robeaie, jill and others of a philosophical bent

I would discuss, but my philosophicals are bent.

Brady H.

I would discuss also, but I don't want the thread to become nasty, brutish, or short!

William Haskins said:

hobbes had it right.

Click to expand...

Of course he did.

Unfortunately, most readers and so-called scholars have misunderstood Hobbes. The Hobbesian state of nature, the "war of all against all," wherein life is "nasty, brutish, and short," is not supposed to be the original state of man's existence. That is, of course, how it is most often presented (wrongly).

In actuality, Hobbes' state of nature represented that state of affairs that would exist if all authority were suddenly ripped from society, as was momentarily the case, it would seem, in New Orleans. Now some might question why this doesn't happen more often (the looting, the lawlessness, etc.); but, it really does happen quite frequently. A better question is: what are the pre-existing conditions that make such occurences most likely?

I would suggest that societies or segments thereof which lack social constraints in the form of recognized authorities outside of governments represent the existence of such conditions.

Rob

Um William, Jill and Rob are busy howling at the moon.

If we add Rob's Hobbes analysis to his Goethe quote, do we get that folks who's society has lost its order have lost their freedom? Certainly they haven't the 'freedom of the most free' -- at least in my view, if you're locked in a struggle for basic survival, you haven't any freedom at all. If your basic choice at any given moment is between fight or flight or hide and starve... are you free?

Uh-oh, am I implying that we need social constraints to be free? I didn't mean too. It's Rob's fault for having such a provocative signature.

William Haskins said:

the moon is nothing but hollywood special effects. it was filmed on a sound stage and projected into the sky by one of those big spotlights like they have at used car blowouts.

Click to expand...

Well, man, I'm disappointed then. I'm a romantic and I like to think it got there some other way.

William Haskins said:

there is, however, a great deal of altruism being displayed, which can only be seen as progress in a historical sense.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but this requires an assumption that individual acts can be positively identified as altruistic. Certainly, this is not universally true, i.e. not every act of giving is a product og altruism. Given that fact, how can we seperate each act and know what caused it? How many truly altruisitc acts (or what percentage, if you prefer) are sufficient to represent progress?

I would argue that every calamity in human history was followed by some amount of altruism. Can we actually rank them with the consequence of showing a definitive trend over time?

Rob

paprikapink said:

If we add Rob's Hobbes analysis to his Goethe quote, do we get that folks who's society has lost its order have lost their freedom? Certainly they haven't the 'freedom of the most free' -- at least in my view, if you're locked in a struggle for basic survival, you haven't any freedom at all.

Click to expand...

The two are not incompatible, in my view, though Hobbesian freedom is not what Goethe is talking about. Nonetheless, the freedom of the most free=the capibility to act with fairness and honesty, with honor. If you are forced to take food and other things for your own survival (things which you know are the property of another), can you apologize or leave a note explaining your actions?

Rob

William Haskins said:

i am saying that perhaps our standard of living, our instantaneous communication and our (relative) intelligence has created a more conducive mental state for both empathy and generosity in more people than was previously the case.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying you're wrong, but ponder these:

1) There are more people now
2) Re: Communication--we have the opportunity to know more about the actions of others now
3) Re: Standard of living--remember the "giving study." Who really gives the most? Those with the highest standard of living or not?
4) Re: Intelligence--"all philosophy is a footnote to Plato" (Whitehead)

Rob

Gotcha, but (yes, I have one, but only one...wait, that makes two) the 1840's dirt farmer has nothing in common with the 1 AD Roman bazaar peddler (or the 900 AD Byzantine weaver).

Rob

except for, if we are to believe in Hobbes for this moment, if all authority were removed in a moment, they would be on the same level.

I'm off for a few days, but this is my kind of thread. i'm all over it. hopefully i can find it then.

quite a few scholars do get Hobbes wrong, true. I think thats a consequence of how Hobbes has been brought to many contemporary scholars through more recent thinkers (!Hobhouse!) appropriating without appreciating.

its like a game of generational chinese whispers.

Altruism means different things to different people. Would you consider Robin Hood to be altruistic? Would everyone? How about a looter who risks arrest, or worst, to snatch diapers and formula for a sequestered group of friends and relatives?

NeuroFizz said:

Altruism means different things to different people. Would you consider Robin Hood to be altruistic? Would everyone? How about a looter who risks arrest, or worst, to snatch diapers and formula for a sequestered group of friends and relatives?

Click to expand...

I think william and I are talking about altruism in the sense of actions that are undertaken by one to benefit others with no regard for recognition or reward.

Subjectivism is, to me, a flawed world view. In that light, I would say this:

I think both examples you give are not altruistic because in both cases, the actions are products of personal attachments. It does not follow, however, that both are necassarily indefensible or unjustifiable; that is a different discussion.

Rob

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/opinion/04brooks.html

this article describes our decade as Hobbesian.

sarah s said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/opinion/04brooks.html

this article describes our decade as Hobbesian.

Click to expand...

Interesting, but his causal analysis is dead wrong. What created the Hobbesian character he identifies is the continued expansion of dependence on government as a replacement for personal responsibility coupled with the continued promotion of dissent as a means of creating a sense of individuality.

Rob

And, isn't that exactly what's happened? I don't use big words and I'm no intellectual, so if I speak in layman's terms, please humor me. We became lazy, self indulgent and greedy. We thought we were invisible and that our government could be relied on. It was easier that way. Now we have been forced by circumstances to see that that was all an illusion and that we have to take responsibility back, take charge of our lives. With this attitude from enough people, our government will hopefully head back in the direction of 'for the people, by the people.'

robeiae said:

Interesting, but his causal analysis is dead wrong. What created the Hobbesian character he identifies is the continued expansion of dependence on government as a replacement for personal responsibility coupled with the continued promotion of dissent as a means of creating a sense of individuality.

Rob

Click to expand...

Look out, Rob's rockin' now! Thems a lotta two dollar words.

Do I hafta read that article?

Just, I'm thinking if you're increasing your dependence on government these days, you're pretty likely to be left swinging. Or swimming. Or even sinking, to bring us back to Haskins's original prompt.