Philo says the former. His quote: "Historically, man is tribal, and oragnized along tribal/cultural basis, and the individual tends to be radically subservient to the demands of his kin-group and culture, and only when he is showing some form of obeisance to it is there an inclination towards liberty[?]."
I say the latter. From my avatar:
"TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.
A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one [196] having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection"
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/locke-the-two-treatises-of-civil-government-hollis-ed Chapter II, Section 4
Have at it.
@no1marauder
Good topic.
Man is the animal which does not have a natural state. Mankind's instincts and natural endowments are insufficient to ensure his survival. Alone, naked, without fur, he is unable to survive any but very mild climates; alone, naked, without claws, he is unable to bring down large prey or defend himself against large predators. Mankind survives only in social groups and only through cooperation to keep the group stable. Moreover, man's instincts, unlike those of other social animals such as bees and ants, do not suffice to ensure social order and cooperation; these are skills which must be learned and taught to succeeding generations and codified in something more consistent than the memories of individual members of the group (e.g., traditions, institutions, laws, morality, religion, or something similar).
Philosophy of anthropology generally accepts that there is a broad historical evolution of types of social groups, the most primitive being the family (with an alpha, a dominant individual, in charge who enforces discipline, resolves conflicts, delegates responsibilities, and distributes resources), leading to groups of families or clans (typically with a 'council of elders,' who exercise the same functions or delegate them to subordinates), leading to tribes (again typically with a dominant alpha or chieftan), leading to a polity wherein for the first time something like a civic authority (rather than an alpha individual or council of alphas) assumes responsibility for resolving conflicts, distributing resources, making and enforcing rules and so on.
In no case is there any such thing as natural obedience or natural freedom; there are artificial (i.e., man-made) roles within some type of social group which defines who plays which roles. The roles specify and limit freedoms and responsibilities.
These categories (of social groups) are nicely enumerated by, for example, Arnold Gehlen (in many works published in the 1930-50s), and more recently by Jared Diamond in "Guns, Germs, and Steel" (a monumental work covering the evolution of human society since the end of the last ice age).
@moonbus saidOf course, he has a natural state; that of being part of a egalitarian, emphatic group. And we evolved certain characteristics that enhanced survival inside of and (perhaps more important) of the group itself.
@no1marauder
Good topic.
Man is the animal which does not have a natural state. Mankind's instincts and natural endowments are insufficient to ensure his survival. Alone, naked, without fur, he is unable to survive any but very mild climates; alone, naked, without claws, he is unable to bring down large prey or defend himself against large predators. Mankind surv ...[text shortened]... teel" (a monumental work covering the evolution of human society since the end of the last ice age).
I heavily dispute the idea that small, hunter gathering bands had authoritarian structures with one "chief". I know of no research that supports such a thesis.
@no1marauder
I just mentioned two sources, Gehlen and Diamond. They have extensive bibliographies.
If you think mankind has or had a natural state, then define "natural."
"Natural" is typically understood to be opposed to "artificial" or "man-made"; natural, in the case of animals, means wholly defined and determined by instinct. Dogs, goats, and pigs have a natural state, untamed and undomesticated; humans do not. As I pointed out, mankind cannot survival on instinct alone; humans who attempt to survive on instinct alone die out without reproducing. Even the most primitive people had man-made, artificial, and therefore not natural, social groupings.
@moonbus saidI don't want to waste time on semantics but if you are claiming dogs and other social mammals act solely on "instinct" you are egregiously wrong.
@no1marauder
I just mentioned two sources, Gehlen and Diamond. They have extensive bibliographies.
If you think mankind has or had a natural state, then define "natural."
"Natural" is typically understood to be opposed to "artificial" or "man-made"; natural, in the case of animals, means wholly defined and determined by instinct. Dogs, goats, and pigs have a natural ...[text shortened]... ven the most primitive people had man-made, artificial, and therefore not natural, social groupings.
I see little difference between how dogs learn their social behavior and how our species does though both are biologically programmed in ways that encourage group cohesion and mutual cooperation.
@shavixmir saidWith a few caveats and a bit of semantic tweaking I don't think they are.
Are they mutually exclusive?
We have the freedom to conform (or not).
And perhaps sometimes that freedom is illusory if the social constraints are great.
@wolfgang59 saidPeople are naturally resistant to authority; the first word from a child after being told they must do something is often "Why?". In our Natural State, that of small hunter gathering bands, there was no source of ultimate authority; decisions were arrived by consensus. And if one strongly objected to a decision it was fairly easy to just leave and join the band next door.
With a few caveats and a bit of semantic tweaking I don't think they are.
We have the freedom to conform (or not).
