Enlightenment

I have to say, Hobbes as a very specific view on what is good. He says that the safety and security of the people is top priority of the government and should be carried out thusly through the forces of fear and terror. But I think that his view is on what it the best for the government. First of all where does the government get its power? It comes from its people. Not its assets, or its land but from its people, so it would be smart to guard its people if they are its main source of power. So I see just from this that what Hobbes says is the government protecting its people is actually the government protecting is source of power, a far more selfish motive than previously stated. Secondly Hobbes also says free thought and freedom to voice opinion is bad because it incites war and leads to the insecurity of the people. But is civil war? It is a war of a country on itself usually about unrest with the current government. So it could be possible that the government isn't trying to prevent civil war for the safety of the people, but perhaps trying to stop it for the safety of itself. Again another self preservative action made by the government. I see that Hobbes' Enlightenment is a lot about keeping a country in line and preserving one's power as opposed to running a country in the best interest of the people is ultimately what is most important. But it could also be said that the people's will is not correct action, meaning to acting on the will of the people would be a poor choice and lead to the degradation of one's country.

I disagree and agree with Hobbes that reason can lead to the community drawing apart. I agree because when people think of themselves wiser and able to govern better it can lead to communities drawing apart. Reason can also be a good thing because without reason when deciding who to be president they might not be able to tell who the better choice is to be president. If nobody believes they are better then it would be really hard to tell who the best choice would be. I think that for the most part Hobbes is right about reasoning, but it also can be a good thing.

Speech

I agree with Rebecca that there is both good and bad in every one of Hobbe's reasons why humans cannot live socially. For example, Hobbe's believes that freedom of speech is something that is degrading towards human nature and will cause our society to collapse. It is true that when people speak out at the government or something else it can cause many problems. Though without speech life cannot move forward. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech started a fire in the people to stop being racist towards African-Americans. Hobbe's says that all people want peace and security. All people includes African-Americans, and when MLK gave his speech he was creating peace and security for them. That is one example of how speech can do good in the community, though Hobbe's thinks it is wrong.

I find my self siding with Rebecca and Meghan. I think that the points that Hobbes made about reason and speech is more important than the points he made about competition. Competition, i do agree, is an important quality to have in a state, however it isn't as much as a necessity as reason and speech is in my opinion. Through reason people can develop skills and ideas and present them through speech. Everyone part of the community they live in should be aloud to speak their mind and judge what they think is right and wrong in their society.

Importance of Speech

I also would have to agree that speech is one of the most important factors in human nature. We have the ability to have our own thoughts and voice our personal opinions to others. If we didn't have the opportunity to express our ideas then we wouldn't have such a unique way of life. Since everyone has their own views and opinions it helps us to understand how others think. Speech seems to go hand and hand with reason because when we share our ideas with society we have to explain why we agree or disagree with certain arguments. If we didn't have the ability to speak then it seems as though we probably wouldn't have came up with some of the inventions or advances that exist today. The reason for how these things have come up is because people’s ideas are shared with others and are able to be agreed upon. Speech is used in everyday life, without it we would not be able to work together. We wouldn't be able to communicate and it would create confusion, disruption, and disorganization.

Speech

I agree with Meaghan's statement on speech. I agree with the fact that it's necessary to have speech incorporated in a human society, but that doesn't mean that it can't lead to negative things. More than less the ability of speech is a benefit to the human society, but it can also take lead down a horrifying path.

Speech is a benefit because it allows people to have the freedom of speech, and gives them the ability to voice their own ideas and opinion. This can also be a bad thing because when people disagree, it more often then not leads to an argument. This has the potential to escalate to a worse and worse level until it eventually comes to the point of disaster. Whether it's fighting, causing crime, or even causing poor opinions of one another, it has the potential to result negatively. Thankfully, arguments don't always lead down a negative path though. Arguments can be friendly, which causes the argument to be a constructive learning experience for the people involved.

Overall, speech is a benefit to the human society, and as long as it doesn't lead down a negative path, speech increases the speed of the development of society.

I, in fact, agree with both Rebecca and Meaghan's points. Although, there are not just two important reasons that Hobbes uses in supporting his idea of why mankind is unable to live sociably. Along with the idea of competition and the idea of people communicating, I have found that Hobbes' second statement where he introduces the idea of comparison. Although Hobbes point about comparison is short and sweet, I believe it is highly important. People constantly compare themselves with others. This ties back to what people have touched upon with competition, everyone compares themselves and on some occasions to be better than others.

Hobbes and Human Nature

I agree with Rebecca about how speech is important to society where it is both good and bad. Where it is good because of the way life has come to be with all the development in people to become on what it is today. The bad thing is that it will cause conflict between other people who are also speaking their idea causing disagreements and maybe argument on what they said. I think that speech is connected to reasoning because for all of the developments, people have back up their idea with one another. Freewill is also connected to speech and reasoning because if a person have freewill, then they are able to show their ideas and talk without feeling scared. People have a choice to either listen to one another if they agree. But there is a bad side to it if they don't agree with another person. They can do something bad like sabotaging the other group or they might not do anything about it and think it is just wrong. There could be a good and a bad result to having freewill just like Rebecca said about being able to have speech. I think that Hobbes' ideas of freewill does not show that it is sometimes good for people in society and gives people a chance for their own doing.

The Necessity of Speech

I agree with Rebecca's statement that although competition is a very important factor in both promoting and degrading a natural state within humans, there are other points made that are equally important as well. Along with human reason, which she pointed out, comes speech. Humans have the ability to express their opinion to each other and to voice it publicly. Without this ability, humans would not be able to function together in a society. They would not be able communicate their ideas and opinions to each other therefore not being able to come up with new ideas. If people did not agree with something, it would create chaos if people could not express their feelings about it. Fighting and possibly war would break out because of lack of communication. It is necessary for people to be able to have the right to have their voice heard, in order for a community to work together properly.

I agree with Rebecca's point, and her argument about reason. Although Hobbes covered several other points of why humans can't coincide peacefully with one another, I believe reason is definitely one of the most important. Think about this: a king (or queen) of a nation institutes a law or rule that makes the majority of his people unhappy. This new restriction, made by the king, is completely tyrannical and oppressive. So oppressive, in fact, that it causes the people to revolt against their unfair leader and free themselves from his dictatorship. If they had not done so, they would have indefinitely suffered through years of hardship. Now, think about what would've happened if the people lacked the ability to reason. The blatant truth that their ruler was out of control and guided by a power-hungry craze never would've occurred to them. In this case, reason could be considered a good thing. However, there are many other scenarios and situations where the ability to reason could easily be considered a problem. Reasoning allows man to question other people and ideas. For the man of ill-will, it presents a vast opportunity to violate law and be dangerous to his fellow man.

A lot of this conversation has been about competition. I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on some of the other five points Hobbes listed.

Personally, I believe all of the things Hobbe's listed are both good and bad for different reasons- there is a lot of gray area and it is difficult to point out a single issue and confidently say, "This is good" or "This is bad."

Think about reason. Hobbes says that humans cannot live together peacefully because of it; because we can reason, make our own decisions and form our own opinions which leads to disagreement. But without reason, we'd be vegetables (for lack of a better term.) There would be no invention, no skills, no logic, nothing. We would b acting like cavemen without it. When thought about this way, the ability to reason has both good and bad qualities. It leads to war but we would not be here without it.

Do you guys think any of the other things Hobbes listed have both good and bad in them? And if so, is one more prominent than the other?

Competition

Before our class on Friday I thought that competition was bad from reading Of Commonwealth, but during Friday's class my opinion shifted. I absolutely agree with Caroline and Katie when stated that competition shouldn't be looked down upon. Competition appears around everything including academics, athletics, politics, and even social lives. Competition drives people to perform to their fullest potential, and work to improve in whichever area it's focussed on. Of corse on occasion it can become out of hand, create hatred and jealousy towards one another, and only result for the worse, but even when such happens it still drives people to improve. From what I've learned about competition throughout the past few days I've realized that along the way poor things may occur, but in the end it only results in improvement.

Hobbes and competition

I absolutly agree with you caroline when you say that competition should not be frowned upon because it is part of human nature. Also, it helps us by making us want to be better which helps our country be better but you have to think about competition also as a really bad thing. We see competition everywhere. Especially in school even though we don't realize it. This kind of competition is like girls or boys trying to dress better or look better and they can also be very mean about it and put other people down. I believe it is a bad thing because we may not realize it but competition harms people in ways we don't even know. By trying to look your best and be your best you could be putting somebody else down and you are doing more harm then good.

Hobbes and Human Nature

I agree that we need competition in the world for people to find a strong leader that will lead the government. Which means that I agree with Hobbes idea of competition. Another part that I disagree with Hobbes idea of comparison among each other will cause an altercation between each other. I think that when people compare the ideas of one another, they may think which one is the best of all. But in fact, if the people use the best ideas of another people it will be a new way of thinking. It not going to work with everyone because each person have different personalities than the person who is coming up with the idea. In a way it connects to competition in finding the best idea. But after a while, when someone comes up with the idea, they are not going to get much fame because it is for the common good so it is not worth it to fight who is better. I believe that the idea of comparison is not bad for society, it is only going to help. But there could be a problem if one person think they are better than anybody else and that person does not want to listen to their ideas. Then you just can't help it, but to just not tell your thinking to them because they don't want to be inform in what you know and they may not know. So most of society have comparison between the each other but I don't agree with Hobbes on comparison and how it cause people to not live together in peace.

Competition

I have been thinking a lot about why competition was one of the aspects that Hobbe's considers bad. In class we were talking about where you can find competition in the world. We came to the conclusion that competition is everywhere and it is inevitable. We find competition in school, sports, economy, and politics. Competition is apart of human nature and should not be frowned upon. For example if there was no competition for the presidential election we would not end up with the best president possible for this country. Competition brings out the best in people by showing how hard one is willing to work and how much one wants something. Yes, competition may get out of control causing one to do something immoral, though thats just part of being a human and we cannot change that.

I found myself thinking a lot about Maggie's question. To quote her, "...I was little and our teachers and parents would always tell us that it is good to be different. Also, they would say being different just means you have something unique about yourself that makes you special in your own way. So, is Hobbes telling us the opposite by saying that competition is wrong? Does he think that everyone should be the same and not be individuals?"


I want Maggie to define "the opposite" just so we are clear on the definition here. But because she didn't, I'll just assume that by "the opposite," she meant that Hobbes believes we should all be the same or relatively similar so none of us stand out. 


I want to answer her question by saying no. I don't think Hobbes believes we should all be the same. Besides it seeming relatively impossible to accomplish, it's just not built into our nature to act just like one another- we simply all have different personalities. HOWEVER, I think Hobbes believes something similar that could be easily confused with "being the same." Hobbes doesn't necessarily want us to BE the same, but simply to have some of the same beliefs. We've talked in class about how all humans share their want for two things- peace and security. This is what unites us and enables us to write a social treaty that everyone will agree with. People that share the same belief will make easier or eliminate all together at least two of the six reasons Hobbes believes humans cannot live together peacefully.


First, this covenant- if all people within a certain community had the same beliefs on what is necessary from the people and from their leader, it would be astronomically easier to write a social contract. There would be little room for debate as to what is in it/what it covers because everyone would have the same opinions.


Second, competition- say Team Red and Team Blue are playing a soccer game against each other- they are competing because they want different things. Team Red wants to leave with the trophy and wants Team Blue to go home empty handed. Team Blue wants to leave with the trophy and wants Team Red to go home empty-handed. They both have wants that counteract each other and that's where the competition starts. Now, consider this- the Red team wants the trophy because they wanted to give it to a hobo with whom they became friends with. This hobo really liked shiny things and the Red team wanted to give the trophy to him out of the kindness of their hearts. The Blue Team happened to befriend the same hobo and also wanted to give this hobo a shiny trophy, so they were working very hard to get it for him! Suddenly the Red Team and Blue Team discovered they both each playing for the trophy to give to the shiny-thing-deprived hobo, and, wow! The competition between them has now diminished significantly because they realized they were both playing for the same thing. Now that they have the same goal in mind, it doesn't matter so much who wins the game because the hobo will get the trophy either way. Ignoring the fact that two soccer teams were just played by a hobo in this example, I just pointed out in my unnecessarily long-winded story the fact that humans tend to not compete so much when they have the same ultimate goal in mind. Which is why I believe Hobbes thinks it would be best if humans had the same opinons on certain subjects. 

Government

Hobbes talks about one sold government run by one or a small amount of people. In this I see an upside and down side. Like we talked about in class with this type of government the people would have no power and no much say in their nation. Though I belive this is wrong I can see how it be better in some ways. Like I think someone else said with people having all the power we would end in caous. People have differnt poit of veiw and like hobbes also said always belive they are the ones who are right. This can cause argument and cause people to sepatrate and eventuly even lead to wars. Takeing this power from them removes all the chance of disagreement and fight over in within the government. removeing the chance to disagree could be the only way to prevent lots of difficultys within a country or government.

