Need Of Ladies Napkin

Raise your children with a little hungry and a little cold

The love we have for our children that we often tend to forget that blind us and make them happy in the long run. It is very common these days that parents, especially those of certain economic resources, we build an imaginary world out of a fairy from Walt Disney, and isolating them from reality.

When sooner or later the story ends, our children are facing an unfamiliar world, who do not understand, full of traps and dead ends who can not overcome, and the consequences are worse than they wanted to avoid.

recently the image of a father with tears in her eyes the whole world was deeply moved. Pele, the soccer idol recent times, who unlike other occasions, gave a press conference of the saddest and most painful of his life: his son, Edson, 35, was arrested along with 50 others in the city of Santos-Brazil.The Pele's son was charged with drug conspiracy and may be sentenced to 15 years in prison. With tears in his eyes, former Brazilian footballer admitted publicly that his son was involved in a gang of cocaine traffickers arrested by police.

Pele told the media: "like any parent, it is sad to see your son involved in groups like that and be arrested, but he will have to suffer the consequences. " He added, "unfortunately, I probably was too busy and I did not realize.

is unfortunate, because I've always fought against drugs and did not notice what was happening in my own home. Pelé is a global character as an athlete admirable and honest man who never lost his humility as other sports figures. However, it is sad that a good man and talented as is 'distracted' in their play more important: the education of their children.

Pele's story is not an isolated event. Unfortunately it is the lives of hundreds of parents in these times caught in an agenda saturated with work and commitments outside the home. Compensate parents who neglect their children with material goods. The

enroll in the best schools, surrounded by luxury and comfort and with that I think they did their job as parents, when all they have done is to make children know hunger and throw what they dislike. Children

tyrants, unbearable and arrogant little monsters who suffer and cause suffering to their peers because since childhood have gotten away with it. Boys who think they feel cold or hot air is a matter of conditioning, which have felt the fatigue that limited walking several blocks because they found parking in front of the club, boys who think the job of parents is to sign checks Paraque they have everything they crave.

What possibilities do our children become men and women of good if the parents give them everything and will not educate them? What children we are training our attitude if we show that money is the most important thing in life?

Confucius said, "Educate your children with a little hungry and a little cold." Proverbs says "Discipline your children." How well do parents their children when they put that maxim so simple in practice. And how much damage they do to put them all in silver platter.

There are many realities that as parents we would disappear; elsufrimiento of children, excessive sweating, stress, and the carenciaseconómicas. However, these realities may not make them happy for now, but eventually they can make men and women as well.

Hopefully more parents is a concern to learn where to walk their children. They will not get to pass that when time should have read: "I was too busy and I did not realize '

not know the author.

Big Booty Cartoon Woman

Sons ...

His kisses are like pieces of peace, more
Our people sometimes suffocate. We ease the day
tenderly
for them to be sweet and serene, but in vain
so carefully paddled,
power anyway they will hit the rocks. Then


would like to become a vessel to protect them against the waves, trying to be
boat and paddler, sea and rowing, all for mecerles

gently as if our hands were whole life,
but this requires us to deliver to
oceans despite our resistance.

There are times when we leave the solutions to them
like clusters of grapes hanging within reach,
and come to believe that they always ofecerán Free
its sweetness.

Sometimes I'm trying to cover silk,
that even soft, light him away from the sun and wind.
Instead, I'd rather be a cup of warm chocolate,
that cool slowly his hands when it's cold
which small sip,
to be his own body that generates heat.

I realize, for his bravery at the small things,
for his impatience and fatigue immediately
only to face
calm and storms will be strong,
but much more than that achieved
verdaeramente be free.

laws of the universe I have not invented it myself.
is they I have been voicing his
existence in the midst of my anxiety to find answers:
"Happiness does not mean absence of pain and love
not to remove him from suffering, but
support them during this."

hurts wisdom and calm as well,
I know no other way to them.
Ah! children. Honey and sleeplessness.
That when the sea takes them,
them back to the serenity of its depths!

not know the author.

