People often fall into different extremes. Some years on the sofa and indulge in dreams. Others on the contrary, have become "truly adult, and generally stopped dreaming. They live in a brutal invented reality and trying to impose this reality around them. What's better, you ask? Answer. Bad as the first and second choice. In the first case, a person attached to his far-fetched illusions and doing nothing in my life live life to their fantasies and thoughts.
In the second case the person also did not shine, because he is afraid or simply too lazy to look through quite a low fence that protects its territory and see how much interesting is there for him. Well, here you can advise only one thing to develop imagination and fantasy, there's nothing more to add. And for those who are doing nothing, the council cease to read and reflect, and roll up your sleeves and make real steps. Now let's consider the following variant. Do you really want to achieve something in life, even make any attempt to implement your plan, but all in vain. You simply not enough energy to bring the matter to an end, or even hard even to lift his fifth point with a warm couch. What is the problem here? The answer is obvious. You do not have enough energy for action. And you can even really want to reach your goal, but to make even a small you are unable to. Look closely at the picture.
" All individual – Spinoza in its Theological Treaty says – Politician has a sovereign right to everything what is in its power; in other terms that the right of each extends to where the certain power goes that belongs to him. And being the supreme law of the nature that each thing strives to maintain its state as in her it is, without considering no other thing, except for she herself, follows that each individual has a sovereign right to perseverar in its state, that is to say – since already I have affirmed to exist and to behave in the form as he is naturally determinado". In the nature state there will be always hatred, envy, war, damage, reason for which the man must to each other surpass this state, being united and ordered his lives of Pacific way and rational, organizing itself politically in the form of democracy or of moderate aristocracy, where the sovereign always is limited by the natural right. ** Puffendorf (1632-1694) Volume a position between the one of Hobbes and Grocio. Contact information is here: Hyundai. It agreed with first in which the man is very influenced in his motivations by the egoism and that is a certain degree of badness in its nature. But it shared with the second the idea that the man had a strong tendency to be associated and to peacefully coexist with other men and harmony. The natural right, was for him, manifestation of " that double character dela nature humana" and according to those two aspects there would be two fundamental principles in the natural right: To conserve its life, its members and their property. B not to disturb the society, not to do anything that can disturb the social order. Both principles can be fused in the following one: " That each tries to preserve itself to itself in such a way that hombres" does not disturb the society of the others;.
It seems? in the revealer the analogy that Rousseau traces between the natural regularity and the social one. What it wants showing in them? What this means? Rousseau ironically wants in them to indicate the nature of the corruption and of the decay, that is, he is ' ' natural' ' customs to be corrupted when the man if disnaturalizes, when the social inaquality is converted into ' ' natural' ' very for this contributes arts and sciences in reason of ' ' hunger of vaidade' '. The nocividade of the vanity consists of the attachment to the comparison in relation other had people as inferior, or as it explains N.J.H. Dent in its Rousseau Dictionary: ' ' the desire of the individual vain to measure in relation to others and of congratular themselves for its anteriority on them is, in understanding of Rousseau, one of the most spread out human desires in society, although to be deeply harmful in such a way for the perpetrador how much for the aimed at one for atitude' ' (DENT. 1996, P.
208). Nowadays we could say that, for Rousseau the vanity creates dependence and while such is one ' ' drug social' ' that it becomes the muddy sight hindering that we enxerguemos the man as it is. Therefore to enxergarmos the man in its moral perspective is necessary to desvencilhar? if of ' ' books cientficos' ' , therefore in they supply fallacious, representative knowledge to them on the man. In this direction sciences would be a powerful and efficient instrument of legitimation of the inaqualities, valuing pleasant knowledge in depreciation of that they can bring benefits. Science: a problem. In contrast of the enciclopedistas that turn the cientificidade as solution for the problems the man, Rousseau has the conception of science to consist in problematic way. For reason of the degradation, the inaquality and the dependence for vanity that it provides to the man.