Political Philosophy in the 17th Century

957 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Human nature according to Hobbes

The 17th century was a period of time dealing with a drastic change that has veered the world into a new state of affairs. Wars between countries and within countries were at a peak. What solutions were there to fix the mayhem? It was an answer that many philosophers were trying to figure out. This writing assignment's intentions are not on the study of philosophy, but rather on the philosophical figures that have helped mold what the world is today. John Locke, a philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, a political philosopher, and Bishop Bossuet, a theologist and bishop, are three people from the 17th century whose views has set courses in history. Locke, Hobbes, and Bossuet had answers to what kind of government was needed to fit human nature. These characters of history have influenced many regions of the world during its time; to learn what they believed will help explain why.
Locke, Hobbes and Bossuet had different views on human nature. Bossuet, being a bishop, was more favorable towards the religious side. His primary view was based on the scripture that people were created by God and should live their lives in a religious manner. Hobbes had a critically negative view on human nature as he stated that people are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. Locke's view was completely opposite of Hobbes. His view of man was that they were peaceful and happy by nature. What all three men did agree on was the need for a society; that people needed people. Locke felt it was human nature for people to be social with one another. Hobbes felt that uniting people as a group with leadership would be the best way to fix human nature.
All three men knew there was a need for government. Hobbes felt a strong government would fix ...

... middle of paper ...

...the philosopher who had the most ideal methods and beliefs; that humans do need each other naturally to live correctly. Hobbes was correct about people being selfish, but not completely evil human beings. Locke was also correct about why government is needed and the roles that it plays. People of a society should have the right to defend themselves against tyranny. All in all, Locke seemed to be the man who had the right philosophy.

Works Cited

BOSSUET, HOBBES, AND LOCKE." Www3.northern.edu. N.p., 2012. Web. 07 Feb. 2014.
John Locke and the "Treatises on Government"" The Open Door Web Site : History : John Locke and the "Treatises on Government. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Feb. 2014.
Locke and Hobbes, Two Contrasting Views of the English Revolution." Www.iun.edu. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Feb. 2014.
Locke, John. Second Treatise on Government. New York; Dover, 1965.

Show More
Related

  • The Government During the Age of Absolutism and the Enlightenment

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    John Locke was perhaps the best example of someone who rejected the absolute view of government and had views that were radically different from it. Locke believe that people were born reasonable and moral – it was their natur...

    Read More

  • Locke and Publius: Comparing Their Views on Civil Government

    1499 Words  | 3 Pages

    Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration. New York: Courier Dover Publications, 2002.

    Read More

  • The Influence of Locke and Hobbes on Government

    1741 Words  | 4 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have authored two works that have had a significant impact on political philosophy. In the “Leviathan” by Hobbes and “Two Treatises of Government” by Locke, the primary focus was to analyze human nature to determine the most suitable type of government for humankind. They will have confounding results. Hobbes concluded that an unlimited sovereign is the only option, and would offer the most for the people, while for Locke such an idea was without merit. He believed that the government should be limited, ruling under the law, with divided powers, and with continued support from its citizens. With this paper I will argue that Locke had a more realistic approach to identifying the human characteristics that organize people into societies, and is effective in persuading us that a limited government is the best government.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1242 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • John Locke's Second Treatise, Of Civil Government

    731 Words  | 2 Pages

    Review this essay John Locke – Second treatise, of civil government 1. First of all, John Locke reminds the reader from where the right of political power comes from. He expands the idea by saying, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” Locke believes in equality among all people. Since every creature on earth was created by God, no one has advantages over another.

    Read More

  • John Locke's Lasting Impact on Society

    1826 Words  | 4 Pages

    Providing the 17th century world with an alternative, innovative view on philosophy, politics, economics, and education among other interrelated and important aspects of life, John Locke proved to be a person of immense impact. Born in 1632, in Wrington, England, Locke was the author of many known writings which include the Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689), The Two Treaties of Government (1698), A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), and Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693) (Goldie 32). Locke’s writings represent a series of topics involving the purpose of philosophy, the emergence of empiricism, and the role as well as limits of governments and churches in terms of liberty and natural rights. In a time where exposure of such controversial ideas would jeopardize the well-being of an author, it is no wonder that Locke postponed the publishing of his writings until after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. However, what impact did Locke’s ideas have on philosophy?

