#social contract theory

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Community

The philosophy of community explores the fundamental nature, purpose, and significance of communities within human life. It examines how individuals relate to each other within a community, the values that bind them together, and the impact of communal life on personal and collective well-being. This philosophical inquiry involves a blend of ethical, social, political, and cultural dimensions, focusing on the essence of communal bonds and their influence on human existence.

Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Community

Interconnectedness and Interdependence:

Communities are built on the understanding that individuals are interconnected and interdependent. This interconnectedness fosters mutual support, cooperation, and shared responsibilities, which are essential for the survival and flourishing of both individuals and the group.

Shared Values and Norms:

Communities are often defined by shared values, norms, and cultural practices. These shared elements provide a sense of identity and belonging, guiding behavior and establishing a framework for social harmony and cohesion.

Common Good:

The concept of the common good is central to the philosophy of community. It emphasizes that the well-being of the community as a whole is paramount and that individual interests should align with or contribute to this collective well-being.

Solidarity and Social Justice:

Solidarity refers to the unity and support among members of a community, particularly in times of need. Social justice within a community involves ensuring fair treatment, equitable distribution of resources, and opportunities for all members, promoting inclusivity and equality.

Identity and Belonging:

A strong sense of community fosters a sense of identity and belonging among its members. This psychological and emotional connection can provide meaning, purpose, and support, enhancing individual and collective well-being.

Dialogue and Participation:

Effective communities encourage open dialogue and active participation. This involves inclusive decision-making processes where all members have a voice, fostering democratic principles and ensuring that the community's direction aligns with the collective will.

Autonomy and Responsibility:

While communities support interdependence, they also recognize the importance of individual autonomy. Balancing personal freedom with communal responsibilities is crucial for maintaining both individual rights and the integrity of the community.

Theories and Philosophical Perspectives

Communitarianism:

Communitarianism emphasizes the importance of community in shaping individuals' values, identities, and well-being. It argues that individual rights and freedoms are best understood and exercised within the context of community responsibilities and social practices.

Social Contract Theory:

Social contract theory explores the agreements and implicit contracts that form the basis of communal living. Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have different views on the nature of these contracts and the balance between individual freedom and communal obligations.

Civic Republicanism:

Civic republicanism focuses on active citizenship and participation in communal life as essential for personal fulfillment and the health of the community. It stresses the importance of civic virtue, public-mindedness, and the common good.

Marxism and Critical Theory:

These perspectives analyze the role of economic and power structures in shaping communities. They critique how inequalities and class divisions impact communal relations and advocate for more equitable and just communal arrangements.

Personalism:

Personalism emphasizes the inherent dignity and worth of each individual within a community. It advocates for a community structure that respects and uplifts individual personhood while fostering strong, supportive relationships.

The philosophy of community delves into the intricate balance between individual and collective interests, exploring how communities can support human flourishing through shared values, mutual support, and collective action. By examining the ethical, social, and political dimensions of communal life, this philosophical inquiry helps us understand the profound impact of community on personal identity, well-being, and societal development.

[commoncuppa]

What if we all got together in our state of nature and created an in-group that monopolized legitimate violence? Oh, you’re not into that? Yeah me neither. Let’s go play with some rocks

[bookwyrminspiration]

You like skulls, right? And I'm unsure as to how you feel about clocks, but given that they're also sometimes used as a symbol of mortality, it seems likely that you would appreciate them. Regardless, this picture I found reminded me of you. Skull-shaped pocketwatch made by a watchmaker named Jean Rousseau in the 17th century.

I do like skulls!! AND i love clocks!! One of my favorite possessions is this fucked up clock that tells time that doesn’t exist. I hope to continue collecting fucked up clocks

This one, however, looks exquisite!! I would 100% attach something like that to my repertoire of Things On My Person. Loveeee hooking things to my belt loops

Thank you very much for thinking of me and sharing :)

[anthythesis]

the ballad of songbirds and snakes or as I like to call it "10th grade ethics class curriculum: the novel"

[communistkenobi]

ok I can’t watch all of this but it’s kinda funny watching a show about a global pandemic sourced from a game made 10 years before covid. it feels almost quaint

