To Nick

So what you are saying is that when these "tribes" or "groups" come about, there will be no need for control.  Going back to the quote that you used, "man is by nature a political animal."  Being a political animal, humans will have the need for power.  These tribe would inevitably start wars. This is based on the rules of the state of nature.  Without control, they would start wars because they would be following the state of nature.  There is no scenario that you can give me that wont end in humans causing chaos because they were given the state of nature.

First of all, to John Hussey: I never said that there would not be chaos, I simply asked the question. There would definitely be chaos for awhile. Eventually things would come back under control though, because as Aristotle said: "man is by nature a political animal". People don't like being alone, so groups of like-minded people would quickly form. Groups would merge to become tribes, and those tribes would settle in certain areas and those areas would become cities, states, and eventually, countries as tribes merge and population grows. People do not need a monster to keep them organized, for we as humans have always been in groups.

Hobbe's View of Human Nature

I believe that Hobbe's view of human nature is both right and wrong. Hobbe's does not believe that people can coexist peacefully and gives six good reasons to why not. I lean towards the agreement that people are indeed dangerous creatures. Without laws or supremacy, this world would be complete chaos. Each individual has their own personality and view towards things. Humans cannot keep themselves from competing against others or expressing emotions because it is natural to us. Bees and ants, who are sociable creatures, only stick to one plan rather than seeking opportunities to do whatever they please like we do. Hobbe's believes that by competition, comparison, reason, speech, free will/no fear, and covenant people cannot coexist. I do not like the way that Hobbe's veiws these six factors in such negative aspects. I really liked the way that Peter had called them "gifts" during class the other day. It is true that these six factors can lead to disaster and war but they also create the most powerful group of species. People have contributed towards the progression of the world. Although we are so grand, I agree with the need of a Leviathan. I do not view a Leviathan as a dictator, but as a sovereign that can be a bit harsh. Terror is needed to control people's actions with a consequence.

My Thoughts

I would disagree with Spencer and Nicks argument that control of people isnt a good idea.  If the laws that are in place right now were no longer in existence, then chaos would break out.  To start off, there are already many people who break laws.  With no laws, that number would increase outrageously.  It doesnt matter that there are some people who have good morales.  These people would quickly become a minority.

Follow up

I completely agree with Charlotte and Peter in that the six characteristics could go either way, but Hobbes talks about only the negative side to prove point. Madeline and Kalyn, I somewhat disagree with you though because I think competition and the other five characteristics could be very bad. Although a little bit of competition is healthy, because it motivates us, I think there is a point when healthy competition intensifies and could be bad. We can't be our best when we are fighting with one another and not working together toward a common goal. If there is too much competition, I think it would separate people even more.

Commonwealth

I agree with Nicks point about how its "not everyone for them self's".In answering your question if we lost all governing forces it would definitely be very chaotic. I dont think that there would be a goverment restored like the one we have right know. I think that there would just be a lot of different communitys that would join together and make their own laws. I think people would use the six characteristic that Hobbs mentioned in the Commenwealth and know that there would be no consequence to them. Hobbs would think that the world would become less peaceful because men would have free will to do whatever they want. I dissagree with that because not all men are bad and as said in the other post's not everybody has the same personality.

Follow Up 3

I completely agree with what Charlotte said. It is what I was trying to say earlier but I was having trouble expressing it. I also feel that Hobbes focuses far to much on the negative aspect of these six gifts, and almost not at all on the positive. These six things may keep is from being able to coexist, but if you think about it they are also what makes us the most powerful species on the earth. I think that for the good of our species these six gifts are good, even if they do keep us from coexisting.

I agree with Madeleine about how competition helps us become better.

The thing that I must try to stress in this post is that it's NOT everyone for themselves. Some people agree with each other and as a result there are groups who compete and/or argue for and against certain ideas or beliefs. For example, different religions, or republicans and democrats. It's good that not everyone is competing with each other, because if the human race was in a free-for-all battle-well, I shouldn't have to explain why that would be bad (but in case Mr. Culley wants the explanation: people could not live in peace).

