Hobbes believed people in their natural were bad; Rousseau believed they were good.
Hobbes believed that humans are naturally selfish and must submit to a strong central authority to maintain order, while Rousseau thought that humans are inherently good but corrupted by society, and advocated for a more egalitarian and harmonious way of living in a social contract.
Philosophers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau opposed Thomas Hobbes' ideas. They disagreed with his pessimistic view of human nature and his belief in absolute monarchy, instead advocating for ideas like natural rights and social contract theory.
Both Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were social contract theorists who believed that individuals give up certain freedoms to the state in exchange for protection and security. Additionally, they both discussed the concept of the state of nature to explain the origins of social and political institutions.
Rousseau differed the most from Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu in his belief that individuals are inherently good but corrupted by society, whereas the other three believed humans were inherently self-interested or needed a strong government to maintain order. Rousseau's ideas on democracy, equality, and nature were also distinct in advocating for a more grassroots level of political participation compared to the others.
Locke, Harrington, Hobbes, and Rousseau all believed in social contract theory, which suggests that individuals form governments to secure their rights. They agreed that the legitimacy of government comes from the consent of the governed. Additionally, they all stressed the importance of individual rights and the need for limitations on governmental power to protect these rights.
Hobbes believed that humans are naturally selfish and must submit to a strong central authority to maintain order, while Rousseau thought that humans are inherently good but corrupted by society, and advocated for a more egalitarian and harmonious way of living in a social contract.
Its a matter of opinion. Who's opinions and Ideas do you agree the most with?
Hobbes was more in favor of monarchy
Hobbes, Locke Rousseau
Because Hobbes Locke and Rousseau likes to watch Avatar.
Philosophers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau opposed Thomas Hobbes' ideas. They disagreed with his pessimistic view of human nature and his belief in absolute monarchy, instead advocating for ideas like natural rights and social contract theory.
Locke, hobbes, and RousseauJean Jacques Rousseau and John LockeJean Jacques Rousseau and John Lockemontesquieu and rousseauThe most influential thinkers were Diderot, Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and lastly LockeJohn Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Isaac Newton were three important Enlightenment thinkers
Hobbes and Rousseau had fundamentally different views on human nature and society. Hobbes believed that humans are naturally selfish and that a strong, centralized authority is necessary to maintain order and prevent chaos, as expressed in his work "Leviathan." In contrast, Rousseau argued that humans are inherently good and that society corrupts them, advocating for a more egalitarian social contract as outlined in "The Social Contract." These differing perspectives led to contrasting ideas about governance, freedom, and the role of the state.
what were thomas hobbes's ideas
(Apex) People form social contracts in order to gain protection.
Both Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were social contract theorists who believed that individuals give up certain freedoms to the state in exchange for protection and security. Additionally, they both discussed the concept of the state of nature to explain the origins of social and political institutions.
Rousseau differed the most from Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu in his belief that individuals are inherently good but corrupted by society, whereas the other three believed humans were inherently self-interested or needed a strong government to maintain order. Rousseau's ideas on democracy, equality, and nature were also distinct in advocating for a more grassroots level of political participation compared to the others.