--John Locke
Friday, January 14, 2011
Thinker -- Blog 4 "Thats a Wrap"
Over the past few days, I've shared my thoughts and philosophies about human nature. My first blog included an introduction for myself, who I am, and my thoughts on human nature and what makes people tick. I shared my ideas on human philosophy, such as my belief in an altruistic society and how everyone is born with the required resources to survive. I also shared my thoughts on how a government should function as a third party; that their most important priority was to protect the natural rights of its people. I moved on to compare my philosophies and findings to recent events and pieces of literature. I found that even today, and even in books, my philosophies about human nature and how it affects us exists in plain sight. Even if the events seem tragic or unfortunate, human nature is still blatantly present in them. In my final post, I proceeded to further explain my findings, but also elaborate on how human nature is not a concrete thing; it simply persuades and guides people through their everyday lives. It was a great pleasure to share my findings with the world, and I hope that you, my readers, found them both helpful and informative. Thank you.
--John Locke
--John Locke
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Thinker -- Blog 3 "Philophies of Leadership -- The Good Stuff"
"Philosophies of leadership are determined by beliefs about human nature."
This quote could be interpreted differently by many people, but I personally believe that it has to do with the scenario that leaders and people are presented with. Depending on a person's current living conditions, morals, etc, some parts of their human nature may act more dominantly over other parts. If you're presented with a situation in which you have no resources, you're starving, thirsty, and dying, you're going to act completely differently and let different parts of your subconscious make your decisions for you if you were instead in a situation where you had a surplus of food, water, resources, money, etc. A leader has to accommodate for these different scenarios by applying different ideas and methods to deal with them. If a leader thinks that the people that they are ruling are nice, own a surplus of resources, and seem to have very little issue with everyday life, he will rule his people in a way that complements this surplus; they might raise taxes slightly to ensure that the wealth spreads throughout the kingdom. The ruler might create a more "loose" law system, because the ruler knows that the people are good at heart. This would be completely different if it was a ruler ruling a kingdom which was experiencing an opposite scenario. If the people were living in a dire situation where there was a scarcity of food, water, shelter, etc, the ruler would apply completely different tactics to rule the kingdom/state/whichever. You would have to tighten the law and court system, because a leader would have to assume that human nature would lead people to steal from each other, hurt each other, maybe even go as far as kill one another.
So, how could this be explained in slightly simpler terms? Well, imagine your talking to a 5th grader. Someone who doesn't really have a grasp on the reality of the world, but is slowly starting to understand it; what would you say? Using examples along the lines of parents, teachers, school, etc, it'd go something like this: The way a teacher would lead and instruct a class would depend on how old the class is, or the history of their behavior. If they're a young class, the teacher will want to be fun, ecstatic, and have the utmost amount of patience. Yet is the class is older, but is known to be loud, some kids are obnoxious, and the class can overall be a disaster, a teacher will have to be strict, cunning, and quick at making decisions that will benefit the rest of the class.
As John Locke, I would have to agree with this thought. A leader should have an understanding of human nature, how it works, and how it should be applied to laws and codes of leadership. Human nature greatly affects what people perceive as proper natural rights, and we all know that a leader should be someone who properly protects the natural rights of his people. If a leader correctly understands human nature and knows how to apply it to how he leads, then he will become a great leader. On the flip side, if a leader doesn't understand human nature, or doesn't know how to use knowledge about human nature in his ruling, then he won't have an understanding about natural rights. If this occurs, then the leader won't be able to properly protect those natural rights, and then should be overthrown and removed from office by the people under that leader.
"The governed have a responsibility for their governance."
We, living in a democratic society, might not realize how much a government relies on its people to properly run. Although the people under the government might think it has total power (or at least has a lot of power), this isn't exactly true. The people under a government have a lot of power; Perhaps more power than the government itself. In reality, a government cannot succeed without help from its people. If everybody under a government follows laws, acts maturely, doesn't rebel, and overall enjoys/agrees with the way the government is currently running the state, then the people have done their job; their government can now be seen as successful as it can run without much interference. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case; there is always a rebel. If the governed do not follow the laws, act wild and pay no heed to the rules and leadership that the government offers, then the government will fall. The government cannot be successful if the people they are ruling over pay no heed to the laws and structure that the government has offered. Without this mutual agreement, this political handshake of trust and respect, any and all governments will fall if their people do not act properly.
