Immortality

I enjoy that you made a connection like this. I am also taking political philosophy classes. That comes with being a political science/pre law major. and your connection with this to Hobbes is great. the general ideas a wonderful. nice creative use.

I would have to agree with Rule, however. In Midevil england, along with other places i am sure they did have a separtation of power still. The King ruled all. He was still the supreme power of the land and had absolue control, but he deligated some of that power to others. For example in the shires and the villas there was a person who ruled that, connecting the classes as the villages and the leaders as the class officers. Again the king did have a parliment, which has changed over the years, but the begining role of parlement (guild officersand CL) was to offer the king (guns) advise, or give suggestions on how to do things. these members of parliment were also the leaders of the villages. The kings did not have to list to them, but it would be in his best interest because parliment represented the areas of the kingdom. the members of parliment also had some of the same rights as the king did. they had supreme power over their land, like the cl or officers have over their class. this could always then be surpassed by the king, but again it would be illadvised to. fear of revolt and what not.

so i guess i can really see rule's point is saying it connects with a monarch really well.

the other thing that i see different is that WoW imo does not fully fit with the state of nature. Hobbes does say that war is the state of nature, and that life is "solitary, poor, nasty broodish, and short." i fell like WoW is maybe partially advanced. I mean the faction between the horde and alliacne would be a state of nature, but in a true Hobbesian view the allianec and the horde would fight their own faction. granted this is present in the race to outdoor bosses, or a few kills here and there, but generally factions are more likely to help each other out than to go to war within itself. so i can see that it follows some of Hobbes ideas, or maybe it is already part of the way through Hoobes' way of moving beyond the state of nature, but I personally do not feel like it is safe to say that it parelles Hobbes belief.

No hate intended here. thought i would just give a bit of my feed back, since i am also have studied, currently am studing these same thing, and will continue to study them for the rest of college. but otherwise i like the presentation of this paper.

_________________
"Immortality for life bitch!!" ~ Hulex

whak i do concede that the state of nature and the state of WoW do not coincide on every level. the main problem i had in writing this paper was that people from the alliance or horde cannot attack members of their own factions - this is the fundamental problem with the comparison. the other problem is that players in WoW essentially live forever - once you get killed you go grab your corpse, thus the idea of self-preservation as being paramount is somewhat absent from Warcraft. the comparison i tried to make was that in WoW, one of the most basic desires from level 1 is the acquisition of new and improved items. when entering an instance or doing an outdoor raid boss, this is where your right to pursue any and everything you desire becomes threatened. it is only when you enter a guild that the threat of being dicked over in an instance is SIGNIFICANTLY lowered.

if horde and alliance had the same home cities or something like that, everybody would be getting killed all over the place and my idea of group protection would work out. your point is one that my professor will probably make.

your point on monarchies is another good one. i guess the problem i made in my paper was lead people to believe that Immortality was a highly liberal and advanced democracy - this wasn't my intention and i recognize that my wording in many cases could have lead to this. all im arguing is that powers are separated or devolved to SOME DEGREE. hobbes argued that separation of powers cannot exist or it will lead to civil war - thus no lesser magistrates or parliament with any authority, no regional representatives, no voting, no bill of rights, no magna carta, no declaration of independence, no constitution, or anything else for that matter that could lead people to divide and respect different sources of sovereignty. thus when hobbes said "monarchies and aristocracies are acceptable," he meant that both systems must embody absolutism. if you look at the UK today, they still have a parliamentary system with a monarch, but her powers are highly ceremonial (along with the house of lords in parliament) and are mainly devolved to parliament and more recently the regional assemblies that we can see in places such as scotland. if you look at the history of monarchy in england, you can see a correllation between the king's loss of power and the gaining of power by parliament. hobbes would most likely only support the state of monarchy at the beginning where the crown holds all the power and parliament holds NOTHING - for a nice hollywood example take a look at "braveheart." in "bravehart," king edward I has TOTAL power and has no sovereign force to influence his decision-making. this is the form of monarchy accepted by hobbes, not one where regional lords and parliament has influential powers. i think your idea of monarchy and the one espoused by hobbes are different, but good points nonetheless.

_________________

Dictators in RL is a gong show and a very bad scene. Wow however needs dictaors cause we dont have 2 things. Police and the miliatary. If guns had police that froze you char under the earth oR just flat out deleted your player for going against the guild then we could have a democracy. However there is 0 accountabilty in WOW, hense why we need a dictator to keep the Anarchy in check.

cause really thats all wow is...... Anarchy... Bands of armies going around killing shit, looting everything they see and killing civilians! I love this game.

right, about my idea of how the monach was and what hobbes presented. i was just using examples from history that i have studied to help show what rule was saying about things running more like a monarchy with guns having supreme power. i wasn't trying to relate it to hobbes in all that way.

i really like the ideas you presented though. i mean like you said it is not possible to parellel it to the state of nature because we can always corpse run, we don't worry about our bank getting stolen from when we are logged off and what not. but i see the connection where guilds and the progression of them throught the game has set up a society that hobbes talked about. it moves away from the state of nature. i think this example is just starting out a little farther in hoobes view of nature, say after people realize to protect themselves they have to work with other people and give up our rights to certain things to have them protected.

but great work man. it takes balls to put a paper out here for everyone to read. i hope the proff likes it too.

_________________
"Immortality for life bitch!!" ~ Hulex

_________________

_________________
The Jesus: ...you flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, stick it up your ass and pull the fucking trigger 'til it goes "click."
The Dude: Jesus.
The Jesus: You said it, man. Nobody fucks with the Jesus.

_________________

_________________
The Jesus: ...you flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, stick it up your ass and pull the fucking trigger 'til it goes "click."
The Dude: Jesus.
The Jesus: You said it, man. Nobody fucks with the Jesus.

_________________

_________________
The Jesus: ...you flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, stick it up your ass and pull the fucking trigger 'til it goes "click."
The Dude: Jesus.
The Jesus: You said it, man. Nobody fucks with the Jesus.

_________________
"Immortality for life bitch!!" ~ Hulex