[orpheusilver]

anyway im onto reading the final pdf for my black sails essay lets fucking goooooo

[haggishlyhagging]

. . . [F]inancial incentives are increasingly being introduced in social realms, bringing our market identities—as consumers, customers, service providers and workers—to the forefront of our attention. And when market norms displace social norms, the effects can be hard to reverse, as demonstrated in an experimental study in Haifa, Israel in the 1990s. Ten children's day-nurseries all introduced a small fine for parents who were more than 10 minutes late collecting their children at the end of the day. The parental response? Rather than arriving more promptly, twice as many parents started arriving late. Introducing a monetary fine effectively wiped out any feelings of guilt and was interpreted as a market price for overtime care. Three months later when the experiment ended and the fine was removed, the number of late pick-ups rose higher still: the price had gone, but the guilt hadn't come back. The temporary marketplace had, in essence, erased the social contract.

-Kate Raworth, Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st Century Economist

[blueheartbookclub]

"A Foundation of Modern Political Thought: A Review of John Locke's Second Treatise of Government"

John Locke's "Second Treatise of Government" stands as a cornerstone of modern political philosophy, presenting a compelling argument for the principles of natural rights, social contract theory, and limited government. Written against the backdrop of political upheaval in 17th-century England, Locke's treatise remains as relevant and influential today as it was upon its publication.

At the heart of Locke's work lies the concept of natural rights, wherein he asserts that all individuals are born with inherent rights to life, liberty, and property. Locke argues that these rights are not granted by governments but are instead derived from the natural state of humanity. Through logical reasoning and appeals to natural law, Locke lays the groundwork for the assertion of individual rights as fundamental to the legitimacy of government.

Central to Locke's political theory is the notion of the social contract, wherein individuals voluntarily enter into a political community to secure their rights and promote their common interests. According to Locke, legitimate government arises from the consent of the governed, and its authority is derived from its ability to protect the rights of its citizens. This contract between rulers and the ruled establishes the basis for legitimate political authority and provides a framework for assessing the legitimacy of governmental actions.

Locke's treatise also advocates for the principle of limited government, arguing that the powers of government should be strictly defined and circumscribed to prevent tyranny and abuse of authority. He contends that governments exist to serve the interests of the people and should be subject to checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a few. Locke's advocacy for a separation of powers and the rule of law laid the groundwork for modern democratic governance and constitutionalism.

Moreover, Locke's emphasis on the right to revolution remains a contentious and influential aspect of his political philosophy. He argues that when governments fail to fulfill their obligations to protect the rights of citizens, individuals have the right to resist and overthrow oppressive regimes. This revolutionary doctrine has inspired movements for political reform and self-determination throughout history, serving as a rallying cry for those seeking to challenge unjust authority.

In conclusion, John Locke's "Second Treatise of Government" is a seminal work that continues to shape the discourse on political theory and governance. Through his eloquent prose and rigorous argumentation, Locke presents a compelling vision of a just and legitimate political order grounded in the principles of natural rights, social contract, and limited government. His ideas have left an indelible mark on the development of liberal democracy and remain essential reading for anyone interested in understanding the foundations of modern political thought.

John Locke's "Second Treatise of Government" is available in Amazon in paperback 12.99$ and hardcover 19.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 181

Language: English

Rating: 9/10                                           

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

[archaic-stranger]

what if we mutually relinquished some of our liberties for the collective betterment of our society??? and we were both girls??

[omegaphilosophia]

Theories of the Philosophy of Hierarchy

The philosophy of hierarchy examines the nature, justification, and implications of hierarchical structures within societies, organizations, and systems. It explores questions related to power dynamics, authority, and social order. Additionally, it delves into ethical considerations regarding the legitimacy and fairness of hierarchies and investigates alternative models of social organization.

Some theories in the philosophy of hierarchy include:

Social contract theory: This theory explores the idea that hierarchical structures are formed through implicit or explicit agreements among individuals for mutual benefit and social order.

Power and domination theory: This perspective emphasizes the role of power dynamics in the establishment and maintenance of hierarchical structures. It examines how individuals or groups use power to exert control over others within a hierarchy.