This idea seems slightly complex, so I'll revisit the 5th grader idea. In sports, people obtain a great idea of how teamwork works, and that everything on a team can't constantly be about a single person. The team has to work as a single unit; a machine. If they fail to do this, the team falls apart and loses every game they play. In order to become a team and truly work as a squad, you have to listen to your leader, your government; your coach. Your coach is the one that calls the shots, tells you your roll in the game, and gives you tips and techniques to become a better player and contribute more to the team. If everybody listens to the coach, then the team will be successful. If nobody or a group of the players don't listen to the coach this leads to a lack of structure, and then the entire team ends up out of sync. Game over.
As Locke, I believe in this philosophy, but I believe it shouldn't be difficult to create a consensus between the people and the government. Human nature leads people to act in an altruistic manner; it persuades them to do good things just for the sake of being good. Now if the people are good, and the government does a good enough job at protecting natural rights, a mutual agreement should be easy to reach between the two parties. This would lead to very little dispute between the two and very little rebellion. All of this added up means that the governed are doing their job appropriately, so a government ruling over them can take care of business and do the best that they can do rule the state.
"Human Nature does not determine our actions,: it inclines us towards us towards certain actions."
This idea is short, sweet, but very complex and deep. Many of us think that human nature is something that defines us; they think it is something that makes us who we are and who we are going to become. Many philosophers ideas make it sound like this as well. They make it sound like all humans are kind and generous at heart, or that everybody is cruel and will do anything to benefit themselves. This isn't the case. Human nature doesn't define who we become; it just persuades us in certain directions. My altruistic perspective on human life makes it sound like I expect all people to be good and do good things just for the sake of doing them; this is not what I meant. I do believe that there is an altruistic aspect to every person on this planet, and I also believe that it plays a huge part in deciding who they become. Overall, though, it doesn't define them. This would go the same for Hobbes' perspective on human nature as well. He believes that people would do anything to survive, and are cruel enough to do evil things as long as it gives a personal benefit. This isn't true; this idea of human nature just means that it persuades people to do bad things. That these ideas of killing people for personal gain or stealing from people are from their human nature, but it is not an absolute; the person has a choice of whether or not they will partake in the action.
Lets revisit the 5th grader perspective. An easier way to explain this idea would be this: A classroom. A class is always full of outside pressure, ideas, and people. We all know that when your a kid, there is a certain way that all the cool kids "act"; it may not be smart, it might be completely stupid, but all the cool kids are doing it. In order for you to be one of those kids, to truly be seen as "cool" and "popular", you have to act like those kids. Yet just because these kids act like they do, just because you want to be one of those popular kids, it doesn't mean you have to be like them. You can be your own person, and travel on a separate path than everybody else, and in the end you can still be a cool kid. Everybody has the opportunity to go on their own unique path. Some just decide not to take it.
As Locke, I would have to completely agree with this idea. I don't expect everyone to act like a perfect little angel, doing good deeds around the neighborhood just because I said they should. I expect people to go on their own paths, but to keep in mind that they should be doing good things and thinking about good deeds so they can be successful in life. I want everyone to be different; I want to see different personalities. Yet through all of this, human nature will cause you to keep thinking of those good things that you can do. A person's own subconscious will always remind them of that extra step they can take to be a good person and to do good things. It's all a matter of whether you decide to travel down that path or not.
Locke, signing out.
This quote could be interpreted differently by many people, but I personally believe that it has to do with the scenario that leaders and people are presented with. Depending on a person's current living conditions, morals, etc, some parts of their human nature may act more dominantly over other parts. If you're presented with a situation in which you have no resources, you're starving, thirsty, and dying, you're going to act completely differently and let different parts of your subconscious make your decisions for you if you were instead in a situation where you had a surplus of food, water, resources, money, etc. A leader has to accommodate for these different scenarios by applying different ideas and methods to deal with them. If a leader thinks that the people that they are ruling are nice, own a surplus of resources, and seem to have very little issue with everyday life, he will rule his people in a way that complements this surplus; they might raise taxes slightly to ensure that the wealth spreads throughout the kingdom. The ruler might create a more "loose" law system, because the ruler knows that the people are good at heart. This would be completely different if it was a ruler ruling a kingdom which was experiencing an opposite scenario. If the people were living in a dire situation where there was a scarcity of food, water, shelter, etc, the ruler would apply completely different tactics to rule the kingdom/state/whichever. You would have to tighten the law and court system, because a leader would have to assume that human nature would lead people to steal from each other, hurt each other, maybe even go as far as kill one another.
