Thomas Hobbes, you’re wrong. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, you’re wrong. John Locke, you’re wrong. Irving Jordan you’re right. It’s either the state of nature from the point of view of these three men was supposed to be a satirical comedy, or they were just dead wrong.The State of Nature from a true philosopher’s eyes
Thomas Hobbes: The view that Hobbes had about the state of nature basically says that nothing can be worst than life without protection of the state. Hobbes states that a human being is always seeking for something in life. Hobbes state the “something” man is searching for is happiness, and that is what brings about the state of war. He says that the search of happiness leads man in search for more power, which can lead to more opportunities to be happy. In Hobbes’ state of nature, men are in a constant state of war, either for gain, reputation, or safety. Not only are men in a constant state of war, but he also thinks that men are created equal. “The weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others.”
John Locke: John Locke believes that we can live in a state of nature without government. Locke says that all men have a duty not to harm others unless it is in a form of self defense or if it is in a form of punishment. “Each Transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much Severity as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the Offend, give him cause to repent, and terrifying others from doing the like.”
Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Rousseau’s state of nature labeled man as a “good savage”, whose actions are determined only by urgent needs like food, water, sex, and sleep. In his eyes, the good savage man does not have need for luxuries or anything that is not considered an immediate need. He goes on to say that we don’t harm each other because of our natural disliking of pain.
Irving Jordan:
It’s me, Irving Jordan, author of this blog post. The point in this post is to inform you of my beliefs of what the state of nature is and what it’s like to be outside of the state. The state of nature includes violence, the lover for others, and the fear of hurting others. Each of these three men had there own idea of what the state of nature was and wasn’t like. There ideas would have been right had one of them combined what each man was saying into one idea. For Hobbes, he says that the want for happiness causes man to be in the state of war, which includes gain, reputation, or safety. The state of nature includes violence, humans have a nature to them to be violent in some situation. We must realize that while we are human, we are also a species here on Earth, just like a lion, tiger, or shark. Moreover to Locke, it is impossible for man to live in a state of nature without government. It is human nature to want to feel secure, and if feeling secure means gaining goods while forgetting the well-being of others then so be it. It is human nature to have wants for different luxurious items. It provides us with a sense of accomplishment. Lastly, to Rousseau, I totally disagree with the idea of man even being related to a good savage. His idea of mans actions to be only determined by urgent needs is totally off. Man does things by instinct that aren’t of urgent need. If his idea was true, man would only drink water or eat food when he is on the brink of dehydration/starvation. Once again, it is natural for man to have wants for luxurious things. Just as man had wants for silk during the reigns of the Kings of China, in which it was used for gifts to others. It is only when man does not have the wantto obtain luxurious things, does not have the drive to gain goods even if it is at the expense of others when he is acting outside of the state of nature. Man is outside the state of nature when his natural competitive instincts are no longer intact. The idea of being out of the state of nature will occur when man wants everything to become equal, where everyone has equal material things because of the wills imposed on them by politics. AKA Communism.
Hi Irving, I thought that this was a very interesting post. I think that you did a good job of describing the different states of nature of the different philosophers. I also agree with many of your points. In particular, I also tend to side with Thomas Hobbes' idea of the state of nature compared to the other two. I believe that man is naturally greedy and selfish and only looking for more happiness and power, much like you pointed out. However, I think two different things would have benefited the post. One, next time, maybe bring in some more outside sources to help support your argument, like links, pictures, and videos. Also, I understand that you were trying to support your view of the state of nature, but I think it was a little ambitious to straight up say the other three were wrong. They are three of the most important philosophers in history, so they must have some idea of what they were talking about. Finally, I don't agree with your last statement. I think that there are many ways of leaving the state of nature outside of communism, but I think most of your other points are pretty good.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting post.. have you ever considered that everyone has their own state of nature? That the state of nature is subjective and not objective? Maybe you're on to something by combining the three philosophers' ideas. I agree that it's not a one size fits all kind of deal. It's not that simple.
ReplyDeleteIn my state of nature, a desire to expand the human race would be the fundamental value. No one would fight each other, the only violence that would occur would be killing animals for food. People would love but not fight. There would be total community living and a sense of reliance on one's neighbor.