Hobbes And Rousseau's Theory Of Human Nature

Humans are seemingly complex creatures containing internal and external variables that combine overtime to create our personalities, thoughts, desires, relations etc. But if we took away all of the excess layers of modern society, what would we be? How would we act? The question of what human nature is has been asked and analyzed by many philosophers throughout time. While some believe in the natural good of human beings, other may think of humans as being naturally competitive and self-centered. Rousseau is a prime example of the first case. Rousseau bases his theory of human nature off the idea that the natural man is completely free and has good intentions and that is modern society and artificial needs that enslave people to live as if they only appear. Opposing Rousseau is Hobbes who favors the more negative view that human nature is run around war and savagery. Rousseau takes a more positive and ethical approach to his belief on …show more content…
Using a lighter view on what human nature is all about allows Rousseau and anyone else with his sort of belief to better understand the good in humans, which in return calls for a more peaceful society and stronger …show more content…
Rousseau is able to trust experience and use it to gather information that may be useful when concluding on human’s natural state. Hobbes on the other hand does not believe experience is a reliable source and that only science and concrete facts can prove the “truth”. Hobbes claims that geometry is the best approximation for true philosophy. For me personally I beg to differ. No scientist is born with the ability to discover something new or some new way of doing something. A scientist just as most people in life learn best by experience and stumbling upon new findings. There are more reasons to disagree with Hobbes but this is just one