<<
2007-03-23 07:30:33 · 3 answers · asked by Sir Belmont IV 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
"Poor, nasty, brutish and short." That's how Hobbes described life in the state of nature.
The problem is that he had no particular knowledge of how people behave in a natural state; instead he is describing how nascent liberal (in its correct, historical sense) individuals act when the coercive power of the state is removed -- for instance, as the result of a civil war.
2007-03-23 07:48:22 · answer #1 · answered by P. M 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
His anthropology is overly pessimistic, unrealistic and just wrong-headed. Hobbes psychological egoism begs the question or does not pursue a rigorous methodological approach. I don't think too much of Hobbes. As you read Leviathan, keep in mind the cultural context that informs that work and its politics as well as its anthropology.
2007-03-23 14:48:08 · answer #2 · answered by sokrates 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Isn't he the guy who Bill Watterson named the tiger after?
sorry. Thats all i know about him.
2007-03-23 14:33:59 · answer #3 · answered by Moonlight Rose 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