Compare and contrast the ideas about human nature in two theorists Essay

Compare and contrast the ideas about human nature in two theorists Hobbes and Locke - Essay Example Hobbes did not share the recognized assumption that man was a social animal by his nature claiming that society could not exist without the power of the state and proper government. Instead, he argued that motivation and particularly self-interest was the central factor that affected behaviour of human beings (Leviathan I 13). Although Hobbes developed a sophisticated system of such motives that included courage, honor, pity, compassion, and other, he strongly believed that self-interest played the key role while the other motives should be treated as supplementary or secondary. Premising from these assumptions, Hobbes developed his famous justification of morality based on self-interested actions (Leviathan I 6). Modern form of this theory, known as 'ethical egoism', postulates that a self-interested action should be regarded as a standard of good (Rachels, 2008). John Locke who had the religious sentiment Hobbes apparently lacked proceeded from the assumption of God's creation of man and, therefore, believed in the natural freedom of human being that included the right to pursue life, health, and property. Also Locke argued that human beings are social animal by nature and societies emerged as a result of the rational efforts of humans taken to protect themselves from adversities of living in the 'state of nature' (Locke, 1990). In other words, Locke believed that humans their natural state mostly kept their promises and obligations, while Hobbes denied any organization in the 'natural' society of men claiming that fear and self-interest were the primary motivators of human behavior. The dissimilarity of human nature views advocated by the two thinkers can further be illustrated by their treatment of political authority and modern nation-state. Legitimacy of authority is one of the fundamental questions in political philosophy. There are multiple issues and controversies involved in this major problem including the meaning of political authority, the distinction between political authority and political power, moral and legal aspects of political authority, and many others. Majority of contemporary political theorists consider that the state has authority in the descriptive sense. This means that the state maintains public order via creating rules and issuing commands that subjects generally obey due to the dominant belief that the state has authority to do so (Hart 1961). Locke and Hobbes explain the origins of such belief in entirely different ways. According to Thomas Hobbes, in prehistoric uncivilized times before any sort of government emerged, there was constant war with "every man, against every man" (Hobbes, 1668, p.12). Consequently, Hobbesian justification of authority logically followed from the total brutality of human beings in their natural state characterized by intolerance: submission to authority was the only way to eliminate the brutality and intolerance of the State of Nature (Hobbes, 1668). By contrast, John Locke believed that the original state of man was not as hostile as Hobbes thought. In Locke's opinion happiness, reason and tolerance were the core characteristics of the natural man, and all humans, in their original state, were equal and absolutely free to pursue things, considered as indisputable rights, namely "life, health, liberty and possessions"

An argumentative literary analysis on one or more works by a Research Paper

An argumentative literary analysis on one or more works by a particular author or comparative analysis of several works on a sim - Research Paper Example After ‘existing’ in that confused, constricted and compulsion state, individuals including the characters in fictions could undergo self-realization. In those scenarios, self-realization will be like the opening of the ‘inner eye’ of the individual, which will take them on a positive and best path. It can also be considered as a moment, when a big ‘confusion mass’ or guilt that may be occupying and constricting an individual’s mind has ‘evaporated’ for good. The confusion in the mind of Oedipus in Oedipus Rex, compulsion for Nora Elmer in A Doll’s House and constriction in the mind of Laura in The Glass Menagerie all get evaporated, when these fictional characters undergo self-realization. So, this paper will analyse how these three characters get entangled in a mess, and after a struggling phase, undergo self-realization, thereby enlightening them with mixed results. 2. Oedipus Rex and Self-Realization Oedipus Rex is about the life and the tragic death of Oedipus who after becoming the King of Thebes, dies a tragic death after undergoing self-realization. Oedipus was born to King Laius of Thebes and Queen Jocasta, but was cared by foster parents, Polybus and Merope, as King Laius feared that the prophecy of being killed by his own son could come true. The prophecy in a way gets actualized when Oedipus due to uncontrollable circumstances kills King Laius without knowing that King Lauis was his biological father, setting the stage for future confusions and self-realizations. The other prophecy of Oedipus marrying his mother also came true, when he married Queen Jocasto on the account of him becoming the king of Thebes, after solving the Sphinx riddle. When he comes to know about these crimes, or immoral acts, he goes into a state of confusion as well as depression, but also at the same time self-realization. That is, he was sure that he can find Laius killers and thereby prevent the onslaught of p lague, but this confidence turned into weakness when he comes to know the profound truth that he is the killer of Lauis. So, when the ‘recognition’ happens, the self-realization also occurs, with Oedipus transforming from a strong king to a weak blind man. He laments, â€Å"I, Oedipus, damned in his birth, in his marriage damned, Damned in the blood he shed with his own hand† (Sophocles 123).The affect this event had on Oedipus as discussed above also bordered on tragedy. On coming to know about the truth and after undergoing self-realization of his crimes and conduct, Oedipus as form of self-justice blinds himself with the golden brooches found on his mother’s dress. He blinds himself, as he did not want to see the miseries that his actions have brought upon him. â€Å"The alternative of suicide is directly before him. He takes up her golden pins...blinds himself. It is Sophocles point that Oedipus sees two possibilities and chooses the harder and more p ainful course† (Smith 92). Talking about the pace of the â€Å"recognition†, in the case of Oedipus, it happened suddenly. That is, although he wanted to know the real killers of Lauis for a long time, he comes to know about the truth from messengers and Servants, and when he hears the death of Jocasto immediately, he undergoes self-realization, leading to death. â€Å"Salvation becomes annihilation; the tragedy does not take place in the hero's downfall, but rather in the fact that man meets his demise along the very path he took up to escape his demise.†