How is man described by Hobbes and Rousseau different in the State of Nature and how does it determine the nature of contract that the two write about?
The debate regarding man’s natural state has been at the forefront of political philosophy for hundreds of years now. This is because a lot of philosophers have used their understanding of the natural state of man as a foundation to build their arguments on. Furthermore the understanding of man’s natural state has directly led to the formation of political ideologies in the form of contracts in both Hobbes’s and Rousseau’s political philosophies. On one hand, Hobbes believes that man in the state of nature was solitary, poor, brutal, and nasty and was in a constant state of war. Hence, in …show more content…
In Leviathan, Hobbes’ basic premise is that the universe is a plenum filled completely with material bodies and consequently “when a thing is in motion, it will forever be in motion.” Even though he does not really provide validation to this claim, he goes on to build his argument from this moving from one conclusion to the other, always using the previous conclusion to validate his argument. Hobbes says that this kinetic motion in man gives rise to all appetites and aversions, and human nature is nothing but their interplay. Furthermore all passions in man: delight, ambition, anger, curiosity arise from different configurations of appetite and aversion. Hobbes goes on to say that all these desires are various manifestations of power and that all men naturally seek more power for self-protection and self-preservation. “If any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their End, (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only), endeavour to destroy, or subdue one another.” The naturally brutal and violent nature of man in the state of nature is
The debate regarding man’s natural state has been at the forefront of political philosophy for hundreds of years now. This is because a lot of philosophers have used their understanding of the natural state of man as a foundation to build their arguments on. Furthermore the understanding of man’s natural state has directly led to the formation of political ideologies in the form of contracts in both Hobbes’s and Rousseau’s political philosophies. On one hand, Hobbes believes that man in the state of nature was solitary, poor, brutal, and nasty and was in a constant state of war. Hence, in …show more content…
In Leviathan, Hobbes’ basic premise is that the universe is a plenum filled completely with material bodies and consequently “when a thing is in motion, it will forever be in motion.” Even though he does not really provide validation to this claim, he goes on to build his argument from this moving from one conclusion to the other, always using the previous conclusion to validate his argument. Hobbes says that this kinetic motion in man gives rise to all appetites and aversions, and human nature is nothing but their interplay. Furthermore all passions in man: delight, ambition, anger, curiosity arise from different configurations of appetite and aversion. Hobbes goes on to say that all these desires are various manifestations of power and that all men naturally seek more power for self-protection and self-preservation. “If any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their End, (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only), endeavour to destroy, or subdue one another.” The naturally brutal and violent nature of man in the state of nature is