Talk:Bellum omnium contra omnes

untitled
I'm not quite sure about the quote that constitutes the title of this page. What would it mean if you translated it literally, or, to be more precise, what kind of ellipsis is that?

As far as I know, Hobbes has been mentioned in connexion with the phrase Bellum omnium contra omnes rather than the cryptic Bellum omnia omnes. What is it I fail to see here? --KF 20:13, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Now that we've got the wrong title in the Portuguese Wikipedia as well I repeat my question.

I would also like to point out that we are perpetuating a silly mistake here as several others have plagiarized the article (although this is of course not our problem, and you can get some nice ideas reading the Nihilartikel article):


 * http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bellum%20omnia%20omnes
 * http://www.fact-index.com/b/be/bellum_omnia_omnes.html
 * http://www.artpolitic.org/infopedia/be/Bellum_omnia_omnes.html
 * http://www.informationgenius.com/encyclopedia/b/be/bellum_omnia_omnes.html
 * http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/bellum_omnia_omnes

Only in the discussion forum that ponders the question whether Wal-Mart can be seen as Leviathan ( http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/29591 ) does a user who calls him/herself the fire you left me say on November 14, 2003:

Regarding the title, the correct reference would be 'bellum omnium contra omnes.'  posted by the fire you left me at 3:54 PM PST on November 14.

To sum up, I think it is time we did something about that title (now that we have fooled the others). But I still think the fire you left me and I might be mistaken because all the rest are quiet. Could we have some support, please?  20:41, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you're right about the phrase; I'll check the original Latin in De Cive and Leviathan ASAP. &#8212;No-One Jones 21:02, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Looks like this is fixed here. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. User:Thin Smek) (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

German Article far better
Should have whatever the tag is for that. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I had read it: lots of words, many concepts, but just one source. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that your translation may even be the best ever made, but according to the Wp's guidelines, if we don't mention at least one (reliable) source, then we cannot edit 'cause our contribution would be considered an "original research", publishable anywhere but not here. I'm sorry, and believe me I can understand your disappointment, nevertheless these are the rules to accept. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My translation? Perhaps you're addressing someone else? I have only made very minor edits to this article and no translations. I avoid troll patrolled articles like the plague. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm addressing to the other user. Sorry for the qui pro quo. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Mauro Lanari; I might cite dozens, hundreds, thousands of Latin Grammars, published all over the world in all languages, where you could see by yourself that the impersonal contruction is made in Latin by the use of a verb in the passive form, with a third singular person. I suppose it should be clear that that is not my opinion; but a matter of fact. I assume it shouldn 't be necessary to cite the Grammar; unless you want such a citation for any Latin word in any text; but you can carry out any check by youerself if you want to. Besides, i suppose we 're writing in Wikipedia, not WikiQuote.
 * Just one question: Are you the same Mauro Lanari who 's been blocked and erased from the Italian Wiktionary, because of misbehaviour and "vandalisms"? PetroniusArb (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Vuoi che ti risponda in italiano? A tua disposizione per ogni chiarimento, ma la quaestio non è così semplice. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, indeed. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the german page is better. It uses a longer quote, which provides a better context for the quote within Hobbes own ideas. And it helps clarify what Hobbes means by the idea. We should expand our version similarly. --William M. Connolley (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. For example. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Lack Critical Perspective?
There must be notable critics. I'm sure someone has built upon the rational animal supposition and argued that any action could be constituted as a social action. IMHO, the term nature often gets thrown around like "free market", often supposing it to be an invisible "hand". The idea law strictly starts with "a war each one against each other" lacks any notion that ethics are intrinsic to neurons. I'll stop there in fear of soapboxing, much against the wp:guidelines. Eaterjolly (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

idiotic idea!
I don't know if anybody ever critiziced Hobbes for his "Bellum omnium contra omnes" but iot is a stupid idea! However one thinks the beginning of the human race, it is clear that at the beginning families must stand (because of the unruled intercourse and the following uncertainty of the father under mother law), because of that a family order and therefore no war.80.133.245.25 (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)