Rousseau and Hobbes
Topic: Compare the portrayals of the state of nature by Hobbes and Rousseau and how these portrayals are reflected in their political theories.
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were philosophers of the mid 17th and mid 18th centuries respectively and proposed two political theories - in “Leviathan” (Hobbes, 1651), “The Second Discourse” (Rousseau, 1755) and the “Social Contract” (Rousseau, 1762) - that were very different but that once analysed, could be argued to have common characteristics and goals.
Both Hobbes and Rousseau based their arguments on human nature, and the “state of nature” that precedes that of society and the commonwealth. However, their views greatly differed on the subject. Hobbes’ state could be described as more cynical, especially when compared to Rousseau’s. Their methodologies were also significantly distinct – Hobbes chose to build his argument in a logical and mathematical manner, whereas Rousseau’s was more evolutionary.
However, what is evident in both arguments is that there did exist a state of nature prior to that of one with a state, thus implying that society or the state is artificial, or created by man. Whether directly or with the passing of time, this state of nature necessitated the creation of political authority. This gives rise to a number of questions. How similar were their two notions of political authority and the power it exercised? How are the different definitions of the state of nature used to support their theories of the “state”? From these, the Problématique that can be argued is the one of: to what extent can the two theories of political authority be considered similar given the very different approaches they have through the theories of the state of nature? The outline that will be used to support the argument is as follows:
I. Differing states of nature
1) Elements of the state of nature that are interpreted differently
2) The two stages at which a state becomes necessary
II. From
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were philosophers of the mid 17th and mid 18th centuries respectively and proposed two political theories - in “Leviathan” (Hobbes, 1651), “The Second Discourse” (Rousseau, 1755) and the “Social Contract” (Rousseau, 1762) - that were very different but that once analysed, could be argued to have common characteristics and goals.
Both Hobbes and Rousseau based their arguments on human nature, and the “state of nature” that precedes that of society and the commonwealth. However, their views greatly differed on the subject. Hobbes’ state could be described as more cynical, especially when compared to Rousseau’s. Their methodologies were also significantly distinct – Hobbes chose to build his argument in a logical and mathematical manner, whereas Rousseau’s was more evolutionary.
However, what is evident in both arguments is that there did exist a state of nature prior to that of one with a state, thus implying that society or the state is artificial, or created by man. Whether directly or with the passing of time, this state of nature necessitated the creation of political authority. This gives rise to a number of questions. How similar were their two notions of political authority and the power it exercised? How are the different definitions of the state of nature used to support their theories of the “state”? From these, the Problématique that can be argued is the one of: to what extent can the two theories of political authority be considered similar given the very different approaches they have through the theories of the state of nature? The outline that will be used to support the argument is as follows:
I. Differing states of nature
1) Elements of the state of nature that are interpreted differently
2) The two stages at which a state becomes necessary
II. From