Human beings are naturally societal and relational. Even before the Neolithic revolution, humans roved around in groups, hence hunters and gatherers societies, not hunter or gatherer (singular). People stayed tougher not only for collective security, prosperity and necessity, but mainly for the benefit of the self. Whether for protection, emotional need or monetary gain, individuals, as a result, banded together in order to satisfy those needs first. If humans were always societal, in one form or the other (by societal, I mean always in conjunction with other humans: families, tribes, kingdoms, etc.), then the idea of a pure state of nature does not exist. A state of nature implies a time when people did not have societies but if humans always had societies, then what the history of man is simply a history of the ranging developments of different forms of societies over time. What political philosophers identified as “state of nature” are simply, observations or conjectures of human rationality, characteristics and the human condition. A “state of nature” has to exist only in order to justify the institutional arrangements of a group of people, whether it is real or not.
While English philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed in a state of nature, his observations of the human condition
…show more content…
The formation of states and political legitimacy has most of the time been intertwined with the religious authority that resided in the state. In Christian Europe, the church was the initial source of legitimacy post-Roman Empire. The rise and fall (and rise again) of the Catholic church and the Protestant Reformation help shaped state structures and ultimately, the rise of the secular state. In contrast, in Dar-al-Islam, there was a unique and changing relationship between the state and the ulamas because politics and religion was more or less in the same realm. In some instances, the state and ulamas remained relatively separate but in other cases, the ulamas became the
Hobbes’ state of nature depicts the life of man as “nasty, brutish, and short” (31) and does not allow for innate morality, which for some may be seen as problematic for Hobbes’ theory. Locke’s state of nature seems to be more accessible as it presents a more dynamic picture of human nature. Moreover, it allows for an innate sense of morality within human beings that does not simply arise out of the formation of a
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political philosophers who are famous for their theories about the formation of the society and discussing man in his natural state. Their theories are both psychologically insightful, but in nature, they are drastically different. Although they lived in the same timeframe, their ideas were derived from different events happening during this time. Hobbes drew his ideas on man from observation, during a time of civil strife in Europe during the 1640's and 1650's.
Hobbes views human nature as the war of each man against each man. For Hobbes, the essence of human nature can be found when we consider how man acts apart from any government or order. Hobbes describes the world as “a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man.” (Hobbes mp. 186) In such a world, there are “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes mp. 186) Hobbes believes that laws are what regulate us from acting in the same way now. He evidences that our nature is this way by citing that we continue to lock our doors for fear of theft or harm. Hobbes gives a good argument which is in line with what we know of survivalism, and evidences his claim well. Hobbes claims that man is never happy in having company, unless that company is utterly dominated. He says, “men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great dea...
Although Locke’s description of the state of nature won’t turn out to be as dire as Hobbes’, it rests on the same notion that humans are born equal in the state of nature. Where their views diverge is what this total equality entails. Whereas for Hobbes, the depravity
Hobbes’s initial argument of natural state, in human nature, proves how society is in a constant state of destruction, mentally and physically, if not under control or command. Although Hobbes’s opinion was morally correct, Rousseau believes that all people are born in a state of emptiness, somewhat of a blank state, and it is life experiences that determine their nature, society being a major driving force for people’s ill-will and lack of moral sensibilities. Hobbes, overall, is proven correct because all people need to be directed in order for society to properly function. Hobbes’ theory on the condition of the state of nature, and government are not only more applicable today, but his reasoning is far sounder than that of Rousseau. These concepts were significantly conditionally reliant.
This first paragraph will outline Hobbes’ concept of the state of nature, a necessary starting point to understand the philosopher’s view. In fact, his account of human nature is revealed thanks to the reasons he provides for believing that the state of nature is a state of war. Hobbes describes the state of nature as a place without any form of civil
nature is not as in the plant and tree kind of nature, but on the nature of man at a
Each political theorist agrees that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature. The state of nature is the condition men were in before political government came into existence, and what society would be if there was no government. In relation to this the two theorists raised as much praise as criticism for their famous masterpieces.
