| Papers [1-16] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "LEVIATHAN THOMAS HOBBES": |
|
|
?Leviathan? by Thomas Hobbes, 2006.
A review of Thomas Hobbes innovative "Leviathan".
3,037 words (approx. 12.1 pages), 5 sources, MLA, AU$ 129.95
»
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, AU$ 45.95
»
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, AU$ 64.95
»
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, AU$ 57.95
»
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" ( 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, AU$ 68.95
»
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 ..."
| |
|
"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, AU$ 68.95
»
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 ."
| |
|
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, AU$ 57.95
»
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."
| |
|
Thomas Hobbes's "Leviathan", 2004.
Literary critique of Thomas Hobbes's philosophical work, "Leviathan".
1,337 words (approx. 5.3 pages), 1 source, MLA, AU$ 64.95
»
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."
| |
|
Natural Law According to Thomas Hobbes and St.Thomas Aquinas, 2000.
The following essay discusses the existence and meaning of natural law.
1,380 words (approx. 5.5 pages), 2 sources, APA, AU$ 67.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The following paper examines why many theorists reject the existence of natural law as well as why many agree to its being defined as a set of innate moral principles which are common to all human beings. It is the aim of this paper to identify and discuss the important similarities and differences that exist between the two theories making reference to the theories of Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) and St.Thomas Aquinas (1224/25 - 1274).
From the Paper
"Aquinas proposed that the essential quality setting human beings apart from the rest of the animal world was that of reason. In a development of Aristotle's theory.Aquinas asserts that all men naturally possess an internalized divine spark of reason,which serves as the guide to an autonomous and responsible decision making process."
| |
|
The Principles of Thomas Hobbes and "The Lord of the Flies", 2008.
A review of the novel "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding as compared to the theories in "Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes.
850 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses the novel "Lord of the Flies", written by William Golding, which is about a group of boys that become stranded on an island. The central idea of the novel is how these children try to form a civilized society, but ultimately fail. The paper relates that the original leader, Ralph, is overthrown by a corrupt leader Jack. What results is a primitive survival-based system. The paper concludes that the ideas that are presented in "The Lord of the Flies" about society, human nature and government are illuminated by the principles that Thomas Hobbes writes about in "Leviathan." The paper examines both of these works and shows how Hobbes' theory is interpreted in Golding's novel.
From the Paper
"As Golding shows in the novel, once Jack overthrows Ralph, all aspects of civilization are replaced with that of savagery. Hobbes writes that "if any two men desire the same thing, which never the less they cannot both enjoy they become enemies" (Hobbes 54). Jack wants to be leader from the begging. When Ralph is picked over Jack, Jack begins to desire the power that Ralph has. Ralph does not execute his authority correctly over the boys of the island in order to prevent a revolt. Once Jack takes power, chaos is guaranteed to ensue, because Jack is not the right person to lead the boys. He is both too corrupt and power hungry. Hobbes believes that the leader's motivation should be the same as that of the people; both should not want the state of nature/war to exist. Ralph does not want the boys to be in a state of nature/war, but when Jack takes power he returns the boys to a state of nature/war. For a society to be successful, the Leviathan dictates the importance of law and order. Once Jack overthrows Ralph, all concepts of law and order are lost."
| |
|
Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes, 2001.
This paper examines a "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli and "Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes.
1,365 words (approx. 5.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, AU$ 65.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
A look at these philosopher's views on the nature of human relationships, how it is that we join together to form societies, what the best form of human society might be, and the ways in which what is natural in human nature can be overcome by the goodness that lies in collective action ? or exacerbated by the concatenation of so many humans working in concert with each other.
From the Paper
"While both of these philosophers will reject the idealized image of ?imagined republics? ? both as ideals and as possible realities ? Machiavelli proves himself in the end to be more of an heir to their writings than does Hobbes ? which is hardly surprising, given that Machiavelli, as a writer of the Italian Renaissance is much more clearly an historical heir to the classical thinkers."
| |
|
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, AU$ 57.95
»
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."
| |
|
Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes, 2005.
