Preview

Political Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes and Rene Descartes

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1412 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Political Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes and Rene Descartes
<center><i>"Politics should be the application of the science Of man to the construction of the community" Explain this remark and discuss what reasons there might be for thinking it is not true</i></center><br><br>In this essay I intend to examine the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes and Rene Descartes, in particular their ideas relating to the science of man, and attempt to explain why their ideas prove that it is not possible to construct a science of man.<br><br>I will also briefly mention the philosophy of Donald Davidson in regards to a science of man.<br><br>The theories of Hobbes and the contemporary socio-biologists attempt to recognise how man works and on that basis build a society.<br><br>"Hobbes wished to be seen as the inventor of the science of politics" (Sorrell, p45) He went about this by looking at the psychology of man and discovering that man is a mechanism. Hobbes wanted to understand mechanics. He wanted to look at why men live the way that they do in society and therefore, breaks it down. By doing this he discovered that people are cogs in the social machine. Therefore he wants to examine this cogs to achieve an understanding of the social mechanism, and does this by looking at the psychology of the mind. <br><br>Hobbes is both an empirist and a materialist. Empirists believe that sense gives all knowledge. Generally, they do not believe in astrology, god, electrons etc. Their philosophy is summed up by saying that all things that give true knowledge can be sensed. Materialists believe that all things in existence are physical matter. In other words, the soul and the spirit do not exist.<br><br>Therefore Hobbes believes that thoughts are material, that they are caused by sense and vice versa.<br><br>Tom Sorrell suggests in his essay, entitled "Hobbes' scheme of the sciences", that rather than have knowledge of how the mechanics of the mind's passions work, a more successful way of gaining political knowledge is to understand what these

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    In this paper, I will analyze both Hobbes’ and Rousseau’s view on the Nature of Man. Through my analysis of both, I will show contrast and comparison between both philosophical views. I will identify and explain the central aspect of the Nature of Man as identified by Hobbes and Rousseau and will make connections through a series of explanations and examples that were presented by Hobbes and Rousseau.…

    • 1774 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Many philosophers, such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, have discussed over the years if he human race is naturally good or evil. People than choice their side of the argument, one side believing that humans have a basically good nature that is corrupted by society, while the other side believes that humans have a bad nature that is kept in check by society. As John Locke believes that the human race is good, it is reasonable to accept as true because we are born neutral, with free will, and fear of a higher power.…

    • 577 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Throughout time, the ideas of democracy have changed with the help of many philosophers. Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau were four of the most important founders of the ideals of democracy. Through the Enlightenment Period, these thinkers began creating new ideas that would forever change the way governments are run through time. Our own American government reflects the ideas in some way or another of each of the philosophers we studied. Through new ideas, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Montesquieu all changed the way government was run with the innovative ideas they created.…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The idea of the natural human is a topic discussed for centuries. Philosophers for generations asked question regarding the form of government that human beings react best in. In class we examined both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke's theory of the State of Nature which allowed us to see their viewpoints on humankind. Hobbes believes that humans are selfishly motivated and are constantly at war with one another. However, Locke has a more positive outlook. He believes that humans behaved based on the Law of Nature which is given to us by God (hobbeslockedocument). In Locke’s opinion, the State of Nature is free and has the right to life, liberty and property and if people want their rights respected, they should respect others. However, Locke is not delusional, he knows…

    • 536 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    For the past many years, people have been trying to figure out the relationship between the government and nature of man. The theories of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau about the connection between nature of man and the government have been debated for many years. These three philosophers have remarkably influenced the way our system works today. Although each theory had its flaws and merits, Jean Jacques Rousseau’s theory is superior in comparison to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.…

    • 514 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The lack of an impartial judge is a defining characteristic of the state of nature, and this lack of a common judge can lead to confusion and violence therefore leading to the state of war. The state of nature and the state of war are not two separate concepts but the state of nature has the fundamental problem and civil government is the solution for the problems of the state of nature.…

    • 397 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher of the 1600’s that tried to create a basis for politics. Having experienced the English civil war, Hobbes realized that the conflict was the result of human nature. Hobbes exclaimed that the world was full of greedy people and those who are selfless and care only for themselves. Without the government to maintain order, Hobbes said that there would be “a condition of war of everyone against everyone”. Hobbes noted that in order to stop this, the people would have to sacrifice their freedom for the government. In exchange, they gained law and order. He also notes that this sacrifice would allow the government to suppress any form of rebellion. Hobbes called this agreement the social contract.…

    • 123 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes was a philosopher who saw humans as a purely physical being. He believed that all human actions can be explained through the motions in our bodies. According to Hobbes all feelings and emotions are a result of phantasms, our perception of the objects around us. This perception is a motion within our bodies and each person perceives these phantasms differently causing love, hate, desires, and what we think is good and bad. Every feeling that comes from ones perspective has a physical feeling, such as desires can cause certain pains and it is only human nature that one does whatever is needed in order to relieve those pains. Hobbes therefore sees humans as being able, by their state of nature, to take or do whatever necessary for themselves even if it shows no regard for the other people their actions may harm. This inevitably would end up in a fight for survival or “the war of all against all”. In order to prevent such a war from happening Hobbes thought it necessary that the individuals must promise each other to give up their right to govern themselves to the sovereign for the mutual benefit of the people. This sovereign then has absolute power to rule with no questions asked and not to only act on behalf of the citizens but to completely embody their will. In summation, Hobbes believed that society could only exist under power of the sovereign and that life in the state of nature is violent, short and brutish, as all men act on self-interest.…

