Research Paper On Thomas Hobbes

How can an individual know where their thoughts come from? Was their perception of the world passed down to them from their parents, or is an individual born with certain thoughts and opinions? Between the 16th and 18th centuries, many people began to think about these questions. In 1651, an English political philosopher named Thomas Hobbes published a book on the nature of man, titled The Leviathan. Four decades later, another English thinker named John Locke published his theories about mankind in its natural state, titled Second Treatise of Civil Government. Locke’s and Hobbes’s controversial writings about mankind sparked a new era of political philosophy, called the Enlightenment. An intellectual elite, Philosophes, arose in France. In
His writing is focused on the evils of mankind, as well as the government’s role in preventing man from reverting back to the competitive behavior that he is condemned to. Thomas Hobbes believed that humans could not live in peace and harmony as other creatures do, because “men are continually in competition for honour and dignity... and consequently amongst men there ariseth on that ground, envy and hatred, and finally war…” Additionally, man’s joy “consisteth in comparing himself with other men, [and] can relish nothing but what is eminent.” In any revolution, there is a constant battle for who will become the next leader. The first post-revolution leader can effect major changes, because they are responsible for setting a new precedent in leadership style. They are also able to rebuild the system themselves. And as a result of the all the “eminent” power available that men are obsessed with, many men are tempted by the idea of becoming the leviathan, therefore they must compete to decide who takes the position. So, during a time of civil war, this “envy and hatred” between men is at its peak. It seems natural then, that a man surrounded by this competition and war, could conclude that competition must be mankind’s natural state. From his perspective, this natural state of war came after the downfall of a steady government, and so he believed
John Locke believed that an ideal state such as the state of nature could be governed by one simple law; the law of reason. Locke also wrote that in this state of nature, men are completely equal, “unless the lord and master of them all should… set one above another…” The idealistic state that Locke focuses on, is impossible to reach in his description of it. He says himself that this perfect and equal state is compromised by a “lord and master” who brings hierarchy to the people. This “lord and master” must be the only one with the ability to compromise man’s natural state, and therefore that individual has more power over others. So in reality, this “natural state” was never truly natural because one individual - a master - already had some power over others. Additionally, if this master is able to disrupt the natural state without having to justify his actions and without the consent of others, then this natural state- which can never truly exist in the beginning- is fragile enough that it can fall to pieces from one person’s actions, which means that the natural state may be just as if not more unstable than a government system in which there is an established