Hobbe's assertion that mankind is dirty, short, and brutish

[GeistFaust]

I would like to ask if any man on here thinks this statement by Hobbes stand as a truth, a partial truth, or merely a fallacious understanding of humanity. I personally think Hobbes had a point the average Hoi Polloi that constitutes the majority of the masses is an educated or civilized idiot. They go through robotic movements that have been inserted and programmed into them by their bosses and supervisors whether it be in school, the family unit, at work, at church, at social gatherings.

All humans innately desire power and authority this is innate aspiration that is commonly shared by all individuals of the human community from weakest to strongest. This innate desire can only be exercised to a certain extent though by humans and thus absolute power is merely a delusional dream conconted by individual with an infantile ego. Corruption, Evil, Greed, Deceit, and a Hypocritical Spirit personifies the human race at its base. It is impossible to deny this but it is virtually something everyone wishes to deny outright. The Human race can not help orienting itself like this because it is only natural for an individual to be selfish and egotistical.

This is necessary to exist and survive and since they key impulse of humanity is survival and it is what motivates individuals onwards(unless they reach a desperate point in their life) than egotism and selfishness must be involved no matter how holy or saintly an individual might be deemed to be. In essence the ego is like a Leviathan seeking to devour all for its own gratification and its blind strivings it devours itself.

Woe is this "ego" it causes devasatation after devastation but yet humanity continues to proceed and advance despite the destruction mankind's selfishness and greed has produced. Is there anyway to escape this ego or are we eternally trapped in whether we want to admit or not hanging on to life as if we were hanging onto a string over the edge of the cliff. Life in general is indifferent to our survival and because man must do his best to fend for himself he uses what nature has innately blessed him with to gain advantages of others.


Should a fellow man worry about another fellow man who mostly likely innately has no care for this other man and only seems on the surface to care for this man. Profit and progress are the natural inclinations of the human race and there is no way to escape this inevitable claim. Man is destined and doomed to spend his days frivolously encircling himself and others to completely satisfy his will to survive but yet this constant striving will only end up in more death and destruction. Man need not just fear and be anxious of the brutish force of nature which at any second might sap the life dry of any individual without discretion but he must fear his fellow man who has thus been impressed by nature with an inclination to use brutish means to overwhelm competing forces who might try to dismay his intent to gratify his sensual desires.

[Libertas]

Did he not say that LIFE was nasty, short and brutish?

[GeistFaust]

Did he not say that LIFE was nasty, short and brutish?

I think dirty is synonomous with nasty or at least connates nastiness and life is so short and brutish for me I do not care in which particular order they go. ;)

[Eldritch]

Did he not say that LIFE was nasty, short and brutish?

Yes, and the name of the person in question was Hobbes.

[Joe McCarthy]

Hobbes said it was the nature of men to prey on each other absent the restraints of civil government. He was of course correct.

[GeistFaust]

Hobbes said it was the nature of men to prey on each other absent the restraints of civil government. He was of course correct.

But another question would be how civil is the government and how much have they preyed on their citizens before behind their backs and closed doors. I think the solution to having a government deal with the short and brutish tendency of a society lacking a government of civil institution which would ensure order and structure might backfire because even politicians can be short, brutish, and nasty and probably are more so because they don't have as many restraints on them as the average citizen. Johann Caspar Schmidt says the government calls its violence law while it calls the violence of the individual crime.

[Duckelf]

In my view, while Hobbes was a great philosopher, important criticisms of him were made by his contemporary and compatriot Sir Robert Filmer who criticises Hobbes' idea of a social contract as the basis for the authority of the state. While Hobbes was right in arguing for strong government, government is not based on an individualistic 'social contract' but rather the authority of the state arises out of the authority of societal institutions.

[Osweo]

It was "the life of the savage is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." That's how I remembered it, anyway. Inferring from this, social development has changed the life of the non-savage. Hobbes would have drawn the line between urban and non-urban ways of life I suppose.

[GeistFaust]

It was "the life of the savage is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." That's how I remembered it, anyway. Inferring from this, social development has changed the life of the non-savage. Hobbes would have drawn the line between urban and non-urban ways of life I suppose.

Yes indeed it would have been better if I pointed this out earlier and applied Hobbes' statement to a particular class but even than I would not say it was completely applicable. Nor would it be possible to apply this statement simply based on class structure because even though the rich man who lives a healthy existence in a relatively good environment with plenty of reasons to live it does not exclude that their can be savagery in the upper classes. It could be very well that they are less apt to being savage giving their social and living conditions but this does not necessarily mean they can not revert to a savage. Poorer individuals probably would be more inclined to living a solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short life because they would have to use more desperate means to survive and would have more cause for acting savagely.

