Talk:State of nature

This page is crap-- i second that notion. and where are the citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.105 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is crap. Hobbes was not a Christian; he was consciously fighting Christianity. Read the newly updated Thomas Hobbes page for more info on why.

Hobbes' work is very famous. His religion is irrelevant. Aksis (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I removed the warning about the page being based on Larry's text. It doesn't seem to have any of the original text left in it. -- Tim Starling 09:17, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Marx a Romantic thinker?

Surely this is a stretch of (the faculty of) the Imagination.

Hobbes's premise has plenty of critics, not all of whom would generally be considered Romantics. Will an anthropologist contribute to this otherwise uninteresting article?

Locke/Anon

An anon added some stuff I trimmed to:

John Locke further explores the state of nature in his Second Treatise on Civil Government writen in the wake of England's Glorious Revolution of 1688. Locke argued that unlimited government leads to abuses and that government should be from the people and that it should be limited so as not to violate the natural rights of people. Locke states that the entire population has the right to punish an offender so that he will not commit the crime again and so that others will be deterred from moral law breaking.

I'm not familiar with Locke, but this para doesn't appear to have a lot to do with state of nature. William M. Connolley 08:40:09, 2005-08-24 (UTC).

I have changed it. --Oddeivind 17:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

History of SON

Article states the SON was first proposed by Hobbes, but there are clear historical antecedents in Aquinas... anyone know enough about Aquinas to fix this error?

Rawls

I don't see anything in what is written here about Rawls that wasn't said earlier by Hobbes. If Rawls has anything new to say, it should be made rather clearer! William M. Connolley 23:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

I don't understand... could you elaborate? Rawls's use of the SON is completely different from Hobbes's and the article seems to make that clear. Mikker ^... 16:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the differences:

• People in the original position have no society and are under a veil of ignorance that prevents them from knowing how they may benefit from society. - just like Hobbes
• They do not know if they will be smart or dumb, rich or poor, or anything else about their fortunes and abilities - hard to interpret: but if interpreted as "they do not know what they specifically will gain", is just like Hobbes
• Rawls reasons that people in the original position would want a society where they had their basic liberties protected and where they had some economic guarantees as well. - Hobbes, though with the word "economic" added

And so on. Where is the novelty? Presumably there is some somewhere, but this article doesn't explain it. William M. Connolley 19:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Yeah, there better be novelty! Rawls isn't the most influencial political philosopher in the 20th century for nothing! As to your examples:

• The "veil of ignorance" is a device unique to Rawls - Hobbes has nothing similar. Rawls argues that to ensure fairness and equality in the original position the parties must be placed behind said "veil of ignorance" which screens out all particular information about their own position, and particular information about their society (1971: 136-142). This is done to "nullify the effects of specific contingencies which put men at odds and tempt them to exploit social and natural circumstances to their own advantage" (ibid.: 136). The intuition that animates this view is that no one deserves either to be favoured or disadvantaged as a result of their place in the distribution of primary goods. As Rawls puts it: “no one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favourable starting place in society” (ibid.: 102). To factor out arbitrary influences, the veil of ignorance excludes particular facts about the parties themselves such as their sex, race, religion, wealth, conception of the good, social status, aversion to risk, and special features of their psychology (ibid.: 136-137). Additionally, particular facts about the society the parties in the original position will inhabit is also excluded, specifically, its economic and political situation, level of culture and civilisation, and distribution of income (ibid.: 137).
• This is just the (inelagantly phrased) explanation of the above.
• I don't think Hobbes says anywhere people's 'basic liberties' are to be respected - he is far more concerned with people's basic security. Rawls simply assumes the state already exists but the "basic structure" (roughly, the constitution and economic system) is yet to be decided. I.e. Hobbes + Rawls have completely different topics in mind in their respective writings... Mikker ^... 20:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that makes things clearer. So Rawls is proposing something definitely non-realistic: obviously, people do know their sex at the very least. Whereas Hobbes isn't really definite as to whether his is a thought experiment, or how things actually might have happened. William M. Connolley 20:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Exactly. Rawls says explicitly the original position is a "hypothetical expository device" designed to encapsulate our considered judgments concerning the reasonable conditions to impose on the parties who decide the basic structure of society. Hobbes in contrast has a positive conception in mind; whether or not the state of nature as described ever existed, he thinks a war of all against all will erupt if the conditions of the SON were ever to obtain, whilst Rawls thinks it impossible for anyone to be (literally) in the original position, it is merely a thought experiment. To clarify a bit further: Hobbes asks the question "should there be a state?", and, if so, "what powers should it have and what form should it take?". Rawls tries to answer the question "what social and constitutional arrangement is just?". (i.e. in Kant's terminology, Hobbes's argument amounts to a 'hypothetical imperative' whilst Rawls's amounts to a 'categorical imperative.' Mikker ^... 21:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Continuing after a long pause, or rather not... I see we left this in apparent agreement, which is wrong; Yeah, there better be novelty! Rawls isn't the most influencial political philosopher in the 20th century for nothing! is funny; I think this article strongly over-emphasises Rawls and his value, but I can't be bothered to argue about it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The state of Nature is more then philosophical political theories, tho they do have a place in an article about the state of Nature. Aksis (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Philosophical History of SON