Functionalism: Functionalism argues that hierarchical structures serve essential functions in society by organizing individuals and facilitating cooperation and productivity. It views hierarchies as necessary for social stability and efficiency.

Conflict theory: Conflict theory posits that hierarchical structures are based on inherent conflicts of interest between different social groups. It highlights how hierarchies can perpetuate inequality and social injustice.

Anarchism: Anarchist theories challenge the legitimacy of hierarchical structures and advocate for decentralized, non-hierarchical forms of social organization. They prioritize individual autonomy and voluntary cooperation over institutionalized authority.

Feminist theory: Feminist perspectives on hierarchy examine how gender dynamics intersect with hierarchical structures to perpetuate gender inequality and oppression. They critique traditional hierarchical models and advocate for more equitable and inclusive forms of organization.

These are just a few examples of theories within the philosophy of hierarchy, each offering distinct insights into the nature and implications of hierarchical systems in society.

[identitty-dickruption]

THE THING IS modern social contract theory was reinvigorated by John Rawls and his veil of ignorance. this gets hyped up a lot, but it's basically just a fresh justification of liberalism. it's not a coincidence that, after Rawls pretends that he knows nothing of the world, he decides that USAmerican Liberal Principles are the most morally correct way to organise a society. the fact is that the man was always going to land back in liberalism. many people have pointed this out

the thing that fewer people have pointed out is that Rawls is kind of helpful in how clear he is with what a just organisation of the economy looks like. in that. the man may be ableist but at least he is clear about that. and I think Rawls' social contract theory actually does a really good job of demonstrating the issues that come about when society is structured around the assumption that independence is key

I think if social contract theory is going to have a renaissance this decade, it should really work harder to problematise independence. something about me is that I think social contract theory is salvageable. so long as you completely overhaul every single central assumption of the theory and reassess what that means for how society is organised. which basically means that I don't think social contract theory is salvageable at all. I just wish it was

[starfightrpilot]

first matter to be educated on: P's and Q's

[6ebe]

whenever I see asoiaf fans pulling out “the feudal contract” as some kind of gotcha power move abt anything I can’t help but laugh. Social contract theory as we know it was first elucidated by freaking hobbes during the English civil war no one during the war of the roses period was sitting around ruminating abt social contract theory. It didn’t exist 🤣🤣

[womanistic]

Continuing on The Eberwolf train.

He thinks people are base creatures reacting to stimuli. Civility is just artifice. He doesn't view that as a negative most of the time, all social creatures follow a code of conduct to reap the benefits of larger numbers, witches and bipedals need to hold themselves separate from that annoys him. Eber is the true cynic in his little duo. He has to be the cautious and patient one given his job as a tracker and animal handler. His transformation, being embroiled in fights is an opportunity to shed that carefully built patience and artifice.

He considers that almost an act of hedonism. Most hunts are not glamorous. Tracking can be long tedious work with the most rewarding part being the catch if you catch anything. There's rules of conduct even in hunting outside of game hunting laws. So letting go is...an indulgence. If he ever deigned to think about it he'd realize his bestfriend indulges him a lot.

[renard-dartigue]

Hi now i'm curious what is the beef with the rappers

Man this is going to be long so I'll try to keep this simple and entertaining. I hope this comes across as clear cause I'm shook right now.

Here is a glossarie to break thing up:

Prologue (The Spark 🔥)

Round 1.1 (Physical Education 💪🏾)

Interlude part 1 (Roots 🏠)

Round 1.2 (2 Warning Shots 🔫)

Interlude part 2 (Pusha the Seer 👁)

Round 2.1 (Knifes Out 🔪 )

Round 2.2 (The Nuke 💥)

Epilogue (All eyes on him 👀)

My Theory 🤷🏾‍♂️

Highly recommend checking out the tracks yourself while you read along.

Prologue (The Spark)

Let it be known that I am a neutral party and that I don't take sides when it comes to rap beef. I was here for the music and creativity. I am just trying to recount events to the best of my knowledge. Sorry if some details are inaccurate.

Okay so basically, Drake, J Cole, and Kendrick Lamar are the Big 3 of the rap world right now.

