Talk:State of nature/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This page is crap-- i second that notion. and where are the citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.105 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is crap. Hobbes was not a Christian; he was consciously fighting Christianity. Read the newly updated Thomas Hobbes page for more info on why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.234.12 (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2004 (UTC)

Hobbes' work is very famous. His religion is irrelevant. Aksis (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I removed the warning about the page being based on Larry's text. It doesn't seem to have any of the original text left in it. -- Tim Starling 09:17, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Marx a Romantic thinker?

Surely this is a stretch of (the faculty of) the Imagination.

Hobbes's premise has plenty of critics, not all of whom would generally be considered Romantics. Will an anthropologist contribute to this otherwise uninteresting article?

Locke/Anon

An anon added some stuff I trimmed to:

John Locke further explores the state of nature in his Second Treatise on Civil Government writen in the wake of England's Glorious Revolution of 1688. Locke argued that unlimited government leads to abuses and that government should be from the people and that it should be limited so as not to violate the natural rights of people. Locke states that the entire population has the right to punish an offender so that he will not commit the crime again and so that others will be deterred from moral law breaking.

I'm not familiar with Locke, but this para doesn't appear to have a lot to do with state of nature. William M. Connolley 08:40:09, 2005-08-24 (UTC).

I have changed it. --Oddeivind 17:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

History of SON

Article states the SON was first proposed by Hobbes, but there are clear historical antecedents in Aquinas... anyone know enough about Aquinas to fix this error?

I have been looking at a chapter of a 1930s history of political theory on the web, "The Roman Lawyers of the Second Century to the Political writers of the Ninth", from A History of Medieval Philosphy[[1]] (published by the University of Toronto Press, 1934). In this book, which contains excerpts from Latin commentators on law. The author', A. J. Carlyle, maintains that the theory of the Social Contract (i.e., government authority derives from the consent of the governed) is already present in Cicero (a famous lawyer) and other ancient Roman writers on law. All of them used as a starting point the State of Nature, which was a Golden Age of Equality and non-coercive government. This means that men voluntarily followed the rule of the wise. Roman and, later, Church fathers make a distinction between Natural law, which prevailed in the (somewhat hypothetical) State of Nature, and Positive Law, which is made by men. Ownership of property is a positive law. In the State of Nature property was held in common. There was no private property, and even now it was felt, people should use only that portion of private property which they need and make available the rest for public use. All the ancient writers are agreed that property ownership came about through greed. Stoic philosophers, such as Senneca, and not the Christians, originated the idea that men are equal and that even slaves are men with human rights and dignity. They recommended that slaves ought to be treated the same as hired men. This is very different from the view of Aristotle, who stressed human inequality and defended slavery.

There is no change in political theory so startling in its completeness as the change from the theory of Aristotle to the later philosophical view represented by Cicero and Seneca. Over against Aristotle's view of the natural inequality of human nature we find set out the theory of the natural equality of human nature. [For the Roman jurists] There is no resemblance in nature so great as that between man and man, there is no equality so complete. There is only one possible definition for all mankind, reason is common to all ; men differ indeed in learning, but are equal in the capacity, for learning. There is no race which under the guidance of nature cannot attain to virtue. The same virtues are pleasing, the same vices are detestable to all nations; all men can be made better by learning the true conception of life. It is only the perversions which depraved habit and foolish conceptions have brought, which cause men to differ so much from each other. Nature has given to all men reason, that is, true reason, and therefore the true law, which is right reason commanding and forbidding. 2 We shall see later how these sweeping generalisations recur in Seneca, and it can scarcely be doubted that we have here presented to us the foundation of those dogmatic statements of the lawyers like Ulpian and Florentinus, 1 in which all men are presented to us as being by nature free, by nature equal. We are indeed at the beginnings of a theory of human nature and society of which the " Liberty^ Equality, and Fraternity " of the French Revolution is only the present-day expression. To complete the parallelism of the conception, we may observe that the " Fraternity " of the Revolution is only a later form of Cicero's phrase, 2 " By nature we are disposed to love men ;this is the foundation of law.

"

For the Romans the legitimacy of the state rests on the consent of the governed and the ruler (even the Emperor) is legitimate insofar as he brings justice to the governed. (This is a version of the Social Contract.) The Church fathers continued this terminology, although they stressed the divine origin of the rule of kings and the fact that man's sinfulness necessitated coercive government. St. Ambrose insisted on the right of the Church to remove an unjust ruler and to protect the weak. The Fathers of the Church allowed that slavery and unjust rulers were a "discipline" ordained by God's will, but that the man, equal to other men, remained inside the slave. For St. Augustine:

[The]State may be more or less corrupt, but so long as it consists of a multitude of rational beings associated together in the harmonious enjoyment of that which they love, St Augustine thinks it may be regarded as a State or Commonwealth. 1 This is practically Cicero's definition, but with the elements of law and justice left out. No more fundamental difference could very well be imagined, although St Augustine seems to take the matter lightly ; for Cicero's whole conception of the State turns upon this principle, that it is a means for attaining and preserving justice.

I have not got up to part II (Aquinas) of Carlyle's history of law, yet, but it is clear that Hobbes did not invent the State of Nature. And it seems resonable that Aquinas would have leaned toward Aristotle. The key point, however, seems to be the distinction between positive law (made by men) and natural law (implanted in human hearts by God or Nature), which is the same for all men everywhere.173.77.103.53 (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC) THE SOURCE AND AUTHORITY OF LAW : CONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE AND GENERAL THEORY.

