Is there any other book as timeless, influential, coherent, and powerful as TWON?

Don't get me wrong, TWON is a great book. I recommend the Modern Library edition, as it has explanatory notes in the margins. Like you really would not know who Smith was reffering to when he mentioned "The Economists" unless you have the Modern Library edition explaining he meant THE FRENCH PYSIOCRATS... The stinking bullionists, that is... Not that I am against bullion... And actually I would like a few more BULLIONIST on the Federal Reserve!!!! Whatever... IMHO

Attached: Structure-of-scientific-revolutions-1st-ed-pb.png (232x350, 90K)

?

Attached: GT_Palgrave.jpg (200x300, 13K)

?

>absurd postulation of a presocial human being
> """""""natural rights"""""

Attached: jlok.gif (245x285, 918K)

Nigger.

How has this not been posted yet...?

Attached: 51B7YkNA5nL.jpg (328x500, 46K)

I refuse to believe anyone actually reads that shit, OP

I thought you liked dead Communists.

I mean have you actaully read it. It's written like garbage, only part 1 is good

Anna Karenina

Not him, but aren't you proving his point? The Wealth of Nations was groundbreaking and inspired millions, and shaped part of today's world, but Marx introduced the idea of Class, the idea of the workers owning their means of production, and generated more fighting, killing, starving than any other book in the same relatively short period of time. In terms of deaths/year Marx blows the Bible out of the water easy peasy lemon squeezy. I don't know about timeless and coherent but the founding texts of communism are undeniably influential and powerful.

Faust

Please...

Attached: 198384.jpg (171x266, 12K)

Yeah, probably.
but not this one
but probably this one
not this one though
or this one
or this one
not even this one though close
this one is indeed more influential
and maybe this one too
BUT THIS GUY IS JUST A JOKESTER

Attached: EBnlyAfXYAA57Ja.jpg (640x457, 32K)

What publisher should I buy this book from?

What has his deal? Was Hobbes autistic?

woo, neoliberalism. is there any book more responsible for the way your western world operates this day and age

Attached: 9873451234.jpg (255x390, 14K)

Would you feel better if he were?

lol

Idiots

Attached: 30659.jpg (309x475, 109K)

Attached: Prinicipia-title.png (440x610, 470K)

Imagine trying to conceive of a materialist explanation for human psychology and anatomy before you have the scientific knowledge to actually provide one in detail. It's bound to come out a bit clunky
His absolutist views are based though, revolutionaries who think they know better than their sovereign are the source of so much unnecessary violence

I too prefefer absolutism to the corrupt tyranny democracy leads to, but he does indeed express himself clunkily sometimes. I guess I didn't think about how hard his concepts were to express before the enlightenment. I think the Greeks and Marcus Aurelius explain their ideas beautifully, but of course they aren't expressing the same ideas.

This.

Our understanding of Capital today has far surpassed any of the fledgling thinkers.

Consider this passage:
>When a Body is once in motion, it moveth (unless something els hinder it) eternally; and whatsoever hindreth it, cannot in an instant, but in time, and by degrees quite extinguish it: And as wee see in the water, though the wind cease, the waves give not over rowling for a long time after; so also it happeneth in that motion, which is made in the internall parts of a man, then, when he Sees, Dreams, &c. For after the object is removed, or the eye shut, wee still retain an image of the thing seen, though more obscure than when we see it. And this is it, that Latines call Imagination, from the image made in seeing; and apply the same, though improperly, to all the other senses. But the Greeks call it Fancy; which signifies Apparence, and is as proper to one sense, as to another. Imagination therefore is nothing but Decaying Sense; and is found in men, and many other living Creatures, as well sleeping, as waking.
In order to lay out his materialist worldview he basically tries to create a model of human sentience that works under Newtonian physics, before modern neuroscience. He hits at something true I think, but lacks the ability to foresee the complexity of the human brain. In doing so he creates an almost algorithmic model of thought and underestimates the illogical unpredictability of real people. Ironically despite getting some of the basic stuff wrong I think he seems to do better when looking at the big picture.

That's an interesting take on it, thanks for your insight.

Based and Absolutistpilled

By the way I've for the past year or so thought about how for a monarch what is good for him is often good for the country but for a parliament member what is good for him is generally bad for the country.
I was very pleased to see Hobbes expressing this in Leviathan, so I know I'm not alone in thinking about these kinds of problems.