John Locke or Thomas Hobbes?

[Aurielius]

Honestly, this wasn't supposed to be a philosopher vs philosopher debate.

It was a "humans are awful" vs "humans are good" debate.

 

But whatever.

I understand the point you are making as OP and it is well taken, perhaps someone will open a thread of the comparable values of Philosophers in general? Though I picked Locke because I would like to think that there is hope for the species, it must be pointed out that the evidence to the contrary is most damming. The way you framed the question you asked for personal choice not whether we thought the balance of evidence fell within the philosophy of one or the other. I think that if you re framed the question the outcome would be quite different.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Aurielius

[SpellAndShield]

Hobbes was a paranoid nutcase, which is understandable, given the turbulent times he went through; my father is similar in this vein, but still his experiences led him to develop a rather extremist and immoral political philosophy.

[Aurielius]

Hobbes was a paranoid nutcase, which is understandable, given the turbulent times he went through; my father is similar in this vein, but still his experiences led him to develop a rather extremist and immoral political philosophy.

LOL, this bit of exposition explains so much, thank you for the insight. Though having reread all posts I have yet to see a defense of Hobbes.

[crivelli]

Honestly, this wasn't supposed to be a philosopher vs philosopher debate.

It was a "humans are awful" vs "humans are good" debate.

 

But whatever.

 

Ok - humans are social animals. They survive by co-operating. This inclines me to the "humans are good" view.

But there is an inclination for each co-operating group of humans to be hostile to other groups of humans.

If this inclination is not supressed then "humans are awful".