The founding fathers were politicians but, were also brilliant political philosophers. They looked for help for the western tradition of political philosophy as they looked for the ideal government. Hobbes and Locke both theorized that in any society, there existed a “state of nature” when there was no government. The second treatise contains Locke’s own view of justification for the civil government.
When it comes to Carl Schmitt and his ideas about John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, I cannot help but wonder if Schmitt even tried to understand what both of those philosophers were trying to say. First off, Schmitt categorizes Hobbes and Locke, which makes sense, but after that it is all down hill. Schmitt gets deeper down into what he believes Locke is talking about but misses Locke’s entire point about executive prerogative. After this, Schmitt jumps to Hobbes as well and discusses how he does not believe that they subject the sovereign power to natural law.
Thesis Statement: Locke’s views are more accurate than Hobbes’, because Locke believes in a constitutional democracy, that humans aren’t bad, and that the government should protect our rights.
Topic Sentence - John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are both very famous English philosophers, who have very different ideas for their nation. They shared many ideas, including the use of social contracts, that people should have rights, and that people needed a government to protect their rights.
Hobbes and Locke constructed their own versions on what kind of government should prevail within a society in order for it to function properly. They agree that before people came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature, which lacked society and structure. The two philosophers developed differing versions of the social contract, but all agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered in order to improve the way of life.
While history continues to be made everyday that goes by, we take a look at three famous philosophers to interpret their ideas. These philosophers include John Locke, Karl Marx, and Niccolo Machiavelli. They all have something in common, which is to observe and form an opinion on the human nature of people and how society works as a whole. Even though all three discuss about the same topic, their ideas are quite different from one another. While Locke and Marx place their opinions on human reasoning, Machiavelli does not. Each of their opinions derived from the actions that people make, such as Locke, who believes that all humans are created equal, Marx who believes that people are consciously good and will do the right thing to balance society, and Machiavelli on the other hand, who believes people are selfish and will act in accordance to their best interest.
I will argue that Leibniz's argument is plausible as it explains that there could not be a system of thinking matter because it does not go beyond what we cannot already explain. Leibniz's Mill Argument is sufficient in explaining the unlikelihood of the physical brain being able to produce thought, this idea requires natures to explain the phenomenon. Locke's account of the Super Addition Argument which explains that it is possible that there could be a system of thinking matter, and it is a decent one. Locke does not say that it is possible that thinking matter exists, but instead takes a more agnostic approach by saying we do not know, and will probably never know whether matter can think or not.
John Locke was an English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most inspiring of the Enlightenment thinkers and commonly known as the "Father of Liberalism".His work greatly affected the development of political philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence.
It gives me great pleasure to be able to stand here today and award John Locke with the Lifetime Achievement Award! John is an English empiricist philosopher. He believes that all knowledge is resultant from physical experience. Locke also gave his opinion to some of the European Enlightenment movement's foremost concepts. John composed works about the association between society and their government. Afore, John created his utmost significant works, England beheld a meaningful but serene transmission of rule in the Glorious Revolution. Parliament forced King James II to step down from the throne.
Notes on John Locke (1632-1704),
selections from The Second Treatise of Government (1690)
As we will examine it, a defining theme of the American experience from Thomas Jefferson through Elizabeth Cady Stanton to Martin Luther King, Jr. is democratic revolution: these and other major figures seek to change the existing social structure, in order to expand the circle of democracy - to encompass ever larger groups of people within a democratic framework which recognizes the basic equality and rights of each member. Using Jefferson as the starting point, the circle of democratic rights initially includes white males over the age of 41 who meet certain property requirements. Elizabeth Cady Stanton seeks to enlarge this circle to include women - as Martin Luther King, Jr., seeks to enlarge the circle to include people of color.
How do you argue for revolutionary change? The American experience is striking not only for its theme of revolutionary change: more fundamentally, these diverse calls for revolution all rest on a shared, central argument.
John Locke, one of the two philosophers, was born in 1632 in the UK. Locke, unlike Hobbes, Locke possessed a more optimistic view of human nature, thinking of man as a social animal. He believed that man is born not good or bad, but like a blank slate, and that “the society they grow up in influences their morality.” He believed all men