/lit/ - Literature

>>16789322
>>16789382
State of Nature arguments are hypothetical, not anthropological accounts. No state of nature theorist has claimed that their state of nature actually existed. In fact, they have claimed the exact opposite. Did you miss:
>It may peradventure be thought there was never such a time nor condition of war as this; and I believe it was never generally so, over all the world. ~ Leviathan, Chapter XIII
>We must not take the investigations that one could enter into concerning this subject for historical truths, but only for hypothetical and conditional arguments, more suitable for illuminating the nature of things than for showing the true origin. ~ Second Discourse
>an argument from what has been, to what should of right be, has no great force ~ Second Treatise
They serve to demonstrate, as Rousseau says, hypothetical arguments more suitable for illuminating the nature of things. That is, for revealing core political and social concepts which require first society to be stripped away to demonstrate their primacy. Indeed, for Hobbes and Locke this is giving reasons for government which all can agree to, and that the reasons for forming government define its remit. Rousseau uses it to explore the effects of society on the human temperament as a criticism of the previous two. You can interpret as a kind of thought experiment in the vein Rawl's Veil of Ignorance (ie. logical consequences of particular theories of human nature from a hypothetical initial position) We needn't suppose that people have always had this disposition, it is enough that they have them now for the arguments to work. And while they may be incorrect in some respects, i don't think their observations of human behaviour are too far off.
For example, take Locke's argument for Property Rights. It has nothing to do with some real state of nature, but is almost an a priori conceptual deduction of the notion of freedom. Freedom lies in direction of one's own activities beyond the control of others ie. self-ownership. If self-ownership can exist outside of society (It necessarily does as freedom can exist outside society), then ownership can exist outside of society (necessarily, because you own yourself). Which in turn means that property rights must be prior to government (as they are a form of ownership, and ownership can exist without society). Hence it is a natural right of any (free) people that they have property rights. And as such it cannot be impinged without impinging the individuals freedom (a priori). And since
>The great question which in all ages has disturbed mankind, [...] has been, not whether there be power in the world, nor whence it came, but who should have it.

>>16580789
>>16580832
What are you two talking about? I didn't even manage to earn my pen licence in primary school.
Just post your handwriting.