Extract Or Concentrate

Hanna Arendt An approach to the political philosophy of the twentieth century

Hanna Arendt was born in Linden-Limmer, today suburb of Hanover, Germany on October 14, 1906 and died in New York , USA, December 4, 1975. It was one of the most influential thinkers of the twentieth century, particularly for his studies in the field of political theory. Disenfranchisement and persecution of ethnic German Jew expelled from his country in 1937. Then in 1951, Hanna took U.S. nationality, country of residence. He was a disciple of Heidegger, Husserl and Jaspers. He was also professor at the Universities of Berkeley, Princeton, Columbia and Chicago.

Fundamental Works
The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) Rahel
Vaernhagen: the life of a Jewess (1958)
The Human Condition (1958)
Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963) Men
in times of darkness (1968)
Between Past and Future: eight exercises in political thought (1968)
Reflections on Violence (1969)
Crisis of the Republic (1972)
The life of the spirit (1978)

The author of "Ideas the political thought of Hannah Arendt: its current impact, "main article to be discussed in this work, defined as an" archaeologist of political thought ", according to their development of ideas through the analysis of new veins. Here is a list of the main issues addressed by our thinker and reviewed by Francisco Avila Fuenmayor.

• The totalitarianism

The power
• Violence • The domination
• The policy
• The history

The freedom

Towards a historical understanding of totalitarianism

"We can not take the fight against totalitarianism until we have understood, since they do not understand (...) until we have defeated"
to Arendt What is understanding? In principle a difference between understanding and knowledge while pointing to a conditional sequence between the two concepts. So understanding rests on knowledge, with the initial understanding that there is a necessary condition for knowledge. Hanna part of that vision for your understanding and critique of totalitarianism. It involves studying the recent history and political development, focusing on the denial of freedom, which says, has been endangered several times, but never in such an extreme and radical acquired under totalitarian regimes. Arendt
also proposed the existence of an interesting analogy between the terms totalitarianism and imperialism in the sense that they are looking for an aggressive foreign policy. The historical justification for this postulate recalled that the former replaced the latter in their respective developments as global hegemonic political phenomena. Both concepts are so installed on the political paradigm of the twentieth century that have been used, perhaps anachronistically, to name wrongs of the past characterized by aggressiveness and the desire for expansionism (imperialism) or terror and unbridled thirst for power (totalitarianism). Hanna warns
characteristics of totalitarianism: alienation, nuclear blackmail, injustice, the consensus tax, irrational use of technology to the detriment of environmental equilibrium and of course the imposition of the rules by the developed countries to their developing subordinates. [1] domain structures are the result of a historical process [2] . In other words, fascism does not break on the scene without the prior existence of certain elements. In the final scene of The Serpent's Egg (1977), the Swedish filmmaker Ingmar Bergman, one character points out to us that Nazism was already the germ of German society, just as the serpent in its egg and accurately shows which will hold as adults. Finally
Arendt warns that democratic society is not immune or immune to totalitarianism, because although he enjoys bad press did not leak hidden costs in new ways. As an example worth the control of world powers demonstrated through technological resources, which is tinged with totalitarianism is totalitarianism would always be dormant or potential, ready to make its appearance in the power structure shifts.


