I completely Agree with what Geoff said about people realizing their flaws and strengths. If people actually were able to know what the could do well and what they couldn't do, life would be easier for everyone. Having people except themselves for they are is in my eyes, step one to achieving this perfect "leviathan" government. Allowing people to not be able to compare themselves would break down numerous barriers and end all wars. Because what is a war besides one person wanting what someone else has or someone thinking someone else is wrong? With out these conflicts, humans would be able to work together and form a greater peace.

Also, piggybacking on what Geoff said, when the people of the community are able to know their strengths and weaknesses, they can work together seamlessly because where one person may struggle, another may excel. With this, it would be much easier to have less people work at one thing and let "good" be accomplished quickly and easily.

I agree with Tanner saying that people didn't care who got the credit for doing something good. It basically means that people should overcome such traits as greed, selfishness and envy. People should really understand if you are the best at doing something or if you achieved something big for the good of the community and if you are in the center of attention for doing that, it doesn't really mean a big thing. Most of the people will naturally get envious of that persons actions, and as Hobbes said, such traits of character are not good, it causes conflicts. People should understand and tolerate that they wont be the best at everything, different people will contribute to the community in one or another way. But on the other hand, I believe that those traits, if under the control of a Leviathan, might actually contribute to the commonwealth. It will cause competition which will bring good to the people, as my classmates said in earlier posts.

I like the points Sean and Nick are bringing up. During 911 our nation was united as a whole because of the tragic disaster. I think events like these prove Hobbe's point in a way that he might not have necceasirly seen. When Hobbe's talks about how people of a leader give their free will to the leader, it can be looked at in a bigger picture. When 911 took place everybody stood up as one, there were no outsiders or "outlaws." People gave the person next to them their free will and by doing this everyone felt safe. Of course during this time the president was the official ruler of our nation, but when everybody got together to overcome the event our nation became stronger than ever. We could be though of as an assembly of rulers. By having this huge group of so called "leaders", we were not victim to any of the six reasons that we need to be ruled. More was achieved because less people cared who got the credit.

I agree with what Tanner has to say. The reference back to Aristotle's idea is spot on. I believe that in both Machiavelli's and Aristotle's pieces we can find ideas that when combined have the best of both worlds. Aristotle's main idea was to create a utopia based on the idea that people are inherently good. I do not believe that people are inherently good but I do agree that people need to have a state that they are a part of the be the best they can be. This is where Machiavelli's form of leadership comes in where he inspires terror to keep the people in line and make sure that the work they do is the best for them. Hobbes has found a middle ground almost in his piece by finding the right leader and making sure that the state is the best it can be.

I agree with Sean and Nic's concept of how crisis such as wars or disease unite a people and they only hold them together for awhile. I believe though, that the leader that can incite terror into his people can hold those people together better than they believe. For example think about Joseph Stalin and the Russians in World War Two. During that time many tragic things happened, although it was a communist nation and there were very tough consequences for not acting how the government set forth as expectations. Even though he was considered a tyrant he brought all of his people together and managed to "weather the storm" that was World War Two. He united his nation and managed to bring a victory and extend his countries borders by many miles. He lead by fear and managed to propel his nation into an age where Russia became a superpower in the world.

After reading most of the responces I think most people generally agree with Hobbe's with a few exceptions. In my first post I explained the reasons why I mailny disagreed with Hobbe's, but after our last class I however changed my view on Hobbe's theory. I rememebered back to what Aristotle wrote about how if a man is not part of state or community, he is either beast or god. When Culley mentioned how terrorists are not part of community and follow no rules I realized how Hobbe's theory is correct. He says that all power must be given to one man or and "assembly of men." With just one man ruling himself he is victim to the six reasons that a man cannot survive without leadership. This is the case with terrorists. They have no fear installed in them, making them think they have the right to kill other people. This is why I agree with Hobbe's theory...for now.

