Describe a more correct theory of human nature

So you never read Hobbes.

John Locke's Human Contrast Theory.

...

pix or it didnt happen

I'd say my theory is better, but you'd actually had to talk to me for a while to really get it all understood. And that's not likely on Veeky Forums.

Suffice it to say, you can't do a one way analysis of human nature, it's too complex to be reduced to simply having rules to avoid brutality and nature.

Hobbes completely fails to account for any sympathy whatsoever.

its hysterical--on par with psychological egoism

>OH SHIT, OH SHIT, ECONOMIC MODERNIZATION, SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS, SOCIAL MOBILITY!
>the basis of human nature is one of conflict, a war of man against man
>solution: authoritarianism
>monarchy saved*

a true Briton, but not very based

there's not human nature, lol

Hobbs copped it from this guido, but his works were never translated from the original italian

these are good though
amazon.com/Venetian-Phoenix-English-Friends-1606-1700/dp/0700601082

amazon.com/Paolo-Sarpi-Between-Renaissance-Enlightenment/dp/0521892341/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1463764288&sr=1-1&keywords=paolo sarpi

Marxism

...

>ECONOMIC MODERNIZATION

What does that even mean?

>SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS
>Using 'progress' unironically

>SOCIAL MOBILITY
>Implying this is good

Fun fact, as expounded by Evola; the rise of social mobility was what made the French Revolution possible, inevitable and so infamous in its brutality. Why? Because prior to this, people knew their place in society and were subconsciously aware of what a folly it was to rebel against it; never mind aspire to go beyond it.

When you had Enlightenment idealists telling them otherwise, you had a recipe for disaster; the revolutionaries, as a consequence, would not simply have stopped upon having their legitimate grievances resolved. They would have went on and on, demanding more and killing more without ever being satisfied; and they did, until they could no longer.

>Scientifi

Sympathy is conditioned, not innate. Look at children, they have consideration or empathy for others. Egoism is a natural state, sympathy is conditioned by the herd. A person raised outside the herd behaves contrary to sympathy.

they have no*

>Egoism is a natural state

Hey, wanna join my union?

Buying into Evola's idealism this hard.

Social mobility was flowering before the enlightenment. France and Rngland were both growing a certain level of social flexibility, which was itself growing out of a deepening addiction to technological exploitation.

>human nature

hmmmmmmmmmmm

>AIDs

Hm...

Every single person who came after him besides Montesquieu gave a better account of it. Locke and then Rousseau. Obviously contemporarily we are pretty far past all of that.

Using children as an example of conditioned sympathy is retarded. The brain of a child isn't fully functional. I suppose that because babies don't communicate with language humans don't have innate language acquisition?

Horrible example. Also dubious. Have you ever seen a child cry while watching Bambi? To suggest children are incapable of sympathy is founded in nothing but, im assuming, your opinion/anecdotal evidence.

no one has read rousseau's social contract?

I didn't sign shit.

I should, I love his other writings.

But you've lived decades acting under an implicit contract getting all of the benefits , and having many opportunities to back out, but you did not. By adhering and living in accord with that contract, is a much more powerful contract that something that is simply signed.

You agree to the contract by your actions.

>Implicit

Last refuge of the presumptuous.

You implicitly agree to suck my dick by posting here.

We are evil but best off completely free and in tune with nature.

>he fell for the egalitarian """"equality"""" meme

>The brain of a child isn't fully functional.
Of course it is. I suppose you think a computer without Photoshop installed is also "not fully functional"?

>I suppose that because babies don't communicate with language humans don't have innate language acquisition?
Exactly. Humans don't have 'innate language acquisition' that is functionally different from acquisitions of all other human cognitive tasks

No it isn't...

Stay buttmad kiddo, I know it must be tough not lashing out when you lack the cogntive prowess to mount a cogent response.

Respond again, get rekt again.

Wow, you are a complete retard whose understanding of Hobbes clearly comes solely from the post you quoted.

Hobbes didn't like social mobility and in fact considered it an impetus for discordance like your pal Evola, you don't know whom you're disagreeing with

not him but he rekt you
stop posting

Implicit is by definition, something unsaid; interpreting things like deference from actions alone is sheer presumption.

I wasn't arguing Hobbes, but social mobility.

See above. If he agreed then he's smart, however.

He's response is the current thought of modern thought. Everyone has dropped the whole "social contract" bs. Not even egalitarians spout that bs anymore.
Also
>implicit
Lol. You implicitly agreed to pegging by reasing Rousseau. Don't ask me how to justify this, I don't need to; it's just a theory.

his* thinkers* reading*

I have to stop phoneposting

>classic philosophers
>Correct theory of human nature
>pick one.

Hobbes had some good points, but to read his theory as a whole about human nature is completely idiotic. I mean... State of Nature? Read some god damn Foucault instead of being fucking drones about classic philosophy.

