Preview

Comparison of Hobbes and Al-Farabi

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
628 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Comparison of Hobbes and Al-Farabi
Reading Response 4 Sarah Zou Sep. 23.2012 LBST 1B11
Comparison of Hobbes and Al-Farabi Human nature was one of the most controversial topics now and then. In two of the world’s greatest philosophers’ essay, they discussed their own perception of human nature. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), England’s political philosopher, who discussed his view on the degeneration of human nature in his book, Leviathan, which depicted the natural state of humanity as nasty and brutish. His point of view came across many similarities as Al- Farabi (870- 950 CE) an Arab Scientist and philosopher during the Golden Age of Islam. With a group of philosopher, Al- Farabi created synthesis on Aristotelian thought and Muslin theology. His subject of interests varies from music to sociological and political issues. In his, On the Perfect State, he compared political state as a body, which the most important part of heart was the ruler.
From both Hobbes and Al-Farabis’ perspective they both argued, in order to maintain a civil society, a form of ruling system was more than necessary. Hobbes suggested that the nature of men were equal, because everyone has different strengths that others may not posses. Al-Farabi supported this point by saying that human is not naturally perfect, they needed to be provided, and contribute to the needs of society with their strength in order to achieve perfection. And because of this equality, Hobbes stated, men needed to compete against each other or became enemies to achieve their goals. Therefore no one can be trusted because their interests might conflict and become enemies. So it was unclear that how powerful one must become to be always secured. However this theory contradicts

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    The argument presented by Thomas Hobbes in chapter 13 of Leviathan, is that the state of nature is a state of war of all against all. Such a view had previously been discussed- earlier versions of the argument appear in other significant works- however it is Hobbes account of a state in “continuall feare of danger and violent death”1 upon which I will focus on and critique in this essay. There are many reasons why many seem to regard Hobbes argument as the most accurate portrayal of a pre-civilised society, many believe it to be so straightforward and seemingly correct that to object it would be to ignore a necessary truth. Secondly, those who accept Hobbes’ view of a human nature that is so egotistical and unforgiving, would seemingly too agree to the assumption of a gloomy, unbearable state of nature. In this essay I shall argue that such opinions are not logically justified as Hobbes’s argument holds its foundations solidly in assumption alone, an assumption that was heavily moulded on his surroundings of a savage Civil War. Hobbes’s argument lies solely on the grounds that human beings are intrinsically wicked and self-centred beings an argument that cannot be completely validated and therefore cannot be a ‘necessary truth’. Yet despite holding such a bleak outlook on the human condition and its simple invalidity the work of Thomas Hobbes still shapes the political word today2 and it continues to impact our understanding of human nature and interactions. In order to justify my critique of Hobbes I will begin by presenting both his original argument and a brief view of some modern interpretations before cross examining their conclusions against that of other social contract theorist such as Locke and Rousseau as well as rational logic to present the argument that the state of nature is most certainly not a state of war of all against all.…

    • 3361 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes Vs Machiavelli

    • 121 Words
    • 1 Page

    Lastly, both Hobbes and Machiavelli agree in their opinion of man what is one that is very negative. In the novel The Prince, Machiavelli states that men are “ungrateful, fickle, deceptive, and deceiving, avoiders of danger, eager to gain” (Machiavelli < 1542 > 2006). Similarly, in the novel Leviathan, Hobbes states how the life of a man is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes < 1651 > 2009). This shows how both Machiavelli and Hobbes see men and their lives as very negative aspects, but differ in what there perspectives are of it. Machiavelli explains how men are unreliable and not worth trusting when Hobbes is explaining how life naturally is terrible and without sovereignty, life and man are nothing.…

    • 121 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes added to the ideas of democracy by creating the idea that all men are born bad with an urge for war. He stated that in order to have a stable society, government would be required to strictly watch and govern each citizen. He writes that man should give down their power to a much bigger government in order to maintain a single power that can help control the masses. This bigger…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Chapter 18

    • 1729 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Hobbes.
Thomas Hobbes. (1588-1679). ‘Born premature when mother heard of oncoming Armada.’ At 40, he took Euclid’s geometry as starting point to make mechanical model of universe (man and society). Mechanism (based on motion) was to greatly influence thinking over next few centuries. Witness to upheaval of civil war in England in 1640s. Fled to France. 1651. Publishes "Leviathan.”Hobbes sees state of nature sans government as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Promulgates absolute monarch thesis. Says people (wholly selfish) should escape chaos of everyday life, give up their freedom to ruler who guarantees peace and order. In his state Hobbes saw ruler as absolute with men having no right to rebel since this would break the social contract and be illogical.…

    • 1729 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Hobbes vs Locke

    • 1466 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The men shared a difference in opinion regarding the purpose of government that was needed to rule a civil society. Thomas Hobbes believed that the…

    • 1466 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes’s perspective is the opposite extreme of what John Locke stood for. He characterized the natural state of people as that of a state of, “war of every man against every man.” He also portrays all men as being equal, but equal in the sense that anyone can kill anyone else, and as a result of this, they live in constant fear and anxiety. He argues that man uses logic to deduce that the only reasonable way to protect one’s life is to gain enough power to control a state and to protect those who live under that particular state, gaining allies (which eliminates enemies in the process).…

