Wednesday 21 November 2012

HCJ: Hobbes and Machiavelli

Hobbes
Hobbes was an empiricist, clearly influenced by the like of Gallelio and Kelper. Despite being into mathematics, he also valued the art of astronomy. He wrote the Leviathan, which was published in 1651. He uses strict logic but with hypothetical reasoning which, in some people's opinion, could undermine his arguements.

He was a strong believer in the State. He believed that the only was society would be in existance is if there was a State. The State was the symbolic head of the Leviathan - without the State there would be no Leviathan, and without the Leviathan people will live in the state of nature, famously known as being "nasty, brutish and short".

Hobbes thinks people consent to being governed out of necessity to feel safe and protected. It could be seen that ones freedom is a large burden, having to think and act for oneself with no guidance, which is why people may be quicker to agree to being governed. People give up all rights where they elect a leader, except those that the State gives them, and the right to self-preservation. However, the State's preservation is self-preservation, and vice versa, so problems could arise from this.

His ideas are mainly based on human's nature being selfish and amoral. Hobbes believes that when it comes down to it, selfish needs will overcome loyalty to any one man, shown when he says 'two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies'. This results in survival of the fittest and strongest, the better man (strength wise) will win.

Machiavelli
Machiavelli was a man of political philosophy - he thought politics was all about power. He knew how to gain power and thought man should stop at nothing to get it. His philosophy is scientific and empirical and was concerned with results - whether the means of reaching the results were good or bad/moral or immoral was irrelevant to him.

As a Florentine man, Machiavelli saw the rise and inevitable end of Savonarola, which clearly made quite an impact of the leanings of his political philosophy. He remarks that 'all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones failed', placing Savonarola in the latter category. In our opinion, Machiavelli would have approved of the Reichstag fire caused by Hitler (an arson attach on a Reichstag building in Berlin in 1933) - which he proceeded to blame on Marinus van der Lubbe, an innocent communist. The Nazis then used this to persuade to the German government that the Communists were plotting against them. This acquired the Nazis more power and more favour - immoral yes, however, successful.

A quote that really stood out with us was 'The nearer people are to the Church of Rome, which is the head of our religion, the less religious they are' which, in our opinion, could be compared to Rousseau's philosophy of 'the closer man is to society, the more corrupt man is'. This is an interesting comparison, as Rousseau is closely related to romanticism whereas Machiavelli is quite the opposite, which quite frankly is not giving a fuck how he gained power, yet it is quite a nice comparison, that the closer man is to the source of the item/belief/religion/whatever it may be - the further away they actually are. It's as if man may come up with a brilliant idea, but the more people that get involved, the more corrupt it is. It almost seems as if the human race as a whole is corrupt - if you bring everyone together - it'll do nothing but push them further away from each other.

The Prince is one of the two famous books by Machiavelli and is essentially Power in Politics For Dummies. It goes through history and contemporary events, (at the time it was written), about how power was won, held and lost. Fifteenth century Italy produced a lot of examples; most illegitimate - despite some even being Popes. Few places of power were achieved without corruption, in some form or another.

Hobbes & Machiavelli; A Comparison
Hobbes was essentially an idealist, basing his ideas and the 'should/could/would be' with theoretical hypothesis' whereas Machiavelli was more of 'this is how it currently is and has been' kind of man. In my opinion, this makes Machiavelli's ideas more relevant and realistic and more likely to have results that the ideas of Hobbes.

Hobbes suports Plato's all powerful sovereign and the Aristotelian logic of always obeying the State, and so does Machiavelli to some extent but he feels that the actual idea of the State should be more flexible and less absolute. 


 

No comments:

Post a Comment