Want this question answered?
Thomas Hobbes believed that human nature was inherently self-interested and driven by a desire for power and self-preservation. He argued that this nature could be influenced and shaped by external factors such as society and education. Overall, Hobbes emphasized the importance of societal structures and authority to control and temper human nature.
Hobbes was a 17th century British philosopher who wrote a philosophical work concerning human nature and society called Leviathan in 1651
Thomas Hobbes described human nature as inherently selfish, competitive, and driven by a desire for power and self-preservation. He believed that in a state of nature, without government or social order, humans would be in a constant state of war against each other.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke had very different views of human nature. The basic difference between the two of them is that Hobbes had a rather negative view of human nature while Locke had a much more positive view of human nature. You can see this difference in the kinds of political systems they each advocated. Hobbes, thought that only a monarch, a "leviathan" of a power, could keep people in check due to their inherent badness. By contrast, Locke thought that people were good enough to be able to govern themselves. He thought that the people were good enough that they would be able to set up representative governments that would maintain a stable society
Thomas Hobbes was never married. He devoted his life to his work as a philosopher and political theorist, focusing on issues of ethics, politics, and human nature.
Hobbes believed that humans are inherently self-interested and driven by a desire for power and survival. He thought humans were naturally in a state of conflict and chaos, leading to the need for a strong central authority to maintain order. Locke, on the other hand, believed that humans are born as blank slates, with the potential for reason and cooperation, and that they have natural rights to life, liberty, and property.
human beings derive their rights from nature
John Locke believed that humans are born as a blank slate (tabula rasa) without inherent knowledge or traits. He argued that individuals acquire knowledge and characteristics through their experiences and interactions with the external world. Locke emphasized the importance of reason, tolerance, and natural rights in shaping human nature.
John Locke believed in empiricism, arguing that all knowledge comes from sensory experience. He also emphasized the concept of natural rights and the social contract theory in political philosophy, advocating for individual liberty and limited government. Locke's ideas greatly influenced the development of modern political thought and liberalism.
Thomas Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes had a very pessimistic view of human nature. He had called man's life, among other things, solitary, nasty, and short.
John Locke believed that human beings are born as a blank slate, or tabula rasa, with no innate ideas. He argued that our experiences and environment shape our identity and behavior, emphasizing the importance of individual rights and the social contract between people and government. Locke also promoted the idea of natural rights, including life, liberty, and property.
Hobbes was a 17th century British philosopher who wrote a philosophical work concerning human nature and society called Leviathan in 1651
Thomas Hobbes described human nature as inherently selfish, competitive, and driven by a desire for power and self-preservation. He believed that in a state of nature, without government or social order, humans would be in a constant state of war against each other.
Hobbes view means like human nature and what you see threw your eyes into the sound and feeling also what you take into your heart from nature.
Thomas Hobbes and john Locke had very different views of human nature. The basic difference between the two of them is that Hobbes had a rather negative view of human nature while Locke had a much more positive view of human nature. You can see this difference in the kinds of political systems they each advocated. Hobbes, thought that only a monarch, a "leviathan" of a power, could keep people in check due to their inherent badness. By contrast, Locke thought that people were good enough to be able to govern themselves. He thought that the people were good enough that they would be able to set up representative governments that would maintain a stable society