Human Nature

Nick i agree with your ideas about the "Lightning Rods", because we only unite as a race when something tragic happens, and that these events only bring us together for a short amount of time, this is why i dont think a sovereign would do much good. if the sovereign were to try and manufacture world wide events to bring people together not only would they end up killing many, because, like nick said these events are usually "very fatal to those involved", and also the sovereign would have to create endless amounts of these events to keep us united for ever.

another reason that this would not be very effective is because the people would one way or another start to catch on that these things were not happening naturally. though this would cause people to unite it would not be for the better, they would gang up on the sovereign and kick them out of power. after they were out there would be no order and also, no more constant "Lightning Rods".

Human Nature

I agree with both Jersey and Olivia, that people were abandoned but also that it was to risky for themselves. I think that there could have been a resolution and other ships could have communicated to save the people on the Titanic. Branching out from what Jersey was saying I also agree that no sovereign could unite us singily. However, I do believe we can achieve peace and unity. We just need to find a way to have people work together for a common goal. Everyone has peace and security as a common need so in theory we can get people to help others while helping themselves. I think that if the form of government could find a way that people would e helping eq bother while still gaining something than there would be unity, peace, and security for all. Why have we not achieved this state when others have? Islam for example, created a common goal through open minds, common goals and no downside for the people. Once there was a leader there was almost no competition. I'm not saying that it was a perfect state but we could examen peaceful groups and learn from them. I believe that the sovereign needs to use security and peace as a common interest and use that to unite people. This should work because humans want to get what is best for them but if it will help the community than they will be even more for the idea.

Human Nature

First, responding to Olivia, I'm sure the other boats had a perfectly good explanation as to why they couldn't respond right away. One being the Titanic's position with icebergs, and there were ships saying they would come to help, but they were decently far away. They tried to help, but if they saw the risk of getting themselves in the same situation, then why risk it? Second, Nick I do agree with you. Although, I don't think it needs to be a government that can bring everyone together. What we need is for people to realize what needs to happen and just do it, work it out. This is a far-fetched idea and will likely not happen in our lifetime, but down the road some revolution may spark this kind of thinking. No, I do not believe that any form of sovereign will have the ability to unite us and battle "Hobbs's Six." Nick, I also believe your right in the sense that we need to learn to live with the six things that make us 'bad'. Maybe once we, as a species, get a better understanding of the 'six' and how they affect us in the 'big picture' we may finally be able to live to some extent of peace.

Human Nature

Jersey and Roan, I agree with you aout the power of directed compassion. It can be said that mankind, moreso than any other species, has the greatest potential for amassing huge amounts of goodwill and kindness. However, we seem to do so only when there is a large event, a "lightning rod" that allows us to direct the goodwill in all of us onto a single cause. These lightning rods do not last long, and thank goodness for that. These causes are always short lived and very fatal to those involved. So can a government create such an event to unite all the people? Some would say this has been done before, and likewise are called conspiracy theorists, but I digress. Mankind loves to be gratly compassionate in short doses. Likewise, I see no way in which a Sovereign could create a lighting rod strong enough and long lasting enough to unite all of humanity.

Concerning the traits of envy and competition, these things are, to quote Sean, "are here for the long haul." These things do infact prohibit us from uniting as a race, but they are going to stay with us until our end. Therefore, we must learn to live with this injury in order to survive. The Leviathon does not work as a cane to help us through this injury, since it limits personal freedom, is easily corruptible, and is ineffective in preventing crime as well as other things stated by my fellow classmates. Therefore we must live with the "Hobbes Six" that keep us from uniting.

Human Nature

I disagree with the beehive theory because people's first natural instinct is to survive. People will not help others unless they are knowingly able to survive. Yes after people know they will be safe they will help other people. But this is just because of empathy, an emotion not a aspect of nature. Humans have the natural goal of making the most of what they have and can have. To make that happen humans will risk much to get what they want. For example: people who steal from banks risk a lot but theydo it anyways. People act out old pity and empathy. It is not a first response to help others but to help themselves. I don't think people are bad but hey will do bad things to get personal benefit out of it.

