ipl-logo

Hobbes Vs Rousseau Essay

1891 Words8 Pages

Hobbes and Rousseau both wrote a vast number of articles on the idea of human nature and the true behaviors of humans with no influence of society. No one can truly know what the true nature of a human is, due to the fact that all of our history is written from a civilized time, and we make inferences about our history. Rousseau and Hobbes both try to infer based upon their philosophical view points about the human mind. Rousseau believes that humans in the natural state are more similar to animals, than other man. While Hobbes believes that humans in their natural state are evil because they don’t know “good”, and their innate behavior is war. Hobbes starts off with addressing the foundation of where ideas come from and how they come to exist in the mind. According to Hobbes, ideas come to exist in the mind through material things which humans perceive using their senses. Each idea is derived from an original, material, object; from the material object, we create ideas based upon what we have seen. These ideas may be simple or a complex idea, either produced from one real object or a combination of real …show more content…

While Hobbes focuses on man’s natural instinct to fight. Rousseau, during his argument points out some of Hobbes viewpoints in which his thinking directly conflicts. For example, Rousseau analyzes Hobbes’s argument and deduces that “man is naturally intrepid and seeks only to attack and to fight” (20 Rousseau). However, according to Rousseau, fighting, war and anger are all societal values that a man in the true state would not possess. Another major difference between Hobbes and Rousseau is that Hobbes believes that man would still be social and have some “societal traits,” while according to Rousseau, man in nature would be completely secluded and have no form of communication or desires outside of personal

Show More
Related
1208 Words | 5 Pages

Hobbes and Locke had opposing views and interpretations of men and their state of nature. Hobbes was around during the time that an absolute monarchy was the acceptable type of government for society. This was most acceptable to Hobbes because he believed that if society would leave man in his own state of nature he would be brutish. Also he believed that a government with

Read More
889 Words | 4 Pages

In 1492, Christopher Columbus sailed across the ocean and landed in what is now known as the Americas. His discovery lead to interaction between the inhabitants of the New World and the Europeans of the Old World. Conflict between the two groups, lead to the Europeans removing the Native American tribes off their homeland and claiming it as European territory. The wars fought between the two cultures became the beginning of American history and continues to be examined by generations to come. This can be seen in the movie Avatar, released in 2009.

Read More
637 Words | 3 Pages

(6) The view of men and the starting point for Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau are respectfully different. Similarly, difference can also be seen in their reason for the state or a natural judge. Hobbes states that without the subjection to a common power, men are in a state of war due to their selfish human nature. However, for Locke and Rousseau, the state exists for the preservation and protection of the natural rights of its

Read More
1863 Words | 8 Pages

Following the barbarity of the war, Hobbes and Locke developed opposing views on human nature. And while they both agreed on the existence of a social contract, they disagreed on what this contract entailed. As a consequence, they advocated for drastically different types of government, raising the question as to which theory of human nature and proper governance is better suited for the real world. While both theories each have merit, in this essay I will demonstrate that

Read More
493 Words | 2 Pages

For Hobbes, the state of nature is a constant state of war by which all humans are equally capable of harming one another (Hobbes 185). Thus, humans require, “the mutual transferring of rights”, a contract with a sovereign authority to provide security and to protect humans from harming one another (Hobbes 192). Furthermore, Rousseau contends that, “all legitimate authority among men must be based on covenants” (Rousseau 53) and man will reach a point within the state of nature where, “obstacles to their preservation prove greater than the strength of each man” (Rousseau 59). Hobbes and Rousseau share similarities in the premise of their arguments by acknowledging the fundamental source of human motivation, the flaws of living within the state of nature, and the necessity of contract or a social pact between men and a sovereign

Read More
965 Words | 4 Pages

In Hobbes view, as stated in Leviathan, men are all equal but “if any two men desire the same thing, which neverthelesse they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their End…”.[1] which reference how mankind’s desires can cause war which is natural. On the other hand, although Locke believes that all men are created equally such as Hobbes does, he states that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… we are naturally induced to seek communion and fellowship with others: this was the cause of men's uniting themselves at first in politic societies. ”[2], which unlike Hobbes views where men are inherently evil and against one another, Locke believes mankind is one of unity, peace, and

Read More
1001 Words | 5 Pages

Hobbes believes our natural condition is extremely dangerous. When humans remain in their natural condition, every man is at war against every other man. Hobbes believes that our natural condition is the state of nature which is the stare of war. In the state of nature, there is no government and therefore no laws. Men are able to do anything they want.

Read More
313 Words | 2 Pages

When looking in the mirror, the reflection is not of either one extreme or the other, but rather in the middle. My view is neither for both Hobbes’ and Locke’s belief of human nature but rather a little of both. Thomas Hobbes believed that man was evil and that man was born with a need for power. Contrary to Hobbes’ beliefs, were John Locke’s, who believed that mann was born good. Locke also believed that man was born free with three natural rights which were: life, liberty, and property.

Read More
2000 Words | 8 Pages

In contrast to Hobbes, who argues social bonds form to regulate human nature, Rousseau argues that the formation of the civil state results from and in a “change in man,” that humans must of necessity be denatured in the process of forming society. There are similarities between the two’s philosophies, but it is Rousseau, through his arguments that human nature can be changed, who articulates a political vision more consistent with the claim that humans are asocial by nature. In the beginning, the arguments of both Hobbes and Rousseau are similar. Man in nature is isolated.

Read More
1247 Words | 5 Pages

Though all three of these men resided in Europe, they lived under different conditions and in different areas. This allowed each of them to analyse this theory from different perspectives. Per Hühne. T (2012), Hobbes claims that man is born naturally evil. He points out that man create wars and commit selfish acts all in the

Read More
470 Words | 2 Pages

For Hobbes, as long as the man is in a state of nature, is in a state of war. He states that "if two men cannot enjoy the same thing, and become enemies on the way to its final then attempt to destroy or subdue one another" [Hobbes, Leviathan 70]. Locke also notes the risks, saying that without the "law of nature" everyone can execute the decisions, which leads to a state of war [Locke, 9]. In general, both of them refer to the dangers of a state of nature, and describe the war existing in the state of nature. However, while both speak of the dangers of a state of nature, Hobbes is more pessimistic, whereas Locke speaks of the potential

Read More
1437 Words | 6 Pages

Hobbes viewed state of nature as a state of war. According to Hobbes, in a state of nature, there is no right to property because no one affords another that right. He stated that property and possessions would inevitably cause men to become enemies. Hobbes believes that people have equal physical and mental ability to harm, and that people will do so for three reasons - competition, difference, and glory. " so that in the state of nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel, first, competition; secondly, difference; thirdly, glory" (Hobbes 2008, p.85).

Read More
277 Words | 2 Pages

I grew up with lessons about the significance of following my dreams, standing up to fight against oppression, and freedom of speech. I also had the pleasure of hearing ideas from my grandmother about unity, caution about rebellion, and values to keep our cultural unity. I appreciate the generation of individuals that bore the young adults of the 60s. I think the best way to sum up the 60s and 70s would be describing it as a melting pot of expressing any and all ideas.

Read More
1351 Words | 6 Pages

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, two titans of the Enlightenment, work within similar intellectual frameworks in their seminal writings. Hobbes, in Leviathan, postulates a “state of nature” before society developed, using it as a tool to analyze the emergence of governing institutions. Rousseau borrows this conceit in Discourse on Inequality, tracing the development of man from a primitive state to modern society. Hobbes contends that man is equal in conflict during the state of nature and then remains equal under government due to the ruler’s monopoly on authority. Rousseau, meanwhile, believes that man is equal in harmony in the state of nature and then unequal in developed society.

Read More
1251 Words | 6 Pages

The secondary literature on Hobbes's moral and political philosophy (not to speak of his entire body of work) is vast, appearing across many disciplines and in many languages. There are two major aspects to Hobbes's picture of human nature. As we have seen, and will explore below, what motivates human beings to act is extremely important to Hobbes. The other aspect concerns human powers of judgment and reasoning, about which Hobbes tends to be extremely skeptical. Like many philosophers before him, Hobbes wants to present a more solid and certain account of human morality than is contained in everyday beliefs.

Read More

More about Hobbes Vs Rousseau Essay

Related Topics

Open Document