|
|
 |
How does this effect Popper's criticism of Marxism as not scientific when nothing has technically been disproven and cannot be disproven unless another form of social production comes into existence? It obviously weakens Marxism's claim to science, but how can Popper claim that Marxism has probably been disproven?
Hobbes also seems to have entered his argument with the foregone conclusions that 1) monarchy is the best form of the state and that 2) a monarch or government need not be accountable in any way to his/its subjects. These assertions seem rather out of character with the rationalistic tone of his logical walk through the meaning and origin of the social covenant. Why is absolute power transferred once and assumed to be forever safeguarded by a benevolent authority? For the covenant to work, would not each king have to be approved by the populace in a new covenant?
|
|
|
|
|
Favorites
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Magnolia
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
BlinkList