The understanding of the state of nature is essential to both theorists’ discussions. For Hobbes, the state of nature is equivalent to a state of war. Locke’s description of the state of nature is more complex: initially the state of nature is one of “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation”. Transgressions against the law of nature, or reason which “teaches mankind that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty and possessions,” are but few. The state of nature, according to Locke’s Treatise, consists of the society of man, distinct from political society, live together without any superior authority to restrict and judge their actions. It is when man begins to acquire property that the state of nature becomes somewhat less peaceful.
A state of nature is a hypothetical state of being within a society that defines such a way that particular community behaves within itself. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes proclaimed that, “A state of nature is a state of war.” By this, Hobbes means that every human being, given the absence of government or a contract between other members of a society, would act in a war-like state in which each man would be motivated by desires derived solely with the intention of maximizing his own utility.
Hobbes was a strong believer in the thought that human nature was evil. He believed that “only the unlimited power of a sovereign could contain human passions that disrupt the social order and threatened civilized life.” Hobbes believed that human nature was a force that would lead to a constant state of war if it was not controlled. In his work the Leviathan, he laid out a secular political statement in which he stated the significance of absolutism.
Particularly influenced by specific events taking place during their lifetime, each one of them perceived human nature differently and therefore had variant opinions about the role of government under the Social Contract. For instance, Thomas Hobbes saw humans exclusively as self-interested creatures. He believed that everything we do is frivolously premeditated and rationalized in order to accomplish our objectives and satisfy as many of our desires as possible. From these pessimistic views of human nature, Hobbes goes on to suggest why we would be willing to submit ourselves to political authority. According to Hobbes’ hypothesis, life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
Throughout history, many individuals wish to discover and explain the relationship between nature and society, however, there are many complexities relating to this relationship. The struggle to understand how nature and society are viewed and connected derives from the idea that there are many definitions of what nature is. The Oxford dictionary of Human Geography (2003), explains how nature is difficult to define because it can be used in various contexts as well as throughout different time and spaces. As a result of this, the different understandings of what nature is contributes to how the nature society relationship is shaped by different processes. In order to better understand this relation there are many theorists and philosophers
“Are political Islam and democracy compatible?” This question has been troubling both Muslims and non-Muslims living in East and West for a long time now. Contemporary Islamic political thought has become deeply influenced by attempts at reconciling Islam and democracy. Muslim thinkers who deal with political debates cannot disregard the significance of the democratic system, as it is the prevailing theme of modern western political thought. Hence, it is necessary for any alternative political system, whether it is religious or secular, to explore its position with regards to democratic government. In fact, a large literature and media publications have developed over the last century on this heated discourse of democracy versus Islam. While many argue that Islam has all the ingredients of modern state and democratic society, many other reject the phenomena “modernism” and “democracy” as a whole because of their “foreign nature”—alien to “Islamic values”. For Islamists and modernists, the motivation for such effort to either embrace or reject democracy often is to remove suspicion about the nature and goals of Islamic movements and Islamic revivalism or resurgence. But before diving into this discourse, one needs to understand the definition and origins of “democracy.” Although purely a Western ideology in its origin, there is no consensus on the definition of “democracy” as a political system. The Oxford English Dictionary describes democracy as: “A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives” (“democracy, n.”). In my paper, I will examine whether or not democracy and Sunni political Islam are compatible through the eyes of three revolutionary Sun...
The concept of human nature is used to describe what life may have been like before societies were formed. Human nature has been described as a state of “perfect freedom” and “equality” by John Locke or in a state of “war” as described by Thomas Hobbes. For Hobbes, human nature arises from the equality of body and mind and other causes in human nature where “every man is [an] enemy to every man” and the life of man is “nasty brutish and short.” Humans may be fixed at a certain point but there is an ability for malleability. Human nature is flexible, and is constantly changing to adapt to its surroundings and experiences. Additionally, human nature changes because as socialization shifts the circumstances of the environment also cause human nature to change by learning how to adapt to changing circumstances and surroundings.