Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Hobbes’ view of human nature
Hobbes theory on human nature
Essay on human nature
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Hobbes’ view of human nature
Henry Miller, a famous American writer, once said “Man has demonstrated that he is a master of everything except his own nature.” The discourse on human nature dates back to ancient times, and this conversation is as complex as it was since the beginning. Considering that this is an abstract topic and a major theme in Western philosophy, there is no unanimous understanding of human nature. For example, Hobbes describes the original state as a constant state of war filled with misery, greed and evil. Rousseau describes natural man to be peaceful, timid and innocent. People like Rousseau would argue that civilization is miserable, and that human nature is a perfect place to escape from civilization because man is free and more equal in the …show more content…
Since most people get their truth through the senses, human nature is uncertain because the senses sometimes are unreliable. The senses are deceptive especially when our experiences are just dreams, not sense perceptions. The “dream argument” by Descartes is a perfect example. What happened in the “Dream argument” is that the Mediator dreamed of clothing in dress gown, but the reality is that he was actually undressed in bed. The only way of knowing the truth is by waking up because it is very difficult to differentiate a dream moment from a waking moment when asleep. The idea of experiencing real things in our dreams, while we actually aren’t is the reason why our senses deceive. Watching the sunrise and sunset is another good example of sense deception. When we see sunrise and sunset, it seems like the sun is moving. I assume that the sun moves because I can see it …show more content…
By deeming that nothing is certain and recognizing that our senses are false, this is a step to prove that “I” exist. Following the logic of sense deception and the idea that nothing is certain, there has to be a material thing that doubts and is deceived. According to Descartes in the Second Meditation, that material thing is “I,” thus “I am, I exist.” Since the material thing (body) is known, what is the material conceptually made of? I believe that the doubting thing, “I,” has knowledge that depends on things that are certain, but it can also sense (simulate images of things). Supporting my argument that humans need reason to prove their existence, I quote Descartes when he says “I would seem to be speaking no less foolishly were I to say: I will use my imagination in order to recognize more distinctly who I am.” In this quotation, Descartes reiterates my previous point that sensing is unreliable and that reason is the only way to knowing our existence. Since we need reason to determine our existence, it means that human is a “thinking thing” because it “doubts, understands, affirm, denies, wills, refuses and imagines.” The “Wax argument” is a good example of why reason is essential. The Wax argument is a theory that discusses the different conditions of wax. Wax has a distinct form when it is solid but melt when close to fire. Without reason how will I know
Machiavelli and Rousseau, both significant philosophers, had distinctive views on human nature and the relationship between the government and the governed. Their ideas were radical at the time and remain influential in government today. Their views on human nature and government had some common points and some ideas that differed.
Jean Jacques Rousseau in On Education writes about how to properly raise and educate a child. Rousseau's opinion is based on his own upbringing and lack of formal education at a young age. Rousseau depicts humanity as naturally good and becomes evil because humans tamper with nature, their greatest deficiency, but also possess the ability to transform into self-reliant individuals. Because of the context of the time, it can be seen that Rousseau was influenced by the idea of self-preservation, individual freedom, and the Enlightenment, which concerned the operation of reason, and the idea of human progress. Rousseau was unaware of psychology and the study of human development. This paper will argue that Rousseau theorizes that humanity is naturally good by birth, but can become evil through tampering and interfering with nature.
Human nature has been debated for centuries, everyone coming up with their own theories, pulling their sources from religious texts, wars, experiments, or daily life. William Golding and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, born in very different times and countries were very opposite in their views compared to one another. William Golding believed that human nature was immoral and evil, and there has been evidence of this all the way to the beginning of human society. Without laws or moral boundaries, humans would plunder, steal, and murder to their hearts content, delighting in their new found freedom to let go of social philosophies imposed upon them. Rousseau, however, believed that human nature was naturally just and moral, and it was society’s laws that made them immoral. Social norms and laws create limitation and superfluous need, and it is within those boundaries that humans become enslaved to “moral inequality.” Without laws and social norms, humans will revert back to their natural goodness. It is the polar opposite of Golding’s belief. Golding’s philosophy, however, is more in line to my own, as in my opinion, Rousseau’s belief is a rather naïve outlook on life.
The Freedom of Individual Citizens in Rousseau’s State “While uniting himself with all, [each associate] may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before."[1 ] While Rousseau would claim that citizens in his state are free, much of the criticism levelled against him is precisely because his state is seen as authoritarian and against individual diversity. Rousseau’s state is one created by all citizens in their own interests and therefore guided by the ‘general will’, whereby laws are made to promote the public rather than the private good. All citizens take an active part in decision-making and are required to adhere to the ‘general will’. Sovereignty is a key word in examining Rousseau’s state as it is held by the inalienable and indivisible body politic that acts in accordance with the ‘general will’.
