MOVING TO FRONT FROM JUNE 24, COMMENTS ARE OPEN NOW, DISCUSSION OF THE IMPORT OF THIS RESEARCH WELCOME
That's our guy John Locke, according to an account of a contemporary.
(Thanks to David Zimmerman for the pointer.)
News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
What’s wrong with it is it’s so terrifying I don’t want to read it
In theory, the US retains a launch-on-warning *capacity* for the ICBMs. But I’m pretty sure they’re not on an actual…
On (4), and with the usual caveat that I’m not an expert here: The US has 400 land-based ICBMs, carrying…
In itself, not much. (A few quibbles: the estimates of deployed warheads are implausibly precise; the assessment of nuclear winter…
I’ve looked only quickly at the linked piece, but I did notice a factual mistake in point 5. Point 5…
Very interesting interview with Professor Schwarcz on the latest episode of Ipse Dixit podcast: https://shows.acast.com/ipse-dixit/episodes/daniel-schwarcz-on-ai-and-human-legal-reasoning
*Yes, you are correct that the synthesis task required participants both to read the source material and draft a memo.…
MOVING TO FRONT FROM JUNE 24, COMMENTS ARE OPEN NOW, DISCUSSION OF THE IMPORT OF THIS RESEARCH WELCOME
That's our guy John Locke, according to an account of a contemporary.
(Thanks to David Zimmerman for the pointer.)
Fun discovery! But will it really revolutionize our understanding of Locke? I was under the impression that the general view of scholars was that OF COURSE Locke had read Hobbes. When I was a freshman in college (back when Lyndon Johnson was president) my tutor(*) in "History and Politics 1" said that Hobbes was in such disfavour that Locke felt he had to CLAIM not to have read him, but that at least one of his political works, having Filmer's "Patriarcha" as its ostensible topic, was really a response to "Leviathan".
(*) a Straussian, so maybe predisposed to see hidden subtexts.
I agree with Allen Hazen that I doubt many scholars have thought Locke didn't read Hobbes (or Spinoza, for that matter). By the way, are there a lot of famous philosophers who weren't vain, lazy, and pompous?
John Rawls was none of those things….. Is he famous enough?
—–
KEYWORDS:
Primary Blog
Leave a Reply to David Zimmerman Cancel reply