Were we better off in a state of nature?

How credible was the concept of the Noble Savage?

The thing is that society is constantly changing. How can we create a stable society within such a dynamic world culture? We need an ideal as a North Star. An ideal does not depend upon what is or what was but upon what we want or what we need—hopefully that are similar.

I think that Socrates may very well be the first person to recognize what we need. Socrates recognized that the basic need was for wo/men to awaken their critical faculties. Socrates was perhaps the first to recognize that humans are too easily delighted by the praise of their fellows and that this sought after social recognition prevented their free and enlighten action. Humans need to share in a shared social fiction. The anxiety of self-discovery is a constant source of internal conflict for humans.

It appears that human play forms “may even outwit human adaptation itself”. The created fiction becomes more real than reality itself. New humans enter this world and immediately begin the process of survival which becomes “a struggle with the ideas one has inherited”. This fiction reality destroys our rational adaptive process which can react to the real world; we are too busy reacting to our fictional play.

Is it appropriate to say that the Amish might be considered to be the modern Noble Savage?

Is it possible that we could study the Amish as a means for creating a better society?

The Amish are merely operating on a different set of "inherited ideas."
Not necessarily "natural."

To me, natural for humans is to take what you want or need. Defeat that which is in your way. Anything else is inherited ideas brought about by social standards for villiage living.

There's a little more to it than that. Required reading on this topic is Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel.

I think that if Americans were to become significantly more intellectually sophisticated we might be in a position to decide upon a suitable North Star together. I also think that if we did become more sophisticated we might recognize that we are eating our planet.

Oh, we already recognize it, coberst, we just can't reverse ourselves that easily. If you're looking for all of humanity to suddenly "wake up" and start changing their habits overnight, you're even more naive than I thought.

I don't really buy into the concept of "Noble Savage".

We humans have the brains to be much more than we are. The question is why are we not bettter than we are? I conclude that we lack the courage to be self-reliant. Do you have an answer?

We humans have the brains to be much more than we are. The question is why are we not bettter than we are? I conclude that we lack the courage to be self-reliant. Do you have an answer?

Self-motivation varies from individual to individual.
Low motivation seems to gravitate to the path of least resistance.

It seems that en-mass motivation must occur before positive change is possible.
The igniting process for this motivation to change is first in the formula.

We humans have the brains to be much more than we are. The question is why are we not bettter than we are? I conclude that we lack the courage to be self-reliant. Do you have an answer?
Mental Inertia. We lack the ability to overcome it, except in rare cases.

Bill Moyer has a video wherein he discusses the book “Amish Grace” that you might find to be very interesting regarding the Amish response to their tragedy. Compare that Amish response to their tragedy and the response of America to our 9/11 tragedy.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10052007/watch4.html

Were we better off in a state of nature?

How credible was the concept of the Noble Savage?

The thing is that society is constantly changing. How can we create a stable society within such a dynamic world culture? We need an ideal as a North Star. An ideal does not depend upon what is or what was but upon what we want or what we need—hopefully that are similar.

I think that Socrates may very well be the first person to recognize what we need. Socrates recognized that the basic need was for wo/men to awaken their critical faculties. Socrates was perhaps the first to recognize that humans are too easily delighted by the praise of their fellows and that this sought after social recognition prevented their free and enlighten action. Humans need to share in a shared social fiction. The anxiety of self-discovery is a constant source of internal conflict for humans.

It appears that human play forms “may even outwit human adaptation itself”. The created fiction becomes more real than reality itself. New humans enter this world and immediately begin the process of survival which becomes “a struggle with the ideas one has inherited”. This fiction reality destroys our rational adaptive process which can react to the real world; we are too busy reacting to our fictional play.

Is it appropriate to say that the Amish might be considered to be the modern Noble Savage?

Is it possible that we could study the Amish as a means for creating a better society?

Coberst you are fun and really intertaining :) ! At least you are willing to run the risk of starting a new topic/thread.

