More handpicked essays just for you.
Thomas Hobbes and Aristotle common differences
The life and works of Socrates
The life and works of Socrates
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 …show more content…
his survival, this, for Hobbes, was lunatic because the sole purpose of a government is to safeguard and preserve the well-being of it’s citizens; if the government fails to do so, the citizens have each and every right to break the “social contract” and resist death. Socrates was a well-known teacher that asked questions about the world around him and exposed flaws/contradictions in people’s arguments. Due to this, Socrates was infamously accused for corrupting Athenian youth and teaching false religion by going against the Gods of Athens. After Socrates’ failed at his “apology” (his defense), he was found guilty and put to death. While awaiting his death sentence, Socrates was visited by an old friend, Crito, who urged Socrates to escape from prison. Socrates, however, played the role of Athenian laws and insisted that he must die in order to respect the laws. Thomas Hobbes, on the other hand, composed the “Leviathan” to demonstrate his perspective on the state of nature, government, and self-preservation. He believed the state of nature was a “pre-political” condition in which rough equality and conflict dictated the world. Man was always at war with man due to competition, diffidence, and glory; the only way to unite men was through fear of death and desire for comfort. As a result, Hobbes’ laws of nature induced a “social contract” in which men surrender their rights, excluding self-preservation, to the sovereign so that the sovereign can protect society and secure peace. The only right to disobey or resist the sovereign is on the eve of one’s execution or when one is certain to die in warfare. Socrates, first, contradicts Hobbes’ view of self-preservation by accepting death from the sovereign. If Socrates questioned everything and everyone, why did he not question his own death? Socrates’ justifies his death by proclaiming, "If you cannot persuade your country you must do whatever it orders, and patiently submit to any punishment that it imposes." (51b) If Hobbes were to respond, he would never agree to such a foolish claim because Hobbes’ devised an argument that men have given up their “love of liberty” and “dominion of others” just for the sole intent of “their own preservation” and getting out “of the miserable condition of war.” (106) Why then would men, knowingly, ever foster a relationship with a government that wishes harm among them? Moreover, Socrates, according to Hobbes’, was an imbecile for not taking an advantage of Crito’s assistance to escape death. Although Socrates makes an argument that if he were to break free from prison, he would be breaking the rules of Athens and therefore shattering the “social contract” (50b), Hobbes’ would argue the “social contract” has no significance once one is sentenced to death. Instead, this alone validates Socrates’ own death-wish. Had he pay heed to his own survival and done everything in his power to stay alive, Socrates may have lived to write his own tale. Socrates, next, contradicts Hobbes’ view of self-preservation by blindly obeying to the government without asking for his right of protection.
If Socrates was such a constant critic of the government, then why did he never question the Athenian government what his rights as a citizen were? Socrates’ claimed he was “gadfly” who “was attached to this city by the god” (30e) but he never critiqued what the implications of the relationship between the government and citizens were. In Socrates’ perspective, if one chooses to live in Athens, then one is implicitly agreeing and abiding the Laws of Athens (52b.) Although Hobbes’ may agree with this point to some extent, the sole intent of a covenant in which “every man should say to every man ‘I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man’” (109) was to protect oneself from harm/death. For Hobbes, the relationship between government and citizens was mutual; the government would acquire power and authority only if citizens were guaranteed protection and defense. For Socrates, the relationship between government and citizens was one-sided; the government should have complete dominance and citizens should blindly obey the government’s commands if one is unable to persuade the government on how to rule. For this reason, Socrates’ had no care for his self-preservation as he was only concerned with the government’s best
interest. Socrates, thirdly, contradicts Hobbes’ view of self-preservation by not thoroughly comprehending the premises of Athenian law. If Socrates insisted that the Laws of Athens symbolized parents and the citizens symbolized children, then wouldn’t Socrates death represent parents that killed their own child? Socrates makes an audacious argument that Athenian laws have given citizens “birth, nurtured [them], educated [them] given…all the good things we could.” (51d) On the other hand, Hobbes’ believes there would be no such idea of a government if it was not for the transfer of rights from an individual. According to Hobbes’, the only motive of “transferring of right [was] the security of a man’s person in his life and in the means of so preserving life.” (82) Thus, Socrates is mistaken when he believes the government are the parents; the true parents are the citizens for they have sacrificed and transferred their rights to the government and permitted their consent for the government to rule. However, if one was still to argue Socrates’ case that the government are the true parents, then is it natural, moral, or ethically right for parents to unjustly kill their child? Parents are required to keep their children safe, secured, and sheltered just as how the government is required to keep their citizens safe, secured, and sheltered. In essence, Socrates’ contradicts Thomas Hobbes’ view of self-preservation by compromising his own self-preservation to the government, who were obliged to maintain the well-being of Socrates’. More specifically, Socrates’ contradicts Hobbes’s view of self-preservation by accepting his death, blindly obeying the sovereign, and not entirely understanding the Athenian laws. As a result, readers are urged to maintain their self-preservation at any cost and fight for our own protection, autonomy, and contentment to avoid what had occurred to Socrates.
