- it closely tracks Hobbes's account, which is usu taken as his descriptive account of the individual psyche - it isn't. H was describing what the psyche of the typical individual citizen/subject of the state would *have* to be in order to achieve political stability under it
I’ll take views informed by more data everytime, since political science/philosophy isn’t a field with prodigy/genius talents imo. Above basic competence/diligence, thinkers seem comparable in skill but not in data and perspective breadth they can enjoy
-
-
basically agree but that's not as relevant to how or what to read as it might seem, ime -- I don't think genius is much of a factor in how canonical a philosopher becomes anyway, actually, but European philosophy's tendency to operate on a tacit "great man" theory definitely is
-
there are big names you kind of do *have* to read, not bc "genius" but more bc almost *everyone else* you've heard of who wrote on the same topics encountered them and is being influenced by them consciously or unconsciously, so they become canon by a kind of path-dependence
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.