Hobbes Vs Plato

The great philosophers of ancient Greece concerned much of their time with what is the best path of life and how to achieve it. Many people question what true happiness is and how it can be achieved. In Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates talks and muses about what happiness is, why people seek happiness, how it is achieved and what the best way to achieve it is. In one part, Socrates tries to explain to Callicles why not all pleasure is happiness and that one must use restraint and temperance to control ones desires and help them achieve happiness (Gorgias, 488). Callicles argues with Socrates, stating that happiness can only be truly achieved when one allows their goals to flourish without any boundaries or anything to stop them (Gorgias, 489).

One of the central claims of Plato’s Republic is that justice is not only desirable for its own sake, but that it maximises the happiness of those who practice it. This paper examines Plato’s arguments in support of this thesis to determine (a) what he means by happiness, (b) to what extent it exists in his proposed ideal state, and (c) whether this in any way substantiates his claims about the benefits of justice. In particular, I will argue that there are two different conceptions of happiness at play in The Republic, and two methods of achieving its highest form, namely the pursuit of justice and philosophy, before arriving at a final definition of

In Book 1 of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he argues that happiness is the best good, and the goal of an individual and of those leading and governing society. Here, happiness is understood as both living well and doing well, rather than the convention sense of happiness as an emotion. According to Aristotle, happiness is achieved though actions involving reason and in accord with virtue, or the best of the virtues of there are more than one. In this paper, I will provide a brief overview of the work and its author, then proceed to provide an overview of the ideas expressed and the argumentation supporting them, before finally performing an analysis and critique of the ideas expressed.

Both Plato and Augustine offer unusual conceptions of what one must acquire to live a truly happy life. While the conventional view of happiness normally pertains to wealth, financial stability, and material possessions, Plato and Augustine suggest that true happiness is rooted in something independent of objects or people. Though dissimilar in their notions of that actual root, each respective philosophy views the attaining of that happiness as a path, a direction. Plato’s philosophy revolves around the attainment of eternal knowledge and achieving a metaphysical balance. Augustine also emphasizes one’s knowing the eternal, though his focus is upon living in humility before God. Both assert that human beings possess a natural desire

     When talking about happiness and goodness, there must be an important quality present. According to Aristotle, people need to practice balance and moderation in their every day lives. Achieving this middle ground, or mean, translates into being virtuous in Aristotle’s mind. If virtue is present, so is its opposite vise. For every virtue, there are two vices. One vice is excessive while the other is deficiency. Courage works as a great example because it is virtuous. The excessive vise is recklessness and the

Drug abuse is obviously a huge issue in our country, but how would Hobbes and Rousseau’s opinions differ on it? Hobbes talks about individual self interests and punishment. Rousseau talks about education and socialization. The both believe however that the sovereign should decide these laws

Many people try to define and consider different definitions of what happiness is, and I think that Plato and Aristotle offer interesting views of happiness and what it means for one to live a good life. Both philosophers agree that happiness is an important factor in one’s life and essentially the essence of how to live a good life. Plato offers many theories and definitions of justice leading to happiness, while Aristotle argues that happiness is the main goal that all humans aim for in their entire life. Plato offers a philosophical view of a happy life for an individual by explaining a just state and what it would entail and also the theory of the forms that one must understand to achieve happiness. After learning about both

In sections (352d-354b) of the book, “The Republic of Plato” by Allan Bloom, Socrates begins by arguing with Thrasymachus that the just life is the happiest and best (352e). He provides rhetorical appeal of logos and compelling arguments that all living things have a function. Socrates establishes a well-rounded statement to counter argue against Thrasymachus by including multiple statements on how the just life has virtue, while as unjust brings the opposite of happiness. He pieces together to puzzle that blocks Thrasymachus from understanding the correct rationality for the attributes that we possess.

