anyone here /philosophy/? I need some assistance in understanding

>>8667878
Try science, retard

>>8667885
oh, ok lad.

>>8667878

Indeed, good sir.
Have you perchance heard of Samuel Harris?

>>8667878

read rosseaus discourse on inequality. acts as very good complement to hobbes since it takes the position that society inherently creates inequality, the primitive man of nature being one that lacks the worries and ailments of modern society.

File: 1446387749069.png (821KB, 707x1000px) Image search: [Google]

821KB, 707x1000px

>>8667885

looks like someone got lost on their way to reddit,

>>8667916
Reading now, this part definitely speaks to me.

>The great antiquity of the laws which makes
them sacred and venerable, that men soon learn to despise laws which they see daily altered, and that States, by
accustoming themselves to neglect their ancient customs under the pretext of improvement, often introduce greater evils than those they endeavour to remove.

I think this can be applied to European sovereign societies right now, with the advent of progressvism.

>>8667885
*tips*

>>8667878
Hobbes makes a critical error; he based his theories upon the assumption that the natural state of man is to be alone, solitary, isolated, and that society must be 'imposed upon' him.
This is false; the natural state of man is social and society is natural and instinctive.

>>8668106
But the natural order he describes isn't isolated as much as it is anarchistic, he doesn't deny the social as much as he denies benevolence, that humans are intrinsically and primally selfish.

It's also not mutually exclusive, by opting into a sovereign commonwealth you are still victim to the laws of nature.

>>8668114
But he is incorrect; the family unit is inherently cooperative and people naturally form hierarchies.

http://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/plsc-114/lecture-12

https://leostrausscenter.uchicago.edu/course/hobbes-leviathan-and-de-cive-winter-quarter-1964

>>8668242
But couldn't be argued that the family unit is opting into a sovereign commonwealth just on a micro scale? Once again, I think that the distinction you make is binary, that a commonwealth is removed from nature when it is a square inside a circle in a sense.

File: tfw retards consider becoming religious.jpg (112KB, 795x960px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 795x960px

>>8667916

>Rousseau

Literal Last Man par excellence.

>>8668106

You got it the wrong way around.

Even then, Hobbes was somewhat far from the mark. The natural state of man is to bent other men to his will, or be bent to the will of a higher man.

>>8668262

That's pretty much Hobbes' point. God at the top, then the sovereign, then the social hierarchy, then the familial hierarchy with the father as its patriarch.

>>8668458
Hobbes was a closet atheist. He explicitly said that man's creation (the state) is superior to God's creation (man) in the first fucking chapter of Leviathan. The whole shit on the eccliasistical commonwealth was just Cartesian misdirection so the church wouldn't come after him.

>>8667878
>I think It's obvious that Hobbes was quite idealistic in its leanings in comparison to Machiavelli's Prince. Any discussion would be helpful

No, they're just concerned with different things. Machiavelli is advising a sovereign on the practical use of political power and Hobbes is analysing the foundational nature of the state; of course the latter is going to be more theoretical.

>>8668106
No he doesn't. The "state of nature" is a fucking thought experiment which Hobbes uses to prove the necessity of human society.

>>8668458
>Even then, Hobbes was somewhat far from the mark. The natural state of man is to bent other men to his will, or be bent to the will of a higher man.

Again, Hobbes would agree with you (the first part, not the second part -- he doesn't believe in "higher" and "lower" men). Hobbes says that men naturally seek to dominate others for reasons of fear and status.

>>8669135
If Hobbes believes that all men are equal then why does he insist on his sovereign state having a dictator?