Reflections on power, violence and domination

"The policy challenge is always the violence can never", the phrase belongs to Esquirol, who studies Arendt's position on these concepts. Hanna violence is something uniquely human. It can only exist in the order man-man, and that the same action under the human-animal structure, more correctly defined as cruelty. With regard to the relationship between man and nature Arendt argues that the ecological crisis is a product of violence against nature. As a counterpart of violence find peace, love, and discourse. There is a special emphasis placed on this word because a tight definition of the concept of violence in Arendt would define the latter as "the opposite of speech." The political history offers many examples of use and abuse of violence which has been present in revolutions, paradigm shifts, etc.. That is, has been a practice in the exercise of power in state societies [3] , despite the development of violence in extraestatales areas: terrorism, organized crime, informal crime, etc.
Arendt believes that the violence has been the common denominator of the twentieth century history. "Nobody set out to think about history or politics can remain unaware of the enormous role violence has always played in human affairs and has been singled out so few times for their special consideration. " There is a nod in this critical Marxist-Hegelian philosophy, for whom violence is a necessary ingredient for social change, thereby positing its historical justification. Hanna is opposed to this view arguing that gun violence is more reform than revolution. In his book The Human Condition An analysis of the historical development of violence from antiquity to modern times, while in Crisis of the Republic warns about the use of violence and that this "is distinguished by its instrumental" . Moreover
political thought Arendt aims to design and analysis of non-violence to reflecting on something "political" man [4] , in its plurality, she essentially defined as "not violent", which can be the key to end the violence. By the way questions the efficacy of violence and force in the exercise of power.

precisely with respect to the concept of power Arendt agrees with Hobbes in form but not the content. Recall that the Leviathan is mentioned the war as a condition for forming and consistency of power. Hanna on the other hand, war is a form of violence that occurs outside of power. In his conception the term usually refers to the ability to produce certain results. But spinning finer, ie, speaking specifically of social or political power are hinting at the possibility of women and men to act in public, and exercise the power of man over man, that is, we're talking about domination . [5]
For Arendt power is what keeps the existence of the public sphere, the space in which men are grouped by speech and action: "The power comes from the men when they act together and disappears when they disperse. " With regard to the latter, it is interesting to note that our thinker extended away from a tradition of political philosophy, which has always presented itself to power and violence as inextricably linked concepts. Arendt noted has addressed this lack of theory that involves the use of the words: power, power, strength, authority (of course tinged with a good touch of violence) as if they were synonymous when in fact refer to distinct phenomena. This impasse has prevented linguistic-philosophical understanding of those concepts in greater depth. For Arendt the term to be defined as "concerted human action" and the loss of power "becomes a temptation for replace the power with violence. "
Another noteworthy idea in Hanna Arendt's your concept of freedom. He claims that is inherent in human beings and is the reason why this politically organized lives with his fellows. The reason of history for its part, would be the recognition of this freedom in past actions in order to preserve it as the cause of liberty becomes the existence of the policy. ________________________


[1] worth mentioning that the development of this segment has used the concepts of "center" and "periphery" complementary opposites within the concept of "economy World ", coined by Immanuel Wallerstein about Atlantic expansion and the origins of European imperialism in the strict sense in the XV and XVI.
[2] The movement of companies has its own dynamics, which is as Pierre Vilar matter of history "
[3] For Max Weber State when it is possible there the "legitimate monopoly of coercion." Hanna Arendt will oppose this assumption when the vacuum theoretical question that she clearly seen in the understanding of the concepts of power and violence.
[4] In this issue there is an obvious influence of "political animal" of Aristotle.
[5] "It is said that the state is the instrument that allows the ruling class to exercise their violent domination of the dominated classes. And that has been, is necessary before making them antagonistic social classes, linked by the establishment. "(Pierre Clastres). Another interesting remark on this subject we find in Maurice Godelier. According to his scheme, all power of domination is comprised of two inextricably linked elements: violence and consent, of which the most decisive force is the violence we of the rulers, but the consent of the ruled. In this view an oppressed majority would consent to that "this rule is presented as a service or as tied to a service provided by the rulers."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FUENMAYOR AVILA, Francisco J. "Some ideas of Hanna Arendt's political thought: its impact today," Revista de Ciencias Sociales, year XI, vol. 1, University of Zulia, Maracaibo, Venezuela, 2005, pp. 181-191

Clastres, Pierre, "Society against the State": La Societe contre l'Etat , Paris, Les edicions de minuit, 1971, (chapter 11), Rosario Herrera Translation

FISTETTI Guido, Francesco. Community. political lexicon, Heber Translation Cardoso, Buenos Aires, Nueva Visión, 2004

