This is, in theory, the same conclusion found by Spinoza, though different reasoning than taken by Hobbes. Firstly, Spinoza gives a greater weighting to the differences of a man than Hobbes. Instead of Hobbes view that all men are equal and therefore are in competition for the same things, Spinoza instead argues that we are in essence a product of our environment no different from other species, and as in nature ˜fishes are naturally conditioned for swimming, and the greater devour, the less' (Spinoza, 1951) in pursuit of self-preservation, and so too are men conditioned by nature; as ˜men's rights extend to the utmost limits of his power'(Spinoza, 1951) and therefore the greater are to overpower the weaker in pursuit of self-preservation. This is man's sovereign right to the power of nature is the power of God, which has sovereign right over all things and it is a sovereign law to self-preserve. The only tool to do this given to man through nature is his ˜unaided impulses of desire' (Spinoza, 1951) it is man's right to obtain anything he desires as if he funds it useful to himself then it is his right to have it to self-preserve. Therefore unlike Hobbes who believes competition among equal men who can easily destroy one another for the fruits of one another's labour and in pursuit of self-preservation which invariable leads to a constant state of war (Hobbes, 1651), Spinoza suggests that all men should pursue everything that he can an can in order to self-preserve as ˜nature has given him no other guide', (Spinoza, 1951) leading in essence to a state of war in the state of nature of every man against every man that is suggested by Hobbes.
Even though they reach the same conclusion on man's fate in the state of nature, it seems that Hobbes has a slightly more positive view on the naturally mental capabilities of man as he paints them more intelligent naturally than Spinoza.
