Upon exposure under a modern viewpoint, with the benefit of hindsight to assist, the philosophies of Plato and Thomas Hobbes fall under an unequivocal category of judgment on how governments must run - specifically, that of complete authoritarianism. Throughout their lives, they pandered to delusions of assurance and refuge in absolute totalitarianism, with an insufficient amount of compelling evidence to bolster their assertions. Ordinarily, the enlightenment of enfranchisement in major countries like the United States should have abolished and denounced the ideologies indefinitely. Nevertheless, the philosophers and the administrative conceptions they supported receive unparalleled acclaim across the globe. Moreover, the doctrines still …show more content…
Regarding what system of government should rule, the pair of philosophers advocate for tyrannical tyrannies, with Plato’s being the Assembly, controlled by the guardians, and with Hobbes the sovereign regulating others. On the discussion of the morality of society, the logicians believe in the overlord 's determine right and wrong for everyone, and discipline based on their convictions. As for the role of the individual, Plato and Hobbes reject the significance of subjectivity, despite Hobbes’ declarations of such. And just as Plato’s philosophies indirectly influenced Hobbes ' ideals of legislature, the concepts of authoritarian dominion still persuade the institutions of the world …show more content…
Throughout history, totalitarian upon totalitarian seeks complete dominion over a commonality, and obtain encouragement from doctrines suggesting that only absolutism and consequentialism will achieve peace and order in the world. Unfortunately, even the powers-at-be who reject the concepts of tyranny embrace the constriction of liberty for the sake of security. But in the end, the guardians and sovereigns of the world will always arise. Ultimately, those who defend freedom and liberty must step up and defend their natural
Machiavelli divides all states into principalities and republics, principalities are governed by a solitary figure and republics are ruled by a group of people. With Hobbes’ Leviathan, a new model for governing a territory was introduced that can no longer be equally divided into Machiavelli's two state categories. Hobbes combines the concepts of governing principalities and republics into a new type of political thought that is similar to and different from Machiavelli. Hobbes, unlike Machiavelli, is on the side of the people and not the armed prophets. Hobbes believes that the function of society is not just merely living, but to have a safe and comfortable life.
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
Clearly, though both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke share similar social contracts, with regards to representation and the role of the government, their views are radically different, stemming from their sharply contrasting views on the State of Nature. Although they had radically opposing viewpoints when it came to the role of government, both Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Two Treatise of Government were instrumental references in the forming the American government and political spectrum. Predictably, Hobbes’ extremely cynical-in-a-PTSD views on the State of Nature (and thus government) were less regarded, in favor of Locke’s more moderate views on government and towards humanity in general.
Theories of human nature, as the term would ever so subtly suggest, are at best only individual assertions of the fundamental and intrinsic compositions of mankind, and should be taken as such. Indeed it can be said that these assertions are both many and widespread, and yet too it can be said that there are a select few assertions of the nature of man that rise above others when measured by historical persistence, renown, and overall applicability. These eclectic discourses on the true nature of man have often figured largely in theories of political science, typically functioning as foundational structures to broader claims and arguments. The diversification of these ideological assertions, then, would explain the existence of varying theories
... the existence of the absolute authority of the sovereign there is the threat of returning to the State of Nature because there is nobody to punish anyone who breaks the social contract. Furthermore, the people have consented to the existence of the sovereign with absolute authority and they must accept that whatever the sovereign decides to do is an action that they have consented to through the social contract.
Howe, Irving, and George Orwell. 1984 Revisited Totalitarianism in Our Century. New York: Harper & Row, 1983.
“As the 18th century drew to its inevitable close, the calls for social reform and a utopian egalitarian society quieted down substantially” but the legacy of the enlightenment can be see today, everywhere(The Enlightenment). In political side of things, the ideas of Locke and Hobbes are alive and massively used, with people still debating them. It does seem that Locke’s democracy has been and will continue to fight against Hobbes idea of authoritarian government.
Aristotle, Locke, and Hobbes all place a great deal of importance on the state of nature and how it relates to the origin of political bodies. Each one, however, has a different conception of what a natural state is, and ultimately, this leads to a different conception of what a government should be, based on this natural state. Aristotle’s feelings on the natural state of man is much different than that of modern philosophers and leads to a construction of government in and of itself; government for Hobbes and Locke is a departure from the natural state of man.
Individual liberty is the freedom to act and believe as one pleases. It is a widely controversial issue when it comes to the power of the government policing over individual�s freedoms. In this paper, I am going to compare two well known philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls. In part one, I will explain the political and social positions taken by each philosopher. I will explain how Thomas Hobbes is associated with the �social contract theory,� and how John Rawls� theory of government is a �theory of justice.� In doing so, I will describe their different viewpoints on the government and its power over the people. In Part two, I will describe the differences between Hobbes and Rawls. I will argue that Rawls position on the government is the most reasonable, and I will explain why I believe so. In part three, I will explain my own theory and viewpoint with the example of sex laws, including prostitution. With this example, I will tell how and why I believe individual liberty is important. In part four, I will explain how someone might disagree with my position. I will explain how conservative individuals would argue that the government should regulate sexual activity to protect the greater good of society. Finally, I will conclude with discussing the power of the government and individual liberties in today�s society.
Philosophy can be defined as the highest level of clarity and understanding human thought can aspire to. In some ways, Plato’s Republic can be compared to George Orwell’s book 1984. It may seem strange to compare the two, however they are quite similar. Plato writes from the Western philosophy, while Orwell tells of a totalitarian society where all free thought is banned. However, the two versions of government, one being a utopian government, and the other being horrific, contain certain connections that will be made clear over the course of this paper.
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
The concept of justice has been a crucial factor in determining governments and the structure of society. In this essay I will argue two thinkers, Thrasymachus and Hobbes, as represented in the writings of The Republic, by Plato and Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes divergent ideas on justice.
John Locke, Alexis de Tocqueville and Karl Marx are theorist living in different time periods and in different countries and so their vision of how tyranny can come about differs. While they all can agree that tyranny infringes on freedom, they do not agree on the strategies for resistance. These thinkers foresaw abuses of authority and so each developed mechanisms to stop the abuse on power.
Different schools of thought have generated arguments since the beginning of civilization. They represent different perspectives of every part of life, whether its religion or politics. The realist school and the humanist perspectives offer people different views in many different aspects.
In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes talks about his views of human nature and describes his vision of the ideal government which is best suited to his views.