Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
John stuart mill critical analysis
Discuss John Stuart Mill moral philosophy
John stuart mill on discussion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
A noble and free life is the goal of many young pilgrims; some even risked their lives to escape from the modern society. Bertrand Russell once stated “It is the preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else that prevents us from living freely and nobly.” Though having a fundamental impact, in my opinion, the preoccupations are not entirely to be blamed.
Hobbes, as one of the early political philosophers, believes human has the nature to acquire “power after power” and has three fundamental interests which are safety, “conjugal affections”, and riches for commodious lives. (Hobbes, p108, p191) From this basis, Hobbes deducts that in a state of nature, human tends to fight against each other (state of war) to secure more resources (Hobbes,
…show more content…
From his insights, private property is a result of alienation of labor. Furthermore, the property they produced becomes the origin of future alienation. With alienation, the brain, capability, and even characters of a person become commodities that can be sold in the market. Marx claimed that capitalist hence deprived the personality of labors, though they seem to be well off. (Kolakowski, pp. 138-140) Numerous of pilgrims believe the nature, where there is no need for possessions or avarices, offers a free space for human. They escaped the capitalist society alone where alienation would no longer take place since property rights and division of labor disappear. Thoreau is probably the most famous pilgrim who built a cabin near the Walden Pond. He once stated that “Superfluous wealth can buy superfluities only. Money is not required to buy one necessity of the soul.” Commodities that can be possessed by paying money are inferior to the commodities for soul. Inspired by Thoreau, Chris is also sees money and possessions as superfluous. He castigated the corruption of politicians, burnt money to ashes after donating most of them to charity, and admired the nature in a post card saying that “The freedom and simple beauty of it is just too good to pass up.”(Krakauer, p29, p34, p123) Chris described civilization as poisonous, therefore he needed to flee from it. “No phone, no pool, no pets, no
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
Both Thoreau and McCandless were against materialism. Thoreau feels that “Most of the luxuries and many of the so-called comforts of life are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind” (Thoreau, Walden 28). He thinks that dependance of worldly possessions hidera ones chance of finding their true self. McCandless had a similar mentality, and acted upon that belief. An example of this is when “…he saw the flash flood as an opportunity to shed unnecessary baggage. He concealed the car as best he could beneath a brown tarp, stripped it of its Virginia plates, and hid them” (Krakauer 29). McCandless was not tied to his own possessions, he was happy to leave them in the middle of no where. Through reduction of worldly possessions and materials, the message that both McCandless and Thoreau throw at the readers is to have a simplistic life without the concerns coming from worldly possessions. These possessions deter one from the true meaning of life.
Chris McCandless does not wish to follow defined life structure that society enforces to simply be alive, instead, he chooses to take a seek a path to live a life with purpose. Such an eagerness to seek detachment from what is expected by society, is enforced by not only McCandless but also Thoreau. A primary factor resembling this, is McCandless’ view that many people “live within unhappy circumstances...yet will not change…they are conditioned to a life of security, conformity, and conservatism...damaging to the adventurous spirit(40).” The detesting tone risen through the confliction of “unhappy circumstances” and “damage,” to “safety, conformity and conservation,” emphasis his will to separate from a lifestyle lacking change. This is done
The pilgrims landing on Plymouth Rock has had a number of important impacts on America today. Whether the impacts were positive or negative, it was the pilgrims that had taken the journey to the New World and made the present what it is today. Originating from England, the English were Puritans who believed that the Church of England was in need of spiritual purification. Instead of altering the church, the English set off on a voyage to the New World for new opportunities. The pilgrims could start over and build a new society from scratch without having the chance of having corrupting influences on the Old World. Religion wasn’t the only temptation of going to the New World, there was famine and the taxes in England that made them want to depart to the New World. The New World had the opportunity to obtain rights and then they could live in the society that they had envisioned (Gray, 48).
War is a hard thing to describe. It has benefits that can only be reaped through its respective means. Means that, while necessary, are harsh and unforgiving. William James, the author of “The Moral Equivalent of War”, speaks only of the benefits to be had and not of the horrors and sacrifices found in the turbulent times of war. James bears the title of a pacifist, but he heralds war as a necessity for society to exist. In the end of his article, James presents a “war against nature” that would, in his opinion, stand in war’s stead in bringing the proper characteristics to our people. However, my stance is that of opposition to James and his views. I believe that war, while beneficial in various ways, is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs.