This paper describes and compares the political philosophies of Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes.
3,765 words (approx. 15.1 pages), 15 sources, MLA, AU$ 149.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Machiavelli lived during the Renaissance, nearly 150 years earlier than Thomas Hobbes, yet it was he who envisioned the basis for the political pragmatism of the twentieth century; while Thomas Hobbes, who lived in the 16th century, was a political materialist in the classical tradition of Plato and Galileo. The author stresses that Machiavellianism, as a term, has been used to describe the principles of power politics and the type of person who uses those principles in political or personal life is frequently described as a Machiavellian. The paper includes a comparison of the Table of Contents of "De Cive" by Thomas Hobbes and of "The Prince" by Machiavelli to demonstrate that Hobbes is looking for a universal law of politic; whereas, Machiavelli is looking for a practical means of surviving real politics. Several very long quotes.
From the Paper
"For Machiavelli, historical change has two forms: (1) the motion of nature and, (2) the order or ordering that man intends. Nature's changes are unreliable; they can be good or bad, but man does not feel safe or grateful. Machiavelli lumps unreliable nature with fickle fortune as the first element of his view of the opposing forces of history. Human order, or as Machiavelli describes it, "orders and modes" (Preface), is devised by human virtu to overcome this sense of being at the mercy of nature or fortune and is the second element of the equation. Simply put, his context of history is a contest between virtu and fortuna. Machiavelli is not a mere observer of this contest. As a humanist historian, he bases his advice, or lessons if you will, on the contest. But unlike the other historians of his day, he does not teach the lesson by what was done, but rather by what should have been done. This clearly places Histories in the political instead of historical genre by modern standards."
| |
|
Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli, 2006.
This paper discusses the political views and philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, AU$ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This political study analyzes the major ethical and moral foundations for governing that reside in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, Aristotle, and Machiavelli. By understanding the premise of an ethical government in Aristotle's point view, the writer shows that the basis for a republican ethical and morality systems are a function of good political structures in government. However, the writer points out that Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli disagree with this point of view, finding that self-preservation for elites is the foundation of most governing bodies through the reality of human nature. Further, the writer notes that aside from the dogmatic philosophy of Aristotle that seeks to propose ethical standards in government, both Hobbes and Machiavelli are realists in their understanding of human nature and the often-cruel conflicts that reside within the quest for power.
From the Paper
"... the critical philosophical premise to human nature that ultimately helps one realize how persons that attain power utilize it not for the greater good, but for the self-preservation of the person that is not satisfied with their own portion of power. In this manner, Hobbes provides the deeper insight into governing bodies and how they function, since it is often the issue of self-preservation that often dictates government, whether it be called republican, monarchy, etc., and that power forces men to abide by constitutions and rules only for their own greater personal success. "
| |
|
Thomas Hobbes and Capital Punishment, 2002.
An examination of Thomas Hobbes' view on capital punishment.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 5 sources, AU$ 128.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the issue of capital punishment in the context of Thomas Hobbes' views on the Leviathan state. The paper contends that Hobbes would have supported the death penalty as a vehicle through which the Leviathan could frighten people and implement social control. The paper argues that the death penalty would not serve its function in this context.
| |
|
Thomas Hobbes, 2002.
The life and work of Thomas Hobbes.
2,900 words (approx. 11.6 pages), 8 sources, AU$ 154.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the life and work of Thomas Hobbes who was born in 1588. Hobbes studied different forms of governments and during his time outside of England he became interested in why people allowed themselves to be ruled and what would be the best form of government for England. In 1651, Hobbes wrote his most famous work, entitled "Leviathan." In it, he argued that people were naturally wicked and could not be trusted to govern. Therefore, Hobbes believed that an absolute monarchy - a government that gave all power to a king or queen - was best.
|
|
|
