Hobbes' View

Hobbes View

I agree with Hobbes’s view and many other posts. It is not just one of the six reasons why we cannot live together peacefully, it is many of the reasons and all six of them at times. Although it is many of the six reasons, one in particular stands out. All of the reasons: competition, comparison, reason, speech, free will/no fear and covenant boil down to free will. Animals that live unlike us, in peaceful harmony, don’t have free will. People being dangerous is the consequence of humans having free will and being able to do what they want. Hobbes says that with his government humans would give up their free will, which would never happen. That is why people can never live together peacefully.

Hobbes' View

I agree with Hobbes' view on the fact that we as people are dangerous. We as people have a natural tendency to argue with one another. Unlike the animals and creatures that roam our planet we have the ability to say whatever it is that comes to our minds and the power to use logic against one another. Hobbes stated clearly that the reason humans don't have perfect societies was because we were blessed with these abilities. He spent six paragraphs describing why we can't live in perfect harmony. I agree with that but like shannon said I dont believe there will ever be a time when we can all agree upon one leader or group of leaders. Our ability to use reason and voice our opinions freely destroy any hopes for a perfect society. I do not believe that his system would work.

Hobbe's View

I think that everyone might be a little confused about what a covenant is. A covenant is not a document, which everyone comes together and writes down little rules about what the sovereign and what he can and cannot do. Like I had previously stated it is a formal agreement that says all people give up their free will to the sovereign in exchange for peace and security. That is all it is. I am confused about McKenzie’s point though; as to how not being able to agree upon one leader, proves Hobbes view on humans to be false? I am really confused as to where this conversation is going, and I think we need to stay true to the main question Why cant mankind live sociably in nature? So far it sounds like people are both agreeing and disagreeing with Hobbe’s view saying that the characteristics Hobbe’s says humans have (competition, comparison, reason, speech, free will/no fear, covenant) can be used both for good and for bad. This is true. Although, Hobbe’s main reason for having one leader that looks out for the best for the country is because he believes people are dangerous when they are not controlled. This being said, it is completely true. And I just don’t see how anybody could even disagree with that. Without rules, the outcome will be awful and people would go crazy.

Hobbes View

I agree with Marcus. We can't elect one leader without controversy because of the reasons we can't live in the true state of society. Hobbes contradicts himself here where he says, " very many think themselves wiser, and able to govern the publics better, than the rest". If that is true and the Leviathan is human, how is it possible? He would have to be unanimously elected by the people and that is impossible because of what Hobbes states in those six paragraphs. We could elect someone but there would be controversy would exist because we have free will, voice, and reason.

Hobbes View

Going off Shannon's thoughts i think to make "Commonwealth" work among a society with the rules that Hobbes has set out must be changed for the sake of Hobbes reasonings. Can Hobbes truly make his six viewpoints as an ideal state work? Which are, reason, manipulation (speech/voice), ease/no fear/ free will, and covenant. As Hobbes states of making a will "unto one will" meaning gathering the communities vocies and pleasures making a consentment and having to abid by one leader. Suggesting the community to not go against their will even though we all conflict from viewpoints and point out others flaws and imperfections thinking we can be better? Hobbes also conteracts himself with his paragraph about the soverign power. He states as men come together by natural force and dont agree with the will power among the state that they have their life on the line. Gather all of Hobbes ideas togther this soluion does not work. In natural society even with rules people out power authority making it hard for a particular man in the common wealth to agree with every one peace and common defense. Making of this that Hobbes solution to the problem of social turmoil incorrect.

I disagree with Marcus' view that the people completely agree on one leader. Part of the use of reason is that everyone reasons differently. So to put this with Hobbes' view in sort of contradictory. Even when the majority of people elect a leader there is still conflict. For example in American politics the people elect the president and yet any decision made by the president is still a controversy.

Hobbes' view

I agree with Cornelius on that human instinct always ends in destructive behaviors because maybe what is best for one person isn't best for the community. I believe giving up free will for the good of society sounds nice, but could anyone here see themselves doing this? If we were to unite under one will and fear for the peace and security of mankind would it be possible for us humans to give up the thrill that destructive behaviors ignites inside of us? Hobbes' was right. As long as we humans are able to reason against these ideas and use our gift of speech to enact our own wills we will never live peacefully because we think ourselves wiser and able to govern the public better.

