What Is Man's Disposition in the State of Nature?

... take a human baby, throw it in a cage, provide it with physical necessities - it will adapt ... it will learn nothing of selflessness because it knows nothing but self ...

... take a human baby, immerse it in a clan, provide it with physical and emotional abundance - it will adapt ... it will learn to balance selfishness and selflessness because it knows the value of community ...

... seems like Locke has more the right of it ... but that may also be due to environment: Hobbes' formative years were spent in the midst of religious civil wars that were tearing Europe apart; Locke's were spent during their decline ...

Locke seems to argue that the state of nature is guided by reason, but that men often fail to follow its dictates and hence there is a "state of war" against the natural and rational rules of harmony and co-operation. This might be a more gentle description of the world before law and government than was Hobbes, but both seem to present essentially the same argument that society is instituted among men to avoid troubles and disturbances.

How can man remove himself from nature at all? One cannot remove ones self from the natural world through reason or any other means.

It is useful for us to categorize, analyze, and otherwise group things according to the specific characteristics we observe. When we observe something that seems contrary to our perception of what it should be, we might say it is unnatural when we really should be saying it is unusual (outside of normal tendencies).

As a cat behaves as a cat, and a dog as a dog, It is mans nature to be exactly as he is. Good and evil are only judgments, constructs of the mind, and neither of these is any more or less our nature.

It is my opinion that removing ourselves from nature (through religious ideas mostly) has an obscurant affect. By hiding or denying our natural primate tendencies we misunderstand our very nature. I feel that we are the way we are (our nature or tendencies) to a large extent as a result of our history. Selection pressure and the resulting adaptations have molded us.

Should we be surprised that the top primate has selfish, violent, warmongering tendencies? The human characteristic tendencies, good or bad, are present because selection pressure favored those characteristics. We cannot so quickly turn from those traits even if the selection pressure that developed them has waned. Sadly, it appears that man cannot reason away the traits we so disdain in ourselves.

Both tendencies and society shape man. Influence of society may one up on genetics however there cannot be a certain nature that can involve in all times. Substructure of economics and relationships of society change man's disposition.

How can society change mans nature when it is mans nature that dictates what society is?


I do understand what you are saying but I don't agree with the idea that society in any way is removed from nature. I am hitting on the semantics of the word NATURE.


A bird nest is no more natural than a human house. Nor is a termite mound any more natural than a sky scraper.


We have come to believe that we are somehow apart from nature, and I really don't understand the reasoning behind that. Would you please explain it for me?