Sovereignty of Law in the middle ages:

We have seen that the most important political conception of the Middle Ages was the conception of the supremacy of law, the law which was the expression, not merely of the will of the ruler, but of the life of the community ; and this life, which expressed itself in the customs, and therefore the law of the community, was conceived of as itself the expression of moral principles. The law was supreme, because it was the expression of justice; the unjust law was not law at all. This conception can, as we have shown, be traced through all mediaeval literature from the ninth century to the thirteenth. It is sometimes expressed in the technical terms of the derivation of Jus from Justitia, or of the subordination of all positive law to the natural law, sometimes in the more popular terms of the distinction between the king and the tyrant.[ibid, volume 6]

St. Thomas believes that the King is not above the law, but that he must obey it voluntarily (as in a State of Nature, though he doesn't use these words). He quotes the Roman jurist Ulpian and agrees that a king who doesn't obey the law is not a king but a tyrant. The big problem in the middle ages is whether the ultimate authority resides in the Secualar or Eclesiastical institutions.

A typical example of a medieval jurist:

John of Imola, in one place, says that while the Emperor and the Pope are not bound by " positive " laws, they are bound by the divine and natural law, and therefore by their " Contract," for this is founded upon natural law. And in another place the Prince is bound by a contract with his subjects, " naturaliter," though not " civiliter.(ibid, vol. 6)

"173.77.103.53 (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Rawls

I don't see anything in what is written here about Rawls that wasn't said earlier by Hobbes. If Rawls has anything new to say, it should be made rather clearer! William M. Connolley 23:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

I don't understand... could you elaborate? Rawls's use of the SON is completely different from Hobbes's and the article seems to make that clear. Mikker ^... 16:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the differences:

• People in the original position have no society and are under a veil of ignorance that prevents them from knowing how they may benefit from society. - just like Hobbes
• They do not know if they will be smart or dumb, rich or poor, or anything else about their fortunes and abilities - hard to interpret: but if interpreted as "they do not know what they specifically will gain", is just like Hobbes
• Rawls reasons that people in the original position would want a society where they had their basic liberties protected and where they had some economic guarantees as well. - Hobbes, though with the word "economic" added

And so on. Where is the novelty? Presumably there is some somewhere, but this article doesn't explain it. William M. Connolley 19:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Yeah, there better be novelty! Rawls isn't the most influencial political philosopher in the 20th century for nothing! As to your examples:

• The "veil of ignorance" is a device unique to Rawls - Hobbes has nothing similar. Rawls argues that to ensure fairness and equality in the original position the parties must be placed behind said "veil of ignorance" which screens out all particular information about their own position, and particular information about their society (1971: 136-142). This is done to "nullify the effects of specific contingencies which put men at odds and tempt them to exploit social and natural circumstances to their own advantage" (ibid.: 136). The intuition that animates this view is that no one deserves either to be favoured or disadvantaged as a result of their place in the distribution of primary goods. As Rawls puts it: “no one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favourable starting place in society” (ibid.: 102). To factor out arbitrary influences, the veil of ignorance excludes particular facts about the parties themselves such as their sex, race, religion, wealth, conception of the good, social status, aversion to risk, and special features of their psychology (ibid.: 136-137). Additionally, particular facts about the society the parties in the original position will inhabit is also excluded, specifically, its economic and political situation, level of culture and civilisation, and distribution of income (ibid.: 137).
• This is just the (inelagantly phrased) explanation of the above.
• I don't think Hobbes says anywhere people's 'basic liberties' are to be respected - he is far more concerned with people's basic security. Rawls simply assumes the state already exists but the "basic structure" (roughly, the constitution and economic system) is yet to be decided. I.e. Hobbes + Rawls have completely different topics in mind in their respective writings... Mikker ^... 20:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that makes things clearer. So Rawls is proposing something definitely non-realistic: obviously, people do know their sex at the very least. Whereas Hobbes isn't really definite as to whether his is a thought experiment, or how things actually might have happened. William M. Connolley 20:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Exactly. Rawls says explicitly the original position is a "hypothetical expository device" designed to encapsulate our considered judgments concerning the reasonable conditions to impose on the parties who decide the basic structure of society. Hobbes in contrast has a positive conception in mind; whether or not the state of nature as described ever existed, he thinks a war of all against all will erupt if the conditions of the SON were ever to obtain, whilst Rawls thinks it impossible for anyone to be (literally) in the original position, it is merely a thought experiment. To clarify a bit further: Hobbes asks the question "should there be a state?", and, if so, "what powers should it have and what form should it take?". Rawls tries to answer the question "what social and constitutional arrangement is just?". (i.e. in Kant's terminology, Hobbes's argument amounts to a 'hypothetical imperative' whilst Rawls's amounts to a 'categorical imperative.' Mikker ^... 21:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Continuing after a long pause, or rather not... I see we left this in apparent agreement, which is wrong; Yeah, there better be novelty! Rawls isn't the most influencial political philosopher in the 20th century for nothing! is funny; I think this article strongly over-emphasises Rawls and his value, but I can't be bothered to argue about it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The state of Nature is more then philosophical political theories, tho they do have a place in an article about the state of Nature. Aksis (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Philosophical History of SON

Article states the SON was first proposed by Hobbes, but there are clear historical antecedents in Aquinas... anyone know enough about Aquinas to fix this error?

The Facts

Don't remove the facts of what the state of Nature is. The base reality must be presented before the philosophy, or in other words, you can't put the actors on stage if their is no stage.

I didn't realise you were in a position to give orders on this page. It makes it so much easier when someone is, don't you find? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not exactly an order. You seem more concerned with the philosophy then the reality. I had preserved both. Why are you deleting the work I did without discussion?

The original article was missing the very axiom of what the state of Nature even is. Further, there is more to this topic then philosophy.