And perhaps sometimes that freedom is illusory if the social constraints are great.
So I don't see any strong evidence we are naturally obedient though surely there are social pressures to conform (ones we created mind you).
@no1marauder saidIsn't this just a Nature vs Nurture argument?
So I don't see any strong evidence we are naturally obedient though surely there are social pressures to conform (ones we created mind you).
We have evolved as social animals and have deep needs to be accepted by
our group(s). Those needs are amplified by social constructs which reinforce
our needs. Traditionally banishment was as bad a punishment as death and
in more modern times being "sent to Coventry" was a powerful way for
individuals to be punished for not running with the pack. Nowadays we have
social media to name and shame celebrities and encourage them to adhere to
social norms and our poor children suffer the same with the threats of "unfriending".
Isn't our adherence to society's morality/norms/expectations obedience?
I therefore think that we are naturally obedient and it is far more difficult
to express our freedom than you are suggesting. We are all, to a degree, sheep.
@no1marauder saidIt is awesome to be able to spawn another thread -- I feel flattered to contribute to discussion in the forum.
Philo says the former. His quote: "Historically, man is tribal, and oragnized along tribal/cultural basis, and the individual tends to be radically subservient to the demands of his kin-group and culture, and only when he is showing some form of obeisance to it is there an inclination towards liberty[?]."
I say the latter. From my avatar:
"TO understand political po ...[text shortened]... /titles/locke-the-two-treatises-of-civil-government-hollis-ed Chapter II, Section 4
Have at it.
To explain this slightly, as there is a question mark:
"Historically, man is tribal, and oragnized along tribal/cultural basis, and the individual tends to be radically subservient to the demands of his kin-group and culture, and only when he is showing some form of obeisance to it is there an inclination towards liberty[?]."
the subject in the last clause here is society, as in, only when [the individual] is showing some form of obeisance is society inclined to grant him his liberty.
A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one [196] having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection
But people are not born to the same rank or position.
People are babies subject to their immediate parents for education. When they reach maturity, they are now subject to the communal leaders.
There's a natural hierarchy, not some natural state of rote equality.
Moreover, there is not equality between groups. Groups compete for access and use of scarce resources, and in the course of their competition societies mobilize against one another and structure themselves to efficiently divide their labor.
The smallest unit is the individual, sure, but this is not the only unit in society or community, and coming up with a system that acts as if the individual is the only unit is short-sighted.
@philokalia saidLocke's ideas of morally justified resistance to authority if it becomes a tyranny is a building block of the Irish Revolutions(s).
I also would like to point out that it is interesting that Marauder has gone from the IRA to Locke.
Granted, Locke himself wasn't very favorably inclined to the Irish, but I'm more interested in his political ideals rather than his 17th Century politics.
@no1marauder saidSure, but I had always pegged you for someone who wanted to redistribute wealth and wasn't actually that strong of an advocate for individual liberty.
Locke's ideas of morally justified resistance to authority if it becomes a tyranny is a building block of the Irish Revolutions(s).
Granted, Locke himself wasn't very favorably inclined to the Irish, but I'm more interested in his political ideals rather than his 17th Century politics.
I've always thought of Locke as a poster boy for classical liberals and Libertarians.
@philokalia saidYou are not talking about our Natural State, but the very unnatural state we find ourselves forced into because of the development of an autocratic State.
It is awesome to be able to spawn another thread -- I feel flattered to contribute to discussion in the forum.
To explain this slightly, as there is a question mark:
[quote]"Historically, man is tribal, and oragnized along tribal/cultural basis, and the individual tends to be radically subservient to the demands of his kin-group and culture, and only when he is show ...[text shortened]... unity, and coming up with a system that acts as if the individual is the only unit is short-sighted.
In hunter gatherer bands (which comprise how the majority of Man lived for all but the last 10,000 or less years of the species' existence), a baby or child was in a subservient state, but not an adult - there were no "communal leaders" in the way you are using the term - no one could compel you to do anything. Decisions in groups were made by consensus, not by a "chief".
There is no "natural hierarchy" in individuals or groups.
You have gotten into your head the ideas that the state of things now or in historical times in certain places, is the inevitable fate of Man. But Anthropology convincingly refutes that premise.
@philokalia saidHe is. I'm a Leftist-Libertarian and/or Libertarian Socialist.
Sure, but I had always pegged you for someone who wanted to redistribute wealth and wasn't actually that strong of an advocate for individual liberty.
I've always thought of Locke as a poster boy for classical liberals and Libertarians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
The Lockean proviso is the basis for an argument that wealth should not be so concentrated that some in a society cannot receive the essentials of life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso