Society's Ills - A study in the perceived inequalities between the "haves" and the "have nots"
  • It's not a major part of the point anyway, but if anyone's interested here's the wikipedia entry on the state of nature according to Hobbes:

    The pure state of nature or "the natural condition of mankind" was described by the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan and in his earlier work On the Citizen.[4] Hobbes argued that all humans are by nature equal in faculties of body and mind (i.e., no natural inequalities are so great as to give anyone a "claim" to an exclusive "benefit"). From this equality and other causes url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AUDIENCE]example needed[/urlin human nature, everyone is naturally willing to fight one another: so that "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called warre; and such a warre as is of every man against every man". In this state every person has a natural rightor liberty to do anything one thinks necessary for preserving one's own life; and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Leviathan, Chapters XIII–XIV). Hobbes described this natural condition with the Latin phrase bellum omnium contra omnes (meaning war of all against all), in his work De Cive.
    Within the state of nature there is neither personal property nor injustice since there is no law, except for certain natural precepts discovered by reason ("laws of nature"): the first of which is "that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it" (Leviathan, Ch. XIV); and the second is "that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself" (loc. cit.). From here Hobbes develops the way out of the state of nature into political society and government, by mutual contracts.
    According to Hobbes the state of nature exists at all times among independent countries, over whom there is no law except for those same precepts or laws of nature (Leviathan, Chapters XIII, XXX end). His view of the state of nature helped to serve as a basis for theories of international law and relations.[5]
  • Calvinism (also called the Reformed tradition, Reformed Christianity, Reformed Protestantism, or the Reformed faith) is a major branch of Protestantism that follows the theological tradition and forms of Christian practice set down by John Calvin and other Reformation-era theologians.

    Calvinists broke from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century. Calvinists differ from Lutherans on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, theories of worship, and the use of God's law for believers, among other things. As declared in the Westminster and Second Helvetic confessions, the core doctrines are predestination and election. The term Calvinism can be misleading, because the religious tradition which it denotes has always been diverse, with a wide range of influences rather than a single founder. In the context of the Reformation, Huldrych Zwingli began the Reformed tradition in 1519 in the city of Zürich. His followers were instantly deemed Zwinglians, consistent with the Catholic practice of naming heresy after its founder. Very soon, Zwingli was joined by Martin Bucer, Wolfgang Capito, William Farel, Johannes Oecolampadius and other early Reformed thinkers. The namesake of the movement, French reformer John Calvin, converted to the Reformed tradition from Roman Catholicism only in the late 1520s or early 1530s as it was already being developed.

    The movement was first called Calvinism, referring to John Calvin, by Lutherans who opposed it. Many within the tradition find it either an indescriptive or an inappropriate term and would prefer the word Reformed to be used instead.

    ...


    The first statement in the Institutes acknowledges its central theme. It states that the sum of human wisdom consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. Calvin argues that the knowledge of God is not inherent in humanity nor can it be discovered by observing this world. The only way to obtain it is to study scripture. Calvin writes, "For anyone to arrive at God the Creator he needs Scripture as his Guide and Teacher."

    He does not try to prove the authority of scripture but rather describes it as autopiston or self-authenticating. He defends the trinitarian view of God and, in a strong polemical stand against the Catholic Church, argues that images of God lead to idolatry.
  • JonB wrote:
    It's not a major part of the point anyway, but if anyone's interested here's the wikipedia entry on the state of nature according to Hobbes:

    The pure state of nature or "the natural condition of mankind" was described by the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan and in his earlier work On the Citizen.[4] Hobbes argued that all humans are by nature equal in faculties of body and mind (i.e., no natural inequalities are so great as to give anyone a "claim" to an exclusive "benefit"). From this equality and other causes url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AUDIENCE]example needed[/urlin human nature, everyone is naturally willing to fight one another: so that "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called warre; and such a warre as is of every man against every man". In this state every person has a natural rightor liberty to do anything one thinks necessary for preserving one's own life; and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Leviathan, Chapters XIII–XIV). Hobbes described this natural condition with the Latin phrase bellum omnium contra omnes (meaning war of all against all), in his work De Cive.
    Within the state of nature there is neither personal property nor injustice since there is no law, except for certain natural precepts discovered by reason ("laws of nature"): the first of which is "that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it" (Leviathan, Ch. XIV); and the second is "that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself" (loc. cit.). From here Hobbes develops the way out of the state of nature into political society and government, by mutual contracts.
    According to Hobbes the state of nature exists at all times among independent countries, over whom there is no law except for those same precepts or laws of nature (Leviathan, Chapters XIII, XXX end). His view of the state of nature helped to serve as a basis for theories of international law and relations.[5]

    Better yet, read Leviathan.
  • Just reading a short extract is a slog, throw us bone, smarty pants.
    I'm still great and you still love it.
  • I have. I just thought it might not be that efficient to paste the entire text in here.

