| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "HOBBES LEVIATHAN": |
|
|
Thomas Hobbes?s ?Leviathan?, 2004.
This paper discusses that Thomas Hobbes, in his ?Leviathan?, proposes that man, in his natural state, is led to quarrel with other men because of competition, diffidence, and glory.
1,140 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 1 source, MLA, £ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Hobbes views the natural man as hardly different from a beast because he is without law or the refinements of science and art. The author points out that Hobbes?s natural man uses violence in order to compete with and invade other men to gain something. The paper relates, in competing for something gainful, every man is equal to other men, regardless of another?s intellectual or artistic endowments.
From the Paper
"Outside the home, he uses violence in acquiring or competing for his objectives, including food, clothing, space, other men and other possessions, when other men pursue the same objects at the same time. If there is no opposition, the acquisition is easy, complete and permanent until it is contested by the object of acquisition itself or any outsider. Violence is imposed by the natural man because the acquisition is willful and does not require the consent or even the awareness of the object subdued. Treachery is often a method used by the natural man. Violence is manual, physical or with the use of weapons, whichever ensures the gainful acquisition."
| |
|
Hobbes' "Leviathan", 2007.
An analysis of John Hobbes' views on liberty, as expressed in "Leviathan."
1,411 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the concepts of liberty in a society. It defines and describes these concepts according to John Hobbes' views expressed in "Leviathan." The paper analyzes Hobbes' arguments and questions how humans can have total liberty and yet governments can also have authority to define what liberties humans should have. The paper discusses these points.
Table of Contents:
Thesis
Review of Scholarship on Hobbes' Leviathan
Conclusion
From the Paper
"But, in conclusion, if that "artificial" institution uses violence or repression to "keep disorder at bay" then, according to what I have gained from reading Hobbes, individuals like myself will have the natural right to disobey those unfair orders, and create an alternative "artificial institution" to be truly free and express absolute liberty. After all, it was Hobbes who said, "Whensoever a man transferreth his right...it is either in consideration of some right reciprocally transferred to himself, or for some other good he hopeth for thereby." I don't plan to transfer any of my rights to government any time soon, other than to perhaps help the habitat of an endangered species, or to assist another human in dire need of my sacrifice."
| |
|
Thomas Hobbes's "Leviathan", 2004.
Literary critique of Thomas Hobbes's philosophical work, "Leviathan".
1,337 words (approx. 5.3 pages), 1 source, MLA, £ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines chapters 17, 19, and 29 of "Leviathan" in an effort to describe Hobbes's view of human nature, his belief that humans must construct a state in order to protect themselves from outside threats, and his views on democracy, monarchy, and anarchy. The paper also suggests that Hobbes's main purpose in writing "Leviathan" was to lay the foundation for a secular defense based upon a presumption of the basic nature of humanity of the monarchy, which was originally defended as divine institution.
From the Paper
"At the beginning of the first chapter of the second part of his monumental philosophical treatise upon the nature of government, entitled Leviathan, the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes stated that ?the final cause, end, or design of men (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in Commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby.? (Chapter 17). In other words, for Hobbes, the self-preservation and the desire to maintain the physical self in a state of pleasure is the root of all humanity?s desire. Hobbes thus posits the essential nature of humanity, and makes an argument about the institutions of government that are best suited for the nature of human beings, given this ?fact? of human nature."
| |
|
Hobbes' "Leviathan", 2002.
This paper discusses Hobbes' view of human nature in the "Leviathan".
1,900 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 1 source, £ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines Hobbes' argument that man had to be held in check by fear. The author points out that Hobbes contended that humans were aggressive by nature and sought war and conflict at all times. The paper concludes that, because of this reality, Hobbes believed in the necessity of a strong state.
| |
|
Moral Rules and Hobbes' s "Leviathan", 2002.
An overview of Hobbes's social philosophy and views of morality on Western society.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, £ 24.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper will show how Hobbes's view of the function and use of morality in Western society was a more complex one than a initial reading of his work would suggest. The moral rules which govern the social order re-visioned by Hobbes come in the form of what Hobbes termed "natural laws" which determine all human behaviour. However, any analysis of these first necessitates an analysis of Hobbes's social philosophy in general. .
| |
|
?Leviathan? by Thomas Hobbes, 2006.
A review of Thomas Hobbes innovative "Leviathan".
