John Locke, Paul Sartre, And Georg L. Hegel

John Locke was perhaps one of the most influential political philosophers of the modern period. In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke discusses the move from a state of nature and perfect freedom to a then governed society in which authority is given to a legislative and executive power. His major ideas included liberalism and capitalism, state of nature, state of war and the desire to protect one’s property.

As per the 1948 Universal announcement of human rights, all individuals regardless of their background are all born equal before the law. This declaration made by the powerful nations and signed by all nations strong and weak that belong to the United Nations reflects the thoughts of many earlier philosophers to include the 16th & 17th Century Martin Luther, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. However, each philosopher -based on their times and experiences gave a different value to how men use their freedom and equality in presence of the other in a society, and in relation to political authority. As determinant of his freedom to act and think, the three writings focused on the will of man, the promise that shapes the social contract, and the

The enlightenment era arose in the modern cultural ideology of the 18th century, as ideas among philosophers had a widespread effect among the society. The age of enlightenment, in western society, projected the rejection of traditional Christianity, western philosophy, intellectual advances, scientific, and cultural life, government legitimacy and authority. Upon the enlightenment period multiple philosophers emerged, the individuals arose to leading figures using reason to understand all aspects of human life. The motivations for the enlightenment came primarily from the Englishmen, John Locke. John Locke was a philosophical influence in both political theory and theoretical philosophy, which was embraced among the era of 1789-1914 and

The story “lord of the flies’’ by William Golding, the novel correlates to the philosophical views of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. John Locke was an English philosopher that surmised man's natural moral compass would point towards good, Locke's philosophical writings stated “ that individuals in a state of nature would have stronger moral limits on their actions. Essentially, Locke thought that our human nature was characterized by reason and tolerance. People, Locke believed, were basically good’’ ( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2). John Locke thought if people were given no rules they would make a paradise, flourishing in law, order, and structure, Thomas Hobbes believed people were naturally cruel and chaotic, with a need of a strong ruler to make decisions. Hobbes stated, “Who felt that mankind was inherently evil and required a strong central authority to ward off this inclination toward an immoral behavior, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish’’( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2 ). Thomas Hobbes believed a strong iron-fisted ruler was needed for the safety and well being of a society. The ideals of man in a natural state, follow Thomas Hobbes philosophical view represented through Jack's brutish and monarch like attitude which lead to them living in a dystopian society.

By looking at the readings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke, there are a few distinctions between how the modern thinkers viewed politics versus the way the ancient thinkers believed politics should be. There are many topics both modern and ancient thinkers discuss in their writings, such as the purpose of politics, the science of politics, human nature, as well as the ideal regime. By doing so, these thinkers’ views on political topics such as these illuminate how they thought politics should work and who should be able to participate in the activity of politics.

Humans do not have an essence, our existence precedes our essence. The fact that we have no essence gives us our free will. Sartre wrote in his work Being and Nothingness that “Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.” For Sartre, every man is defined by what he does. Mozart was not born a genius composer, it is Mozart’s symphonies and concertos that are his genius, we create ourselves through what we do. Sartre also put forward his theory of a delusion he called ‘mauvaise foi’ or ‘bad faith’. Mauvaise foi is believing and pretending to be determined and have an essence, when in reality you are absolutely free. Sartre’s own examples of bad faith are put forward in his short story, Intimacy, from the series, The Wall. A woman is on a first date and decides to ignore the obvious sexual implications of her suitor’s compliments to her appearance, but instead just accepts them as words. When the man goes for her hand she lets her hand rest indifferently on his, she delays the decision of whether to succumb or reject his advances, instead telling herself that her hand is only a thing in the world, a physical part of her body separate from her thoughts. Sartre describes this woman as acting in bad faith- denying her freedom in order to avoid any blame for making a decision that is potentially wrong. For Sartre, the very act of denying our freedom shows our free will through our

Human reason has been one of the guiding principles in our society since the beginning of time and because action is preceded by thought, these two go hand in hand. Every choice we make is based on our thinking process, differentiating between what is good or bad, and contemplating cause and effect. Machiavelli, Locke, and Marx all have distinct conceptions of human nature, which has led to a variety of conclusions regarding the political structures of society that still have resonance today, which goes to show how much of an impact their theories have.

