The day started with a very interesting Political Theory seminar, in which we discussed our first attempts to read Hobbes. Despite me not enjoying the reading that much in the first place, I get more and more fascinated by this character full of contradictions. A person that challenged the beliefs of his time up to a maximum at one point and argues that these kind of challenges should not be permitted for the sake of order at another.
In the seminar the discussion on Hobbes’s analysis of language was probably the most interesting part to me, the point that language is a precondition for society makes sense. Moreover, I would have liked it if we spoke more about the role of language in excercising power; are maybe only numbers truly egalitarian? Or do they impose a different kind of tyranny?
Anyway, in the afternoon I attended the second Economics lecture of this week. For once we talked about ethics in that class or maybe Pareto’s lack of it. I should defiantly do some background reading on the Edgeworth Box, etc., as I do not intend to lose sight of it when it just starts in getting interesting.
In ethics, we talked about killing people, again. This time in self-defence; the discussion was fruitful in general and once Felix question the methodology moral philosophers use in particular. I now feel to understand a little bit more about why we have to go through all these different kind of case studies. Indeed, our personal reaction seems to be the only form of empirical test moral philosophers can use to test the consistency of both their general theory and their subjective intuition. If they do not match one has to be revised.
Poltics and Policy gives me a headache, still. I really should see Roger tomorrow to speak about my ideas on how to structure this first essay.