Your concept was actually created by the intellectuals in London, back in the early eighteen hundreds, those folks never actually had a look at the real world.

If you would like to study real reality, you should go back and study the German Philosophers. Now those boys understood nature. There ain't no Hillary in their philosophy. It is the survival of the fittest. The question is, "Is it God or Satan, that is the fittest?" And by the way there is this: "Positive family groups working as a team have a higher survival rate that any other family group." :) They do you Know.

And we can play a bunch of versions of this one :) if anybody would like too :) I don't mind. Coberst you are running standard "drivel" (Somebody on this messageboard hates it when I say "Dribble". But at the same time, there is some kind of "Drool" coming off your chin :) ,at least my version of reality :) Which Coberst you are welcome to play with, I don't mind.).
tuck

All animals, except humans, live in a total state of nature. All animals, except humans, are guided totally by instinct. Civilization is a mark of this transition from instinct to ego domination of behavior.

Check out my old thread (http://allforums.net/showthread.php?t=23560), there might be some relatedness between this post and that one.

All animals, except humans, live in a total state of nature. All animals, except humans, are guided totally by instinct. Civilization is a mark of this transition from instinct to ego domination of behavior.

:) tucky squeeks out one smile.

Innerstink is just the to get you started. Coberst, if civilization was the mark of this transition from instinct to ego domination of behavior, then you would be a God and we wouldn't be having this really "high Tech." conversation.

Nappy is an example of ego dominant and there is "no" civilization attached to his reality. And maybe in his case a bit of instinct would be productive in a civilized sense.

Coberest explain to me what you don't understand about what I just said and I will fine tune things for you. No problem.

A tuck and one more :)

Check out my old thread (http://allforums.net/showthread.php?t=23560), there might be some relatedness between this post and that one.

I despise contradictions.

Son, you are way too much fun! Obviously zip for creativity :) Create a reality and just for fun I will create "contradictions" that you will never solve :)

I love logic! And am pretty gifted at it. Solved logic is the woman that you have already porked. The fun is in the challenge :)

Throw me some lodgic my dear one and lets kick it around. Just for fun.

tuck

Son, you are way too much fun! Obviously zip for creativity :) Create a reality and just for fun I will create "contradictions" that you will never solve :)

I love logic! And am pretty gifted at it. Solved logic is the woman that you have already porked. The fun is in the challenge :)

Throw me some lodgic my dear one and lets kick it around. Just for fun.

tuck
Sorry but I have had you mentally on "Ignore" for quite a while now. That's not about to change.

Just fyi when I say I despise contradictions I mean by in people's arguments. Naturally and logically inherent paradoxes are actually fascinating to me and are a field I have immense interest in.

:) tucky squeeks out one smile.

Innerstink is just the to get you started. Coberst, if civilization was the mark of this transition from instinct to ego domination of behavior, then you would be a God and we wouldn't be having this really "high Tech." conversation.

Nappy is an example of ego dominant and there is "no" civilization attached to his reality. And maybe in his case a bit of instinct would be productive in a civilized sense.

Coberest explain to me what you don't understand about what I just said and I will fine tune things for you. No problem.

A tuck and one more :)

My statement says that I consider a creature is living in a total state of nature when that creature is controlled by its nature and its instincts. Humans have an ego which stands in the way of instinctive behavior for humans. Animals other than humans do not have an ego. The more effect the ego has on human behavior the more civilized we become and the further removed from nature.

Instincts are the emotions that an animal is born with. Animals are hardwired with certain automatic control reactions. These emotions, i.e. these instincts cause the deer to run and the lion to fight.

Ego says, HOLD IT, TIME OUT!

The ego is our command center; it is the “internal gyroscope” and creator of time for the human. It controls the individual; especially it controls individual’s response to the external environment. It keeps the individual independent from the environment by giving the individual time to think before acting. It is the device that other animal do not have and thus they instinctively respond immediately to the world.

