Hobbes and Locke

I completely forgot that I had to do this blog thing until about 10 seconds ago so I've decided to talk about the first thing that popped up into my head, man in a state of nature. According to Hobbes men are evil, selfish and out for themselves. In a state of nature, therefore, anarchy would be the result accompanying chaos and destruction. Humans would fight for their own survival, doing whatever it takes to come out on top. Hobbes, then, has quite a bleak outlook on humanity. Locke, however, believes that in a state of nature mankind is essentially good. Honestly and fairness would shine through the darkness of anarchy, but, Locke admits, there is always room for evil. There would still be those evil-doers out there would would seek to exploit the goodness of people in general. Hobbes' answer to the evilness of humans is a government run by one "Leviathan" who is chosen among the people to watch over the people. Locke's solution is "majority rule", or a government essentially ruled by the people themselves, with no central authority or head figure. The interesting thing here, though, is that when it comes to both Locke and Hobbes they make assumptions which cannot possibly be proven true or false. There is no way to know how mankind would act in a state of nature. All we can say is that mankind in a state of nature would seek some form of government in general, for if mankind was not so inclined to do so government would not exist in the first place. That's about it.

narcissism: noun: inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/narcissistic

predilection: noun: a tendency to think favorably of something in particular; partiality; preference
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/predilection