Article states the SON was first proposed by Hobbes, but there are clear historical antecedents in Aquinas... anyone know enough about Aquinas to fix this error?

The Facts

Don't remove the facts of what the state of Nature is. The base reality must be presented before the philosophy, or in other words, you can't put the actors on stage if their is no stage.

I didn't realise you were in a position to give orders on this page. It makes it so much easier when someone is, don't you find? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not exactly an order. You seem more concerned with the philosophy then the reality. I had preserved both. Why are you deleting the work I did without discussion?

The original article was missing the very axiom of what the state of Nature even is. Further, there is more to this topic then philosophy.

I removed the paragraph regarding the theories about "multiple universes" as it was superfluous when I restored the edit. Aksis (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:OR. Your own theories are no doubt of great interest to you, but don't belong in wiki. Please stop adding this stuff, it so obviously doesn't belong William M. Connolley (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This is *your* opinion. Further, it's an unsubstantiated opinion, based on a very disturbing lack of recognition of base reality. Do I need to provide the definitions of the words "state" and "nature" or can you manage to see you way clear on what the axiom is? I cited many sources, I can cite more and support every point if your are going to keep being obtuse about this... seems someone needed to start... Oh, and I can tell you have been reading Hobbes... Aristocrats discoursing upon the "state of Nature"??? What farce... Aksis (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The additions are obviously original research and shouldn't be included in the article per Wikipedia policy. Even though you used a few citations, your main points are uncited OR.--Bkwillwm (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In light of more citations (how many do you want?), it is obviously not original research, just your lack of research. The deletions of the work I did is not coming from a WP:NPOV, I can tell you are quite impressed with Hobbes and the philosophical perspectives. I could see such a limitation being sustained on the Hobbes et al. pages or even the State_of_nature-philosophy page.

That said, I don't see why both perspectives can't exist on this page... care to explain why you do (before you childishly delete the work I did without explanation... again)?

We've explained why we're deleting this. Even if you stick some more citations in, the problem is that the ideas that you're trying to express aren't cited; they're original. This page is focused on "State of Nature" as the term is used in philosophy. If you want to want to discuss the term in other context, you would have to show where a notable, published work uses "state of nature" in the same manner that you do. Also, please be aware of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You used the OR reason and it has been rebutted. You explanation is baseless and without merit, in fact a lie. It is obviously coming from a lack of a neutral point of view on both your parts. The solution to the desire of a strict philosophical view is to develop that page State_of_nature-philosophy seeing as how there is no intentions to develop a single page that includes all perspectives and NOT JUST the philosophy. Simply because a lack of foresight on the part of the initial author of this article and the choice to limit it to "philosophy" was made, is not binding, nor wise, nor does it present a neutral point of view. Further, you should stick to the "3 revert rule" rather then persist in vandalizing this page. I was right in the middle of adding more citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aksis (talk • contribs) 03:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The OR reason has not been rebutted. You provide no citations that show the phrase "state of nature" being used to mean what you contend. There are no citations in your first two paragraphs except for a dictionary definition of "nature," which doesn't help establish the meaning of "state of nature."--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well now, that was just me being stupid, how silly of me to present the dictionary definition of the noun constituting a 3 word "term" to establish the meaning of the term. Aksis (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you think I am "contend" that isn't being supported with cites or obvious fact?

