Aristotle And Hobbes On Human Nature

Both Aristotle and Hobbes delve into the intricacies of human nature and its components of what it constitutes, subsequently fleshing out the condition of man and their respective natures. Extending on their ideas of the human nature, they then use these views to elaborately develop the role of politics, encompassing theories on influencing and organizing human beings on an individual and civic level. Hobbes’ and Aristotle’s views on human nature are almost at extreme ends of a spectrum, differing to a considerable extent, and with that, the politics expounded from it. This comparison gives light to complications consistent in Hobbes’ political theories, of how his ideal authoritarian regime may be inconclusive in practical application. This essay will discuss the human nature as outlined by both philosophers’ and the politics arisen from it.

Aristotle stated in Politics, that man is “naturally a political [social] animal”, pointing out that human beings gravitate naturally towards political and social communities. Individuals struggle to exist on their lonesome and require social ties with other of their kind to fulfill their fundamental – be it social, materialistic or economic – needs. This natural alignment within humans to do so places them in various “families” and/or “households”, to regulate each human’s existence and survival. The next natural association after would be a “village” and at a larger level, a “city-state” (polis), an entirely self-sufficient state bearing other needs complimentary to the necessary ones. This chain of naturally forming associations leads Aristotle to the culminating point of his argument that the state is a natural association. This claim is an extension of its core – that a human being is ...

... middle of paper ...

...ble of battle and massacre with self-interest at the helm of their reasoning, how are we to say that we would then generate a gratuitous amount of selflessness in giving up their rights and subsequently placing said rights within the jurisdiction of another being? Hobbes fails to provide any insight into this contradictory possibility.

However, it is noted that Aristotle and Hobbes both concur on the fact that there needs to be a higher power or authority present within the society in order for it to progress, even if the purposes differ. For example, in the former’s terms, a democratic body needs to be founded to rule over the masses, and similarly in the latter’s, a sovereign must be established to exert its rule. The former; to have the humans progressively attain happiness, whereas the latter; to avoid an all-out war that may likely result in impending death.