Why are we the way we are? Is it because we want to be that way or because we were made that way? The debate regarding the nature of humans is one that will never end because there is so much support for each side. It is an issue that humans have spent generations pondering. Two of those people are Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Both have made compelling arguments regarding nature versus nurture. Thomas Hobbes writes in his work, Leviathan, “Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind.” However that claim comes with a catch. He believes that we all have different strengths and weaknesses but when we weigh the pros and cons of each person up against the other there is really a balance. This is one aspect of his argument …show more content…
He writes, “if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies.” I do not agree with this argument. I think the conflict is a creation inside our minds not because we desire the same thing but because we desire what someone has or wants. How often do we want something because we see someone have it? Consider social media like Instagram. You see someone with thousands of likes on their posts compared to your measly four or five. There’s a desire to post something outrageous or provocative to get more likes. Is that something that you really wanted? Or is it because you see the attention the other person is …show more content…
Our mind then processes that perception into an idea. A great example I can give is from my childhood. I was playing outside by my elderly neighbor and she said, “Stop,” and I did, which made her tell me I was very obedient. I didn’t know what that word meant so I looked it up and did not like the definition. Ever since that day I tried to not be obedient unless I wanted to be or absolutely needed to be. I heard something I didn’t know anything about, researched it and reflected on it and decided I didn’t want to be that. My experience makes me agree with Locke because I was able to process what happened to me and decide for
It is a common argument about whether humans are simply who they are because of genes, the nature of who someone is, or if it’s more due to interactions with outside ideas and actions, the nurture one receives. Different research has claimed both sides,
Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature. It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be. Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature.
We will give Hobbes’ view of human nature as he describes it in Chapter 13 of Leviathan. We will then give an argument for placing a clarifying layer above the Hobbesian view in order to account for acts of altruism. Hobbes views human nature as the war of each man against each man. For Hobbes, the essence of human nature can be found when we consider how man acts apart from any government or order. Hobbes describes the world as “a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man.”
that the man or men who use their array of powers to the best of their
necessary to lay down this right to all things, and be contented with so much
According to him, “the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest” (Hobbes, 1991: 87). In other words, Hobbes introduces the concept of natural equality, which entails that each man is a mortal threat to others because one is strong enough to kill another. Moreover, he also believes that people are naturally free because they have a right to do anything, since in the state of nature there are no laws to constrain humankind. Additionally, this links with Hobbes’ assumption of “equality of hope in the attaining of our ends” (Hobbes, 1991: 87) and with the three key interests that people share in the state of nature, namely, the desire for self-preservation, for acquiring means of commodious life, and for improving one’s own position in life through industry. To explain, since humans are naturally free and equal, they tend to equally hope to fulfil these same crucial
Theories of human nature, as the term would ever so subtly suggest, are at best only individual assertions of the fundamental and intrinsic compositions of mankind, and should be taken as such. Indeed it can be said that these assertions are both many and widespread, and yet too it can be said that there are a select few assertions of the nature of man that rise above others when measured by historical persistence, renown, and overall applicability. These eclectic discourses on the true nature of man have often figured largely in theories of political science, typically functioning as foundational structures to broader claims and arguments. The diversification of these ideological assertions, then, would explain the existence of varying theories
One of Locke’s largest points is "All ideas come from sensation or reflection” (Locke 101). He thinks that man is completely blank when they are born and that their basic senses are what gives them knowledge. Locke states, “Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper” (Locke 101). Locke is basically saying that human nature is like a blank slate, and how men experience life in their own ways is what makes them good or evil. Overall, Locke believes that any and all knowledge is only gained through life
Locke feels that we do not have any innate ideas. Then the question arises of
Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau were both influential philosophers with two completely different theories about the nature of human beings. While Hobbes’s’ theory was based upon the assumption that human nature was naturally born competitive, violent, and seeking power, Rousseau viewed human nature as good and pure, only until society corrupts it. Although Hobbes and Rousseau both viewed the state of nature quite differently, both their theories were similarly based on the image of how society was, before political government existed. The argument I would like to make is the idea that Hobbes’s vision and beliefs of human nature from the State of Nature is profoundly more logical and realistic than of Rousseau’s. To be human is to desire
The first philosopher, John Locke, laid the foundations of modern empiricism. Locke is a representational realist who touches reality through feelings. He believes that experience gives us knowledge (ideas) that makes us able to deal with the world external to our minds. His meaning of ideas is "the immediate object of perception, thought, or understanding." Locke's ideas consist of simply ideas which turn into complex ideas. Simple ideas are the thoughts that the mind cannot know an idea that it has not experienced. The two types of simple ideas are; sensation and reflection. Sensation is the idea that we have such qualities as yellow, white, heat, cold, soft, hard, bitter, and sweet. Reflection ideas are gained from our experience of our own mental operations. Complex ideas are combinations of simple ideas that can be handled as joined objects and given their own names. These ideas are manufactured in the human mind by the application of its higher powers. Locke believes in two kinds of qualities that an object must have; primary and secondary. Primary qualities o...
Because people basically have equality of ability, they all have hope of attaining what they want and dream of. The conflict comes when two men want the same thing, which they both cannot have. They become enemies and they seek to destroy or subdue the other. Some examples of this are two families that want to purchase the same house. They try to subdue each other by raising the amount they are willing to pay for the house, even if it is more than they were planning on spending. Every person thinks their companion should value them and when the person undervalues them, they will do whatever it takes to be as valued as they would like to be.
John Locke’s Essay on Human Understanding his primary thesis is our ideas come from experience, that the human mind from birth is a blank slate. (Tabula Rasa) Only experience leaves an impression in our brain. “External objects impinge on our senses,” which interpret ate our perceptions of various objects. The senses fill the mind with content. Nothing can exist in the mind that was not first experienced by the senses. Dualism resembles Locke’s theory that your mind cannot perceive something that the senses already have or they come in through the minds reflection on its own operation. Locke classifies ideas as either simple or complex, simple ideas being the building blocks for complex ideas.
What makes us humans what we truly are; from our appearance to our habits; and our preferences. A list of questions that will never end. Do we born this way; nor did the environment shapes us; do we born to this world with an existing knowledge of everything is taught and learn? Those questions are one of the biggest debate in the field of developmental psychology: Nature vs, Nurture.
In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes talks about his views of human nature and describes his vision of the ideal government which is best suited to his views.