Thomas Hobbes was an English political philosopher born on April 5, 1588 in Westport, Wiltshire. He received an education at Oxford University in England where he studied classics. In his early life, he traveled to many European countries to meet scientists and study the knowledge of government. Hobbes became interested in government and questioned why people let themselves be ruled. This idea brought on more ideas and soon he started thinking of a new form of government for England.…
Although Machiavelli and Socrates both lived during times of uncertainty, political fragmentation and violence, their philosophies about how the state should conduct itself are in direct contrast with one another. Machiavelli’s the Prince is founded on the principal that if a ruler wishes to maintain power, he should embody the ideology of pragmatism, while Socrates believes the state should follow him in his commitment to moral purity and justice. The inherent dissonance between these philosophies would lead Socrates to be unsupportive of Machiavelli’s concept of a prince, and consequently the political system Machiavelli would recommend he install, despite his apparent change in rhetoric from the Apology to the Crito. Throughout Plato’s interpretation…
In this paper, I will be analyzing and explaining the way that Hobbes and Rousseau’s ideas regarding the national condition of human beings differ. In my exegesis, I will be discussing how in Leviathan (ch. 13), Hobbes takes a stance regarding egoism, the idea that man always acts in their own interest. I will also be discussing the fact that Rousseau is fundamentally opposed to the ideas in which Hobbes presents. Rousseau believes that society taints the fundamental core beliefs of mankind. I will then present the critical point of this paper: the fact that the two philosophers have very conflicting viewpoints on the concept of human nature.…
Intro After reading The Leviathan by Hobbes and the Machiavelli’s The Prince and the Discourses I would argue that the two authors have a similar view on how fear is politically relevant. What makes fear relevant to Machiavelli and Hobbes is that they believe that fear is necessary for a sovereign or a prince to stay in power. The two authors also believe that it is needed to keep the subjects in check and to keep them complacent. Today however there are people who question if fear is politically relevant today.…
Hobbes vs Locke They agree on the state of nature for the state of mankind before goverment. When they have to decide on divine right or the social contract and they both chose social contract. They both agree on alot of things but they disagred on some things too.…
This is a paper comparing the Aristotle and Hobbes understandings of human nature. Aristotle states that man is a “political animal”, and that it is thus natural for man to live in a polis. Hobbes disagrees with this understanding of man a political animal, as he claims that man is actually a greedy being that is driven by power. Thus he feels that the natural state of man is a state of war. Although the two disagree initially about the man’s natural state, Aristotle comes to agree with Hobbes’ view since they agree that without a common sense of justice that individuals have no reason to live together.…
Hobbes describes that Gods righteousness cannot live in the same location as the materialism instilled in the human bodies. However, there is the existence of God as the ruler of his Kingdom which every human being needd to believe and trust. Evidence to prove that God exists can be shown through the numerous servants He has sent to the universe according to Christ. God sent His son proofs the existence of his kingdom although outside the universe. Faith as instilled by His son gives the human bodies the hope that his kingdom and spiritual presence will come into live at the after life.…
Throughout history, great leaders and figures influenced their respective lands greatly, fitting them into their own mold. These people had a set vision on what they wanted their land to be like, and some of these people, even wrote their ideas down. Three of these individuals are Baldassare Castiglione, an Italian diplomat, Niccolò Machiavelli also an Italian diplomat, and George Washington, the first president of the United States. They wrote The Courtier, The Prince, and Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation, respectively. Castiglione’s book, published in 1528, was on the proper behavior of a courtier, or a noble who was an attendant to a royal person.…
Both the hypothetical societies Hobbes and Machiavelli created took the use of fear too far to point where it was unjust and used improperly from my perspective. This being said, Hobbes does partially use fear in a justifiable way. Through the use of fear of consequence of violating laws that pertain to the safety of all people of society, Hobbes is able to give to all the people in the “commonwealth” more security and safety which benefits everyone (98-104). Granted, some of the other laws in the “commonwealth” tied to fear of consequence do not serve the benefit of the multitude, making them unjust (Hobbes 98-104). In my opinion, the proper use of fear is only to use it when it can benefit the multitude.…
Bill Watterson-Calvin and Hobbes, Sabbatical, and Commercialization When starting off writing Calvin and Hobbes, Bill was advised not to quit his day job as a large number of comic strips never make it past a few years. The income for a beginner cartoonist wasn’t high paying but neither was his day job so as soon as he was making equal amounts from both jobs he went against the advice of the editor of the syndicate and quit his day job. The editors turned down many of his rough ideas but he chose to go with their decision as he felt if it was good enough to be published he would not have to defend it. As he expounded the characters of both Calvin and Hobbes he began to see himself reflected in them. As quoted in the introduction of The Complete Calvin and Hobbes Book One “Hobbes got all my better qualities (and a few quirks from our cats), and Calvin got my ranting escapist side.…
Machiavelli theory argues that a ruler must do whatever it takes to gain and hold political power, but in the eyes of his subjects have the appearance of being morally…
Both theorists believe in natural rights and freedoms and how men establish governments in order to secure peace however they differ on the purpose of government. Hobbes believed the purpose of government is to impose law and order to prevent the state of war. Locke believed the purpose of government is to secure natural rights, namely man’s property and liberty. Both refer to a “state of nature” in which man exists without government, and both speak of risks in this state. However, while both speak of the dangers of a state of nature, Hobbes is more pessimistic, whereas Locke speaks of the potential benefits.…
Both writers agree on the egoistic nature of mankind that leads to the threat of foreign invasion. For Machiavelli, external conflict arises from a proletariat which desires excess and invades neighboring cities. For Hobbes, all conflict comes from mutual desire for the same object, a constant phenomenon across all people. Because these conflicts, regardless of the source, hinder one’s ability for success or potentially survival, mankind’s desire for security in either schema will propel the surrender of some absolute freedom in order to form a larger community, safe from foreign invaders. Despite the similarity between Machiavelli and Hobbes’ respective models of human nature and their reasons for state formation, the subtle difference in mankind’s fundamental goals leads to striking differences in their views of conflict and therefore different frameworks of governance to ensure internal stability and external…
Many people specifically philosophers would question, “Why we need a state?” or “What kind of state should we have?” This question opened up all the different views and perspective of the three following philosophers, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. They all have different but also very similar views on the state of nature, social contract, laws. Hobbes definition of state of nature is a state of war. Morality doesn’t exists and everyone lives in constant fear.…
Introduction ‘During and after the English Revolution (1642-88), different English thinkers reacted differently toward the revolution, based on their own life experience and philosophical outlook’. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke strongly argued distinct notions of political power. One absolute kinship, the other a democratic republic. In this essay it will firstly state and discuss the relation between state and sovereign according to Thomas Hobbes. In doing so Thomas Hobbes ideas will then be compared to John Locke’s.…