Man Is by Nature a Political Animal

Hobbes argues that "Man is by Nature a Political Animal". The question that asks itself after this is whether an interpretation targets the intention of Hobbes in defining human as animal; and more importantly, how did this very animal evolve into a social component?In the introduction of Hobbes' "Leviathan", he discusses the State of Nature, saying that people in their "natural" primal state would only contribute in making laws of the jungle, where the strongest feasts upon the weak. He says that the human-being, once reverted to premitivity (the State of Nature), will be exposed under his real form; an animal, but a Political one. Animals are known of being brainless, but how can they be Political? Because the human-being will follow his instincts, regardless of how rused or talented he or she might be. One choses his own interest over the rest's, naturally and without further thinking so to speak. That very animal is able to make social bonds, to create communities, to wage wars, to kill, to plunder, to do very aweful things for his own interest, totally neglecting the other's role in the plot. This is ultimately what Hobbes' Political Animal is referring to; the fact that Man is by nature an evil, egocentric being who strives to make bonds only to serve his purposes, no more and no less, through political ruses.However, taking into consideration the natural imp in ourselves, individuals nowadays are trying to prove Hobbes wrong, creating Political parties to serve communities, and even a country's Sovereign does not (or is trying not to) see his community as mindless sheep who are merely following, in a beastly way, their leader. Life has a purpose now, for each one of us, there are still Political Animals out there, yet their number decreases as we speak; they're being left alone, reverting back to the isolation they knew before they were even created.

Salaam & Gd Mornin everybodyin "History Of Ideas" we have 3 philosophersPlato wiv his book "The