The Great Philosophers: Machiavelli, Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, and Locke - Free Essay Sample

Introduction

Machiavelli, Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, and Locke are some of the most studied philosophers in modern times. This paper explores their main ideas, comparison of their approach to human nature as well as how their ideas are applied in contemporary social issues.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Main Ideas of Machiavelli

In his book "the prince," Machiavelli describes human nature and how people relate to power. In the book, he claims that it is better to be feared than to be loved. However, he warns against being hated since hatred results in loss of power for the person hated. Fear is not a reciprocal relationship that can be broken at will, unlike love, which can be broken at will for personal gains.

Machiavelli observed that how people live is far from how people ought to live. There is a gap between the ideal living and reality. A person who practices the perfect life will fail in the face of a contrasting reality. He advises people to always appear to be good, seems to live by excellent virtues, while in fact, being open and flexible by having the ability to practice vices privately if needed to achieve specific goals (Machiavelli, 2008).

In the book, he says that the world is full of not so good people and that a person who attempts to be goodwill comes to ruin. For a person to possess power and be able to live amongst bad people, he must learn how not to be kind and use the knowledge as necessity requires. A person must learn how to be cruel and dishonest and use them if they further the set goals and objectives.

In relationships with other people, Machiavelli gives two ways of dealing with them; either you treat them well or crush them so that they cannot avenge themselves. Treating people well gives one goodwill among the people, which is a good defense against domestic and external aggression. People feel obligated after receiving favors. People will attempt to revenge any perceived mistreatment; therefore, he prefers either overwhelming them such that they have no capacity to revenge or treating the well to generate goodwill, which can be used as a tool to ensure stability.

Difference between Machiavelli Realism and Idealistic View of Aristotle and Plato

Machiavelli realism notes that there is a conflict between what is ideal and the reality while Aristotle and Plato valued idealized models. Plato and Aristotle had constructed imaginary and exemplary models of state with the final goals of human society, guiding people in the correct way. On the other hand, Machiavelli doubts the viability of ideal states where there are no reliable methods of achieving those states from the current daily living of men full of selfishness. He suggests that such ideal states are unattainable and, therefore, useless.

Machiavelli describes what is termed as the sufficient truth, reality, and practicality, which can achieve goals in the midst of not so good men. In his book, he advises people to learn the not so good ways of the people around him and use them when necessary to achieve the set goals and objectives. Plato, on the other hand, supports the education of people and reform of society in order for the ideal society and government to exist. Plato was a utopian thinker with a disconnect to the current reality and advised education and reformation of community to match his perfect state.

Plato states that bad heroes give glamour to flaws of character. For an ideal state, wise men and kind people who are models of development known by their public service and qualities like modesty and humbleness should replace celebrities with flaws in character. On the other hand, Machiavelli praises men who are able to achieve their goals by disregarding conventional morals by choosing actions that further their objectives, both good and bad actions. Machiavelli advises people to always appear to be virtuous before people and practice vices such as cruelty and dishonesty to achieve goals that benefit the state.

Machiavelli notes that the gap between reality and the ideal state imagined by many is as a result of the selfish nature of humans. According to him, people never forget the wrongs done to them even when being treated well. Love is a bond that endures in times of prosperity, but men break it whenever there is adversity to serve their own selfish interests. He declares that it is better to be feared than loved if one is to achieve their objectives. Machiavelli notes that men are ambitious and will only be limited by the available resources; therefore, they are in constant competition.

Aristotle claims that man is a political animal and will naturally develop complex societies where a person sacrifices their interests for the common good. He states that sacrifices extend beyond self-interest, therefore, forming innate goodness of human nature. It is from this natural goodness of human nature that he proposes the creation of ideal states. He was more concerned about the resultant outcome than the means to achieve the desired result. Aristotle envisioned a community aimed at the highest good (Miller, 1997).

Machiavelli was more concerned about the means by which one can achieve the set goals and objectives. He encouraged disregard morals and religious structures for the benefit of the state by advancing its interests. Plato was more concerned with the outcome and placed greater emphasis on moral and intellectual integrity as opposed to patriotism that betrays personal integrity. Aristotle regarded happiness, eudemonia, as the highest good and should be the aim of the state and individual. Machiavelli describes a world where people react to the situation they find themselves in and should learn the ways of the majority while Aristotle advises on the virtue of practical wisdom and that people act according to their habits.