>Recommending PoMo kitsch frauds
>Ever

A child's brain is still developing. Your example would be analagous if the computer lacked a graphics card. A baby's or a child's brain is not functioning at maximum capacity.

>Exactly. Humans don't have 'innate language acquisition' that is functionally different from acquisitions of all other human cognitive tasks
This is nonsense. Humans have innate language acquisition. It isn't conditioned--it takes time to develop.

All of this banter about semantics is only relevant if your criticism even holds, which it doesn't.
>children do not exhibit sympathy
Back this up. The burden of proof is on you--you're making the claim sympathy is conditioned. Why do children cry when watching Bambi?

Too bad the state will murder you if you attempt to back out.

It is commonly known to biologist that when born the brain of a child is still developing. In fact is it a charateristic of humans compared to monkeys and other mammals. The cause is that the female womb isn't large enough to contain the human baby because the head of humans it too big. If a baby were to be born with a fully fuctional brain compared to monkeys then pregnancy would be 19 months. This is also why many biologist refer to the family as the social womb and why, specially, humans are more impacted by external stimulus compared to monkeys evolutionary speaking.

Elaborate.

It pressuposes a state, like it or not.

The fall of man AKA platonism 2bh

It pressuposes a state

replying to bait

ever

>human
>nature

>patterns of behavior

Describe, it says. It also says inb4 you can't.

By living in accord with a contract for decades, getting all the benefits of it, and having ample opportunity to leave the contract but not doing so, means you have accepted the terms of the social contract.

That's how it works.

You're just a theory.

Continued posting, get rekt moar.

>means you have accepted the terms of the social contract.

Nope.

Yup.

Especially since I've told you that by continuing to live here and benefit, this counts as contractual acceptance. You have no excuse.

>this counts as contractual acceptance.

Nope.

Yup.

You're free to back out of it at any time, simply stop benefiting from it.

BF is better than anyone posted in this thread so far

praxeology

>expounded by Evola; the rise of social mobility was what made the French Revolution possible, inevitable and so infamous in its brutality. Why? Because prior to this, people knew their place in society and were subconsciously aware of what a folly it was to rebel against it; never mind aspire to go beyond it.
Eric Hoffer says something similar in his The True Believer.

Who enforces the contract and why? What happens when the contract (laws) aren't enforced?

I wish I could tell you that Andy fought the good fight, and the Sisters let him be. I wish I could tell you that - but prison is no fairy-tale world. He never said who did it, but we all knew.

Hobbes is much more than muh constitution, friend.

No one has read Leviathan... The fucking peasantry on this board, smdh senpai.

Abhidhamma

Basically we do. Some moreso than othwrs it seems, but ideally we would all uphold it.

Seems like you would have social breakdown, but there will likely be other causes that lead up to this.

Ok, elaborate.

We all do? Who? Your wife is raped, who handles it and how? If the state didn't? If it was perpetrated by someone you couldn't seek revenge against?

We, all of us.

Currently there are legal channels for this.
Then that's a problem.

...

No, it doesn't. At all.

>Woohoo, I'll never have to take a final again! feels good to be free. I just love Hobbes and Nietzche.

Nice thread, OP.

Eric Davey Harrises is my motherfucking boy.
Too many thoughts and different societies wrapped up in this fucking place called AMERICA.

Hume's theory is much better than Locke's or Rousseau's, it accounts for both altruism and selfishness without reducing either to a product of conditioning, while still allowing for conditioning and society to play a role in the shaping of the individual. It also recognizes the innately social nature of humans, and thus avoids relying on references to a ridiculous, utterly fictitious "state of nature."

Are you trying to mount a rebuttal? Because if so, you failed miserably.

Do you have a counter argument? because petulantly saying no, doesn't suffice. Try going to college at least and learning the basics.

Go to bed, Peter Hitchens.

You didn't supply an argument to begin with. And so it can be dismissed without one.

Contacts must be enforced. They are enforced by power. Not altruism.

>muh nature
it's good enough for me

Reading comprehension, you lack it. You don't understand what I said. I said nothing about power or altruism. Read it again.

Hehe did you skip the books for the blurbs? Q is rhetorical, peasant boy. I can tell.

Who is this and what was his theory?

Nice retort!

Thx

John Locke. Property is like totally normal so you keep yours, I keep mine.

pic related

also it's a lowbrow philosopher for those who read dan simmons

...

Hobbes, Author of Leviathan.
Theory: People are naturally evil so we need established laws to keep us in check and a grand leader, a king to keep us in check.

>Hobbes
>on human nature

Lemonado

How babby-tier can you be to think that? We live in the 21st century, ramp up your philosophy-game.

That's not his theory... at all... read the fucking book.

Completely wrong.

It totally is his theory.