Godelier, Maurice. "Origins and Training. Formation processes, diversity and the foundations of the state ", in: International Journal of Social Sciences. Paris, UNESCO, 1980, pp. 179-186

VILAR, Pierre. Started vocabulary historical analysis. Barcelona. 4 th edition. Criticism, 1982. (1 st ed. Paris, 1980)

Wallerstein, Immanuel. The modern global system. Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European World-Economy in the sixteenth century, Madrid, Siglo XXI, 1974

Wolin, Sheldon. policy and perspective. Continuity and change in Western thought . Buenos Aires, Amorrortu, 2001


FILM CITED

SHEET
Title: The Serpent's Egg
Original title: The serpent's egg
Address: Ingmar Bergman
Country: West Germany, the United States
Year: 1977
Release Date: 28/10/1977
Length: 119 min.
Genre: Historical Drama
Rating: Not Recommended para menores de 18 años
Reparto: David Carradine , Liv Ullmann , Heinz Bennent, Isolde Barth, Toni Berger, Christian Berkel, Richard Bohne, Paula Braend, Erna Brünell, Paul Burian
Productora: De Laurentiis, Rialto Film

Pablo Ojeda y Natalia Ruiz
Cátedra: Introducción a la Filosofía
Profesora: Lic. Liliana Ponce
Instituto Superior del Profesorado
Dr. Joaquín V. González

Artículo complementario de la exposición oral:

Hanna Arendt: Una aproximación a la Filosofía Política del siglo XX.
November 11, 2010

Hanna Arendt,

by Anabella Perazzo, Melina Ramirez and Denise Tello

Johanna Arendt, better known as Hannah, was born on 14 October 1906 in Germany. This contemporary political philosophy (but refuses to be classified as political philosophy, you want all your publications to be called political theories) of Jewish descent, live in a historical context marked by the advancement of socialism in the Soviet Union, the creation of the Israeli state, and German fascism course that would lead in 1933 to leave their country and emigrate to the United States (which we grant citizenship only in 1951). Once installed, safe from persecution, including work as a journalist and college teacher.

His political theories are influenced by the modern ideal of European intellectuals like Martin Heidegger and Edmund Husserl, and added to his own vision of politics, have to defend the concept of pluralism. Thanks to this concept would create the potential for freedom and political equality among men. In addition Arendt is situated in a critically against representative democracy, bowing to a system of advice or forms of direct democracy.
Among other things, criticizes Arendt icons of classical philosophy as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli and Montesquieu, and thanks to its independent thinking, his theory of totalitarianism and its work on existential philosophy, made this author, one of the most influential of the twentieth century.


Man and Politics by Hannah Arendt

Arendt argues that both men and politics are shaped by the active life and spiritual life.

active life contains 3 concepts, which are: work (which is everything that makes a man for survival and satisfaction of needs basic) labor (which is the creator of the human world and is the one who creates the habitat of politics) and finally the action (which is the policy in both men relate to other men, ie in terms of plurality .)

The spiritual life has the thought (which is the creator of meanings, is what determines the understanding that it is free and open), the will (which is what allows us to discover, free content, human and switches) and finally, the trial (which is the valuation of particular and concrete, is spontaneous and can only exist in society)

Both the spiritual life as an active life up action policy, since it belongs to the active life, but its origin is in the spiritual life, which is the basis of our present human.

We understand now that what is built between the men as they relate politically, is a world that is essential for the survival of the human.