So, how could this be explained in slightly simpler terms? Well, imagine your talking to a 5th grader. Someone who doesn't really have a grasp on the reality of the world, but is slowly starting to understand it; what would you say? Using examples along the lines of parents, teachers, school, etc, it'd go something like this: The way a teacher would lead and instruct a class would depend on how old the class is, or the history of their behavior. If they're a young class, the teacher will want to be fun, ecstatic, and have the utmost amount of patience. Yet is the class is older, but is known to be loud, some kids are obnoxious, and the class can overall be a disaster, a teacher will have to be strict, cunning, and quick at making decisions that will benefit the rest of the class.
As John Locke, I would have to agree with this thought. A leader should have an understanding of human nature, how it works, and how it should be applied to laws and codes of leadership. Human nature greatly affects what people perceive as proper natural rights, and we all know that a leader should be someone who properly protects the natural rights of his people. If a leader correctly understands human nature and knows how to apply it to how he leads, then he will become a great leader. On the flip side, if a leader doesn't understand human nature, or doesn't know how to use knowledge about human nature in his ruling, then he won't have an understanding about natural rights. If this occurs, then the leader won't be able to properly protect those natural rights, and then should be overthrown and removed from office by the people under that leader.
"The governed have a responsibility for their governance."
We, living in a democratic society, might not realize how much a government relies on its people to properly run. Although the people under the government might think it has total power (or at least has a lot of power), this isn't exactly true. The people under a government have a lot of power; Perhaps more power than the government itself. In reality, a government cannot succeed without help from its people. If everybody under a government follows laws, acts maturely, doesn't rebel, and overall enjoys/agrees with the way the government is currently running the state, then the people have done their job; their government can now be seen as successful as it can run without much interference. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case; there is always a rebel. If the governed do not follow the laws, act wild and pay no heed to the rules and leadership that the government offers, then the government will fall. The government cannot be successful if the people they are ruling over pay no heed to the laws and structure that the government has offered. Without this mutual agreement, this political handshake of trust and respect, any and all governments will fall if their people do not act properly.
This idea seems slightly complex, so I'll revisit the 5th grader idea. In sports, people obtain a great idea of how teamwork works, and that everything on a team can't constantly be about a single person. The team has to work as a single unit; a machine. If they fail to do this, the team falls apart and loses every game they play. In order to become a team and truly work as a squad, you have to listen to your leader, your government; your coach. Your coach is the one that calls the shots, tells you your roll in the game, and gives you tips and techniques to become a better player and contribute more to the team. If everybody listens to the coach, then the team will be successful. If nobody or a group of the players don't listen to the coach this leads to a lack of structure, and then the entire team ends up out of sync. Game over.
As Locke, I believe in this philosophy, but I believe it shouldn't be difficult to create a consensus between the people and the government. Human nature leads people to act in an altruistic manner; it persuades them to do good things just for the sake of being good. Now if the people are good, and the government does a good enough job at protecting natural rights, a mutual agreement should be easy to reach between the two parties. This would lead to very little dispute between the two and very little rebellion. All of this added up means that the governed are doing their job appropriately, so a government ruling over them can take care of business and do the best that they can do rule the state.
"Human Nature does not determine our actions,: it inclines us towards us towards certain actions."
This idea is short, sweet, but very complex and deep. Many of us think that human nature is something that defines us; they think it is something that makes us who we are and who we are going to become. Many philosophers ideas make it sound like this as well. They make it sound like all humans are kind and generous at heart, or that everybody is cruel and will do anything to benefit themselves. This isn't the case. Human nature doesn't define who we become; it just persuades us in certain directions. My altruistic perspective on human life makes it sound like I expect all people to be good and do good things just for the sake of doing them; this is not what I meant. I do believe that there is an altruistic aspect to every person on this planet, and I also believe that it plays a huge part in deciding who they become. Overall, though, it doesn't define them. This would go the same for Hobbes' perspective on human nature as well. He believes that people would do anything to survive, and are cruel enough to do evil things as long as it gives a personal benefit. This isn't true; this idea of human nature just means that it persuades people to do bad things. That these ideas of killing people for personal gain or stealing from people are from their human nature, but it is not an absolute; the person has a choice of whether or not they will partake in the action.
