Compare And Contrast Girard And Hobbes

208 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Violence and contemporary society

With humans being naturally violent, it takes a strong common power and set of laws to be able to balance violence and not let it destroy society. In today’s society, Girard believes judicial systems are the law and help make it so breaking the law with violence is regretted and won’t allow you to do it again. Hobbes believes in the common power and set of laws to be able to let an industry obtain the society. Girard and Hobbes go hand in hand, one can’t work without the other. Laws are set by the common power, if the laws are broken the judicial system takes over and brings justice. Hobbes lacks the theory to decide what happens after the violence takes place against the common power and laws, while Girard doesn’t include anything about how

Show More
Related

  • Comparison of Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes

    1039 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1242 Words  | 3 Pages

    Even though they both believed that men naturally have to some extent equality and freedom, what makes their concepts differ is the presence or absence of the natural law. In Hobbes' theory, men at their natural state are at constant war, the war of all against all. Another Hobbes' belief is that most people are selfish and tend to do everything for their own reason. To Hobbes humans are driven to maximize personal gains so in a world where there are no rules humans are in constant fear of each other as they each try to get as much as they can, enough is never enough. Men act in basically the same ways to get what we desire and if two men desire the same things then they inevitably become enemies, no...

    Read More

  • Human Nature as Viewed by Thomas Hobbes and David Hume

    1952 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.” (Hobbes mp. 186) In such a world, there are “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes mp. 186) Hobbes believes that laws are what regulate us from acting in the same way now. He evidences that our nature is this way by citing that we continue to lock our doors for fear of theft or harm. Hobbes gives a good argument which is in line with what we know of survivalism, and evidences his claim well. Hobbes claims that man is never happy in having company, unless that company is utterly dominated. He says, “men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great dea...

    Read More

  • Hobbes's Theory Of Political Nature And The Theories Of Human Nature

    1286 Words  | 3 Pages

    In sophisticated prose, Hobbes manages to conclude that human beings are all equal in their ability to harm each other, and furthermore that they are all capable of rendering void at will the covenants they had previously made with other human beings. An absolutist government, according to Hobbes, would result in a in a society that is not entirely focused on self-preservation, but rather a society that flourishes under the auspices of peace, unity, and security. Of all the arguably great philosophical discourses, Hobbes in particular provides one of the surest and most secure ways to live under a sovereign that protects the natural liberties of man. The sovereign government is built upon the idea of stability and security, which makes it a very intriguing and unique government indeed. The aforementioned laudation of Hobbes and his assertions only helps to cement his political theories at the forefront of the modern

    Read More

  • Hobbes Lord Of The Flies Comparison Essay

    623 Words  | 2 Pages

    William Golding’s novel, Lord of the flies, a plane crashed and a few boys got stranded on an island somewhere in the Pacific. Soon after, the plane washed away into the ocean. Ralph, one of the boys, first wanted to get everyone who was on the island together and discuss what they were going to do next. they both believed that beginning with a central notion the people would willingly come together. Even though Locke thought they would work better as a group and Hobbes liked one person to lead. This is because Locke is a well-rounded person, whereas Hobbes is very Hard headed.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Calvin And Hobbes

    556 Words  | 2 Pages

    Calvin and Hobbes was a comic strip written by Bill Watterson which ran in many newspapers from 1985 to 1995. The two main characters are a boy named Calvin and his stuffed tiger named Hobbes. In Calvin’s imaginative world Hobbes is very real and highly anthropomorphic. In reality every time another person enters the scene Hobbes is shown as a stuffed animal because it is Calvin alone who sees him as (alive).

    Read More

  • René Descartes and Thomas Hobbes

    1496 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

    1044 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hobbes believes that all men are equal insofar as that the weakest man has the power to kill the strongest man. Thus given that every man is vulnerable to any other man, all men have a very strong desire to escape the state where killing each other is acceptable, escape the state of nature. This can be done, simply put by endeavoring peace which coupled with not making war except to defend oneself, is the first law of nature (Leviathan 1, 14).