The id is our animal self. It is the human without the ego control center. The id is reactive life and the ego changes that reactive life into delayed thoughtful life. The ego is also the timer that provides us with a sense of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. By doing so it makes us into philosophical beings conscious of our self as being separate from the ‘other’ and placed in a river of time with a terminal point—death. This time creation allows us to become creatures responding to symbolic reality that we alone create.

As a result of the id there is a “me” to which everything has a focus of being. The most important job the ego has is to control anxiety that paradoxically the ego has created. With a sense of time there comes a sense of termination and with this sense of death comes anxiety that the ego embraces and gives the “me” time to consider how not to have to encounter anxiety.

Evidence indicates that there is an “intrinsic symbolic process” is some primates. Such animals may be able to create in memory other events that are not presently going on. “But intrinsic symbolization is not enough. In order to become a social act, the symbol must be joined to some extrinsic mode; there must exist an external graphic mode to convey what the individual has to express…but it also shows how separate are the worlds we live in, unless we join our inner apprehensions to those of others by means of socially agreed symbols.”

“What they needed for a true ego was a symbolic rallying point, a personal and social symbol—an “I”, in order to thoroughly unjumble himself from his world the animal must have a precise designation of himself. The “I”, in a word, has to take shape linguistically…the self (or ego) is largely a verbal edifice…The ego thus builds up a world in which it can act with equanimity, largely by naming names.” The primate may have a brain large enough for “me” but it must go a step further that requires linguistic ability that permits an “I” that can develop controlled symbols with “which to put some distance between him and immediate internal and external experience.”

I conclude from this that many primates have the brain that is large enough to be human but in the process of evolution the biological apparatus that makes speech possible was the catalyst that led to the modern human species. The ability to emit more sophisticated sounds was the stepping stone to the evolution of wo/man. This ability to control the vocal sounds promoted the development of the human brain.

Ideas and quotes from “Birth and Death of Meaning”—Ernest Becker

Sorry but I have had you mentally on "Ignore" for quite a while now. That's not about to change.

Just fyi when I say I despise contradictions I mean by in people's arguments. Naturally and logically inherent paradoxes are actually fascinating to me and are a field I have immense interest in.

Son, you are the judge! Wecome to messageboard reality! You are the "62 fastest gun in the west" looking for number "63".

Dio, if you had had any kind of higher source of education from any reputable college or U, you would have told me to go study begining "Geometry" :) You would have you know :) I got an "A" in it! Several times.

Anyway Dio, thank you for participating in this topic. We will have to slow down for you at this point and have high hopes for you the future. :)

tuck

My statement says that I consider a creature is living in a total state of nature when that creature is controlled by its nature and its instincts. Humans have an ego which stands in the way of instinctive behavior for humans.

My point Coberest, is that you are one of those animals and what gives you the right to think you are human?

Animals other than humans do not have an ego.

You are wrong Coberst. All warmblooded animals are self aware. And historically speaking, they all get more civilized if you neuter them.

The more effect the ego has on human behavior the more civilized we become and the further removed from nature.

Coberst you are running city boy stuff. You have never gone out and lived with Nature and looked at it "eye to eye". What makes us different than the animals is that we can take a high powered rifle and dump the suckers. Coberst if you would like to study the ego of man, then take away law inforcement in your city and watch what happens. You are going to be dealing with animals that are really smart and they have high powered rifles too! Zip for civilization :)

tuck

Tuck

My mother told me I was a human and the nuns agreed.

All warm blooded animals may be self aware, but I do not think so, but I am speaking about self-consciousness.

I live in the mountains among the birds, bees, bob cats, deer, bears, and an occasional skunk.

Tuck

My mother told me I was a human and the nuns agreed.

All warm blooded animals may be self aware, but I do not think so, but I am speaking about self-consciousness.

I live in the mountains among the birds, bees, bob cats, deer, bears, and an occasional skunk.

Coberst :) I am not questioning you as a human being or an animal. You would not be on the internet if you were no at least one of those two.

