The purpose of this essay is to understand perspectives on problems of human nature. The “state of nature” is described differently based on a specific philosopher’s objectives and frame of reference. After reviewing the unique analyses of Sartre and Aristotle, it is possible to compare them both. Each position is substantiated by different evidence; the limitations of each are also discussed. The validity can be established for each incumbent theoretical challenge. In this discussion of the State of Nature as well as the role of Organized Society, there are clear perspectives defined. After discussing the positions of various thinkers, the most absolute position will be analyzed. Aristotle, Sartre, Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke and Hsun Tzu will be discussed.
Aristotle discusses the State of Nature and presents a unique perspective on Organized Society. Aristotle proposes that man is in the organic state of nature, making him a political creature. The way that people were created proposes that the state is created and therefore mankind at its source is rooted in politics. Organized Society is a result of the nature of man incorporated with tenants of fundamental human instincts and behavior. Sartre, in comparison, elucidates the State of Nature in a different way. He believes in society and composes an understanding of organization based on that. The juxtaposition between Sarte’s perspectives can be seen when discussing Organized Society.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Human Nature".
Hobbes, on the other hand, explains that humans are in the state of nature in terms of essential functions. The mental and physical faculties are the equalizing aspects. Human nature contributes to the importance that people give to fighting one another. This importance lies in each person maintaining an innate liberty to preserve their life. Rousseau, contrary to Hobbes, challenged the way that society and states of nature were viewed. He accused Hobbes of equating people only to their material or savage existence. Rousseau instead maintained that humanity can experience and express benevolence. This quality should be taken into account significantly in the perspective of Rousseau. This view established significant aspects of Organized Society and the human initiative to maintain harmonious conditions throughout communities. This was very different from Hobbes’ discussions. However, it lacked substantial evidence in exploring and identifying key principles.
Locke differed from the preceding philosophers in that he differentiated the State of Nature with a significant basis of evidence and defined the Organized Society in a variegated way. Locke described the state of nature of man to be free. This freedom allows him to organize action and dispose of possessions. Laws of nature are described in great detail throughout the Second Treatise on Civil Government where Locke explains that it is better not to harm others. Much of what Locke proposed with regards to Organized Society is based on the previous philosophers. Nevertheless, the Organized Society was significantly different when compared to the world order proposed by previous ones. A clearer interpretation of this is related to the way that government and institutional control can establish significant consequences.
Hsun Tzu’s conception of human nature addressed the underlying aspects of mankind’s natural state. The constructions that he incorporated involved both physical and moral ideals of mankind. The purpose of human life was further discussed in his conception of the state of nature. The premise Hsun Tzu proposed was that human nature is immoral and bad.
In terms of contemporary phenomenon, Hobbes played a great role in his determination and development. The significance of its contemporary appeal was great, due to the unique messages it posed and attempted to address. These situational aspects of states of nature were highly variegated differentiated and addresses mankind’s human value. Certain sections of his manuscript detailed the way that mankind’s natural condition concerns misery and tangential functions of emotional change. Hobbes asserted that men are equal despite differences in physical or mental aptitude and performance. When man finds himself in diffidence with others he attempts to gauge and assume the power necessary to take over men. This is an assertion of force that is contingent to the amount and quality of power an individual believes they have.
In this power lay the potential for dominion over others and the conservation of one’s self through necessary methods of defense. With respect to war and the consequences of battle, the power of man was asserted through a different context. These explorations of power illustrate the way that an individual may perceive their own strength or need to preserve life. Since many actions of man are defended because of the variegated conditions that a person experiences, and are not emphasized as negative or harmful behaviors from internal thinking or dialogue, Hobbes perspective offers insight into the way that moral actions are interpreted through an individual’s self-perception of power.
In chapter seventeen of his text on social and political philosophy, Hobbes further delves into the meaning and definition of power with relation to the human condition. A common power is contrived when people unite against a foreign common enemy. Under the assembly of leadership it is possible for power and strength within an entire group or network to be utilized by one individual. This creates a unanimous will amongst plural intentions or opinions. This demonstration unites multiple definitions and asserts the value that mankind has when integrating multiple roles or values for the common good of more than himself. It is a unique definition of power because it assumes that by relinquishing one’s individual rights to the commonality of a cause or endeavor, it becomes possible for power to be understood by many with the decision-making and authority of a few. This example is pertinent to political philosophy and doctrine today in most countries. It further illustrates the way that people can exercise their freedoms and power together, in order to achieve a common goal or purpose, regardless of the specific nature of their uniting factors.
Thomas Hobbes explains his perspective on the State of Nature best with respect to several core standards and means of responsibility. These standards define the way that philosophers can differentiate the concept. Pertinent findings and arguments are explored in this analysis. Through the changing attitudes and definitions behind concepts in his thesis, Hobbes philosophical framework explains numerous issues related to human conduct and inquiry through a unique and highly exemplified perspective. These assertions have stood the test of time and elucidate social and political philosophical tenants and conclusions that are still relevant to the analysis of modern scientists.
The discussion leads to a purposeful exploration of the conditions that man can take for granted versus the aspects that he cannot. These are integrated in a systematic evaluation of behavioral and societal trends that affect authority, leadership, and the common qualities found within all men.
The example of battle, conflict and enemies demonstrate how people can be united and explore the deeper purpose of this work at a perfunctory level. Though disputed over the centuries from different perspective of scientific inquiry and analysis. This is a succinct demonstration of the burgeoning social and political philosophies that are capitulated throughout subsequent philosophers and economic theorists’ works throughout history.
It is possible to see unique themes present throughout both of these stories. Regardless of the influence of characters outside of the protagonist, there are competing forces that constantly attempt to derail the fundamental beliefs or core values exhibited by each. In this way the stories relate some elements that are similar and thematic throughout philosophy and literature. Heroism and ideals are painted in both stories as the primary way that the protagonist defines himself or herself. This can be seen in attitude as well as action that is significant for each role. Ultimately assessing stories from this model or framework creates meaningful assessments that speaks to the legacy that such historic works create and leave in literature on a whole.
In conclusion, there are significant portrayals of power used throughout Thomas Hobbes’ famous work. The literature expresses a meaningful exploration of contingent behaviors, tenants of human living and constructs that elucidate the complex relationships that people have with one another. This is specified in context of great dispute, as well as unanimous assertions of power such as creating sovereignty and commonwealths. Through the dichotomy of human circumstances, the flexibility and temporal nature of human potential is explored with great contextual evidence.
The purpose of this essay was to discuss and explore perspectives on human nature. After carefully analyzing paradigms presented by various philosophers, it is possible to establish unique points of comparison. The State of Nature and Organized Society are discussed in variegated forms, as has been shown in each philosopher’s theoretical frameworks. In conclusion, human nature is a multidimensional topic that can be defined through different frames of reference. Hobbes presented the perspective that people are only equivalent to their physical and mental power. Locke and Rousseau challenge these perspectives by incorporating a different model of humanity. Overall human nature is contextualized based on what a person is equal to or able to accomplish. Understanding the evidence behind each of these philosophers presents significant clarity regarding respective theoretical frameworks in this analysis.
