Compare And Contrast Locke And Hume

Throughout history, there have been many prolific philosophers and writers who have created works and writings that have advanced the way society thinks about their lives and what exactly they want from the world. What they presented ranged from something as simple as new ideas and theories, or as large as a revolution. There are some, although barring a few differences, that tried to present similar ideas and writings to cause a change in processes and a different mindset for the people. Take the theories from John Locke’s The Social Contract and Thomas Paine’s radical beliefs from The Age of Reason. Both of these men attempted to introduce a change in the way society thought and lived through both their own opinions and the idea that all people are entitled certain rights upon birth. The two had similar reasoning and ideals when they were describing their vision of an ideal society. Although the two presented their beliefs for different reasons, both John Locke and Thomas Paine’s writings resulted in a major impact on the minds of the people, as well as changes in society, for years to come.

Great Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean –Jacque Rousseau had been deeply concerned about the Social Contract Theories on the people. The main theories include safety, security, equal rights and have an organised society without any foreign interference. The use of non-violence and war against mankind. Society as a whole was the main priority for all these three philosophers. Both John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau had different views when compared to Thomas Hobbes on Society. Each of these men had their own theories on how to protect the rights of human beings. John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau have better ideas than Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes believed that only a true and clean government can rule the people and protect their

John Locke and David Hume, both great empiricist philosophers who radically changed the way people view ideas and how they come about. Although similar in their beliefs, the two have some quite key differences in the way they view empiricism. Locke believed in causality, and used the example of the mental observation of thinking to raise your arm, and then your arm raising, whereas Hume believed that causality is not something that can be known, as a direct experience of cause, cannot be sensed. Locke believed that all knowledge is derived from our senses, which produce impressions on the mind which turn to ideas, whereas Hume's believed that all knowledge is derived from experiences,

John Locke and Edmund Burke were two champions for the theory of change in the world of political philosophy during the seventeenth century. Locke is largely known for pushing liberalism in influencing the American and French political revolution period while Burk is known for taking a more placid approach to promoting modern conservatism. Set out in different time period, both thinkers focus on the purpose of the government, its structure and functions, laws of nature and the characteristics of man in and out of nature as a state. It is quite common to misunderstand and misinterpret the aspect of the revolutionary fight as a collective calling for everyone. Not everyone was an intransigent fighter for the revolution, a fact that has often clouded our current notions and ideals in identifying the true assessment of the mind state of the political period in late 18th century. Understanding this, it becomes easier to vision the element of division in terms of personal perspective and mindset, with various powers of thoughts colliding with each other. As such, Locke and Burke represent a political contentious period where these two philosophers who were not necessarily on polar opposites stand strong in championing their beliefs and remain worth contenders.

To Locke, the “State of Nature” is a state in which every human being is his own king, who answers to no higher authority than his own conscience and will. Although this “State of Nature” offers complete freedom; this freedom is accompanied by an amorphous mass of fears and insecurities that stem from devolution that Locke called the “State of War”. The “State of War” occurs when one individual tyrannizes another (either to enslave him or to take over his property) and the victim of this relationship rightfully decides to defend himself. In the “State of War” the tyrant tries to deprive the individual of the rights that he is naturally entitled to.

In getting to the heart of the matter, Locke clearly dictates his definition of political power in the following way: “Political power then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property…employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the common-wealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good” (8). A key to understanding this notion, though, comes from Locke’s perception of authority. Instead of authority being something hereditary from the first man, Adam, Locke sees that all men exist in a state of perfect freedom and equality (7-8). Thus, rather than there being arbitrary laws to govern man, Locke proposes that there is a universal state of nature which governs mankind not to harm one another in “life, health, liberty, or possessions” (9). As such, because of their equality, men have the right to punish one another if there is any transgression of law. The government, in turn, is that which helps to keep the state of nature in accord with reason, because “God hath certainly appointed government to restrain the partiality and violence of men” (12). This “partiality” and “violence of men” is what Locke uses to describe the “state of war” which is opposed to the “state of nature” (15).