Hobbes View

I agree with Nick that there is no formal election process among the commonwealth. What I got out of it was that the people of the commonwealth get together and completely agree upon one leader or board of leaders. But I disagree with Nick when he said it was an agreement out of fear of the consequences. I don't think there would be any consequences for not coming together on one leader. I think the decision of who leads them is one of free will but once the leader, or group of leaders, is appointed is when free will and reasoning is thrown out of the community.

Hobbes View

I do not agree with Shannon because there is no election per say, but rather an agreement by all of the people on the same man to protect the state. Hobbes speaks of people sacrificing free will of reasoning to do what is best for the commonwealth. Thats why it is not an election because an election requires reasoning, but rather an agreement out of fear of the consequences.

Hobbes View

I agree with Franchesca and disagree with Hobbes. Hobbes thinks that everybody in the state " has to give up their right of governing myself to this man..and authorize all his actions in like manner". Of course people has to give up will to the government ,otherwise the government wouldn´t work. However people should have the right to elect their leader and share their own opinions. At the end, like Franchesca already said, everybody should determine the best for the state.

I agree with shannon and nick in saying that one leader uniting the people under one will would be ideal. However because men " think themselves wiser and able to govern the public better, than the rest" they revolt and cause conflict. Hobbes' view that people are dangerous when not controlled is completely accurate. People's instinct always results in destructive behavior.

Going off of what Franchesca said about giving up your will, you give up your will for the better of the state. As Hobbes stated about the common peace and safety. One must give there will to them to ensure he knows how to act and give the power and strengh to the man that is leading them because they owe him peace and defense in his position. Even though the community gives up there free will that doesnt mean there won't be any conflicting viewpoints among the citizens.

Hobbes' Views

I agree with Nick that a leader to unite the commonwealth under the "One Will" would be ideal. However at the same time Hobbes contradicts himself when saying that the commonwealth must elect some to unite themselves. Allowing such an election is prime opportunity to allow people to reason and then go against the government. It's almost as if it's human nature to totally screw up any attempt at a peaceful society.

Hobbes View

I disagree with Nick in saying that you must give up your will. Devon in my opinion was talking more about a dictatorship. By one person leading an entire community of people, chaos could erupt, especially if this one person was not elected into power. It would not make sense to "reduce your will" if the majority of people do not like the leader and did not chose him. It would make more sense if one person was elected though. As long as the leader understands the people's needs in the society, that is all that matters. They must have the determination to make the state better for everybody though.

Hobbes View

I do not agree with Devon's comment on how one leader is bad and how people do not have a say in a Hobbes "commonwealth". This is because in "Of Commonwealth" Hobbes clearly states that "...that they must reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will:" Which means that the all of the people, give up their own free will willingly to be ruled by the leaders rule. This is a good thing because the leader must know what he is doing if he was chosen by the entire commonwealth to rule and protect the people and state.

Hobbes's View

I agree with Shannon's statement "I honestly believe this electing a leader to unite the people under fear for peace and safety stuff is crap." There is no way that any group of people would long put up with a leader who makes them live in terror of the government. Whenever people become angry with their government, they tend to rebel, resist, or leave the country. One modern example might be Syria. The people there are rebelling against their oppressive government and leaving the country because they have become fed up with the government's policies. If "The Leviathan" were ever to come into existence, it would surely soon have a rebellion on its hands.

Hobbes View

Ben had a really good point about Hobbes View when mentioning comparison. Comparing each other can be very good and very bad in times. To some it may mean every single detail of comparison and it could bring people down but it could be good with leaders. If any average Joe off of the street wanted to lead our country we could compare his leadership ability with that of a previous president or another candidate. By doing so we chose who is better to lead the country. I agree that some things on the list are dangerous but others are good in a multiple of ways.

Hobbes View

Shayan said that leaders cannot please everybody. People have the ability to reason, so some people will always find something wrong about a potential leader. If everybody's reasoning was the same, then we could agree on a leader, and other things for that matter. However, everyone reasons differently, so everyone has different ideas as to who, and what is the best for a community. It is impossible for one single idea or person to please everybody's needs. This, plus the fact that people will be always in competition for that powerful rule means that Hobbes view is correct.

Hobbes view

I strongly agree with Mckenzie's statement that because peoples ability to reason is a flaw Hobbes points out, that the commonwealth would not be able to elect a single leader to enfore the "one will". Hobbes talked about how the ability to reason made people capable of manipulating words for their own benefit. So wouldn't the process of electing a leader even though they are choosing the leader to unite them give us highly dangerous human beings the perfect oppourtunity to manipulate each others words? Case and point : the presidental elections of the U.S.A. It's dog-eat-dog and it invites our leaders to compete and point out each others flaws. I agree with Hobbes' view on human nature for the most part, but i honestly believe this electing a leader to unite the people under fear for peace and safety stuff is crap. He said it himself, our goals in life are basically to put down one another.