I removed the paragraph regarding the theories about "multiple universes" as it was superfluous when I restored the edit. Aksis (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:OR. Your own theories are no doubt of great interest to you, but don't belong in wiki. Please stop adding this stuff, it so obviously doesn't belong William M. Connolley (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This is *your* opinion. Further, it's an unsubstantiated opinion, based on a very disturbing lack of recognition of base reality. Do I need to provide the definitions of the words "state" and "nature" or can you manage to see you way clear on what the axiom is? I cited many sources, I can cite more and support every point if your are going to keep being obtuse about this... seems someone needed to start... Oh, and I can tell you have been reading Hobbes... Aristocrats discoursing upon the "state of Nature"??? What farce... Aksis (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The additions are obviously original research and shouldn't be included in the article per Wikipedia policy. Even though you used a few citations, your main points are uncited OR.--Bkwillwm (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In light of more citations (how many do you want?), it is obviously not original research, just your lack of research. The deletions of the work I did is not coming from a WP:NPOV, I can tell you are quite impressed with Hobbes and the philosophical perspectives. I could see such a limitation being sustained on the Hobbes et al. pages or even the State_of_nature-philosophy page.

That said, I don't see why both perspectives can't exist on this page... care to explain why you do (before you childishly delete the work I did without explanation... again)?

We've explained why we're deleting this. Even if you stick some more citations in, the problem is that the ideas that you're trying to express aren't cited; they're original. This page is focused on "State of Nature" as the term is used in philosophy. If you want to want to discuss the term in other context, you would have to show where a notable, published work uses "state of nature" in the same manner that you do. Also, please be aware of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You used the OR reason and it has been rebutted. You explanation is baseless and without merit, in fact a lie. It is obviously coming from a lack of a neutral point of view on both your parts. The solution to the desire of a strict philosophical view is to develop that page State_of_nature-philosophy seeing as how there is no intentions to develop a single page that includes all perspectives and NOT JUST the philosophy. Simply because a lack of foresight on the part of the initial author of this article and the choice to limit it to "philosophy" was made, is not binding, nor wise, nor does it present a neutral point of view. Further, you should stick to the "3 revert rule" rather then persist in vandalizing this page. I was right in the middle of adding more citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aksis (talk • contribs) 03:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The OR reason has not been rebutted. You provide no citations that show the phrase "state of nature" being used to mean what you contend. There are no citations in your first two paragraphs except for a dictionary definition of "nature," which doesn't help establish the meaning of "state of nature."--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well now, that was just me being stupid, how silly of me to present the dictionary definition of the noun constituting a 3 word "term" to establish the meaning of the term. Aksis (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you think I am "contending" that isn't being supported with cites or obvious fact? BE MORE SPECIFIC

You seem to be attempting to re-invent the Nature article. This article is about the political/philosphical concept. Oh, and I can tell you have been reading Hobbes... Aristocrats discoursing upon the "state of Nature"??? What farce... is an odd thing to say... Hobbes (a) wasn't an aristo and (b) whether or not you like his philosophy (I do, though its obviously wrong) he is well known for the concept; a SoN article that didn't extensively cover his views would be odd William M. Connolley (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll stand corrected on the "Aristocrat" comment, as England is technically a Monarchy, (tho, in light of the existence and function of Parliament, it could fit the definition of an Aristocracy, or rather, it has an Aristocratic component and members of such a society would be Aristocrats). More to the point, was, the fact that Hobbes likely never went camping or spent any time with gypsies or people living in the state of Nature (who, while not a formal society are a society and happen to make their domicile and reside in the 'state of Nature').

This is hopeless, although vaguely funny. Whether or not Hobbes ever went camping is utterly irrelevant, gypsies don't live in a state of nature, just because you live in an aristocracy doesn't make you an aristocrat. Etc etc. Find something you know something about, and write about that William M. Connolley (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am obviously NOT reinventing the Nature article. What I am doing is insisting that the base fact of what the "state of Nature" is serve as the prolepsis of the article rather then "theory" and "philosophy" based upon and regarding the fact. Don't mistake my bold editing as some kind of attack or act of disrespect. These 2 short paragraphs of the work you tried to delete were not even close to a re-invention of the Nature article, so do spare me the hyperbola:

The state of Nature, in its broadest sense, is the Universe, which is the natural state that all exists within and nothing is without.This axiom precedes any and all the political philosophies built upon it.

Within the Universe we find many naturally forming sub-states, for example, stars, planets, moons and other celestial bodies (comets, asteroids, etc..). Each of these constitute a natural state. Granted, the state of Nature of the planet Mars is quite different in many ways then Earth's state of Nature, or that of the Sun's natural state. Further, it could also be reasonably argued that a Galaxy or a Solar system also constitutes an autonomous natural state within the Universe.

Can you put the cart before the horse? I think not. The "after the fact" paragraphs you keep replacing the work I did with are just that, after the fact (and that presumes that they can even be sustained).

State of nature is a term in political philosophy used in social contract theories to describe the hypothetical condition of humanity before the state's foundation and its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.

In a broader sense, a state of nature is the condition before the rule of positive law comes into being,THIS IS FALSE:thus being a synonym of anarchy.

In some versions of social contract theory, there are no rights in the state of nature, only freedoms, and it is the contract that creates rights and obligations. In other versions the opposite occurs: the contract imposes restrictions upon individuals that curtail their natural rights.

Who ever these particular theories were initially postulated by, they need to be moved to their respective philosophy sections.

In this paragraph, after the fact, the political/philosphical concept is introduced in proper context, as opposed to baseless (lack of factual basis) theory. Save the theories for later. This paragraph encompasses the valid points of the paragraph[s] it displaced:

Many times we find the term "state of Nature" being used in a more finite sense, limited to the atmosphere of Earth and all within it, and it is in this context the term is often found being used in political philosophy and positive International_law to describe the base or absolute reality that Nation States are constituted in. As an aside, the constitution of Nation States is accomplished via what is termed, "social contract" (which is another place we find the term state of Nature being used) and there have been, and are, many theories that describe the hypothetical condition of both the formation and the life of the members of a particular Nation State after the Nation State is constituted, and further, how these fictional juristic persons called 'Nation States' and the members of them should interact with one another in the state of Nature.

