The term ‘state of nature' is used in political philosophy to describe the condition of human life either in the absence of some form of government, or the lack of laws. The notion itself was initiated by philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) within his book Leviathan, in which it is depicted as "the natural condition of mankind" . The state of nature is a supposed state as opposed to an actual state in that it is believed that humans have always been a part of a structure which could be considered a society, bound by some form of social contract (although some have argued there was in fact a time when humans existed in a true state of nature). The argument put forward by Hobbes is hypothetical and does not base itself on any historical evidence of such a state having ever been occupied by humanity.
Philosophers attempted to evaluate and appraise the ‘state of nature' did so due to the belief that through anaylsing and observing the ‘original' state of human nature, hypothetical or otherwise, it is possible to improve understanding of society itself, and as a result ascertain a superior, enhanced and further advanced society
In the 18th century, philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) disputed the conception of the ‘state of nature' put forward by Hobbes in the 17th century. This essay aims to establish, and following that, examine, the differences between the views of both Hobbes and Rousseau on this political philosophical stance.
In Leviathan, Hobbes introduced the ‘state of nature'. He portrayed it as a vision of the circumstances humanity would encounter should there be no laws or social contract. He extracted his proposals and thoughts not from the earliest form of human life or historical reference, but from the observation of human life at the time and the implications of a lack of laws and a system of government on society. Hobbes developed his.
No comments:
Post a Comment