#Political structure

[blueheartbookclub]

"Leviathan Unveiled: Navigating the Depths of Hobbesian Political Philosophy"

Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" stands as a seminal work in political philosophy, providing a profound exploration of the social contract and the nature of government. Published in 1651, during a tumultuous period in English history, Hobbes crafted a philosophical masterpiece that sought to address the chaos and disorder prevalent in society.

The central theme of "Leviathan" revolves around Hobbes' depiction of the hypothetical state of nature, a condition he famously describes as a "war of every man against every man." Hobbes contends that without a structured authority, human life would be characterized by constant conflict and anarchy. To escape this state of nature, individuals enter into a social contract, surrendering some liberties to a sovereign authority in exchange for protection and order.

The metaphorical "Leviathan" represents this sovereign power, a colossal entity with the authority to maintain peace and prevent chaos. Hobbes argues for the absolute power of the Leviathan, suggesting that a powerful centralized government is necessary to ensure the stability of society. This perspective, while controversial, laid the groundwork for later political philosophies and discussions on the role of government.

Hobbes' work also delves into the relationship between church and state. He advocates for a unified authority to avoid conflicts arising from religious differences. In his view, the sovereign power should control both the ecclesiastical and civil spheres to maintain social cohesion.

One of the strengths of "Leviathan" is Hobbes' systematic approach to political theory. He applies a scientific methodology, drawing parallels between the natural world and political structures. This analytical framework was innovative for its time, influencing subsequent philosophers and political thinkers.

However, "Leviathan" has sparked significant debate and criticism. Hobbes' advocacy for absolute monarchy and his rather bleak view of human nature have been challenged by later philosophers who championed individual liberties and more optimistic perspectives on human behavior.

In conclusion, Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" remains a cornerstone of political philosophy, offering a foundational exploration of the social contract, sovereign authority, and the structure of government. While controversial and subject to critique, its impact on the development of political thought cannot be overstated, making it an essential read for those interested in understanding the roots of modern political theory.

Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" is available in Amazon in paperback 19.99$ and hardcover 25.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 484

Language: English

Rating: 8/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

[blueheartbooks]

"Leviathan Unveiled: Navigating the Depths of Hobbesian Political Philosophy"

Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" stands as a seminal work in political philosophy, providing a profound exploration of the social contract and the nature of government. Published in 1651, during a tumultuous period in English history, Hobbes crafted a philosophical masterpiece that sought to address the chaos and disorder prevalent in society.

The central theme of "Leviathan" revolves around Hobbes' depiction of the hypothetical state of nature, a condition he famously describes as a "war of every man against every man." Hobbes contends that without a structured authority, human life would be characterized by constant conflict and anarchy. To escape this state of nature, individuals enter into a social contract, surrendering some liberties to a sovereign authority in exchange for protection and order.

The metaphorical "Leviathan" represents this sovereign power, a colossal entity with the authority to maintain peace and prevent chaos. Hobbes argues for the absolute power of the Leviathan, suggesting that a powerful centralized government is necessary to ensure the stability of society. This perspective, while controversial, laid the groundwork for later political philosophies and discussions on the role of government.

Hobbes' work also delves into the relationship between church and state. He advocates for a unified authority to avoid conflicts arising from religious differences. In his view, the sovereign power should control both the ecclesiastical and civil spheres to maintain social cohesion.

One of the strengths of "Leviathan" is Hobbes' systematic approach to political theory. He applies a scientific methodology, drawing parallels between the natural world and political structures. This analytical framework was innovative for its time, influencing subsequent philosophers and political thinkers.

However, "Leviathan" has sparked significant debate and criticism. Hobbes' advocacy for absolute monarchy and his rather bleak view of human nature have been challenged by later philosophers who championed individual liberties and more optimistic perspectives on human behavior.

In conclusion, Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" remains a cornerstone of political philosophy, offering a foundational exploration of the social contract, sovereign authority, and the structure of government. While controversial and subject to critique, its impact on the development of political thought cannot be overstated, making it an essential read for those interested in understanding the roots of modern political theory.

Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" is available in Amazon in paperback 19.99$ and hardcover 25.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 484

Language: English

Rating: 8/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

[inky-duchess]

Fantasy Guide to Political Structures

A Horse! A Horse! My X for a Horse!

Let's be honest, fantasy authors love their kingdoms and empires. You can throw a rock in a bookshop or a library in the fantasy section and you will 99.99999% hit a fantasy book that will be set in or mention either of those structures. But what are they really? What's the difference between them all? Are there any more examples of structures that would suit your WIP better? Are you using the right terms? Let's have a closer look.