The other paragraph you deleted dispelled the erroneous statement that the state of Nature is a 'state of lawlessness'; anarchy. It is not:

According to some historical theories, the state of Nature was branded as being a state of lawlessness; an anarchy. Obviously this is not true as the state of Nature has always been governed by the unwritten law or lex non scripta — all the laws which do not come under the definition of written or positive law, which is composed, principally, of the law of nature, the law of nations, the common law, and customs. Further, in this body of unwritten law we find the principle of cause and effect, which gives rise to the teachings of, for example, the Ethic of Reciprocity, Karma, or the Golden Rule and also the many customs and systems of lex scripta or written law developed based on this principle and these teachings. These customs and/or laws (and what could be rightly called the "root of the common law" due to the fact that they are common in most tribes, religions, and societies that have ever existed), are the de jure law of the state of Nature.

Aksis (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Baseless claim of Original Research

There is a claim of OR being made and used to support the deletion of verified factual subject matter (which is being replaced with unverified theory). This claim is baseless and without merit (See: WP:NOTOR#Compiling_facts_and_information). Those doing this need to stop deleting this work or be specific about what you are calling OR and support you accusation on a point for point basis. Aksis (talk)

There has been repeated unexplained deletion of work (or frivolously based deletions), false unsupported accusation of OR, replacement of verified cited facts with unverified un-cited theory. See The Facts section on this discussion page. The issue is between William M. Connolley and Aksis and I would like some people not involved in the editing to review the work that keeps getting deleted with very little explanation and make a comment. Aksis (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that the claim of OR is, apparently, baseless and without merit I can't see what there is to discuss with you. Meanwhile, you can't possibly expect to get away with this. Apart from the OR, Without going into great detail, within the Universe we find many naturally forming sub-states, for example, stars, planets, moons and other celestial bodies (comets, asteroids, etc..)... isn't even vaguely plausible, nor is According to some historical theories, the state of Nature was branded as being a state of lawlessness; an anarchy. Obviously this is not true... which is just your pet essay. The stuff about Francis of Marchia is plausible though; try just adding that and we can argue about the wording. Chose a less chatty section header though William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

William, you again fail to support your obviously frivolous position (Compiling Facts is not "OR", regardless of how often you inculcate the erroneous presumption). You fail to support why you deleted the factually based subject matter and replaced it with theory. Theory that is, at best, only relevant to the particular philosophers' subsection that postulated the particular theories.

Not only will it be you, "not getting away with this": the continual and unsupported deletion of relevant facts, but do you really think that excluding the facts of the matter (in favor of theory) is wise or constitutes an authoritative article in an encyclopedia?:

• Fact: The term "state" is defined as: "The circumstances or condition of a being or thing at any given time." --1913 Webster
• Fact: the particular "thing" that is the subject in the term "state of Nature" is "Nature".
• Fact: The term "nature" is defined as: "The existing system of things; the universe of matter, energy, time and space; the physical world; all of creation."--1913 Webster
• Fact: Therefore, in fact, the state of Nature or natural state is the Universe. The Universe is the de jure state of Nature. This is not theory, and can not be eclipsed by theory.
• Fact: The atmosphere and planet called "Earth" is a natural state that is separate from, for example the planet called "Mars", or the star called "Sun". Each of these is, in fact, accurately described as a "sub-state" within Universe.
• Fact: Earth is a natural state that exists within the Universe.
• Fact: I find no use of the term "state of Nature", being used in political philosophy, to indicate that anything other then the "state of Nature of Earth" was, in fact, what was being referred to by the authors, regardless of the fact that the Universe is the de jure state of Nature.

Again, what I intended and what I was asserting (and supported with authoritative sources) that is "not true," is that: the "state of Nature" is, in fact, a "state of lawlessness; an anarchy." This is completely false. Granted, it is obviously true that it was "branded" this way by some philosophers, and in their section of this article, this portion of their theory could be pointed out. But, upon some research into the history and origins of law (which you obviously haven't done much of, if any), we find that the "source of law" is termed "natural law" by competent jurists. And out of "natural law" is born "customs," "common law," "social contract theory," etc.. or what is called lex non scripta. From this body of unwritten law, the lex scripta or written law is born (Didn't you verify the cites before you deleted these facts??? Obviously not.). So, again, in fact and according to history and reason, the state of Nature is not a state of lawlessness or an anarchy, it's law is simply not formal/written. Further, it is in the unwritten law that the source of jurisprudence regarding "contracts" is found. The first "contract" or "agreement" is an agreement on what a "contract" even is. Without this antecedent, there couldn't be contracts, and without "contracts", there can be no "formal society" or "Nation State" constituted. Had you verified the cites, you would have seen that the law of nature or natural law is recognized in the Preliminaries of the Law of Nations - (which is Positive International Law - as opposed to "private international law"):

§ 4. In what light nations or states are to be considered.

Nations being composed of men naturally free and independent, and who, before the establishment of civil societies, lived together in the state of nature, — Nations, or sovereign states, are to be considered as so many free persons living together in the state of nature.

It is a settled point with writers on the natural law, that all men inherit from nature a perfect liberty and independence, of which they cannot be deprived without their own consent. ...

§ 5. To what laws nations are subject.

As men are subject to the laws of nature, — and as their union in civil society cannot have exempted them from the obligation to observe those laws, since by that union they do not cease to be men, — the entire nation, whose common will is but the result of the united wills of the citizens, remains subject to the laws of nature, and is bound to respect them in all her proceedings. ...

§ 6. In what the law of nations originally consists.

We must therefore apply to nations the rules of the law of nature, in order to discover what their obligations are, and what their rights: consequently, the law of Nations is originally no other than the law of Nature applied to Nations. ...

