| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "LOCKE MACHIAVELLI HOBBES ROUSSEAU": |
|
|
Locke, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Rousseau, 2002.
Compares the philosophies of John Locke, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau.
1,523 words (approx. 6.1 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The philosophies of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau encompass a spectrum of thought on how a state should be governed. This paper discusses how at one end is the cynicism of Machiavelli and, to some extent, Hobbes. Their ideas are countered by the democratic optimism of Locke and Rousseau. It shows how, at the heart of each of these essays is each philosopher?s assessment of the fundamental character of people and how much they can be trusted to govern themselves.
From the Paper
"Throughout The Prince moral codes seem irrelevant to the business of running a state. The survival of the sovereign is the highest priority. At times Machiavelli seems to be writing guidelines for tyrants. According to him, a prince is safer if he is feared rather than loved. It is easier, Machiavelli maintains, for people to offend, or betray, someone they love than someone they fear. How is that fear instilled? ?Fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.? ( Santoni 120 ).
In Leviathan , Hobbes, like Machiavelli, stresses the importance of a powerful sovereign, however his philosophy of government seems less tyrannical than that of Machiavelli. ?During the time when men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man.? (Santoni 143)."
| |
|
Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and the Right to Property, 2002.
This paper discusses Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and the right to property.
2,150 words (approx. 8.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 80.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke provides his theory of private property and how it is connected to the rights of man. In his view, the right to property was one of the natural God-given rights.
| |
|
Machiavelli, Hobbes and Ridley Scott's "Gladiator", 2002.
An analysis of the representation of power and its abuse according to Machiavelli and Hobbes as seen in the world of Ridley Scott's "Gladiator".
3,150 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 115.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper will examine the political philosophies of Machiavelli and Hobbes in application to the question of the use and abuse of power in "Gladiator". It will be seen that Machiavelli and Hobbes would agree that the insane villain, Emperor Commodus, was actually an insightful political leader. While the movie collapses the distinction between the personal and the political - with the whining, incestuous Commodus contrasted unfavourably with the "family values" of Maximus - neither Machiavelli nor Hobbes considered personal morality of any significance in the arena of political life.
| |
|
Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes, 2005.
This paper describes and compares the political philosophies of Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes.
3,765 words (approx. 15.1 pages), 15 sources, MLA, $ 103.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Machiavelli lived during the Renaissance, nearly 150 years earlier than Thomas Hobbes, yet it was he who envisioned the basis for the political pragmatism of the twentieth century; while Thomas Hobbes, who lived in the 16th century, was a political materialist in the classical tradition of Plato and Galileo. The author stresses that Machiavellianism, as a term, has been used to describe the principles of power politics and the type of person who uses those principles in political or personal life is frequently described as a Machiavellian. The paper includes a comparison of the Table of Contents of "De Cive" by Thomas Hobbes and of "The Prince" by Machiavelli to demonstrate that Hobbes is looking for a universal law of politic; whereas, Machiavelli is looking for a practical means of surviving real politics. Several very long quotes.
From the Paper
"For Machiavelli, historical change has two forms: (1) the motion of nature and, (2) the order or ordering that man intends. Nature's changes are unreliable; they can be good or bad, but man does not feel safe or grateful. Machiavelli lumps unreliable nature with fickle fortune as the first element of his view of the opposing forces of history. Human order, or as Machiavelli describes it, "orders and modes" (Preface), is devised by human virtu to overcome this sense of being at the mercy of nature or fortune and is the second element of the equation. Simply put, his context of history is a contest between virtu and fortuna. Machiavelli is not a mere observer of this contest. As a humanist historian, he bases his advice, or lessons if you will, on the contest. But unlike the other historians of his day, he does not teach the lesson by what was done, but rather by what should have been done. This clearly places Histories in the political instead of historical genre by modern standards."
| |
|
Machiavelli and Hobbes, 2002.
A look at the view of philosophers Machiavelli and Hobbes on leadership.
1,220 words (approx. 4.9 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the conditions on which an interloper can be accepted or rejected by the citizens of a newly captured country. The conditions are based on the philosophical works of Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli. The paper shows that both Hobbes and Machiavelli believe that it is futile to reject someone off hand because such rejection would only result in waste of energy and nothing else. They feel that there are some important attributes which make a ruler strong and worthy of our respect and thus he should be rejected only if he doesn?t possess the right attributes.
From the Paper
"A ruler who is able to command respect whether through the use of force or otherwise need not be rejected because he is likely to prove more beneficial for the country than the weak leader he overthrew. In the light of our current understanding of politics, we may find this argument rather strange in nature. But the truth is that today we do not think in terms of what is good for our country and rather become irrationally sentimental when someone threatens to overthrow our government. We must remember that as long as a ruler is capable of running the country well and is respected by his people, he need not be rejected. In the case of an interloper, we must first study the situation from all possible angles before deciding on our next course of action."
| |
|
Machiavelli and Hobbes, 2006.
A look at the contribution to philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes.
