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…
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
...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).
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
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.
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.
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.