A month ago, Future and Metro Boomin (two rapper who supposedly don't fuck with Drake anymore) released a song with Kendrick Lamar called "Like That". In the song Kendrick took a shot at Drake and J Cole, saying there isn't a big 3, its only him on top.

4 weeks ago J Cole dropped a track called "7 Minute Drill" that is dissing Kendrick. However, in a move that is very uncharacteristic of J, he took down the official track and formally apologized to Kendrick. Thus signaling his exit from the rap battle.

ROUND 1.1 (Physical Ed)

Drake on the other hand dropped "Push Ups" 2 weeks ago, a diss track that went after other rappers he doesn't like but mainly Kendrick. In it, he made fun of Kendrick's height and his contracts. He then ends the song with "I was really try'n keep it PG" meaning he has a nuke on Kendrick that people don't know.

Not long later, Drake dropped ANOTHER diss track "Taylor Made Freestyle" with Ai voices of Snoop Dog and fucking 2PAC! Kendrick has stated before that 2pac is one of his idols so this must have been a deep cut. In the song Drake claims Kendrick doesn't write his own music and uses the writers of Taylor Swift. Relating a rapper to pop music is seen as disrespectful.

INTERLUDE PART 1 (Roots)

Before I continue, I want to give a brief run down on how the public perceives these two rappers.

Drake portrays himself as a superstar, he's always on social media flaunting his success and partying with other celebrities, seeing alot of women and living a lavish lifestyle. His music is catchy, something you put on in the club. Most of his fan base praise him for his sick beats and witty lyrics. He's been in the music industry for a while and is no push over.

Kendrick Lamar is a very private person, doesn't expose anything about his personal life unless its on a track. He almost never gets into fights with anyone. He is a family man, stressing the importance of being there for his wife and son and encourages other fathers to do the same. His fan base praise him for his creative lyrics and highlighting the black American condition.

ROUND 1.2 (2 Warning Shots)

2 Day ago, Kendrick Lamar came back with his first official diss track on Drake called "Euphoria". In this song, Kendrick goes in on Drakes fake personality. Drake has always been known around the community as a bit of a poser, he grew up in Canada and was raised by his white mother, a relatively comfortable childhood. He was a star on the popular show Degassi when he was young. garnering him a fan base early in his career. Kendrick doesn't approve of Drake appropriating black American culture and acting like he some tough guy. When in reality he is a Canadian nerd thats disrespectful to 2pac. All throughout the song, Kendrick hits at things that many people have know about Drake, such as his behavior around underage girls. He also called Drake a deadbeat father who isn't in his son's life, even referencing his lost battle to Pusha T. Then Kendrick finally warns him that he has more dirt that he is willing to share if Drake takes things further.

Similar to Drake, Kendrick dropped another track called "6:16 in LA" later that day. This song focuses on Drake's environment, specifically the people he hangs with. Kendrick implies that Drake paid people to dig into his background and when they didn't find anything, Drake made up stuff instead. Kendrick then says that someone in Drakes group is leaking information to him about something even more serious. Also planting a seed in Drake's mind that his supposed friends don't actually like him, just like the clout from hanging around him.

INTERLUDE PART 2 (Pusha the Seer)

Taking a quick break again, we need to discuss something that occurred long before Drake's battle with Kendrick.

5 years ago, Drake was in a rap battle with rapper Pusha T, someone who was smaller than Drake at the time in terms of popularity. Pusha dropped a song called "The Story of Adidon" where he dropped a bomb that Drake had a kid and wasn't taking care of him. Drake initially denied it but it was later revealed to be true.

Since then Drake has never responded to Pusha T's diss track, making Pusha the current winner. And Kendrick is bringing it back into the light.

Round 2.1 (Knifes Out)

Around 2 am EST time of May 4th, Drake drops his diss track, "Family Matters" one of his strongest songs, switching his flow 3 times in the span of 7 minutes. In true Drake fashion, its a club song with a catchy beat. Like his previous diss, its aimed at multiple people but the main focus is on Kendrick, even bring up "I was really try'n keep this PG".

