Compare how Hobbes and Augustine Think The Condition of War Arises and Defend One
Author's Account of `ordinary' Morality As An Antedote For It
Augustine believes that the condition of war arises when the perfectly ordered and harmonious enjoyment of God is disrupted (The City of God, 690) whereas Hobbes believes that the original state of nature is a condition of constant war, which rational and self-motivated people want to end.
Augustine argues that peace is more than the absence of hostilities - it is a state of harmony that makes possible the full functioning of human beings.
Full functioning comes from the four internal virtues (courage, justice, temperance, and prudence) that we must exercise to achieve good human morality.
Human morality, by and of its self, will not allow us humans to travel to our moral destination. It is only an exercise of the four virtues so that we as humans can achieve some sort of peace on our own through God's saving grace.
To Augustine, humans seek an object of love they can't lose. The problem with that to humans is that humans can't provide that to other humans completely.
Only God can and that in turn causes hostility among humans. The love of God, then, is the only way humans can completely satisfy all four virtues and have eternal peace. Eternal peace is where faith, love, and hope are to be enjoyed, such as in The City of God.
In Book XIX, Augustinian social theory summa...
As the topic of human nature became more significant, there were many debates of what the definition of human nature was. Although it is hard to tell what the correct answer to that is, there were any theories that were brought forward to keep the thought going. Four of the most famous philosophers for their ideas on human nature include: Mencius, Hsün Tzu, John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes.
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.
...importance of virtue here is that, virtues are needed for living well; But in order to obtain
goal. It is only us who have to walk the final path of attaining our
to man himself, delving into the moral and mental nature of man and dealing with
To be successful, one must have the appearance of virtuousness, but not necessarily be virtuous. At least, this appears to be true according to Niccolo Machiavelli's works. Machiavelli's idea of the virtuous republican citizen may be compared to Hobbes' idea of a person who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power. Hobbes' ideas seem to suggest that most anyone can claim rightful authority as there is a belief in God, and one can under Hobbes, claim legitimate authority rather easily. There are few proofs. Machiavelli, on the other hand, takes a strong position and suggests specific criteria in terms of power. With Machiavelli, there is a sense of righteousness and fairness and while he does not sanction authoritarian rule to save man from himself, it is also true that Machiavelli puts a lot of faith in leaders also. In some respects, one can see that the two theorists agree yet Machiavelli’s proposed Political society is more feasible thus superior to that of Hobbes.
Saint Augustine’s On Faith and the Creed breaks down the Apostles Creed and expresses the essence of the Christian faith. The 11 chapters within On Faith and The Creed express many truths of the faith. Chapter one explains the origin of the creed and object of its composition. The Apostles Creed is a sufficient summary of the faith for beginners and those who who are more diligent in their faith. Many heretics have tried to corrupt the interpretation of the Apostles Creed. Yet, since it is written according to the scripture, the Apostles Creed is based on complete truth. Chapter two expresses the fact that eternity is exclusive. Saint Augustine talks about how the Apostles Creed will not truly be understood or impact a person if they are not
Getting somewhere is not just the destination, but even more so the journey. The goals are our destination and obstacle and temptations litter the voyage. Like Odysseus, achieving these goals is not a cinch. Obstacles must be faced or avoided, and temptations should be resisted.
such that it is so closely tied to the virtuous activity in which a good life consists?
The foremost difference between Aristotle and Hobbes, and in turn classical and modern political philosophies’, with regard to a good life and happiness is that of normative judgments about the good life. While Hobbes rejects normative judgments about the good life and discusses human actions without attributions of moral quality, Aristotle offers the exact opposite. In Ethics, Aristotle differentiates between good and evil actions along with what the best good, or summum bonum, for all humans while Hobbes approach argues that good and bad varies from one individual to another with good being the object of an individuals appetite or desire, and evil being an object of his hate and aversion. In addition, Aristotle makes it clear that individuals have an ultimate purpose—that of political animals—that they should strive to become through trial and error throughout their life. Hobbes on the other hand rejects the idea of life having an ultimate purpose, “for there is no such finis ultimus (utmost aim) nor summum bonum (greatest good) as is spoken of in the books of the old moral philosophers…Felicity is a continual progress of the desire, from one object to another, the attaining of the former being still but the way to the latter”. Hobbes defines felicity as the satisfaction of one’s passions as stated in Leviathan “continual success in obtaining those things which a man from time to time desireth, that is to say, continual prospering, is that men call felicity.
A Philosophical Criticism of Augustine and Aquinas: The Relationship of Soul and Body The relationship of the human soul and physical body is a topic that has mystified philosophers, scholars, scientists, and mankind as a whole for centuries. Human beings, who are always concerned about their place as individuals in this world, have attempted to determine the precise nature or state of the physical form. They are concerned for their well-being in this earthly environment, as well as their spiritual well-being; and most have been perturbed by the suggestion that they cannot escape the wrongs they have committed while in their physical bodies.
Two of the greatest philosophers of all time are Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli. Hobbes was born in 1588 in England, when absolutism was taking hold in Europe. His most famous work was 'Leviathan', written in 1651. Hobbes discussed the ideal state and innate laws of man and nature, among other things. Machiavelli was born in Italy in 1469, a time when his home country was ruled mostly by foreign powers. His hometown, Florence, was still independent. Machiavelli's most famous work, 'The Prince', tells of his ideal state and ideal ruler. Machiavelli goes on to describe the perfect prince, a picture of cruelty and cunning. Though both genius philosophers, their views differ greatly. Hobbes believed in a minimalist government where the state only interfered with the lives of the citizens when it had to. The ideal kingdom was the kingdom of God, in Hobbes' mind. In Machiavelli's 'The Prince', he describes his ideal government with a strong monarch, and fearful subjects. In Hobbes' system, a close relationship was kept with God, while in Machiavelli's reason was the only rule. The most important and most dealt-with area of dialogue is the 'ideal' government.
Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau are all social contract theorists that believe in how the people should have certain rights with allows them to have individual freedom. They also believe that the people must give consent in order for the government to work and progress. Although Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have similar aspects in their theories, they differ from each other through the reason why a government should be created.
Augustine and Aquinas are both very well known for their philosophical and theological explorations. They are both known for trying to prove that ancient philosophy and Christianity were connected, they both took two different paths. Augustine is known for following a Platonic path and Aquinas an Aristotelian. The two both talked about faith, reason ,and knowledge.
Augustine and Al-Ghazali, two medieval philosophers that have not interacted throughout their lives, both hold arguments on their thought of skepticism. Narrowing down the focus of skepticism to the doubt of self-existence and the certainty of knowledge/mind. This paper will analyze both of their views on why skepticism is important in doubting the absolution of vision, their arguments for and against skepticism, and lastly the focus on skeptical thinking and the purpose it’s meant to achieve. In doing so will present the views of both thinkers in how they views of skepticism is compatible in some aspects and does contrasts, nevertheless both dialogues hold merit in their thinking of why we ought to be skeptical in our senses of vision and in the knowledge/mind.