The topic chosen for this paper is on Immanuel Kant’s ([1784]) What is Enlightenment? and Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan ([1651] 2009). It examines their beliefs on the Enlightenment movement and the role it plays in society. It is obvious that Hobbes and Kant have many disagreements on this subject however there are parts in which they share similar views. Kant believes that Enlightenment is a positive progression as it promotes individuals to express their thoughts and allows for freely speaking ones mind. Hobbes however does not agree with the statements made by Kant as he supports control over society in order to prevent anarchy. Although the two philosophers disagree on certain aspects, they do agree that there is a limit to which mankind may express their views.
Throughout the 18th century, the Enlightenment movement was a much debated issue among philosophers specifically because it allowed society to freely speak their opinion. In What is Enlightenment?, Immanuel Kant ([1784]) explains that members of society should have the freedom to argue
…show more content…
and discuss controversial matters with each other in hopes of progressing society in a positive manner. Kant ([1784]) suggests this by stating, “ The public use of man’s reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men; the private use of reason may quite often be very narrowly restricted, however, without undue hindrance to the progress of enlightenment” (para. 5). He is saying that if one is open and free about what they do and say, then men will become enlightened but concealing these things will suppress the progression of freedom and enlightenment. Therefore, this statement supports Kant’s belief that the enlightenment is an excellent and positive philosophical movement that allows for freedom of speech. In contrast to the points above, Thomas Hobbes ([1651] 2009) argues in Leviathan that freely discussing problems within society such as moral issues should not be allowed among individual members of the public. He suggests that one sole individual such as the king or the state be responsible for the voices of society in hopes of not having social destruction. Within the text Hobbes ([1651] 2009) states “ No Man Can Without Injustice Protest Against The Institution Of The Soveraigne Declared By the Major Part”(chp 17, pt.3). In explanation to the content that is embedded in this quote, Hobbes ([1651] 2009) is suggesting that mankind should not openly discuss and decide on serious matters as it could result in war as well as other negative outcomes on society. Instead, he believes that authority should never be challenged because the people decided on the sovereign power and must obey by it. It is evident when comparing Thomas Hobbes ([1651] 2009) and Immanuel Kant’s ([1784]) ideas on public debate that they are in disagreement on freedom of speech within the Enlightenment movement. The stance that is drawn from Kant’s([1784]) What is Enlightenment? is that discourse among the public will promote the growth of society. He says that “for enlightenment of this kind, all that is needed is freedom. And the freedom in question is the most innocuous form of all - freedom to make public use of one’s reason in all matters.” Essentially, Kant [1784]) is arguing that it is ideal for society to openly communicate their thoughts and opinions but this contradicts Hobbes ([1651] 2009) argument. In contrast, Hobbes ([1651] 2009) has a negative view of freedom of public debate. The message that is taken from Leviathan claims that mankind is selfish, evil and secretly uncivilized. With that being said, Hobbes ([1651] 2009) believes that if humans were to openly and freely debate and argue it would cause disagreement resulting in anarchy such as civil war. He believes that it is not in our human nature to peacefully conduct ourselves in a manner suggested by Kant ([1784]) therefore, Hobbes ([1651] 2009) believes only one ruler has a voice in moral conduct over society. Overall, it is apparent that Kant is a supporter of the enlightenment whereas Hobbes is not. From reading Leviathan and What Is Enlightenment? it may seem that Kant and Hobbes’ philosophies on the Enlightenment movement do not align. However that is not the case. Since Kant ([1784]) is writing in response to a question that was asked by Reverend Johann Fredrick Zollner, an official in King Fredrick’s government (Wells, Kant/Plato, Lecture September 24 2015) he must keep in mind the audience of What is Enlightenment?. He states “Argue as much as you like, but obey!” (Kant[1784] para 5.). Essentially, the message is that society is free to discuss what they would like but the decisions regarding society, its function and rules, are ultimately up to the state and ruler. The idea of this allows for sovereign rulers to take into account the voices of their people, but most importantly decide what is in the best interest of the state and the ruler regardless of the public discourse. Similar to Kant’s ([1784]) position on this subject, Hobbes ([1651] 2009) believes that individuals should not have a voice of reason nor reject the ideas put forward on them by their ruler. Within Leviathan, it is stated that “..amongst men there are very many that think themselves wiser and abler to govern the public better than the rest, and these strive to reform and innovate, one this way, another that way; and thereby bring it into distraction and civil war.” (chp 17, pt.3). Hobbes ([1651] 2009) point is that there are many individuals whom believe they have the intellect to influence society but ultimately society must listen and obey the decisions of the government. This is to ensure civil actions on people or else there will be