You seem to be attempting to re-invent the Nature article. This article is about the political/philosphical concept. Oh, and I can tell you have been reading Hobbes... Aristocrats discoursing upon the "state of Nature"??? What farce... is an odd thing to say... Hobbes (a) wasn't an aristo and (b) whether or not you like his philosophy (I do, though its obviously wrong) he is well known for the concept; a SoN article that didn't extensively cover his views would be odd William M. Connolley (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll stand corrected on the "Aristocrat" comment, as England is technically a Monarchy, (tho, in light of the existence and function of Parliament, it could fit the definition of an Aristocracy, or rather, it has an Aristocratic component and members of such a society would be Aristocrats). More to the point, was, the fact that Hobbes likely never went camping or spent any time with gypsies or people living in the state of Nature (who, while not a formal society are a society and happen to make their domicile and reside in the 'state of Nature').

I am obviously NOT reinventing the Nature article. What I am doing is insisting that the base fact of what the "state of Nature" is serve as the prolepsis of the article rather then "theory" and "philosophy" based upon and regarding the fact. Don't mistake my bold editing as some kind of attack or act of disrespect. These 2 short paragraphs of the work you tried to delete were not even close to a re-invention of the Nature article, so do spare me the hyperbola:

The state of Nature, in its broadest sense, is the Universe, which is the natural state that all exists within and nothing is without.This axiom precedes any and all the political philosophies built upon it.

Within the Universe we find many naturally forming sub-states, for example, stars, planets, moons and other celestial bodies (comets, asteroids, etc..). Each of these constitute a natural state. Granted, the state of Nature of the planet Mars is quite different in many ways then Earth's state of Nature, or that of the Sun's natural state. Further, it could also be reasonably argued that a Galaxy or a Solar system also constitutes an autonomous natural state within the Universe.

Can you put the cart before the horse? I think not. The "after the fact" paragraphs you keep replacing the work I did with are just that, after the fact (and that presumes that they can even be sustained).

State of nature is a term in political philosophy used in social contract theories to describe the hypothetical condition of humanity before the state's foundation and its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.

In a broader sense, a state of nature is the condition before the rule of positive law comes into being,THIS IS FALSE:thus being a synonym of anarchy.

In some versions of social contract theory, there are no rights in the state of nature, only freedoms, and it is the contract that creates rights and obligations. In other versions the opposite occurs: the contract imposes restrictions upon individuals that curtail their natural rights.

Who ever these particular theories were initially postulated by, they need to be moved to their respective philosophy sections.

In this paragraph, after the fact, the political/philosphical concept is introduced in proper context, as opposed to baseless (lack of factual basis) theory. Save the theories for later. This paragraph encompasses the valid points of the paragraph[s] it displaced:

Many times we find the term "state of Nature" being used in a more finite sense, limited to the atmosphere of Earth and all within it, and it is in this context the term is often found being used in political philosophy and positive International_law to describe the base or absolute reality that Nation States are constituted in. As an aside, the constitution of Nation States is accomplished via what is termed, "social contract" (which is another place we find the term state of Nature being used) and there have been, and are, many theories that describe the hypothetical condition of both the formation and the life of the members of a particular Nation State after the Nation State is constituted, and further, how these fictional juristic persons called 'Nation States' and the members of them should interact with one another in the state of Nature.

The other paragraph you deleted dispelled the erroneous statement that the state of Nature is a 'state of lawlessness'; anarchy. It is not:

According to some historical theories, the state of Nature was branded as being a state of lawlessness; an anarchy. Obviously this is not true as the state of Nature has always been governed by the unwritten law or lex non scripta — all the laws which do not come under the definition of written or positive law, which is composed, principally, of the law of nature, the law of nations, the common law, and customs. Further, in this body of unwritten law we find the principle of cause and effect, which gives rise to the teachings of, for example, the Ethic of Reciprocity, Karma, or the Golden Rule and also the many customs and systems of lex scripta or written law developed based on this principle and these teachings. These customs and/or laws (and what could be rightly called the "root of the common law" due to the fact that they are common in most tribes, religions, and societies that have ever existed), are the de jure law of the state of Nature.

Aksis (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)