Hobbes View On People

I was thinking about what Mckenzie said and I think that one person should not have total control over everybody. Because if one person is in total control and nobody else has the power to say if they agree or disagree with what that one person, the Leviathan in Hobbes reading, the government could fall apart because the one ruler with the sole power could be a bad leader or make bad decisions. But I still think that people need rules which I believe is something that Hobbes was trying to say.

Hobbes View

I think McKenzie brings up an interesting point about Hobbes view on the state and how it is led. Everyone probably would't agree on a single leader true unless the leader could perform what everyone wanted without making others dislike him. Which is impossible really since we all compete and compare and that inspires envy and jealousy. There would also have to be covenants between the people in order for people not to dislike him. Free Will would have to disappear otherwise people could voice their thoughts and be against the Leviathan. Basically the Leviathan would have to be immune to everything that makes us unable to exist in the true state of nature. I agree with John. Hobbes view is not correct. It is impossible for a Leviathan to exist or lead since we can't unanimously agree on one person leading us. Even if the government imposed this person, for whatever reason, the leader would be essentially be a tyrant who is cruel and hated by the people, which sparks rebellion. No one can handle that amount of power.

The State of Nature

I think that a mistaken belief that some people have about Hobbes's "State of Nature" is that it is a world with no government. This, I believe is not true. When Hobbes refers to the "State of Nature", he is referring to the natural form of society, which includes a state. We know that the state is a natural development because of the arguments set forth in Aristotle's "Politics." Therefore, in the "State of Nature", there is still a state in the political sense of the word.

This supports my statement that people can indeed get along with each other in the "State of Nature." As we have seen many times in history, republics and non-oppressive governments do work, and indeed produce the most successful empires, just look at the Roman Republic or the United States.

I agree with Rocco and Brendans points on how Hobbes view on a state it to have one solid leader, but everybody wouldnt agree on the same leader. One of Hobbes paragraphs in of Commonwealth was reasoning. Meaning men will get into conflict from different viewpoints. Therefore ensuring peace and security in the state as Hobbes explains might not work well with one main leader for all to abid by.

Hobbes View

Brendan, I understand what you mean but I kind of disagree. I think what Hobbes means is that those five reasons are the reasons people are naturally dangerous without laws and government not why it is impossible to have everyone united under one leader. I think those reasons are what the Leviathan has to control with the power given to him by the people. Hobbes believes that those are the reasons why people are naturally dangerous and that the only way to govern people so that they are not dangerous is under one leader (the Leviathan) with total power given to him by the people.

Hobbes View

I think Rocco brings up a very good point. If i understand correct Hobbes believes that we can be peacful if we all agree and that in a commonwealth everyone must agree with the higher power. That is where Rocco makes a good point, no one ever in history has agreed with just one power. There has always been some dissagreement and a rebelion against the single power. That is wh your country believes in the government we have in place today, because it somewhat seperates the power in the different branches of hte government. So basicly what Hobbes thinks is ideal is to have everyone under one covenant and to have everyone agree but this is impossible and will never be because of the first 5 reasons.

Hobbes View

I agree but also Hobbes says that “This is more than consent or concord; it is a real unity of them all, in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man…” This pertains to the subject of covenant. Hobbes believes that not just some of men have to agree on a Leviathan, that everyone has to agree. Having everyone agree on one thing would be impossible, for example this is why we have the type of government we do today, everyone votes and the side with the most votes’ wins. This shows how people can never agree on one thing, thus proving Hobbes’s view that peaceful existence with each other is impossible because you need to have total agreement and that is not feasible.

Hobbes View

I agree with what Clara said about how people without a government and laws are naturally dangerous but some of Hobbes' reasons why they can be dangerous also can have positive outcomes as well. One example of this is how Hobbes believes that comparison causes people to desire to stand out among others. This may be true in some cases but comparison can also have a positive outcome. Comparing ourselves to others is also a way to better ourselves as people. Comparison is also a good way to learn by comparing ideas, methods, and other things to get the best end result. Even though I agree with Hobbes view that people are naturally dangerous, I also agree with Clara that some of the reasons why people can be dangerous also have a positive side to them too.

