Hobbes’ views on Senses in his Theory
The state of nature is an ideal rather than real situation or condition whereby man is not restricted by anything in his pursuance of the various things he wants to achieve in his life. In this state, man is not under the control of any rule or regulation that is put in place by a government but only driven by the strategies that spearhead him towards the acquisition of life and a good life indeed. This situation is said to have existed before the formation of state. Thomas Hobbes regards sense as the origin or the platform of operation of everything that is done by human beings.
According to him, there is nothing that happens within the life of an individual which is not controlled by senses for everything to be conceptualized and put into place as an action one or more of the organs of sense must be involved (Hobbes and Curley, pp. 56-160). The kind of appearance of a human being is a function of which organ (or organs in collaboration) of sense are at work to produce such. As put down in chapter fourteen, Hobbes describes the state of nature to be free from any kind of injustice and where man is at liberty to pursue peace in as much as he believes he can get it.
Incase this fails, Hobbes says that man develops another avenue of defense in as an attempt to get to the condition he strongly desired. This alternative way is dependent on the willingness to lay down this right to all other things. A war is noted to be the outcome of this character in human beings which Hobbes says that it is a war of “all against all”. All these attempts can be said to have a direct link to the perceptions in the minds of people that exist in people as reasoning. The egocentrism character in human beings brings about the restless desire and zeal for power as seen in Hobbes theory (Hobbes and Curley, pp.
159; 210- 245). Various things which Hobbes called object are responsible of causing sense in human beings. In this regard, he argues that it the object which builds pressure on the various body organs thus triggering an urge of response from the organ which is hard pressed by the condition presented by the object. For instance a bad odor is an outward condition which causes the nose to sense presence of bad environment and thus a continuum expression of strive in its endeavor to seek restoration of the right condition. This thus serves to show the significance of senses in elaborating the Hobbes argument in his theory.
Human beings are all different and involved in the war noticed by Hobbes and thus their likes and dislikes can never much at any one time. In the same way senses depict a continuous resistance as long as they are hard pressed by the objects this fight among human beings will never end in their lives on earth because the mismatch can never be leveled. Hobbes attributes three causes to the conflict prevalent in the state of nature. First is competition which catalyses man towards achievement and gain in life. Secondly is diffidence which regards safety of oneself and thus the cause of the defensive character in man against others.
Lastly is glory which highlights on the performance of a man. He asserts that a strong central government can avert the civil chaos and fights resulting from the state of nature. Theory of recollection and Plato concepts As described by Plato, the soul is the innermost part of a human being which instead of dying, just takes different forms through rebirth in different bodies subsequently in a human being and thus immortal. It is this immortal part of a human being that can never be destroyed and which defines the mode of behavior of an individual in his lifetime.
Since it ever lives, the soul accumulates knowledge in the course of life and thus it has nothing that it has not learned. According to Plato, the soul comprises of three parts namely the logos which define the voice of reason in man, the Eros which gives a man appetite and desire and lastly the part that carrying the emotions and spirit in man known as the Thymos. Peace in a person is thus a balance stricken through the various proportionate combinations of these three parts of the soul of a human being.
The theory of Recollection as advanced by Socrates puts across the contention that knowledge exists even before the birth of a person (Plato, pp. 476-480; p. 496). Therefore, the Socrates believes in the possession of knowledge prior to birth. The theory of recollection therefore argues that people don’t need to be taught anything because they already have all what may exist as knowledge but they just need to be meant to remember what they know. The foundation of this contention is in agreement with the argument of Plato that the soul is the innermost part of a human being that lives eternally.
The memory of a human being carries with all information concerning happenings and events in the world and underworld as empowered by the soul and thus time and learning are things which never exist. According to this theory, reality comes into being because of the ability of the soul which enables one to think and recall things hence reality. According to this theory, true knowledge is that which exists before the birth of a person. For instance, a person can say that two vehicles are different in size. This judgement from a person is only enabled by the presence of certain knowledge of equality and difference between objects.
This is because there is no notable stage which is known to equip people with the experience of the equality and difference of things in the life of individuals. Plato’s dialogues of Republic and Apology to the Socrates are based on the course of justice. In these dialogues, Plato seeks to establish the meaning of justice and also to know the level of happiness between the just and the unjust man. In the Allegory of the Cave, Plato says that a certain people are blocked from a constant flame by a wall which serves to allow them see shadows in the cave.
Plato believes that philosopher is a freed prisoner who can now comprehend the truth behind the shadow. When freed, the philosopher understands that all real things are illuminated by the sun as seen under the caves. Goodness is only evident when a person comes into the light of the sun after he comes from the world of cave (Plato, pp. 476-480; p. 496). These dialogues could thus be said to have a relationship with the theory of recollection. One is in a position to remember what he or she saw while on the cave when he comes to the real life.
This contends with the theory of recollection because it claims that a person knows everything because he has ever seen or encountered it. The life in the caves can be linked with the life before birth while the life after freedom can be seen as the life when one lives in the real life. This thus shows interplay between these dialogues and the theory of recollection. Plato verses Hobbes Plato’s Theory These two philosophers develop argument in relation to the life lived by mankind while on earth. Plato is for the view that people are living as a result of freedom granted to them after they have lived in the cave as the prison.
