Aristotle vs. Hobbes

[fonti]

Just interested to know what people's opinions are on this matter. Aristotle claims that man is, by nature, a "political animal" (zoon politikon), and thus the state develops teleologically and naturally, always developing towards the good whereas Hobbes claims that in nature, man is at/in a state of war, and the state develops as a contract for mutual benefit, developing away from the bad. Which view is more plausible? Discuss.

[Universal Mind]

I think Aristotle would beat his ass. Really though, I agree with both views and don't think they contradict each other. I think Hobbes' idea of a social contract is exactly what naturally develops in every culture, and I think it is part of what drives people to being political animals. The other part is a quest for personal power. So advancement results from both selfishness and compassion. Man is a part of nature, so our technological advancement is really a process in nature. Even though Aristotle says we advance "naturally", he is still talking about the results of people's deliberate actions. We are always developing toward good, though moving at it in mazes and loops, while in our constant state of war.

[Original Poster]

Hobbes is a retard. Man has been in communities since the birth of civilization and before, we started in tribes, we started working together. We may have been at war when we competed with other tribes or societies but that was more due to the fact that we were political than at a state of war.

[Roller]

The views don't contradict each other. Hobbes' belief could be simply an explanation of why humans are political animals. I think that Hobbes is probably right - humans, as animals, are always at war in the competition for food and resources. There is significant research to indicate the the main tenets of human civilisation is based upon the need for humans to cooperate and identify friends from foe.

[little nemo]

Aristotle is right in the long run, Hobbes' view only obtains from time to time. If you think about it, we are actually in a state of war very, very rarely. If it were otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it. A basic premise of Life is cooperation. Natural competition creates fluid hierarchies, not wars.

[Roller]

Aristotle is right in the long run, Hobbes' view only obtains from time to time. If you think about it, we are actually in a state of war very, very rarely. If it were otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it. A basic premise of Life is cooperation. Natural competition creates fluid hierarchies, not wars. I think it depends upon what kind of interpretation you place upon 'war'... a literal interpretation shows that life isn't all about war, but say if it were to be interpreted more as 'conflict' then I think it plays a very big part in social orginisations. Cooperation stems from competition for limited resources... it happens that through competition we achieve more certainty and stability in our competition over resources, but this cooperation is only possible with those we feel we can trust. This trust base is usually constructed around a family community, extended relatives or friends, but the basic workings of it are present in larger orginisations like nations. We tend to become patriotic because it is a way of identifying with others who are 'like' us, and xenophobic because we become highly mistrusting of others who are obviously not like us. Underneath the benefits of cooperation is the conflict of survival.

[M-Cat]

Hobbes is a retard. Man has been in communities since the birth of civilization and before, we started in tribes, we started working together. We may have been at war when we competed with other tribes or societies but that was more due to the fact that we were political than at a state of war. Make sure you know what you're talking about before you call someone a retard.

[Original Poster]

Hobbes is a retard. I studied him in class, haven't really bothered to read about him outside of class because my resulting judgment was that he didn't know what he was talking about. Feel free to prove me wrong but don't just use the "you're ignorant" approach. I already use it on Universal Mind enough as it is.

[Burned up]

Just interested to know what people's opinions are on this matter. Aristotle claims that man is, by nature, a "political animal" (zoon politikon), and thus the state develops teleologically and naturally, always developing towards the good whereas Hobbes claims that in nature, man is at/in a state of war, and the state develops as a contract for mutual benefit, developing away from the bad. Which view is more plausible? Discuss. Hobbes uses his hypothesis to justify strong central government, stating that without "the sword" we would all descend into savages. Modern libertarianism and human rights thought values individuality but of course there has to still be some kind of structure to society if we want to avoid anarchy. I'm not sure Aristotle is right either. What both ignore is the status of the individual. Bu

[M-Cat]

Hobbes is a retard. I studied him in class, haven't really bothered to read about him outside of class because my resulting judgment was that he didn't know what he was talking about. Feel free to prove me wrong but don't just use the "you're ignorant" approach. I already use it on Universal Mind enough as it is. I'm not saying he wasn't a retard. I'm just pointing out the irony of you calling some a retard. And no I didn't call you ignorant. You're just not smart. There's a difference.

[Original Poster]

A smaller person would respond to such provocation, but I'll simply act petty by openly stating that I'm not going to respond. In the future feel free to have a real debate with me, don't get me wrong flame wars are fun but they don't really get us anywhere.

[Sornaensis]

Just interested to know what people's opinions are on this matter. Aristotle claims that man is, by nature, a "political animal" (zoon politikon), and thus the state develops teleologically and naturally, always developing towards the good whereas Hobbes claims that in nature, man is at/in a state of war, and the state develops as a contract for mutual benefit, developing away from the bad. Which view is more plausible? Discuss. Man has always tried to rebel against nature. We have so, that we invented a "creator" to set us apart from all other creatures, and make them our "slaves".

[KoryB]

Have you read the entire theory, Hobbes wrote about? His argument is that men are motivated by egoism (Self Interest) and i believe this is true he argues in his writings that ALL HUMANS would resort to violence if it would bring them to what they wanted. (Kind of like American foreign affairs; anyways.) Hobbes says only enlightened, rational men seek a way out from this violence and the negative traits humans normally exhibit. He states this is why we need governments with rules and laws.