John Locke (1632-1704) is another modern political philosopher who also had strong views on political nature, but differed from Hobbes. One of Locke’s main hopes through his writing is to destroy the idea of monarchial theory: “it is impossible that the rulers now on earth should make any benefit, or derive any the least shadow of authority from that, which is held to be the fountain of all power, Adam 's private dominion and paternal jurisdiction; so that he that will not give just occasion to think that all government in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition and rebellion, (things that the followers of that hypothesis so loudly cry out against) must of necessity find out another rise of government, another original of political power, and another way of designing and knowing the persons that have it,
…show more content…
The main similarity being what the purpose of the government or political power is, whereas the main difference is how they view the state of nature. Hobbes views the state of nature as a state of war, whereas Locke views it still as a society, but one that lacks true executive powers. Both philosophers made great contributions to political philosophy, but each had their own failures which later political philosophers tried to fix: “The tradition of political theory that begins with Hobbes and Locke, and continues today with Rawls and Habermas and their innumerable followers, has a blind spot, to which several theorists drew attention in the 1990s. That blind spot is the question of nationhood and nationalism” (Alexander-Davey, p.458). Overall, Hobbes and Locke had their differences, but each added something new to the conversation of political philosophy and the state of
The main similarity being what the purpose of the government or political power is, whereas the main difference is how they view the state of nature. Hobbes views the state of nature as a state of war, whereas Locke views it still as a society, but one that lacks true executive powers. Both philosophers made great contributions to political philosophy, but each had their own failures which later political philosophers tried to fix: “The tradition of political theory that begins with Hobbes and Locke, and continues today with Rawls and Habermas and their innumerable followers, has a blind spot, to which several theorists drew attention in the 1990s. That blind spot is the question of nationhood and nationalism” (Alexander-Davey, p.458). Overall, Hobbes and Locke had their differences, but each added something new to the conversation of political philosophy and the state of