This cave according to Plato exists beneath a certain wall that blocks or prevents the prisoners from the illumination from a certain hypothetical flame in the real world. In the time one spends underneath, various shadows are seen but are unknown of what they represent and where these things or objects are found for the person who lives in the cave. It is only when one is freed when he can come out of the world of seeing shadows to a world where everything is physically real and can be directly seen by the person.
Presumably, this is the life after birth when one starts to experience and interact with the world directly. In this state of freedom, one is in a position to consider the various things present in the world and choose the good while abandoning the bad. Plato asserts that the life of caves is not desirable at all. Plato explains all these levels of existence in an analogy of the divided line. Issues of knowledge are thus results of recalling or recapture of what was seen in the caves (Plato, pp. 476-480; p. 496).
Hobbes on the other hand follows a line of thought which is totally opposite to Plato’s theory. The state of nature as described by Hobbes is what brings about what man will pursue in life as well as the kind of behavior he will adopt. The life of a human being is characterized by a continuous wrangle in the attempt to live a better and superior life to all. A war of all against all exists due to the divergence and differences in the likes and desires of the members of the society proving the significance of a government which can control men for purposes of peace.
Every action in the life of an individual depicts what has been conceived in the mind of the person. These things are highly linked to the senses of human beings which are seen as continuous as long as the conditions arousing them are prevalent. The lives of people are therefore subject to change in reference to the condition in action as opposed to the life described by Plato which never takes any other course due to the immortality nature of the soul. Conclusion The three causes of conflict in the state of nature as developed by Hobbes serve to show the life that man currently is seen to pursue.
In addition, the life is man is more of continuum struggle in the attempt to seek good and desirable standards of life as opposed to a static and never changing lifestyle of man. Plato does not give a clear reason as to why a person should be prisoner in the life of cave as he explains and thus this serves as a drawback in his theory. Hobbes connects the life of man to his senses and gives them as the central origin of all that characterizes man and determinant of his thoughts.
This is more practical than the allegation of Plato that knowledge existed before birth and the process of remembering the shadows within the caves proves time and learning as an illusion. It thus follows these among other aspects as seen in these two philosophers that the practicality of the life of human beings is more depicted in the Hobbes arguments and thus justifying more Hobbes’ theory. Hobbes’ thinking on commonwealth In his theory, Hobbes puts forward ideas that help in acquisition of the right of governance in a state.
The lives of people in the state of nature is describes by Hobbes as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” thus embracing anarchy in the society (Hobbes and Curley, pp. 159; 210- 245). The existence of this anarchic system gave people the liberty and freedom to infringe other people’s right and thus creation of enmity between individuals. Due to this, there was need for the formation of a society and state which could help balance the individual lives hence peace among them.
By being sovereign, the state was to oversee and regulate the interactions of the members of the various societies within the state. This further ushered strife of a higher rank which was now between states as by led by the self-interest as was seen in individuals. Since there was no state that had power over the others, this brought about conflict again as the case posed by the state of nature. It is in regard of this Hobbes argument where the international relations are seen to have their foundation in.
Thomas Hobbes identifies two forces inherent in man as the driving factors in his life. The first force in operation is the fear of death while in the hands of another individual while the second force is obsession of authority and power over the others. Commonwealth is a system of governance that is massively agreed by numerous numbers of men where there are well stipulated rules and regulations that define the code of conduct (Hobbes and Curley, pp. 210-217). These rules are attached with penalties and punishments which are to be imposed upon the violators of these covenanted laws.
Thomas Hobbes argues that, the commonwealth is attained through mutual agreement where each and every person gives up his power and control over himself and relinquishes this to a certain man. This person or group identified by the multitude either through voting or proposition is endowed with the power to control and oversee the public in general as well as pass judgments to the violators. Thomas Hobbes identifies two types of commonwealth namely “Sovereignty by Institution” and “Sovereignty by Acquisition”.
In the former, all people are under mutual agreement to adopt the system of having a ruler while the later comes by a conqueror taking control over others by force but they are all driven by the fear motivation factor (Hobbes and Curley, pp. 209-217; 394). The legitimacy of the government is attached to its capability to offer protection to those who abide and obey its laws. When the protection comes to an end, political obligation also follows suit. References Hobbes, Thomas and Curley, Edwin M. Leviathan: with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668 < http://books.
google. co. ke/books? id=7Sc4p5-ghJcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hobbes+(1668)+Leviathan&source=bl&ots=9tFnNpRw3z&sig=kMVtr2CN5yCYbQYAWnkporyRih0&hl=en&ei=d-HsS9SSAZij_Ab22aD9CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false> Great Dialogues of Plato. http://books. google. co. ke/books? id=KwjAW2qhGvAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=great+dialogues+of+plato&source=bl&ots=DTDl5eFcRL&sig=d7TtwtTHwZLDSRR4Js9t4iyVenY&hl=en&ei=jOPuS8HRHY-UnwPr5rH0Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=falseSample Essay of PapersOwl.com