Lets revisit the 5th grader perspective. An easier way to explain this idea would be this: A classroom. A class is always full of outside pressure, ideas, and people. We all know that when your a kid, there is a certain way that all the cool kids "act"; it may not be smart, it might be completely stupid, but all the cool kids are doing it. In order for you to be one of those kids, to truly be seen as "cool" and "popular", you have to act like those kids. Yet just because these kids act like they do, just because you want to be one of those popular kids, it doesn't mean you have to be like them. You can be your own person, and travel on a separate path than everybody else, and in the end you can still be a cool kid. Everybody has the opportunity to go on their own unique path. Some just decide not to take it.
As Locke, I would have to completely agree with this idea. I don't expect everyone to act like a perfect little angel, doing good deeds around the neighborhood just because I said they should. I expect people to go on their own paths, but to keep in mind that they should be doing good things and thinking about good deeds so they can be successful in life. I want everyone to be different; I want to see different personalities. Yet through all of this, human nature will cause you to keep thinking of those good things that you can do. A person's own subconscious will always remind them of that extra step they can take to be a good person and to do good things. It's all a matter of whether you decide to travel down that path or not.
Locke, signing out.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Thinker -- Blog 2 "Lord of the Lost Boys"
--- I was extremely dissatisfied when I read the ending to the novel, Lord of the Flies. Not only did the ending seem extremely unlikely, but it also doesn't entirely follow the rules and conduct of human nature and the philosophy behind it. Scenarios that led to the climax of the Lord of the Flies are extremely unlikely (but still possible), but this novel could've ended in only one general way; for Jack to come to himself and agree that Ralph should not be killed. This would be inhumane and against Jack's own human nature. A much more likely scenario which would have been a closing to the novel would be this:
Ralph continues running from Jack. The forest is burning, and the animals that used to live there are running around in distress, letting out their own unique calls of distress. The birds screech overhead, almost as if they're preparing for the feast that will, without a doubt, take place momentarily. Ralph's supply of adrenaline begins to falter, his energy supplies completely drained. Yet, he continues to go on. He realizes he has nothing pushing him though, no motivation but to survive. Is it really necessary, though? Ralph's own human nature begins to turn against him, his intellect counter-acting his need to survive. This is an island, he thinks to himself, where is he going to run? He has nothing motivating him, pushing him forward, no need to survive. On the other side, Jack has all the motivation in the world. He has bloodlust on his side, as he has turned into a monster; almost a symbol of the Beast that they all once feared what seemed like ages ago. Jack needed Ralph dead in order to confirm his authority over all the other Bigguns and Littluns, and he would stop at nothing until he accomplished what he set out to do. Ralph's head would end up on that double-edged spear, whether he liked it or not. So, with these thoughts in mind, Ralph stopped running. The beach was in sight, the wide ocean could be seen behind just a few trees and low-hanging vines. He turned around, and faced those that came to kill him. There were dozens of them, coming from every corner and hiding spot in the jungle; Ralph comes to realize that he never would've made it. Then, Jack emerges from the trees, with his henchman by his side with the double-edged spear; Ralph's death. He stared Jack straight in the eyes, searching for some bit of the old Jack that might've been left there, covered up by the hatred and lust for Ralph's death. There was nothing. Jack let loose an evil wicked grin; the tips of his mouth reached the end of his face, and his yellowing teeth showed shiny in the setting sun behind the ocean. He let out a laugh, a shriek almost, which sent chills down everyone's spine and made fear run through Ralph's entire body. He was frozen. Jack took the spear from his henchman, and started walking slowly towards Ralph with almost an ape-like hobble. Ralph continued to look into Jack's eyes, but something happened; when Jack was no more than 4 feet away from him, there was a glimmer in his eyes; the bloodlust seemed to disappear for a moment, and his eyebrows scrunched together as if he was confused. Jack's mouth opened over so slightly, and he breathed in the smoke that was overwhelming the entire island. Someone behind let out a hacking cough. Jack looked from left, to right, and left again, then looked back towards Ralph again. His mouth made some motions, seemingly words. Ralph wished he had heard them, but he was too focused on trying to guess Jack's move. Jack's face became straight again, but that glimmer that had appeared in his eyes remained. Jack dropped the spear, turned around, and walked toward and then past his group of killers. Nobody knew what to do about this, but Ralph took this chance and ran towards the beach, took a hard left, and disappeared from everyone's view.