Therefore, the idea that the state of Nature is a state of lawlessness is not recognized as a fact. It is a theory, and a baseless one. The recognized fact is that: "the law of Nations is originally no other than the law of Nature applied to Nations." This gives rise to a section of the Article or a link to the Article, that being titled, Natural Law or Law of Nature, as this subject matter is most defiantly an integral attribute of the state of Nature.

You (William) stated that:

Apart from the OR, Without going into great detail, within the Universe we find many naturally forming sub-states, for example, stars, planets, moons and other celestial bodies (comets, asteroids, etc..)... isn't even vaguely plausible, nor is According to some historical theories, the state of Nature was branded as being a state of lawlessness; an anarchy. Obviously this is not true... which is just your pet essay.

So you are correct, in light of the above, it "isn't even vaguely plausible", it is demonstrably apparent.

Truth be told, it is you that has made this a "pet article", and your attempts to dictate what is and is not relevant to this article is based upon a proven ignorance of the facts, history and law... as anyone can see. Further, to give people the idea that "Nation States" are not accountable to the law is very dangerous. How you can persist in ignorance of these facts, history and law, and then expect to be seen as competent to determine how this subject matter is to be treated... is a mystery, truly. Aksis (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Why does this article exist at all? It should be merged with Social contract or something along those lines. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The "State of nature" is related to social contract theory, but it's a distinct concept. The social contract article is already fairly long and a merge would only clutter it up. Both articles already have enough material to stand on their own.--Bkwillwm (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that it is a "distinct concept", further, the subject matter of this article is not a subset of "social contract theory", it is "social contract theory" that is a subset of the law of nature, and thus a subset of the "state of Nature". Aksis (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Original sin

It seems that in Christian theology, especially in medieval Roman Catholic theology, the expression state of nature can refer to a peculiar theory of original sin, by which humanity has not yet changed into its fallen nature and remains spotless and innocent. It is maybe not surprising that many modern ideologies such as naturalism and communism seek to reclaim this adamic state of sinlessness, since humanity appears to spend much of its time trying to forget about the dreadfulness of sin. ADM (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In the International arena

On Hobbes: This article claims that Hobbes "believed that in the international arena, states behave as individuals do in a state of nature." This is simply not true. He mentions relations between princes once but does not suggest commonwealths act like this in their relations. It is an assumption read into Hobbes by modern-day realists but is not true to the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.216.11 (talk • contribs)

I think you're probably wrong; will look it up this evening William M. Connolley (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't, but I now have. How about For a League being a connexion of men by Covenants, if there be no power given to any one Man or Assembly, (as in the condition of meer Nature) to compell them to performance, is so long onely valid, as there ariseth no just cause of distrust: and therefore Leagues between Common-wealths, over whom there is no humane Power established, to keep them all in awe, are not onely lawfull, but also profitable for the time they last.? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, in Ch 13 pg 78 of the Leviathan when Hobbes briefly discusses state relations he says "But because they [states] uphold thereby the industry of their subjects, there does not follow from it that misery which accompanies the liberty of particular men." Regardless, the point is it is debatable and there is a lot of literature discussing this issue. Vincent (1981, 85) and Hedley Bull (1977) believe Hobbes did not think they were the same. The current page inaccurately reflects this issue as a fact. I think the sentence "He believed that in the international arena, states behave as individuals do in a state of nature." should be deleted or someone should add an explanation of the debate surrounding the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellen.nbl (talk • contribs) 04:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Aquinas / Paul

I'm dubious about the recent addition [2]. The section on Paul is I think simply wrong and appears to be the anon's personal opinion. As to Aquinas I'm not sure William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Aquinas: the addition includes: The term "state of nature" appears in the writings of Thomas Aquinas (born c. 1225) (see De Veritate, Question 19, Article 1, Answer 13). The text is available from [3] and is: 13. The infusion of the gifts of grace does not reach those who are in hell, but these souls are not deprived of the things which belong to the state of nature. “For nothing is completely deprived of a share in the good,” as Dionysius says. But the infusion of species mentioned above, which is given when the soul is separated from the body, belongs to the natural state of separated substances. Therefore, the souls of the damned are not deprived of this infusion. (my bold). I think it is clear that what is intended is not the SoN we're talking about in this article William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Aquinas / Paul

To Mr. Connolley

Regarding Paul: this is the standard traditional reading of Paul regarding this section of his Letter to the Romans. I recommend you read any number of sound critical exegetical commentaries written by a leading Pauline Exegete to determine this for yourself. If you would like to offer your own exegesis of this Pauline passage, based on the Greek text, I would be happy to critique it for you (I note your blog, I could do that there).

Regarding Aquinas: Any sound and comprehensive History of Philosophy or Monograph on Aquinas' political philosophy will explicate the connections between Aquinas' theology and later developments in Political Philosophy; of course, at this stage in the development of the Western Tradition they are not the same (regarding the SON) but this is only to say that the theological categories deployed by Aquinas (and synthesized with those of Aristotle's at many junctures) have not yet been put to use by later political philosophers upon the incident of which their transposition from the theological horizon to the politico-philosophical affords them different conceptual content. If we want to play fast and loose with historical methodologies as respects anachronisms we could also conclude that Queen Elizabeth II was not born on 21 April 1926 because at the moment she was born, she was not yet queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.59.118.117 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Archived Talk Page

Since this Talk Page hasn't been commented upon for almost 2 years now and was quite cluttered, I archived it and retained the currently active section for discussion. If a more sophisticated manner of archiving is desired, someone with more knowledge of how that is done will need to do it.Christopher Theodore (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

state of nature, not social contract theory

I removed this from the lead:

"In some versions of social contract theory, there are no rights in the state of nature, only freedoms, and it is the contract that creates rights and obligations. In other versions the opposite occurs: the contract imposes restrictions upon individuals that curtail their natural rights."

