The State of Nature

[smacksim]

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.

You misunderstand me, or I miswrote. I don't mean to say that government changes the nature of man at all. But Hobbes preoccupation with viewing man's state of nature as on the one hand containing his vile proclivities while on the other hand government can prevent somehow his acting upon them is his confusing these things which I believe in the modern day we take for granted as discrete (no psych degree needed).

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.........

[smacksim]

Originally posted by Dracon I would say that in such societies, much like in societies of animals... disputes between members of the same species would have more likely been resolved symbolically than with direct force.

Spoken like a biologist. No wonder I find myself familiar with your argument. I agree that setting up a 'state of nature' as somehow apart from 'now' as some assumed set of traits is one of the major flaws in these (Hobbes/Locke) lines of argument (false dichotomy, assumed a priori dichotomy, etc..). The assumptions about the 'state of nature' in the past are as embarrasing as 1950's predictions about the future of technology by some faroff date like the 1990's, perhaps worse.