(^^ I kinda got carried away, sorry ^^)
--- The book Lord of the Flies helps us understand that human nature does not define who we are, but instead influences who we become and the actions that we take.
--- I'm astonished by the happenings that took place surrounding this tragic event, but I will use my philosophy and my research to explain why they took place. It could've been a combination of a slight failure in the government, and a slight failure in the people. To me, it sounded like a failure in the government to conserve and protect the peoples' natural rights; if this had happened, and always did, there would be no need for such things as war and conflict. Yet more unfortunate is the fact that, with the information given to me by these articles, the people did not rebel against the government in a humane fashion; so instead of solving the issue of the government, they chose to let is sit and stagnate. This lack of action would lead to war and rebellion against the people, not against the government. The chaos that ensued is what led to the "Lost Boys" having to flee from their home country.
Ralph continues running from Jack. The forest is burning, and the animals that used to live there are running around in distress, letting out their own unique calls of distress. The birds screech overhead, almost as if they're preparing for the feast that will, without a doubt, take place momentarily. Ralph's supply of adrenaline begins to falter, his energy supplies completely drained. Yet, he continues to go on. He realizes he has nothing pushing him though, no motivation but to survive. Is it really necessary, though? Ralph's own human nature begins to turn against him, his intellect counter-acting his need to survive. This is an island, he thinks to himself, where is he going to run? He has nothing motivating him, pushing him forward, no need to survive. On the other side, Jack has all the motivation in the world. He has bloodlust on his side, as he has turned into a monster; almost a symbol of the Beast that they all once feared what seemed like ages ago. Jack needed Ralph dead in order to confirm his authority over all the other Bigguns and Littluns, and he would stop at nothing until he accomplished what he set out to do. Ralph's head would end up on that double-edged spear, whether he liked it or not. So, with these thoughts in mind, Ralph stopped running. The beach was in sight, the wide ocean could be seen behind just a few trees and low-hanging vines. He turned around, and faced those that came to kill him. There were dozens of them, coming from every corner and hiding spot in the jungle; Ralph comes to realize that he never would've made it. Then, Jack emerges from the trees, with his henchman by his side with the double-edged spear; Ralph's death. He stared Jack straight in the eyes, searching for some bit of the old Jack that might've been left there, covered up by the hatred and lust for Ralph's death. There was nothing. Jack let loose an evil wicked grin; the tips of his mouth reached the end of his face, and his yellowing teeth showed shiny in the setting sun behind the ocean. He let out a laugh, a shriek almost, which sent chills down everyone's spine and made fear run through Ralph's entire body. He was frozen. Jack took the spear from his henchman, and started walking slowly towards Ralph with almost an ape-like hobble. Ralph continued to look into Jack's eyes, but something happened; when Jack was no more than 4 feet away from him, there was a glimmer in his eyes; the bloodlust seemed to disappear for a moment, and his eyebrows scrunched together as if he was confused. Jack's mouth opened over so slightly, and he breathed in the smoke that was overwhelming the entire island. Someone behind let out a hacking cough. Jack looked from left, to right, and left again, then looked back towards Ralph again. His mouth made some motions, seemingly words. Ralph wished he had heard them, but he was too focused on trying to guess Jack's move. Jack's face became straight again, but that glimmer that had appeared in his eyes remained. Jack dropped the spear, turned around, and walked toward and then past his group of killers. Nobody knew what to do about this, but Ralph took this chance and ran towards the beach, took a hard left, and disappeared from everyone's view.
(^^ I kinda got carried away, sorry ^^)
--- The book Lord of the Flies helps us understand that human nature does not define who we are, but instead influences who we become and the actions that we take.
