The Two Enantiomers (An Analysis of Thomas Hobbes and Sebastian Casteillo)

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are one of the most influential and famous philosophers who both had similar theories but had different conclusions. The two philosophers wrote a discourse “life in the state of nature” and argued about the government. They both had made important and logical contributions to modern philosophy and opened up political thoughts which have impacted our world today. During the seventeenth century the thought of political philosophy became a big topic. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both started questioning the political philosophy and had had different views and reasoning towards human beings. Both Hobbes and Locke had logical and reasonable theories in which they had opposed to one another. Although each philosopher

Hobbes and Locke both abandoned the thought of the divine right of monarchy. Both did not agree with the fact that the ruler or assembly would have all power over its citizens. So basically they were against Absolutism and their views were that of rebels in their time period. Theses two philosophers both held similar ideas but also have conflicting ideas pertaining to the citizens "social contract" with their rulers, "Natural Condition of Mankind," and sovereignty.

Thomas Hobbes and john Locke were both enlightment philosophers who use the state of nature as a formula in political philosophy. Both Locke and Hobbes had tried to influence by their sociopolitical background, “to expose the man as he was before the advent of the social life” (). Locke and Hobbes addressed man’s relation to the society around him; however, they came to different conclusions regarding the nature of human government.

Contrasting Hobbes and Locke Nearly two-hundred and twenty-five years ago the United States of America chose to fight a Thomas Hobbes government, with the hope of forming a John Locke institution. The ideas of these men lead to the formation of two of the strongest nations in the history of the world: Great Britain followed by the United States. Thomas Hobbes viewed the ideal government as an absolute monarchy, due to the chaos of the state of nature in contrast, John Locke’s ideal government was a democracy due to his beliefs of the equality of men. These men have shared a few of the same beliefs, but mainly contrast each other.

Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes are two of the most influential political theorists in history. Each philosopher has shaped mankind’s political thought and both have earned the title of a “Father” of political thought. Aristotle and Hobbes contributed to the world of political thought with differing dogmas. They both stand on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Aristotle claims that man is naturally a social being and therefore a political animal. Furthermore, he understands man as controlled towards the community. Hobbes claims the exact opposite. Man is naturally ordered towards the individual and that individual is himself, according to Hobbes.

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 had a very interesting outlook on life, something that was so prevalent for centuries, a monarchy. He believed that the ideal world should fall under a monarch, an idea that is outdated in almost every nation across the globe. He was so strong on these ideas, because he believed all humans at their core are selfish creatures. Another thought that he had was that the state should have total control and order over the people, to maintain peace and to destroy the selfishness that exists in

In the 16th century, the Protestant Reformation began starting countless wars in Europe. This theo-political revolution was the result of something called the Lutheran Wedge. The Lutheran Wedge is a theo-political model started by a German Augustinian monk named Martin Luther. Martin Luther responded to the corruption of the church sought to separate the Church and the State for the betterment of the Church. The wars started by the Protestant Reformation would inspire Niccolo Machiavelli to come up with his own theo-politcal model. Machiavelli, like Luther, wanted to separate the Church and the State, this time for the betterment of the state. Machiavelli and Luther’s models are foils to each other, but inspired by the same

Thomas Hobbes was an English logician from Malmesbury. He wound up plainly acclaimed when his book, "Leviathan," made the establishment of the political theory from the West. Hobbes could collect a few acknowledgments. He was the champion of absolutism for the sovereign. Not just that, he significantly contributed in various subjects.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are comparable in their basic political ideologies about man and their rights in the state of nature before they enter a civil society. Their political ideas are very much similar in that regard. The resemblance between Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies are based on a few characteristics of the state of nature and the state of man. Firstly, in the state of nature both Hobbes and Locke agree that all men are created equal, but their definitions of equality in the state of nature slightly differ. According to Locke, “…in the state of nature… no one has power over another…” Locke’s version or idea of equality in the state of

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

Thomas Hobbes was a divisive figure in his day and remains so up to today. Hobbes’s masterpiece, Leviathan, offended his contemporary thinkers with the implications of his view of human nature and his theology. From this pessimistic view of the natural state of man, Hobbes derives a social contract in order to avoid civil war and violence among men. Hobbes views his work as laying out the moral framework for a stable state. In reality, Hobbes was misconstruing a social contract that greatly benefited the state based on a misunderstanding of civil society and the nature and morality of man.

However, many Europeans, such as Sir Robert Filmer, held tightly onto the theory that God grants certain men the ability to rule and assert their authority over a group of people, as he writes in his essay, Patriarcha. Both of these philosophers come from a religiously strong background, but have opposing ideas on the issue of God granting authority and power to certain individuals.     Francisco Suarez served as an incredibly influential theologian and Jesuit priest during the 16th century that followed the teachings of Ignatius of Loyola and expanded on the distinction between natural law and international law. He believed that the corruption of monarchs came from the misconception that God grants authority to certain individuals, putting them above the law. Suarez rejected the thought that the people lose their right to choose their ruler because God has already chosen a suitable ruler for the civilization and the people.

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;

In truth, each of these authors (although they offer unique arguments in their own respect) reaches a similar conclusion on the conditions of subjects in Hobbes’s commonwealth. Shklar (1989, 24) asserts that, “No theory that gives public authorities the unconditional right to impose beliefs and even a vocabulary as they see fit upon the citizenry can even be described as remotely liberal.” Likewise, Okin (1989, 261) claims that, “Hobbes was no liberal in his conclusions—advocating an absolute rather than a restrained state.” Finally, Barber concludes that, “Liberals rightly pall at the idea of Hobbes as a liberal predecessor because his fear of anarchy leads him to embrace an authoritarian conception of the state incompatible with limited government”