Hey guys
On my way to becoming a Philosophy major and today in class we finished reading and discussion Leviathen by Hobbes.
The prof raised the point that reproduction raises a problem for Hobbes account since he belives in the state of nature there is nothing but war and suffering.
I believe Hobbes would simply say that reproduction would be a means for the birth giver to use the child for his or her own means. Many people felt this point was problematic for Hobbes but I did not think so. What do you guys think? I know my answer is a little too simply and would like to learn more from you guys
Been a while since I read Hobbes, but I’m not sure how reproduction is a particular problem. It’s just the means by which we get more suffering warriors. I guess you’re saying he doesn’t mention it. I don’t recall that he does. What, specifically, does your prof say is the problem?
Hobbes’ state of nature is fundamentally flawed since he assumes that man exists as an individual first. Since that condition never existed, it cannot be said to have any bearing on man’s condition in the modern world either.
So, it is no great surprise that he has to contradict himself in a variety of way . . .
While Hobbes said there was a ‘state of nature’ where it is ‘every man against every man’, he also believed that it was impossible for us to every exist in a state of nature (except the sovereign, see below ). ultimately, if we somehow did enter into the ‘state of nature’ we would revert back to a contract with a sovereign and exit the state of nature. All men through the ‘fear of death’ have an ‘inclination to peace’. Even a barbaric or tyrannical ruler (btw, Hobbes didn’t see a problem with a tyrant, but it was merely a ‘matter of opinion whether a man was a tyrant or a monarch’) will treat his/her subjects better then what would occur in the ‘state of nature’. so while you say it is a ‘problem’ that he never entertained the problem of procreation in a state of nature, it is because he assumed that no one would stay in the state of nature for it to be an issue. and if they did, it is merely just some ‘rouge’ individual who would perish.
Just to add something further, despite what I just said, there is one person who remains in the state of nature, and that is the sovereign. so if you were to add the problem of ‘procreation’ in the state of nature, well…the sovereign is origin of the laws, and only bound by the state of nature. therefore, the sovereign can follow the ‘first principal cause of quarrel of war’ which is ‘to invade for gain’ (Chap. X i believe). In this sense, if he did want to procreated, then he would merely take it. the sovereign in the state of nature is bound by no laws, and through the contract to the subjects, the sovereign is the origin of law and cannot be held to a law that is created by him. which is how Hobbes arrives to the notion that the sovereign can do whatever the hell he likes.
He’s quite right. ‘You’ are a collection of organs, feelings, and sensations, each with their own drives and wants and needs and desires. You lack a soul or any cohesive element, essence, or identity. You, good sir, are a multiplicity.
Mereological reductivism is the only epistemological theory consistent with the basic facts and free of metaphysical prejudices.