The Natural Ways of Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau

1208 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Rousseau's challenge to human nature

In today’s society, human nature is a commonly used term. On the other hand, there is not just one concept of human nature, but rather a plethora of concepts surrounding the idea. With the rise of capitalism, social structure is reformed; it is during this rise in the early seventeenth and eighteenth century, that John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau introduce their varying opinions surrounding man in nature. The western philosophers mainly concern themselves with the concept of the social contract. Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke begin with the conception of the individual, because in the natural state, they all believe that man is an independent character. Each of the philosophers used their revolutionary concepts to challenge power, yet their arguments differ dramatically.
Through their texts, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau portray Enlightenment ideals of their time period. The texts give historical importance and context, for a greater understanding of their environment. Hobbes and Locke write their ideals, as a rise of capitalism is occurring in England. Through their texts, the nation’s structural change as well as equality, freedom, human rights, and democratic rule are conceptualized. Similarly, Rousseau publishes his work on the dawn of the French Revolution, asserting some of the key issues facing his society. Yet to fully understand the concerns of their modern men, the political philosophers retreat to their view on man’s natural state.
Thomas Hobbes, the first of the philosophers to publish his work, had a special interest in the nature of man and society. Hobbes was a proponent of rational egoism, and believed that self-interest is acceptable in cases of great reason and capacity, because of this he port...

... middle of paper ...

...; that he always refuses his fellow-men services he does not believe he owes them; nor that, by virtue of the right he reasonably claims to things he needs, he foolishly imagines himself to be the sole proprietor of the whole universe. (Rousseau 1964 [1762]:129).

Each of the philosophers creates this popular notion of “human nature”, even though they craft their arguments in differing ways. John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau picture life of the natural man in a way that connects how nature has shaped into their present societies’ shortcomings.

Works Cited

Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. Leviathan. Oregon State University. 1-20. Web.
Locke, John. 1690. The Second Treatise of Civil Government. Oregon State University. 1-19. Web.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1964. The First and Second Discourses. Masters, Roger D., Judith R.
Masters. New York: St. Martin’s.

Show More
Related

  • Comparing The Social Contract And The Leviathan

    1688 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Social Contract and the Leviathan by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, respectively, contextualizes man’s struggle to escape a brutish, short life within the state of nature. Man is confined in a lawless world where the words mine and thine are interchangeable, and where there is no regard for private possession; this indifference even extends to the right over someone’s body. And while there are those who revel in freedom from the synthetic chains of law, the reality of life in the state of nature- a life of constant war and distrust for one’s neighbor- trumps any short lived joys or monetary gains. Although it may seem like there is no hope for man in this state, Hobbes and Rousseau presents us with a way to escape this tragic

    Read More

  • The Role of Naturalism and Rationalism in American and British Gun Policy

    753 Words  | 2 Pages

    Although they may not be aware of it, complex philosophic principles influence the simple actions of the mass’s everyday lives. In fact, long lasting and well defined contentions of basic philosophy concerning the actions of human beings has not only affected individuals, but also entire countries. Some of the greatest nations on Earth have been formed around key thoughts and opinions of several great philosophers. Primarily amongst these, however, or John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, both of whom wrote on “The State of Nature”, or the state of absolute freedom. While Locke and Hobbes had vastly different opinions on the natural state of a human being, no matter who you are your life is somehow affected by their philosophic writings.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1242 Words  | 3 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political philosophers who are famous for their theories about the formation of the society and discussing man in his natural state. Their theories are both psychologically insightful, but in nature, they are drastically different. Although they lived in the same timeframe, their ideas were derived from different events happening during this time. Hobbes drew his ideas on man from observation, during a time of civil strife in Europe during the 1640's and 1650's.

    Read More

  • John Locke And Thomas Hobbes Essay

    2840 Words  | 6 Pages

    Born in Malmesbury, England, Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was a philosopher and political theorist widely renowned for his 1651 book Leviathan. He was educated at Oxford, lived for a time in Paris and there met philosopher Rene ́ Descartes, traveled to Italy and met Galileo, and served as a tutor of Charles II. Leviathan brings together parts of Hobbes’s previously published writings, including the 1642 Latin work De Cive and the 1640 Elements of Law, Natural and Political. Hobbes was also author

    Read More

  • John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract

    1125 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Enlightenment was an astonishing time of transformation in Europe. During this time in the eighteenth century there was a progressive movement that was labeled by its criticism of the normal religious, social, and political perceptions. A number of significant thinkers, with new philosophies, had inspired creativeness and change. These thinkers had many different thoughts and views on people and the way they act, and views on the government. Two well-known and most influential thinkers of this time were the English political philosopher John Locke and the French political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. These two men had laid down some of the intellectual grounds of the modern day government and both had different opinions on what the government’s role in a society.

    Read More

  • On the Virtues of Private Property in Locke and Rousseau

    2220 Words  | 5 Pages

    John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, following their predecessor Thomas Hobbes, both attempt to explain the development and dissolution of society and government. They begin, as Hobbes did, by defining the “state of nature”—a time before man found rational thought. In the Second Treatise[1] and the Discourse on Inequality[2], Locke and Rousseau, respectively, put forward very interesting and different accounts of the state of nature and the evolution of man, but the most astonishing difference between the two is their conceptions of property. Both correctly recognize the origin of property to be grounded in man’s natural desire to improve his life, but they differ in their description of the result of such a desire. Locke sees the need and purpose of society to protect property as something sacred to mankind, while Rousseau sees property as the cause of the corruption and eventual downfall of society. Although Rousseau raises interesting and applicable observations, Locke’s argument triumphs because he successfully shows the positive and essential effect of property on man.

    Read More

  • Locke and Rousseau

    1787 Words  | 4 Pages

    Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Rousseau, The State of Nature

    1256 Words  | 3 Pages

    Both Hobbes and Rousseau have different, even opposing, views on the topic of the natural state of man. These views play a major role in their beliefs and reasoning for why man needs society and government. These beliefs can be easily summarized with Hobbes believing in an inherent selfishness and competition in man, whereas Rousseau’s views on things are far more positive, believing that man is far happier in his natural state, and the root of his corruption is the result of his entrance into society. Rousseau’s theory is based on a state prior to the formation of society and any form of government. Thomas Hobbes, the founding father of political philosophy and who was in great opposition to the natural state of man, emphasizes that all people are selfish and evil; the lack of governmental structure is what results in a state of chaos, only to be resolved by an authority figure.

    Read More

  • Exploring Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau's Views on Freedom

    1544 Words  | 4 Pages

    While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately, negates freedom. How each philosopher interprets this manifestation of servitude in civil society reveals the intrinsic problems of liberty in civil society. Marx and Rousseau come to a similar conclusion on what is to be done to undo the fetters that society has brought upon humankind but their methods differ when deciding how the shackles should be broken. To understand how these two men’s views vary and fit together it must first be established what they mean by “freedom”.

    Read More

  • John Locke And Thomas Hobbes: The Age Of Reason Or Enlightenment

    793 Words  | 2 Pages

    Our first individual, Thomas Hobbes, wrote many books about history, geometry, the physics, theology, ethics, and philosophy; however, the one that made him known as the father of political science and one of the great philosophers of all time is the book Leviathan. In it Hobbes sets out his doctrine of the foundation of a legitimate government that would basically fit human sin by creating an objective view of morality.

    Read More

  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract

    1773 Words  | 4 Pages

    Firstly, each individual should give themselves up unconditionally to the general cause of the state. Secondly, by doing so, all individuals and their possessions are protected, to the greatest extent possible by the republic or body politic. Lastly, all individuals should then act freely and of their own free will. Rousseau thinks th...

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2030 Words  | 5 Pages

    Compare John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which, while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state, present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies. In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

    1044 Words  | 3 Pages

    The main critics of Thomas Hobbes’ work are most often those with a more optimistic view of human nature. However, if one is to really look at a man’s actions in depth, a self-serving motivation can always be found. The main problem with Hobbes’ claims is that he does not account for the more Darwinian perspective that helping one’s own species survive is at the same time a selfish and unwar-like act. Thus his conclusion that without a governing body, we are essentially at war with one another is not completely true as years of evolution can help disprove.

    Read More

  • Rousseau's Theory Of Alienation

    1222 Words  | 3 Pages

    Rousseau’s version of the social contract depends on his characteristics of “the state of nature”. Rousseau once said “Man is born

    Read More

  • Difference Between John Locke And Rousseau

    1750 Words  | 4 Pages

    Rousseau presumes that in the beginning, humans were living in a peaceful state of nature and lived in equality, but as civilization progressed it began to change man as challenges became more elaborate, lives became more complicated, development of the possession of property began, and habitually more comparisons were made amongst us. The first law of nature also contributed to our sense of ownership. The first law of nature recognized by Rousseau is self-preservation; we care about ourselves then society and this law is used to defend or prove our own independence. As a result or this change of civility, we shifted to a state of nature that was far from grace, where we desired the suffering of others, only cared about ourselves, and developed the meaning of inequalities. People realized that their natural rights could no longer coexist with their freedom in the state of nature and also that they would perish if they did not leave the state of nature. Therefore, the state of nature no longer became desirable and society restored that motive; in this new societal environment we develop morals to handle conflicts and help preserve ourselves. Locke believes that while in our natural state we all have morals, though Rousseau challenges that belief by claiming that society generates a moral character within us. Rousseau insists that everyone can be free and live

    Read More

More about The Natural Ways of Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau

Open Document