To answer Colby's earlier question, I think that if the U.S. found itself without a government than we would absolutely start to follow the same pattern of countries that are overwhelmed with war and chaos. The U.S. already has a high crime rate as it is, however it is steadily reducing each year with a strict government style. If the government had no presence at all I believe we would find ourself in the same situations as Rwanda and maybe even Darfur depending on the period of time we are without a government.

I agree with Jason and his disagreement with Hobbe's. Jason mentions that Hobbe's thinks competition leads to new and different thoughts and ideas and how Hobbe's thinks that is bad. This made me think back to when I was little and our teachers and parents would always tell us that it is good to be different. Also, they would say being different just means you have something unique about yourself that makes you special in your own way. So, is Hobbe's telling us the opposite by saying that competition is wrong? Does he think that everyone should be the same and not be individuals?

Now reading what other people think I agree with Katie that competition is a good and bad thing. In my first post i said why competition is a good thing, but now i am realizing that competition is also a really bad thing. I agree with Katie that competition brings out the bad side in people. when people try to outdo do other people they can use them or intentionally hurt them. I think Hobbes is right and wrong about competition i agree that competition can lead to envy and hatred but also i think it can lead to good because people are not being lazy and are working hard.

Human Nature and Competition

After reading through different responses throughout the blog, I see myself agreeing with Hobbes somewhat less than I had been before. When I first read through "Of Commonwealth" and saw Hobbes' reasoning to his logic that all humans are dangerous and need to be governed because of their human nature, I completely agreed. I saw all of the points that Hobbes made as completely valid and it made sense how all of the characteristics that Hobbes gave, would keep us from functioning in a natural state. However, after reading through everyone else's posts and talking more in class, my opinion has greatly changed. I still partially agree with Hobbes' beliefs, however I do not see all of the human characteristics that he gave as particularly bad, and in fact believe that we need these qualities to succeed in life. Reading through the points that my classmates have made, has further convinced me of this. For example, Maggie gave a great example about her rowing and how her coach always pushes her and her team to do better and compete for what they want, which makes them all do better and reach their potential. I believe that competition although could be viewed as a detrimental factor to forming society, also must be realized as necessary. Without competition, people would never be pushed to do their best, therefore never realizing exactly what they are capable of. Their would be no motivation to do well because you would never be trying to outdo anyone else, or show anyone or yourself what you can do. Similar to Maggie's post, I have been on two swim teams before, one was far less competitive than the other and the other one was extremely competitive. In the first one, no one was really pushed to try and outdo one another and to be the best, so we didn't get very far in competitions because we weren't motivated or taught that we should push ourselves for our best. My other team however, pushed us always to do the very best that we were capable of and there was always comparison between us. Although sometimes it was a lot to handle, always being compared to others, it pushed us all to constantly do better, which in the end benefited us greatly. This could be compared to a society, when people are not pushed to do well and compete to be the best, no one will work hard and achieve their potential. However if taught to always try your hardest and to somewhat outdo each other, success will be accomplished. Overall I do believe that humans need to be somewhat controlled but do not fully agree on Hobbes view on human nature.

After talking about this topic in class on friday, I started to think about how many countries and nations that are currently lawless and chaotic have something in common. Many of these countries were ruled by a tyrant, dictator, or oppressive government before the country turned to war and chaos. In my opinion, this happens because the people do not kn0w any other way of life. When living under a power that tells you what to do, what to think, and how to live, there's not much choice in life at all. So, when the day comes when that high power or ruler is toppled, and there's no solid leadership directing the people of the country, the people will naturally descend into chaos because they've never had such freedom before. Now that they won't be threatened with consequence or death, the people are free to do whatever they want, and are probably overwhelmed with this freedom of choice that they've never really experienced before. Unfortunately, this would easily cause people to become carried away, and dangerous. It's very interesting, to me, to think about what would happen if all of a sudden, the U.S. had no government present. Would we fall into the same situation?

Enlightenment

I agree with Katie. I think Competition, though described by Hobbes as a bad thing and is the main contribute to civil war, is actually something positive. Hobbes says that competition leads to innovation, change, invention and new ideas and difference. Since when are these bad things? Hobbes states that these negative, I disagree. Innovation and change are positive, they incite change that is usually for the better because if the current state is so perfect then why would people be thinking of new ideas? The answer is, it isn't. I think that only if the state is in a place where it is unsatisfactory or unpleasing for and to the people will said people think of the new ideas.