It either belongs in the article on social contract theory, or in a sub-section of this article.Christopher Theodore (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"History" vs "Historical Philosophical Perspectives"

The section termed "History" strikes me as in accurate. What that section is, is the "Historical Philosophical Perspectives" of a few of the many philosophers. Further, the idea that all the political philosophers were working off a preceding concept of what the state of Nature was like is an erroneous presumption. Further still, in the broader sense of the general topic, the theoretical "History" of the state of Nature is found here. For this reason, I am renaming that section.Christopher Theodore (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Headings are generally pretty simple, and do not attempt to precisely define what follows. It is common to provide a history section where early work on a topic is outlined, and that seems exactly correct for this article. If reliable sources show other items should be mentioned in the history section, they can be added. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"History" & "Noted Philosophers"

Again, The section termed "History" strikes me as in accurate. I had some idea on the actual use of the section "History" to deal with the history of the concepts before the term came into existence. Ideally, I'd like to draw attention to all the religions, societies, and philosophers who contributed to the concept that eventually came to be known by the term "state of nature" even tho they may not have ever used that exact term. The concept is not the intellectual property of a handful of post dark-age philosophers. This is part of what was bothering me and provoking me to debate so hard in the "The actual state of nature" section (kindly forgive my over zealousness in debating :-).

In line with the simple heading custom, I renamed "History" to "Noted Philosophers" and ended the "History" section with a sentence using that phrase to lead into it. Currently I don't have any plans on adding any philosophers who didn't use that term in their philosophies to the Noted Philosophers section, but I'm not opposed to it if someone feels strongly about doing so.

FYI, I am not finished with the History section, give me a bit of time to develop it further and to make sure every thing is supported with something more then faith that people will see things that are self-evident as being sufficient. ;-) Christopher Theodore (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

And I removed the new history section - just as with your changes to the lead adding the bit about the universe, this is your own analysis. It may be a bit better than the universe stuff (Atethnekos has done a good job of explaining this) but it is still clearly your analysis. Please don't add unsourced material in this way. And of course we should not add anyone who doesn't use the term to this article, even the suggestion that we might shows a problem with OR and our policy at WP:VERIFIABILITY. Dougweller (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

So now the article is about the TERM and not the CONCEPT? Christopher Theodore (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup, more WP:OR. Full of unsourced (and quite probably unverifiable) generalisations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The actual state of nature

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article discusses what various philosophers considered the SoN to be, and the conclusions they drew from it as to how society should be organised. However, as far as I can tell, their concept of the SoN was based purely on theorizing and speculation, when "the condition of humanity before the state's foundation" and "the condition before the rule of positive law comes into being" were not just theoretical speculations, but real things, and potentially the subject of historical/archeological/scientific investigation.

Have any philosophers attempted to find out what the real SoN actually was, and based their arguments on that, rather than just what they imagined it to be? If so, that needs to be mentioned in the article. And if not, that also needs to be mentioned.Wardog (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It appeared that Aksis was making this very point in the sections "The Facts" and "Baseless claim of Original Research" but they got lost in the confusion of the argument with William M. Connolley (see /Archive 1). Anyways, I think that if the article is going to limit the scope of information on the "state of nature" to "political theory" and exclude everything else, then it is a stub of that larger topic "State of Nature (political theory)." The choice of the subject matter of the general topic "state of nature" should not be limited to a handful of the popular political theories and their authors, but should lead with what "The actual state of nature" is AND include the theory. I don't see any need for the article to be moved to State of Nature (political theory), it just needs the inclusion of non-political theory info before the various theories based on that info.

"The state of Nature, in its broadest sense, is the Universe, which is the natural state that all exists within and nothing is without. This axiom precedes any and all the political philosophies built upon it."

I liked the jist of this bit from the Archive, tho I'm not sure who I am quoting due to the confusion. Christopher Theodore (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

*I went ahead and edited the article. After reading that archived talk page, I found my self waiting for some kind of consensus before I dare edit the article or I'd be in trouble. :-P This is not the spirit of wikipedia. The edit was made in good faith with the goal of improving the article after this particular point had been discussed over a span of years.Christopher Theodore (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I reverted you, sorry. You need decent refs to support an addition like that, and a dictionary definition of "State" linked to a dict def of "Nature" is just OR. You need WP:RSs actually using the phrase in the sense you mean it. This is what the archives say, too, so its a shame you didn't read them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

When I came to the page "state of nature," I was looking for general information first, not just the more specific sub-topic of "political theory." The first paragraph of the article would be fine if I had gone to the article "State of Nature (political theory)" (which doesn't exist), then it would have made sense to me. It's why I bothered to check the talk page, saw that it was an old issue, and am now seeking to resolve the issue. I do not feel like you are making a good faith effort to understand the issue and resolve it, in fact, it feels like I have damaged someone's pet page project.

We seem to be starting the same argument you had with the other guy and I'm not going to have it with you. By your own logic, it's actually you that needs to provide a citation that the "state of nature" is a term limited only to political philosophy/theory. There is no support for this position and your reversion of the edit recreated this problem. Granted, the information about political theory is certainly a valid aspect of the general topic (which is why I didn't delete it), but your position seems to be that it is the only view (or perhaps it is that it is the superior view?) Further, and why I grabbed that portion from the Archive, is that the other guy was correct when he pointed out that it is an axiom, and in light of this, doesn't need a cite to support it. I only left the dictionary refs in there because I was hoping to find some kind of happy medium between the 2 conflicting views to resolve the issue. My edit started as a direct quote of only a very small portion of the other guys text (there was alot ;-), then I edited it. I had linked to, and borrowed from the Universe article because of the fact that the 2 terms, generally speaking, are synonyms. Are you saying they are not?!? :-D

What are not axioms, are the various political theories based on the reality of what the state of nature technically is. That subject matter would need citations.