I would like to ask a question of anyone who hasn't posted three times yet (I hope I'm not the only one left): If, somehow, the entire human race were to suddenly lose all governing forces ever established, how long would it take for government/law to be restored, and how chaotic would it be?

I agree with what Charlotte says. In class many of us discussed how all of the reasons could be thought of as a positive thing. I remember Nick mentioning that not all people are the way Hobbes describes people as. I definitely agree. Some people just don't find it necessary to always be competing for things. Some people aren't always troublemakers when there are no rules. Yes, there are those people who go crazy when there are no rules, but we as people cannot all be classified to do something or act a certain way.

A few people have said that they don't think the six characteristics are completely bad, but I don't think they are bad AT ALL, I think they are good, completely good. Going back to what Kalyn said, competition does get frustrating and people do get mad, but that just motivates humans even more to be the best.

Hobbes

Many people in the class are talking about Hobbes' six reasons as either a gift (a positive way), or "committing" them, which is usually a negative statement. I think each reason of Hobbes can be thought of to be both positive and negative in Hobbes' community and state. I feel that Hobbes just soley focused on the negative aspects, in order for the readers of "Of Commomwealth" to see his point. However, when we disscuss it as a class, we found many ways that each of the six reasons could be positive and negative.

Jane, I see what you mean when you talk about unselfishness needed by the ants and bees to build homes, and collaborate on different things. I now understand how many things we humans have to collaborate on, to agree upon, and to work together in order to make our world move forward. I think there are many more things we need to collaborate on to make the world move forward, rather than working alone. I think it is bad to be selfish, and maybe the world will not move forward, as I thought it would.

Referring back to what Kalyn said, even if these six characteristics aren't completely bad, as humans we bring emotion into things. With the ability to apply emotion to these aspects, those six characteristics become more dangerous because we instinctively protect ourselves; our feelings included.

I think even if the six points Hobbes stated aren't enough to prove human beings as being dangerous, the fact that they have the ability to then add emotion to those then does.

Going off of what Madeleine said I agree that these characteristics of humans aren't entirely bad. I also think that it depends on how big a scale we are looking at. Sure, if there's someone who is doing better than you at a sport, you will want to become better than that person. But what happens if you don't achieve the same level as that person? Wouldn't you get frustrated and envious that the person you were competing with is better than you? Now of course that wouldn't lead to war, but say it's something bigger, like hockey. Fights break out all the time in NHL because the competition is so intense. The more intense the competition, the more likely it is that a fight will be created.

Follow Up

I agree with Spencer on his idea of laws. I don't think it's a good idea for a commonwealth to have no laws. Some people may argue that it would give people for freedom and opportunity to do whatever he or she pleases but I think that would be a bad idea. We as people need some structure to our lives. Without laws, everything would be in chaos. Unlike what Aristotle says, Hobbes believes that without one ruler that uses fear to rule, people will go back into the "lawless state of nature".
What I am a bit confused on is why Hobbes thinks the need one central source of power. Wasn't England under a King's rule? Isn't that one central power?

Follow Up on Commenwealth

I mostly agree with what everyone below has said about Hobbs and his beliefs. I agree with what Jane and Madeleine said about how everyone commits these six things in life. The only thing I disagree about that is I think these six things happen naturally and there is almost no way to avoid them in life. If these six things do not occur naturally than people could program themself to not be competitive or not to compare yourself with other people to hopefully achieve a "state of nature".

I also agree with Peter's point about how some people could live without laws but there are people in the world that would not be able to handle themself with no laws. The six reasons that humans cannot live in a "state of nature" is the number one reason why a world of no laws would cause more chaos than peace.

Jane said, "at some point in our lives we will all commit the six things he talks about". But I don't see these six characteristics as a bad thing, at all. I think all of them, maybe besides the free will are good and beneficial for the community. And to obtain these characteristics that all humans naturally have, isn't a bad thing at all. And when a human is involved in competition, or are comparing themselves to one another, I don't see that as a harmful or dangerous thing. It's natural, and good.