Hobbes and human nature

After talking in class and reading some of your responses i have changed my mind partly. I still beilive some humans are dangerous and bad but when I look at the reasons hobbes gives us I cant help but feel like they have two sides. Like his example about speach, Yes it gives us an option to argue and cause problems but also it gives us the chance to resolve problems in a civilized way. We use talking and sepeach everyday to communicate problems and with this we are able to solve problems that without speech could leave to disaster.
Another example of this is Reason. The ability to reason may be bad at times but personally I think it works in our favor more then against. Being able to reason we can truely understand problems and situations. Now with out reason we could jump to conclusions and not truely understand the problem at hand and this could end in disaster.
I think the main thing Im trying to say is Hobbes examples could also be seen as good things we humans have that give us an advantage against animals. Yes his examples have there down sides but I truely beilive each one has an upside also. That is why I cant rule out humans yet as completely dangerious beasts who cant live together in peace .

Human Nature and Competition

At first I did completely agree with Hobbes view of human nature. From reading “Of Commomwealth” his points really showed me that people need to be controlled and have one ultimate controller in order for everyone to live a peaceful life. But after a different idea my opinion has changed. I agree with Caroline that our nation has accomplished so many things with the freedom we are given. Since we have so much freedom it makes me believe that if we didn’t have any of this then we probably wouldn’t of accomplished as much as we have. Obviously there are still so many people that pay no attention to laws and choose to do terrible things. Today in the world we are living in we hear about wars, crimes, terrorists, and all sorts of terrible things. This goes back to Hobbes ideas because giving people too much freedom can lead them in the wrong direction, but that does not mean everyone needs their freedom to be taken away. Freedom gives people the opportunity to succeed and work harder. Just like Maggie mentioned in crew they are always competing to be the best boat, which makes the team work harder everyday. Hobbes views competition as something that is preventing us of living sociably like bees and ants. The way I see it without competition people would just settle to be average and no one would ever strive to be better. We compete to beat others and show them how good we really are. Without competition people wouldn’t give any effort or really try. Having everyone work to be just as good as there competitor helps everyone in becoming more successful. For example if you always practice a particular sport with someone who isn’t very good you will settle to be better then that one person. But if you start practicing with someone who has more talent then you it will make you strive to practice more to get to the same level of talent as others.

Competition

I agree with you guys but disagree in a way too. Competition can be seen as a good and bad thing. It can be seen as good by how it makes us work harder and we get things done better and faster and people won't be lazy because of it. It could also be considered a bad or dangerous thing though because competition can bring out the worst in people. In competition people get really intense if they are competitive and this competitive nature can drive them to do things to other people such as sabbotaging people or even doing physical or emotional harm to them. A humans true, animal like nature can come out during a competition and its true that competition does help us but it can also hurt us.

Hobbes and Human Nature

I agree with Conrad that Competitions is a reason that benefits men rather than harming the world. Competition is the only way things will get done further than a normal rate when having no competition at all and people are lazy, not wanting to help either. I also agree with Maggie and Meagan that when everyone works hard trying to compete, it is not only bring up the work rate of yourself but also everyone around you, which would be make society full of people trying to work as hard a next person. Like in sport, how Maggie said that it will only bring the team to the next level. People will not hate another person if everyone is going towards the same goal. If a problem comes through, the people can talk to each other with their ideas and use their reasoning to come up with a united result combining the ideas of others. It is like when working in a group in the classroom, where we have a voice to speak to one another with the ideas each person thought. Then the group come up with one whole idea that everyone agrees. This idea of reasoning, competition, and speech does no agree with the way Hobbes thought it was suppose to be like. He thought that it would cause chaos but instead it would unite the people into one whole and trying to work together to achieve a goal just like the bees and ants.

Human nature

I agree with Maggie that Hobbes is wrong about human nature. I think that being competitive is a good thing. For example when you have a job people are always competing to get promotions. If people did not compete they would be lazy and wouldn't be trying their best, but having competition people are always trying their best. Hobbes says that competition will keep us from working together, but the competition keeps people working hard. This makes a better work place for all of the people. When people see each other working hard they try to do better and it is a continuos pattern. Without competition not as much would be accomplished in jobs.

