me as from my Latin education I expected the ae ending to indicate a first declension noun's plural form or something of that sort, not something I would expect to see in a male's first name.

I saw that Thomas seemingly has the etymological origin of "twin". Was Thomas interpreted as plural and thus Latinized as "Thomæ" or is something else going on?

I need some recommendations for introductions to Hobbes. Anyone help me out?

In Leviathan, he claims that Jews believe prophecy comes from a person being possessed by some spirit similar to the Oracle in Greek mythology.

Does anyone have any clue why in the world he wrote this? In all my life as a Jew, I have never heard this before.

I came across a quote by Thomas Hobbes where he says that life outside society would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

It reminded me of Hobbes in Fable because I've been playing Fable TLC recently, and Hobbes are nasty, brutish and short.

In my re-play of Fable TLC I'm reading all of the in-game books and I'm noticing that they draw from real world folk lore and myth.

I've never seen this fantasy creature Hobbe in other fantasy settings, so I wonder if Hobbes are unique to Fable.

I have a lasting interest in both psychology and philosophy, in which Thomas Hobbes and his ideas are referenced a lot. Hobbes basically believed human beings are fundamentally evil in a selfish, fearful and pleasure seeking kind of way, and he's often contrasted with Ruosseau who believed human beings are fundamentally good.

Anyway, do you think this could be why Hobbes are called Hobbes?

Specifically his most infamous work "Leviathan"

Im ersten Teil ging es um den historischen Ursprung des Liberalismus: Absolute Monarchen waren kacke, also kam mit dem Liberalismus eine neue Theorie auf, die die Macht des Staates beschneiden und über den freien Markt für Gleichheit und Wohlstand sorgen sollte. Spätestens ab der Industrialisierung klappte das mit dem freien Markt aber nicht mehr so und der Liberalismus fing an, mit der Demokratie in Konflikt zu geraten. Trotzdem ist der Mist immer noch die vorherrschende Ideologie der westlichen Welt, aber niemand, der hier aufwächst, lernt das in der Schule. Deswegen lohnt sich eine kritische Auseinandersetzung.

Im zweiten Teil wollte ich mehr auf das philosophische Menschen- und Gesellschaftsbild des Liberalismus eingehen, angefangen bei Hobbes, rüber zu Reaktionen von Smith, Mill und Bentham bis hin zum egalitären Liberalismus ab Rawls. Allerdings habe ich bei Hobbes doch mehr Liberalismus-relevante Stellen gefunden, als ich in Erinnerung hatte, und daher auch zu viel geschrieben, weshalb sich dieser Teil alleine mit Hobbes beschäftigt (und ich erwähne hier noch nicht mal die Gesellschaftsvertragstheorie!).

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wer mit undogmatischen und wohlgesonnenen Liberalen über Sozialismus spricht, hat oft Erfolg, sie davon zu überzeugen, dass autoritärer Staatskapitalismus nicht die einzige und schon gar nicht die gewünschte Option ist. Komplizierter wird es dann bei Grundsatzfragen, denn man landet eigentlich immer bei „Das mag in der Theorie ja gut klingen, aber aufgrund der Natur des Menschen ist das unmöglich.“

Doch was ist das für eine Natur des Menschen? In der Anthropologie, Soziologie und Philosophie herrscht da keinerlei Konsens (auch nicht darüber, ob eine solche Natur existiert oder ob sie in dem Fall tatsächlich von Bedeutung wäre). Zweifellos ist der Mensch zu Egoismus, Rücksichtslosigkeit, Ausbeutung und Gewalt ebenso fähig wie zu Mitleid, Zusammenarbeit, Selbstlosigkeit und Nächstenliebe. Liberale scheinen allerdings davon auszugehen, dass nur die erstgenannten Eigenschaften wahrlich der menschlichen Natur entspringen. Woran liegt das?

Um dem auf den Grund zu gehen, ist Thomas Hobbes mit seinem Hauptwerk Leviathan ein guter Ei

Unlike ancaps like Tom Woods, I don't recognize a separation between corporation and state.

Corporations exist as records in a state department databases and it entitles a group of people to act as a group entity. States themselves are groups of guilds and gangs working together on a group project.

This is a response to a claim made by u/EckhartsLadder in the most recent episode of a podcast he co-hosts called Tapcaff Transmissions (which is excellent, would highly recommend people check it out). Discussing Mathew Stover's novel Shatterpoint, Eck argues that Mace is so narrowly focused on the "uncivilized" violence of the jungle ("there is no noble savage") he ignores the fact that the war currently raging across the galaxy is a case of "civilized" violence. And while I don't think Mace's views here are beyond criticism (far from it), I respectfully think this particular critique is missing the larger point. In order to explain, please forgive me while I take you back to your (hopefully beloved) Philosophy 101 course.

While Shatterpoint is most directly influenced by Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, the philosophy Mace expresses during his trek through the jungles of Haruun Kal seems to be most inspired by the thought of philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Much like Mace, Hobbes has a pessimistic view of human nature. The natural state of human existence, according to Hobbes, is a perpetual state of war between individuals for resources. He famously declares life in the state of nature to be "solitary, nasty, brutish, and short." Civilization is the escape from the state of nature; it is the result of a compact between individuals who are willing to relinquish their freedom to take from and harm others as long as they themselves are protected from the same theft and harm. Within a nation-state, the government guarantees one this protection.

However, even within the so called civilized world the state of nature has not disappeared entirely. As individual human beings form social compacts by creating nation-states, the state of nature comes to describe the relationships between those nation-states. If one nation decides to take from or harm another, there is no neutral arbiter the offended nation can appeal to (in the way the individual can appeal to the government for legal protection). And yes, while today there are international bodies nation-states can appeal to, these only have authority because one or more powerful nation-state(s) grants them legitimacy. While nation-states themselves preserve and make possible civilization internally, the external relations between nation-states are themselves uncivilized. Even if there is a long standing international peace, Hobbes would see that as a result of one exceptionally powerful nation holding others i

This is the first post of the reddit. Welcome and enjoy your stay. Let's get going.

Posting should only proceed along the lines about the work of english statesman, philosopher, and scared human being Thomas Hobbes. Any discussion that diverts is to be immediately terminated.