Locke’s chief work while living with Lord Ashley, in 1668 his work as a secretary of the Board of Trade, Plantations and Secretary to the Lord Proprietors of the Carolinas. In his e travelled to France for seven years, while he was in France he spent as a tutor and a medical attendant for Caleb Banks. Jonh return to England in 1679 when Shaftesbury’s political fortunes took a positive turn. Shaftesbury’s prompting, Lock composed the Two Treatises of Government, Locke wrote the Treatises to defend the Glorious Revolution. Like Locke’s other Two Treatises, the Essay (“An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”) was published after his return to England. magnitude as the secretary to the Lords Proprietary, he was involved in writing of the fundamental

In addition, a point Locke addresses in his writing is to treat other the way would would like to be treated, to do on to others as you would want them to do onto you. Locke believed that in order to satisfy people's own needs they must first satisfy the needs of others. . Locke wrote in the “Second Treatise of Government”, “ A similar natural inducement has led men to realize that they have as much duty to love others as to love themselves” (Locke 3). He wanted other to realize that to receive affection they must first give it to others. Hester Prynne in “The Scarlet Letter” at the end of the novel started to receive the affection of the townspeople. They began to come to Hester for guidance with their problems and sorrows. Instead of seeing her as nothing but sin they started to admire her strength and ability to provide for herself and Pearl. Hawthorne

1) When John Locke talks about state of nature he means no government. This is where people are equal with natural rights. John Locke says that '' there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy one another''. This shows that we are supposed to govern ourselves but there can't be invasion of others.

This means that no one has a superior right over the other. o He identifies that the individuals within a State of Nature are rational peace loving creature who acknowledges that no one has the right to remove the Natural Rights of others. o This highly differs from Hobbes State of Nature who identifies it as a State of War (where Man constantly live in fear that their property will be taken), people are influence by their Natural Instincts of Competition, Distrust and Glory which triggers conflict among Man. o Locke agrees with Richard Hooker that Man is

Locke expressed his unique view of the state of nature through his Second Treaties on Civil Government with full belief that it did in fact exist and is at the origins of civil society. Locke took a very different approach when deriving his state of nature , he first began with his own personal beliefs on the social conditions of the time then blended them with traditional Christian views on God and natural law. God was a key aspect in Locke’s sate of nature. Locke believed that humans were Gods property since God created them. Therefore no man had a right to harm another or themselves but instead is born to fulfill their highest duty. Locke believed that by nature man was a social creature and that we were bound by morals, he stated contracts were able to form on the basis that men are obligated to keep their promises. Locke says these contracts were the basis for society today, as we know it and we are bound together by moral obligations. Like Hobbes, Locke also discusses the idea of Law of Nature. Unlike Hobbes however Locke did not believe that the law of nature was written in the hearts of men. (Locke 1952). Locke believes that the law of nature is instead discovered through the use of reason and is not an innate idea. He believed that it was reason that leads us to the law of nature and that rights were collective and not individual. Locke believes that humans knew what was right and what was wrong well enough to solve conflicts. They were also capable of recognizing what was theirs and what was not; unfortunately they did not always act in accordance to this knowledge. The content of the law of nature in found within nature through our senses, Locke writes about the law of nature in the Second Treatise saying

We believe we have knowledge of many things: That the Earth revolves around the Sun; that an oxygen atom contains eight protons; that blood is pumped by the heart to all parts of the body; that we exist at all. However, where did such complex ideas come from? This idea of epistemology, or where our knowledge comes from, is not easy to answer. This is because we know we have ideas, and believe we have certainty about particular matters, but have difficulty in tracing these back to their source. This question of epistemology formed two basic camps: Those that favored the intellect as a means to reason to truth, and those that favored the senses in order to uncover truth. Rationalists and empiricists alike agreed that you needed to start

Continuing with political power, Locke begins to describe the difference between the state of nature and the state of war, which are described as being different and he provides many examples to prove his point. He defines a state of nature as: “men living together according to reason without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them.” (Locke, page 16) Furthermore, he defines a state of war as: “force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for

The state of nature must abide by three important principles: no government, complete freedom, and perfect equality. While the guarantee of these three truths may be bumpier than they sound, a state of nature is when all of these should theoretically exist. First, the government would be absolutely absent, as it is “what state all men are naturally in” (Chapter 2, Section 4). Locke is clear about the need for this as a beginning. We do not begin with a premade government, we begin with the state of nature. This

Empiricism is an approach to philosophical thinking assuming that all human knowledge arises originally from sense-experiences. John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume are most notably known for the branch of empirical philosophy. Philosopher David Hume discusses what he believes are “bundles of perception.” He argues that we can never experience the objective world and alternatively only observe patterns. According to Hume, there are two methods used to detect these patterns, unit and continuity and causality. Casualty is defined as a relationship between ideas that allows you to infer knowledge beyond your immediate experience. Ultimately, Hume’s argument identifies the flaws and limitations involving casualty. Hence, the limitations surrounding casualty deal with the problem of induction, necessary connection and ultimately how it can lead to circularity and infinite regress.