Political Minds: The War Of Ideas Liam Dalgleish
War, bloodshed, lives given to defend what we humans think is right or best for our families or clans. Like every other war England wrapped in it, all against all for political power. Brought mankind two very important individuals that learned and studied what we humans think is right and what we know best. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, two of the most influential philosophers with two very different ideologies that have helped shape todays politics/ state. Hobbes spent his days watching the English civil wars from afar in France, whereas Locke was born and raised into the civil wars with a father who was a part of it. This gives Locke more of an insight into not just the brutality but the beauty in human culture. As for Hobbes, he repeatedly witnessed solely the brutality of what man is capable of. Having been raised in two very different parts of the world gave them the experiences they needed to be able to write the perspectives on how human kind can be better understood. Hobbes has more of a pessimistic outlook on human culture or better known as the state of nature. For example, some of his ideas struggle with seeing the benefits of the law of nature, equality and the idea of perfect freedom. Locke possesses the more positive point of view, and he shares his ideas and perspectives on the benefits of the law of nature, equality and the idea of perfect freedom. Both philosophers have compelling and strong points of view on how humans operate under or without a state to control them.
With respects to the state of nature, Locke and Hobbes come from two very different ends of the spectrum. Locke, a man of religion and moral values, believes in a true and morally permissible Law of nature and even a peaceful forgiving State of nature. Locke’s idea lives by a social contract that is formed among a group, laws are established, followed by a governmental system. The most ingenious part of Locke’s vision is that “no one has a right to rule, in a sense that no one has been appointed by God”. I completely agree with this vision. Not every man has the same skill set and is able to lead a society. Issues and community friction could result, along with the possibility of having just anyone, even a brutish person, in charge whose main purpose is to build a reputation that could send a society back into the state of nature.
Where Locke sees structure and community Hobbes sees the idea of the leviathan, a scare tactic Hobbes used to persuade people that we all need governance and laws and we should be afraid of the state of nature. The people we are, and our morals are different than in the leviathan right? To Hobbes, the leviathan has complete power and control over all subordinates. But, he also claims that humans have an undying hunger for power. Whether you’re at the top or bottom of the power chain, everyone is looking to be number one. This breaks down to the fact that this sovereign is supposed to save us and protect us from what the state of nature is, when all it is doing is keeping everyone in a much tighter proximity and an even bigger opportunity for clashing desires “therefor if any two men desire the same thing… they become enemies; and in the way to their end. ”
Now looking at the evidence given it’s clear that Locke seems better organized and equipped with his ideology on the law of nature. All points relate and come full circle supporting each other to create a solid basis. They seem to be much more hopeful and a better alternative than the state of nature. Which we know to be complete chaos just like Hobbes’ ideology on both the state and law of nature as he’s convinced in humanities greed for power and how endless of a fight it is because it’s okay to kill your neighbor if you’re starving and need some food. “Others will also seek to increase their power, and so the search for power is, by its nature, competitive. Hobbes’ idea, however, isn’t the best alternative to the state of nature because it’s not secure or structured like Locke’s and it even has flaws of potential chaos within itself.
The state of nature is dominated by scarcity of resources. These are hard to find and when you have a substantial amount of uncertainty regarding what will happen to you since the more you have the bigger target you are. Despite what you may have, people to Hobbes are brutes. If someone wants what you have get a stick, and if they have one get a pointy stick; technology will tip the scales in your favor and keep you one step ahead of everyone else, making the weakest the strongest or even making the strong even stronger. “To act as you think fit to preserve yourself”. These are the three tenets of Hobbes ideology of the, somewhat, perfect Freedom if disputes and technology are the only thing between myself and death.
As for Locke, the idea of Perfect freedom includes many ideas on how even though people aren’t necessarily equal in power but morally we are all the same, and for once between these two philosophers Locke does agree with Hobbes that people are greedy but that does not give anyone the right to subordinate another as we are all equal in many other ways. His idea allows individuals to accomplish whatever they want. All doors are open, and the pathways are endless, the limitations set by the law of nature are real limitations as long as you’re not harming another.
In conclusion, the deeper you read into the controversial debate of who is more persuasive than the other, it becomes clear that it is Locke. All of his ideas were explained and backed up and between who’s idea of the law of nature and Perfect Freedom made the more persuasive account, Locke’s did in that his ideas were sound and didn’t have as many flaws as Hobbes did. Hobbes mainly looked at a civil war where judgement of human behavior was based on military actions that don’t nessicarily reflect the true human spirit. His ideas weren’t as solid and there were too many variables of what could go wrong in comparison to Locke.