And you are allowed to think what ever you want to, I live in America. And I respect my countries way of doing things.

So ok you live in the mountains. Cool! Does that make you knowledgeable when it comes to mankind/humans? And If you have actually spent some time in the mountains you would have a better understanding of nature (one on one with nature does that to you). Something about what you are saying here is not right.

Coberst the stuff that you come up with is not based on experience. It is based on somebody wrote a book and you read it. And now you want us to believe the book, just because you read it. And you constantly complain to us that nobody trusts an intellectual.

tuck

Coberst it is not that you are not smart, because you actually are smart. And it is not that you are not a good person, because you are a good person. And it is not that you don't want to help humankind and this dinky planet that we all live in, because you actually do!

It is just that things are not as simple as you think that they are (or at least seem to be claiming they are). The line between animals and humans is damn thin. Civilization is not based on "ego", it is based on you get thumped if you threaten it :) . No other reason. Nature has also learned that you get thumped if you pester or threaten humankind. It is survival of the fittest, we are the fittest. The next question is, "Can we still be humane and compassionate?" We do not know that one yet. There are still too many animals in humankind.

tuck

My point Coberest, is that you are one of those animals and what gives you the right to think you are human?



You are wrong Coberst. All warmblooded animals are self aware. And historically speaking, they all get more civilized if you neuter them.



Coberst you are running city boy stuff. You have never gone out and lived with Nature and looked at it "eye to eye". What makes us different than the animals is that we can take a high powered rifle and dump the suckers. Coberst if you would like to study the ego of man, then take away law inforcement in your city and watch what happens. You are going to be dealing with animals that are really smart and they have high powered rifles too! Zip for civilization :)

tuck

It is our ability to reason, our ability to distinguish good from bad, the latter depending on perspective, that make us human beings. This as well as our genetic make up.

If you take away the law enforcement in a city, then people will adapt to their circumstance. Sure looting, raping, murder, etc. will occur, but sooner or later people will re-organize and continue with a more stable life. What do you suppose will happen, humans are going to wipe each other out?

It is our ability to reason, our ability to distinguish good from bad, the latter depending on perspective, that make us human beings. This as well as our genetic make up.

If you take away the law enforcement in a city, then people will adapt to their circumstance. Sure looting, raping, murder, etc. will occur, but sooner or later people will re-organize and continue with a more stable life. What do you suppose will happen, humans are going to wipe each other out?

Before we get started Raju :) Please let me welcome you to this topic! And it is nice to meet you!

The thing is that not all people are animals. They just are not. There are people that are animals and these folks are a challenge to those of us that would rather not be animals. At this point mankind/humankind is dealling with different levels of "primitive" relative to a civilized community reality and have been dealing with this for quite sometime.

Am I animal? Yes. Would I rather not be? Yes. Do I feel compassion for folks that do not want to be trained in hand to hand combat just to have a life? Yes I do. Do I understand the animals? Yes I do, because I am one. Do I understand those that are not animals? Yes I do, because I think that they are right.

Coberst is constantly trying to create a "black and white" reality. Things are not black and white. Things are actually very complicated.

Ruja, you are a good person and and intelligent person. I can feel it when you post. I would love to talk to you about anything that you would like to talk about. Because no matter what it is, I am going to learn something from it and be a better person because of you.

Anyway, wecome!

tuck

Thank you for the welcoming Tucker58, I look forward to talking with you as well.

Coberst, in my understanding, is trying to find meaning in this disarray we call the world and to find out solutions to create a more "utopistic" world. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, a utopia might not be possible, but should we not all strive for it and come as close as possible.
This is a thread in a thread but, I've always been intrigued by how only humans have art, which is nothing more than aesthetically pleasing to the eyes and ears. Is this true or not, can other animals or do other animals do the same?

Coberst it is not that you are not smart, because you actually are smart. And it is not that you are not a good person, because you are a good person. And it is not that you don't want to help humankind and this dinky planet that we all live in, because you actually do!