In “The Apology” and “Euthyphro”, Plato creates a picture of the principles Socrates has on philosophy and wisdom. Since there are know direct pieces of literature written by Socrates, all of the information about him are composed by other Philosophers who encountered him. So when I refer to Socrates, it means the character depicted by Plato. I will argue that some important characteristics of philosophy and being a philosopher is evident by comparing Socrates with Euthyphro because of how he sees knowledge is obtained combined with the impact with which religion has on society.
In Walter Mosley’s Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, the reader is introduced to Socrates Fortlow, an ex-convict who served twenty-seven years for murder and rape. Fortlow is plagued by guilt and, seeing the chaos in his town, feels a need to improve not only his own standards of living, but also those of others in Watts. He attempts this by teaching the people in Watts the lessons he feels will resolve the many challenges the neighbourhood faces. The lessons Fortlow teaches and the methods by which he teaches them are very similar to those of the ancient Greek philosopher for whom Fortlow was named: “‘We was poor and country. My mother couldn’t afford school so she figured that if she named me after somebody smart then maybe I’d get smart’” (Mosley, 44). Though the ancient Greek was born to be a philosopher and Fortlow assumed the philosopher role as a response to the poor state of his life and Watts, both resulted in the same required instruction to their populations. The two Socrates’ both utilize a form of teaching that requires their pupil to become engaged in the lesson. They emphasize ethics, logic, and knowledge in their instruction, and place importance on epistemology and definitions because they feel a problem cannot be solved if one does not first know what it is. Socrates was essential in first introducing these concepts to the world and seemed to be born with them inherent to his being, Fortlow has learned the ideals through life experience and is a real-world application in an area that needs the teachings to get on track. While the two men bear many similarities, their differences they are attributed primarily as a result of their circumstances provide the basis of Fortlow’s importance in Watts and as a modern-...
Socrates refuses to disobey the law. He believes in the correctness of the cities laws. He believes it is never right to act unjustly. He thinks that if you do not agree with the laws of the area that you are living at, then to leave and go somewhere else. He argues that the government could be seen as “his parents, also those who brought him up,” (Crito, 51e), since he has lived there his entire life and when you live somewhere for so long you should “persuade us or to do what we say,” (Crito, 52a) or leave. Socrates tells Crito that
Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence “seems” just, but after further consideration, we find that his escape would be as fruitless as his death, and that in some sense, Socrates owes his obedience to whatever orders Athens gives him since he has benefited from his citizenship.
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.
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.
...litical figure came close to challenging Socrates' unique philosophical plan. In the Republic, Socrates' ideas of how ignorant a democracy is, is portrayed in the Apology when Socrates' proclamation resulted in death. A democracy is supposed to be about individuality and freedom, however it was contradicted when Socrates was put to death because he had ideas for a better system of ruling. He wanted a ruler to be somebody who would see truth, not shunning certain ideas and keeping others solely because it is not understood. These ideas are portrayed in both excerpts.
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.
This paper highlights a few fallacies that surround Socrates’ ideas about acting against unjust government.
The formation of government is one of the central themes for both Hobbes and Locke. Whether or not men naturally form a government, or must form a government, is based on man’s basic nature. According to Hobbes, a government must be formed to preserve life and prevent loss of property. According to Locke, a government arises to protect life and property. Governments are born of inequality and formed to administer equality.
The concept of justice has been a crucial factor in determining governments and the structure of society. In this essay I will argue two thinkers, Thrasymachus and Hobbes, as represented in the writings of The Republic, by Plato and Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes divergent ideas on justice.
Thomas Hobbes is frequently credited as being a forefather to modern liberalism. With his beliefs on individualism, along with his agreeance and acceptance of intellectual and moral autonomy it is easy to understand why many modern liberals would agree with Hobbes’s political philosophy. However, Thomas Hobbes does not support the concept of a democratic government, rather he supported the notion of a absolutist government up until his death. Special attention must be given to Hobbes’s denial that autonomy can be thought of, or conceived as, a form of self-government. It is important to take note that Hobbes’s argument against democracy is significantly more exhaustive than merely autonomy. Hobbes believes that democracy cannot work as a form of government due to numerous reasons, three of which will be the focus of this paper. Initially, we will lay a foundation to demonstrate how democracy is not equal to other forms of government, rather it acts more like a launch point for other, more preferable, types of government regimes. Secondly, we will demonstration that democracy reproduces the instability and despair that is accustom with, and found in, the state of nature, which is contradictory to the entire idea of a sovereign. And finally we will establish that while Hobbes consents to and also protects intellectual and moral autonomy, the notion of autonomy, in its political form, as self-government (which may be taken to imply democracy), cannot work because of its contradictory nature. This is a result of the notion, that government, for Hobbes, is responsible for the creation and subsequent enforcement of the laws. Hence, these reasons put forth by Hobbes, in addition to the arguments that will be made against ...
citizen holds the right of self-preservation as the fundamental value of their society; and Hobbes is
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.