Human nature and its relevance in determining behaviors, predictions, and conclusions has caused dispute among philosophers throughout the ages. Political philosophy with its emphasis on government legitimacy, justice, laws, and rights guided the works of the 17th and 18th century philosophical writings of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Through Thomas Hobbes world-renowned publication Leviathan and Rousseau’s discourses on basic political principals and concepts, each man validated their thoughts on human nature and what is required for a successful society within their respective government confines. The distinct differences between Hobbes and Rousseau’s opinions on the natural state of man frame the argument of the different parenting styles the each man would inevitably apply towards raising a child. Raising a child is a timeless analogy that can be used to contrast the education and discipline that one would apply in the endless situations life provides.
The opposing ideologies of human nature by Hobbes and Rousseau would reflect in their parenting styles. Both men agree that nature is directly relevant to man and that perhaps humans are closes to their natural state at infancy. Nature (the Art whereby God hath made and governes the World) is by the Art of man. (Hobbes 81) Their differences become clear when discussing mans relationship to society.
Hobbes argues that man is born a natural savage who is unruly and undisciplined. Society saves the human soul by forcing it into a civilized society that requires proper behavior for survival. This viewpoint is relatable to parenting on the basis of children at birth are uncivilized beings with no sense of right or wrong. These characteristics are only instilled in the...
... middle of paper ...
...eau. According to Hobbes, the fundamental law of nature, or the general rule of reason, “that every man, ought to endeavor peace, as a farre as has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek.” (190) For Hobbes, we must seek peace for civilization because it is civilization that saves us from ourselves. For Rousseau, in order to obtain peace we must regain the goodness from our primitive state that was deprived from us once we entered into civilization.
Works Cited:
Hobbes, Thomas, and Crawford B. Macpherson. Leviathan. Harmondsworth,
Middlesex [u.a.: Penguin, 1985. Print.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Donald A. Cress. Basic Political Writings: "Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts", "Discourse on the Origin of Inequality", "Discourse on Political Economy", "On the Social Contract", “The State of War”. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1987. Print.
The foremost difference between Aristotle and Hobbes, and in turn classical and modern political philosophies’, with regard to a good life and happiness is that of normative judgments about the good life. While Hobbes rejects normative judgments about the good life and discusses human actions without attributions of moral quality, Aristotle offers the exact opposite. In Ethics, Aristotle differentiates between good and evil actions along with what the best good, or summum bonum, for all humans while Hobbes approach argues that good and bad varies from one individual to another with good being the object of an individuals appetite or desire, and evil being an object of his hate and aversion. In addition, Aristotle makes it clear that individuals have an ultimate purpose—that of political animals—that they should strive to become through trial and error throughout their life. Hobbes on the other hand rejects the idea of life having an ultimate purpose, “for there is no such finis ultimus (utmost aim) nor summum bonum (greatest good) as is spoken of in the books of the old moral philosophers…Felicity is a continual progress of the desire, from one object to another, the attaining of the former being still but the way to the latter”. Hobbes defines felicity as the satisfaction of one’s passions as stated in Leviathan “continual success in obtaining those things which a man from time to time desireth, that is to say, continual prospering, is that men call felicity.
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.
Hobbes’ state of nature depicts the life of man as “nasty, brutish, and short” (31) and does not allow for innate morality, which for some may be seen as problematic for Hobbes’ theory. Locke’s state of nature seems to be more accessible as it presents a more dynamic picture of human nature. Moreover, it allows for an innate sense of morality within human beings that does not simply arise out of the formation of a
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.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a man of philosophy, music, and literature. His philosophy was that humanity will do what’s best for the state as a whole, rather than the general “every man for himself” philosophy. He says that while we do have a piece of that individualistic philosophy, it is when they are in a healthy state that they value fairly the collective good for everyone around them, and express the general sense of good will. Rousseau believes that people will recognize that the will of all is the common good, but that in itself raises the questions as to the validity ...
Although Locke’s description of the state of nature won’t turn out to be as dire as Hobbes’, it rests on the same notion that humans are born equal in the state of nature. Where their views diverge is what this total equality entails. Whereas for Hobbes, the depravity
The argument as to whether humans are born good or evil is one that been philosophized for hundreds of years by many of the world’s greatest minds. Are humans born with a particular set of qualities that define their character and how they are perceived in society? Are they born with the power to choose between good and evil? The idea of human nature relies on the theory that there is an engrained set of features which are shared by all humans—components that determine the way people reason and behave. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are two opposing philosophers who have devoted many years to studying this subject. For Locke, the state of nature— the original condition of all humanity before civilization and order were established —is one where man is born free, equal and have rights that others should respect, such as the right to live and the right to liberty. These rights were essentially derived from natural law— an unwritten law in which every man must judge his/her own actions against. For Hobbes, however, the state of nature is one of constant war; solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short ; it is, in Hobbes’ mind, civilization that separates humans from their primitive state. Hobbes believed that an individual’s only drive in life is to serve themselves above all else. In order to obtain this goal, humans must use conflict as a means of self-gain to take what they desire for their self-serving nature. Although Hobbes’ theory on human nature is…..…John Locke provides one of the best in depth accounts of true human nature, as he suggests that man is not born with any pre-conceived ideals, apart from being born free. Locke theorised that man was born with a clean slate, thus, they have the ability to make decisions that are e...
