INTRODUCTION State of Nature is a term in political philosophy used in social contract theories to describe the hypothetical condition that

preceded governments. There must have been a time before government, and so the question is how legitimate government could emerge from such a starting position, and what are the hypothetical reasons for entering a state of society by establishing a government. THE MEANIING STATE OF NATURE IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF THOMAS HOBBES The concept of state of nature was posited by the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan and his earlier work On the Citizen. Hobbes wrote that "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man" . In this state any person has a natural right to the liberty to do anything he wills to preserve his own life and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Hobbes' view of the state of nature helped to serve as a basis for theories of international realism. THOMAS HOBBES' IDEA OF THE STATE OF NATURE'. Hobbes' idea of the State of Nature' is a logical outgrowth of his perspective of human nature and the concept of power. In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes (1651) writes: "During the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre." The condition of war led Hobbes to assert famously that life without strong central government would be "solitary, poore, brutish and short". Such is the Hobessian state of nature. While claiming man's essential nature as selfish and competitive, Hobbes propounds the case for a powerful sovereign, or Leviathan, to enforce peace and the law, substituting security for the anarchic freedom he believed human beings would otherwise experience. Hobbes prefers an absolute monarchical sovereignty, not because he believes in any inherent right of kings to rule, but because he

believed that a monarch could be invested in something approaching popular consent (Fukuyama, 1992). Hobbes' state of nature must be understood within the chain of reasoning that brought it into existence in the first place. For instance, Hobbes advances, firstly, a Theory of Human Nature in Society; he then moves on to introduce, progressively, the famous concepts of State of Nature, Right of Nature, Law of Nature, and the Social Contract (MacPherson, 1968). The last three concepts do not pertain for current purposes. Also, I will provide a critique on Hobbes' idea of the state of nature to indicate the possible limitations of his assertions.

Within the state of nature there is no injustice, since there is no law, excepting certain natural precepts, the first of which is "that every man ought to Endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it" (Leviathan, ch. XIV); and the second is "that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far north as for peace and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself" (loc. cit.). From this, Hobbes develops the way out of the state of nature into civil government by mutual contracts. Hobbes described the concept in the Latin phrase bellum omnium contra omnes, (meaning war of all against all) in his work Hobbes Account For State Of Nature The extremity of Hobbes state of nature is typified as the warre of every man against every man. This one line sums up the severity of the scenario presented by Hobbes and informs why the life of man must be nasty, brutish and short. This position of Hobbes is arrived at in a systematic way that perhaps makes him the father of political science. Such a scientific approach is none more evident than in his invocation of Galileos theory of the conservation of motion: that whatever is in motion will remain so until halted by some other force. In terms of

human agency Hobbes viewed motion as producing delight or displeasure within us. Obviously we will desire those pleasure or delight inducing motions rather than painful or even contemptible ones and so are in a fixed search for felicity and aversion to pain. Furthermore, Hobbes saw men as roughly equal. Although one man may be physically stronger than another and one smarter than another, these differences do not produce any sort of natural hierarchy. For the stronger man may dominate the weaker, but the weaker may take up arms or join with others in confederacy thus negating the strong mans apparent advantage. In terms of intellectual equality Hobbes describes how any given man will often believe himself to be more wise than most others. Yet it cannot be logically possible for most men to be more wise than most others. In fact Hobbes points out that if each man thinks himself wiser, then he must be contented with his share and there is no greater signe of the equal distribution of any thing, than that every man is contented with his share. Our search for felicity coupled with us being relatively equal in terms of capabilities sets us on a collision course. We want to fulfill our desires, but our neighbours want to fulfill theirs too. If we have the same tangible desire and that object is in scarcity then we will be on a path to confrontation. This confrontation puts our ultimate end or strongest desire (self preservation) in great jeopardy and if our opponent is successful and subordinates, kills or takes what we possess, the same misfortune may soon await him. The problems associated with this search for felicity and aversion of the undesired does not end here though. For there is also the consideration of potential enemies. For man X may desire a set piece of land and take it peacefully, but his knowing that all else is equal could give him reason to suspect that man Y or Z may have a desire to take this land, even though they have made no such expression of the will. In such a case he may make a pre emptive strike to eliminate what are merely potential enemies. It even matters not the status of either Y or Z. Y may be a man of many possessions and prestige and so X has

reason to suspect him of wanting to further these attributes. Z may be a man with nothing and so X knows he also has motive to take his land and so in the state of nature no man is safe, not the figurative prince nor pauper. Yet still this is not all, for the picture painted becomes even worse if we consider those who simply enjoy conquest or the suffering of others. With these people added to the equation even those content with what they have must act like the worst kind of tyrant in order to try and secure themselves. Acting for ones security for Hobbes is really the only right we have in the state of nature. Self preservation is the only right (or perhaps obligation is more apt) independent of government. For he saw the state as being prior to any kind of virtue which coupled with the picture painted informs why he thinks the state of nature to be a state of war. Finally, Hobbes gives a list of laws of nature. These laws essentially come down to the fact that it is rational for us to seek peace in the state of nature, which would apparently conflict with the entire scenario he has so far presented. However the laws of nature are an expression of collective rationality were as our behaviour described in the state of nature is an example of individual rationality. While it may be rational to seek peace this is only possible if everyone else seeks peace and given the suspicious nature of man out with the state and the lack of mechanisms (a commonwealth) available to achieve this end, this expression of collective rationality simply cannot be made. CONCLUSION The theory of Hobbes makes us to consider what life would be like in a state of nature, that is, a condition without government. Perhaps we would imagine that people might fare best in such a state, where each decides for herself how to act, and is judge, jury and executioner in her own case whenever disputes ariseand that at any rate, this state is the appropriate baseline against which to judge the justifiability of political arrangements. Hobbes terms this situation the condition of mere nature, a state of perfectly private judgment, in which there is no agency

with recognized authority to arbitrate disputes and effective power to enforce its decisions.

REFERENCE Hobbes Thomas. Leviathan. 1651, Edwin Curley (Ed.) 1994. Hackett Publishing Baumgold, D., (1988), Hobbes's Political Thought: Cambridge University Press.

VEERITAS UNIVERSITY ABUJA (THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA) OBEHIE CAMPUS ABIA STATE DISCUSS THE STATE OF NATURE IN THE PHILOSPHY OF THAMOS HOBBES ASSIGMENT ON: LOGIC AND PHILOSOPHY (GES 1032) PRESENTED TO: REV.FR.DR. USOH (LECTURER) DEPARTMENTOF SOCIAL SCIENCES BY NAME: CHRIS-WORLU IGWUGWUM MATRIC NO: VUG/POL/11/323 DATE: 21TH June, 2012