Once you get into Hobbes, you realize that he was the greatest philosopher of all time. Kant is seen as the 'turning point' of modern philosophy, and is the most popular philosopher on this board, but the secret is that the so called 'transcendental viewpoint' or 'copernican turn' is actually already present in a superior form in Hobbes. This can be known only to those who have read and understood de corpore however. Furthermore, Hume, Berkeley, and Kant were all derivative of Locke (once you abandon the naive view of Locke that reads him as just 'tabula rasa' guy), and Locke was very much a post-Hobbesian. Now you could try to continue this by saying that Hobbes was just a student of Bacon, and while Bacon was remarkable, there's just no comparison between them. I find it strange that when it comes to Hobbes and Locke, they are simply reduced to 'muh nasty brutish and short' and 'muh tabula rasa' without any thought or consideration, while when it comes to Kant, there is a lot more effort into explaining his nuances. I've seen dedicated fans of Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Derrida, Deleuze, Lacan, and so on, but no one recognizes the genius of Hobbes.Now some people think that Leibniz was the smartest person who ever lived, so let me quote from Leibniz's letter to Hobbes>I believe I have read almost all your works, in part separately and in part in the collected edition, and I freely admit that I have profited from them as much as from few others in our century. I am not given to flattery, but everyone who has had the privilege of following your writings on the theory of the state will acknowledge, as I do, that nothing can be added in such brevity to its admirable clearness...
>>25040759Hobbes entire political philosophy boils down to being a nominalist bootlicking coward who extended Bacons conquest of nature onto society itself. The state of nature is complete nonsense, too. You are right on Locke though, he is entirely derivative of Hobbes to the point there’s almost no point reading his political philosophy beyond his importance and influence in giving clout to yeoman slave owners.
>>25040773Hobbes's political philosophy is founded on the fundamental equality of all men and every man's natural right to everything he desires. Midwits like you see his conclusion that monarchy is the best form of government and think that that says anything about the true basis of his philosophy. There is nothing bootlicking about it, Hobbes's entire philosophy is a complete annihilation of all previous orthodox views.
Hobbes liked squares and circles
>>25040773>>25040784There's no need to dwell on the issue since Spinoza surpassed all of them
>>25040784>my bronze/vulgar soul libtard views are true and correctHobbes wrote Leviathan in part to appease the new British crown so he could return home from exile. It’s all modern heretical slop.
>>25040809>Hobbes wrote Leviathan in part to appease the new British crown so he could return home from exileare you retarded? Hobbes's views were extremely controversial in his day, if his goal was to please the british crown he did it in the dumbest and most convoluted way possible. but this idea has no historical basis anyway. >hereticalYes, and if you have a mind that uses 'heretical' as a meaningful category regarding how you ought to interact with the ideas of others, then you are not worth speaking to.
>>25040805>Spinoza Not OP. You Spinozafags are the Jehovah’s Witnesses of intellectualism and western philosophy. >Have you heard the good news of substance monism?Bless your heart. Wish I could eat it in a stew. He had higher ambition in terms of what he wanted from his content. He didn’t address the same questions.
>>25040814You are far too emotional to take serious. Babies first political philosopher.
>>25040827I adopt a specific style when I post on 4chan, that includes calling people retards, I apologize.
>>25040784>every man's natural right to everything he desiresIs that what your mommy told you?
>>25040759You were BTFO in the last thread.Hobbes' entire intellectual edifice rests on the axiom of the war of all against all, and it has been disproven by real life.Literally no group of humans, even the most primitive tribe, are killing and raping each other constantly in a free for all.
>>25040889>You were BTFO in the last thread.I haven't posted about Hobbes in months >the axiom of the war of all against allthe war of all against all is not an axiom, it's derived from other claims about human nature>Literally no group of humans, even the most primitive tribe, are killing and raping each other constantly in a free for all.not only is the actual existence of a 'state of nature' irrelevant, it doesn't imply that people would be killing and raping each other constantly in a free for all anyway. this is just a meme point based on such a poor understanding of Hobbes that it is too much to assume you've even read his wikipedia page.
