Författarbild

Richard Tuck

Författare till Hobbes: A Very Short Introduction

10+ verk 573 medlemmar 9 recensioner

Om författaren

Richard Tuck is one of the world's greatest historians of political thought. He is Frank G. Thomson Professor of Government at Harvard University.

Inkluderar namnet: Richsrd Tuck

Serier

Verk av Richard Tuck

Associerade verk

Leviathan eller En kyrklig och civil stats innehåll, form och makt (1651) — Redaktör, vissa utgåvor8,189 exemplar
The Rights of War and Peace (1625) — Redaktör, vissa utgåvor413 exemplar
Philosophy, Politics and Society: Fourth Series (1972) — Bidragsgivare — 20 exemplar

Taggad

Allmänna fakta

Medlemmar

Recensioner

Tomas Hobsi (Thomas Hobs) ishte i pari filozof i madh anglez në lëmin e mendimit politik. Vepra e tij Leviathan ishte me të vërtetë e para ndër veprat e filozofisë moderne. Për një kohë të gjatë ai është vështruar si një ateist pesimist, që e pikturonte natyrën njerëzore si pashmangshmërisht të ligë, çka e shtyu drejt përvijimit të idesë së një shteti totalitar, i cili përmes nënshtrimit do të synonte të shmangte mangësitë apo ligësitë e njeriut të vështruar si qenie individuale.

Në këtë studim dritëhedhës, Richard Tuck rreh të zhveshë një e nga një mitet e mësipërme, për të na zbuluar një Hobs të lëshuar, plot pasion, kundër hedhjes poshtë skepticizmit qoftë në shkencë qoftë në etikë. Krahas kësaj autori tregon se si Hobsi lëvroi një teori njohjeje, që për nga rëndësia, në formimin e filozofisë moderne rivalizon ndjeshëm teorinë e lëvruar nga Dekarti.
… (mer)
 
Flaggad
BibliotekaFeniks | 2 andra recensioner | Nov 10, 2020 |
My main interest in this book was the question of voting - I wanted to see his response to the argument that since your vote is extremely unlikely to change the outcome of the election, and voting carries some cost (in time, money, whatever), it’s not rational to vote. As I understood it, the response is that:

1. Your vote does have a high chance of being part of the set of votes that cause the outcome (e.g., if the candidate needs 51% of the vote to win, and actually receives 60%, then if you think of the ballots as being counted in some order, there’s a good chance that your ballot is part of the 51% that were necessary rather than the 9% that were superfluous).
2. Each vote in that set should be thought of as fully causing the outcome.
3. It can be rational to want to cause an outcome even though the outcome would still have occurred even if you had not.

I don’t find this fully satisfying, but it is interesting food for thought. The book also contains an illuminating discussion of the similarities, differences, and relationships between various types of problems related to collective action, and a fascinating recounting of the history of such problems.
… (mer)
 
Flaggad
brokensandals | 2 andra recensioner | Feb 7, 2019 |
I can't say this was an interesting book. The author expends a great amount of effort on discussing Olson's Logic of Collective Action and related commentaries. The theme is that individuals should have no reason to contribute to large collective projects if their own contribution is so small that it seems negligible in comparison to the whole. He works his way through the argument from several vantage points, including its origin in the theory of competitive markets and its main dilemma: voting.

The author's solution to the dilemma is that it is rational for me to vote "if I believe that there are likely to be enough votes for my candidate for my vote to be part of a causally efficacious set" (p.60). This straightforward solution indeed seems like a reasonable answer. But overall, Olson's original argument and this counter-argument constitute an exceedingly complicated theoretic discussion of a simple practical issue. Anyone can calculate with a little bit of basic math how likely it is that their vote will contribute to the outcome of an election and then decide whether to vote or not. The likelihood of an efficacious contribution will be inversely proportional to the expected number of abstainees, so it seems that a natural balance should be found.

After going back and fourth on Olson's argument for 100 pages, the author spends another 100+ pages on discussing the history of ideas about negligible contributions in both political and economic thought. This historical epilogue (which actually constitutes more than half of the book) is fairly educational, but Olson's idea itself isn't all that interesting, so how much do we really need to know about its history? All in all, I'm sure this book has inspired academic debate but I don't think that debate is likely to be particularly valuable.
… (mer)
 
Flaggad
thcson | 2 andra recensioner | Dec 6, 2018 |

Du skulle kanske också gilla

Associerade författare

Statistik

Verk
10
Även av
3
Medlemmar
573
Popularitet
#43,720
Betyg
½ 3.5
Recensioner
9
ISBN
35
Språk
6

Tabeller & diagram