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...
The state of nature will result in a state of war. Besides being nasty, brutish, and short, he also describes the state of war as being solitary and constantly threatening. Although this condition...
According to the statement, “Public opinion is a weak tyrant compared with our own private opinion. What a man thinks of himself, that it is which determines, or rather indicates, his fate,” Thoreau believes that the basis for the success of any person is his/her own individual opinion of himself/herself. Thoreau is the perfect example of his own opinion, based on his time spent living a simple life at Walden Pond. The public had varied opinions of Thoreau’s lifestyle, and Thoreau even addresses some critics in his essay. However, Thoreau himself was very content with his lifestyle, and he believed that his simple lifestyle was far superior compared to the seemingly luxurious lifestyle of men, who actually are in debt and bound to a la...
Hobbes believes that in the state of nature there is a perpetual war of all against all. This perpetual state of war is driven by felicity, the continual success of satisfying human desires. According to Hobbes humans are driven by desires; humans naturally seek that which will benefit them. “There is no such thing as perpetual tranquility of mind while we live here; because life itself is but Motion and can never be without Desire” (Leviathan 129-30). Humans are naturally concerned with themselves, and most importantly with self-preservation. However, Hobbes believes that in a state of nature that which is required for self-preservation will be limited. For that reason there is no such thing as trust in the state of nature. Under these conditions it is rational to believe that whatever you are seeking others are seeking as well. Hobbes argues the state of nature is not violent because humans are cruel, but rather because humans are seeking defense for their preservation (Wolff 12). While people may not always be fighting in the state of nature there is always anticipation for conflict. Since everyone is uncertain about their safety, they are required to fight, as a result all others are also logically required to fight. Hobbes states t...
“"During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man.” In other words, Hobbes theorized that men are naturally evil, and that without a strong force to keep them in check, men would live by “the laws of nature…partiality, pride, revenge and the like.” (Thomas Hobbes.com)
...helter, food, clothing, and fuel for survival. The Market Revolution in the 19th century changed the mindset of copious individuals about their essential needs. With new innovations that make goods cheaper and easily obtainable, people's greed for more possessions grew. However, the incessant growth of one's desires make the individual a "slave" of their desires because they devote their time in earning money to acquire more, thus losing their freedom. Henry David Thoreau agreed that people enslaved themselves to materialistic possessions and often they forget the genuine meaning of living. Faced with the choice of increasing one’s ability to acquire more goods and decreasing one’s needs, Thoreau believed that minimizing one’s desire will lead to favorable account as individuals gain the chance to enjoy the meaning of life and welcome what nature provide them with.
People often debate what the state of nature truly consists of. Some people think the state of nature is separate from the state of war, others believe the states are inseparable. One philosopher who discusses the two States is Thomas Hobbes, who asserts that the two states are inseparable, you cannot have one without the other. Within the state of nature, the state of war is inevitable. According to Hobbes, the state of nature causes us to enter into a state of war because of scarcity, conflict, distrust, and glory. Another philosopher who discusses the two states is a man named John Locke. Locke believes that the two states are separate. Similar to Hobbes, Lock believes that people have the right to preserve themselves in the state of nature.
Hobbes gives three causes for a quarrel between men: competition, diffidence, and glory. From these spawns the State of War which comes when there is not “a common power to keep them all in awe...” (Hobbes 1651, 3).
The three key traits that are discussed are competition, the “equality of ability (which) produces equality of hope for the attaining of our goals” (“Leviathan I” 3); distrust, the mentality of wanting to “increase . . . a man’s power over others . . . as it is necessary to his survival” (“Leviathan I” 4); and glory, that “every man wants his associates to value him as highly as he values himself” (“Leviathan I” 4). Hobbes very importantly establishes that men are created equal, and these traits inevitably exist in their natural states of nature (“Leviathan I” 3). These unavoidable qualities are “principal causes of discord” (“Leviathan I” 3) because they force men to invade for the respective reasons of gain, safety, and reputation on that basis of survival (“Leviathan I” 4). Therefore, Hobbes leads into the bigger argument for a larger entity or state to have sovereignty, because “for as long as men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in the condition known as ‘war’” (“Leviathan I”
The constant state of war is what Hobbes believes to be man’s original state of nature. According to Hobbes, man cannot be trusted in the state of nature. War among men is consequent and nothing can be unjust. Notions of justice and injustice or right and wrong will not hav...