|
Yep -- any man under influence by government or social contract could not be in the state of nature. Locke's main point in that section was demonstrating that the state of nature DOES exist and HAS existed, as Hobbes (who he borrows from and also refutes) never really elaborated on whether the state of nature existed, but merely defined it.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
|