punishment. Hobbes’ goal is to protect society through the safety and security of the government in order to prevent social anarchy and if people act out of the grasp of the rulers control, there will be a price to pay. Although these two philosophers have different ideas and opinions on the function of society and the nature of how man should progress in relation to society, they do agree on sovereign power over people. Kant ([1784]) is an obvious supporter of the Enlightenment movement and that free discourse among individuals will promote the growth of society. He also believes that there is a suitable time and suitable length to which public debate may digress. In What is Enlightenment? Kant ([1784]) states “I term the private use of reason is that which a person may make of it in a particular civil post or office with which he is entrusted.” Kant ([1784]) suggests that one must obey their superiors, specifically in a government or private setting because as individuals who decided on the sovereign ruler they must respect and obey the voice of reason in order to maintain social order. There is exceptions to where public debate may take place which he suggests is not in the workplace as individuals are to respect their superiors. Hobbes ([1651] 2009) has a more extreme view on this subject. He certainly agrees with Kant’s ([1784]) stance on the voice of reason of society but Hobbes ([1651] 2009) then takes it a violent step further by stating that “If he that attempteth to despose his Soveraign, be killed, or punished by him for such attempt, he is the author of his own punishment … And because it is injustice for a man to do any thing, for which he may be punished by his own authority.” Not only does Hobbes ([1651] 2009) state that men must follow their sovereign ruler but he also believes that oppressing the voices of individuals is necessary to maintain order and avoid the destructive state of nature that he believes to be true. Unlike Kant ([1784]), Hobbes ([1651] 2009) may not seem to be a supporter of the enlightenment but similarities on the subject matter can be found in both writers work. In conclusion, the topic of enlightenment is a controversial topic that is covered in both Thomas Hobbes and Immanuel Kant’s writings.
They do not share the same views on the majority of issues within the enlightenment movie but I believe that there are similarities between the two. Overall I believe that Kant has a more realistic and optimistic approach and therefore I support his arguments in comparison to Hobbes. This is because I believe that in order for society to become more advanced, mankind must be positive, supportive and free to speak how they feel. It shows the intelligence of society and the prospective ways in which we as a whole can progress. Hobbes however has a more natural approach and does not see humans to be able to behave in a way that Kant suggests. He believes that overall control will prevent enlightenment and suppressing mankind’s voice, which does not promote the growth of societies
intelligence.
Unlike previous centuries, the eighteenth century was the dawn of a new age in Western Europe where intellectuals thrived, science was honored, and curiosity was encouraged; and the framework of how civil society was changed as a whole. From the dawn of the Enlightenment, Western European culture was changing due to the revolutionary new ideas that were changing. With the social change going on, political change was as evident as time went on. With these changes rooted in social change, the effects of the Enlightenment can be seen over 18th century Western Europe and beyond. Towards the late 1780s the late German Philosopher Immanuel Kant described the Enlightenment as, “Man leaving his self caused immaturity” ( Spiel Vogel 503).
During the Enlightenment, it was a time when educated intellectuals came together to discuss political, religious, economic, and social questions. From these discussions some people questioned the types of monarchies and which would be better for the society. These people were revolutionary thinkers that became known as philosophes, or philosophers, who brought new ideas on how to better understand and improve their society. They were all modern thinkers who had the best interest in society. Although each philosopher had their own individual ideas, they all focused on one common theme, which was equality and human rights.
Mini-Q Essay A time period known as The Age of Reason or The Enlightenment was when philosophy, politics, science and social communications changed drastically. It helped shape the ideas of capitalism and democracy, which is the world we live in today. People joined together to discuss areas of high intellect and creative thoughts. The Enlightenment was a time period in which people discussed new ideas, and educated people, known as philosophers, all had a central idea of freedom of choice and the natural right of individuals. These philosophers include John Locke, Voltaire, Adam Smith, and Mary Wollstonecraft.
Even though they both believed that men naturally have to some extent equality and freedom, what makes their concepts differ is the presence or absence of the natural law. In Hobbes' theory, men at their natural state are at constant war, the war of all against all. Another Hobbes' belief is that most people are selfish and tend to do everything for their own reason. To Hobbes humans are driven to maximize personal gains so in a world where there are no rules humans are in constant fear of each other as they each try to get as much as they can, enough is never enough. Men act in basically the same ways to get what we desire and if two men desire the same things then they inevitably become enemies, no...