Human Nature

To branch off on what Jersey was saying, I remember hearing that there's only been about a two minute span of time in history where there wasn't some sort of a war happening in our world. I feel as if war is an unavoidable piece of humans. We can't simply ignore human nature and become a more simplistic species like bees or ants. Roan and Jersey are saying that we can come together when we see disaster. But what about the Titanic? Thousands of people were abandoned in the water because most of the boats wouldn't return and give up their extra space. There are examples of every sort of reaction to disaster, but humans naturally think for themselves first and foremost. Hobbes's outlook on human nature is very cynical, but what else can we believe in a world that has a constant stream of problems?

Human Nature

Roan, I agree with you on your points, as well as Daniella. Yes, we have many laws and people my break the big ones and others break the small ones. On the other hand I don't know a single person who hasn't broken a single rule. To me Hobbs is right that people are bad, whether or not they mean to be, and we can't even follow our own rules. Going back to Roan's and Chase's comments, yes it seems that we revert back to that 'beehive mentality' when some form of disaster occurs and we almost get a reality check saying: we're all in this together. Fortunately, disasters like the one in Haiti don't happen very often. Once they're taken care of we go back to our old ways of separate communities, states, countries, ect. Overall, we go back to our ways of conflict. In history, only when we realize that we're all on this one planet together and we need to help each other to survive is when we get along. It seems to take a reality check for us to get to that 'beehive mentality', but its short-lived before we revert back. Is there some way that we can hold onto that feeling, and actually get along for an extended period of time?

Human Nature

Chase you have made some good points but i disagree with a few of them. you talked about how with strict government humans would become "brainwashed robots" i think no matter what happens people will still make their own choices in what they are going to do to "better the hive". which brings me to my next point. you said that humans as a race nee d to over come comparison and jealousy and that would make us better. those are human traits that i believe are here for the long haul. but i do agree that without them the human race would be able to get along with much less war and concern about social status. because these traits are here for the foreseeable future, we should try to use them to our advantage. one way this could be done is when you get jealous or start to compare yourself is to just purely work harder to try and get yourself to that point.

Human Nature

Chase I get what you are saying, but if we all worked together we would not necessarily become “brainwashed robots.” If we all want to “better the hive” or make the world a better place then we can do so. I think it is possible for all humans to work together to do well, and we have done so in the past. I believe that we could achieve what you could say is a perfect world like the bees have, but obviously it would be very hard to do. We still have compassion and care for one another. For example when a devastating earthquake shook Haiti, many other of the worlds countries put their personal missions on hold to help out this stricken country.

For the most part in our separate towns and cities we all work together to make the town a better place, and we do so in our states and countries as well. I admit that we hardly ever do so on a larger scale for example the world, but if we can do it in our towns and our own countries then we can work together and do it in the world. War is one of the things that stop us from doing this, because people don’t want to help out a country that they have a grudge against. However, why do we think of ourselves as separate countries? As I said we are all humans and if we looked at the world as a whole and as one entire joint community then I think we could achieve the goal of world peace.

While I do understand your reasoning, Nick, I am just wondering, what would propose be the leader of a nation if a leviathan is not made for the job?

I personally believe that all states need strict governing and that Hobbes is mostly correct in his 6 "reasons." While I don't think humans should live like ants and bees, I believe that we should try and work to have similar traits as them. With bees, as Hobbes stated, all they do is try and achieve a greater level of good with in their hive. All bees work equally together and don't try to compare themselves against anyone. As long as you are a bee, I have no problem with you so lets do something good together. However, this is impossible to achieve with humans with the rules and regulations we have on us now. While I do not think all humans should be turned into brainwashed robots who only wish to "better the hive," I believe we should break down the walls of comparison and jealousy to allow us to except our selves for who we are and to not care about what other people have. However, this task can not be completed with out some form of strict ruling. If people would stop being envious of others, and started to work for something that achieves good instead of evil, the world as we know it would be transformed into a completely different place. I am not trying to say that all humans should not have emotions, but what good does jealousy do?

