Aristotle and Hobbes on the Nature of Man

In the work, Nicomachean Ethics, the philosopher Aristotle creates a guideline for those who are serious about pursuing happiness. Aristotle's recommendations for finding happiness are not accepted today without some struggle and careful examination. In Aristotle's time, slaves, women and children were not truly considered human; so in many cases the philosopher is directing his words towards free males only. It is necessary to understand that by overlooking this discrimination and applying it to all people, one can discover the timeless wisdom of Aristotle.

Aristotle starts off in his essay explaining the definitions of Good, Primacy of Statecraft and the study of Ethics. He defines good as where all things are to be aimed, for example health. He then defines Statecraft as citizens of a state, a country, and of the world need to do good for their own good but more importantly for the good of the state. He also characterizes various types of good. Finally, the definition on study of Ethics. This talks about the pure excellence of justice that involves the disagreements and agreements of uncertainty and certainty. Aristotle also talks about happiness and where a certain

Throughout this Book 1, the discussion digresses multiple times to explore the method by which the topic will be examined. Realising that concepts such as happiness are subjective, he establishes in the third Chapter that the fruits of the discussion will be satisfactory so long as it holds true universally. He also considers in Chapter four whether the discussion should originate from the principles, or from our experiences, and suggests that we should being from things known and immediate to us, which seems to be a logical choice as the discussions as a whole focus on what a man should do in order to act according to virtue in order to become good and attain happiness. In addition, the sixth Chapter is devoted to criticism of the theory of Forms. Since good can exist in so many different ways, but are undoubtedly good, Aristotle argues that there is no common idea governing it. He also denies the existence of separate Forms that are merely mimicked by what we perceive, since a thing and the Thing Itself has the same

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, at an absolute basic sense, aims at the title of this course: the good life. In an age where philosophy and ethics were not largely developed, Aristotle aims to provide a universal standard for human flourishing and happiness, or the good life. His main argument is that all of our actions and goals are aiming towards human flourishment, but that each action falls into a range of virtues, where excess is one extreme and deficiency is the other extreme. The virtue that we all strive for, he states, is in the middle of these. For example, temperance is a universal human virtue, with pleasures and pains as the excess and deficiency. He states that virtues can be developed and learned over time and through practice,

Two of Aristotle’s most famous works, Nicomachean Ethics and Politics, offer an outline of his perfect society and how Athens could ascend to his ideals. According to Aristotle, the strive for the most good society starts with individuals and then collectively builds up to the Chief Aim through active participation in politics. He explains that an Athenian earns his freedom and citizenship by subduing his animal instincts and passions. Instead of succumbing to these urges,

Aristotle and Hobbes present two fundamentally distinct doctrines about the conception of politics, human affairs, and the nature of man. Specifically, both philosophers express vying interpretations of human nature. Even though Aristotle and Hobbes similarly use their understanding of human nature to conceptualize their politics, they both express differing views about the aims for which they believe human beings act and exist. In a rather preliminary interpretation of their views, it can be said that, for Aristotle, man is inherently social, and thereby is naturally inclined towards the community. Whereas, for Hobbes, man is innately individualistic, and is naturally inclined towards self-interest. The distinction between the Aristotelian and the Hobbesian philosophies about human nature rests in their respective explanations of what means and ends drive human action and existence. In the first half of this paper, I will discuss the ways in which Aristotle’s and Hobbes’ conception of human nature differ from one another. In a discussion of equality, I will compare Aristotle’s view of the flexibility of man’s nature, to Hobbes’ view of the intransigence of man in the state of nature, while also comparing Aristotle’s view of collectivity, to Hobbes’ view of individualism. The second half of my paper will argue that Aristotle’s teleological view of human nature presents a more superior and accurate account of human

Thomas Hobbes was a divisive figure in his day and remains so up to today. Hobbes’s masterpiece, Leviathan, offended his contemporary thinkers with the implications of his view of human nature and his theology. From this pessimistic view of the natural state of man, Hobbes derives a social contract in order to avoid civil war and violence among men. Hobbes views his work as laying out the moral framework for a stable state. In reality, Hobbes was misconstruing a social contract that greatly benefited the state based on a misunderstanding of civil society and the nature and morality of man.