Hobbes View On People

I still agree with Hobbes, but in some points that Hobbes has made I disagree with for example I think that comparison to people is good. Because everybody has a role model in life that you strive to be like, so that could make you a better person if the person that you strive to be is doing good things with her/his life. So if you compare yourself to a good person and want to get their good traits that they have I believe that this is good because it therefor makes you a better person. I still think that having total free will is a bad thing because everybody needs rules, which our President, Governor, or Headmaster makes for us to follow. People need rules to keep them in control.

Hobbes View

Hobbe’s says that humans are dangerous and that we can’t live sociably in nature. Further, in order to keep us at peace and keep us safe we need a sovereign or one leader. Then, all people need to come together and make a covenant or a formal agreement. Hobbes states what every man who agrees with the covenant says, “ I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him and authorize all his actions in like manner” (Pg 3). By following the formal agreement people are giving up their free will for the benefit of safety. Realistically, in today’s world we have the type of government that Hobbes describes. We have one man in power that looks out for our best interest (President) and he keeps us safe. So, going back to Hobbe’s main point that mankind can’t live sociably in nature, we can’t and how the world is today and the way our government works is an example of Hobbe’s view on humans.

Hobbes View

I wish that the world could be as simple as how Hobbs describes the relationships between ants or bees but Hobbs is right about humans. We are dangerous. The six reasons Hobbes states are inevitably true. John had previously said that human’s beings being competitive makes our country better and stronger, but I find that most of the time, it tears us apart. An example that Devon had used earlier about the presidential elections is a strong point. How all humans have that mentality and will do whatever they want to win such as making untrue comments about a competitor so voters will change their view on the person. Another example of this would be college. We all strive for excellence and in these times the world has made it possible to give everyone a chance to go and therefore making acceptance into college one of the most competitive times in teenagers lives. In today’s world it has been made clear that the most successful people, are not always the best or the nicest. Therefore, going back to Hobbe’s point, humans can’t live sociably in nature because the world is competitive and although in some cases are competitiveness can lead us in a positive direction, it is more common that this personality trait only leads humans to being more dangerous.

Hobbes View

I agree with what Clara, Morgan, and John have said although i think that there might be a flaw. It is true that voice alows us to discuss things for the better and that competition will drive us to be more innovative but only under certain groups. We as a country can be an example of how this works becasuse we are all bound to the same covenant. But what happens when there is another country or state that is bound to a different covenant? In this situation there are no laws that hold both the two common groups so i believe the productiveness would fall apart. As well as the example of different countries here in the US there are many different groups bound to many different covenants. Such an example is the different parties in the presidentail race. So the point m trying to make is Clara, Morgan, and John are right but only if people are underneath the same covenant.

I do not agree with Hobbes' view that men can not coexist without an oppressive government. some of the reasons Hobbes gives as to why men can't live together are in fact reasons why men can coexist. For example, competition, Hobbes says, drives men apart. In reality, it forces men to try to innovate and better their situation, leading to things such as technological development. Better technology brings men together. There is no greater example of societies being brought together than the Internet.
Another example is reason. Hobbes says that reason makes men innovate and reform, and that when people try to reform in different ways, society is plunged into civil war. This is sometimes the case, but far more often reason has done good for societies and helped foster peace and security.

Hobbes View

I agree with Clara. Hobbes gives six reasons why humans cannot live sociably, however, some of the examples can also help us. Competition can be used as a way to get others to do their best. If there was no competition businesses wouldn't need to progress at the rate they do today. For example, if there was only one store that sold food, its prices could be as high or as low as they wanted. So with many stores that do the same thing, they have to constantly try to make better products for less money to keep people interested. So competition is helpful to people, but when competition goes to far it can hurt us. If humans could use these abilities in moderation, they would benefit us more than hurt us.

Hobbes View

I agree with Hobbes and with everyone that posted before. People need a government to live peacefully. However I do not completely agree with some of Hobbes reasons.

Some of the reasons Hobbes listed can be also interpreted in other ways. For example Competition can lead to envy and hatred but it can also lead to motivation to work harder and to push oneself harder. Or the Voice gives us power to manipulate each other but also the possibility to dicuss and agree with each other. However I think the arguments that people are unable to coexist in the state of nature are stronger. I agree with Hobbes' statement,that people are naturally dangerous. So people would rather fight against each other than agree or push each other.