It is just that things are not as simple as you think that they are (or at least seem to be claiming they are). The line between animals and humans is damn thin. Civilization is not based on "ego", it is based on you get thumped if you threaten it :) . No other reason. Nature has also learned that you get thumped if you pester or threaten humankind. It is survival of the fittest, we are the fittest. The next question is, "Can we still be humane and compassionate?" We do not know that one yet. There are still too many animals in humankind.

tuck

I would rather not have to say this tuck but---you are wrong.

It is our ability to reason, our ability to distinguish good from bad, the latter depending on perspective, that make us human beings. This as well as our genetic make up.

If you take away the law enforcement in a city, then people will adapt to their circumstance. Sure looting, raping, murder, etc. will occur, but sooner or later people will re-organize and continue with a more stable life. What do you suppose will happen, humans are going to wipe each other out?

We no longer need to kill one another one at a time face to face. We have the technology to do it without even realizing it.

Thank you for the welcoming Tucker58, I look forward to talking with you as well.

Is this true or not, can other animals or do other animals do the same?

Some is true some is not true. Your idea of art is wrong. You have not been reading my posts or you have not comprehend what you have read. I am asking for people to become more intellectually sophisticated, that is not an ideal that I consider to be utopian.

I would rather not have to say this tuck but---you are wrong.

Coberst, I will bet that you would rather not say that :)

tuck

PS: Thank you for being social about it! You are a non animal that does not know about animals. One has to give you a "hug" about that one! tuck

Some is true some is not true. Your idea of art is wrong. You have not been reading my posts or you have not comprehend what you have read. I am asking for people to become more intellectually sophisticated, that is not an ideal that I consider to be utopian.

Ok, I am butting in and all concerned "HAS" permission to ignore me! No problema.

Coberst the intellectual sophistication that you are asking people to become, will result in the extinction of humankind.

They tried it in Russia and it didn't work. So I ask you, "Why did it not work?"

Why did welfare in the US of A as a gift from Presedent Johnson have to be revamped? We older people paid for our social security and it was solvent. And Johnson spent it on the Vietnam war and the poor. Our social security is no more. Congress took it away from us using your philosophy. And now you live in the mountains because it is safe. The rest of us can not go live in the mountains. You are an intellectual son, and the reason why intellectuals are scary to the rest of us.

Coberst you are "well off", otherwise you would be living in the "Hood", and your whole concept of reality would be different :)

tuck

tuck

I have been living in the nountains for less than 7 years. I have been forming my views for much longer than that. However, I must admit to a strong sense of misanthrophicism (if that is a word).

I have decided that the best thing that could happen for every creature alive would be if suddenly all human eggs in all human females were to become sterile. Thus humans would slowly disappear from the planet and the planet could live happily ever after.

tuck

I have been living in the nountains for less than 7 years. I have been forming my views for much longer than that. However, I must admit to a strong sense of misanthrophicism (if that is a word).

I have decided that the best thing that could happen for every creature alive would be if suddenly all human eggs in all human females were to become sterile. Thus humans would slowly disappear from the planet and the planet could live happily ever after.

I love you Coberst! And I say that honestly!

Believe it or not but your wishes that you stated above are actually quite wide spread, relative to others agreeing with you. And it wouldn't bother me if that happened :)

I watched my wetlands die and my small farm die. The gravel mining pit that my big business neighbor created and is still creating, cut my irrigation ditch, cut the spring fed stream that ran through the place, and lowered my water table 5 feet. I got to watch everything die over a ten year period and now everything is dead. I shead alot of heart broken tears over it. Everything he did was illegal, but he is a god in my community and I am a nobody.

Coberst, I am happy that someone like you who feels for Nature, gets to live in the mountains and have the Nature experience. I grew up in the mountains, hiking the open spaces, the thickets, the forests, and fishing streams so clean you could drink out of them. Living things everywhere. Some of them would even eat you :) you did have to watch out for those ones. :)

From now on Coberst when I think of "Coberst", there will be a picture of him as Grizzy Adams in my minds eye.

