Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two English philosophers who were very similar thinkers. They both studies at Oxford, and they both witnessed the civil Revolution. The time when they lived in England influenced both of their thoughts as the people were split into two groups, those whom though the king should have absolute power, and the other half whom thought people could govern themselves. However Hobbes and Locke both rejected the idea of divine right, such as there was no one person who had the right from God to rule. They both believed in the dangers of state of nature, they thought without a government there is more chance of war between men. However their theories differ, Hobbes theories are based on his hypothetical ideas of the state
During the enlightenment era, rebellious scholars called philosophers brought new ideas on how to understand and envision the world from different views. Although, each philosopher had their own minds and ideas, they all wanted to improve society in their own unique ways. Two famous influential philosophers are Francis Bacon and John Locke. Locke who is an empiricism, he emphasizes on natural observations. Descartes being a rationalist focus more on innate reasons. However, when analyze the distinguished difference between both Locke and Descartes, it can be views towards the innate idea concepts, the logic proof god’s existence, and the inductive/deductive methods. This can be best demonstrate using the essays, “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”
Empiricism by nature is the belief that there is no knowledge without experience. How can one know what something tastes like if they have never tasted it? For example, would someone know that an apple is red if they have never actually have seen one? Someone can tell you an apple is red, but, if you have never seen one, can you really be sure? One must first understand what empiricism is before one can assess its validity. Empiricism can be defined as the view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge (Free Dictionary). The existence of empiricism will be understood through an examination of the attack on innate ideas and the origin of ideas, filling the 'Tabula Rasa'; the objection
John Locke, born on Aug. 29, 1632, in Somerset, England, was an English philosopher and political theorist. Locke was educated at Christ Church, Oxford, where he followed the traditional classical curriculum and then turned to the study of medicine and science, receiving a medical degree, but his interest in philosophy was reawakened by the study of Descartes. He then joined the household of Anthony Ashley Cooper, later the earl of Shaftesbury, as a personal physician at first, becoming a close friend and advisor. Shaftesbury secured for Locke a series of minor government appointments. In 1669, in one of his official capacities, Locke wrote a constitution for the proprietors of the Carolina Colony in North America, but it was never put into effect. In 1671 Locke began to write his greatest work, the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, which took nearly twenty years to complete since he was deeply engaged in Shaftesbury's political affairs. In 1675, after the liberal Shaftesbury had fallen from favor, Locke went to France. In 1679 he returned to England, but in view of his opposition to the Roman Catholicism favored by the English monarchy at that time, he soon found it expedient to return to the Continent. From 1683 to 1688 he lived in Holland, and following the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the restoration of Protestantism to favor, Locke returned once more to England. The new king, William III, appointed Locke to the Board of Trade in 1696, a position from which he resigned because of ill health in 1700. He died in Oates on October 28, 1704.
John Locke had a number of major influences on society in general, but his influences on education have stood the taste of time. His idea of Tabula Rasa, his introduction of empiricism, and idea of the use of all senses are all objectives that are used in schools today.
The late sixteen-hundreds were a time of absolute monarchies, budding representative governments, and revolution (the Revolution in 1688 in particular). The people of this time, of course, had opinions about the ways things should be done and what kind of government should, and could, really work for the people. Even the idea of the government being a system that ultimately should work for the benefit of the people was a point of conflict in some circles. Two examples of men with strong opinions about absolutism were Bishop Jaques-Bénigne Bossuet, Louis XIV’s court preacher and tutor to Louis XIV’s son, and John Locke, arguably the most prominent English philosopher in his day. While Bossuet and Locke differed greatly in their views of what
Therefore we can say that Hobbes and Locke had the same view on “natural rights” and the necessity of the people. Starting with Hobbes and his theory; he uses the word Leviathan which means "sea monster"(more likely referring to the people killing each other). I think he addresses this issue because in his of absolutism he argues that the people should have a strong tall man who has radiated
Rationalism asserts truth can be known prior to experience, or a priori—only through reason. Empiricism asserts that all concepts and knowledge come a posteriori—from sense perception. Plato asserted that all knowledge is a priori, that knowledge is not possible based on anything coming from the senses. Things that come by way of sense perception are part of the world of becoming, and therefore, nothing can manifest from them other than mere opinion. True knowledge can only be gained from those things that are permanent, changeless, and eternal. Because we can only access knowledge through reason, for the pursuit of knowledge sense perception is irrelevant, and things learned through sense perception cannot properly be considered knowledge.
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes each supported different fundamentals of human nature and government amid the seventeenth century. Thomas Hobbes distributed his point of view of the human soul as negative, persuading others to believe that its evilness should be controlled by concealment under an outright ruler. John Locke advanced an idealistic perspective of human instinct in which they lived under a legislature that secured the privileges of the general population.
Throughout time almost political points have some type of shape or form around gods and priests. Mr. Locke had the capability to express his theory without using too much god into his works. He believed that god created us to achieve our own happiness while avoiding fear and pain and political leaders shouldn’t push their beliefs on to other people. This is where his nature and nurture also comes in because everyone has their own experiences and reasoning’s, so there would always be some conflict of ideas. Although, Mr. Locke’s idea was influenced off Mr. Hobbles they both have very different
Even though some of their ideas were similar most of them wasn’t for example what they thought of human nature. John thought of that men is by nature a social animal, while Thomas thought men is not by nature a social animal. Locke uses Hobbes’ methodological device of the State of Nature, but he uses it to a quite different way.
A person chooses to do something based on how they will profit from whatever they are doing. Nobody decides to help another person without finding some way for them to benefit from the situation. Humans are wired to avoid all forms of pain and obtain pleasure instead. Believing this Hobbes has come to the conclusion that humans are materialists. Since most people find gratification through objects that then obtain and hold onto. Man is not only controlled by physical needs but also my psychological wants and needs. Not all gratification can be found in a materialistic object. Hobbes concluded that human nature is ruled by psychological and physical needs, avoid pain and harm, leading everyone to an egoist. Locke on the other hand believes that humans can truly be altruistic instead egoistic. Not everyone will view a situation as what will they gain out of it, but will help others because the genuinely do want to help
Locke claims that people are reasonable and inherently good. He believes all people are born equal and are entitled to basic rights such as the right to life, liberty and property. He believed in the social contract theory, he stated that governments should protect individual rights and freedoms, but the people should change the government if it does not serve the people. He believed in religious toleration as well as limited government. On the other hand, Hobbes believed that people are born evil and must be controlled by an absolutist state. An absolutist state that offers protection for its citizens and prevents societal chaos. Hobbes also believed in the social contract theory, which states that the people should give up their freedom in order for the government to provide order and protection. However, Hobbes did not think the people had the right to revolt against the government. I identity with Locke’s philosophy the most. Growing up in a democracy, I believe the government should be representative of the people it governs. I think that humans are born with certain genetic and traits that define us, but we are all open to societal conditioning that mold us accordingly. I think a limited government with checks on its power is the safest, most stable form of government. I strongly disagree with Hobbes’ notion that the people are not entitled to revolt
In old English times around the late 16th and mid 17th centuries, there were two philosophers by the names of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Lock and Hobbes both had different political, as well as scientific views. They each had original, self driven theories on worldly needs and desires, providing their own reactions to English revolutions. The argument that sparked the controversy was the statement that, “Man is by nature a social animal.” This theory was supported by many natural philosophers, but Hobbes felt differently.