1,304 words (approx. 5.2 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli gave us some highly acclaimed philosophical works, which contain their views on every subject connected with politics, government and rights of citizens. It looks at how Thomas Hobbes was positively influenced by Machiavelli in his views on politics and government. It also looks at how Machiavelli in his book "The Prince" focused on factors such as fear and force when describing the attributes that he felt a ruler must possess in order to rule effectively.
From the Paper
"Human nature was another very important subject of the political theories of both Hobbes and Machiavelli. Hobbes and Machiavelli's views on human nature cannot be seen as aligned to each other since the latter basically focused on wretchedness of human soul while the former was more concerned about the factors that influenced or basically created the human nature. According to Hobbes human nature could be explained in terms of voluntary and involuntary motions. (p. 118) He was of the view that men are motivated by passion such as anger, hunger, despair, joy etc. This resulted in action which could be termed either good or evil based on how it affects mankind. Machiavelli on the other hand did not believe in Hobbes' implied equality of men. "
| |
|
Political Failure in Machiavelli and Hobbes, 2008.
A comparison of the causes and consequences of the political failure of Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli.
2,672 words (approx. 10.7 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 80.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the causes and consequences of political failure for Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli. It shows how the causes for each of their political failure were different, as reflected in their views of man and in the actions of men within their respective forms of government. The paper presents both Hobbes' and Machiavelli's views and then compares the results of their political failure.
From the Paper
"Hobbes favors an authoritarian government where the welfare of the people is assured by the paternal care of the Sovereign because it would make no sense that a Sovereign should oppress his people. The consequences of political failure are to plunge men back into the chaos of the state of nature, the "Warre of everyone against everyone, in which case everyone is governed by his own reason" (Lev., ch. 14, p. 64). Only when men subjugate themselves and their reason to the Reason of the Sovereign does the Power of the Sovereign ensure "peace and commodious living". It is in this way that "we make the commonwealth ourselves" (Six Lessons, Ep. Ded., p. 184)."
| |
|
Machiavelli, Hobbes and the Good Society, 2008.
This paper analyzes the ideal society in Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Thomas Hobbes' "The Leviathan".
1,010 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses Hobbes' ideas of leadership as the means to a good society by manipulating or instilling fear and Machiavelli's emphasis on how a ruler should appeal to human nature in creating order. The paper explains how both theorists believed that the natural state of affairs without leadership was bound to be chaos. The paper discusses how Hobbes saw political violence as a clear sign of a social order falling back into the natural state of chaos, just as Machiavelli perceived this violence as a sign of a ruler having failed to do what was required to preserve and protect a social order.
Outline:
Introduction
Machiavelli on the Ruler
The Good Society
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) knew turbulent times. Machiavelli experienced the 1498 French invasion of Florence and the flight of the Medici family, and Hobbes's views owed to the very violent English Civil War, his The Leviathan's ideas said to have been achieved by the War's time in the human personality as motivated by fear. This influenced his ideas of leadership as the means to a good society by manipulating or instilling fear. Machiavelli shared an emphasis on how a ruler should appeal to human nature in creating order. The natural state of affairs without leadership was bound to be chaos."
| |
|
Machiavelli and Hobbes on Glory, 2002.
Looking at Niccolo Machiavelli?s and Thomas Hobbes? modern political theories as they related to the concept of glory.
1,257 words (approx. 5.0 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares these philosophers' theories and shows how in Machiavelli?s ?The Prince?, he breaks away from traditional theories by stating that the ruling Prince should be the sole authority deciding what is best for the state. In his opinion, glory was an important tool in upholding the authority of the state. By contrast, Thomas Hobbes believed that only a very centralized government, with an absolute power, could create social order. However, he did not believe that glory was a useful tool.
From the Paper
"In Machiavelli?s opinion, the existence of the state and the acquisition of power become ends in themselves. If the purpose of an action is to preserve the community and its way of life, then any action is permissible. That action can be war, human experiments, and many other things. Under Machiavelli?s system, a reason of state becomes the highest good. A reason of state has precedence over everything else. According to Machiavelli: ?It must be understood that a prince cannot observe all those things which are consider good in men, being often obliged, in order to maintain the state, to act against charity, against humanity, and against religion. (p. 38)? Basically, Machiavelli believed that the end justifies the means. To destroy an enemy state, anything is allowed. If the state faces danger, ?no considerations of justice, humanity, or cruelty, nor of glory or of shame, should be allowed. (p. 40)? "
| |
|
Hobbes and Rousseau: Social Contract, 2005.
Discusses the concept of the social contract through the works of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
1,500 words (approx. 6.0 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the notion of the social contract - the concept that human society is fundamentally a human construct. It explains that the concept originated in seventeenth-century European thought and was developed throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, receiving perhaps its most dramatic and influential expressions in Thomas Hobbes's "Leviathan", published in 1651 and Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "The Social Contract", published in 1762.