Main Ideas of Hobbes on Nature and Human Nature

Hobbes believed that all occurrences could be explained by the motion and interaction of materials. In that regard, humans are basically machines with their bodies subject to physical laws where chains of cause and effect, action and reaction determine thoughts and emotions of an individual. Due to this belief, he rejected the existence of a soul or other metaphysical entities, which were common during his period (Hobbes, 1914).

Hobbes also believed that just like machines functioning according to laws of motion, humans relentlessly pursued things serving their own interests. He viewed human society as a machine following physical laws comprised of individual humans as parts that are also subject to laws governing motion and collision. These views regarding humans as machines were influenced by the discoveries in physical laws made during the period\ (Hobbes, 1914).

Hobbes rejected the method of observation of nature to make conclusions in philosophy and science. He reasoned that individuals are subjective are likely to see the world differently under the same conditions. He, in essence, rejected the scientific method where conclusions are based on observation of nature and carrying out replicable experiments. Instead of the scientific method, he championed the creation of a system of foundational principles and logic that serves as the base of philosophical truths. He regarded geometry as this logic upon which true philosophy can be established.

Hobbes believed that human life was controlled by fear and hope. One of the two emotions is always experienced by a person at all times. People live under the constant fear of violent death. People will desire power and good in their lives. It is under continuous fear and desire for power and good in life that creates a state of constant war. In a state of continual war, people live in fear of each other, and they opt to seek peace among each other.

Social contract occurs when men consent to be ruled in a commonwealth by the supreme authority. People engage in a social contract to gain peace from the constant state of war. Fear being a principle emotion creates the chaos of the steady-state of war in nature and can also be used to create peaceful order under a social contract in a commonwealth. The absolute leader in a commonwealth holds power to enforce peace by fear.

Hobbes argues that in the natural state, morals do not exist; instead, morals are created by a society with a central authority. In nature, good is defined by what people desire and evils as what they avoid. Under this definition of good and evil, hope is defined as the prospect of attaining what a person desires and fear as the struggle with the realization that one's wishes might not be fulfilled. These definitions of good and evil occur. There is no influence on society.

Monarchy is the best form of government where there is a central, supreme, and sovereign power in a society. He states that monarchy is the only form of government that can guarantee peace. According to him, it is the right form of government because it is the only one to minimize disagreement and bring harmony in a society. He argues that any kind of government is preferable to civil war brought about by conflict within the community. Therefore it is advisable to create a social contract where there is an absolute central authority, an absolute monarchy.

Main Ideas of Locke

Locke argues that people gain knowledge through experience. People are born like blank slates, and they experience the world through the five senses forming ideas that are limited by the experience. Our knowledge forms from the concepts we create from experience. Even though our knowledge is defined by our experiences, Locke claims that people are sure of their own existence and the existence of God though we cannot wholly comprehend him in his entirety (Anstey, 2011).

Locke claims that we know the existence of the other things around us with the five senses, and our idea always corresponds to these external realities because the mind is born as a blank slate and cannot create plans without external input. A person lacking one sense cannot have ideas corresponding to reality regarding that sense.

Locke addressed the moral role of government claims that political power is a natural power of each person that is given to a governing body. For a government to exist, society surrenders their freedom and natural rights to a certain degree to the government, which is more successful in defending human rights than any individual could alone.

Locke argues that the government exists only for the well-being of society. Society is obligated to replace any government that acts against the wishes of the community since governments exist to benefit the people in the community. Locke emphasized the importance of close scrutiny of public institutions and their functions to ensure they are legitimate and clarity of tasks to avoid influence in inappropriate parts of life.

When the proper function of the government is determined, people are able to lives as individuals and flourish as societies both spiritually and materially. Locke argues that God gave men the ability to reason and freedom; therefore, a well-executed government acts in the will of god and men. There is a moral order that is self-perpetuating, and governments are in harmony with that order.

Locke argues that God gave humans a capacity to reason that guides us in the pursuit of truth. People also have an innate tendency to preserve themselves. People naturally avoid situations that cause pain and make them miserable and seek pleasurable experiences. He claims that loves all God's children, and we are equal, and therefore a person who causes pain to another individual is an act against God's will. Every person has the responsibility to preserve the rights of other people alongside his own. This recognition of responsibil...