No, this is not the scene of a crime--this is my "desk." I am working in the living room because a) there is not enough space to spread out in my room and b) If I were in my room, I would be very close to the bed, and hence tempted to sleep.
And I know you are all wondering just what amazing thoughts have resulted from this paper trail. So I present to you here my take on Realism, Rationalism, and Revolutionism:
"In order to summarize the three traditions’ distinct views of human nature, I consider the people that might populate these political theories. Here I present three friends, each representing one of Wight’s traditions, expressing their views on mankind. The Realist believes that all men are self-interested bastards who compete with each other out of fear and for the sake of survival. The Rationalist concedes that, yes, men are bastards, but they are capable of behaving themselves because—for goodness sake, they aren’t beasts—they have reason. Meanwhile, irritated by what sounds like drivel from some book by John Gray, the Revolutionist asks, “Just what ‘man’ are we talking about?” While a man may be a bastard at some point, he is flexible and he can change.
Continuing with the analogy, the self-interested Realist sees love (the international system) as a battlefield ruled by anarchy. Men seek to be “the head of the household,” so an inevitable struggle for power and control ensues. For the reasoning Rationalist, however, love is a little crazy and anarchic, but overall is continuous with the virtuous state of nature. Relationships have the potential to lead to conflict, but norms, order, and justice guide behavior; cooperation creates a happy home. Finally, for the critical Revolutionist, there are general principles of humanity guiding love and there’s not much space for power struggles in a relationship, not when harmony and emancipation are a mutual goal."
Having shared this, I must now return to my mission. After I eat a few Tim-Tams.
