Yeah Yeah Yeah. Moves closer to the podium picks up the mic for announcement....


This thread will serve as a discourse thread for philosophy student to rub mind critically, analytically, logically, epistemologically, metaphysically etc....
As we all know that philosophy is the mother of all courses “scientia matrix" on this note, other discipline that wish to learn or add to the discourse are duely welcome....


This is how we gonna roll In here, we bring up a topic and attempt to solve it using philosophical tools.

Both graduate and undergraduate of this wonderful discipline are welcome..





Tagged... Promisechild
lalasticlala

WELL, I AM FREEMAN DAVID.
PHILOSPHY GRADUATE....
DELTA STATE UNIVERSITY. B.A
UNIVERSITY OF WEST LONDON. M.A


NOW I HAVE A BURNING ISSUE AT HAND...


IS JOHN LOCKE STATE OF NATURE NOT BETTER THAN THE FORMATION OF A COMMONWEALTH/ NEW SOCIETY?

Freemanan:

Sapaly....

Introduction time...

Oau Philosophy

Fynestboi:
Introduction time...

Oau Philosophy

GOOD... I heard Legends about this school Philosophy department...

Did Philosophy in my year1 and year 2 during my university days....interesting course

Cc Fratermathy Teempakguy

Andyblaze:
Did Philosophy in my year1 and year 2 during my university days....interesting course

This is not Cool nau...
Fynestboi

Freemanan:
WELL, I AM FREEMAN DAVID.
PHILOSPHY GRADUATE....



NOW I HAVE A BURNING ISSUE AT HAND...


IS JOHN LOCKE STATE OF NATURE NOT BETTER THAN THE FORMATION OF A COMMONWEALTH/ NEW SOCIETY?

Nice one.... John Locke state of nature is hypothetical and inconceivable, so I think a new society is better of.


Coming with more addition.

Didn't read up the question better I was thinking of Thomas hobbes state of nature.. ...


John Locke state of nature will be better of than a new society if we can at first establish what kind of society we are looking at...

I sight u toyolad my crime colleague

Fynestboi:




Nice one.... John Locke state of nature is hypothetical and inconceivable, so I think a new society is better of.


Coming with more addition.

Okay chief
Put in mind that Pre-classical period fared very well albeit slow development..

Freemanan:


Okay chief
Put in mind that Pre-classical period fared very well albeit slow development..

Hmmmmm

clears throat....oau philosophy students, say hahoo.evry1 in d house say yeah yeah....let d critical analysis begin

Toyolad:
clears throat....oau philosophy students, say hahoo.evry1 in d house say yeah yeah....let d critical analysis begin

Lol welcome my OgA.... Lol

Fynestboi:
I sight u toyolad my crime colleague

crime ke....lol

Toyolad:
crime ke....lol

IS JOHN LOCKE STATE OF NATURE NOT BETTER THAN THE FORMATION OF A COMMONWEALTH/ NEW SOCIETY?

Welcome Toyolad

Freemanan:


Okay chief
Put in mind that Pre-classical period fared very well albeit slow development..

But sir on the formation of the new state what form of government are we talking, or let me say what kind of society?

Freemanan:
Welcome Toyolad

I update something up there sir...

Fynestboi:




But sir on the formation of the new state what form of government are we talking?

For the sake of this discourse, Democratic Monarchy will be ideal because GOVERNMENT started with it. The Society has to give all their personal right as human to a central authority, a new Commonwealth known to be a KING... He will hold the rights of the people in trust for the benefit of organised life, peace, and to avoid might is right... That is what the new GOVERNMENT is better.


So my question is, is this new society better off than the State of nature? The state of nature WHERE life is SHORT, NASTY, AND BRUTISH... Is the power vested in the King or the new GOVERNMENT not too much thereby turning him to a despot like Mussolini, Stalin, Roman Emperor's and Tsars....

Your opinion...

Fynestboi:



IS JOHN LOCKE STATE OF NATURE NOT BETTER THAN THE FORMATION OF A COMMONWEALTH/ NEW SOCIETY?

his society, I posit, is better than his idea of the state of nature because.. – the
absence of power produces
“inconveniences” and the fear of civil
tumult, and where there is no common
set of laws and impartial adjudicators,
the advantages of “perfect freedom and
equality” are offset by the worries ofh
aggression....the people in state of nature were unsure abt d future...so they had to hop out by forming a govt in which everyman shall, while obeying himself, be free of oppression nd be certain of security of life and property.



this fone dey fall my hand

Freemanan:
Welcome Toyolad

I sight u sir

Freemanan:

For the sake of this discourse, Democratic Monarchy will be ideal because GOVERNMENT started with it. The Society has to give all their personal right as human to a central authority, a new Commonwealth known to be a KING... He will hold the rights of the people in trust for the benefit of organised life, peace, and to avoid might is right... That is what the new GOVERNMENT is better.


So my question is, is this new society better off than the State of nature? The state of nature WHERE life is SHORT, NASTY, AND BRUTISH... Is the power vested in the King or the new GOVERNMENT not too much thereby turning him to a despot like Mussolini, Stalin, Roman Emperor's and Tsars....

Your opinion...

Based on what I have here sir, the new society is better off than the state of nature...


On the following premises..


State of nature gives no room for acquisition of property.
Short lifespan
Fear of unknown abound.


But in a new society even if the government is tyranny. Fear of unknown will surely be limited...

Therefore juxtaposing the disadvantages of state of nature with a new society, put a new society ahead..


But if we are to compare between John Locke state of nature with a new society. Subjectively, I will retain Lockean state of nature.

If you are a“thinker" please kindly introduce yourself....

Freemanan:

For the sake of this discourse, Democratic Monarchy will be ideal because GOVERNMENT started with it. The Society has to give all their personal right as human to a central authority, a new Commonwealth known to be a KING... He will hold the rights of the people in trust for the benefit of organised life, peace, and to avoid might is right... That is what the new GOVERNMENT is better.


So my question is, is this new society better off than the State of nature? The state of nature WHERE life is SHORT, NASTY, AND BRUTISH... Is the power vested in the King or the new GOVERNMENT not too much thereby turning him to a despot like Mussolini, Stalin, Roman Emperor's and Tsars....

Your opinion...

that's Hobbesian state of nature you are talking about there......the people in lockean's hypothetical state of nature were guided by natural laws and so life there was not nasty, brutish,poor,Short and solitary... the reason for the establishment of an organized govt is to promulgate laws, execute and enforce it so as to guarantee the security of life, liberty and property against a potential violator of the natural laws.

Fynestboi:


Based on what I have here sir, the new society is better off than the state of nature...


On the following premises..


State of nature gives no room for acquisition of property.
Short lifespan
Fear of unknown abound.


But in a new society even if the government is tyranny. Fear of unknown will surely be limited...

Therefore juxtaposing the disadvantages of state of nature with a new society, put a new society ahead..


But if we are to compare between John Locke state of nature with a new society. Subjectively, I will retain Lockean state of nature.

why?

Fynestboi:


Based on what I have here sir, the new society is better off than the state of nature...


On the following premises..


State of nature gives no room for acquisition of property.
Short lifespan
Fear of unknown abound.


But in a new society even if the government is tyranny. Fear of unknown will surely be limited...

Therefore juxtaposing the disadvantages of state of nature with a new society, put a new society ahead..


But if we are to compare between John Locke state of nature with a new society. Subjectively, I will retain Lockean state of nature.

Objection objected

---

Locke believes that this tate of Nature has a laws to govern it and that law is reason. Humans are by nature reasonable.
So my rational other, don't you think that man would have coordinated himself better having in mind that he has to give what he can take, hence violence and all will be reduced.
Mind you, there was a GOVERNMENT when the world wars took place which claim the lives of a reasonable population of the world, various civil wars have come and go due to the failures of Commonwealth and GOVERNMENT. So my goodman, what is the relevance of GOVERNMENT?