I am starting to cry, I have to go compose myself.

tuck

Were we better off in a state of nature?

Depends on how you view the state of nature. Rousseau was in love with anarchy, yet even he didn't think it was possible - he also believed that competition arose when one human met another which leads directly to physical competition and eventually war. Hobbes predicted that in the state of nature we would constantly be at war with one another. Locke believed that people pity one another and are nice to each other, but that we need a state to enforce laws.

(I just took a course on Classical Political Economic Thinkers if you can't tell)

Tell me how you would define the state of nature, I'd love to discuss it.

Is it appropriate to say that the Amish might be considered to be the modern Noble Savage?
I don't think so. The Amish simply live without technology, but they still have a hierarchy and laws which they follow. I highly doubt that they don't have fights or disputes in their society.

tuck

I have been living in the nountains for less than 7 years. I have been forming my views for much longer than that. However, I must admit to a strong sense of misanthrophicism (if that is a word).

I have decided that the best thing that could happen for every creature alive would be if suddenly all human eggs in all human females were to become sterile. Thus humans would slowly disappear from the planet and the planet could live happily ever after.

Odd that you are saying humans disappearing is what is best for the planet by using a good/evil palate which is created by society. Kind of ironic.

What is 'good' for the planet? What is 'good' for a life form? Aren't humans alive too?

Tell me how you would define the state of nature, I'd love to discuss it."Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."

~ Thomas Hobbes [Leviathan, 1651]

Sedan, that's Hobbes' view of man in the state of nature, but I think he viewed the state of nature as simply the absence of a state or other central power.

Ok Mr. Coberst tears are over. And things are up and running :)

Mr. Coberst what you have as a "backwoods boy" are two gifts, "An internet connection; and you are a registered user on All Forums.net (your connection to the world! At least a place to study the world :) Everybody is here!)."

Mr. Coberst, humankind had a chance to destroy itself and didn't. One would begin to expect that humankind is not going away. So my loved one :) , "How are you going to use your two gifts to create a better world for Nature and Humankind, even though you and others like you, are not very happy with humankind?"

I ask this because it is my challenge also. Mr. Coberst, I not only agree with you, but I also live in your world. And I am being honest about that! To me what you are attemping to do, is serious, in a positive way.

tuck

Sedan, that's Hobbes' view of man in the state of nature, but I think he viewed the state of nature as simply the absence of a state or other central power.

Wind you have 2938 posts! I just made senior member :) barely! With a little over 500 posts.

Wind, welcome to this humble topic! All Forums.net exists as a gift to the world because of ones like you. Thank you for keeping All Forums.net alive!

Just for the record, I do apologize for me. But at the sametime, I do love All Forums.net as a gift to this planet that we all live on.

tuck

Sedan, that's Hobbes' view of man in the state of nature, but I think he viewed the state of nature as simply the absence of a state or other central power.The concept of a state of nature was posited by the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Hobbes described the concept in the Latin phrase bellum omnium contra omnes, meaning "the war of all against all." In this state any person has a natural right to do anything to preserve their own liberty or safety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature

I think "war of all against all" implies more than just an absence of central power. It assumes men will aggressively act upon one another. This is more realistic than, say, the Marxist utopia, where the state has "withered away" and we all live happily ever after.

The concept of a state of nature was posited by the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Hobbes described the concept in the Latin phrase bellum omnium contra omnes, meaning "the war of all against all." In this state any person has a natural right to do anything to preserve their own liberty or safety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature

I think "war of all against all" implies more than just an absence of central power. It assumes men will aggressively act upon one another. This is more realistic than, say, the Marxist utopia, where the state has "withered away" and we all live happily ever after.