Duchy

A Duchy is a small territory ruled by a Duke/Duchess. While Duchies can be found in kingdoms, some duchies were sovereign states in their own right. Duchies are usually small by land mass but some duchies such as Burgundy were extremely powerful and influential. Independent Duchies were usually apart of a kingdom but grew so powerful that they eventually broke away to become a sovereign state in their own right. An example would be modern day Luxembourg, historic Milan and Burgundy.

Principality

A principality is territory ruled by a Prince/Princess. A principality is typically smaller than a kingdom and in some instances, can be apart of a larger kingdom or be a sovereign state. Principalities have a history of having broken away from a larger kingdom or eventually becoming apart of a kingdom. A principality within a kingdom is ruled by a Prince/Princess, usually an heir of the monarch and can be used to train them up to assume the throne in the future. Examples include Monaco, Liechtenstein and Andorra.

Kingdom

A sovereign state/country that is ruled by ruling King or a Queen. A kingdom is much larger and more powerful than a principality. Kingdoms can be feudal, meaning they are ruled in a strict hierarchy or an autocracy where the monarch rules alone with minimal input from the government or constitutional where the monarch is more of a figurehead and the government has a good chunk of control. Examples include England, Thailand and modern day Spain.

Commonwealth

A Commonwealth isn't a popular choice in fantasy but it is an interesting structure. A Commonwealth in its most basic form is a collection of states that are linked by either a shared culture or history. A Commonwealth can be a politically power or an economic power, with every state allowed to participate as much as they like. Not one state leads the others, it is all one group of equals. A Commonwealth can be a good idea for a group of nations that are more powerful together with them keeping their own independence.

Federation

A Federation is a political structure that is made up of united states or countries that are under a single government but each state is still independent and rules itself. Each state can have different laws, different cultures and economies but they all answer to the single government. Examples include the United States of America.

Republic

A Republic is a territory that is ruled by leaders and heads of state that have been elected on merit and by choice of the people. Republics are not just countries but can also be much smaller areas such as cities. Republics are democratic in nature, with the people having a say in who leads them in accordance to a constitution. There are many kinds of Republic: presidential, parliamentary, federal, theocratic, unitary. Examples of Republics include the Republic of Ireland and the city of Florence.

Protectorate

A Protectorate is a country/region/territory that is independent but relies on a larger, more powerful state for protection either in a military or diplomatic sense. A Protectorate was often used by Empires in order to maintain control over an area without annexing it. There are many reasons a larger state and the protectorate would agree to this, mainly the protectorate is much smaller meaning it is far more vulnerable to attack or it has very little power when compared to other states. A Protectorate allows the territory some power to rule itself but the larger state may feel the need or desire to interfere in the dealings of the territory. Examples of protectorates include the client kingdoms of the Roman Empire like Egypt before its annexation and Puerto Rico.

Empire

An Empire is a collection of nations that are united under one sovereign head of state or government. An Empire is formed by one nation steadily taking control of other nations, either through straight invasion and colonization or acquiring them through marriage and other less violent ways. An Empire is powerful mainly because it can drum up more resources, more influence and more military power. An Empire might impose the traditions, beliefs and culture of its principal nation - the nation that started it all - onto its colonies for better control and feeling of uniformity. Empires never last, that is something to always remember. Empires will eventually fragment due to the vast size and sometimes revolt among the conquered states. Examples of empires include the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire.

[gentlemanclub1]

The Unseen Influence: Exploring the Power and Corruption of Politicians

The complex relationship between power and corruption in politics prompts the need for ethical leadership, accountability, and transparency to safeguard the public interest.

Politics, a realm that often intertwines power and corruption, has held the fascination and concern of societies throughout the ages. The very nature of political power is alluring, capable of inspiring positive change but also susceptible to misuse and corruption. This duality has sparked discussions, criticisms, and even led to numerous political reforms aimed at curbing such abuses. The…

[backofthebookshelf]

I know I'm a week late but I do think people are misunderstanding the point of the Anthony Bourdain quote about Kissinger

The point was never "Anthony Bourdain has good politics and is an unproblematic fave," the point is that even someone with mainstream liberalish politics who goes to Cambodia for a food tour - a, let's be honest, very bougie type of trip to be part of your job - and has a basic understanding of history and a bare minimum of human decency can come away from that bougie food tour wanting to murder Henry Kissinger with their bare hands. The point is that Henry Kissinger fucked up this country so bad the only reason he wasn't lynched decades ago is because it's on the opposite side of the world and the people who were in proximity to him never really saw what it was. The point is that if we could see firsthand what our First World politics do to the Third World we would understand that monsters walk among us and it's a cultural failing that we let them die at home at 100 years old surrounded by their friends and family.