In this article the meaning of Existentialism is explained as the author, Randall Niles, describes how existentialism is a 20th century philosophy that centers itself on the analysis of human existence. He explains the popular slogan “existence precedes essence” by the very first founders of Existentialism, Jean Paul Sartre. The notion of the slogan is described by explaining how humans come into existence when they are first born, and spend their lifetime changing their essence and nature so it satisfies them. The philosophy of Existentialism is further analysed by explaining how humans find themselves and the ultimate meaning of their life by acknowledging their responsibility and making decisions accordingly. Moreover, it also explains

Martin Heidegger stated, criticizing the “wrong” path that western philosophy deviated to, that people understood “being” only in the superficial sense. The advancements in mathematics and natural sciences along the millennia always pre-assumed that being was a known phenomenon and never bothered to explore its true nature; bypassing the herculean task, we never delved into what “Ontos” really

John Locke “proved to be the most influential philosophical and political thinker of the seventeenth century” (Kagen 213). He lived in a period of great political change; Locke’s upbringing came to influence his philosophies, and these ideas had much significance in regards to the Enlightenment.

John Locke, Berkeley and Hume are all empiricist philosophers. They all have many different believes, but agree on the three anchor points; The only source of genuine knowledge is sense experience, reason is an unreliable and inadequate route to knowledge unless it is grounded in the solid bedrock of sense experience and there is no evidence of innate ideas within the mind that are known from experience. Each of these philosophers developed some of the most fascinating conceptions of the relationships between our thoughts and the world around us. I will argue that Locke, Berkeley and Hume are three empiricists that have different beliefs.

It is rare to see a child dream of becoming an accountant or secretary, but somehow through life their dreams changed to fit reality. Children “wake up” from their perceptions of their communities and become aware of the society they live in and its flaws. Of course they can work when they are young to form themselves to fit into the future they want, but oftentimes our communities will block us from what we want to do to reroute us to fit what they think you should do. John Locke, Jean-Paul Sartre, and John Calvin debated different positions on the ideas of being born with a set purpose to being born with the ability to choose what your final purpose in life is, but a concrete answer was never settled on. Living in a modern world filled with

The natural behavior of man, whether they are good or bad, has been a disputed topic for centuries. John Locke and Thoman Hobbes, two influential enlightenment philosophers, lead this argument, even after their death. Locke believed in the natural goodness and equality of man, whereas Hobbes believed humans were naturally selfish and cruel (Zint). While Locke’s philosophy seems more desirable, Hobbes 's thoughts have much more evidence, namely in the corruption of leaders. These men have absolute power and can change the society however they please, yet more often than not, they squander their public and entrusted power on personal gains, as per the definition of corruption. Ironically, a perfect example of such wasted power would be the popes of the Roman Catholic Church, who were appointed out of pure religious intentions, many of whom did not fulfill their religious responsibilities. The papacy in Europe has a long history of corruption, bringing unholy men to power solely for their familial status and wealth, beginning in the 11th century with Pope Benedict IX, who sold the papacy on numerous occasions, and continuing through the Renaissance, with Alexander VI, whose goals served only his family, and Leo X, who was a very lavish, uncontrollable spender.

Niccolo Machiavelli and John Locke are, in simple terms, two vastly different kinds of people. They were separated by nearly two centuries, and lived in two different countries. Despite their contradictions on sovereignty, both Locke and Machiavelli shared a primary concern- the betterment of society.

John Locke (1632-1704) and William Godwin (1756-1836) were both English philosophers. Locke and Godwin discuss their views on the origin, purpose as well as extent of authority of a government in their publications. Locke felt that government originated from a social contract and advocated governments which respected their citizens while Godwin saw any form of government as a form of evil thus he advocated self-government and believed that having no government was the ideal state but in the event of being under a government, minimal authority should be exercised. This essay discusses the difference in their views and I will pay attention to the extent of government authority.