William, before I revert it back, I'm going to give you some time to resolve the issue (or are you some kind of admin that has absolute say on this article? If so, just say it and ignore my proposed resolutions). Are you clear on what the issue is? What do you propose? (and demanding that I prove (or provide cites) for the axiom is fallacious - I don't need to prove that the "state of nature" and the "universe" are synonymous.) Do you want to sustain an article that is purely based on the political theory topic? Here is where it belongs: "State of Nature (political theory)" To be honest tho, rather then create a new article, I would rather the article's flow move from the broadest perspective into to the more specific sub-topics due to the fact that the reality of what the state of nature technically is is key to the political theories use of the term. Would you would like to re-write the opening paragraph differently then I did? That would be another option, but currently it's not general enough and while I may not have resolved the issue to your satisfaction, it was resolved.

I'll wait 24 hours from now before I revert it, if you need more time to resolve this, let me know. Christopher Theodore (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to interject one more point to clarify the issue, when I googled the question "what is the state of nature?" this article was the first page listed and it is leading with what the "state of nature" is in political theory, not with a clear description of what the "state of nature" is, in fact. Christopher Theodore (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"State of nature" is a commonly used term and widely studied topic in philosophy (see, for example, Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government). I do not believe I have ever encountered the term in other contexts, although one can obviously imagine other definitions of the term. It seems likely to me that the philosophical topic is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. May I ask why you Googled that phrase? In what other context had you come across the term? Pburka (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I never said the "state of nature" was NOT a commonly used term and widely studied topic in philosophy. It's not me trying to suppress information on the topic. In philosophy, the "term" is used to describe a concept. The opening paragraph is biased in that it's limiting that concept and distorting it. Or is the article not really about the concept, but the "term"? Christopher Theodore (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Where have you seen "state of nature" used to refer to the general state of the universe? (Please don't just string some dictionary definitions together - show examples.) Pburka (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be borne in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary - and if the phrase 'state of nature' is sometimes used as a synonym for 'universe', there would be no justification for a separate article explaining the term as used in that context - a simple redirect to 'universe', and a brief (sourced) explanation that 'state of nature' was a synonym would be all that would be required. Articles are about concepts, not phrases. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, and that is the heart of the issue. It's the concept of the "state of nature" in general, not the "term," (or who coined the "term" for the concept first, or who presented which POV, or who's POV was based on a previous POV, etc..), the concept of the article is not limited to: "... a term in moral and political philosophy used in social contract theories to describe the hypothetical condition that preceded governments." There are other relevant aspects of the concept. The lead paragraph needs to be more general, and then progress into more specific aspects of the concept. For example, there are a number of religious and philosophical POV regarding the concept of the "state of nature" that don't use that specific "term," but are none the less valid elements of the "concept." One relevant POV on the concept, is that the belief/theory that the "state of nature" was a Utopia, for example. The concept has had many "terms" used to describe it throughout the ages: nature, state of nature, original jurisdiction, universe, natural state, etc... in fact, the actual origin of the concept is lost along with the origin of civilizations in Myth, speculation, and theory.

Without a source for your 'axiom', reverting would be unjustified. And as for whether this article needs renaming, I would suggest that it would only be required if it could be demonstrated that the term 'state of nature' was in common use in other contexts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to be comprehending the concept of an axiom. Are you saying that the concept of the term "state of nature" as it is generally used in political philosophy is not a synonym for the Universe? What is original, false, or misleading about this paragraph?:

The state of Nature, in it's broadest sense is the Universe, which is the natural state that is constituted by the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy. This axiom precedes all the political philosophies and theory built upon it and serves as their foundation.

Let me ask all of you this: Would you lead an article about mathematics with an explanation of the concept from a more advanced POV, or would you start with the most general POV of the concept? How would someone begin to comprehend the concept if you started the discourse with a concept rooted in multiplication when you hadn't even delineated upon basic arithmetic? There is no broader or more general explanation of the term "state of nature" then pointing out that it is synonymous with the Universe.

Further, this is relevant to this issue: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Good_definitions, as is this essay provided on that page as a link: Wikipedia:Dictionaries_as_sources. After taking a closer look at wikipedia policy and the essay on that, it just furthers my suspicion that the accusation of OR in support of the rv., was not made in good faith. Christopher Theodore (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Christopher. I'm not trying to give you material to include in the article or any justification for article content. I'm going to try very quickly to give you an idea of what the topic of the article is if I had to teach you in a way that I think might be congenial and accessible to you. So the topic of this article, that is, to what "state of nature" in this case refers, isn't a specific state of the natural world. Rather it is a theorized set of relevant features of the world which would be the case when humans are either in a situation without civilization or society, or at a minimum developmental level of civilization or society. Which relevant features? The features which are relevant for determining what the rights and responsibilities of these humans would be. So when a scholar describes the state of nature in this sense, she wouldn't, for example, describe mountains on Mars, because whether there is some number of mountains on Mars or not won't affect the rights and responsibilities of humans that exist in a minimally-developed society.