    Read More

  • Alienation Social Contract By Thomas Hobbes: The Idea Of Collective Rationality

    1280 Words  | 3 Pages

    He then proposed the idea of collective rationality. For Hobbes, collective rationality is the situation in which, under the assumption that everyone else will act in the same way, the right way is the one that is best for each individual. This forms the basis of Hobbes’ Alienation Social Contract, where decisions are made on the basis of collective rationality. In Hobbes’ opinion, it is natural to choose peace over the “State of War”, where everyone benefits collectively – better amenities, more security et cetera. Moreover, this coincides with his view that everyone should obey the two laws of nature if everyone else is doing it too. The Alienation Social Contract requires a sovereign to whom everyone of the community forfeits their rights

    Read More

  • What Is Hobbes Argument Against Self Preservation

    702 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the excerpt, Hobbes expresses that, justice is impossible in the state of nature in reference to human nature. According to Hobbes, justice can exist as long as every individual has the right of self-preservation. In these texts, self-preservation is defined as the "individual having the liberty to do anything in order to preserve and protect his own life, regardless of the consequences to others". Because we are naturally wicked in Hobbes opinion, the absence of a social contract or any laws to control our right of nature, individuals can kill one another for the sake of protecting their own life and the cycle will continue when in constant conflict with everyone else.

    Read More

  • Comparing Machiavelli and Hobbes

    1482 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • David Hume And Hobbes

    226 Words  | 1 Pages

    Interesting you bring this up because I have a similar approach and after discussing in class Hobbes's proposals and some of his up-bringing I find it quite ironic that being a man that believed, or at least wanted to believe in a monarchical society, accused many of arming themselves and locking their doors and chests(Pg. 43) when he himself basically proved Hume correct. "Morality and our choices are guided by our feelings, opposed to some sort of abstraction." (Hume PPT) Having Hobbes himself flee for his safety during the war doesn't that make him part of that "protecting something due to fear" population that he so often accused?(Pg. 43) This is why I disagree with Hobbes. You cannot force society to give up their freedom much less their

    Read More

  • Comparing Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli

    2258 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Hobbes' View of Human Nature and his Vision of Government

    446 Words  | 1 Pages

    Hobbes believed that human beings naturally desire the power to live well and that they will never be satisfied with the power they have without acquiring more power.  After this, he believes, there usually succeeds a new desire such as fame and glory, ease and sensual pleasure or admiration from others.  He also believed that all people are created equally.  That everyone is equally capable of killing each other because although one man may be stronger than another, the weaker may be compensated for by his intellect or some other individual aspect. Hobbes believed that the nature of humanity leads people to seek power.  He said that when two or more people want the same thing, they become enemies and attempt to destroy each other.  He called this time when men oppose each other war.  He said that there were three basic causes for war, competition, distrust and glory.  In each of these cases, men use violence to invade their enemies territory either for their personal gain, their safety or for glory.  He said that without a common power to unite the people, they would be in a war of every man against every man as long as the will to fight is known.  He believed that this state of war was the natural state of human beings and that harmony among human beings is artificial because it is based on an agreement.  If a group of people had something in common such as a common interest or a common goal, they would not be at war and united they would be more powerful against those who would seek to destroy them.  One thing he noted that was consistent in all men was their interest in self-preservation.

    Read More

  • Criticism of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

    390 Words  | 1 Pages

    On the first page of the Leviathan cited by Ebenstein & Ebenstein, Hobbes deals with an intrinsic part of society: equality and in-equality. Every man is equal and therefore men have matching wishes and demands. The equality is in the way of attaining our ends. "And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end, which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only, endeavour to destroy or subdue one another." This statement builds upon a negative notion of society, which I am afraid share, although cannot be seen as completely correct. The basis of society lies not within the strength of the individual but the outcome of all individual actions. This aggregate effect will benefit all, let it be to a certain extent. It is not always in a man's best interest to pursue the clearly most beneficiary goal. Men will act in the benefit of their own interest and I think that men's nature is indeed preservation of the individual but also of the species. Therefore men will not always turn to violence but will also seek the more diplomatic ways to achieve goals. As is shown by the many medieval battles, the sum of the total is an aggravation of everyone's benefits. Then why do wars exist? The answer to this question is not an easy one to answer while trying to dispute Hobbes…so I won't. Hobbes, as I already claimed is right, to a certain extent. Real power lies not within the hands of individuals but in the hands of corporate actors, which are formed by mostly male individuals. This, I see as the main reason for battle-like behaviour. Off all men would be able to think reasonable and not in terms of power and the like then the situations of war would probably not exist. However, in the group process this is clearly not the case. To give a current day example of this one could survey the campus. In such an environment the atmosphere should be positive, as everybody will agree upon. Now then, why is the group process the other way around. Why do people within a closed group complain more frequently than others do? The reason, I think is that group behaviour is irrational and will lead to non-logical outcomes.

    Read More

More about Compare And Contrast Girard And Hobbes

Open Document