Is it worth it to get into Hobbes?

>>8481367
I doubt anyone here has read it. I haven't even read it; it's been collecting dust right next to me for months. If you're interested in philosophy, then go for it

>>8481393
I've read it. I had to read it for a poli sci class back in college.

My take on Leviathan is that I'm not buying Hobbes' overall take on "natural man." To me it seems like his model of natural man is just taking civil man and dropping him in the woods with no clothes on.

I'm more convinced by Rousseau's idea of natural man, which is that of a more peaceful, flighty and noble being.

>>8481405
>tfw i could have lived naked innawoods if it werent for mans unsocial sociability

end me, senpai

>>8481405
Considering how a lot of even animal species deviate from what we consider "good" it's not that wrong of an idea.
I think the main issue with hobbes is the same as rousseau, good is not a thing that exists.

>>8481367
Are you interested in political philosophy? If you plan to read more contract theorists Leviathan is pretty important.

>>8481415
>good is not a thing that exists
prove it kid

>>8481830
He means that there is no line between good or bad, because neither can perceived by someone without a conscience. Animals are closer to nature without a conscience (one would suppose), so subjectivity does not exist. Good and evil are purely conceptual, so without conscience or subjectivity, they do not exist.

I'd read it just for that kickass cover

One of the greatest works of English prose.

For real.

>>8481895
How is the human conscience "less natural" than an animal's lack thereof when both occur in nature?

>>8481895
good thing consciousness and subjectivity exists then..

File: Calvin_and_Hobbes_Original.png (106KB, 277x300px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 277x300px

>>8481367
Yeah he's pretty funny but without Calvin it's just not the same.

>>8481975
Consciousness and conscience are not the same.

>>8481974
I'm not saying it is, I'm only inferring that from a previous poster. But think about this: what survives in nature, the body or conscience? It's a stupid question, but, even though conscience can't exist without the body, we know the body can exist without conscience. Hardmode: answer this without any theological influence.

>>8482021
>the body can surive without the conscience

The body can also survive without a kidney. Without arms. Without legs. Without sight. Are any of these things therefore less natural?

Lack of conscience in humans, AKA psychopathology, is a rare, negative genetic mutation that would probably result in the death of the species were it common rather than abnormal.

No offense, anon, but this is easy mode for me. And I'm a Christian.