Hobbes Vs. Locke

**Black_Cross** · Subject: Re: Hobbes Vs. Locke Sat May 09, 2009 7:37 pm

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote:

I think it goes a little deeper than just survival,

Yeah. Sorry if I made it sound like that. Things are indeed more complicated than jsut survival, but it was an aexample, is all.

I didn't mean that as a critique necessarily, i was just stating my own position.

Quote:

Not me, but I might think others do actually.

Hobbes made a generalization about our nature. If you don't feel this way, and [you think] Hobbes is right, it kinda makes you a freak, if you see my meaning. It also means that only absolute submission to authority can keep people civil. This has been disproven by collective experience.

geek

<<< Hobbes

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Hobbes Vs. Locke Sat May 09, 2009 7:55 pm

CoolKidX wrote:

Not me, but I might think others do actually.

Then you simply don't agree with Hobbes because he says we all are naturally that way.

BC wrote:

It also means that only absolute submission to authority can keep people civil. This has been disproven by collective experience.

And by simple logic. How can uncivilized beings rule over other uncivilized beings and keep them civilized? How can evil people serve as authority to keep other evil people from being evil? Isn't that just logicly senseless?

It's pretty much like the "people are stupid" "arguement". If people are stupid, how can stupid people make other people behave in an intelligent way? Or worse, the "all people are stupid but me" or yet worse "all people are stupid (including myself) but him/them" which fits with the profile drone-like fervent follower of some leader.

People can't rule themselves so they need people to rule over them.

To which I'd reply: No but yes, none and all. In the end, beginning.

_________________

**Black_Cross** · Subject: Re: Hobbes Vs. Locke Sat May 09, 2009 8:03 pm

Quote:

People can't rule themselves so they need people to rule over them.

To which I'd reply: No but yes, none and all. In the end, beginning.

*Golf Claps*

Quote:

And by simple logic. How can uncivilized beings rule over other uncivilized beings and keep them civilized? How can evil people serve as authority to keep other evil people from being evil? Isn't that just logicly senseless?

you know what i think. I was just making sure everyone knows the evidence going against Hobbes' assertion, since some didn't come to the same conclusion.

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--

**CoolKidX** · Subject: Re: Hobbes Vs. Locke Sat May 09, 2009 8:15 pm

I dont Hobbes is right, I think he has a little point.

But overall I think Locke is ze most right.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Hobbes Vs. Locke Wed May 20, 2009 11:45 am

Ah shit, Ihad missed this thread, maybe for some thing I had to do.

BC wrote:

I was just making sure everyone knows the evidence going against Hobbes' assertion, since some didn't come to the same conclusion.

Unfortunately true.

CoolKidX wrote:

I dont Hobbes is right, I think he has a little point.

Little point? That people need to be controlled by other people (because somehow stupid people can control stupid people)? Sure, some psychos like himself may require some expert assistance (control included) but definitely society doesn't need wackos like him or who agree with him deciding for everyone.

_________________

**CoolKidX** · Subject: Re: Hobbes Vs. Locke Wed May 20, 2009 3:15 pm

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Little point? That people need to be controlled by other people (because somehow stupid people can control stupid people)? Sure, some psychos like himself may require some expert assistance (control included) but definitely society doesn't need wackos like him or who agree with him deciding for everyone.

Yeah, your right, Hobbes sucks now. Thx for clearing up.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn