Do you view humans like Hobbes or like Rousseau?

[lawrocket 3]

I'd like to see people's opinions on this.

Hobbes believed that human beings in nature would behave badly toward each other, that they were born bad, and that the primary acts of humans in nature would be defending against other humans. Hobbes said that in a state of nature, a man's life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." On the basis of this, societal laws should be set up to counteract the natural badness of mankind.

Rousseau challenged those ideas. From him was the idea of the noble savage. He believed that mankind in nature was "good" and that the reason why humans became bad was as a result of society, social heirarchies, markets and property.

So, which one do you think? Is man inherently bad, and society has been set up to deal with that? Or, is man inherently good, but that goodness is perverted by society?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[tunaplanet 0]

Rousseau is the correct choice.

Forty-two

[lawrocket 3]

I disagree. Hobbes has a more realistic view of people. I cite babies.

I love babies, but dang they are selfish. They fuss, whine, snivel, cry and even strike at those who don't give them what they want. But, we have to teach our children how to operate within society.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

They fuss, whine, snivel, cry and even strike at those who don't give them what they want.

Some do. Not all.

Forty-two

[Jib 0]

Don't forget jealously and manipulation

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[tunaplanet 0]

In regards to fuss, snivel, whine and cry...those are a few of the only ways an infant has to communicate. When they're hungry your kid can't pole-vault out of his crib and jog to the fridge where he'll make himself a hero sub.

No, he has to resort to other methods to accomplish his needs. It doesn't stop at just food. They do these things when they're tired, need to be changed, upset, scared, etc...

As far as striking at others when they don't get what they want...well that's bad parenting. Somewhere he was taught or led to believe those actions are acceptable.

Infants are born pure and innocent. Where they go from there is up to the parents.

Forty-two

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Do you view humans like Hobbes or like Rousseau?

No, I can't view them - they're dead.

I really like Calvin and Hobbes. But Hobbes is an imaginary tiger, not a human.

[PhillyKev 0]

Both. Depends on the person.

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

I disagree. Hobbes has a more realistic view of people. I cite babies.

I love babies, but dang they are selfish. They fuss, whine, snivel, cry and even strike at those who don't give them what they want. But, we have to teach our children how to operate within society.

I'm with you in Hobbes. As to babies, well all that crying, sniveling, fussing well thats all survival instincts. Like Tuna said thats the only way they know how to communicate if something is wrong.

[crwmike 0]

Quote

I'd like to see people's opinions on this.

Hobbes believed that human beings in nature would behave badly toward each other, that they were born bad, and that the primary acts of humans in nature would be defending against other humans. Hobbes said that in a state of nature, a man's life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." On the basis of this, societal laws should be set up to counteract the natural badness of mankind.

Rousseau challenged those ideas. From him was the idea of the noble savage. He believed that mankind in nature was "good" and that the reason why humans became bad was as a result of society, social heirarchies, markets and property.

So, which one do you think? Is man inherently bad, and society has been set up to deal with that? Or, is man inherently good, but that goodness is perverted by society?

Interesting. Classically, this discussion takes place in the form of Hobbs vs Locke. What? How did Rosseau break in?

Michael

[crwmike 0]

Quote

Quote

They fuss, whine, snivel, cry and even strike at those who don't give them what they want.

Some do. Not all.

To quote a comedic line, "If capable, any two year old would cut your heart out with a knife if you stood between them and a cookie."

Michael

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Classically, this discussion takes place in the form of Hobbs vs Locke. What? How did Rosseau break in?

You're a little mixed up here, mike. Rousseau expanded on the theories of an Englishman named John Dryden.

John Locke, another Englishman, came from the Hobbes camp. However, he disagreed with Hobbes' views of the role of authority in keeping society under control, i.e., Hobbes's view that mankind contracted with a sovereign to keep society functional.

John Locke was probably the first libertarian in that he proposed that there was a "social contract" between mankind. He agreed with Hobbes that mankind was, in essence, a selfish sort. However, he believed that all men were equal and shold be permitted to act so long as they were not harming each other.

John Locke was a big influence on the American Revolutionaries (Hobbesian in belief of man's nature, but Lockeian in solution). He merely expoinded on Hobbes's thinking - that the social contract bound mankind, not submission to a sovereign authority.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[crwmike 0]

Quote

Quote

Classically, this discussion takes place in the form of Hobbs vs Locke. What? How did Rosseau break in?

You're a little mixed up here, mike. Rousseau expanded on the theories of an Englishman named John Dryden.

John Locke, another Englishman, came from the Hobbes camp. However, he disagreed with Hobbes' views of the role of authority in keeping society under control, i.e., Hobbes's view that mankind contracted with a sovereign to keep society functional.

John Locke was probably the first libertarian in that he proposed that there was a "social contract" between mankind. He agreed with Hobbes that mankind was, in essence, a selfish sort. However, he believed that all men were equal and shold be permitted to act so long as they were not harming each other.

John Locke was a big influence on the American Revolutionaries (Hobbesian in belief of man's nature, but Lockeian in solution). He merely expoinded on Hobbes's thinking - that the social contract bound mankind, not submission to a sovereign authority.

You're absolutely right, I was confused. What can I say, it been 36 years since my poly sci classes.

Thanks for the clarification.

Michael