From the Paper
"Jean-Jacques Rousseau also used the notion of the social contract as a human creation, 'not a natural right' but 'one founded on covenants' (Rousseau 50), but radically changed the concept put forward by Hobbes. Rousseau, like Hobbes, argued that people agreed to cede authority to a particular group in return for the benefits of social organization and mutual security: 'the only way in which they can preserve themselves is by uniting their separate powers in a combination strong enough to overcome any resistance, uniting them so that their powers are directed by a single motive and act in concert' (Rousseau, 59-60). However, while Hobbes argued that the social contract could not be changed once established, for to change it would invite social breakdown and anarchy, Rousseau asserted that if those in power failed or refused to fulfil the contract by providing safety, the people were free to break the contract with them and establish a new social contract."
| |
|
Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes, 2001.
This paper examines a "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli and "Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes.
1,365 words (approx. 5.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
A look at these philosopher's views on the nature of human relationships, how it is that we join together to form societies, what the best form of human society might be, and the ways in which what is natural in human nature can be overcome by the goodness that lies in collective action ? or exacerbated by the concatenation of so many humans working in concert with each other.
From the Paper
"While both of these philosophers will reject the idealized image of ?imagined republics? ? both as ideals and as possible realities ? Machiavelli proves himself in the end to be more of an heir to their writings than does Hobbes ? which is hardly surprising, given that Machiavelli, as a writer of the Italian Renaissance is much more clearly an historical heir to the classical thinkers."
| |
|
Locke, Rousseau and Hobbes, 2006.
An argument against the self-evident reality of democracy in Western civilization.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 5 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the historical evidence of democracy in America as a prime example of the philosophical treatises of Rousseau and Locke, and the supposed fruition of their cause. However, the ideology of a government that would rule for the great good of the people is not realistic, nor has been proven to self-evident. This paper provides examples of how Locke attempted to give more sovereignty for land to the lower classes and the inability of American elites to help evenly distribute the land for the greater good.
From the Paper
"In this political analysis of western civilization, the premise of democracy has been an arguably difficult subject to display as a self-evident form of government. In the many treaties written by such philosophers as John Locke and Hobbes, one can realize the problems associated with realistically governing through the will of the people. Although the United States Constitution reveals an eventual realization of the principles that Locke, Rousseau and Hobbes discuss in their ideas of government, democracy is not truly a self-evident form of governing."
| |
|
Hobbes, Locke, Paine & Rousseau, 1997.
Compares the major ideas of 17th Cent. & 18th Cent. political philosophers on reconciling rights, equality & the need for an orderly society.
2,925 words (approx. 11.7 pages), 4 sources, $ 103.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Early political theorists made many attempts to reconcile the concepts of rights and equality within the framework of political thought and ideals. Differing points of view on these subjects existed among the many political philosophers and theorists. One view was that the early theorists were engaged in an impossible task when they sought to accommodate the concepts of rights and equality with the requirements of civil order. Another view held that some theorists believed that rights were, by their very nature, a demand for limited government. The concept of rights elevates, as an absolute, a few values or interests while denying the legitimacy of any governmental interference. Total equality, however, would deny any constraint or exception to majority rule if it were the law of the land.
Abstract terms, such as rights and equality, were a.."
| |
|
Hobbes and Locke, 2002.
A comparative analysis of Thomas Hobbes? and John Locke?s political theories.
1,425 words (approx. 5.7 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares and contrasts the political beliefs of the two philosophers and theorists Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It looks at how Hobbes' political theory is illustrated in the Leviathan which discusses the matter, form and power of a commonwealth. Hobbes was a social contract theorist who believed that a commonwealth was "but an artificial man?. It shows how Locke was also a social contract theorist who believed that the purpose of government was to protect the lives of subjects.
Outline
Hobbes
Locke
The Most Fundamental Differences
Weaknesses and Strengths
From the Paper
"Though both of these philosophers are social contract theorist there are some small differences in their ideals. Hobbes believed that once subjects gave consent to be governed they must abide by the laws set forth by that sovereign. He believed that subjects should be certain that the sovereign is going to do everything in his power to preserve their lives before they transfer their rights and wills to him. Once the rights and wills of the subjects are tranfered the sovereign becomes the voice of the commonwealth and his authority must be respected--the sovereign was the supreme power."
| |
|
Locke And Hobbes On Property - A Natural Right?, 2002.
This paper discusses property as discussed by John Locke and Thomas Hobbes.
1,650 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 5 sources, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
It focuses mainly on the latter's views, but uses Hobbes as a point of comparison. In his "Two Treatises of Government" (1690), Locke sets forth a view that the state exists to preserve national rights of citizens. This was significant in his views on property, as we will see. Property is inherently the joining of the earth - which is common to all men - and the application of one's body - or his/her labor. The fruit of that union is considered property by Locke, who goes onto argue that property was, therefore, a natural right. Hobbes, on the other hand, argued that property was the effect of the commonwealth, which exists only through civil laws given by the sovereign. This essay will argue that Locke's account of the methods of and limits of property acquisition in the state of nature differ from those of Hobbes. Locke argued that property was a natural right; Hobbes did not.
|
|
|
