I have had a couple concepts that have been difficult for me throughout the quater, however the one that continues to trouble me is not limiting Hobbes. I typically tend to just say that Hobbes’ sovereign is all powerful and can do what it wants and that its citizens are at the mercy of the sovereign. I feel like I often oversimplify Hobbes and yet I still struggle to get past that to dig deeper in to what Hobbes is saying. Whenever I write about Hobbes I seem to want to make him the “bad guy” because his view of political legitimacy appears to be much more unfair compared to the others. Originally, I thought Hobbes was easy to understand, but after meeting with Paige, I have realized just how much I am oversimplifying Hobbes and not giving his system fair representation. The easiest part for me has been understanding Emma Goldman. I have written a number of papers about her, one of which I wrote in opposition to her, and the other in favor. I have read her account of anarchism multiple times and been able to write from both sides. By writing about her ideals multiple times I feel like I have understood her writing and her views well and can argue for or against her well. There are still some parts of her that I do not fully understand, but I feel like for the most part I comprehend and find her view of anarchism well and can feel comfortable when writing about anarchism.
Leave a Reply