Competition vs. Socialism

I feel that Hobbes has the mindset of someone that would support a socialist economy over a free market. For those of you who do not know what a socialist economy is here is a definition from Wikipedia: "Socialists generally aim to achieve greater equality in decision-making and economic affairs, grant workers greater control of the means of production and their workplace, and to eliminate exploitation by directing the surplus value to employees. Free access to the means of subsistence is a requisite for liberty, because it ensures that all work is voluntary and no class or individual has the power to coerce others into performing alienating work." Now why I am comparing Hobbes' views on competition and a socialistic economy is because a socialistic economy removes the threat of over production by sharing surplus wealth to everyone in the state. This may remove the need for people to compete if you take pride and dignity out of the situation.

The reason why competition would be removed because of a socialist economy is because the surplus wealth will always be shared to every citizen of the state including the unemployed making the action of working for money voluntary. If acquiring and keeping a job was voluntary this would mean that there would be a massive decrease in workers crippling the productivity of the state and in turn, is no longer able to gather a surplus profit, putting the state into bankruptcy.

Now this theory may be contradicted if we add honor and dignity back into the equation which may cause people to work to feel good about themselves. However, if we ask why however many people in this socialistic hypothetical state are still not working, we would find the answer to be laziness. Which raises the question; which is more powerful, laziness or honor and dignity? In my opinion, I believe that laziness would overcome the idea of pursuing honor and dignity because as Hobbes said, men do not work for the common good, so, men will have no reason to work when wealth is already being provided for them and they do not believe in supporting a common good.

Therefore, I believe that Hobbes’ first reason benefits men rather than being a negative attribute although it may still be an acceptable answer to the question in some cases. Secondly, with the supporting evidence put forth, I believe that laziness may be added to Hobbes’s reasons, perhaps in place of honor and pride.

What do you guys think about this subject?

Human Nature

I agree with Caroline that Hobbe's is not correct about humans and how we live. My coach for crew always tells us that we have to fight for what seat and what boat we make it into for our races. And to make it to the top you have to fight every practice by showing him how well you can row and how hard you will push yourself to be the best. Hobbe's tells us that because of competition, comparison, reason, speech and voice, no fear and free will, and covenant, that we can not work together to make a peaceful world. But, because of crew I have learned that the only way to be on a peaceful team is to fight for what you want. At the beginning of the season we talked about how everyday you are competing to make it in that top boat. And without the competition we wouldn't push ourself to that next level and we wouldn't try as hard in every practice to show our coach how we can move a boat. So, I have to disagree with Hobbe's view on our human nature because everyday in crew we have to compete to be the best we can be, and without that competition we wouldn't have a sport.

America

Though all of you have agreed with Hobbe's idea that humans cannot not live sociably without a terrorizing government, i disagree. If you look at the United States of America today, we have become quite a successful country. After we won the Revolutionary War everything changed for the USA. Our country was founded upon freedom. People all over the world wanted to come to the USA and make something of themselves. Now this country has grown to be one of the most powerful nations. I agree with Hobbe's that many people are dangerous because of the freedom they have here. We still have a lot of crime including murder, theft, even terrorism. Though i dont agree that we cannot live together without a terrorizing government because looking how far this country has come having a democracy really stands out to me. Hobbe's wants citizens to have peace and security but i do not believe that they way to accomplish peace and security is with a "leviathan." If you took away peoples freedom, this country would go into an outrage and it would only cause more fighting between the citizens and the government.

Hobbes and Human Nature

I also agree with what Katie and everyone else has mentioned about Hobbes and and his own view of human nature. Humans cannot handle having so much freedom because it can become dangerous very quickly. Humans being able to have this freedom not only would affect them as an individual to make poor decisions but it would carry over to all of the other people. With humans having such a great amount of freedom it would cause a great deal of chaos. Similarly to what Colby mentioned, Hobbes explains in the reading ,to avoid all of the chaos and uproar it is necessary for humans to have someone of higher power to keep the state going. Having someone with more power creates a state where the people can be at peace. Humans need laws to keep them in line and to work together with others. Hobbes clearly explains in the reading the reasons for why humans cannot live peacefully in the state of nature. Competition, comparison, reason, voice and speech, no fear and free will, and covenant are his own views of why humans can't be at peace. A person of higher power in the government would have the ability to control these problems and show the people that by avoiding these six main problems it can direct the people to a greater good, and create a government with people at peace.