Permit my extreme condemnation of GOVERNMENT even though I am aware of FEW of their merits but I think it is an overrated institution JUST like organised religion...

Your opinion...

Toyolad:
why?

For Locke, in the state of nature all men are free "to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature."

A society in a kind of state of nature painted by Locke I believe is better than a new society where the government dictate authoritatively.


Won't you prefer to stay in a place where you are free to do what you deem fit, without any fear than been ordered around?

Toyolad:
that's Hobbesian state of nature you are talking about there......the people in lockean's hypothetical state of nature were guided by natural laws and so life there was not nasty, brutish,poor,Short and solitary... the reason for the establishment of an organized govt is to promulgate laws, execute and enforce it so as to guarantee the security of life, liberty and property against a potential violator of the natural laws.

Thanks for the corrections Mate... further correspondence have been adjusted.


To your point, HOW well have security of lives and property fared? Aficans and Major parts of Asia knows nothing about liberty. I don't think the failures of GOVERNMENT is human fault. I think it is a continual reminder that nature is supreme. That humans cannot handle organised GOVERNMENT, it is not part of human nature..

Your opinion..

Freemanan:


Objection objected

---

Locke believes that this tate of Nature has a laws to govern it and that law is reason. Humans are by nature reasonable.
So my rational other, don't you think that man would have coordinated himself better having in mind that he has to give what he can take, hence violence and all will be reduced.
Mind you, there was a GOVERNMENT when the world wars took place which claim the lives of a reasonable population of the world, various civil wars have come and go due to the failures of Commonwealth and GOVERNMENT. So my goodman, what is the relevance of GOVERNMENT?

Permit my extreme condemnation of GOVERNMENT even though I am aware of FEW of their merits but I think it is an overrated institution JUST like organised religion...

Your opinion...

I am of the opinion that Lockean state of nature is better of than a new society, but hobbesian state of nature is not..

However, I won't but point out man's extreme way of using our rationality due to the absent of “check and balance" Man is naturally egoistic, and as such allowing man to remain in Lockean state of nature, will still amount to violence.


What you think sir?

Freemanan:


Objection objected

---

Locke believes that this tate of Nature has a laws to govern it and that law is reason. Humans are by nature reasonable.
So my rational other, don't you think that man would have coordinated himself better having in mind that he has to give what he can take, hence violence and all will be reduced.
Mind you, there was a GOVERNMENT when the world wars took place which claim the lives of a reasonable population of the world, various civil wars have come and go due to the failures of Commonwealth and GOVERNMENT. So my goodman, what is the relevance of GOVERNMENT?

Permit my extreme condemnation of GOVERNMENT even though I am aware of FEW of their merits but I think it is an overrated institution JUST like organised religion...

Your opinion...

first of all, let's imagine a world without government in which the people there are only guided by natural laws not forgetting that humans are inherently egoistic in nature....despite our rationality, the egoism in us upgrades to wickedness and heartlessness and there is no government to curb our actions and make us put our burning desires under check...what do you think life in that world would be like??.....true, our government aren't doing enough BT in the words of Donald Trump "it is only a government that can control the heart of men that can boast of a building a perfect society"

Fynestboi:



For Locke, in the state of nature all men are free "to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature."

A society in a kind of state of nature painted by Locke I believe is better than a new society where the government dictate authoritatively.


Won't you prefer to stay in a place where you are free to do what you deem fit, without any fear than been ordered around?

The government doesn't order you in most cases, they only place restrictions on you to curb your excesses for the sake of the common good.

You need to know that your good is part of the common good and if every law made by the government is for the common good then it means that its for your own good too whether directly or indirectly...
A world without an organized government would be chaotic, brutish, nasty and poor despite human rationality.