The State Of Nature, Politics Vs. Thomas Hobbes

Since the beginnings of civilization, philosophers have always pondered about the great mysteries of life and society and sought to great lengths to answer them. One of these great mysteries, “what is the true state of nature?”. has remained a long lasting question that philosophers today still give answers. Two such philosophers, Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes, separated by nearly two-thousand years attempt to answer this question in their respective works, “Politics” and “Leviathan”. In “Politics”, Aristotle’s claims that the state of nature for humanity is to form a political association between each other in a society. To give credence to his claim, Aristotle names that human instinct to reproduce as one of the key aspect in the creation

Instead of the natural formation of the political association of Aristotle, in Hobbes views the state of nature as one consumed with humanity’s inner desire for violence and lawlessness. Every man would be free to pursue his goals, his own wars, and enact his own brand of justice for crimes committed against him. But while the individual is free to what he wishes, so does everyone else. As such what you do to others, they can do to you. As a result of everyman for himself another, cooperation could not exist and as a result the aspects of society such as agriculture, knowledge, and trade can flourish. Hobbes describe this life of a man living in the state of nature as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. (Hobbes, pg.320)” But Hobbes does give some credit to humanity. This leads to Hobbes second aspect of his view of the state of nature. Hobbes states that although the state of nature is war he recognizes that we as humans are rational creatures. Since we can realize “this war of every man against every man” (Hobbes, pg.321) is not within our best interests, we seek to escape from our own impulses. As such we form societies to protect ourselves by accepting the loss of some freedoms in exchange for security. In one few instances where Hobbes agrees with Aristotle is the need for a ruler. Hobbes argues that in order for man

For example. I agree with Aristotle’s claim that we humans are social beings my nature. People do wish for friends and lovers to be a part of their lives. People also strive to better themselves, which is often acquired through elements of the society. Still although I believe that Hobbes’s view of the state of nature is false, I do concede that there is some amount of truth to it. During times of unrest, people mostly do only care for themselves and/or their loved ones. As such people would do anything for survival. But I believe that this would only be a temporary period and eventually conflict would decrease and the laws of society would rule again. So while I may prefer Aristotle’s view of society, I vehemently oppose his view of inequality and sexism. Though people are born with differing abilities or intellect, no one is born a natural slave but are simply born into bad circumstances. As Hobbes points out, anyone can dominate or be dominated as no one is strong enough in the world to be free of