You may have found another topic which is also called "state of nature", but that is not this topic. There's nothing wrong with multiple topics having the same name; this happens all the time. If you really do believe that this topic is just an aspect of the topic that you have found, then you should produce a reliable source which says or clearly implies that. It is not quite enough to say that it is an axiom that this topic is an aspect of your wider topic without a reliable source saying so. There are many axioms, but all the ones of which Wikipedia treats have multiple reliable sources describing those axioms. For example, I could produce to you maybe a dozen reliable sources saying exactly what the axiom of extensionality is. Thanks for reading. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 10:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because there is not a published paper on an axiom doesn't make something any less an axiom. This is a false presumption, but I do comprehend why many axioms and maxims would require publication and it's not to prove their validity, but to explain them in depth. Christopher Theodore (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Theodore, please try to get my username right - I am not 'AndyTheGimp' (My bad andy, I have corrected that, it was not intended as an insult but was a genuine mistake :-( ). And yes, I am explicitly stating that for the purposes of this article, 'state of nature' is not even remotely a synonym for 'universe'. This has been explained to you multiple times, and frankly your refusal to accept that your supposed 'axiom' is irrelevant to the subject of this article is bordering on the tendentious. This article isn't about the universe, it isn't about synonyms for 'the universe', and it certainly isn't about why one particular Wikipedia contributor thinks that 'state of nature' is a synonym for 'universe' based on nothing but a dubious 'axiom'. I suggest that rather than wasting peoples time here and elsewhere, [4][5], you find something more productive to do with your time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Your not the only one's who feels their time is being wasted. This fixation on the idea that unless the exact term "state of nature" is found in published works that it justifies relevant subject matter being excluded is quite disturbing. I haven't even begun to include more subject matter due to this absurd demand to justify something so self evident. I do not feel like I am being comprehended, but rather the condescending tone is indicative of people looking to explain to me something I actually do comprehend. While you are occupied with looking for ways to explain yourselves to someone whom you seem to think is soooo unfamiliar with this topic, you are failing to grasp my points. Perhaps this will clarify it:

From Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#State_of_nature_article_-_opening_paragraph (I'm gonna post there and refocus the discussion here): Kindly forgive me if I seem to be being obtuse, but I am trying to grasp this concept of original research from the Wikipedia POV. I read the policy, but the policy and how it is applied are not always one and the same. Also, by "expanding the subject matter," it was intended to convey the idea that the concept is being expanded to it's true meaning, not expanded beyond the scope of the concept. Anyways,

• Are the definition of the words in a "term" or "phrase" not considered a part of the concept of authoritative sources supporting the concept? Is a recognize authoritative dictionary like Websters not considered a primary source in the comprehension of any subject matter (not necessarily at Wikipedia, but generally)? Is this really the policy or simply an interpretation of it by a few members? If definitions are actually part of the concept of authoritative sources, are there times when they are not?

• The current "subject matter" is suppressing information integral to the concept due to a limited or false definition at the beginng. You can not reconstruct the base concept, as it is being currently presented within the philosophies cited, with the definitions of the words in the "term." Will people now turn to Wiktionary to redefine the words to fit this limited/new/false definition of a much broader concept? Is this happening with other articles? It's certainly been done with the word lead en.wiktionary.org - lede. :-D

• Is in not imperative to someone new to the subject matter to grasp first, that the state of nature is Nature (another synonym for Universe), before the more complex subject matter of abstract political theory is introduced? This article is not just for collage students... If 1+1+1+1=4 is true, is 2*2=4 less true? Do we now teach multiplication before addition?

(btw, this is why I goggled the term, the goal was to approach like I was a High School student... not a collage student, grad, professor, etc.. what ever I am is irrelevant if the information is unable to be accepted)

• Is this original interpretation, of the words, composing the term, referring to a concept not against policy? Can you cite a source supporting the position that the "state of nature" is not the Universe? Is this perspective even supported by the very philosophers being quoted/cited, or is it various editors interpretations of that subject matter? If it is interpretations, are they accurate? There is no issue with paraphrasing unless it perverts integral elements of the subject matter.

• Is the "state of nature" really a hypothetical thing like the lead paragraph currently says? Does it become one simply because a famous philosopher says it is? If we have a dog and call the tail a "leg," how many legs does the dog now have? 4, just because we call the tail a leg doesn't make it one.

• Is natural law not the lex non scripta of the state of Nature? If we call natural law, the "Law of Nature" does it become a new and different thing?

• If, in the middle of the night I say, "The sun is shining. This is a fact," and then point to the moon as evidence, would you press for more evidence and require some 3rd party publication to support something so obvious? If I must, I suppose I will have to wait for it to dawn upon you.

• Does the statement of the fact that the state of nature is the universe even require research (original or otherwise)?

Christopher Theodore (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is not just for collage students - this is becoming Dada William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, so why are you insisting on leading with the more complex subject matter of abstract political theory, rather then the elementary concept that is obviously what the philosophers were talking about... Nature... and all the theories of what life was like there before 'government' existed... And why do people keep missing the point that I am not trying to limit the article to an article about the Universe or even open up the topic to such subject mater like how many mountains there are on mars?

It's like watching a group of people hack at the roots of the Tree of Knowledge with axes who's handles are hewn from it's branches. Christopher Theodore (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, enough of this nonsense. Here's the deal. If Christopher Theodore posts one more of his tendentious and repetitive arguments regarding his proposal to drag this article wildly off-topic based on his so-called 'axiom', I am going to raise his behaviour at WP:ANI, and ask that he be blocked on the grounds of disruptive editing and/or competence. I see no reason whatsoever why we should be obliged to waste any further time explaining elementary policy (and just plain common sense) to a 'contributor' who seems either unwilling to comply with policy, or incapable of understanding said policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a real drag when people just don't get plain common sense... and waste other people's time... which is what you've been doing to me. Christopher Theodore (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Given the tendentious and disruptive behaviour exhibited by Christopher Theodore here, I have now raised the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Tendentious behaviour by User: Christopher Theodore at Talk:State of nature and elsewhere.. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

My point was never that the article was about the universe. This has been the false presumption made by nearly EVERYONE commenting so far.

WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of it's most important aspects."

From my POV, what the "state of nature" IS in it's physical sense is an important, integral, and obvious aspect to grasping the CONCEPT in it's philosophical sense.

Another false presumption EVERYONE commenting seems to be making is that I fail to grasp that the article is about the concept in the philosophical sense. I am and have been looking at both. And I persist that both can and should be noted in the lead, and THAT THE REMAINDER OF THE ARTICLE FOCUS ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL SENSE! Since my point is falling on 'deaf ears', I haven't reverted that portion of the article. Christopher Theodore (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References