    • 1014 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Hobbes credits to each person in the state of nature a liberty right to preserve herself, which he terms “the right of nature”. This is the right to do whatsoever one sincerely judges requiring for one's protection; yet because it is at least possible that virtually anything might be judged necessary for one's protection, this hypothetically limited right of nature becomes in practice an unlimited right to potentially anything, or, as Hobbes puts it, a right “to all things”. Hobbes further assumes that people should accept what they see to be the necessary means to their most important ends.…

    • 214 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes contribution was the suggestion that the social order was made by human beings and therefore could be changed by human beings. Hobbes looked on the individual as selfish, concerned with self-preservation, searching for power, and (potentially at least) at war with others. For Hobbes, in the state of nature, there was a war of all against all and life is nasty, brutish, and short. Since individuals are rational, they agree to surrender their individual rights to the sovereign in order to create a state whereby they can be protected from other individuals. Locke and Rousseau further developed this idea of a social contract, although in a somewhat different form than Hobbes.…

    • 560 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two of the great political theorists of their time. They both provided wonderful philosophical texts on how our government should govern us. This paper will show the largest differences and some of the similarities between Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government. Although they do have some similarities, Hobbes and Locke have different views on most of their political arguments, and I will expand on their differences on the state of nature, government, and social contract.…

    • 841 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Joseph Butler (1692-1752) hold contrasting views on how to build a human society. For Hobbes the most important issue is to achieve and maintain peace, and points out, that men ought to give up their natural rights and transfer them to a sovereign. For Butler the best way is to follow the rules of God which are already inside of every man’s soul. The two both start with an account of human nature: Hobbes notes that it is lead by appetites and aversions and results in selfish individuals; Butler argues that man is born to virtue, so that every human being is naturally benevolent and has an inborn motivation to love and help others. In the pages that follow I shall refer to different arguments by Hobbes and Butler to understand each other’s conceptions on human society.…

    • 1632 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The argument presented by Thomas Hobbes in chapter 13 of Leviathan, is that the state of nature is a state of war of all against all. Such a view had previously been discussed- earlier versions of the argument appear in other significant works- however it is Hobbes account of a state in “continuall feare of danger and violent death”1 upon which I will focus on and critique in this essay. There are many reasons why many seem to regard Hobbes argument as the most accurate portrayal of a pre-civilised society, many believe it to be so straightforward and seemingly correct that to object it would be to ignore a necessary truth. Secondly, those who accept Hobbes’ view of a human nature that is so egotistical and unforgiving, would seemingly too agree to the assumption of a gloomy, unbearable state of nature. In this essay I shall argue that such opinions are not logically justified as Hobbes’s argument holds its foundations solidly in assumption alone, an assumption that was heavily moulded on his surroundings of a savage Civil War. Hobbes’s argument lies solely on the grounds that human beings are intrinsically wicked and self-centred beings an argument that cannot be completely validated and therefore cannot be a ‘necessary truth’. Yet despite holding such a bleak outlook on the human condition and its simple invalidity the work of Thomas Hobbes still shapes the political word today2 and it continues to impact our understanding of human nature and interactions. In order to justify my critique of Hobbes I will begin by presenting both his original argument and a brief view of some modern interpretations before cross examining their conclusions against that of other social contract theorist such as Locke and Rousseau as well as rational logic to present the argument that the state of nature is most certainly not a state of war of all against all.…

    • 3361 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes' and Locke's writings center on the definition of the "state of nature" and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and "the state of nature", a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes' Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler's powers. The understanding of the state of nature is essential to both theorists' discussions. For Hobbes, the state of nature is equivalent to a state of war. Locke's description of the state of nature is more complex: initially the state of nature is one of "peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation". Transgressions against the law of nature, or reason which "teaches mankind that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty and possessions," are but few. The state of nature, according to Locke's Treatise, consists of the society of man, distinct from political society, live together without any superior authority to restrict and judge their actions. It is when man begins to acquire property that the state of nature becomes somewhat less peaceful. At an undetermined point in the history of man, a people, while still in the state of nature, allowed one person to become their leader and judge over controversies. This was first the patriarch of a…

    • 3013 Words
    • 87 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    When comparing Rousseau to Hobbes and Locke, the differences in their ideologies are prominent, however, they are still similar in some ways. In the State of Nature according to Rousseau, “man’s natural sentiment was that of his existence, his first care that of his preservation” (Discourse, Part II). This man is known as the “nascent man” and is often contrasted with the “savage man”, who exists in civilized society. In this State of Nature, man’s primary concern is to look after himself, similar to Hobbes’ and Locke’s, However, this is essentially the extent of the similarities between the three. Hobbes and Locke believe that man is naturally a societal animal who thrives with the presence of politics, whereas Rousseau believes exactly the opposite: that man is naturally a solitary animal, and that society corrupts us.…

    • 539 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays