The Expulsion of Freedom

In his Leviathan Thomas Hobbes expresses a philosophy of civilization which is both practical and just and stems from a clear moral imperative. He begins with the assertion that in the state of nature man is condemned to live a life “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” It is in the interest of every man to rise above this “state of nature” and to give up certain rights so that the violent nature of the human animal can be subdued. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s vision of the state of nature parallels that of Hobbes but for its more optimistic tone: “I assume that men reach a point where the obstacles to their preservation in a state of nature prove

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.

In this essay, I will compare the contrasting views between Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau based on the state of nature and civilization. Rousseau was seen as an optimist who viewed human nature as good (“Noble Savage”) and believed that civilization corrupted us; While, Hobbes thought the complete opposite believing that humans in their natural state were selfish creatures purely interested in themselves and that government is imperative in keeping us in check. Throughout this essay, I will further explain their differing ideas and I will show how I view and interpret them as well.

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).

Leviathan is an organic metaphor in which the leviathan; a biblical sea monster represents the sovereign (the head) and political community (the body.) The Condition of Nature, Hobbes’s thought experiment mirrors an anarchic state before civilization. In this state equality is held in a negative air; it poses a threat of vulnerability. Without authority we are open to attacks. This threat leads to three conflicts: competition, diffidence, and glory. Competition leads to violence, due to the desires of the individual, we may try to have what the other one has. Diffidence leads to distrust and anticipation of preemptive strikes. We believe that the other individual is after what we have. Lastly, glory leads to shattered pride due to undervalue, due to individual’s opinions. Hobbes describes life in this state as a miserable. “In such condition there is no place for industry because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently […] which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes,76). Hobbes state of nature mimics stereotypes of the ignorant rather than Goldman’s state. Hobbes state is depicted as constant warfare and fear while Goldman’s depicts hope and personal growth. Hobbes introduces Laws of Nature which help us get out of this anarchic state in which we seek peace and lay down some

The state of nature is the idea of life without society, government, state, or laws. John Locke and Hobbes both agree that the state of nature is equivalent to a state of perfect freedom and equality, although they both understand these terms differently. Hobbes argues that equality leads to inequality in the state of nature. Inequality arises from the idea of man having the right to pursue their self-interest, with no duties to each other. Without duties to each other when, “Any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (Hobbes 184). In the Hobbesian natural state, man is made up of diffidence and lives with no security other than what he can provide himself (Hobbes 185). By virtue, men will enter a continuous state of war for self-preservation because it is man’s natural right to act on what he thinks is necessary to protect himself.

Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and

From this turbulent view of man, Hobbes goes on to describe the natural state of man. The natural state of man is one of war in

Why did Hobbes denote this chaotic social condition as the state of “nature”? From the early chapters of Leviathan, Hobbes made clear and distinguishable definitions from physiological

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;

On one hand, Hobbes had a more pessimistic inference of human nature and thought that it was principally bad. In his work, The Leviathan, he suggests, as said before, that all men are equal, but he argues that this equality brews the desire of obtaining something. Sometimes, this thing can only be attained and enjoyed by one person. Consequently, people become enemies. Furthermore, he insists that without a common power to maintain them, they are in a condition called war.

To better understand Rousseau’s thesis and social contract he proposed, we must first understand why Rousseau felt compelled to write and his main criticism of society during the 18th century. In sum, Rousseau argued that states (specifically France, though never explicitly stated) have not protected man’s right to freedom or equality. Rousseau began The Social Contract in dramatic fashion. He wrote, “man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (1). This quote is still used today, and is a powerful description of Rousseau’s central issue with society. He believed that every man is “born” naturally free—he has full autonomy and can do what he chooses. However, Rousseau argued that man is bound to the injustices of society.

In his work Leviathan, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes discusses the state of nature of the human being and how that affects the society we live in, which demands, in his opinion, the existence of an individual that will focus on the establishment of a sovereign authority. He uses the biblical figure of Leviathan, monstrous and cruel animal, who follows the ideology that the smaller and weaker cannot be swallowed by stronger. This figure represents the state, a giant whose flesh is the same from all who delegated him to take care and defend the society.

Thomas Hobbes is a 17th century political philosopher whose book, Leviathan, is regarded as the founder of modern Western political philosophy. This book forms the basis of his popular social contract theory as well as his understanding of human beings. He describes the functions of human beings whilst in the state of nature. The Hobbesian the state of nature is essentially the “natural condition of mankind” (Wootton 158). By this, he imagines a hypothetical world where there is no civilization and no defined form of commonwealth. This hypothetical state is governed by Hobbes’ Laws of Nature, which is “a precept or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive to his life, or taketh away by means of preserving the same” (Wootton 160). Throughout the Leviathan, Hobbes imagines how human beings would act in such a world and criticizes the selfish tendencies of human nature. He views humans as selfish, violent, and competitive by nature and people will do anything to preserve their own life, as their own self-interest is their first priority. He describes human tendencies in the state of nature as “war of all against all” and thus, life in the state of nature would be “poor nasty, brutish, and short” (Wootton 159). It is clear that Hobbes does not view human nature in a positive way. Human nature in this context can be viewed as natural qualities possessed by every human being. Hobbes’ pessimistic view of human nature

The state of nature was one point on which Hobbes and Rousseau’s opinions varied greatly. The state of nature is defined by Hobbes as an environment where every man is for himself because there is no common body to unite them. Hobbes saw the state of nature as a dangerous and unpleasant place where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, short” (Hobbes, Pg. 76). Also, every man has a reason to fear every