Follow up

I actually agree with what Charlotte and Peter said about how laws are necessary. Before I totally disagreed with everything Hobbes said, but now I understand how laws and some form of government are essential to peace and security. Like Charlotte said, without laws bad people will do bad things. And that doesn't mean that all people are bad, but just that there are bad people amongst a lot of good people and without boundaries for them to stay in, they will do bad things. Even with laws and rules and government, bad people will still do bad things, but maybe (hopefully) they will be less likely to do those bad things with laws instated, because they will know that there are consequences.

follow up

Peter makes a very good point and I agree that those six characteristics could be a good things or bad things, depending on the person. Although I agree with Peter, I also agree with Kendra in that Hobbes thinks of these characteristics as just being dangerous and not good in any way. Hobbes says that all people naturally have these characteristics. Therefore, no matter how mean or nice we generally are, at some point in our lives we will all commit the six things he talks about. That said, some people who are bad consistently commit these six things, which separates the good and the bad people.

I disagree with Charlotte somewhat in what she was saying to Kendra about the selfishness point. Sometimes selfishness can be a good thing, but I definitely think that it causes more destruction in the world than moving it forward. When people just think about just themselves it causes a lot of conflict. The bees and the ants use teamwork to make their world better. If those creatures just thought about themselves, would they have homes? Could they make their homes just by themselves? Would they move forward at all? Selfishness creates separation between people, and no matter how intense the situation is, that separation is usually a bad thing.

Peter I think you bring up a very good point. I have never thought of Hobbs' "six reasons" the way that you bring up. Although I do still think that if there were no laws, people would act a lot different then they do now, therefore your argument probably would not be a valid one. I believe there would be a lot more people who Hobbs would consider dangerous, and there would be more people who do not use the six "gifts" as you call them, for the greater good.

Spencer, you asked a very good quesiton relating to the time Hobbs' wrote "Of Commonwealth". If Hobbs did write a paper before the civil war, I think it would have either been about a completly different topic, or his views would have been very, very different. I don't think he would have any problem with the first four reasons of his in "Of Commomwealth", therefore they would probably not be in the writing. I feel that he would have only a slight problem with the fifth reason. I don't think he would have had a problem with the first four of his reasons, therefore the sixth reason would not be so prominent, either.

Kendra, I have to disagree with you about your second point. I really do not believe humans "looking out for themsevles before anyone else", as you said, is a bad thing. Maybe if the slight selfishness gets very, very extreme it can become a bad thing, but if it is not extreme, I don't think it makes humans very dangerous. In fact, it may even make our world progress, becuase it will cause humans to do even better than they have before, which will help our world move forward, and become stronger.

Follow Up

I disagree with you somewhat Peter. Hobbes makes it very clear in his statement that he believes the fact human beings have these six characteristics is very dangerous. Also during class we pointed out many ways in which we see these aspects in everyday life. For the most part, we saw these as good things however he did not. Going back to what Nick and Perter said, humans are different and have millions of different personalities, but if over half those personalities have some form of bad in them, those are the ones that are going to stand out the most and reflect humans.

Also, one main point I think we are forgetting to look at is Hobbes point that within humans natural instinct they essentially look out for themselves before anyone else and that should be considered a dangerous characteristic; which I believe it can be if not handled correctly.

I do agree with peter that along with these six characteristics comes responsibility and not all human beings are the same. What we do with this responsibility can only be determined by someones personality and that is where the danger comes into part.

Thomas Hobbes Follow Up 2

I see Madeleine's point, but I have to disagree. When Hobbes says that competition, comparison, reason, speech, free will, and covenant are why us humans cannot coexist such as bees and ants, I don't believe that what he is saying is that these are bad things. I think Hobbes is saying that these six skills are things that humans have been given that other species have not, and therefore come with great responsibility. Many humans could coexist even with these skills, but like Nick said, not all humans are the same. Some could handle this and others could not. Therefore we will always need some sort of set of laws or rules to keep these people, the ones that cannot be responsible, from being reckless or harming themselves or others. I don't believe that Hobbes meant that competition, comparison, reason, speech, free will, and covenant are what keep people from coexisting, but instead he meant that people who are given these and will not use these for the greater good of the society are what keep people from coexisting.

