Devon Gibbons Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 state of nature The state of nature is a concept in moral and political philosophy used in religion, social contract theories and international law to denote the hypothetical conditions of what the lives of people might have been like before societies came into existence.
NigelW Posted July 14, 2014 Author Posted July 14, 2014 The reason that I ask is because it's come up in podcasts and in recent call in conversations. How do I know if this state of nature exists? If the main prerequisite for someone to be 'in a state of nature' is living without the existence of society then isn't it incorrect to use this hypothetical term to describe those born into a society at all? I'm not entirely sure that it is helpful in assigning responsibility and it's confusing. What does it mean when someone says that "I did something wrong and I was in a state of nature"?
Dwain Dibley Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 There is no right or wrong in a state of nature. It is sustain your existence by whatever means necessary or parish.
SamuelS Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 I think what Stef means when he says that is that you're in a natural state of ignorance...if you haven't examined a thing and just do whatever "default" society has programmed you with, you're not acting out of malice so much as out of ignorance to the implications and alternatives.
NigelW Posted July 29, 2014 Author Posted July 29, 2014 So self examination necessarily leads to not being in a state of nature? 1
SamuelS Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Yes, I think it does. That would explain why so many avoid knowledge like it's the plague.
Dwain Dibley Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Great. Thanks for the help again Samuel! Curious, why are you thanking Samuel, he did not address the question you asked? Self awareness does not lead you out of the state of nature nor does it make you any smarter. 2
SamuelS Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 My answer may well be entirely incorrect, but Nigel clarified his question in his second post to the thread and my answer was given with that context in mind. I get the impression that you're implying self knowledge is not a valuable thing to pursue...or did you just mean in context of the "state of nature" definition in the 1st reply by marinalist?
Dwain Dibley Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Well yes, context is everything. Self knowledge is a luxury afforded to one's self, it is not a pursuit of necessity. Being self aware, is a different matter, it is a part of our post primal nature. Being self aware or even knowledgeable in that awareness, does not remove one from the state of nature, that takes cooperation with other self aware beings along with a broader awareness of the environment within which they eke out their existence. 1
Recommended Posts