Hobbes and Human Nature

I agree with kara and all of you when you say that humans should not have this freedom because of the dangers of them doing harm to others or themeselves because when people are out of this controlled state with a government they will show the dangerous side of them that could be compared to an animal. This is why a government is needed in a community. The governement must keep peace and control in the community and by doing this they must be fearful. The people of the community have to be terrified. Just like Machiavelli in The Prince Hobbes is saying that the rulers must be feared in order to keep the people in line and following laws.

Hobbes and human nature Kara

So I agree with what a lot of you have been saying, I agree that humans are indeed dangerous because of the way we have learned to live. I believe that all 6 characteristics;  competition, comparison, reason, speech, free will/no fear, and covenant have been all past down over time through the standard of living and human nature. I think Human nature over time has evolved into this fight for power and fight for control. Hobbes says this best comparing us to animals. Animals lack the communication we have the tools we have and the structure we have at times, but they still survive and reach the common good better than us.

This is because even though we have many things animals don’t we lose it all in the arrogance and competition that surrounds the world. Hobbes says we are greedy envious creatures and that even though we live together and all work for the same thing we are almost blinded by the little things. The anger we put against things that we disagree on and the way we want control and power is tearing us apart. The best example of this is wars started over competition for land or a disagreement in reason. It is almost as if we add extra effort to better ourselves but in the end cause so much damage, while if we lived in harmony and simply the way we lived would be easier.

Of Commonwealth

      Siding with Jason, Tommy and Colby, I agree with Thomas Hobbes about his opinion on humans- they are dangerous when not controlled. Hobbes states six reasons why he believes this and if I wasn't convinced enough before I read this excerpt, I sure am now. I believe it is human nature for people to be constantly one-upping each other- competition, as Hobbes calls it. Survival of the fittest is built into our genes and because of this we always want to be the best, no matter what it is we're trying to be the best at. The difference between survival of the fittest in humans and survival of the fittest in bees and ants is that the latter insects try to be the best for the benefit of their whole colony, while people try to be the best not for the overall benefit of the state, but for the benefit of themselves individually. As Hobbes points out, all of this competition between people isn't exactly healthy for the well-being of the whole group/state/commonwealth/whatever you want to call human beings collectively. In fact, it tears people apart by creating  hatred and envy.
      There are five other things listed in Of Commonwealth about why humans cannot live peacefully in a state of nature, but hey, I just talked about one and I'm already convinced they can't! To save my peers from reading an unnecessarily long blog post and to make sure I have something to talk about in my other two posts, I'll stop here. Just to reiterate a bit in case you forgot, I completely believe human are dangerous creatures by nature and need to be controlled in order to live with each other peacefully.

Of Commonwealth

I as well would have to agree with Colby, Tommy, and Jason. Humans would be much too dangerous to allow complete freedom. The ability to speak that humans contain is obviously a benefit to living, but can also lead to many hazards things. I agree with Hobbes' thoughts to evil easily sounding innocent, for it's far too easy for a human to manipulate another, which is what causes danger. The ability for a society to communicate can only causes destruction. I also agree with Hobbes when he states how competition between humans only leads to disaster. Competition causes humans to have negative opinions of each other because each and every one wants to be victorious. Human's will do anything that allows them to lead to victory, therefor they take competition more seriously then it should be taken which creates envy and hated within their society. If creatures were only trying to one-up each other within their community like humans do, they would never be able to work together as a whole.

I would also have to agree with Colby's example of Somalia. Their country is far too dangerous only because their citizens are allowed so much leeway. If any other country was in the situation that Somalia faces, they would break out into violence and terror as well. Society depends on the authority of it's leaders, which is why it cannot live peacefully without it.

Thomas Hobbes' Beliefs of Human Nature

I completely agree with the ideas that Tommy and Colby have given. I do not believe that by human nature and the way that they are built, humans are able to live in a state of nature without some type of government to rule them, and are dangerous if left without one. In Thomas Hobbes' Of Commonwealth, he states the specific reasons that this is impossible for humans, yet capable by other beings such as bees and ants. Humans in nature, have immensely different qualities than those of bees and ants, which cause them to be dangerous when left without some sort of government. Ants and bees do not hold the ability to communicate the ideas that humans can, nor do they have the emotions and intelligence that humans carry, which gives them the ability to live in this state of nature peacefully. I agree with Hobbes' idea that if left to a state of nature, the qualities that humans hold would bring about their ruin and lead to chaos. However, if ruled through some sort of government to overall ensure peace and security, humans would be able to eventually achieve the greater good and live in a state of protection and order. This community governed by law is referred to by Hobbes as a Commonwealth. I also think that the example of Somalia made by Colby is a great reference for this discussion. It perfectly shows exactly what a state with little or no government and what people living in a state of nature, would come to if left to it. It shows how people do need some structure of government overall, to lead them in the direction of the greater good.