Sedan :) That was totally to cool!

tuck

The concept of a state of nature was posited by the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Hobbes described the concept in the Latin phrase bellum omnium contra omnes, meaning "the war of all against all." In this state any person has a natural right to do anything to preserve their own liberty or safety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature

I think "war of all against all" implies more than just an absence of central power. It assumes men will aggressively act upon one another. This is more realistic than, say, the Marxist utopia, where the state has "withered away" and we all live happily ever after.

Oh shit Sedan! You have 3177 posts. Where are these old people coming from! EeK! Argg! One of those things!? The ancient ones are at play in the middle of us young foks!

Sedan, it is weird me just making senior on this message board and I am just a child :) I suppose that I will have to work on my "cockyness" :)

tuck

Sedan, I think we're pretty much in agreement. Hobbes tells us how humans act in a state of nature, which is man in the state of nature. However the state of nature itself is simply the condition before a central power and laws were constructed. How man acts in that state is Hobbes' view of natural man, not his definition of the state of nature.

Hobbes tells us how humans act in a state of nature, which is man in the state of nature. However the state of nature itself is simply the condition before a central power and laws were constructed. How man acts in that state is Hobbes' view of natural man, not his definition of the state of nature.I'm not sure why you think this point is worth arguing, but the Hobbesian concept of a natural state is an inherently anthropocentric one. Hobbes himself does not use the phrase "state of nature" but rather the "natural condition of mankind" to describe it.

Ok Mr. Coberst tears are over. And things are up and running :)

Mr. Coberst what you have as a "backwoods boy" are two gifts, "An internet connection; and you are a registered user on All Forums.net (your connection to the world! At least a place to study the world :) Everybody is here!)."

Mr. Coberst, humankind had a chance to destroy itself and didn't. One would begin to expect that humankind is not going away. So my loved one :) , "How are you going to use your two gifts to create a better world for Nature and Humankind, even though you and others like you, are not very happy with humankind?"

I ask this because it is my challenge also. Mr. Coberst, I not only agree with you, but I also live in your world. And I am being honest about that! To me what you are attemping to do, is serious, in a positive way.

tuck

I shall pray at night that tomorrow all of the human eggs carried by all human females become sterile and then within a hundred years there will be no more humans to infest this wonderful earth.

I shall pray at night that tomorrow all of the human eggs carried by all human females become sterile and then within a hundred years there will be no more humans to infest this wonderful earth.

Why stop there? Why not pray that all life dies off. Then this wonderful earth would not be desecrated by all these damn infesting lifeforms.

Sedan, I think we're pretty much in agreement. Hobbes tells us how humans act in a state of nature, which is man in the state of nature. However the state of nature itself is simply the condition before a central power and laws were constructed. How man acts in that state is Hobbes' view of natural man, not his definition of the state of nature.

Cool Wind! Hey Hobbes :) what do you think ? :)

tuck

I'm not sure why you think this point is worth arguing, but the Hobbesian concept of a natural state is an inherently anthropocentric one. Hobbes himself does not use the phrase "state of nature" but rather the "natural condition of mankind" to describe it.

I love you guys :) and that is honest. And now we know why All Forums has lasted as long as it has :) You guys do anchor reality in an awesome way :)

just tuck

Why stop there? Why not pray that all life dies off. Then this wonderful earth would not be desecrated by all these damn infesting lifeforms.

WindWip you have beat me to my point :) !

Nature is cruel, very cruel! If we as humane folks want to save everybody some pain, we should sterilize this planet that we all live on. Humankind at its worst is actually just Nature. The fact that some of us humans care is actually unnatural.

Hobbes is afraid of Humans. But at the sametime he should walk out into his mountains with a stick and a rock and try to live with Nature. :) He hasn't even met Nature yet.

I have done it and I am still sort of doing it. I love what humankind has done relative to civilization. I can go to the denist and get oral surgery mostly pain free :) to me that is totally too cool! I feel sorry for the animals that can't, both human and not human. All animals and humans should have medical insurance because we pay for it, because we care!

tuck