| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "THOMAS HOBBES": |
|
|
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."
| |
|
Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli, 2006.
This paper discusses the political views and philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This political study analyzes the major ethical and moral foundations for governing that reside in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, Aristotle, and Machiavelli. By understanding the premise of an ethical government in Aristotle's point view, the writer shows that the basis for a republican ethical and morality systems are a function of good political structures in government. However, the writer points out that Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli disagree with this point of view, finding that self-preservation for elites is the foundation of most governing bodies through the reality of human nature. Further, the writer notes that aside from the dogmatic philosophy of Aristotle that seeks to propose ethical standards in government, both Hobbes and Machiavelli are realists in their understanding of human nature and the often-cruel conflicts that reside within the quest for power.
From the Paper
"... the critical philosophical premise to human nature that ultimately helps one realize how persons that attain power utilize it not for the greater good, but for the self-preservation of the person that is not satisfied with their own portion of power. In this manner, Hobbes provides the deeper insight into governing bodies and how they function, since it is often the issue of self-preservation that often dictates government, whether it be called republican, monarchy, etc., and that power forces men to abide by constitutions and rules only for their own greater personal success. "
| |
|
?Leviathan? by Thomas Hobbes, 2006.
A review of Thomas Hobbes innovative "Leviathan".
3,037 words (approx. 12.1 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this review of Thomas Hobbes" Leviathan", the author describes the book as innovative and a great philosophical work. He describes how Hobbes argues that mankind, in order to live peacefully, ought to submit to the power of an ultimate, sovereign authority. This power would be unlimited and total, the very definition of a tyrannical state. The author tells us that Hobbes states only a "leviathan" can govern man. The author points out how Hobbes argues that without such extreme control to oversee the lives and interactions of men, every society would slowly disassemble and capitulate into a civil war. In conclusion the author discusses Hobbes argument that government is a necessary component in the building of peace and security within civilized groups. He believes that because man is so violent in his "natural" condition, any sovereign that governs man is seen as an overbearing taskmaster.
From the Paper
"The catch lies in the fact that each individual has his own judgment regarding self-preservation. A man, for his own reasons, may decide that the death of another man is a matter of self-preservation. In practical terms, the right to survive can easily become an unrestricted right to an anti-social behavior. (Hobbes calls it the right "to all things.") He not only assumes that man has the impulse to survive, but that man should, as a matter of "practical rationality," adopt behaviors that are necessary for self-preservation. Hence, if man judges another man to be a threat, and judges that killing that man is the only way to eliminate the threat, then by the logic self-preservation, he has a right to commit murder. The problem here is as Williams points out, that "in the state of nature no one is in a position to successfully define what is good judgment."
| |
|
Thomas Hobbes, 2002.
The life and work of Thomas Hobbes.
2,900 words (approx. 11.6 pages), 8 sources, $ 106.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the life and work of Thomas Hobbes who was born in 1588. Hobbes studied different forms of governments and during his time outside of England he became interested in why people allowed themselves to be ruled and what would be the best form of government for England. In 1651, Hobbes wrote his most famous work, entitled "Leviathan." In it, he argued that people were naturally wicked and could not be trusted to govern. Therefore, Hobbes believed that an absolute monarchy - a government that gave all power to a king or queen - was best.
| |
|
"Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes, 2005.
This paper discusses Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" and considers its meaning and the effects it had.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes Thomas Hobbes's "Leviathan" and examines its meaning, the influences of other writers on Hobbes and its effect on modern thinking. The paper also contends that Hobbes was a radical philosophical revolutionary.
From the Paper
"Leviathan: My analysis of Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" began with a study of the authorship of the book. The copyright page listed Thomas Hobbes as the author and gave his birth and death dates as and respectively. The page stated that the book contained selected variants from the Latin edition of Thomas Hobbes. It appears to be an authentic edition of the book with Hobbes as the author. Hobbes's audience for Leviathan is a matter of some controversy."
| |
|
John Stuart Mill vs. Thomas Hobbes, 2007.
A comparison between John Stuart Mill and Thomas Hobbes regarding their views on ethical theory.
1,250 words (approx. 5.0 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares and contrasts the ideas on ethical theory of two great thinkers, John Stuart Mill and Thomas Hobbes. The paper discusses Mill's concept of utilitarianism and Hobbes' views on the social contract and the two states of human existence, i.e. nature vs. society. The paper defines Mill's principle of utility as the most happiness (pleasure) and the least amount of pain for the majority of people involved. Humans are motivated by their pursuit of pleasure. The paper states that Mill believes human beings and beasts are separated by their pleasure capacity, whereas Hobbes would argue that it is the state of society that makes humans different from the beasts. In conclusion, the paper maintains that both men, though different in almost every way, present profound ideas that cannot and are not ignored by people around the world whether they are living as beasts with every pleasure fulfilled or as civilized being struggling to relieve themselves of pain.
