Originally posted by Cyclotron
Thus, I am not sure I accept the idea that Hobbes is conflating self-control with governance
.......
The 'condition' of War or Society is not a psychological one; people do not magically become ethical, rational, civilized beings when placed in government. So, as you say, the nature of people doesn't have much to do with government - Hobbes himself argues this. Government, rather, is supposed to stem the violent and selfish urges of man, not change man into a new creature.
Thus, I am not sure I accept the idea that Hobbes is conflating self-control with governance
.......
The 'condition' of War or Society is not a psychological one; people do not magically become ethical, rational, civilized beings when placed in government. So, as you say, the nature of people doesn't have much to do with government - Hobbes himself argues this. Government, rather, is supposed to stem the violent and selfish urges of man, not change man into a new creature.
That is to say I just was pointing out the obvious but interesting fact that Hobbes' attempt to wrap up human nature with his form of government is woefully mis-constructed from the get go. That he and following writers persist in seeking to define man's nature as somehow distinct from his modern self is a declaration of the fuddled state of misunderstanding by which people can concieve the world and testimony to the colorful ways a repressed libido can become a thorn in the side of reason.
If Hobbes had really asked himself what man's nature was about and why he acted sometimes well and sometimes miserably he should never have needed to create false dichotomies and senseless rationalizations for why government or why not government, but as you suggest his argument are rather formed by his concern for the current (then) state of affairs rather than some treatise on human nature for all time. Nonetheless, that's how he's read and it is interesting.........
Comment