For Arendt the world is building up objectives with the other, creating agreements and imagining a different perspective to ours. In this world man intervenes, as operator of the same nature as alien and freedom, which is something that can differentiate yourself, and that to pursue the policy must be a spectator, be a thinker.
In this sense we can say, according to Arendt, that political action is when begets power, this is a construction of the world and establishing only the men as a whole by the agreement between them. On the contrary, violence for its destructive power can not build anything. Within
political action can talk about revolution, which must go in search of a lifestyle free, creative and participatory for all. The revolution can only occur with the participation of men building a passive power. In this sense, Arendt argues that politics alone is true when people are organized to think and build a world of their own to inhabit with creativity and freedom, as to engage in politics is necessary to be free, thus all free and creative activity plays in the public man, without the need for further legitimacy, however small breeds power, built a world and is not easily susceptible to collapse .
So for Arendt the new configuration of the natural sciences on policy imparts giving new meaning to the action of man upon the world as the creator of it and understanding that gives the meanings to it, dare the trigger. Establishing the concept of freedom, which is the basis for changing the political action. It is when the man thinks collectively and bring new changes from the new vision envelope.
The political actor is faced by their peers and exercises creative freedom in the world established.

This presentation was made by Mayra Alvarez, Pablo and Manuel Diaz Mezzadra

How To Make A Tahitian Hip Piece

Reading Reading Reading Thomas Hobbes Machiavelli

Hobbes The time is characterized by great political divide the which confronted both sides well defined

• Royalists : defending the absolute monarchy's legitimacy on the grounds that it came directly from God.


• Parliamentarians claimed that sovereignty should be shared between the king and the people.
  
  

Hobbes was kept in a neutral position between the two sides and that while sovereignty is claimed that the king, his power came from God. Hobbes's philosophical thought is defined by framed within the mechanistic materialism, a trend that says that only a "body" and denies the existence of the soul. It also says that man is governed by the laws of the universe. In these two concepts their thinking is similar to that of Spinoza, but differs greatly on this by stating that man is like a machine, since according to Hobbes, man moves continuously to achieve their desires, this movement is classified into two types of approach, the man always comes to the things you want and away, the man away from things that threaten life . So says the society is always in motion.

wrote Leviathan, a manual on human nature and society is organized. Based on the definition of man and its features explains the appearance of law and the various types of government that are necessary for coexistence in society. The origin of the state is the covenant I made all the men together, subordinating since then a ruler, which seeks for the good of all subjects and himself. That way it shapes the social organization.

CHAPTER V. OF REASON AND SCIENCE
REASON: When one sees a reasonable sum by the addition of each of its parts, which is done by means of words.
In any field there is room for the conjunction and subtraction of words, there is also room for reason in this regard because it is more than the sum of the consequences.
The reason is always accurate, no clutch is not certain, since the real reason men take such disputes to the passions that dominate.
use and to reason are not getting the truth of the consequences, but to start and advance in a sequel to another.
When a man reasons I could fall into error and absurdity, the error is when we think something will happen cake and does not happen, this may be subject to all men even the most cautious, and when reasoning with words and expressed no sense falls into the absurd.

Causes of absurdity:

One of the main reasons has to do with the lack of method, this is when it starts not the meaning of the names
Another is where the absurdity comes from the poor significance of the names used.
Another is the use of metaphors, instead of the correct words.
And one of the latter cases is to use names that mean nothing, which is routinely taken and learning.
Those who avoid all these reasons, it may not fall into the absurd. In conclusion

reason all men the same way, well, when they have good principles.


SCIENCE: Science for Hobbes is not innate sense or memory, or is acquired by experience and prudence, science is achieved through effort. First
the proper imposition of names and then applying a correct method and reasonable, then reach syllogisms, which are the connections of these two steps above these, we arrive at a knowledge of all the consequences and this men call science. Science is in this sense the knowledge of all the consequences and dependencies of an event over another. Those without science
meet with their natural prudence, and this leads to formulate general rules, false or absurd.
For Hobbes, prudence is a lot of experience and wisdom is a lot of science, usually to designate the two things we use the term wisdom, wisdom against wisdom is infallible because they are only in books and did not lead to practice.

Signs Science:

Some are true, when one can prove the truth of science so obvious to another, and are uncertain when only respond to certain events which would have to prove.

Signs of prudence

All signs of caution are uncertain because as it comes to experience, observe and remember all circumstances that occur in a particular event, is impossible.