[sugar-petals]

it’s known how the military operates but namjoon exhaustedly saying after discharge that he can finally “have a life again” and taehyung worrying about how the army dropped his ability to empathize sounds beyond concerning

[lavellaned]

A lot of the pro-veilguard arguments I see include a very specific way of viewing what “dark fantasy” is which misses the entire point as to why there are criticisms about the overall tone of the game.

Dark fantasy is not just “how much murder rape bigotry and overall suffering can we put in a story for the sake of doing so”.

It’s about having events and themes based off of the darker parts of reality and then, as the player, being able to do something about it. The general appeal is the catharsis. It’s about seeing these stories reflected through an interactive story in a meaningful, respectful, purposeful way.

Is dragon age the poster child for handling its complicated, real-life-inspired politics well? No. But veilguard was somehow worse. The bar was in hell and it still tripped flat on its face.

Veilguard’s lackadaisical, chronically ironic “well THAT just happened”, neutered writing and theme is not a good argument as to why this is a good dragon age game, and you can’t blame the dark fantasy genre for it.

[rustchild]

one of the wild things about people’s stubborn insistence on misunderstanding The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas is that the narrator anticipates an audience that won’t engage with the text, just in the opposite direction. Throughout the story are little asides asking what the reader is willing to believe in. Can you believe in a utopia? What if I told you this? What about this? Can you believe in the festivals? The towers by the sea? Can we believe that they have no king? Can we believe that they are joyful? Does your utopia have technology, luxury, sex, temples, drugs? The story is consulting you as it’s being told, framed as a dialogue. It literally asks you directly: do you only believe joy is possible with suffering? And, implicitly, why?

the question isn’t just “what would you personally do about the kid.” It isn’t just an intricate trolley problem. It’s an interrogation of the limits of imagination. How do we make suffering compulsory? Why? What futures (or pasts) are we capable of imagining? How do we rationalize suffering as necessary? And so on. In all of the conversations I’ve seen or had about this story, no one has mentioned the fact that it’s actively breaking the fourth wall. The narrator is building a world in front of your eyes and challenging you to participate. “I would free the kid” and then what? What does the Omelas you’ve constructed look like, and why? And what does that say about the worlds you’re building in real life?

[cringefailvox]

this is just a personal hc, but i actually think that alastor is the only overlord in pride who has a themed epithet. remember that he didn't give himself the title "radio demon", it was given to him by sinners because he was anonymous, because he didn't build his notoriety with his face or name. all of the other overlords are public figures whose reputations are attached to their actual names—reporters call vox "mister vox" to his face, and in the pilot katie and tom refer to sir pentious and cherri bomb explicitly. the only other classes of people who get titles are the morningstar family, the goetia, and the seven deadly sins, for royalty reasons. so i don't think vox would be referred to as the "television demon" or husk as the "gambling overlord" etc etc by the general public—everyone knows who they are already, it was only alastor's terrifying anonymity that earned him a title

[lizardsfromspace]

"Here's a story about how education is fucked up by low resources, high workloads, and the mandate that everything be structured around passing standardized tests."

Too many people, every time: "So...you're telling me this generation of kids is the laziest, stupidest, and most unruly ones ever???"

[temerity14]

[palin-tropos]

being mean to the XXXnightshit game because like what is this man

[gentlemanclub1]

Understanding the Distinctions: Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, and Marxism

Enjoy reading. ❤️

In political and economic discussions, terms like socialism, capitalism, communism, and Marxism are frequently used, often interchangeably or with misconceptions. However, these concepts are distinct and embody different ideologies and systems. In this blog post, we will delve into the unique characteristics and fundamental differences between socialism, capitalism, communism, and…

[mayadoesfandomstuff]

I think there's something so poetic about how Tedesco asserts that too much progress is going to cause the collapse of Christian society and we must hold on to old tradition and values all the while he smokes a vape on a regular basis

[charliejaneanders]

In a way, it’s comforting to tell yourself “I’m stressed” when you’re actually freaked out, anxious, drained by hypervigilance, upset by reading about genocide and the ransacking of our institutions. You tend to be stressed when you’re solving problems and making progress. It’s somewhat less comforting to realize that we’re all trapped in a collective nightmare that none of us can choose, individually, to wake up from.

Our Default Story Structure Is Literally Killing Us (my latest newsletter!)

[deconstructthesoup]

In literally any other sci-fi story, a body-snatching slug taking over someone's body would produce angst of "I've been controlled against my will" and "something has replaced my friend" and all that jazz

But in A Starstruck Odyssey, the angst is about the slug being a prince who's been pressured to fulfill a grand destiny that he wants no part in, and finding a new family when he takes over the body of their shitty captain

And I think that's just damn beautiful