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Locke: The Power Debate

    1209 Words  | 3 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were seventeenth century political philosophers whose different beliefs stemmed from the different contexts in which each man lived.

    Read More

  • John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract

    1125 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Locke published his Two Treatises of Government in 1690. In his writing Locke argued that individuals had the natural rights of life, liberty and property that the state could never be taken away because these rights were “inalienable.” The natural rights of individuals limited the power of the king. The king did not hold absolute power, but acted only to enforce and protect the natural rights of the people.

    Read More

  • John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1073 Words  | 3 Pages

    Locke believes that humans inherently possess complete and inalienable equality in the state of nature.... ... middle of paper ... ... Locke also has a better argument than Hobbes because Hobbes’ belief that it is necessary to have a supreme ruler in order to prevent the state of war in society is inherently flawed.

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Rousseau, The State of Nature

    1256 Words  | 3 Pages

    Both Hobbes and Rousseau have different even opposing views on the topic of the natural state of man. These views play a major role on their beliefs and reasoning for why man needs society and government. These beliefs can be easily summarized with Hobbes believing in an inherent selfishness and competition in man, whereas Rousseau’s views on things is far more positive, believing that man is far happier in his natural state, and the root of his corruption is the result of his entrance into society. Rousseau’s theory is based on a state prior to the formation of society and any form of government. Thomas Hobbes, the founding father of political philosophy and who was in great opposition to the natural state of man, emphasizes that all people are selfish and evil; the lack of governmental structure is what results in a state of chaos, only to be resolved by an authority figure. 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 controlled 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.

    Read More

  • Locke And Rousseau: Breaking The State Of Law In The Civil Society

    725 Words  | 2 Pages

    The right of revolution was provided to those in Locke’s society as he did not believe in giving the government absolute power. He was against this because an absolute monarch does not provide separate powers to file grievances in the event that an appeal of injury was needed. Locke believed in the rule of the majority. If the majority felt that the government was not protecting their natural rights or acting in their best interest they had a right and a duty to engage in revolution. Rousseau believes in republicanism where they are ruled by the will of the people. Once everyone in this society agrees to the contract, the general will is made and agreed upon by all in the society, and everyone must abide by said will. Rousseau believed the more active we are in society, the

    Read More

  • Political Philosophy

    1755 Words  | 4 Pages

    Aristotle, Locke, and Hobbes all place a great deal of importance on the state of nature and how it relates to the origin of political bodies. Each one, however, has a different conception of what a natural state is, and ultimately, this leads to a different conception of what a government should be, based on this natural state. Aristotle’s feelings on the natural state of man is much different than that of modern philosophers and leads to a construction of government in and of itself; government for Hobbes and Locke is a departure from the natural state of man.

    Read More

  • Comparing Thomas Hobbes And Locke's Theory Of Government

    1460 Words  | 3 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two English philosophers who were very similar thinkers. They both studies at Oxford, and they both witnessed the civil Revolution. The time when they lived in England influenced both of their thoughts as the people were split into two groups, those whom though the king should have absolute power, and the other half whom thought people could govern themselves. However Hobbes and Locke both rejected the idea of divine right, such as there was no one person who had the right from God to rule. They both believed in the dangers of state of nature, they thought without a government there is more chance of war between men. However their theories differ, Hobbes theories are based on his hypothetical ideas of the state

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and the Realist School

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Thomas Hobbes The Collapse Of The Omnipotent Sovereign

    1127 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, Hobbes introduces a fundamentally novel concept of the roots of politics and civic government. His ideas are based on his own views of human nature, which he believes to be disturbingly chaotic if left without structure. Hobbes believes, that the only way to guarantee society’s peace and security from such chaotic nature, is to establish a sovereign to rule over the commonwealth. Therefore, he proposes that the most practical and efficient sovereign is one that is all powerful with unlimited rights. However, although Hobbes’ mostly well-reasoned ideas create this ideal omnipotent sovereign, there are a few problems with his argument that cause it to fail; mainly because human nature does not allow for the cultivation of a covenant, the assumptions that Hobbes makes of the omnipotent sovereign is improbable if not impossible, and finally, Hobbes’ ideas regarding the rights of the sovereign are contradictory to some of his other political ideas.

    Read More

More about Political Philosophy in the 17th Century

Open Document