From the Paper
"The social contract theory is defined and redefined by several philosophers. One of the more noted of these is Thomas Hobbes. In his Leviathan, published in 1651, Hobbes attempts to clearly define the two states of human beings, nature and society, as well as prove that the social contract is necessary in order to allay the chaos created by the natural state of men. According to Hobbes, humans would live in a cut throat existence if it were not for the social contract. He believes that man needs a ruler, a monarchy, in order to control their natural, beast like, behaviors."
| |
|
Thomas Hobbes vs. Aristotle, 2005.
This paper compares the thoughts of Thomas Hobbes versus Aristotle on the nature of man.
2,300 words (approx. 9.2 pages), 11 sources, APA, $ 70.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper relates that Thomas Hobbes viewed (1) man as being egoistic, self-interested and always aiming towards self-preservation; (2) yet, man can act in ways that are not selfish to preform civic duties and help society and (3) man is in a state of constant war with one another due to the fact that immediate authority is unattainable. The author stresses that Hobbes says that self-preservation is pre-eminent in the nature of man and anything done to keep that motive is humanistic and should be done without recourse. The paper explains that, to Aristotle, (1) mankind is climbing a ladder to reach an end goal of happiness; (2) climbing the steps of the ladder is done in a way that is good for the rest of the community; however, (3) self-sufficiency is the highest virtue of all.
From the Paper
"Aristotle wrote comparatively little on tyranny and its affects on society. According to Aristotle, either the one, the few, or the many rule. Human beings are by nature political and will suffer greatly under despotism or a tyrannical monarchy. A polis that would concern itself only with the negative functions of protecting persons or property is not truly a polis in Aristotle's eyes. Nature's role in the polis was to positively develop human potential and create habits. Despite his conservatism and defending monarchy, Aristotle often displayed genuine fait in the political participation and intelligence of ordinary citizens."
| |
|
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, 2005.
This paper relates that Thomas Hobbes and John Locke represent opposite ends of the spectrum of seventeenth century political philosophy.
3,050 words (approx. 12.2 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Thomas Hobbes, who believed that man was cruel and evil by nature, espoused the idea that only the firm grip of an absolute authority would be successful in governing a society of men; countering this extreme view, John Locke put forth the idea that man was rational and peace-seeking by nature and that any useful system of government must be chosen by men and must serve the best interests of the polity. The author points out that, despite these difference, both philosophers argued their cases within the same terms of debate; both (1) spoke of social contracts and of the nature of man, (2) were concerned with defining the type of government that would be best suited to govern societies, as well as the reasons why man should submit to any form of government at all and (3) were concerned with the ultimate objective of avoiding conflict and violence and thereby assisting their fellow men in the task of peaceful coexistence. The paper summarizes that Hobbes had a dimmer view of mankind than Locke because, in the Hobbesian world, every man is preoccupied with the task of survival and will do anything to meet his goal of self-preservation; whereas, Locke expounds on mankind's virtues and on his innate sense of morality.
From the Paper
"Locke argued a final, crucial point in direct dispute against Hobbes: that man has the natural right to quit government. Locke envisioned Hobbes' ideal of government-by-force as a counterproductive hunting match: "Whereas by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him to make a prey of them when he pleases..." Man has thus, in constructing and submitting to an absolute authority, theoretically turned over every one of his natural rights. Where Hobbes wrote that man had a right to quit government only when it was matter of laying down one's life for no just cause, Locke leaves this self-eject option much broader. He even goes so far as to say that when a government begins to fail its people, and undermine its primary intent, the citizens subject to it have not only a right but an obligation to revolt against its power."
| |
|
The Principles of Thomas Hobbes and "The Lord of the Flies", 2008.
A review of the novel "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding as compared to the theories in "Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes.
850 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses the novel "Lord of the Flies", written by William Golding, which is about a group of boys that become stranded on an island. The central idea of the novel is how these children try to form a civilized society, but ultimately fail. The paper relates that the original leader, Ralph, is overthrown by a corrupt leader Jack. What results is a primitive survival-based system. The paper concludes that the ideas that are presented in "The Lord of the Flies" about society, human nature and government are illuminated by the principles that Thomas Hobbes writes about in "Leviathan." The paper examines both of these works and shows how Hobbes' theory is interpreted in Golding's novel.