Descartes explains that, “For in the case of trickery or deception some imperfection is to be found; and although the ability to deceive appears to be an indication of cleverness or power, the will to deceive is undoubtedly evidence of malice or weakness, and so cannot apply to God” (Descartes 43). I agree that if God is a perfect being that truly exists, he would not have any reason to deceive humans, and that humans are imperfect because of our own volitions and poor judgement. However this still does not make clear and distinct perceptions true. Again, even if God is not deceiving us, our minds still can. Additionally, this point only makes sense in Descartes’ definition of God, which, again, is merely an assumption. Descartes gives a sound explanation on why God is not a deceiver, however that does not immediately make it true that everything should not be doubted just because we can perceive it clearly.
One of Rene Descartes’s most famous arguments, from his not only from his first meditation but all of the meditations, is his Dream Argument. Descartes believes that there is no way to be able to distinguish being in awake from being in a state of dreaming. In fact you could actually be in a dream right now. Rene Descartes’s theory that one is unable distinguish being awake from dreaming, as interesting as it is, can be at times a little farfetched, along with a few contradictions to himself, Descartes’s dream argument does not entitle himself to any sort of claim.
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.
Theories of human nature, as the term would ever so subtly suggest, are at best only individual assertions of the fundamental and intrinsic compositions of mankind, and should be taken as such. Indeed it can be said that these assertions are both many and widespread, and yet too it can be said that there are a select few assertions of the nature of man that rise above others when measured by historical persistence, renown, and overall applicability. These eclectic discourses on the true nature of man have often figured largely in theories of political science, typically functioning as foundational structures to broader claims and arguments. The diversification of these ideological assertions, then, would explain the existence of varying theories
In the state of nature, mankind has utmost freedoms to do whatever he or she wants. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government contends that the state of nature is the state of equality, where all are free to do as they please. But in this situation, men do not have the benefits of an established government. Security, privacy, and stable resources are provided not by the government, but by an individuals ability to secure such amenities. According to Swiss philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, those in the state of nature may form a mutually beneficial contract in order to survive. This contract entails creating a government or political authority that would provide for the general body in exchange for some of their natural freedoms. But according to Locke, true equality is in the state of nature, and so an established system would not be fair and equal in regulating an individual’s freedom. Rousseau’s The Social Contract aims to counter this by determining a government that not only upholds liberty, but creates true
Human Nature is made up of many different things, from the choices a person makes and how they feel about making these choices, to how they are thinking when these choices are being made by them. In the world of political philosophy there have been many different views on this very topic. Views from Philosophers such as Machiavelli, Locke, Plato and, Rousseau all try to give the best understanding of human nature. All of these philosophers are intelligent and have hard far into their work to prove their work on human nature but they all have a different understanding of what the truest meaning of this actually is. In Machiavelli’s book The Prince he does an outstanding job of portraying what human nature actually is. Man is selfish according to Machiavelli and I believe that this is the truest of all Philosophies on human nature, in this essay I will develop an argument that supports why Machiavelli has the most correct understanding of Human nature by breaking down his book and also comparing it to John Locke and his book The Second Treatise of Government. Even though both views of human nature between Locke and Machiavelli have many similarities I will prove that Machiavelli has the most true account of this Philosophy.
According to Rousseau’s On the Social Contract, the general will is a collectively held common good or common interest (Rousseau 167). The general will is vital in Rousseau’s theory because the legislation must create laws that promote the general will of the public. To Rousseau, the sovereign’s main goal is to find the general will of society and create laws that promote the general will. Rousseau’s theory also includes that public discourse causes the legislation to stray from the general will (Rousseau 180). Rousseau did not want public discourse in his society because he believed too many particular wills in society would cloud the legislation and assembly from passing laws that promoted the general will. I agree with Rousseau’s argument
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.
Rousseau like Hobbes and lock distinguished between what is natural and what is constructed by society. He argues that other philosophers do not go back far enough in describing the state of nature, Hobbes and Locke describe civilized, competitive men corrupted by civilization, rather than describing true natural state of humans. Even though Rousseau acknowledges that the state of nature is a hypothetical idea he believes that one must explain how life was before society in order to really understand and know how to construct a fair and equal society.
In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes talks about his views of human nature and describes his vision of the ideal government which is best suited to his views.
Human nature gives individuals the ability to be unique and is, therefore, an entirely good thing. Human nature consists of the general inclinations and behavioral patterns of God’s most important creation, man. Part of God’s perfect creation, human nature is innately good. Although human nature is a general term, God uses human nature to specifically create each person in his image and likeness. God meticulously sculpts each man, giving every person a distinct set of qualities and traits unlike any other individual. With our human nature, we can revel in our individuality as perfect aspects of God’s plan for humanity.