CHAPTER XIII. OF "NATURAL CONDITION" OF MANKIND, IN REGARD TO YOUR HAPPINESS AND YOUR MISERY
Nature has made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind that while a man is stronger or more intelligent body of understanding that another, when considered together, the difference between man and man is not so important that one can aspire to like him. With respect to bodily strength, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret plots or confederated with one that is in the same danger as he is.

As I find the mental faculties even larger among men, which in terms of strength. For prudence is but experience, which all men reach alike, equal time, and those things which are equally devoted. What you can do anything amazing tal igualdad, no es sino un vano concepto de la propia sabiduría. Tal es, la naturaleza de los hombres que si bien reconocen que otros son mas sagaces, mas elocuentes o mas cultos, difícilmente llegan a creer que haya muchos tan sabios como ellos mismos, ya que cada uno ve su propio talento ala mano, y el de los demás hombres a distancia.

De la igualdad procede la desconfianza. De esta igualdad en cuanto a la capacidad se deriva la igualdad de esperanza respecto a la consecución de nuestros fines. Esta es la causa de que si dos hombres desean la misma cosa, y en modo alguno pueden disfrutarla ambos, se vuelven enemigos, y en el camino que conduce al fin, tratan de aniquilarse o sojuzgarse uno a otro.

De la desconfianza, to war. Given this situation of mutual distrust, there is no such reasonable procedure for a man to protect himself, as the anticipation, that is mastered by means of force or by cunning men all I can, until no other power capable of threatening. This is not another thing but it requires its own preservation, and is allowed.

They are in the nature of man three leading causes of discord . Competition first, second, distrust, and finally, glory.

The first cause impels men to attack to make a profit, the second to achieve security, the third for winning reputation. The first makes use of violence to become master of the people, and second, to defend them, the third resort to force by insignificant, as a word, a smile, a different view, as any sign of understatement, and either directly in their persons or indirectly in their offspring. Out of State

civil war there is always each against all . During the time men live without a common power to frighten all are in the condition or state which is called war, a war that it is everyone against everyone. In such a situation there is no opportunity for the industry, there is growing land, or navigation, or knowledge of the earth, no art, no letters, no society, and there is continual fear and danger of violent death and life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
nothing in such a war is unjust . In this war of all against all, there is a consequence: that nothing can be unjust. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no justice. In war, force and fraud are the two virtues. It is natural that in this condition there are no ownership or domain. .
While man has a certain ability to overcome this state, is partly because of his passions, partly because of his reason. The passions that incline men to peace are fear of death, the desire for things that are necessary for a comfortable life, and hope to get them through work. Instead, Reason suggests appropriate norms of peace, which in man can come to mutual agreement. These standards are what are called laws of nature.
Although there was never a time when particular men were in a state of war against each other in all the times, kings and persons of sovereign authority, jealous of their independence, are in a state of constant enmity staring at each other, with its strong garrisons, and guns on guard at the borders of their kingdoms, all of which implies a attitude. war. But because they uphold thereby the industry of his subjects, not this misery that accompanies the liberty of particular men

Chapter XIV. The laws of nature and Hobbes
contracts between two stages: one is a state of barbarism, a state of war of all against all and the other is a situation where there is a state created and sustained by law, a state to initiate and reform its structure.
men want and desire the goods and privileges of others, this would be the human need for nature is at war with each other and on the other hand, reason to believe that without security desired goods and privileges are meaningless because they can not enjoy. The reason then suggests appropriate standards of peace for which men could reach mutual consensus. These rules are called laws of nature. Will serve for man out of the state of war.

First Law: Every man must strive for peace, while having the hope of achieving it, and when you can not get it must seek and use all possible advantages of war. Ie to seek peace and follow defended by all possible means.

