Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 October 16

= October 16 =

Kantians vs Hobbesians
"This is a world that is no longer there. ... a competitive world where everything is being weaponised. ...We are too much Kantians and not enough Hobbesians".

What does he mean about Kantians and Hobbesians? Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think Josep Borrell may be abusing the terms, but my best guess, given the context, is that he equates Hobbes' views on politics with pragmatic Realpolitik, while Kant tends – in his view – too much towards political idealism. --Lambiam 12:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * See Political philosophy of Immanuel Kant and Leviathan (Hobbes book). Kant tended to believe that people were, in their nature, capable of rational self-interest, and would work together for a greater good; his political philosophy is a defense of Republicanism under the belief that man is, at his core nature, a rational thinker and will work with others to achieve the best good for all.  Hobbes believes that people, at their core, are selfish to the point of self-destruction, and that in this sort of base selfishness, with everyone out to get the most they can for themselves "In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."  As such, he asserts that the best type of governance is a sort of benevolent but all-powerful absolutist state controlled by a few learned men, who would use the power of the state to prevent people from descending into open violence.  Kant believes in democracy, Hobbes in absolutism.  -- Jayron 32 18:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks both. So in the tweet I linked, is the complaint about "not enough Hobbesians" basically that the People In Charge are too reluctant to put the boot down on garden variety trolls and thugs? I had heard the "nasty, brutish, and short" description before, but also thought part of the Kantian formulation (e.g. of the US constitutional checks and balance system) was that the trolls and thugs were themselves all angling to be In Charge, so the system had to prevent that. I'm open to signing up with Hobbes, but I'd first want to know where the benevolent state is supposed to come from, and not become corrupted. So I still find the tweet confusing. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The social contract that Hobbes envisions is that people agree to be oppressed by the absolutist state to protect themselves from their violent and evil neighbors. -- Jayron 32 12:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, I didn't realize that the social contract was a Hobbes formulation. I guess the gap in the picture (i.e. the absolutist state itself inevitably turning violent and evil) is not that relevant to the original question.  I hadn't realized Hobbes was such an idealist.  Or maybe he can just call a recruiting agency and ask them to send over some philosopher-kings, and that will take care of it.  Anyway, I should try to look at the rest of the tweet thread.  Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a parody, but Kant dreamt of possible during peace and Hobbes thought man had to be wolf to man always(?)--Ralfdetlef (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

codified and uncodified laws
what are the laws that judiciary interprets towards the administration of justice? Grotesquetruth (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Stare decisis? -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe look at statute law vs case law, and also civil law. The last might be what you mean by "codified law". 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It depends on the legal system; see . --Lambiam 06:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * how about one that follows a mixed legal system? Grotesquetruth (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That can only be addressed by an examination on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction base, something I am not prepared to undertake. --Lambiam 17:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed invasion of Sichuan
I'm reading our article about the Proposed Japanese invasion of Sichuan. I'm particularly interested in the chapter called 3.1 Japanese plan but there are no sources listed. I'd like to find more about the topic. Do you have any idea? Thank you. 195.62.160.60 (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I did not find a source for the statements in that section, but note that what is reported there is merely speculation on what the plan might have been. --Lambiam 06:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. I was hoping for a sourced speculation... --195.62.160.60 (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The editor who originally added this speculative content has not been active for 16 years, so there is no point in asking them. At the time, the article listed three potential sources:
 * General Wego W.K. Chiang "How the Generalissimo Chiang Kai Shek gaining the Chinese-Japanese eigth [sic] years War,1937-1945".
 * Gen. Wego W.K. Chiang, Die Strategische Bedetung [sic] Taiwans, Taipei
 * Idem. Chinese Communists Modernization Problems, Taipei, 1979
 * By its title, the first one looks the most plausible for being a source. It is not listed at
 * , but I think the Chinese title, listed as number 11 at 蔣緯國 § 著作 (without year or publisher), is 《蔣委員長十八年抗日戰爭指導》. --Lambiam 18:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)