anonymous
  • anonymous
Math majors are better at logics in philosophy, so I ask your insights for the following article “Easier said than done” is more than adequate antidote for anarchy ever keeping in shape. In other words, anarchists have always claimed no policy equals better life with everything under control of “benevolent individuals”. However, their claim consisting of no compassion towards government has never met the reality, and their presupposed felicity under anarchical society will never come true without civil control. Felicity, or individual non-interference in their pursuits, is not compatible wi
Mathematics
schrodinger
  • schrodinger
See more answers at brainly.com
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your free account and access expert answers to this
and thousands of other questions

anonymous
  • anonymous
“Easier said than done” is more than adequate antidote for anarchy ever keeping in shape. In other words, anarchists have always claimed no policy equals better life with everything under control of “benevolent individuals”. However, their claim consisting of no compassion towards government has never met the reality, and their presupposed felicity under anarchical society will never come true without civil control. Felicity, or individual non-interference in their pursuits, is not compatible with anarchy. Hypothetical contract is a deal after all. To maintain the deal from denigration, there has to be civil entity that binds the deal with legal means. The contract would mean nothing if terms agreed upon do not exert force when infringed. People left without control will inevitably experience decadence of dignity according to the natural state, and this is the irony, which continues to verify the symbiosis of utopia and dystopia. The Lord of The Flies started off with temporary happiness and ended up in shambles. Likewise our revolution keeping the dignity in spherical form will grind to halt by our temptations, and decays over time. Such society will be overjoyed, but at the end everything will descend to chaos. Moreover, people give into temptations when instinct takes over logic. In support of that argument, Commander George Lincoln once said that every grain of sand is controlled by “force”, and as such force is the very primacy of order. This analogy displays the state of humanity un-deformed by force, where lack of revolution will deform the sphere of dignity. Robert Heinslei has written a novel against the claim “My mother says violence never settles anything”, going about instances in which force manifested in the form of violence was the bridge to control. As such, force being the prerequisite of order, Hobbes argued that hypothetical contract would cease to exist without the fear of consequence. On the other hand, he promoted a Monarchy where the selected person will enforce covenant agreed upon by the people. He called this “Leviathan”. On the other hand, Stirner suggested a group of egoists fully aware of their cause forming a governing body so as to impose minimum control for order rather than an individual. In this sense, Stirner handles the matter more reasonably than Hobbes with other terms being identical. Such as the final conclusion of this author, anarchy fails to achieve its cause. Felicity coexists with civil control, where civil control births felicity. Likewise, to keep the order from dis-order, there must be some extent of force at work. Therefore, felicity thrives under civil control, and fails with if anarchy interferes
anonymous
  • anonymous
anonymous
  • anonymous
I don't see any math logic in this?

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

thomas5267
  • thomas5267
I find this essay very incoherent. The first paragraph does state a valid point that contracts are hard to enforce if there are no legal entities. "People left without control will inevitably experience decadence of dignity according to the natural state, and this is the irony, which continues to verify the symbiosis of utopia and dystopia." How does dignity has anything to do with the infeasibility of anarchy? "The Lord of The Flies started off..." Same. How does dignity has anything to do with anarchy? "Robert Heinslei has written a novel against the claim “My mother says violence never settles anything”, going about instances in which force manifested in the form of violence was the bridge to control." Quoting a novel is never a good idea to substantiate a logical argument. Even if you have to quote a novel, at least state what instances the novel is mentioning. "As such, force being the prerequisite of order, Hobbes argued that hypothetical contract would cease to exist without the fear of consequence." If someone fails to comply with a contract multiple times, it is clearly that that person would be ostracised by the society as he/she is deemed untrustworthy. I would not say this is a lack of consequence. "On the other hand, he promoted a Monarchy where the selected person will enforce covenant agreed upon by the people. He called this “Leviathan”." “Easier said than done” is more than adequate antidote for such monarchy ever keeping in shape. If such monarch is selected by the people, wouldn't this by definition a democracy? If such monarch is selected by some elites, why is it in the monarch's interest to enforce a covenant agreed by the people? "Stirner suggested a group of egoists fully aware of their cause forming a governing body so as to impose minimum control for order rather than an individual." What is it that stop the group of people imposing more order for their self-interest?

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.