[GeistFaust]

In my view, while Hobbes was a great philosopher, important criticisms of him were made by his contemporary and compatriot Sir Robert Filmer who criticises Hobbes' idea of a social contract as the basis for the authority of the state. While Hobbes was right in arguing for strong government, government is not based on an individualistic 'social contract' but rather the authority of the state arises out of the authority of societal institutions.

You look at alot of present governments and states in today's modern society and the societal institutions at times have more power than the state itself has. The state tries to place regulations on things but sometimes the members that constitute the government have some form of special interest in a particular societal institution and so they set double standards down for some people and than chaffe other people over. I think there is no individual freedom in any government and when individuals get into powerful positions in government whether through election or not they are inclined towards ruthlessness and savagery at times. Simply put alot of our supposed freedom in a society run by a civil government is nothing more than an illusion they profit off of us more than we do of them when we offer our services to them.

[Curtis24]

Some people no doubt are.

[Duckelf]

My edition of Hobbes' Leviathan (edited by C. B. Macpherson and published in 1951), has it as:

"In such condition [i.e. the state of nature or a state-less society], there is...continuous fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".


Yes indeed it would have been better if I pointed this out earlier and applied Hobbes' statement to a particular class but even than I would not say it was completely applicable. Nor would it be possible to apply this statement simply based on class structure because even though the rich man who lives a healthy existence in a relatively good environment with plenty of reasons to live it does not exclude that their can be savagery in the upper classes. It could be very well that they are less apt to being savage giving their social and living conditions but this does not necessarily mean they can not revert to a savage. Poorer individuals probably would be more inclined to living a solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short life because they would have to use more desperate means to survive and would have more cause for acting savagely.
It is has nothing to do with different classes in society. He is describing what life would be like in a society without any state or government, a 'state of nature'. It is also precisely the point that in a state of nature, no classes could really exist as they would be no form of property law and a man would only have what resources he keep hold of by force.

[Curtis24]

Actually, Hobbe's was wrong. The problem is not that people are too selfish and ego-driven. The real problem is that most people, at least white people, are too sheepish and submissive. This is why most are so easily exploited by the few who are genuinely ego-driven.

Think about it: in our society, whites have been brainwashed into giving taxes to enrich a small minority; sacrificing their reproductive opportunities; and spending time and energy caring for resentful and hostile racial minorities. We could stand to be a little more selfish and ego-driven IMO...

[Kadu]

Hobbes said it was the nature of men to prey on each other absent the restraints of civil government. He was of course correct.


He had yet to write that man lives in society, for which to operate demands at the very least a certain level of commitment with his peers, in other words a social contract regulated by the sovereign, sovereign being the people, the whole population who are no less than the representatives of the general will, which can only be put in action through a civil government appointed by the sovereign.

[GeistFaust]

My edition of Hobbes' Leviathan (edited by C. B. Macpherson and published in 1951), has it as:

"In such condition [i.e. the state of nature or a state-less society], there is...continuous fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".


It is has nothing to do with different classes in society. He is describing what life would be like in a society without any state or government, a 'state of nature'. It is also precisely the point that in a state of nature, no classes could really exist as they would be no form of property law and a man would only have what resources he keep hold of by force.

Yes but I think class structures would still hold onto their base form even in a society without a civil government. Even hunter gatherer societies and weakly organized tribal units had their own class structure some of which was imposed by the innate laws of nature. A State or Government helps define class structures and draws more lines than a society that lacked a civil government but yet there would always be some individuals regardless of whether it was within the confines of a civil government or not who would act who would conquer another group of people.

[GeistFaust]

He had yet to write that man lives in society, for which to operate demands at the very least a certain level of commitment with his peers, in other words a social contract regulated by the sovereign, sovereign being the people, the whole population who are no less than the representatives of the general will, which can only be put in action through a civil government appointed by the sovereign.

I think that the social contract written by Hobbes was just another way of giving too much power over to the government and causing the masses to depend to heavily on the government for their existence. In turn life is becoming short, brutish, and nasty due to the fact too many people depend on the government and are always desperate for them to intervene for impoverish or depraved individuals.

I think a good social system would be one that is based off a tribalism of sorts each community has its own chief of sorts yet this chief merely acts as an overlooker of public affairs both inside and outside of his community. I think that everyone in this community with a rational mind should make deals and pacts with each based on certain ideals which the community tries to advocate as a whole.

This way the community is able to act as the civil government of sorts and is able to control its own course of action without public intervention just will be intervene by someone who they elect to be their monarch usually a well respected and knowledgable individual who has been with the community for a while. I am in favor of the states, regions, and cities imposing more control than big government.