Thoughts on Hobbs' Opinion

In his writing Of Commonwealth, Thomas Hobbs states six different reasons why state of nature makes humans dangerous. Although Hobbs does bring up a few very good points, I mostly disagree with Hobbs' statements.

The first point of Hobbs in this paper is about Competition, and how competition eventually brings out hatred and also envy in humans, which leads to a war forming. I disagree. As far as I know, compitition between humans has not caused much turmoil. Therefore I think it is okay to have comptition in our society. Compitition will cause humans to suceed becuase they naturally want to do better, and we will move forward in the world just like we always have been. This brings me to comparison- another one of Hobbs' arguments. I agree with his words saying comparison between oneself and another person makes one think about themself a lot more than they would if the state were not of nature. This can cause much pain between people and communities. Hobbs' third argument is a human is able to reason, which leads to division between people, and eventually war. I think humans should be allowed to reason, and to state what they feel, but I do agree with Hobbs in that people need to start agreeing with others statements sometimes, or else different reasonings between humans could end up as wars. As for having the right to speak, or to say what one feels (Hobbs' fourth argument), I believe everyone should have the right to say what they feel and think but if their words are taken too far to the point where the words become very harmful to the state, there should be something done about it. I feel to have no laws and/or no consequences to a person's wrong doings will make the state dangerous. This subject is one of the few I agree with Hobbs about becuase if there were no laws or consequences, the state will not be productive, and the state will not continue forward.

In order to agree on different aspects of human life, and to keep the state and the people happy and safe, there must be laws and covenants. To create and use covenant is Hobbs final argument.By using a covenant and laws, humans will live in a healthy enviroment. I agree with Hobbs, however the covenant can not be too strick or overpowering becuase then the humans will not be haapy, therefore they will not be peaceful, and the state will not be secure.

I agree mostly with what Madeleine said, although if there are no laws, how do we keep the people that are bad from doing bad things and creating dealth and even more fights and wars in the world? I know that you said(Madeleine) that people can agree eventually, but what if eventually is too late, and many people are dead, or hurting? Do you think there is no need for government, or any kind of rules?

Thoughts on Commonwealth by Hobbes

I understand what everyone below has said, but I disagree. Hobbs said that humans are unable to coexist in the state of nature because of competition, comparison, reason, speech, free will/no fear, and covenant. I don’t think that even one of those reasons makes it so humans can’t coexist.

First off, I don’t see competition as a bad thing. It makes it so people challenge themselves sometimes beyond their limits and end up surprising themselves in a positive way. If there wasn’t competition, then humans wouldn’t feel the need to push themselves harder. For example, in terms of school, people push themselves to do better than their classmates in hopes that that will make them a better candidate for college. In terms of sports, if it were a cross country race and the person in front of you was speeding up, that would motivate you and push you to run faster and keep up with them, whereas if you were running the race alone, you probably wouldn’t push yourself as hard to go fast. So because of competition, it makes humans better than they ever could be than if there wasn’t competition. School wise, you will try harder and get better grades making you smarter, and sports wise, you will push yourself harder to go faster for example, and you will become a better athlete. And if everyone is becoming better, then suddenly the whole state and community become better than they were before.

Secondly, comparison is also a good thing in my opinion. It goes along with competition and how it will make you an all around better human. If someone was comparing themselves to someone else and noticed that that person was smarter than them, maybe that would motivate them to try harder so that maybe they could be as smart, or even smarter than that other person. And when one person gets smarter than another, then that makes that person try even harder than before and before you know it, everyone is smarter, which definitely benefits the state or community.

Reason is also yet another thing that will make the state and community better. Using reason and logic, the aspects of the state that aren’t beneficial, can be questioned and potentially changed. Without reason, the bad aspects of the state would just continue to be used, and it wouldn’t allow the state to be as good as it possibly could.