Second Law: The man must agree to waive this right in all things and meet with the same freedom with respect to the other, against it. In Indeed, while you keep your right to do whatever he pleases, men are at war. And if others do not want to give up that right as there is no reason for anyone to divest himself of such an award, because this rather than disposed to peace, would be offered as a prize (no man is bound).

waive a right is to divest himself of the freedom to prevent another benefit of his own right, for he who resigns or passes the law, does not give another man a right which had not previously, because there is nothing to which every man had not right by nature.

A right is abandoned by the waiver or transfer to another. Resignation, when you do not mind who falls profit. Transfer, when the intention is that the benefit is borne by some other person or persons. And a man in one of these ways has left or right handed is said then that this must not prevent or subject to that to which it is granted or abandoned the right to benefit from it. And it should and it is their duty not to let this worthless own voluntary act and that such hindrance is injustice and prejudice, because it was the duty previously renounced or transferred.

Contract: the mutual transfer of a right is what men call contract. One party can deliver by hand the thing hired, and let the other meets with it at some later time, they are confident in, and then the contract is called a covenant, or agreement, or both parties may contract to meet later and in such cases, the fulfillment of one who, enjoying trust, has to play in the future, called promise and lack of compliance (if voluntary) is called a violation of faith. When the transfer of a right is not mutual, but one party transfers in the hope they win for friendship or other service or your friends, or compassion, this is not a contract but a gift, thanks.
say that he first meets a contract deserves to be received under the contract compliance.
The covenants set forth in fear, in the condition of mere nature are required.

Chapter XVII: Of the state.

of the causes, generation and definition of a republic.

The final cause, purpose or design of men (which naturalmen "I love freedom and dominion over others) to introduce this restriction on themselves (in which we live for-command states) is the care of its own preservation and, in addition, to achieve a more harmonious life, ie the desire to leave this miserable condition of war. The men entered including the restriction of life republics to care for their own preservation and achieving a happier life, this means moving from the previous war situation (linked to the natural passions of men) related to the absence of visible power to instil fear or punishment of the laws of nature (justice, equity, modesty, mercy ... ie do unto others what we do not want done to us). These laws of nature are contrary to the natural passions of man.

Man has need for a power up and large enough to ensure the safety and protect against other men. This security is not achieved gathering in small groups or large groups, and that either may be weak or disorganized to the presence of a greater enemy, or in his absence, may even be war between them and their interests.

Hobbes states that exist in nature examples of animal communities living in peace organization, said for example, ants and bees and how Aristotle cited in what he considered "political communities." He says that many may wonder why the man seems incapable of doing this, and responds to it in first place, men are continually in competition for honor and dignity (something lacking in these creatures), thus arises between men envy, hatred and finally war. Secondly mentioned that these creatures are identical between the common good and private good, (thus ensuring compliance with the personal satisfaction and community needs), but men do not. Third, that the lack of reason in these creatures are prevented from seeing or thinking about any kind of defect ... Leyla

Rajoy, Carla Raichuni, Natalia Tourón, Johanna Vega

Machiavelli and Hobbes: The modern political thought.

by Damian Scaff, and Araceli Ocampo Cristian Sabransky

The Social Contract

Before there was the State, the man lived immersed in the state of nature. The state of nature is a state of continuous violence, men have nothing to rein in their ambitions. In this state there are two key points: the ambition and the ability to make this ambition. Pousadela Inés says Hobbes identified three causes of the conflict between people, namely: competence, confidence and glory or the craving for profit, safety, and reputation. On the other hand the capacity to make these ambitions are similar in all men so that there is an imposition on others for a long time. That is why the fight is perpetual. Can not be maintained any building, or can develop the art or science: they live in constant war. Men aspire to the same and his ambition knows no bounds and on the other hand, men are faced with the same ability as them. In these circumstances no one has the life assured, because even the weakest has the ability to kill the strongest, plus the inability to live comfortably producing more harm than good. Hobbes says that the state of nature "human life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." The solution found by men is to create a social compact of mutual commitment, but being so selfish, they themselves end up in breach of contract by returning to the state of nature. To prevent this from happening as spouses elect a person to ensure compliance with the contract, which give all their rights. This guarantee is the sovereign, who besides possessing the rights of the parties, has the power to create laws without being tied to this, urging them to comply with the threat of punishment. But in contrast, has a responsibility to ensure the security and peace of his subjects, and his power is legitimate to the extent that it can fulfill its task. The sovereign is responsible then the state symbolized by the figure of Leviathan. Pousadela asserts that the only way they can generate the social contract is that the effect becomes cause, ie, if the only way to make a contract is respected by the monarch, can not constitute any contract before it. In other words, transfers a possible action through the intervention of state to a time prior to the formation of the same. For this the state of nature is metaphorical: it is the memory of what might happen if the contract is not respected. When this happens, comes a terrible monster Leviathan: civil war arises.
The importance of Hobbes as a modern thinker lies that seeks to legitimize the power of the sovereign without resorting to the concept of "divine right", but seeks an explanation by observation. It also represents the concept of the state not only the property (the king) but as an institution for the common good, thinking that characterizes the modern view of the state.

Differences and similarities between Machiavelli and Hobbes

Machiavelli and Hobbes both start out the same idea that human nature is essentially selfish and the State stems from the inability of the individual to defend himself. While both emphasize the way in which the State must exercise violence monopoly to maintain order. Both authors have a modern view of politics, not as the best way in which to govern, but on the justification of why the state should exist in the case of Hobbes, or how to handle the state's power by their leaders. The differences are that Machiavelli is entirely practical and describes how to govern, ie, gives practical advice to the prince, while Hobbes theoretically justifies the existence of the state. This is an important distinction as for Machiavelli the state is an end in itself, whereas for Hobbes.

of justice as

been found in nature of man be three main causes of discord:
Competence is the cause that impels men to attack to make a profit. This makes use of violence to become owner of individuals, women, children and cattle men
Mistrust: to achieve security. To defend
Gloria: winning reputation. Resort to force by insignificant as a word, a smile, a different view.

Yet it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to frighten everyone is in the condition called war, a war that is everyone against everyone. Therefore, anything that is inherent in a time of war, it is natural also in the time men live without other security than their own strength and their own invention can provide.
In such a situation there is no place for industry, because its result is uncertain, therefore, no culture or knowledge and the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

In this war of all against all, there is a consequence: that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right to equality, justice and injustice have no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no justice. In the war force and fraud are the two cardinal virtues. It is also natural that there is no property no dominion, no distinction between you and me, one belongs to each one what they can take, and only if I can keep it.
There can be no security for anyone to exist during the time that Nature usually provides a livelihood for men.

The state is not natural but artificial body: not a spontaneous production of nature, but a historic collective production of art which imitates human. This work is rational is the most excellent of nature: man. Indeed, thanks to the art is created that great Leviathan is called Republic or State which is but an artificial man whose protection and defense was instituted and in which sovereignty is an artificial weapon that gives life and movement to the whole body.

The state of nature is the true definition of a collective movement nominalist physically observe and experience: universal violence of the Civil War. The state operates in the universal war that is all Revolution: chaotic collective burst of physical violence of human passions, returning to its natural state naked. Whoever

ordain and establish a regime, as the first founding of the state must necessarily have sovereign power over the people being reached by a natural force
way: when men agree among subject themselves to a man, or assembly of men, voluntarily, hoping to be protected by someone at all over.
The people are subjected by fear and the state must ensure the necessary protection to ensure their lives from violence.
Freedom is the absence of impairments that can rob a man of his power as a natural right that every man has to use his own power to preserve his life.

law forbids the human nature to find their own well to preserve his life and that of others. The right is the freedom to do or not do, as determined by law and binds to one of the two, with what the law and the law defined as the obligation and freedom in one and the same matter are inconsistent (Hobbes, Leviathan).

References consulted:

Mauricio Schuttenberg, "Machiavelli and Hobbes: continuities and discontinuities in political thought"

This presentation was made by Andrea Ibarra