4 ms·
That's a very peculiar understanding of what a contract is, and even of what the ill-named implicit "social contract" is. There's the law, that applies upon ev
by Juliate 3y ago
That's a very peculiar understanding of what a contract is, and even of what the ill-named implicit "social contract" is.
There's the law, that applies upon everyone in a society. There are treaties that try to make laws from countries work together.
No morality in that, just practical, time-tested and updated (and updatable) rules & codes. No need to leave a society to refuse and change its laws, hopefully.
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoMy man allow me to blow your mind: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/ This is neither my idea, nor is it peculiar in any way. It’s a term used to describe the agreement we all commit to in order to interact in a shared environment.
- colinsane 3y agogreat, now read his counterpart, Rousseau. these are both just stories, and in as much as their conclusions rely upon their assumptions about the "state of nature" they're both flawed: with every decade anthropologists unearth more of human history and find more evidence that neither portrayal comes close to representing the actual ways in which humans interacted at any point before or distant from the English society we and they knew.
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoUh, no. The social contract is not a "story" any more than supply/demand is a "story". It's an attempt to explain how something works, with a great deal of rigor and reasoning supporting its ideas.
- Juliate 3y agoOh yes it is. Everything is a story. Some work somehow, some not. Sometimes it mostly depends on the context and the delivery rather than the truth of it. Supply/demand is also a story/theory trying to model, imperfectly, a reality. Or several ones. They are both largely contextual, open to critique, and have been. Just take the time to enlarge your horizon, it makes it much more enjoyable and satisfying.
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoThe word "story" has a meaning that does not apply here. You are using the word incorrectly.
- Juliate 3y agoThat was not my point. :) I know what this is used for. It's still ill-named (you don't sign it, it would be a "de facto" instead), and still debatable a theory (which states that in an ideal, invented state of nature, without such a contract enforced by an authority, violence would be the natural relation between individuals). There's more (especially since the times of Hobbes) to describe how societies have functioned/could/should function. Social contract theory is not much more solid than the homo economicus one: it has its points, and its flaws.
- Capricorn2481 3y agoWould it blow your mind to know that this is the equivalent of linking a podcast?
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoAre podcasts peer reviewed?
- Capricorn2481 3y agoHow do you peer review an opinion
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoYou don't, social contract theory isn't an opinion.
- Capricorn2481 3y agoThis is literally just a description of someone's world view, you do not make it factual by slapping "theory" on the end
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoSorry but you're completely wrong. Social contract theory is many hundreds of years older than I am, and is extremely well argued by people many times smarter than I. None of this is my idea; your problem is with the strength of the argument, not with my "opinion".
- Juliate 3y agoThis is where you’re mislead. It IS a recent theory in the face of human history (and even more prehistory). Those people were NOT smarter than you are, or can be. You’re terribly limiting yourself and your capacity for understanding and growth thinking they were (it’s not about humility, but submission, there’s a nuance).