Café Philos: an internet café

An impressive body of social and political thought assumes that humans are fundamentally rugged individualists who once lived alone, each man or woman to himself or herself. At some point, they discovered they could accomplish more by working together than by working alone and, consequently, they created a social compact. Communities were then born.

What if none of that is true?

What if, as the scientists tell us, humans have always been social animals? What if there never was a social compact?

If humans have always been social animals our cherished belief that we live in groups for purely rational reasons can be questioned. Are our reasons for living in groups really that rational? Do we have "reasons" at all? Wouldn't it be more precise to speak of our instincts for living in groups? Or, of our nature for living in groups?

Social and political theory can no longer escape the fact we are a social animal by positing an imaginary age when we lived isolated and alone. Today it must be reconciled to what we know of our biology, among many other sciences. But that is by no means an easy thing to do. The question of what is human nature has many answers. At the very least, each relevant science has it's own models of human nature. Moreover, those models have moved well beyond simply stating that we are a social animal. Nowadays, scientists are modeling how, in what ways, and to what extent we are a social animal. And not just a social animal.

I recall coming across an article sometime ago in which the Vice-President was described as having a "Hobbesian" political philosophy. In an age of jets, the Vice-President flies a biplane. Perhaps that explains some of his many failings.