Hobbes or Rousseau

[Incompetent]

Calvin and Hobbes has got to be one of the funniest things on earth, i have all of the books

oh and, i'd have to go with Hobbes on the good and evil issue

[Jaged]

I know what Calvin & Hobbes is. In fact it is my favorite comic strip. But, who/what is Rousseau?

[Meshuggah]

Originally posted by Jaged
I know what Calvin & Hobbes is. In fact it is my favorite comic strip. But, who/what is Rousseau?

Who cares? Go Hobbes go!

[Shyfted One]

I think it's obvious that Hobbes is superior

Tiger > man, see

[Confectrix]

Hello,

I might firstly say that the one sentence summations you attribute to the lenghty and at times confusing writings of these two individuals does not do them justice at all. In the interests of space however, I am quite pleased with the exactness of so short a description. In the future however, it is advisable to secure more information prior to requiring a vote of such different paths. Afterall, if one does not have a fully adjectivised description with plenty of analogies, how can one make such a deafing statement as to which of these two radically different philosophies are correct?

I add this to your discussion. Since society is made up of humanity, society and humanity are one in the same; collectivly. Hobbes says that mankind (humankind, if your into the politically correct "thing") is evil, but society controls this evil nature with laws. How can a society made up of such evil control itself and bring itself to good? Evil repulses from the good. Evil cannot come to good; it is the absence of good. (St. Augustine)

Rousseau, on the other hand dictates that it is by society we become evil. This can be more approcable since, quite honestly, not every person, good by nature, wills good. Thus, since the whole of society is made up of naturally good peoples, some people abuse this freedom (of being able to perform (good acts) and of being good) and consequetly corrupt some part of society, and in like, some part of humanity.

How do I know people are naturally good? Reason alone dictates that people are good. For example, does one need to tell a ten year old that killing is wrong? Does one need to scold a five year old on the wrongs of cruelty to animals? Does one need to frequent discussion with a seven year old on the morality of stealing?

People are instrinsicaly good. It is the freedom to do evil which corrupts the individual; if that individual so chooses to succumb to evil (so, in essence, the persons act of doing evil). This individual being a part of society assists in the debasement of society. The reverese is also true.

Of the two, I choose neither.

[OneManArmy]

even if he did confectix, people would still vote for the tiger fool!!!!!

[Airlift]

the short answer is that people are complex and varied beings capable of unthinkable good and evil. Whether a given human will act in the name of good or evil is a crap-shoot. It's a pointless crap-shoot anyway because any given act may be perceived as good or evil depending on your vantage point. Hmmm, maybe good and evil are human constructs grafted atop the natural world by our own subconscious?

Who likes spoons?

[Fire_Monkey]

Great, thank you very much Confectrix, this poll was designed in the foreknowledege that people would previously know who Hobbes or Rousseau are, the descriptions are merely to remind you who represented who. I can see that if someone did not knwo who they were and based their opinion off of my statements, then thier judgment could be wrong. In the interest of the readers patience, I don't believe that any of them would want to read their philosphies, and if they did, fully understand them by the information from some linked site. The Hobbes Rousseau debate has been active for ages.

Thanks a bunch man,

Fire

[Denali]

Confectrix, philosophy major?

[Confectrix]

Yes.

Your're very intuative and insightful.

I like that.

Good day sir.

[Confectrix]

Airlift:

Good and Evil are objective; not subjective. The subconscious would never create such ideals. Why? To do the good; the true good to which is evident, i.e. no stealing, lying, slandering, laziness, et cetera would mean failure. Why would our mind, our subconsious set us up for failure?

That is another debate. One I'd rather not get into, so if you just want to leave it at this, I woundn't mind.

Pax tecum,

[Denali]

Confectrix, ever read any Chalmers? What do you think about that guy?

[Bighoss]

Conf is too smart I pledge my alligence to you

your gonna make a lot of people that think there smart look stupid so I'm gonna stop posting

[Confectrix]

{BOHICA}Denali:

No, I have not. I'm still focusing around [though not soley] the classics of the Greek and Roman philosophy. These works are filled with many treasures. It is true when one said that "the annals of western civilization are filled with the footnotes of Aristotle and Plato."

Bighoss:

Intelligence is a funny thing. In the end of things it means nothing. Believe me. Intelligence touches everybody. The key, my friend, it to excersize it and thereby stregthen it.

One must be extremly careful not to confuse wisdom with intelligence. I would rather have wisdom any day to intelligence, or as some say "smarts."

The point I want you to take away from this, Admiral, is that in life intelligence matters not. Even wisdom matters not.

Love excels all other virtues in so much as it is the motivator of all other virtues.

I thank you for the compliment however.

[Fire_Monkey]

Welcome confectrix, I see you already have a nick, you'll fit in well. I'm in a philosophy club with my anthropology teacher, and some highschoolers. I enjoy philosophy as well. Oh, you're probably one of the most intelligent people around here. Problem are the damn conservatives.

Welcome