From the Paper
"As Golding shows in the novel, once Jack overthrows Ralph, all aspects of civilization are replaced with that of savagery. Hobbes writes that "if any two men desire the same thing, which never the less they cannot both enjoy they become enemies" (Hobbes 54). Jack wants to be leader from the begging. When Ralph is picked over Jack, Jack begins to desire the power that Ralph has. Ralph does not execute his authority correctly over the boys of the island in order to prevent a revolt. Once Jack takes power, chaos is guaranteed to ensue, because Jack is not the right person to lead the boys. He is both too corrupt and power hungry. Hobbes believes that the leader's motivation should be the same as that of the people; both should not want the state of nature/war to exist. Ralph does not want the boys to be in a state of nature/war, but when Jack takes power he returns the boys to a state of nature/war. For a society to be successful, the Leviathan dictates the importance of law and order. Once Jack overthrows Ralph, all concepts of law and order are lost."
| |
|
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, 2006.
A comparison and contrast of Thomas Hobbes' and John Locke's understanding of human nature and the issue of security of life and property.
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 4 sources, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Thomas Hobbes and John Locke appear to be very much in agreement in their thoughts related to their understanding of human nature and the issue of security of life and property, and that both philosophers were aware that the desire for gain and for property was the main source of all social conflict. The paper goes on to explains that, in spite of these similar perspectives, Hobbes and Locke actually held very different views of human nature and property. This paper examines those differences.
| |
|
Thomas Hobbes: Laws of Nature, 2002.
An insight into the laws of nature set out by the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper defines the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes' laws of nature, explains how Hobbes says we should follow them, explains what they require of us, and discusses in what sense these laws resemble traditional moral dictates, and in what sense they differ from such traditional standards.
| |
|
Thomas Hobbes and Capital Punishment, 2002.
An examination of Thomas Hobbes' view on capital punishment.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 5 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the issue of capital punishment in the context of Thomas Hobbes' views on the Leviathan state. The paper contends that Hobbes would have supported the death penalty as a vehicle through which the Leviathan could frighten people and implement social control. The paper argues that the death penalty would not serve its function in this context.
| |
|
Thomas Hobbes, 2005.
This paper discusses the theories and views of Thomas Hobbes and implies that he was an authoritarian political theorist.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 7 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the work of Thomas Hobbes and suggests that he was an authoritarian political theorist. In particular, the paper examines Hobbes' attitudes vis-a-vis the sweeping powers of a sovereign ruler and his attitudes towards religious toleration. The writer argues that, on both counts, Hobbes' political theory leans towards an authoritarian approach at odds with twenty-first century sensibilities.
From the Paper
"It is only fair to suggest that, of all the great Western philosophers of the last four hundred years, Thomas Hobbes is inescapably the least-loved. Much of this, it can be argued, is his own doing. In a modern age that values the primacy of the individual and trumpets the virtues of small government, Hobbes' authoritarian leanings and his belief that the individual must be subjugated to the sovereign power of the state are views understandably ill-received. This paper examines how Hobbes' philosophy practically encourages a zealous monarch to conflate the state's interests with his own personal and selfish ones; moreover, this paper also examines Hobbes' political theories - at least as they are delineated in the Leviathan."
| |
|
Thomas Hobbes, 2003.
A look at Thomas Hobbes' state of nature and theory of human nature.
690 words (approx. 2.8 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 23.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines Hobbes' state of nature and theory of human nature, a criticism of Hegel's theory of freedom is also offered. It contends that Hobbes' theory does, in some respects, undermine Hegel and that much of Hegel's theory appears to challenge Hobbes.
| |
|
Thomas Hobbes?s ?Leviathan?, 2004.
This paper discusses that Thomas Hobbes, in his ?Leviathan?, proposes that man, in his natural state, is led to quarrel with other men because of competition, diffidence, and glory.
1,140 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Hobbes views the natural man as hardly different from a beast because he is without law or the refinements of science and art. The author points out that Hobbes?s natural man uses violence in order to compete with and invade other men to gain something. The paper relates, in competing for something gainful, every man is equal to other men, regardless of another?s intellectual or artistic endowments.
From the Paper
"Outside the home, he uses violence in acquiring or competing for his objectives, including food, clothing, space, other men and other possessions, when other men pursue the same objects at the same time. If there is no opposition, the acquisition is easy, complete and permanent until it is contested by the object of acquisition itself or any outsider. Violence is imposed by the natural man because the acquisition is willful and does not require the consent or even the awareness of the object subdued. Treachery is often a method used by the natural man. Violence is manual, physical or with the use of weapons, whichever ensures the gainful acquisition."
|
|
|