Enlightenment

I will have to agree with you both Colby and Tommy. I do believe that humans when left to their own freedom and devices are very dangerous. Human innately have the tools to cause great evil. Meaning that humans can potentially be evil. But I will have to say though that I also think that when placed in an environment that has been tailored to inspire good action, the danger of a human decreases drastically. If one is inspired to only do good then to do bad things would have to be one's own original thought, which can happen, but would be met with the morals that had been instilled in said environment they are in.

Imagine that there is a student who lives in a town and goes to a school where only good morals could be found and there was no bad activity. This student one days comes to a test where he can't answer a question. Already at this moment the chances of him cheating are drastically reduced because the idea of cheating barely even exists, and if he is could doing it there are extremely stern punishments, so chances are it doesn't cross his mind because he has only been inspired by, exposed to and taught to do good.

I agree with all of the opinions Hobbes stated on how humans are dangerous at nature and not when they have a proper and strong ruler, except one which is the first reason. This entire paragraph to me shows that he is looking down on his own race because every individual is driven by pride. For me this raises a question: If we could not do anything that would make us proud of ourselves, would we even strive for the productivity as ants and bees do? Ants and bees are quite literally drones whose minds are near equivalent to a lobotomized human. Yes it is true that bees and ants have no thought for themselves but only for their community but we are not drones and to try to be one would be to defy nature. Therefore I do not believe that pride and honor should be considered a weakness but a potential accolade. Rather than a man that operates as one of these drones being driven by the thought 'I must do this tedious chore because I must' a realistic man may be driven to do better at whatever they are pursuing even if it isn't the most noble reason. The point is that he did his job better and however minor the outcome, he helped himself and his community. This is the only reason I disagree with and all of the others I agree with.

Thomas Hobbes, Of Commonwealth

I agree with Colby. The characteristics that the human race obtains can be far to dangerous with too much freedom. A leader of a state of some kind is needed to care for and protect our species and keep them in line to avoid chaotic actions that will eventually lead to war. The bees and ants Hobbes refers to do not share the same traits as humans, being less evolved, and cannot express the ideas and freedom of speech as we do.

I also concur with Colby's statement about Somalia. It is a perfect example of what can happen to our race if we do not have some sort of ruling or direction. We can be a very aggressive species sometimes when we are given enough freedom to make us feel above the law. Hobbes is just expressing his concern, as a considerate human, that our race needs a superior to keep us in line and prevent us for committing actions we will regret.

In Thomas Hobbes' Of Commonwealth, Hobbes discusses his views on goverment and human nature. To begin his argument, he states how living creatures, such as bees and ants, coincide peacefully together within their own societies. In the rest of his narrative, Hobbes compares these gregarious organisms are able to successfully live together while avoiding social issues that are the first stepping stones to the ultimatum of war and chaos that the human race has experienced multiple times in history. He explains these times of war and chaos by comparing the characteristics possessed by man that are not possessed by these other forms of life. For example, one of Hobbes' leading points of argument is that humans end up in chaos (without laws) because of the natural tendency of man to compare himself to other members of his society. This natural comparison leads to jealousy and envy, which leads to social problems and imminent chaos. Because humans possess this, and creatures such as bees and ants do not, the human race is the most likely to descend into chaos and war than any other species.
Hobbes believes the ability to reason and speak, and the tendency to compare and compete for dignity and honor are the main reasons why man needs a higher power, in a state, to keep the people at peace. Without this, he believes that the people of the state will eventually reach a situation of chaos, war, and lawlessness.
I have to agree with Hobbes. If you were to look at the country of Somalia, on the east coast of Africa, you would see that it is rated as the most dangerous country in the world for a reason. Since the late 1900's, the goverment has deteriorated into a state in which it is apparent that there is barely any goverment at all. The country is run by small gangs that fight bloodily for power and land. This example proves to me that a state, in this case a country, will eventually become engulfed in war and chaos when a power meant to control the people is absent. The fact that humans will become violent and savage by nature without someone or something to keep them in line is a sad fact, but unfortunately, I believe it's the truth.

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: Colby Galliher