I’ve always been team Rousseau! From what I remember of The Social Contract, he describes an extremely natural and realistic process of the formation of civil societies. It’s an inevitable process, but one that can be reshaped by the needs/desires of the people involved. The reconfiguration of society is also inevitable based on his philosophy-and I like to believe in this flexibility!
Have you read The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow? It is an anthropology book, not a philosophy book, but they spend a good amount of time talking about these thinkers and the myths that their ideas are built on. I think you'd find the book interesting, and it would be cool to hear your thoughts on it.
Great video! Thank you for fostering this conversation. I would love to hear more cross cultural exploration of Social Contract ideas (perhaps from Asian, African and Native American perspectives), as well as a follow up deep dive exploration of the assumptions about human freedom that underlie influential Social Contract theories (in particular, Isaiah Berlin's and Charles Taylor's explanations and critiques of Positive and Negative Liberty that are usually glossed over by Social Contract theorists). Lastly, if you and your audience are interested, I would love this developed into a mini series of vids, at least one of which unpacks the ways in which (particularly Western) political theorists usually discount, or ignore altogether, potentially harmonious relationships with the underlying ecosystems that human societies depend on for their existence, yet through their compulsive habits of resource exploitation (justified by selfish ideas about freedom and human nature), they ultimately degrade the land's capacity to nourish life. This latter dimension seems woefully absent in so many political philosophy explanations on YT. And, yet, look where we find ourselves today! Slaves to our own consumptive and exploitative systems and habits, and through this we are destroying the webs of life that make human flourishing possible. Yeah, I know that this might sound like a tall order, but I do wish we had more discussions available on these themes via channels like yours. Again, thank you for your outstanding work.
I’ve been reading through Leviathan, a little bit of John Locke, should’ve also read Rousseau… It was ages ago, yet most merit seems to be standing with the latter two. Hobbes work was mostly propaganda meant to ease up the tensions within Britain at the time. It wasn’t even meant to be fully honest, that is why it might’ve presented ideas standing so starkly in contrast to more liberal line of thinking - as if to bring more balance to the debate. As it appears, the ideas of John Locke were meant to be the most popular ones by design. Positioned „in the middle” of the debate, they abuse the oldest trick in the book linked to sociology - the subconscious adherence to normal distribution: even if that distribution is terrifying… I think that discussing approaches towards the social contract in a form that is frequently limited only to this trio is manipulative by design. There are plenty of other approaches more liberal, and few even more totalitarian on the ultimate spectrum of all possible ideas. Yet, we are running out of time to press undo…
you’re not allowed to “enact the death penalty” in these situations necessarily but rather youre permitted to self defense to prioritize your safety within your personal property like your home and sometimes your vehicle, even if it results in the death of the one who was trying to harm you (castle doctrine)
hobbes' system to me is undoubtebly the strongest philosophically rousseau's is the strongest one on a political and literary standpoint and locke huuu, pragmatically the strongest? we cannot deny his immense influence, and the fact that his theory, much more than the other two, prevailed in modern societies and was verified historically but what a sad, drab glacier the lockean world is...
I’m privy to Hobbes myself as well philosophically, although the whole “overarching coercive authority” thing as being necessary to uphold contracts just screams authoritarianism to me.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I’ve always been team Rousseau!
From what I remember of The Social Contract, he describes an extremely natural and realistic process of the formation of civil societies. It’s an inevitable process, but one that can be reshaped by the needs/desires of the people involved. The reconfiguration of society is also inevitable based on his philosophy-and I like to believe in this flexibility!
Im very interested in Rousseaus ideas. Maybe you could do a series where you trace his thought in subsequent philosophers
Have you read The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow? It is an anthropology book, not a philosophy book, but they spend a good amount of time talking about these thinkers and the myths that their ideas are built on. I think you'd find the book interesting, and it would be cool to hear your thoughts on it.
Great video! Thank you for fostering this conversation.
I would love to hear more cross cultural exploration of Social Contract ideas (perhaps from Asian, African and Native American perspectives), as well as a follow up deep dive exploration of the assumptions about human freedom that underlie influential Social Contract theories (in particular, Isaiah Berlin's and Charles Taylor's explanations and critiques of Positive and Negative Liberty that are usually glossed over by Social Contract theorists).
Lastly, if you and your audience are interested, I would love this developed into a mini series of vids, at least one of which unpacks the ways in which (particularly Western) political theorists usually discount, or ignore altogether, potentially harmonious relationships with the underlying ecosystems that human societies depend on for their existence, yet through their compulsive habits of resource exploitation (justified by selfish ideas about freedom and human nature), they ultimately degrade the land's capacity to nourish life. This latter dimension seems woefully absent in so many political philosophy explanations on YT. And, yet, look where we find ourselves today! Slaves to our own consumptive and exploitative systems and habits, and through this we are destroying the webs of life that make human flourishing possible.
Yeah, I know that this might sound like a tall order, but I do wish we had more discussions available on these themes via channels like yours.
Again, thank you for your outstanding work.
thanks needed this for a class discussion
I’ve been reading through Leviathan, a little bit of John Locke, should’ve also read Rousseau…
It was ages ago, yet most merit seems to be standing with the latter two.
Hobbes work was mostly propaganda meant to ease up the tensions within Britain at the time. It wasn’t even meant to be fully honest, that is why it might’ve presented ideas standing so starkly in contrast to more liberal line of thinking - as if to bring more balance to the debate.
As it appears, the ideas of John Locke were meant to be the most popular ones by design.
Positioned „in the middle” of the debate, they abuse the oldest trick in the book linked to sociology - the subconscious adherence to normal distribution: even if that distribution is terrifying…
I think that discussing approaches towards the social contract in a form that is frequently limited only to this trio is manipulative by design.
There are plenty of other approaches more liberal, and few even more totalitarian on the ultimate spectrum of all possible ideas.
Yet, we are running out of time to press undo…
Thanks for the explanation!
Thank you for the video! ❤
you’re not allowed to “enact the death penalty” in these situations necessarily but rather youre permitted to self defense to prioritize your safety within your personal property like your home and sometimes your vehicle, even if it results in the death of the one who was trying to harm you (castle doctrine)
Thing about social contracts is our consent is just assumed, so we never consent.
Exactly!
great video!
Is Anarchy truly equal to chaos??
hobbes' system to me is undoubtebly the strongest philosophically
rousseau's is the strongest one on a political and literary standpoint
and locke huuu, pragmatically the strongest? we cannot deny his immense influence, and the fact that his theory, much more than the other two, prevailed in modern societies and was verified historically
but what a sad, drab glacier the lockean world is...
I’m privy to Hobbes myself as well philosophically, although the whole “overarching coercive authority” thing as being necessary to uphold contracts just screams authoritarianism to me.
Rousseau gang, I didn't sign SHIT
You have to do Charles mills racial contract now