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

Since there is this constant struggle to get what you want, protect what you already have, and attain power and glory, all men are continuously in a state of what Hobbes deems war. It is a civil war because there isn’t a common power to rule everyone as every man is for himself. This perpetual civil war makes it pretty much impossible for anyone to function productively let alone make any kind of developments whatsoever. This chaotic state is what Hobbes calls the ‘state of nature’:

Hobbes, on the other hand, does not foresee this case but only seems capable of enforcing a strong power. At this point, it is pertinent to point out the ambiguity that Locke shows in his "state of war," a state that is generated when natural law is placated by the willpower of certain men. The fundamental difference between Locke and Hobbes lies therefore in the conception of man in the state of nature; one sees him as a wolf for other men, and the other sees him as a born follower of the precepts of natural law until it is corrupted by their passions or by the actions of other men. The solution in both cases is to seek a reliable external power that limits the freedom of people and eliminate the "state of war." Unlike Hobbes, for Locke, the state of nature is not identified with the state of war. On the contrary, the state of war constitutes a violation, a degeneration of the state of nature, through the imposition of force in the absence of any right; a devaluation of what the state of nature must

Amidst the bloodshed of the English Civil War, Thomas Hobbes realizes the chaotic state of humanity, which gravitates towards the greatest evil. Hobbes’ underlying premises of human nature–equality, egotism, and competition–result in a universal war among men in their natural state. In order to escape anarchy, Hobbes employs an absolute sovereignty. The people willingly enter a social contract with one another, relinquishing their rights to the sovereign. For Hobbes, only the omnipotent sovereign or “Leviathan” will ensure mankind’s safety and security. The following essay will, firstly, examine Hobbes’ pessimistic premises of human nature (equality, egotism, and competition), in contrast with John Locke’s charitable views of humanity;

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

Hobbes version of the “state of nature” is one of chaos and war. A state where each man can, and will, rationalize nearly any action if it means well for them. According to Hobbes, in nature, it is not a matter of covenants or laws formed by men, but actions

Hobbes held a rather pessimistic view of human nature, writing in Leviathan that, in the state of nature, the lives of all humans would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” He believed that, in the state of nature (ie without a without a central power), every man is in constant war with every other man. This constant battle arises from the fact that no one can trust anyone else not to harm or steal from them. You may tell me that you won’t steal my horse, but there’s nothing stopping you from murdering me in my sleep and making off with all of my possessions. Thus, I must expect an attack – to prevent it, it would be wise for me to act first, killing you before you kill me. We see how the natural state of war arises.

Thomas Hobbes was a philosopher from England whose work and ideas have arguably made him the founder of modern political philosophy. His most famous work is the Leviathan, which he wrote in 1651. In it he describes his view of human nature and hence his view of government. Hobbes’ view of justice is based on his view of what he names the state of nature and the right of nature. Hobbes defines the state of nature as a “war” of everyone against everyone. Hobbes describes the right of nature to be self-preservation. Justice, in order to appease both the state of nature and the right of nature, is then a human construct created out of our drive for self-preservation, at least according to Hobbes. He defines justice as the keeping of valid or enforced

In the reading, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes discusses what human existence is in the state of nature and the state of war. As it is described, the state of nature refers to how men were made equal in the faculties of the body and mind. To quote, “As though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another; yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim to himself, as well as he.” Here, Hobbes is explaining his opinion on the meaning of the “state of nature” explaining that even though one may have a strength compared to another, it all is balanced out in the end. Each of us have our individual flaws and strength that constitute our character. Hobbes also notes, how humans inherently have a state of greed and savagery. The state of war in human existence is also examined in this article. Hobbes states, “And from this diffidence of one another, there is no way

According to Hobbes the state of nature leads to a war of all against all. What Hobbes refers to when he discusses the state of nature is a state in which there are no civil powers. To reach his conclusion about how the world would be in the state of nature, Hobbes first explains what human nature is and then explains the relationship between man and civil government.

Thomas Hobbes, a 17th century English philosopher outlines in his book Leviathan (1651) that the state of nature is a state of “warre, as if of every man, against every man”. Hobbes sets out his moral philosophy with regard to human nature; the way humans behave amongst each other and the state of nature; the natural condition of human interaction as a proceed of nature. Hobbes uses the state of nature as a mechanism for demonstrating the preconditions of a political society. By highlighting the pre-political condition as an unendurable state of permanent conflict, Hobbes intends to establish the necessity of a distinctive political society, one that is governed by a collective and undivided absolute sovereign. Hobbes argues that the worst that a man can endure is the reversal to the state of nature, which is when society is faced with a civil war, as Hobbes himself witnessed in his lifetime. Hobbes claims that a sovereign with absolute power is the greatest security against the reversal of the state of nature. Hobbes believes that men are not born to be sociable and that it is not in their nature to seek a life together. Instead, Hobbes contends that men will create an absolute sovereign entity to govern all men. There are contradictions of Hobbes arguments particularly the question of how men are able to give up their freedom and rights to live under a sovereign that implement laws and punishments, rather than staying in the state of nature where they are free to do what

Thomas Hobbes describes his views on human nature and his ideal government in Leviathan. He believes human nature is antagonistic, and condemns man to a life of violence and misery without strong government. In contrast to animals, who are able to live together in a society without a coercive power, Hobbes believes that men are unable to coexist peacefully without a greater authority because they are confrontational by nature. “In the nature of man”, Hobbes says “there are three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence, thirdly, glory” and then he goes on to list man’s primary aims for each being gain, safety and reputation (Hobbes, Leviathan, 13, 6).

This quote from Thomas Hobbes ‘Leviathan,' summarizes his opinion of the natural condition of mankind as concerning their felicity and misery. He basically suggests a natural impulse for war embedded in the souls of men who do not have a ruler, or a king. They are without bounds, and without limits. It is a state of anarchy that he envisages.

1. Thomas Hobbes is the founding father of modern political philosophy, in his work ¨Leviathan¨ he sets out why people should obey governmental authority in order to avoid the risk of chaos and bloodshed which he defines as the ¨state of nature.¨ Imagine a world without laws. Hobbes called this hypothetical time, with no rules to command our actions, a state of nature, and he describes life there as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In a state of nature, every man is against every man. One might assume that in such a state of nature the strong would naturally triumph over the weak and balance would be naturally restored, however, according to Hobbes people are equal. Every individual possesses the natural right to preserve oneself,

In Hobbes book Leviathan, he makes the natural man out to be a self obsessed monster who is only interested in his own self preservation. This would intern leave the state of nature to be consumed with war, “...because the condition of man is conditions of war of everyone against everyone”. With out the constrain of government Hobbes states “So that in the state of nature man will find three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory” (Leviathan, 76). These principles would then leave men in the state of nature, with a life that Hobbes describes as “solitary, poor nasty, brutish, and short” (Leviathan, 76). Over all Hobbes view on the state of nature is a materialistic world where without an “absolute sovereign” the life of man would be nothing more then the “state of war”.

In Book I of chapter XIII, Of the Natural Condition of Mankind, as concerning their Felicity, and Misery, Hobbes talks about the three principal causes of quarrel, competition, diffidence, and glory. The first, competition, is for gain. Hobbes describes it as,” The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men 's persons, wives, children, and cattle…” (Hobbes Chapter 13). In other words, competition causes men to use violence to steal from one another, which leads to war. Diffidence is described as safety, and the final cause of fighting is glory, which is reputation. Hobbes says in the text, “the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name” (Hobbes Chapter 13).