It helps to read Hobbes with Locke in mind.  Each utilizes a framework that begins in the state of nature, appeals to laws of nature and rights of nature, appeals to freedom/liberty, appeals to property (propriety), invokes a covenant/contract, and institutes a sovereign.  Yet the accounts are radically different.  For example, for Hobbes the State of Nature is a State of War, there is no property in the state of nature, there are no Lockean rights of nature in the state of nature, and there is no Lockean liberty.  Hobbes's sovereign is necessarily an absolute sovereign; Locke holds that no legitimate sovereign can be absolute.  In working through Hobbes, we want to make sure to prevent the surface similarities from obscuring the profound differences between his account and those put forward later by Locke, Rousseau, and many other social contract theorists.  I am not asking those of you who have not yet read Locke to read ahead, but all of you should be highly attuned to what Hobbes means by Rights, Freedom, etc.  Is it what we mean?  How does it differ?  How do these differences impact the shape of his argument?

The relevant Hobbes excerpt is in the slot on my office door.  See you for seminar on Tuesday!