    • 595 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan expressed his views of how the government should run the people they governed. Leviathan stated that the people should hand over their rights to one strong ruler. He believed that all humans were all naturally selfish and wicked and by having a ruler to have complete control over them, they will gain order and obedience. Thomas believed that without a strong ruler, people will constantly have war with one another and life would be “poor and short.” Hobbes called this agreement by which people created this type of government the “social contract”. In short, Hobbes believed that the best type of government was an absolute monarchy, which will impose order and demand obedience; a “sea monster” type of ruler to control the wicked people.…

    • 478 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two of the great political theorists of their time. They both provided wonderful philosophical texts on how our government should govern us. This paper will show the largest differences and some of the similarities between Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government. Although they do have some similarities, Hobbes and Locke have different views on most of their political arguments, and I will expand on their differences on the state of nature, government, and social contract.…

    • 841 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes was an English philosopher who had a pessimistic view on human nature. He wrote the Leviathan, in which he stated that men lived in constant warfare because of competition for the better…

    • 541 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Aquinas Vs Hobbes

    • 1535 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Through Aristotle’s work in Politics, he articulates several fundamental aspects of political philosophy that has been greatly influential. Two specific philosophers Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Aquinas, evaluate Aristotle’s perspective of the political nature in relation to mankind. Thomas Aquinas uses Aristotle’s principles as a foundation for his reasoning in writing “On Law, Morality, and Politics.” He modifies Aristotle argument by contributing the religious sphere into the fundamental principles of his political teachings. Thomas Hobbes, on the contrary, is a lot more critical of Aristotle and attacks a lot of his political principles in “The Leviathan.” Hobbes perceives individuals as corrupt, untrustworthy and selfishly motivated, without…

    • 1535 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Contributions of Hobbes include the recognition of the existence of the individual and individual rights along with the concepts of rationality, self-interest, competitiveness, and calculation as individual attributes. Adams and Sydie also point out (p. 14) that Hobbes did not consider the ruler or monarch to be ordained by God (as monarchs often claimed in the divine right of kings) or some external force, but by the people themselves since "authority is given by the subjects themselves." This is important in the development of ideas of political democracy in western Europe and North America.…

    • 560 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Hobbes VS Locke

    • 273 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both had very different views on society and government. For Locke, natural rights could co-exist within a civil society and that natural rights and civil society were not mutually exclusive categories. While Hobbes thinks that the absolute power of the sovereign is simply the price mankind must pay for peace, Locke believes that absolute power is never a remedy for the state of nature. Hobbes and Locke also greatly differed in their opinions on the role of the state in society. Locke believed that government had obligations to fulfill, but not rights, and “cannot do as it pleases”. He saw necessary a separation of powers to protect the individual rights of the people, and if these rights were infringed or trust was violated, “people have the right to alter or abolish the government. These views were directly opposite to Hobbes. Hobbes was in favor of the opinion that the people have formed the government for peace and security, and that in return, people should not be allowed to change, judge, or protest against their government. He thought that an absence of government could lead to possibility of violent death, and therefore “government should never give up its power”.…

    • 273 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Hobbes Vs Locke

    • 5047 Words
    • 21 Pages

    He begins noting that humans are essentially equal, both mentally and physically, in so far as even the weakest person has the strength to kill the strongest. Given our equal standing, Hobbes continues by noting how situations in nature make us naturally prone to quarrel. There are three natural causes of disagreement among people: competition for limited supplies of material possessions, distrust of one another, and glory in so far as people remain hostile to preserve their powerful reputation. Given the natural causes of conflict, Hobbes concludes that the natural condition of humans is a state of perpetual war of all against all, where no morality exists, and everyone lives in constant fear (Hobbes Pt 1, Ch…

    • 5047 Words
    • 21 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    As Hobbes’ continually points out, in a state of nature, fear is the most antagonizing force that a man produces to be used against others to perpetuate a state of constant war. It is this fear, along with the struggle for as much power as possible (which Hobbes establishes that it is men’s reasoning to do so) that creates the balance beam act which acts as the driving force for men to seek each other out and pursue peace. This pursuit for peace amongst themselves is not only instigated for the greater good of themselves, but also society as a whole, whereby in realizing the interconnectedness of their fellow peoples, men consent to the “social contract” that Hobbes’ presents.…

    • 544 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes Vs Locke

    • 655 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Two of the most influential political philosopher and social contract theorists of all time, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both used ‘The State of Nature’ as a medium in order to understand the basic human nature and natural human rights in their writings. Both, then used their own understanding of the human nature in order to determine and justify the ideal form of government, its role and its powers. However, Locke and Hobbes reach markedly different conclusions. Hobbes argues that every man should concede all of his natural rights to the government and allow it to assume absolute power, while Locke argues that man is entitled to keep his natural rights and a government body is required only in order to protect those certain natural rights.…

    • 655 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays