first of all, my apologies were not attending lecture today! i woke up and felt really sick and decided that stuffing myself into crowded buses for 2 hours and then a lecture hall for 2 hours would not be good idea, haha. hopefully the lecture comes out on video soon so i can watch it, though!
so… i think ive found myself a pattern where i really dislike philosophers. first plato, and now hobbes… i just cant really understand their trains of thought (HA) or understand their points, really.
halfway through i realized that hobbes is really just laying his ideas down and then he started to explain them and expand on them.
but what im really confused at is why does he say that something will stay in motion until something else stops it, and then later says that nature… cannot dictate the laws of the world… when that motion is a nature of law and physics… and then he says that a sovereign must dictate laws of the world…
yet he is dictating laws of the world so hobbes are you saying that you should be king
i dont understand you oh my gosh.
-nicole
Oh I fear we have given you all a bad picture of philosophers so far! They are not all annoying (at least I think not) nor difficult to read. Maybe you’ll like Rousseau better.
I would be better able to answer your confusion, I think, if I had page numbers. I don’t know where he says that nature can’t dictate the laws of the world, and I don’t remember him saying this, so I’m afraid I can’t help you on that one. The sovereign one I think I get, though: the sovereign must dictate the laws of the world in the sense of the laws of society. At least, that’s what I understand, but maybe he says something else somewhere? Again, page numbers would help!