Speech goes along with reason, if there is something about the state you live in you don’t agree with or you don’t think it is helping the state be as good as it has the potential to be, then you can verbalize that and try to change it. When others hear what you have to say, maybe they will agree with you and support you in changing it. Hobbes thought that would cause chaos and divides the state, but differing opinions aren’t a bad thing. When there are differing opinions, instead of fighting each other, compromises can be made that are sometimes even better than what was thought of originally.

Hobbes believed that free will was bad for humans because although it was natural to human nature, humans are dangerous without laws to follow. I disagree with that, I think that humans are naturally good and aim at some kind of good. Not all humans are so good, but I don’t believe that there are a lot of people that intentionally do bad. Sometimes laws and leaders can make people feel trapped and unhappy. If the leader is instituting laws that they don’t like and there isn’t much you can do, then you have no other choice then to just abide to them, even though you don’t agree with them. And I know I said earlier that with speech you could speak up and act against it, but with a sea monster as a leader, sometimes that can be harder than it seems.

And lastly covenant. Hobbes thought that without a covenant, some kind of agreement, people didn’t have the potential to live together, but he also thought that people can’t agree with one another since they are all so competitive, and so no agreement can be made, so they can’t coexist. But I don’t agree with that because it seems to me that people do have the ability to agree with each other, you just have to be flexible and willing to compromise. I know that is hard, but eventually, decisions can be made.

Hobbes Of Commonwealth

I think that what Hobbes says definitely has some truth to it. We as people cannot come together to make decisions. We all have different opinions and we all try to prove that our ideas are better than others. Our government is having problems like this. The country is divided between two parties and they are not able to solve the country's issues together. Humans naturally seek competition and compare each other. We consistently strive to be better than each other in many different ways. The people making decisions in our country believe too strongly that their idea is right and that the other person's idea is wrong. They have trouble admitting that the other person's idea is better for the sake of the community. But as you can see, arguing over whose thoughts are better leads no where. If anything, bickering drives people further apart from each other and creates tension which can possibly lead to war.
Hobbes is right when he says that we all need to have someone create all the decisions. However like what John said, I do not think that having a dictator would be the best idea. For what has happened in the past, the dictator becomes too aggressive with his power and begins to use his power for things that have negative results. It seems that the only way Hobbes' idea could work if a dictator came to rule that used good judgement and was able to make wise decisions.

Opinion on Hobbes Views

I completely agree with Nick. Yes, people are most kept under control when there is a factor put into place using terror and they are not 100 percent comfortable. However, as Nick stated all human beings are not the same. Even on one topic such as the one being discussed right now everyone has a different opinion. It can not be expected of human beings whom have the ability to speak their mind to not disagree on things, especially topics that have a larger effect on society.

In some aspects I also agree with Hobbes opinion. Due to the fact humans constantly compare themselves to one another which leads to envy and hatred, the human population cannot be expected to always agree because we instinctively compete with each other.

Thoughts on Of Commonwealth

I would have to disagree with some areas of the blog post's below with regards to the thoughts on Leviathan. I understand that there is a resemblance to a dictator in a Leviathan government, but if you look back at history, very few countries if any, have had a Civil War under a dictator. A Leviathan government is clearly not the best choice for government but for Thomas Hobbs it was, and at that time, might have prevented England's Civil War. I agree with the 6 reasons that humans can't live peacefully, especially the part on competition. As discussed in class today we are always competing and there is virtually no way to stop competition, and as long as there is competition there will always be people fighting for position.

I also disagree with Nick's answer to John's question about "would there be a better solution than a Leviathan? ". I don't think it would be good if we had no laws like Nick suggested because presuming that every human being is good, in my opinion is not true. I agree with Peter that a better government would be a democracy and especially the system we have in America,because after the Civil War we made it almost impossible for there to be another Civil War in this country.

A question to the group is if Thomas Hobbs wrote this article before the Civil War would he still have the same opinion?

