If humans are equally born as an evil, which means they are greedy and desire things, how could they select a sovereign, who has all the power to control them?
11 comments:
Anonymous
said...
My interpreative question is:
When Thomas Hobbes Writes, "...is to confer all their power ans srtrenght upon one man...thay may reduce all their wills, by popularity of voices, onto one will...", does he mean that people give they're will to one man, which be their leader? If so what would happen if this leader takes those wills and makes them stong points to make people obay him and make an absolute power?
IQ: When Thomas Hobbes writes, "The only way to erect... a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort... is to confer all their power and strength upon one Man," does he mean that people, who are greedy have to select a man in order to keep thier power? If so, don't all people want to be the sovereign, and they fight against each other, and finally there would be no end?
When Thomas Hobbes writes "For as the strength of the body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or confederacy with others" does he men that men are either equal or unequal depending on the power that they have, and in this case he affirms that weaker men are stronger than stronger men. If so why does Hobbes focuses on mens power and absolute force?
When Thomas Hobbes writes,"...that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of everyman against everyman...", does he mean that when men don't have power to please them, they are going crazy and trying to fight everyone for the power he need? If so, what happens to the men he goes to war with? Do they loose the power they already have? Then they will go crazy and fight for the power they need to gain back?
When Thomas Hobbes writes, "...in one and the same person, made by Covenant of every man and every man, in such a manner, as if every man should say to every man, I authorize and give up my rights of governing myself to this man." does he mean that there is an agreement between every man and that men give their rights up to one person to make it better for the people? If, so can this lead to fights amongst the people to choose this one man, since it's got to be hard for every man to agree with one person to be their leader?
When Thomas Hobbes writes,"From this equality of ability arise the quality of hope in the attaining of our ends." Does he mean that all humans are the same, have the same hop/future in the end? If so, should the kings and queens be equal to any man that lives on the streets?
When Thomas Hobbes writes, "So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence [insecurity]; third, glory." Does he mean that it is "natural" for humans to want to wage wars because of competition, insecurity, and for glory? If so, how can a ruler be unique from other men if he too quarrels of principles.
When Thomas Hobbes writes, "If any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end endeavor to destroy or subdue one another." Does he mean that if two men want the same things, which both can not have at the same time, they become enemies; and in the way to end their quarrel both try to destroy one another in order to attain the item? If so how can a common power help resolve this problem because the men fighting over the item can keep fighting and do not have to listen to the common power, even if he is their leader?
When Thomas Hobbes writes, "So that in the nature of man, we find three reasons to quarrel. First, competition; secondly diffidence [insecurity]; thirdly, glory." does he mean that it is the nature of humans to fight because of rivalry, self-doubt, and the success and credit? If so, then does that mean that when is comes down to the base of the human nature, that humans are only looking out for themselves and their needs?
When Hobbes writes, "For the nature of men that how so ever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty or more eloquent or more learned, yet they will hardly believe there be so many wise as themselves," does he mean that the nature of men is to admit that there are others smarter than he, but will never admit that there is anyone as wise as themselves? If so, does this mean no matter who is chosen as a leader everybody else will believe that they are wiser than he and thus man can never choose a leader they are satisfied with?
When Thomas Hobbes writes,"The only way to errect...a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of [foreigners] and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort..." does he mean "defend them from the invasion of [foreigners]" people might want a leader just to pretect themselves from foreigners or invaders? If so, people might be gready not wanting a leader becuae they see themselves better and wiser then others?
11 comments:
My interpreative question is:
When Thomas Hobbes
Writes, "...is to confer all their power ans srtrenght upon one man...thay may reduce all their wills, by popularity of voices, onto one will...", does he mean that people give they're will to one man, which be their leader?
If so what would happen if this leader takes those wills and makes them stong points to make people obay him and make an absolute power?
Thomas Hoffmann (Dibs)
IQ:
When Thomas Hobbes writes, "The only way to erect... a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort... is to confer all their power and strength upon one Man," does he mean that people, who are greedy have to select a man in order to keep thier power? If so, don't all people want to be the sovereign, and they fight against each other, and finally there would be no end?
~JY~
My interpretive question is:
When Thomas Hobbes writes "For as the strength of the body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or confederacy with others" does he men that men are either equal or unequal depending on the power that they have, and in this case he affirms that weaker men are stronger than stronger men. If so why does Hobbes focuses on mens power and absolute force?
Pierfrancesco Mazzolini
My interpreative question is:
When Thomas Hobbes writes,"...that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of everyman against everyman...", does he mean that when men don't have power to please them, they are going crazy and trying to fight everyone for the power he need? If so, what happens to the men he goes to war with? Do they loose the power they already have? Then they will go crazy and fight for the power they need to gain back?
Ashley Oros :)
My IQ :
When Thomas Hobbes writes, "...in one and the same person, made by Covenant of every man and every man, in such a manner, as if every man should say to every man, I authorize and give up my rights of governing myself to this man." does he mean that there is an agreement between every man and that men give their rights up to one person to make it better for the people? If, so can this lead to fights amongst the people to choose this one man, since it's got to be hard for every man to agree with one person to be their leader?
-Gustaf Bogered
My interpretive question is:
When Thomas Hobbes writes,"From this equality of ability arise the quality of hope in the attaining of our ends." Does he mean that all humans are the same, have the same hop/future in the end? If so, should the kings and queens be equal to any man that lives on the streets?
-Nicolas Cheng-
Interpretive Question:
When Thomas Hobbes writes, "So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence [insecurity]; third, glory." Does he mean that it is "natural" for humans to want to wage wars because of competition, insecurity, and for glory? If so, how can a ruler be unique from other men if he too quarrels of principles.
--Andrew
When Thomas Hobbes writes, "If any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end endeavor to destroy or subdue one another." Does he mean that if two men want the same things, which both can not have at the same time, they become enemies; and in the way to end their quarrel both try to destroy one another in order to attain the item? If so how can a common power help resolve this problem because the men fighting over the item can keep fighting and do not have to listen to the common power, even if he is their leader?
My IQ:
When Thomas Hobbes writes, "So that in the nature of man, we find three reasons to quarrel. First, competition; secondly diffidence [insecurity]; thirdly, glory." does he mean that it is the nature of humans to fight because of rivalry, self-doubt, and the success and credit? If so, then does that mean that when is comes down to the base of the human nature, that humans are only looking out for themselves and their needs?
My IQ:
When Hobbes writes, "For the nature of men that how so ever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty or more eloquent or more learned, yet they will hardly believe there be so many wise as themselves," does he mean that the nature of men is to admit that there are others smarter than he, but will never admit that there is anyone as wise as themselves? If so, does this mean no matter who is chosen as a leader everybody else will believe that they are wiser than he and thus man can never choose a leader they are satisfied with?
~Matt Gunn
My interpreative question is:
When Thomas Hobbes writes,"The only way to errect...a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of [foreigners] and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort..." does he mean "defend them from the invasion of [foreigners]" people might want a leader just to pretect themselves from foreigners or invaders? If so, people might be gready not wanting a leader becuae they see themselves better and wiser then others?
Post a Comment