Aristotle is a dichotomist, which means that he believes that human beings consist of two major elements, the body and the soul. The body is the physical matter that one can see, where the soul is the feelings and desires one has; the things you cannot touch. Aristotle believes that we have three major elements of the soul which are pleasures, desires, and feelings. These elements are where we find our virtues. In book one of The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses that virtue is the highest human good. This being said, there are two qualifications that the highest good must have, “The good must be something final and self-sufficient,” (Aristotle, 10). By final Aristotle means that which is in desirable in itself, and not sought for the sake of something else. By self-sufficient Aristotle means something that does not depend on other’s bestowing it. Aristotle gives us the sense that he believes that politics is about the human good and one cannot begin to practice politics or political science well; unless one has the idea of what the good actually is. In book one; with many arguments to support his theory, he tells the reader that the good is intellectual and moral virtue. One of his arguments is he believes that you need a moderate amount of both health and wealth to be able to fully develop the virtue. He sees these two aspects as a form of equipment because if one is constantly ill or does not have a sufficient amount of money there will be many obstacles in reaching

Aristotle’s work, The Nicomachean Ethics, consists of numerous books pertaining to Aristotle’s Ethics—the ethics of the good life. The first book discloses Aristotle’s belief on moral philosophy and the correlation between virtue and happiness.

The foremost difference between Aristotle and Hobbes, and in turn classical and modern political philosophies’, with regard to a good life and happiness is that of normative judgments about the good life. While Hobbes rejects normative judgments about the good life and discusses human actions without attributions of moral quality, Aristotle offers the exact opposite. In Ethics, Aristotle differentiates between good and evil actions along with what the best good, or summum bonum, for all humans while Hobbes approach argues that good and bad varies from one individual to another with good being the object of an individuals appetite or desire, and evil being an object of his hate and aversion. In addition, Aristotle makes it clear that

Compare Aristotle’s Claim that Man is a ‘Political Animal’ with Hobbe’s Claim that the State of Nature is a State of War.

We will give Hobbes’ view of human nature as he describes it in Chapter 13 of Leviathan. We will then give an argument for placing a clarifying layer above the Hobbesian view in order to

Aristotle defines the function of a human being as an activity of the rational soul. He argues that most functions of humans, such as being alive or having sense perception, are shared with plants and animals and cannot be distinct functions of human beings. The only remaining possibility which is not shared with things other than human beings, according to Aristotle, is the part of the soul that has reason. Human function, therefore, is an “activity of the soul in accord with reason or requiring reason.” But further qualification must be made when referring to the something’s function in the context of a greatest good; in this case, it is not sufficient for something to simply function, it must also function well. For example, the function of a pianist is to play the piano, but the function of a good pianist is to play a piano well. According to Aristotle, adding a function’s best virtue to it will work without qualification to make something excellent in every case. So, the function of a human being is an activity of the rational soul and the greatest good for a human is activity of the rational soul in accordance with its virtue.

William Golding’s Lord of the Flies is a gritty allegory of adolescence, innocence, and the unspoken side of human nature. Countless social issues are portrayed, however one of the most reoccurring is the nature of man. Throughout the novel there is an ever-present focus on the loss of innocence amongst the boys, shown by the deterioration of social skills and their retrogression into a barbaric form of society. Also portrayed is the juxtaposition of a cruel, evil main character and a more classically good counterpart, and their eternal rivalry for power and authority over their younger subjects. Does society or the lack thereof create evil in human nature, or simply magnify a pre-existing

The founders have very different views on their place in the world and their identity as a man. Aristotle sticks to the truth to man is nature and that as an individual we have a purpose. Locke’s opinion’s stray away from Aristotle and thinks of men as understanding themselves through their mind not in nature. Where as the Puritans agree with both ideas but centralize God and keep their mindset and nature away. Aristotle first disscusses the way in which a person should stay away from the community of politics: “For this reason, it is not appropriate for a young person to be a person of politics, since the young are inexperienced in the actions of life, while these are things about which politics speaks and from which it reason.”(12) Here Aristotle expresses his viewpoint of how the young are inexperienced and their mind has not been shown to the world. Which in a way is opposite of his original claim that living in a community with politics is “ good for man” in a way this is true and shows the real world and the importance of understanding your surroundings, but Aristotle says this is only a good thing if the person has understood nature in itself before trying to understand the outside political sphere: “Every art and every inquiry, and likewise every action, seems to aim at some good, and hence it has been beautifully said that the good is that at which all things aim”.(11)” Aristotle tries to explain the importance of understanding nature as a action that aims at some good. Where as Locke disagreed with the point of understanding nature, he focuses on the freedom and relationship aspect of the world: “A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another.”(43) Locke explains that the power of equality should not under any circumstance come before another quality. Locke states that the power in the states should all have equal representation and opportunities: “ this teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possession.”(43) Locke shows that the important asset to life is to treat everything as being one and equal but independent. He