Hobbes vs Locke: The Nature of Humanity

Drunk post incoming.

Hobbes and Machiavelli both completely blow with their political philosophy and have fucked up all modern ethical/political thinking that followed in their school of thought. Locke's tabula rusa approach does not capture too much the essence of humanity either, same way that Hume's screwed up with his ridiculous empiricist school of thought that truly grinds my gears. Humanity has never existed purely based on progression of experiences, it just feels ridiculously reductionist to not account for rational thought and psychological/physical wellbeing that hinges on the surrounding co-operation of human beings. Deep in somewhere within his obfuscated theoretical nightmare, Hegel (and extracted by prodigious recognition theorists) I believe presented a much better alternative to the asshole syndrome suggested by Hobbes- a struggle for recognition. When conflicts occur, we demand recognition. What this suggests is that conflicts are inevitable, and it is simply overidealistic to expect all laws and line of thinking to accommodate everyone's wellbeing, the same way that laws for gay/equal marriage has not been written because it was not prevalently protested until now. It's all a work in progress. More importantly, no-one can ever know how to avoid conflict completely due to our inevitable situated ignorance, i.e., knowing about the blacks but not knowing about the Xorblaxeen alien race because we live in a place of 'x' in the year 'y'. The importance of human conflict has a much more significant normative claim to the nature of humanity compared to Hobbes and Machiavelli's theoretical paranoia.

Your drunk post is the most sensible post in this thread.

Joshy said:

Drunk post incoming.

Machiavelli completely blow[s] with [his] political philosophy and [has] fucked up all modern ethical/political thinking that followed in [his] school of thought.

Niccolò Machiavelli said:

People should either be caressed or crushed. If you do them minor damage they will get their revenge; but if you cripple them there is nothing they can do. If you need to injure someone, do it in such a way that you do not have to fear their vengeance.

Why? Seems like a nice guy...