--- I'm astonished by the happenings that took place surrounding this tragic event, but I will use my philosophy and my research to explain why they took place. It could've been a combination of a slight failure in the government, and a slight failure in the people. To me, it sounded like a failure in the government to conserve and protect the peoples' natural rights; if this had happened, and always did, there would be no need for such things as war and conflict. Yet more unfortunate is the fact that, with the information given to me by these articles, the people did not rebel against the government in a humane fashion; so instead of solving the issue of the government, they chose to let is sit and stagnate. This lack of action would lead to war and rebellion against the people, not against the government. The chaos that ensued is what led to the "Lost Boys" having to flee from their home country.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Thinker -- Blog 1 "Evidinify"
My name is John Locke, and I believe in a more optimistic perspective on human life compared to my rival, Hobbes. In a state of nature, a state in which a human is presented a world without set rules, customs, or systems, I believe that every human is born with fair, natural, god-given rights. I believe that these gifts are the rights to health, life, liberty, and possessions; these "possessions" could include land, food, shelter, etc. I also believe in an optimistic, trust-worthy third party through the form of a social contract. My form of this contract dictates that the point of a third-party, or government, is to protect its citizens natural rights; one that does this well is a good government, while a third party that doesn't do this is a "bad" government. If a scenario occurs where the people's natural rights aren't protected or are being abused, the people under that government have the right to revolt and overthrow that third party/government. I also believe that people have an altruistic-centered personality; I think that people would do good things just be a good person, and they wouldn't have the need for anything in return or to receive a reward for their actions. Doing something good and morally right is award enough for them.
Many readers might think that this is rubbish; that none of these facts or assumptions could be proven as correct. I must disagree with you, especially in the time period that we're all currently living in. In the beginning of the life of our species, Hobbes might've been correct; there was no absolute form of civilization, structure,society, or government. It very well could've been a free for all, as Hobbes describes in his philosophy on humans and their morals. Fortunately, we have made major strides since the beginning of human life. We're no longer nomads; we live in concrete locations on this planet, and in these places we have structure, government, a surplus in resources, and many other things that make the difference between today and the beginning. People's morals have changed as well; we no longer (most of us, at the least) struggle to survive. We have food, family, shelter; we're born with these things belonging to us, which follows my laws pertaining to "State of Nature" and "Natural Rights" perfectly. People in today's world have more free will now, especially when it comes to governmental decisions. As stated in my theory, people now-a-days vote for a person to represent themselves; the people decide who that third party is. If that third party fails to do a good job in the eyes of the people they have the right to impeach, or remove, that person from their position in the government. Ever more important then all else, humans are becoming more altruistic than ever before. There have even been organizations created to do good things just because it's the right thing to do. Just 17 hours ago, a news article stated that the Red Cross has spent over 245$ million of the 479$ million raised to help those still in need in Haiti (which recently experienced a horrific earthquake). This is just one case in which people help others even though they have no connection to them and gain no benefit from it.
As you can see from the various pieces of evidence, my philosophy about human nature appears to be correct, and more so than Hobbe's.
Many readers might think that this is rubbish; that none of these facts or assumptions could be proven as correct. I must disagree with you, especially in the time period that we're all currently living in. In the beginning of the life of our species, Hobbes might've been correct; there was no absolute form of civilization, structure,society, or government. It very well could've been a free for all, as Hobbes describes in his philosophy on humans and their morals. Fortunately, we have made major strides since the beginning of human life. We're no longer nomads; we live in concrete locations on this planet, and in these places we have structure, government, a surplus in resources, and many other things that make the difference between today and the beginning. People's morals have changed as well; we no longer (most of us, at the least) struggle to survive. We have food, family, shelter; we're born with these things belonging to us, which follows my laws pertaining to "State of Nature" and "Natural Rights" perfectly. People in today's world have more free will now, especially when it comes to governmental decisions. As stated in my theory, people now-a-days vote for a person to represent themselves; the people decide who that third party is. If that third party fails to do a good job in the eyes of the people they have the right to impeach, or remove, that person from their position in the government. Ever more important then all else, humans are becoming more altruistic than ever before. There have even been organizations created to do good things just because it's the right thing to do. Just 17 hours ago, a news article stated that the Red Cross has spent over 245$ million of the 479$ million raised to help those still in need in Haiti (which recently experienced a horrific earthquake). This is just one case in which people help others even though they have no connection to them and gain no benefit from it.
As you can see from the various pieces of evidence, my philosophy about human nature appears to be correct, and more so than Hobbe's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)