3,037 words (approx. 12.1 pages), 5 sources, MLA, £ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this review of Thomas Hobbes" Leviathan", the author describes the book as innovative and a great philosophical work. He describes how Hobbes argues that mankind, in order to live peacefully, ought to submit to the power of an ultimate, sovereign authority. This power would be unlimited and total, the very definition of a tyrannical state. The author tells us that Hobbes states only a "leviathan" can govern man. The author points out how Hobbes argues that without such extreme control to oversee the lives and interactions of men, every society would slowly disassemble and capitulate into a civil war. In conclusion the author discusses Hobbes argument that government is a necessary component in the building of peace and security within civilized groups. He believes that because man is so violent in his "natural" condition, any sovereign that governs man is seen as an overbearing taskmaster.
From the Paper
"The catch lies in the fact that each individual has his own judgment regarding self-preservation. A man, for his own reasons, may decide that the death of another man is a matter of self-preservation. In practical terms, the right to survive can easily become an unrestricted right to an anti-social behavior. (Hobbes calls it the right "to all things.") He not only assumes that man has the impulse to survive, but that man should, as a matter of "practical rationality," adopt behaviors that are necessary for self-preservation. Hence, if man judges another man to be a threat, and judges that killing that man is the only way to eliminate the threat, then by the logic self-preservation, he has a right to commit murder. The problem here is as Williams points out, that "in the state of nature no one is in a position to successfully define what is good judgment."
| |
|
"Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes, 2005.
This paper discusses Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" and considers its meaning and the effects it had.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, MLA, £ 22.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes Thomas Hobbes's "Leviathan" and examines its meaning, the influences of other writers on Hobbes and its effect on modern thinking. The paper also contends that Hobbes was a radical philosophical revolutionary.
From the Paper
"Leviathan: My analysis of Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" began with a study of the authorship of the book. The copyright page listed Thomas Hobbes as the author and gave his birth and death dates as and respectively. The page stated that the book contained selected variants from the Latin edition of Thomas Hobbes. It appears to be an authentic edition of the book with Hobbes as the author. Hobbes's audience for Leviathan is a matter of some controversy."
| |
|
'The Leviathan' by Thomas Hobbes, 2005.
A review of Thomas Hobbes book 'The Leviathan', discussing it as a political philosophy.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 1 source, £ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how the Leviathan is the individual sovereign or ruling body that represents the few in order to develop laws or contracts to control the masses. In this manner, Hobbes creates the mortal god which acts not only as a king, but as a conduit to God in developing and enforcing these laws. As reflected in this paper, only the king knows best how to unite the people under the banner of peace and it is therefore clear that the people have little say in how government is conducted for their interest.
From the Paper
"The aim of this political study will be to examine and define what is normatively called a "Leviathan" within the context of philosophy. Thomas Hobbes uses this term to define how a sovereign government should be enacted for the sole purpose of achieving unity in government. In essence, the Leviathan is a term for governmental practices that give power to a monarchy or oligarchy that is formed and perishable through a "mortal god" within the commonwealth. The Leviathan that Hobbes describes with his book entitled 'The Leviathan' is the formulation of governing principles that oppose republican governments. The basis for Hobbes' choice for a singular monarchy or nobility to govern relies on understanding government that is direct for the common good."
| |
|
"A Modest Proposal" ( Jonathan Swift ), "Of Cannibals" ( Michel De Montaigne ) and "Leviathan" ( Thomas Hobbes ), 1999.
Critiques these writers' views on the darker side of human nature.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 3 sources, £ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Jonathan Swift ("A Modest Proposal"), Michel de Montaigne ("Of Cannibals"), and Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) offer comparable views on the darker side of human nature.
From the Paper
"Jonathan Swift ("A Modest Proposal"), Michel de Montaigne ("Of Cannibals"), and Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) offer comparable views on the darker side of human nature. Their views reflect patterns of the world in which we live as that world slips into an increasingly self-centered, frightened, materialistic and God-less reality.
Swift satirically presents a terrifying solution to the problem of overpopulation, specifically, from the British perspective, the overpopulation of poor Irish who were seen to be having too many children and who would inevitably require British aid to care for those children. Swift suggests a solution: the children should be eaten:
I have been assured by a very knowing American . . . that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old ..."
| |
|
"Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes, 1999.
Examines author's definition of science & whether his conception of religion qualifies it as a science.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 1 source, £ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The purpose of this research is to examine Hobbes's discussion of religion in Leviathan, with a view toward determining whether and to what extent the Hobbesian conception of religion is a case of Hobbesian Science. The plan of the research will be to set forth Hobbes's formulation and definition of Science in general terms, and then to discuss his treatment of religion and philosophy with a view toward discerning whether his formulation of religion can be classified as a Science in Hobbesian terms.
To discuss Hobbes's view of religion as a science, it is first necessary to examine the criteria he uses to define science, then explore whether these criteria are meant to be consistent with his evaluation of religion. Hobbes's formulation of Science in Chapter 5 of Leviathan derives from his formulation of ."
| |
|
"Leviathan" ( Thomas Hobbes ), 1999.
Examines the philosopher's War Argument and the inapplicability of God and religion to his political analysis.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 2 sources, £ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Thomas Hobbes's method and aims in civil philosophy in general, and in Leviathan in particular, lead him to leave the "seeds of religion" out of the War Argument because to include those seeds of religion would be counter-productive to his method and aims.
Hobbes's method is based on science, logic, reason, materialism, and empirical observation, none of which is useful in analyzing God or religion. For Hobbes to include the intangibles and mysteries of religion and God in his rational analysis of human nature and politics would have been to poison the entire project with uncertainty.
Hobbes's aim is to construct a philosophy, built on what he hopes are the air-tight bricks of reason and mathematical logic, which convinces human beings that they should immediately form a ..."
| |
|
Thrasymachus and Thomas Hobbes on Justice, 2008.
A comparison of the views of Thrasymachus, the character in Plato's "Republic" and of Thomas Hobbes in his work, "Leviathan" on the topic of justice in society.
1,145 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 3 sources, MLA, £ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the similarities between the speech of Thrasymachus, the character in Plato's "Republic" and the ideas of justice presented by Thomas Hobbes in his work, "Leviathan." The paper also looks at the notable differences between the two views, particularly their different versions of what justice is within society.
From the Paper
"Hobbes argues that men naturally compete for their own wellbeing, for power and wealth, and that in the course of that competition force and fraud are the only virtues as self-preservation is the ultimate goal (Hobbes, 78). A man is capable and should use every means in order to make what is best for him, in order to acquire even more power. Outside a society, there is no such thing as just or unjust. Individuals can make whatever is best for them for their self-preservation, and there are no punishments for their actions outside a society. Hobbes agrees with Thrasymachus on the point that justice is the advantage of the stronger, as the stronger have the advantage of imposing their justice, but further argues that in the state of nature there is no such thing as justice or injustice as these are terms that can only be defined in a contractual society. He argues that indeed justice is the advantage of the stronger, but only in the state of nature. Outside a civil society, the advantage of the stronger prevails as it is a competition."
| |
|
Hobbes and Machiavelli Compared, 2002.
A comparison and contrast of Hobbes "The Leviathan" and Machiavelli's "The Prince".
1,400 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 4 sources, £ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper will be comparing and contrasting Machiavelli's book "The Prince" and Hobbes's book "The Leviathan". By this way of analyzing these books, we can see how they are similar and dissimilar in their scope in a political format.
| |
|
Hobbes, Machiavelli and Political Failure, 2008.
An analysis of the causes and consequences of political failure in Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Thomas Hobbes's "The Leviathan".
3,468 words (approx. 13.9 pages), 2 sources, MLA, £ 68.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) can be assessed as theorists influenced by direct exposure to political failure and its resulting chaos. It looks as how Machiavelli suggested that the prince was a person who knew he could not have something for nothing, whereas Hobbes was inclined to place the citizen in similar shoes, needing to adjust to a directed social order aware that without small compromises, he would lose the order so needed and wanted to achieve his ambitions. The paper concludes that in the early 21st century, there is much in international political life to remind us of Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Hobbes' "The Leviathan" in different demonstrations of both leadership and political failure and how war, anarchy, alienation and social chaos do seem the prices of poor leadership approaches and the failure to provide what is needed.
Outline:
Introduction
Machiavelli on Political Failure
Hobbes on Political Failure
Lessons of being a Bad Leader, or a Bad Subject
Concluding Remarks
From the Paper
"Both Machiavelli and Hobbes had few illusions about human nature and the difficulties of governance. Machiavelli saw political failure as owing directly to the nature of the leader and whether or not he was a prince, in a person astute and evolved enough to wield power, and as Hobbes agreed in places but also expected subjects to understand that beyond a symbolic leader they needed to see their own culpability when political systems fell to pieces, that they were merely parts of the same organic social machine. Political failure meant that one party of another was not complying as necessary to make the machine function and that this should be recognized. In other words, whatever kind of leader or ruler was produced, human unwillingness to put cooperation ahead of competition and greed, or a failure to respect the law towards other anarchy would bring political failure's result in the anarchy of which human beings were also much afraid. "
|
|
|
