The not so natural man
29
Mar
Modern philosophy, from Hobbes to Hegel, then the crisis settles, failed to define what 
would indeed be natural, and we ask the natural is the man at war? Or in peace? If we can put aside what is in fact natural and nature.
Let us begin with Hobbes, “If there were no corruption and vice of degenerate men, there would be no need for other laws, nor the need to form separate societies based on positive contracts instead of a great and natural community.” (Locke, 1978, p. 5), seems current and it is because the state idealized by Hobbes and deified by Hegel is what was implanted.
For Hobbes the State of Nature is the State of War itself against all, in fact of the state against the citizen, but this is not clear, he emphasizes that before the threat of violent death, life is characterized as: “sordid , Poor, brutish and short, “in the terms he expounded in chapter XIII of Leviathan, his principal work.
War is then a permanent sensation of fear that implies the constant preoccupation with self-protection, very current, and is of 1651 (in the photo the original cover).
John Locke goes on to establish as one of the great precursors of liberalism that men are equal and free, and that within the limits of the law of nature can decide, in a contract established with others, what actions can be practiced in the relationship with The others, it can be said that he is not in a state of war, but he must establish rules so that the “natural” limits are respected.
Since man cannot destroy the gifts of nature, he must, for the sake of his “unlimited” freedom, justify his attitude toward preserving humanity, said in his pamphlet Two Treatises on Government (II, § 6).
“Each one is obliged to preserve himself, and not to abandon his position of his own accord; For the same reason, when their own preservation is not at stake, each should, as far as he can, preserve the rest of mankind, and can not, unless it is to do ju-stice to an offender, to take away or harm life Or what favors the preservation of the life, liberty, integrity or assets of others.” (LOCKE, 1998, p.385).
Finally comes Jean Jacques Rousseau who defends the “good savage”, that is, man is good by nature society corrupts him, said this way:
“Men in this state [of nature], having no kind of moral relation or known duties to each other, could neither be good nor bad, and had neither vices nor virtues. Let us not, above all, conclude with Hobbes that, having no idea of goodness, man is naturally evil; … “(ROUSSEAU, 1978, p.158).
Later this will become modern idolatry of the state in Hegel, but it is necessary to return to this “ideal” state from Kant to make a course of thought.
(pages in brazilian edition)
HOBBES, T. Leviathan, Collection Os pensadores, São Paulo: Abril Cultural, 1978. LOCKE, John. Two agreements about the government. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 1998. ROUSEAU, J.J. Discourse on the origin and foundations of inequality among men, Collection Os Pensadores, São Paulo: Abril Cultural, 1978.