Drake doubles down on his black identity and mocks the fact that Kendrick and other rappers are saying he isn't black, (incorrectly assuming that they are coming at him for being mixed when the real issue is that he is appropriating black American rap culture as a Canadian mixed man who grew up in a safe environment) Drake not only calls Kendrick a fraud who only raps about black issues for attention, Or that his activism is performative. He makes a shocking claims that Kendrick is a wife beater. Then Drake says that Kendrick's son doesn't belong to him and implies Kendrick's producer was the real father.

The track caused an uproar. But only for the span of 15 minutes. Because Kendrick did the unthinkable.

ROUND 2.2 (THE NUKE)

Almost as if expecting Drake's move, Kendrick Lamar did what no one saw coming. He dropped his diss track "Meet The Grahams" about 15 minutes after Drake released "Family Matters".

This time around, in a fashion almost unheard of from him, Kendrick strips all the usual metaphors from his lyricism and structures his track like he is speaking to Drake and his family, 4 parts per individual.

Kendrick begins by speaking to Drakes Son, Adonis, the same son Pusha T exposed Drake for neglecting 5 years ago. He's apologizing to him for his father's behavior. Kendrick speaks to him softly but sternly like a mentor, telling him not to be like his father. Kendrick tells Adonis all the things Drake did and warns him not to do them too: involved with escorts, plastic surgery to appear more black, surgery to look more muscular, hiding a kid. (Kendrick stresses that Adonis is black regardless of being mixed, further highlighting that he isn't discrediting Drake's blackness because he's mixed but because he isn't being himself.) Finishing of by telling the kid to be proud of who he is.

The second half is Kendrick addressing Drake's mother and father, Sandra and Denise. Kendrick speaks to her like he's revealing tragic news, explaining to her that her son is involved in disgusting things. He goes down a list of things, his tone growing more intense and angry. Kendrick then claimed that Drake is employing and enabling pedos in his group, and hopes they die. Even implying that his group is going to be raided by the feds some day.

The third half is the MOST shocking of all. Kendrick begins talking to an unnamed individual, simply calls her babygirl. Similar to Adonis, Kendrick takes on a somber tone and apologizes to her for Drakes behavior. He says its not her fault Drake abandoned her, says that she is deserving of love. He warns her not to become a target for people like Drake to pray on and says she has so much to offer the world.

Kendrick revealed Drake has ANOTHER kid and isn't in their life! (Allegedly)

To close of, the fourth half is Kendrick speaking directly to Drake, his tone tired. He tries to reiterate that he doesn't have hate for him. However, Kendrick says Drake was the first one to go after his family and he couldn't let it slide. He once again calls for Drake to take the mask off. Then says this isn't a rap battle anymore, tells Drake he is fighting himself.

Epilogue (All eyes on him)

And so here we are, waiting for what will happen next.

Drake posted an Instagram story denying the claim he has another kid. But given what happened with Pusha T, we can't quite take his word for it yet. We should wait a bit to see if anything comes out.

Kendrick hasn't put out a statement on Drake's claims about him but given the recurring theme of Drake being a manipulative lier, Kendrick clearly denies it. Given how private he is, its difficult to prove or disprove it. Much like Drake's claims, we will have to wait and see if any evidence comes out about it.

Drake and Kendrick stans are at eachothers throats right now, arguing over who one and whats real or fake.

Right now everyone is looking to see if Drake is going to continue the battle or stay silent like he did with Pusha.

My Theory

Personally as an outside observer who only followed the beef for good music. I think this goes beyond a simple rap battle.

Here is my theory: Someone from Drake's clique told Kendrick that Drake and his producers were writing something about him. Real or fake, Kendrick was pissed. And so he drafted 3 tracks, dumping everything he hates about Drake into them. And then, with the leaker's help, Kendrick baited Drake into a battle, goading Drake to drop the "Family Matters" track so he can shut the battle down with "Meet the Grahams". Or maybe his first 2 tracks were a warning to Drake that if he released a track with lies on him he would reveal he has another kid.

I do think Kendrick initially had good intentions in trying to help Drake be a better person. But maybe the more he learned about Drake the less sympathetic he felt.

But I don't know thats just how I see it.

Thanks for reading my essay. I hope it made sense heh. I encourage healthy discussions in the comments and reblogs please. But everyone agrees that Drake is inappropriate with young girls. We won't argue over that.