Conversation

Replying to and
hm, blame the limits of twitter, maybe, but afaict it seems silly and incoherent bc you're reading me as arguing the exact inverse of what I am arguing tbf I am arguing from a *slightly* heterodox reading of Hobbes & his place in the schema of early modern political philosophy
1
I was responding to your reactionary sympathy point, which suggested a 1700s vintage pre-liberal-democracy narrow Hobbes reading. Maybe current understand is expansive but I doubt in 1700s our 20th century forms were clearly foreseeable.
1
Replying to and
don't think they have to be clearly foreseeable as long as they're still iterated refinements of base ideas that were laid out in the 1700s. we have QM, relativity & mature non-euclidian geometry now but lots of problems are still solved in euclidian or newtonian domains
1
Show replies