Of Commonwealth opinion

I agree with some of what each of you said so far. People can't coexist lawlessly and peacefully like ants and bees do because of the six reasons Hobbes listed. Along with John and Peter, I think that a "leviathan" would be bad for any community because it would create many more problems. Like Nick said, it would probably create rebellion and hatred. Machiavelli said that it was better to be feared than loved, but never to be hated. I believe that if a monster was controlling a community, those people would develop a strong dislike for the leader.

As Hobbes said, we have the ability of speech. Since we were given that, we give our opinions of what we agree and disagree with by human nature. If a community was under the leadership of a monster, the people's voices would be silenced, whether their opinions were good or bad. If people didn't have a say in what goes on in their community, problems arise. So, my solution to this problem would be that we would not have a leviathan or a leader who is loved. A leader who is a little feared, but certainly not hated, would be ideal. A strong leader who listens to the voices of his people, but keeps his control of the situation would also be ideal.

Assuming that the "leviathan" would be human, wouldn't that person also by nature compete, compare, reason, manipulate, be at ease, and make covenants?

Thomas Hobbes Follow Up

I agree with most of what John said. The part of "Of Commonwealth" that made the most sense to me was about how without laws people cannot peacefully coexist. I agree with what Hobbes said when he was talking about how we cannot live sociably with each other such as ants and bees do. The six reasons/differences make a lot of sense and explain why we could never live like that. I also agree with John's point about a "leviathan" being a dictator and being bad for a society, but I disagree with John's las point about the "leviathan" possibly being the best solution we have. Democracy, for example, has clearly shown more successful for the good of the people and is a better solution that a dictatorship. I believe that there are always options, and I don't think the dictatorship is the best one.

Rules or not, humans are humans

I would completely agree with Hobbes, IF every human was normal/ the same. However, every human is different, and some people actually have the courage to defy authority, regardless of the punishments/ consequences. A good example of this is the protesters on wall street and across the country. The videos of police brutality used on these protesters are everywhere, but the movement is still gaining more and more people. An even better example is our own revolutionary war. In this war, the courage and determination of the outnumbered, outgunned, low financed, and under supplied American soldiers led them to defeat the British army whom had one of the largest empires in the world. Hobbes thinks a monster would keep the peace, but aren't the most inspirational stories about the underdogs defeating the monster?

In short, the real reason humans cannot coexist is because people are different and cannot agree. This will not change because humans are all different and there will always be millions of humans who have millions of different personalities, very few of which who will conform exactly to Hobbes' description.

Finally, to Peter: Hobbes said that bees and ants coexist. Bees and ants coexist without laws, so why should we need laws to coexist?

My thoughts on the opinion of Thomas Hobbes

I would say that I agree with the overall message of Thomas Hobbes.  That when people are not controlled, they cannot peacfully coexist.  But, I disagree with his solution to the "state of nature."  A "leviathan" would only make things worse.  In my opinion I see a leviathan as a dictator.  History will show that dictators have done nothing good for the sake of human beings.  They are rebelled against and in many cases overthrown.  Using Saddam Hussain as an example, the United States answered the plea for help from Kuwait to fight.  In the sense of controlling the people though, I do believe that having people controlled is the best option for any state.  A question I have is, would there be a better solution than a leviathan?

Hobbes and Human Nature

Hobbes maintains that humans are unable to coexist in the state of nature because of 6 reasons: competition, comparison, reason, speech, free will/no fear, covenant. In essence, he sees people as dangerous when they are not controlled. Based on this opinion, please voice your opinion on whether or not you agree with this view and why in a paragraph. You need to create a blog post by logging into blogger. This will be an on-going conversation, started by 1 person. When this person posts to the blog, please read their post. It is a conversation! So think about what they said, and then create your own conclusions. In your post, please comment on what other people say-->you may agree or disagree!The starter person is listed below. You are required to contribute to the conversation at least 3 times by Monday, December 5th. Conversation starter for your class: John Hussey