Concerning Hobbes

I agree with Jersey concerning the effectiveness of the Leviathon when dealing with the idea of crime. She said that "still many people who break laws everyday" despite the laws already put into effect. It can be seen that crime can and has existed in even the most totalitarian of states, dispite the harshest of punishments. I therefore agree with her conclusion that, although Hobbes was correct about man being naturally bad, "it seems that not even a government form of Leviathan can keep people from breaking laws".

I also agree with Roan on the corruptability of the Leviathon. As easily as the everage person can cause conflict without the Leviathon over his shoulder, the powers that be which have no one controlling them "could just as easily get in quarrels with another nation". I believe it was French philosipher Micheal de Montaigne that said that "The souls of emperors and cobblers are cast in the same mould. . . . The same reason that makes us wrangle with a neighbour causes a war betwixt princes." Likewise, the same things that cause the comman man to fight would cause the ruler of the Leviathan to fight. It is not safe to entrust the fate of a nation onto a Leviathon.

The beliefs of Hobbes

I think that Olivia made a great point. If you say that Hobbes is right in the way he describes a human. Who is to say that if you have a leader with absolute power they are not going to have those natural traits of a human that Hobbes describes? They could just as easily get in quarrels with another nation, which is why I think Hobbes idea of government does not work.

There are a lot of things Hobbes said that I do not agree with. For example, if you take a look at the six reasons Hobbes states for why humans cannot live peacefully in the state of nature many of them can be seen as reasons for why our society is works for the most part and is so advanced as well. Competition can be viewed as the cause of many of our greatest achievements. Competition among us has caused many amazing inventions that make the world the place it is today. Instead of comparison being the reason for disagreements, I see it as the reason for people trying to make themselves a better person. If you compare yourself to someone else you can see your flaws and realize how to fix them. It is true that reason can cause us to think how we can perform better, but how is that a bad thing? We should always be thinking of new was that we can improve our community. None of these make people bad.

Human Nature

i do not agree with Hobbes ideas that people are naturally bad. i think people are willing to do bad things to get good out of it,which is what Machiavelli believed also, he said "the end justifies the means." and that is not always a good thing. i do not agree with this because i think all people are born good and choose to do "bad", but "bad" sometimes isnt bad in the eyes of who is doing it. it all comes down to ethics and morals, which is were Hobbes believes people have none. Hobbes says that people are born bad and will always do bad things and basically that without a strong feared leader they will not follow any rules and destroy each other. i do agree with Hobbes's idea of government though, and i liked the way Olivia compared his idea of government to her Basketball team. without a strong enforcer as a leader the people who choose to do bad will and this will cause others to start following the bad people and eventually revolt.

this is why i partially agree with Hobbes and Partially disagree

Human Nature

The way I have started to think about Hobbes's philosophy is through my basketball team. My coach would be the leader, the assistant coach her advisor, and the captains could be representatives of the players, or common people. The way Hobbes describes human nature would mean that, if my coach wasn't there, each player would be attempting to steal the ball from her own teammates to make the basket herself. The people on the bench would be running on the court trying to pull their teammates off believing they would be doing better on the court. This scenario obviously isn't happening because we have our coach (I can't really see this happening with my team, but perhaps it is a possibility in a bigger picture.) My coach creates structure and control for us. She tells us who is going on and the plays we can make. She has our free will and uses it to put us in the best position to win the game. In practice, if someone is late, we do extra sprints. In this way my coach rules with fear.

I believe the only two differences between this and an actual state is that my team and I are kids and do need someone smarter and more mature than us in charge. The second would be that the power the leader has would be on a much bigger scale. In a real state, everyone would be adults and it would be a lot harder for the leader to keep absolute power. The reason I disagree with Hobbes about one leader or group with complete control is because of current totalitarian governments. They all seem to be corrupt, creating chaos, killing people who aren't completely loyal. Also, if humans are all "dangerous", how can a leader be found that doesn't have the natural qualities Hobbes describes, and instead controls and balances the common people to create peace and structure? Its seems that it is a lot more common to have a corrupt leader with absolute power then the perfect leader Macchiavelli describes, who also would have absolute power. I definitely don't agree with Hobbes in every aspect.