After the Reformation the notion of democracy began to seep into European society, bringing with it the liberation of individual religious conscience and property. It was at this point in history, institutions realized they could no longer attempt to unify belief. Immanuel Kant, an enlightenment philosopher, argued in his essay entitled “What Is Enlightenment?” that prior oppression of thought was the direct result of laziness and cowardice in European society. Hence, as Europe transitioned into an era of enlightenment it was almost as if European society was shaking off their “self-caused immaturity” and “incapacity to use one’s intelligence.” The enlightenment in many ways represented a departure from common practice and the arrival of creativity and
The Enlightenment in the Eighteenth century was an era that emphasized individual freedom and autonomy. Two important thinkers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, contributed to ideas about constructing a community at the end of the Scientific Revolution in the Seventeenth century that is made up of individuals. Hobbes composed an essay entitled, Leviathan, published in 1651, that addresses the negativity of human nature, and the movement towards governing through an absolute ruler. Locke’s essay Of Civil Government, published in 1690, portrays human nature as inherently good and equal, and devises a government that promotes these human rights of every individual. A community is made of individuals, therefore
Socrates and Thomas Hobbes, two independent philosophers of two independent eras, both had divergent beliefs of government and citizen. Socrates’ whole life was persuading and disagreeing with common beliefs and questioning everything and everyone - except his own death since he had no comprehension of “self-preservation.” Hobbes, however, believed people had to give up the right to question in order for the sovereign to protect the commonwealth. The life and death of Socrates contradicts Thomas Hobbes’s view of self-preservation because ultimately, Socrates defied protecting himself and died in the hands of his own government. Although Socrates might argue that his death was justified because he failed to persuade the Athenian government for
The Enlightenment was an astonishing time of transformation in Europe. During this time in the eighteenth century there was a progressive movement that was labeled by its criticism of the normal religious, social, and political perceptions. A number of significant thinkers, with new philosophies, had inspired creativeness and change. These thinkers had many different thoughts and views on people and the way they act, and views on the government. Two well-known and most influential thinkers of this time were the English political philosopher John Locke and the French political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. These two men had laid down some of the intellectual grounds of the modern day government and both had different opinions on what the government’s role in a society.
Clearly, though both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke share similar social contracts, with regards to representation and the role of the government, their views are radically different, stemming from their sharply contrasting views on the State of Nature. Although they had radically opposing viewpoints when it came to the role of government, both Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Two Treatise of Government were instrumental references in the forming the American government and political spectrum. Predictably, Hobbes’ extremely cynical-in-a-PTSD views on the State of Nature (and thus government) were less regarded, in favor of Locke’s more moderate views on government and towards humanity in general.
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.
...ns. Hobbes, insist that the nature of mankind is a state of savagery if left to its own device and the amalgamation of people under the confines of law allows people to seek the peace they thirst for. On the contrary Rousseau advocates that people are a naturally social species, and the submission to a greater good of the community by parting with their born rights is paramount to the superfluidity of the society. Both essentially agree that giving up natural right for the civil liberties within the state is a necessary exchange for the preservation of both the individual and the state itself.
The 17th and 18th centuries in Europe are often known as The Age of Reason or Enlightenment. Characterized mostly by the rise of empiricism and scientific awakening, this period and its literature also explored themes of social upheaval, personal status, political satire, geographical exploration and the comparison between the states of men in a civilized society, the last being done extensively through the work of philosophers, particularly John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Although both were from England came early during the enlightenment, Hobbes and Locke took very different approaches in their political philosophies (Bristow).
Therefore to conclude we can say that it is therefore evident that Hobbes’ idea of the state as such can fit thoughts for individual freedoms. His authoritarian Leviathan is only the way in which society should be organised; it by no means implies that the individual is to behave like a machine driven by the state, this idea would fit the idea of communism better than Hobbes’ Leviathan. His main thought on the relation between individual rights and the well-functioning of the state is that the people should be enabled to posses these rights as long as they respect the fact that they have been given these rights. In other words the status quo should be maintained, law and order being enforced accordingly and the individual will have rights that, controlled by the state, will enable the sovereignty to be organised, prosperous and peaceful.
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.