>>25040889It suffices that a single group of humans is killing and raping others constantly in a big free for all to justify the existence of the state.Fuck, if the state is what I need to stop these 1.2 billion asian cave men from immigrating here and making my daughter afraid of leaving her home at night, I'll take the risk.There are too many fuckers on this planet. Better the devil you know (state), than the one that will stab you, scam your grandmother, take over your company and shit on your street.Hobbes was onto something. All modern political theoreticians need to re-read his work, and start working on new theory based on the real, terrifying fact that JEETS are half of humankind, and that percentage is only growing.The age of man is over.
>>25040921Indians are a better culture than yours objectively. Sorry to say it but it's true. If anything you are the plague on humanity with your faggotry and your troonery
>>25040921>It suffices that a single group of humans is killing and raping others constantly in a big free for all to justify the existence of the state.Except this has never happened anywhere at any time>Hobbes was onto something. All modern political theoreticians need to re-read his work, and start working on new theory based on the real, terrifying fact that JEETS are half of humankind, and that percentage is only growing.You realize it's the state that is handing out H1B visas and allowing Indians into your country, right?>There are too many fuckers on this planet. Better the devil you know (state), than the one that will stab you, scam your grandmother, take over your company and shit on your street.>The age of man is over.Rightwing thought is inherently pessimistic about human nature because it's the only way people will accept all the other bullshit they want to impose (the alternative is supposedly worse).Ironic that you posted that pic, it's meant to satirize the exact attitude you take (better the devil you know than the one you don't)
>>25040784>Hobbes's entire philosophy is a complete annihilation of all previous orthodox views.yeah a complete annihilation of all previous orthodox arguments for hereditary monarchy, to be replaced with a new and significantly more retarded argument for hereditary monarchy. "we should have a hereditary monarchy because otherwise we'll all start stabbing each other" lmao shut up
>>25040939the thing that stops people from stabbing each other is the sovereign, hobbes explicitly states that that could be a council or even elected. His arguments that monarchy is the best form of government are different. but once again, everyone only remembers Hobbes for this meme.
>>25040943>a ruling council, an elected leader or even a really cool and handsome king named charles ;owe progressed beyond this wretched bootlicker 200 years ago. death to the aristocracy!
>>25040951>death to AristocracyCan do.
>>25040956you want to hold bonds from a despotic regime with no rule of law? good luck with that
>>25040809>Hobbes wrote Leviathan in part to appease the new British crown so he could return home from exile. It’s all modern heretical slop.What are you even talking about here, Leviathan was published in 1651, who was he appealing do? The rump parliment? King Charles? The Scots?>>25040889>"It may peradventure be thought, there was never such a time, nor condition of warre as this; and I believe it was never generally so, over all the world: but there are many places, where they live so now. For the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small Families, the concord whereof dependeth on naturall lust, have no government at all; and live at this day in that brutish manner, as I said before. Howsoever, it may be perceived what manner of life there would be, where there were no common Power to feare; by the manner of life, which men that have formerly lived under a peacefull government, use to degenerate into, in a civill Warre.>But though there had never been any time, wherein particular men were in a condition of warre one against another; yet in all times, Kings, and Persons of Soveraigne authority, because of their Independency, are in continuall jealousies, and in the state and posture of Gladiators; having their weapons pointing, and their eyes fixed on one another; that is, their Forts, Garrisons, and Guns upon the Frontiers of their Kingdomes; and continuall Spyes upon their neighbours; which is a posture of War. But because they uphold thereby, the Industry of their Subjects; there does not follow from it, that misery, which accompanies the Liberty of particular men." - Ch. 13 Pg. 182"
But what! are the ancient Geome∣tricians to be blamed, who made use of the Quadratrix for the finding out of a straight line equal to the arch of a Circle? and Pappus himself, was he faulty when he found out the trisection of an Angle by the help of an Hyperbole? Or am I in the wrong, who think I have found out the construction of both these Problemes by the Rule and Compass onely?
>>25040784If this is Hobbes' doing then where did the liberal element from christianity of we are equal under god sneak from?