    Anyway, whatever. I've clearly done something wrong but you don't want to tell me what it is, so shrugs all round.
  • Nowt wrong Jon, just my reading of Leviathan led to different conclusions.

    Edit: Maybe the neoliberal element have incorrectly used/interpreted it.
  • I mean, I was really just saying that that concept of our natural state being an ultra-competitive fight for self-preservation is an ideal founding myth for neoliberalism. Because it then seems like the market is the best way to regulate that and even take advantage of it.
  • Day dot that's is most probably the correct assertion, Pinker's Better nature highlights thus in rates of violence for hunter gatherers.
  • Lord_Griff wrote:
    Nowt wrong Jon...
    Lord_Griff wrote:
    I think you've got Hobbes wrong.
    This doesn’t instill much faith in your reading of Leviathan.
  • True, just being empathetic and felt my original comment was too curt.
  • Lord_Griff wrote:
    Day dot that's is most probably the correct assertion, Pinker's Better nature highlights thus in rates of violence for hunter gatherers.
    You could probably boil that down to people fight more when resources are scarce, and Pinker is a relatively rich white guy in a wealthy country who sees that things are basically fine today.

    But, I take the point that our nature isn't fixed, and varies according to social conditions, so it makes sense that some societies would be less violent than others. I just don't see it as a linear development (a useful myth for a liberal ideology).
  • I suppose so. But let me put forward a thought. Is self preservation at any cost the core component of an individual's nature, I mean, ultimately?
  • Lord_Griff wrote:
    I suppose so. But let me put forward a thought. Is self preservation at any cost the core component of an individual's nature, I mean, ultimately?

    Not necessarily. Spiders let their babies eat them.

    Or people giving up kidneys.
  • Food for thought: People are deeply social animals. Without other people to interact with infants wither away and die. We feel miserable without love when isolated from others. That big neo cortical brain of ours? Evolved under social conditions of competition and cooperation. So looking at it from a scientific/biological point of view neo liberalism sounds like full of horseshit.

    Keep in mind the human brain is essentially a neural network in an infinite feedback loop with our environment. Thus it's only logical human nature and *intelligence* differ depending on social circumstance. We build the world/society around us as a reflection of ourselves. Do we really want to live in a dog eat dog world? Or can we build something better?

    I still stand by my original yin vs yang comment though. People are also emotional beings with a positive and a negative side. If you can't balance your inner self you definitely end up being a deeply anti social cunt. In a capitalist neo liberal society often a rich one. Now where is the justice in that?
    Steam: Ruffnekk
    Windows Live: mr of unlocking
    Fightcade2: mrofunlocking
  • Lord_Griff wrote:
    I suppose so. But let me put forward a thought. Is self preservation at any cost the core component of an individual's nature, I mean, ultimately?
    I wouldn't say so, no. I don't think anything we're capable of, including self-sacrifice and altruism along with selfishness and cruelty, can be seen as against some core nature. Otherwise where would these actions come from? How would we even develop such notions if they weren't already in us in some form?

    I also don't think it's a coincidence that a theory of life as essentially competitive becomes so dominant in capitalist societies that themselves emphasise competition, individualism and self-interest.
  • I'm entirely convinced that social esteem, status and reputation are survival components for the human animal, and will sacrifice other things for them on the regular if context and personal histories have trained it to.
  • Sounds like a grade A cunt.
  • Greed is an essential survival instinct and trait in humans.
    Steam: Ruffnekk
    Windows Live: mr of unlocking
    Fightcade2: mrofunlocking
  • On the same day they announce record numbers of kids are addicted to gambling.
  • "Mike Dixon, the chief executive of the addiction charity Addaction, said: “It’s astonishing that a CEO of one gambling company is paid 26 times more than the entire industry’s contribution to treatment."

    HOLY O FUCK.

    This is easily the grossest thing I've read all month.
    "Let me tell you, when yung Rouj had his Senna and Mansell Scalextric, Frank was the goddamn Professor X of F1."
  • Well, y’know. The gambling industry makes a lot more profit than any of the charities treating gambling addiction do.

    Free market economics FTW, right?
  • Hey, it's just people having a harmless flutter on the football on a Saturday afternoon, it's definitely not a predatory industry that makes the majority of its money leeching off the misery of addicts.
  • Coates, 51, who keeps herself out of the public eye 
    Lol no shit.
  • In my imagination she’s a savant.

    I say this repeatedly but I don’t think the industry should be allowed when it creates a logo for its ostensible “gamble safely” campaign and the biggest and shiniest word is FUN.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!