Primitive man and his state of nature
Primitive Man and His State of Nature Many philosophers have presented arguments regarding man as a primitive being and the state of nature that he exists in. Thomas Hobbes presents the argument that the life of primitive man is brutish, nasty and short. ... Rousseau points to primitive man as the ideal existence for a human. And Karl Marx tries to show how man’s natural instincts to survive lead him to form social and political relations. The views of these four philosophers will provide the basis for the examination of their relation to the idea of primitive man being in a state of war when there is no form of government or centralized power. Thomas Hobbes believes that man naturally exists in a state of basic equality through strength and knowledge. However, this idea of basic equality leads man to quarrel. This exposes Hobbes view of man as a selfish and ego driven being. ... Due to the fact that Hobbes view shows man to be selfish, these situations keep man in a constant state of war. ... He points out that man has a natural distrust of other men, and that is why we do things like locking our doors. Due to this constant state of unrest that man exists in, man gains a desire to establish a ruling faction. In a primitive state, Hobbes believes that the concept of ‘mine and yours’ does not exist. However, since man is filled with self-interest, he wants to keep possessions, and until some sort of law exists that defines ‘stealing’ there is no guarantee of keeping possessions. ... Without a power to keep man in line, Hobbes says that man exists in a state of war, and this uncertainty leads man to desire government. The problem that I have with this argument is that in nature, animals exist in a state of coexistence. ... So why would that be the basic state of man? Sure, it can be argued that man is different than, and many say superior to other animals.