Between the philosophies laid out by Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke, political thought in regards to politics, governmental structure, and the rights of man have increased throughout time. Through my essay, I aim to discuss how Hobbes built on Machiavelli’s thoughts, and how Locke built on Hobbes, while discussing their differences in view points. Subsequently, I will also discuss how the views of each philosopher mentioned compares and contrasts to the ideas of Plato discussed in the Socratic dialogue, The Republic.
Machiavelli essentially laid out his ideal blue print for government in his works, The Prince. It is here where he addressed issues of potentially influencing and winning over the citizens of the respective princedoms. An advocate of …show more content…
The nature of man, as Machiavelli described it, was that “all men are ready to change masters in the hope of bettering themselves. In this belief, they will take up arms against their master” (Machiavelli 5.)
With the publication of Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes brought his beliefs on the foundation and extent of government to the next level of political thought. Hobbes touched base with Machiavelli’s notion of the nature of man, agreeing with the idea that every man has the want to benefit himself, but then extended that theory into what he called the “state of nature”. While Machiavelli focused more on the aspects of rule from a prince’s perspective, Hobbes focuses more on the idea of man. Hobbes gives us the definition of the state of nature and the purpose of man’s existence in Leviathan. Once again, “every man for himself” is the theme. Hobbes state of nature is essentially an endless drive of desire and the will of man to do anything to attain that want. In the state of nature, this drive for power is fundamental and no matter how much is
Machiavelli essentially laid out his ideal blue print for government in his works, The Prince. It is here where he addressed issues of potentially influencing and winning over the citizens of the respective princedoms. An advocate of …show more content…
The nature of man, as Machiavelli described it, was that “all men are ready to change masters in the hope of bettering themselves. In this belief, they will take up arms against their master” (Machiavelli 5.)
With the publication of Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes brought his beliefs on the foundation and extent of government to the next level of political thought. Hobbes touched base with Machiavelli’s notion of the nature of man, agreeing with the idea that every man has the want to benefit himself, but then extended that theory into what he called the “state of nature”. While Machiavelli focused more on the aspects of rule from a prince’s perspective, Hobbes focuses more on the idea of man. Hobbes gives us the definition of the state of nature and the purpose of man’s existence in Leviathan. Once again, “every man for himself” is the theme. Hobbes state of nature is essentially an endless drive of desire and the will of man to do anything to attain that want. In the state of nature, this drive for power is fundamental and no matter how much is