- Show more
Comparison of philosophical reflections by John Locke and Thomas Hobbes
In this essay we will find two philosophers, where both have the thought of a contractualist political philosophy. The philosophers of the rams will be treated the essay, is John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Despite having both this similarity, they have several things that differentiate them, different looks from seeing philosophy and political side.
To start and have a wide vision of those who are talking, we will start looking who was John Locke. Locke born in 1932, was considered very important in the seventeenth century by empiricism, which was a philosophical current. Appointed the father of English liberalism. John Locke is concerned about the origin and scope of man’s knowledge, so he does his own study creating the theory of human knowledge, where stating that every man has ideas and thoughts. Locke does not believe that ideas are innate, that is, they do not depend on the experience to exist, but that he asks how man fills his mind of ideas, if his mind is a blank sheet, responding to this that this way of fillingThe mind can only be thanks to the experience. From the experience we create all our knowledge, which makes it a social, friendly and peaceful man, since the experiences come out of human knowledge, looking from the side of an external observation of the senses and internal. Being social, has the purpose of being able to procreate and spread the species, thus being that of men and women or as I love and the servant, delivering as a benefit strong and durable ties, which deliver more capacity to face the future through war andpeace. That is, it proposes a state of a peace nature, that each one decides their actions, one does not depend on anyone, it has greater freedom, although not total to open to people and the world, but where the most important thing is that there is order.
On the other hand, Thomas Hobbes English philosopher, founder of modern and political absolutist politics, considered different the way of seeing the state of nature. Hobbes is an individual, war man, who intends a constant state of war against all, defends an absolutist idea. Hobbes accepts self-preservation and equality among all, but that distrusts and competition is born;Being all the same, they conflict, since when you want all the same and know what others want, I know that they can take away what one has, since we all want the same, same thoughts of wanting more andThis is why you get into dispute. Here the state of nature is through force and domain. Man is a wolf to man. In addition to the fact that man has to fear his authority, so that these distrust conflicts are not generated and complied with the laws that are given. “From this equality in the faculties an equality arises in the hope of achieving our purposes. And, therefore, if two men want the same thing that cannot be enjoyed by both, they become an enemy;And, to achieve its end, which is mainly its own conservation and, sometimes, only their delight, they insist on destroying and submitting each other ”(Hobbes, 2018, 114)
Another difference that can be seen among these philosophers is the state of property, for hobbes everyone has the right over all things, therefore, no one owns anything. Only the sovereign is the one who can choose what contains the properties. For hobbes the concept of property does not exist.
On the other hand, for Locke says that God delivers the lands for man, so no one has the domain that excludes others. In addition, as every man has the right to its conservation, it has to achieve through the necessary means its benefits and obtain by natural law private property and the means to obtain it is through work, which obtains its domain and appropriation of the place. Then Locke affirms that when having the property by right, he will be inherited, since the family is appointed a natural society, all having the same rights to use it on the property.
With the knowledge and ideas about these two great philosophers, both having several similarities and differences that differentIf you see at the time of crisis or necessity. So it is necessary for an authority to have to put people under pressure so that they can behave. A authority that causes fear is needed, since that way it will behave rationally. It can be noted that the human always acts by himself, so that the theory of Hobbes if he is still in force today, someone needs to be controlling and where man seeks equality, but an equality that finally leads toPeople to have the same ability to do evil in society. The man currently still has fear, individualism and search for his own good. There have been changes, progress on this way of acting in people since Hobbes used it until today, but still several of the irrationality actions are still in force at the time of acting.
On the other hand, of Locke’s theory, what broadThe other, so it demonstrates correctly how a society should be.