Human Nature

I agree with Jersey, that some of what Hobbes is saying is worth listening to. The people need structure and cannot have power, because they will only compete. However, Hobbes does not say anything about the punishment for a broken law. So this leads me to believe that he thinks that the absolute rule of the leader, or leaders, and the fear placed upon the people will be enough. Look at our world, most of us fear the government, but there are those who still break the law. Humans never always aim for what is good even when they know the risks. People still run red lights when they are in a rush, even though they know they could endanger themselves and even endanger others. How is this different from other wrongs that people commit? He will need more than fear to keep people. He said himself that people have the ability to reason, so they reason how the outcome of the crime will benefit themselves. If they feel that the risks are worth taking than they will defy the law. Hobbes should know that he will need more than consequences to keep people at bay.

I believe that he should have analyzed peoples reasoning more than anything else. If the prize is going to benefit the individual they are more than likely to get it. I think that Hobbes has a pretty good idea about how to govern a group of people. However, I think he has lacked to comprehend the extent of peoples decision based on their desires.

Human Nature

I agree with Hobbs in all the points he made in his writing "Of Commonwealth". I must also agree with Will's point of how everyone has that sense of having a greater idea over the government, and or any other authority. I understand that based off of Hobbs's work, humans must have enforced law to function. For many people this system of government in the U.S. works, but there are still many people who break laws everyday without much concern for the consequences of their poor decision. This may fall under the idea of humans having no fear, and because of it they are not frightened by the laws put into motion. Hobbs was correct in the sense that people are bad, but in the current world it seems that not even a government form of Leviathan can keep people from breaking laws.

I believe that Hobbs had the right idea when he wrote his theory, but wrong ways of going about it. Nick you mentioned that with war our generation came up with new inventions and complexed ideas. However this was not done under free will. Leaders of the United States and leaders of our military were under strict rule. Nothing was built or done because of one mans opinion. Everything had reason and judgment behind it. If this was up to one man only, because of competion between men, mass destruction would have probably took place. A nuclear bomb could wipe our entire enemy army. Because of strict rule though, this cannot be done. This is why Hobbe's had the right idea that if men were alone with no leadership, competition would get the best of them. An absolute ruler though is the wrong way to keep people in order. If Hobbe's is true to his own theory, then he would agree that every man needs an abosulte leader. But what about the leader himself? He too is driven by competition. Putting only one man in power of all the others gives him the ability to make actions on his own will. Osama Bin Laden caused chaos because he had no one there to stop him. Rulers need to advisors with the abililty to assess the situation and make the right decsision for the community.

Human Nature

I think that Hobbes was right in many ways, but like Nick was saying I think he was wrong when it comes to competition. Competition can be seen as the reason for why we cannot peacefully coexist among each other, but it can also be seen as the reason for why we have so much technology. It can be seen as the reason for why the majority of us are not starving and that we have shelter. Competition has caused man to constantly strive for the better. Our race may have died out if it had not been for our nature to compete constantly with one another. We certainly could not have come this far with shelter and getting food and clean water to each other if it had not been for our nature to do it better then someone else. We constantly found and find new ways and stronger ways to build houses and produce food. Considering that there are over 6.8 billion people on the earth without more advanced ways of producing food and shelters caused by competition. Who knows where people would be or even if our race would still exist?

Human Nature

I agree with Hobbes point of view, people cannot coexist in one community without the control of a feared leader, or in Hobbes words, a Leviathan. Human greed and envy have always been the causes of conflicts. People tried to show that they are better than other ones, that their point of view is more accurate than other ones. The most foolish people in the community could think that they could rule over other people, make their own decisions of what is right and what is wrong. This comparison and competition between people could lead to massive consequences, such as a small conflict between the settlers of a village, to a nation wide revolution. And only a leader, or a government, which can inspire fear in the people, could keep peace and security in a community of greed, selfishness and envy. Only under the control of such a leader, different emotions, which caused conflicts, could actually benefit the state. Competition would always benefit mankind. People will compete to create new ideas, new technologies to make a better world, but again, only if their emotions are under the control of a Leviathan.

Human Nature

My view on Hobbes's philosophy is similar to those of Will's and Nick's. Where I do not agree with Hobbes is in the amount of power a leader is given. If one person or a group of persons were given absolute power, over time these leaders would become corrupt and obsessed with their power. They would no longer seek the greater good, but only what would be beneficial to themselves. For the leader to efficiently control the community, he would have to invoke fear into his people and keep his power, but avoid growing a big head.

Along with this, many of the reasons Hobbes has stated as to why humans cannot live lawlessly, for example competition or reason, can be positive characteristics. Our naturally competitive behavior will sometimes lead us to work harder and improve. With reason we can innovate and strengthen communities. Hobbes portrays these factors as purely negative, though. As humans we can only fight for power and wealth, driven by our envy, greed, and rebellion. I believe this to be an extreme definition for human nature. Something a leader must also do to keep peace in his state is balance these emotions, for then there won't be as much of a tug-of-war for power.

I believe that people should be allowed their own free will within certain necessary laws. I don't believe one person or group of persons deserves absolute power over their people or in making decisions. Common people are not incapable of participating in politics, nor are they unable to control their darker instincts when given free will. There should be more of a balance between a community being lawless and Hobbes's beliefs.

Human Nature

I also agree that people are unable to coexist in the state of nature because of their natural impulse to compete and form a “pecking order,” the envy that is developed around that pecking order and our more complex abilities than “irrational creatures.” People naturally form an order which is settled by war or great chaos, but when a leader is picked the competition goes away because an order is now given to them and structure is created. With structure, people become less hostile, due to that they no longer need to be in order to achieve success.

The envy is caused by someone else's higher position, when in the natural state. When there is a leader and structure, such as in our society people are given a fair and structured way to compete. I think that competition is not bad when it is structured. However, to have structure there must be a leader.

A leader must also be assign structure to our complex emotions to keep them at bay. Without a leader man will be at ease and without fear, so there will be nothing from stopping them from contributing to chaos and causing the state of the community to get exponentially worse as people learn that there are no consequences.

I agree that there needs to be a leader providing structure, but I also think that Hobbes was right in his thoughts of interacting with people as well.

Although Hobbes is correct in his idea that man can never be peaceful unless he is governed under an iron fist, I disagree with the idea that man should be governed with such strict ideas.

Consider the very time and conflict in which Hobbes existed and in which all great philosiphers existed. The warring city states of Aristotle, Socrates, Sun Tzu, and Machiavelli are what made them write their theories. Without the conflict that an ungoverned populace creates, these ideas of these great thinkers would have never emerged.

Consider the blade, and indeed all inventions driven forth from the existance of war. Would we have nuclear power, or rockets? It is the necessity of war that makes invention bring forth the child of invention. Without conflict, we lack a major reason to keep improving our technology.

Consider freedom, and all ideas that were once suppressed. Under the tyrannical rule thought of by Hobbes, these ideas would die. What would our world be if Christianity was snubbed out by Nero, or if King George had ended the founding fathers at the birth of their ideas? We would be without so much culture, ideas, and ideals that we would not find such a world hospitable.

Although the race of man is one best governed by law, it is the lack of governing that allows man to bring forth the fruits of his wisdom. Hobbes was right about man's nature, but not about how to interact with it.

Starting Post for Discussion

I agree with Hobbes position, because it is true that people need to be controlled and directed and not given too much availability for free thinking. When allowed to think for themselves people will decided to try and show their own wisdom, says Hobbes. This means that even the most foolish peasant in the village will believe that they can make all of the right decisions that the government is doing wrong. This is how the people challenge the government. It is a very small idea, but because of the our abilities for speech and thought people can make any half baked idea they want to about the current situation. People are also always trying to be better than their fellow people which creates challenge and competition as well. I believe that strict laws and the right government backing up this laws can create not a utopia but a state that is on its way to the highest good of being as self sufficient as possible.

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:  Will Blundo