Hobbes And Rousseau 's Views On The State Of Nature

868 Words4 Pages
In Philosophy many philosophers have different views on one central issue. For example Thomas Hobbes, and Jean Jacques Rousseau interpret a Man’s Nature very differently from each other. The discussion over Man’s Nature brings light to Hobbes underlying reason of why people established political societies, and Rousseau’s question of what causes a mans misery? In Hobbes case he believes that Men need to find self-protection in order to shield themselves from men’s natural state of misery and fear. On the other hand, Rousseau didn’t see it this way. Rousseau did not see this a valid argument because he believes that a man in a early natural state of mind is happier. With all this being said, Rousseau and Hobbes have different views on the state of nature but both see the state of Nature of a man as a phase before the formation of a political society. Hobbes sees the natural state of a man as miserable, and brutal because everyone is able to act the freely with the risk of others around them. Everyone would be at the risk of being killed because everyone would be an enemy with each other, and a lot of competition would take place. Hobbes says “the passions that incline men to peace are: fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them” (185). When he says this he means everyone would allow everyone to claim rights on property, others, and reputations in society by using there own instincts. If a
Get Access