Beyond Eden: Book One
SUMMARY:
Chapter 1
Civilization: The State of War
Thomas Hobbe’s (1588) believed that humankind exists, apart from the rule of an executive sovereign, in a “State of War” – where every man is against every man. Though generally presenting a more cogent argument, this false premise is carried on in an amended form by John Locke (1632), based upon, apparently both Hobbe’s lack of thorough Anthropological survey and, erroneous Eurocentric prejudices against Hunter-Gather societies.
Hobbe’s defense of the sovereign is based on a presumption of a “State of War” outside of Agriculturalist Civilization (Agro-Civilization); a presumption which Locke seems to respond contrarily to, in that he views a government of the people as the “State of Nature”.
If this state can be demonstrated as a figment of the European imagination, then the latitude Hobbes reasons belongs to the sovereign, and Locke concludes can justify unprovoked conquest, which he sees resulting in “consent” – cannot be rationalized.
Chapter 2
Estrangement from the State of Nature: The Alienation of the Proletariat
The Enlightenment era philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), wrote regarding the origins of human socio-political development that life in simple-Horticultural, Hunter-Gatherer societies “must have been the happiest and most stable of epochs.” Rousseau’s position regarding this “State of Nature” is, on many levels, blatantly antithetical to the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). In Hobbes’s outlook, this is one and the same as a “State of War.” Though John Locke (1632-1704) subsequently modifies this concept, determining that the two states are not mutually exclusive, in neither earlier philosopher’s work do we see the idealization of this epoch observed by Rousseau, and acknowledge by Marx. “The more we reflect on it,” Rousseau writes, “the more we shall find that this state was the least subject to revolutions.” We must then accordingly direct our attention to the inevitability of such revolutions under all form of government subsequent to what Marx calls “Primitive Communism,” the least subject to the Hegelian stages of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Finally, and inevitably, this will lead us to defend Marxist theory, noting that Capitalism has mutated into a synthesis that has made it more resilient, even transplanting the proletariat in some cases.
Chapter 3
The Illusion of Separation: Liberalism versus Communitarianism
Finally, we must examine the philosophy of Martha Nussbaum in her responses to “The Feminist Critique of Liberalism.” The argument advanced here is from the perspective of a type of naturalism, founded on the basic idea that knowledge can be extrapolated from the workings of Nature, and applied to the human social and ethical microcosm. The logic will ground itself in science itself, as the flaws in Nussbaum’s concept of physical distinctness – related to liberalism’s focus on individualism over communitarianism – are highlighted. This response will then present a quantum view of radical oneness, wholeness, and argue individual separateness as empirically unsubstantiated.
1111496729
Chapter 1
Civilization: The State of War
Thomas Hobbe’s (1588) believed that humankind exists, apart from the rule of an executive sovereign, in a “State of War” – where every man is against every man. Though generally presenting a more cogent argument, this false premise is carried on in an amended form by John Locke (1632), based upon, apparently both Hobbe’s lack of thorough Anthropological survey and, erroneous Eurocentric prejudices against Hunter-Gather societies.
Hobbe’s defense of the sovereign is based on a presumption of a “State of War” outside of Agriculturalist Civilization (Agro-Civilization); a presumption which Locke seems to respond contrarily to, in that he views a government of the people as the “State of Nature”.
If this state can be demonstrated as a figment of the European imagination, then the latitude Hobbes reasons belongs to the sovereign, and Locke concludes can justify unprovoked conquest, which he sees resulting in “consent” – cannot be rationalized.
Chapter 2
Estrangement from the State of Nature: The Alienation of the Proletariat
The Enlightenment era philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), wrote regarding the origins of human socio-political development that life in simple-Horticultural, Hunter-Gatherer societies “must have been the happiest and most stable of epochs.” Rousseau’s position regarding this “State of Nature” is, on many levels, blatantly antithetical to the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). In Hobbes’s outlook, this is one and the same as a “State of War.” Though John Locke (1632-1704) subsequently modifies this concept, determining that the two states are not mutually exclusive, in neither earlier philosopher’s work do we see the idealization of this epoch observed by Rousseau, and acknowledge by Marx. “The more we reflect on it,” Rousseau writes, “the more we shall find that this state was the least subject to revolutions.” We must then accordingly direct our attention to the inevitability of such revolutions under all form of government subsequent to what Marx calls “Primitive Communism,” the least subject to the Hegelian stages of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Finally, and inevitably, this will lead us to defend Marxist theory, noting that Capitalism has mutated into a synthesis that has made it more resilient, even transplanting the proletariat in some cases.
Chapter 3
The Illusion of Separation: Liberalism versus Communitarianism
Finally, we must examine the philosophy of Martha Nussbaum in her responses to “The Feminist Critique of Liberalism.” The argument advanced here is from the perspective of a type of naturalism, founded on the basic idea that knowledge can be extrapolated from the workings of Nature, and applied to the human social and ethical microcosm. The logic will ground itself in science itself, as the flaws in Nussbaum’s concept of physical distinctness – related to liberalism’s focus on individualism over communitarianism – are highlighted. This response will then present a quantum view of radical oneness, wholeness, and argue individual separateness as empirically unsubstantiated.
Beyond Eden: Book One
SUMMARY:
Chapter 1
Civilization: The State of War
Thomas Hobbe’s (1588) believed that humankind exists, apart from the rule of an executive sovereign, in a “State of War” – where every man is against every man. Though generally presenting a more cogent argument, this false premise is carried on in an amended form by John Locke (1632), based upon, apparently both Hobbe’s lack of thorough Anthropological survey and, erroneous Eurocentric prejudices against Hunter-Gather societies.
Hobbe’s defense of the sovereign is based on a presumption of a “State of War” outside of Agriculturalist Civilization (Agro-Civilization); a presumption which Locke seems to respond contrarily to, in that he views a government of the people as the “State of Nature”.
If this state can be demonstrated as a figment of the European imagination, then the latitude Hobbes reasons belongs to the sovereign, and Locke concludes can justify unprovoked conquest, which he sees resulting in “consent” – cannot be rationalized.
Chapter 2
Estrangement from the State of Nature: The Alienation of the Proletariat
The Enlightenment era philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), wrote regarding the origins of human socio-political development that life in simple-Horticultural, Hunter-Gatherer societies “must have been the happiest and most stable of epochs.” Rousseau’s position regarding this “State of Nature” is, on many levels, blatantly antithetical to the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). In Hobbes’s outlook, this is one and the same as a “State of War.” Though John Locke (1632-1704) subsequently modifies this concept, determining that the two states are not mutually exclusive, in neither earlier philosopher’s work do we see the idealization of this epoch observed by Rousseau, and acknowledge by Marx. “The more we reflect on it,” Rousseau writes, “the more we shall find that this state was the least subject to revolutions.” We must then accordingly direct our attention to the inevitability of such revolutions under all form of government subsequent to what Marx calls “Primitive Communism,” the least subject to the Hegelian stages of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Finally, and inevitably, this will lead us to defend Marxist theory, noting that Capitalism has mutated into a synthesis that has made it more resilient, even transplanting the proletariat in some cases.
Chapter 3
The Illusion of Separation: Liberalism versus Communitarianism
Finally, we must examine the philosophy of Martha Nussbaum in her responses to “The Feminist Critique of Liberalism.” The argument advanced here is from the perspective of a type of naturalism, founded on the basic idea that knowledge can be extrapolated from the workings of Nature, and applied to the human social and ethical microcosm. The logic will ground itself in science itself, as the flaws in Nussbaum’s concept of physical distinctness – related to liberalism’s focus on individualism over communitarianism – are highlighted. This response will then present a quantum view of radical oneness, wholeness, and argue individual separateness as empirically unsubstantiated.
Chapter 1
Civilization: The State of War
Thomas Hobbe’s (1588) believed that humankind exists, apart from the rule of an executive sovereign, in a “State of War” – where every man is against every man. Though generally presenting a more cogent argument, this false premise is carried on in an amended form by John Locke (1632), based upon, apparently both Hobbe’s lack of thorough Anthropological survey and, erroneous Eurocentric prejudices against Hunter-Gather societies.
Hobbe’s defense of the sovereign is based on a presumption of a “State of War” outside of Agriculturalist Civilization (Agro-Civilization); a presumption which Locke seems to respond contrarily to, in that he views a government of the people as the “State of Nature”.
If this state can be demonstrated as a figment of the European imagination, then the latitude Hobbes reasons belongs to the sovereign, and Locke concludes can justify unprovoked conquest, which he sees resulting in “consent” – cannot be rationalized.
Chapter 2
Estrangement from the State of Nature: The Alienation of the Proletariat
The Enlightenment era philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), wrote regarding the origins of human socio-political development that life in simple-Horticultural, Hunter-Gatherer societies “must have been the happiest and most stable of epochs.” Rousseau’s position regarding this “State of Nature” is, on many levels, blatantly antithetical to the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). In Hobbes’s outlook, this is one and the same as a “State of War.” Though John Locke (1632-1704) subsequently modifies this concept, determining that the two states are not mutually exclusive, in neither earlier philosopher’s work do we see the idealization of this epoch observed by Rousseau, and acknowledge by Marx. “The more we reflect on it,” Rousseau writes, “the more we shall find that this state was the least subject to revolutions.” We must then accordingly direct our attention to the inevitability of such revolutions under all form of government subsequent to what Marx calls “Primitive Communism,” the least subject to the Hegelian stages of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Finally, and inevitably, this will lead us to defend Marxist theory, noting that Capitalism has mutated into a synthesis that has made it more resilient, even transplanting the proletariat in some cases.
Chapter 3
The Illusion of Separation: Liberalism versus Communitarianism
Finally, we must examine the philosophy of Martha Nussbaum in her responses to “The Feminist Critique of Liberalism.” The argument advanced here is from the perspective of a type of naturalism, founded on the basic idea that knowledge can be extrapolated from the workings of Nature, and applied to the human social and ethical microcosm. The logic will ground itself in science itself, as the flaws in Nussbaum’s concept of physical distinctness – related to liberalism’s focus on individualism over communitarianism – are highlighted. This response will then present a quantum view of radical oneness, wholeness, and argue individual separateness as empirically unsubstantiated.
4.99
In Stock
5
1
Beyond Eden: Book One
Beyond Eden: Book One
eBook
$4.99
Related collections and offers
4.99
In Stock
Product Details
| BN ID: | 2940013696846 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | New Dawn Publications |
| Publication date: | 01/23/2012 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| File size: | 43 KB |
From the B&N Reads Blog