Hobbes

[Anonymous No.21888448]

Was he right? Are we really that bad without authority?

[Anonymous No.21889012]

>>21888448
Impossible to know because we are social creatures that always exist within some community where there is some authority limiting people's behavior.
There is no state of nature and no possibility to imagine people existing outside any social contract.

[Anonymous No.21889065]

>>21888448
No, refuted by Spann.

[Anonymous No.21890065]

>>21888448
Yes

[Anonymous No.21890076]

>>21888448
He was more right then Locke and Rousseau at the very least

[Anonymous No.21890085]

A governing body being necessary to ensure the peace is literally just common sense. The conclusion that "muh absolute monarchy" garbage is correct following this stream of thought is retarded though.

[Anonymous No.21890139]

>dude, it wasn't TRUE anarchism

[Anonymous No.21890222]

>>21888448
Read the fucking book, for fucks sake. He doesn't say people are evil without society ---he says that without cohersion people don't act according to social rules. He didn't care about 'le evil' at all, since the ground of the existence of evil is the social, as any sane person.
Filthy americans...

[Anonymous No.21890223]

>>21888448
He was wrong but not in the way you think. A figure that was important for the political philosophy of the period between the civil war and 1720 or so was Robert Filmer. Even when you read Hume writing on this topic he recognises him as one of key players there and yet today he was completely forgotten(frankly speaking not unusual, there were more people in England than just Hobbes and Locke writing about these things). Filmer's opposition to Hobbes was multi-level but most importantly he was doubtful of the state of nature that Hobbes believes in. As Filmer's reasoning goes, even a simple, patriarchal family alluded to in the Bible, or the ancient tribes described by the historians are already living outside of the state of nature, when was that state of nature then? As antiquated as this argument is, today when belief in Adam and Eve being the progenitors of humanity is at its low, it becomes kind of difficult to relate to this, but knowing the theory of evolution and how the culture can moderate the direction of it(see Gregory Clark's work) we have to admit that Filmer was simply right. A man of the nature as he has it right now would live in a hierarchical society if given a clean start from 0. It's even difficult to determine which known hominid would live without forming a society, given our knowledge of apes and monkeys it may have developed way before bipedalism, so any discussions about how humans would be in the state of nature are pointless and this was understood well enough by the later parts of 18th century (again, previously mentioned Hume) simply because of the sheer weight of the historical arguments Filmer brought up.

[Anonymous No.21890477]

I feel like people who come up with excuses for a central authority that exceeds all others to exist are either psychopaths who want to take part in ruling or cuckolds who inherently crave to be ruled.

[Anonymous No.21890508]

>>21888448
Yes.