>>25040997give him a break he didn't discover mathematics until he was like 50 >>25041006For Hobbes the equality of men literally means that men are capable of killing each other, his argument is that even a weak man can kill a strong man >Nature hath made men so equall, in the faculties of body, and mind; as that though there bee found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind then another; yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim to himselfe any benefit, to which another may not pretend, as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others, that are in the same danger with himselfe.it has nothing to do with christianity or god
>>25040759Schopenhauer is the one who came closest to the full truth, and even he was following after ancient Indian philosphers. The truth has been out there for a while. The Upanishads are often depicted as the "oldest" religion, but they represent the condensation of the wisdom of a thousand and more sages through countless generations, they embody the "god emperor" of perennial wisdom. Hobbes is a low level trooper in this grand battlefield. He holds his own but it's just a lower dimensional coordinate in a grander scheme. Schopenhauer's great achievement was bridging the western and eastern traditions and systematizing it.
>>25041027only a dilettante could say this shit.
>>25041029Provide an argument pleb. Now go off and run to ChatGPT.
>>25041030>an argumenttranscendental arguments, intuitions, and synthetic a priori judgements have been refuted in dozens of different ways and therefore so has Schopenhauer. but you don't give a shit about that because you likely don't even know how Schopenhauer's own philosophy works, you're almost certainly just some kind of guenonfag or advaita larper. and it's hard to post any arguments when there is no argument there to respond to.
a nigga could at least read picrel before going around saying copenhauer solved philosophy
>>25041031Not.An.Argument. I don't think you understand whose hands you are playing into. Walk on home, boy.
>>25041033Please explain how I am wrong. Just do it. It would only take a little bit of effort, if I'm so wrong. As far as I'm concerned Hobbes is an addendum to Schopenhauer's philosophy, a subset and implication, not a overarching principle. Hobbes wasn't even a metaphysician, he was a bullshit empiricist. Hobbes is literally a minor pessimist whose entire outlook would be predicted from Schopenhauer's.
>>25041045wrong about what specifically? do you want me to talk about why pure intuitions do not exist? why causality is not sufficient to explain how the mind constructs perception? why scheme-content dualism is invalid? why transcendental arguments do not work? nearly every post-kantian philosopher has attacked the foundations of Kantian and therefore Schopenhauerian philosophy in some respect. I've made dozens of posts detailing these things on this board, and none of you fags are even capable of understanding it. I don't feel like rehashing any of it, and I don't see why you're placing the assymmetrical demand on me to provide an argument when you have not provided any arguments either, you just asserted copenhauer is the greatest thing ever. im not even trying to refute copenhauer right now, I'm just trying to explain that copenhauer is not the end all be all of philosophers, and the specific examples of papers I posted that critique his kind of philosophy are an argument in support of that, as they show that there is philosophy beyond copenhauer. if you want to know the problems with copenhauer, start reading post-kantian philosophy.
>>25040759Hume was a reaction to Locke and Locke was a bourgeois retard. Hume was not. Kant was a direct reaction to Hume. It’s absurd to say Hobbes already did what Kant did because Kants work is a response to Humes work which is a response to Lockes work which is loosely built in Hobbes framework.
>>25041065Your indirect rhetorical approach suggests to me that you don't have coherent answers to any of these questions. It suggests to me that you're trying to squirm your way out of something you can't explain. If you had answers to all these questions ready-made, you should be able to supply them relatively effortlessly.And I don't claim Schopenhauer is the the end all be all, only that he came closer than the vast majority of philosophers in the rationalist tradition, who assert that for some reason nature MUST conform to a rational scheme.
>>25041065I’m not him, I undertsnd it well enough but I don’t think it really defeats Kant so much as provides an alternative view. I do agree that if Kant fails so to Hegel and Schopenhauer
>>25041065>>25041077Kant's entire effort is essentially an attempt to define an epistemic limit or cognitive closure. He basically says that without a certain set of categories (of Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Modality) thought and indeed perception, is impossible. I have yet to see anyone present to me a thought or perception that is devoid of quantity, quality, relation, or modality. Schopenhauer extends this by connecting it to Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason, and ultimately traces this to the fundamental logical form of the subject-object relationship (the principle of individuation), from which he derives all perception of multiplicity as a byproduct of phenomenology, and ultimately as the Will's basic logical form (there can be no striving without a subject seeking an object, etc)Schopenhauer's great innovation comes from detecting that Kant completely lacks an analysis of the subject as an interior aspect of reality, which shares a unique experience of itself both as an objective body subject to physics, and an "independent" mind. Kant's thing-in-itself, mysterious under his analysis, this unobtainable "outer reality" becomes will itself, the root of consciousnes and subjecthood.
