The differences and similarities between LOCKE and HOBBES
The English Revolution (1642-88) led to the emergence of different thinkers who gave each his views on revolution based on their philosophical outlook and personal experience. Among these theorists, was Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, who stood out as principal philosophers. Who theories were conflicting, one urging for absolute kingship while the other argued against it.
Their arguments are believed to shape the modern politics according to various experts. Although there are different aspects differentiating their theories, their approach to the question, which is the use of reason opposed to using divine rights were similar. This is when they were justifying or opposing absolute kingship. Being part of Europe society in 17th and 18th century, they have been very instrumental in modern political thought. One of the remarkable similarity between the two thinkers was an argument on “state of nature” to refer to a situation where man lives without government. They also highlighted some of the risks that man face when there is no government. However, Hobbes was more pessimistic when talking about dangers of the state of nature while Locke pointed some of the potential benefits. In addition, Hobbes was more theoretical while Locke used existing examples.
———-Middle of paper———-
In conclusion, English revolution gave birth to political philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, who since then have gain fame and acceptance as one who provided basics for the modern political thought. The first two theorist, Locke, and Hobbes had some similarity and difference in their argument on the state of nature.
Are you ready to order a custom essay from us ? Place your order with us today.