Hobbes View:

I want to say I disagree and that I have hope that people could coexist freely without trouble, but it is proven that men simply cannot. In my opinion, Shayan was correct in saying free will is important, but covenants tie along with that very well. Men have the will to do whatever they please under any circumstance as long as they are not afraid. This could be very dangerous because to some men, they could openly decide to do something extreme or harm people and it would take away the progression of the commonwealth. Without a covenant, mankind would diminish rapidly. There must be some agreement with people to coexist because there would be no way to live if everyone freely did what they wanted. Nothing could be organized and the world would be mass chaos. Overall I agree with Hobbes Theory that men cannot coexist freely, for people are dangerous when they are not controlled.

Hobbes View

I also agree with Hobbes point of view. As Nick said, humans are extremely advanced compared to the ants and the bees. This creates problems. Hobbes says that ants work with appetite on their mind, so they are not worried about power, or how they rank in their community. The only things that Ants consider, is food, and making sure it, and the rest of the community survive to continue their species. Humans minds are too complex now to solely focus on survival. Survival is almost guaranteed, so we do not have to put the same amount of thought to it, that other species do. Devon makes a good paint with the Presidential election. Competitors will do anything to be on top, this sometimes creates tensions that can result in war. This, along with the other abilities that humans have, speech, reason, and others create a species that cannot live sociably, as the ants and the bees do.

Hobbes View

I like Devon's ideas of real life situations that would pertain to Hobbes's view such as the Presidential Races, and going off of that, I do agree with Hobbes's view on human nature. I believe that what Hobbes's hidden message was, is that humans as a race are far more advanced biologically, as well as physically than species such as ants and bees. Humans are given the ability of speech, as well as reasoning, Humans also have the ability to focus on who has the most power because the human race is doing well. Now say that the human race was not doing well, people would sacrifice to help out the community. However since the race is well off and dominant over other all other species due to technology, they have time to focus on such things as materials and power as well as competing for their own honor and dignity like Hobbes stated in his 1st reason. Unless the human race is destroyed, no other species will ever be able to advance on the same level as humans, so they will always never have to fear about survival in the wild. Now people turn to see who can be the most dominant human, the next best thing since they achieved the most dominant species. That is why I believe Hobbes was correct in stating that humans cannot live sociably in nature.

Hobbes View

I agree with Hobbes and everyone else who has posted that people are naturally dangerous. I also think that a good example of this is how Hobbes spoke of how ants and bees just seemed to naturally agree and humans did not. This brings up Hobbes' last reason of why people are naturally dangerous when they aren't controlled which is covenant. Since it is against human nature to agree all agreements must be covenant instead of natural. This makes all agreements humans make artificial and fake which leads to other things such as competition which is why people can not naturally coexist in peace.

Hobbes View

I agree as well Hobbes and with everyone that has posted so far. I think so far people seem to agree that a lot of Hobbes' 6 reasons are connected. People have competition for power which will cause jelousy. People can reason and have the ability of speech and free will they will question when a covenant is made. Just to give a few examples. He lived through the English Cival War he was able to see these reasons and how they connected at full effect. Therefore in turn anyone that is old enough to hear of the problems in todays world and the problems that have happened in history they can also point out and find where Hobbes 6 reasons occur and relate.

Hobbes View On People

I like Rocco and Shayan agree with Hobbes view on that people can't live together peacefully. I believe this because like Rocco and Shayan we are always competing with each other to be better than another person. I believe friendly competition is fine but when you are competing meanly for example in the presidents race there are a lot of commercials on T.V. about how bad the other person running is which is not good competition. I also believe that people need structure because people all have such different views on things so people would get into a fight about not the same views which could start a war. I believe that for the people to live peacefully they need structures.

Hobbes View

I agree with Hobbes view too Rocco. Competition is a main reason why we can't live in the true state of nature. But I think Free will would be a more important reason why we cannot live in a state of nature. We wouldn't be able to do any activities we want to do. Imagine Rocco if we had the same food everyday when we all have differing tastes. That's probably something that would happen without free will and that is a key difference between us and "irrational creatures". Free will allows us to compete, to compare, to voice our thoughts, and to reason. Theses are all other reasons why we can't live in the true state of nature, in ease.

Hobbes View

I agree with Hobbes view that people cannot live peacefully in coexistence. Rule one, competition, is the main reason why people cannot coexist, they are always striving for power. If people are always fighting to be better than one other how can they live together. In competition, rarely there is a good outcome. Most of the time, the outcome of competition is jealousy. Jealousy is not just envy it is also has an emotional side of it. The emotional side of it leads to war. War is a non peaceful coexistence. So therefore people cannot live peacefully.

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: