Was Hobbes actually right? Can I agree with his view of human nature but not his conclusions?

[Anonymous No.13999549]

I always thought Locke's philosophy was way more reasonable than Hobbes', but since studying them in more detail Locke's arguments are weak and rely on appealing to religion. Hobbes' vision of the State of Nature just makes more sense to me, but his vision of the state itself doesn't. Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.13999558]

>>13999549
I read the first part of the book when he made his definitions and talked about human nature, and I was impressed. He might have had an influence on my egoist perspective. I didn’t bother to keep reading about the boring political stuff.

[Anonymous No.13999562]

Hobbes was a pseud who wrote in Latin to disguise his midwittery

[Anonymous No.13999586]

>>13999558

His concept of felicity is kind of interesting

[Anonymous No.13999698]

We’re living in Leviathan’s belly right now

[Anonymous No.13999969]

>>13999549
I think he was mostly right. Humankind needs governance, but not necessarily formal government. Societies and communities are capable of self regulation. Apply that on a broad scale and you could have countless neighbouring municipalities governed by direct democracy without party politics. The biggest obstacle to this is barbaric statist fags that, regardless of their vast differences, all agree on one thing. Liberty must be destroyed. Its telling that Hitler, Franco, Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill all wanted the Spanish anarchists to fail. And now America, Russia, Syria, Turkey and the remnants of ISIS all agree, Kurdish libertarianism must perish.

[Anonymous No.14000011]

>>13999969
ultimate boomer take
>why yes I’m a classical liberal, how can you tell?

[Anonymous No.14000041]

>>14000011
he's a 21 yo anarchist

[Anonymous No.14000154]

>>14000011
>>14000041
I'm a 35 year old without an ideological home. I sympathise most with libertarian socialism/anarcho syndicalism but even these are being co copted now by SJWs who don't actually want a stateless society, they just want the state to intervene every time they have period cramps or someone uses a no no word on the internet.
I'm also not so naive as most left anarchists like Emma Goldman who see no innate human nature but muh blank slate. People are fucking animals but we can tame and temper ourselves with purpose and culture.

[Anonymous No.14000700]

It depends on what your disagreements with Hobbes' vision of the state. I presume that your problem is with the absolutism, in which case you can say: yes, we need a sovereign power to turn the utility matrix of society from "warre of all against all" to one of mutual cooperation, but also think that that simple fact does not warrant the absolute authoritarianism of the sovereign over the people. As long as you aren't committed to an idea which abandons the state (i.e, Anarchism, Communism) or relies on a heavy moral element (Plato, Rousseau), Hobbes can be used as a stepping stone for a more normative rights and liberties. What Hobbes is essentially saying is that a pluralistic (religious, in his case) polity of self-interested actors cannot rely on a unified belief system to hold them together, so we have to found legitimacy on something common to all people—the desire for self-preservation. There is no reason to follow Hobbes beyond "a monopoly on violence", as Weber would put it, into monarchic absolutism. However, if you do want to find a basis for these extended normative rights, you will have to find them elsewhere than Hobbes' state of nature. but i don't think that should be much of an issue.

[Anonymous No.14001796]

bump