Aristotle lists honor, pleasure, and wealth as the things believed to make humans happy. He believed that because honor could be easily taken away it was superficial and that pleasure, although enjoyable, was merely an “animal like quality”. Wealth was described as a vehicle to achieve greater status. The moderation of the three vices could be achieved but would not, in-itself produce or guarantee eudaimonia. Instead, Aristotle was of the opinion that wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice, would better lead person to happiness.

Aristotle is an ancient Greek philosopher who has played a part in subjects such as mathematics and ethics. As a known student of Plato, Aristotle’s knowledge on various topics immensely affected people’s philosophical views. For Aristotle, his definitions of human happiness and a good life consist of being virtuous all throughout life. Happiness comes from being an overall good person; this is “the best way to lead a life and give it meaning” (Psychology Today). According to Aristotle, happiness is a continuing achievement. “Happiness is more a question of behavior and of habit—of ‘virtue’—than of luck; a person who cultivates such behaviors and habits is able to bear his

Therefore, happiness is the highest act of virtue because it is the only end in every action we preform. A person that preforms an action for the sake of being happy requires many steps to eventually reach the stage of happiness. When there are steps involved to reach happiness, then the action is preformed for the sake of something else and not in itself. Such as a person who wants to eat healthier because their end motive is to be happy. Therefore, the action is not preformed for the sake of just to eat healthy but to reach happiness. However, to become virtuous, a person will preform actions that make them virtuous with a firm and unchangeable character. It is a skill that is made through a habit, Aristotle states, “legislators make the citizens good by preforming habits in them”(NE, P.23), such as preforming acts of bravery. But, a brave person needs to find a balance because being too brave will lead to excess

Plato and his three-leveled State are comprised of rulers, military, and laboring class. All these parts within society are molded into individuals at a young age; individuals that don’t play by the rules of society must be forced/lied to into following the rules. Plato mentions that individuals cannot survive on their own and depend on others because they are not self-sufficient. For Plato, the ones in power are rulers/kings that “know philosophy”. Justice was an important virtue for Plato and he wanted a political system that could uphold justice for everyone. I believe if anyone committed a crime, for example, theft they will be convicted and be given an appropriate punishment that fit their crime, in this case paying back the amount that was stolen would be the just thing to do.

The three authors discussed during this section: Hobbes, Locke, and Marx were all very interesting and straight forward with their belief of a person’s rights. They each had their own view regarding their opinion of rights, however I found that the author Locke’s article “Democracy is best” was the most balanced and would be the most functional form of rights. I did not particularly care for the writing of Hobbes, “Monarchy is best”, as it appeared to cater abound the higher heirachy, with only a win – win to benefit the heiracy or those that had power and money.

Aristotle vs. Hobbes, constitutes a debate between two great thinkers from two profoundly different periods of time. Whereas Aristotle (384 - 322 BCE) had been a part of the Greek's and more precisely, Athens's Golden Age, Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) had lived through the English Civil War of 1640s to become one of the most influential philosophers. Based on their own personal experiences and surroundings, both Aristotle and Hobbes had developed a view of what human equality should sustain. However, Hobbes' understanding of natural equality is preferable, as he provides society with the extra room for equality and opportunity that the subjects of a good sovereign would experience to be available to them, in comparison to Aristotle's

For almost every word, all philosophers have their own notion towards it’s meaning. This is especially true for the term “justice”. The philosophers Hobbes and Plato both exhibit their own beliefs towards its interpretation through their respective stories, the Leviathan and the Republic. Instead of simply stating his view, Plato takes it to another level. He brings up a multitude of possibilities for the meaning of justice, arguing with himself and shooting down his own theories. The purpose of his Republic is to find the best and most logical definition of justice through discussion. Hobbes discusses various topics in his piece on top of justice; he addresses sense, imagination, dreams, speech, names, understanding and reason. Using these other subjects, he cultivates his own definition of justice. Similar to Plato, Hobbes creates counter arguments to many of the ideas that he presents and supports. Hobbes views justice mostly as a societal norm, while Plato has his own set of perspectives. Among their views on justice there are a surprising amount of similarities, yet still many differences.