While the problems within civil society may differ for these two thinkers it is uncanny how similar their concepts of freedom are, sometimes even working as a logical expansion of one another. Even in their differences they shed light onto new problems and possible solutions, almost working in tandem to create a freer world. Rousseau may not introduce any process to achieve complete freedom but his theorization of the general will laid the groundwork for much of Marx’s work; similarly Marx’s call for revolution not only strengthens his own argument but also Rousseau’s.
Hobbes and Rousseau created a revolutionary idea of the state of nature. They did not believe government should be organized through the church, therefore abandoning the idea of the divine right theory, where power of the king came directly from God. Starting from a clean slate, with no organized church, Hobbes and Rousseau needed a construct on what to build society on. The foundation of society began with the original state of nature. Hobbes’ perception of the original state of nature is what would exist if there were no common power to execute and enforce the laws to restrain individuals. In this case, the laws of the jungle would prevail: only the fittest survive. Man’s desires are insatiable. Since resources are scarce, humankind is naturally competitive, inevitably creating jealousy and hatred, which eventually leads to war.
The Enlightenment in the Eighteenth century was an era that emphasized individual freedom and autonomy. Two important thinkers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, contributed to ideas about constructing a community at the end of the Scientific Revolution in the Seventeenth century that is made up of individuals. Hobbes composed an essay entitled, Leviathan, published in 1651, that addresses the negativity of human nature, and the movement towards governing through an absolute ruler. Locke’s essay Of Civil Government, published in 1690, portrays human nature as inherently good and equal, and devises a government that promotes these human rights of every individual. A community is made of individuals, therefore
During the sixteen hundreds, the French philosopher René Descartes laid the foundations for the beginnings of Cartesian Dualism. In contrast, the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued against dualism in favor of materialism. Recently, Cartesian Dualism, and dualism in general has fallen out of favor as materialism arose as a more plausible and explanatory theory regarding the interrelationships between body and mind. The translation Descartes’ writing in the Meditations is far more cryptic than Hobbes’ writing in the Leviathan. Making it far easier to see Hobbes’ claims. Hobbes provides a reasonable explanation against dualism in his objections to Descartes, and in his Leviathan, provides background upon his reasoning in those objections. Dualism may be less popular than materialism in current philosophy, but it may simply be because dualism has more or less reached some sort of block in regards to its further development, and not anything to do with the writings of Descartes or Hobbes. Descartes and Hobbes may have influenced many of the earlier bickering between philosophers of mind upon the subject of mind-body interaction, as Hobbes was likely the first objector to Descartes’ dualism.
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
To be successful, one must have the appearance of virtuousness, but not necessarily be virtuous. At least, this appears to be true according to Niccolo Machiavelli's works. Machiavelli's idea of the virtuous republican citizen may be compared to Hobbes' idea of a person who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power. Hobbes' ideas seem to suggest that most anyone can claim rightful authority as there is a belief in God, and one can under Hobbes, claim legitimate authority rather easily. There are few proofs. Machiavelli, on the other hand, takes a strong position and suggests specific criteria in terms of power. With Machiavelli, there is a sense of righteousness and fairness and while he does not sanction authoritarian rule to save man from himself, it is also true that Machiavelli puts a lot of faith in leaders also. In some respects, one can see that the two theorists agree yet Machiavelli’s proposed Political society is more feasible thus superior to that of Hobbes.
Two of the greatest philosophers of all time are Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli. Hobbes was born in 1588 in England, when absolutism was taking hold in Europe. His most famous work was 'Leviathan', written in 1651. Hobbes discussed the ideal state and innate laws of man and nature, among other things. Machiavelli was born in Italy in 1469, a time when his home country was ruled mostly by foreign powers. His hometown, Florence, was still independent. Machiavelli's most famous work, 'The Prince', tells of his ideal state and ideal ruler. Machiavelli goes on to describe the perfect prince, a picture of cruelty and cunning. Though both genius philosophers, their views differ greatly. Hobbes believed in a minimalist government where the state only interfered with the lives of the citizens when it had to. The ideal kingdom was the kingdom of God, in Hobbes' mind. In Machiavelli's 'The Prince', he describes his ideal government with a strong monarch, and fearful subjects. In Hobbes' system, a close relationship was kept with God, while in Machiavelli's reason was the only rule. The most important and most dealt-with area of dialogue is the 'ideal' government.
Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau are all social contract theorists that believe in how the people should have certain rights with allows them to have individual freedom. They also believe that the people must give consent in order for the government to work and progress. Although Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have similar aspects in their theories, they differ from each other through the reason why a government should be created.