Historical Philosophers namely Hobbes, Paine and Plato - Book Report/Review Example

Introduction This essay is written {here you write down the purpose of why this essay has been written, for which and perhaps the reason whyyou have chosen this topic of the paper.} In this paper, I shed light on the notions of three historical philosophers namely Hobbes, Paine and Plato. I briefly discuss the political theories each of these philosophers have written throughout history and try to link these political theories with contemporary theories and politics. Although one might argue that some elements of these theoretical concepts are obsolete, I attempt to link some of the elements to contemporary politics. I start with the political theory that Hobbes has written in 1651 in his masterpiece Leviathan in which I identify three basic assumptions that Hobbes uses for his political theory. I continue with the theory of Paine that is based on his work the Right of Man where Paine analysis society and government from a liberal point of view based on three core assumptions. Finally, I explore the theory of Plato who provides a way of how a good city can be established. I end this paper with a conclusion of the theories that I briefly scrutinized. In conclusion, I attempt to explain why I argue that in choosing the camp of liberalism based on the incorporation of the notions of Hobbes, Paine and Plato, is based on a combination of elements of the two political theories, that of Hobbes and that of Paine based on the notion that some elements of these historical political theories are obsolete as a result of the changing settings of world politics throughout history. Hobbes's Political Theory Hobbes is one of the most influential historical political philosophers. His most influential work that Hobbes wrote is Leviathan, in 1651.The political theory that Hobbes developed is based on three assumptions: (1) the existence of an original condition of "the state of nature," (2) the state is a man made or artificial production and (3) that the state is created by a social contract. Hobbes argues that a human being possesses total freedom, free from interference of the rule of law but where a human being fears death on a daily basis (status hominus naturalis). The fundament of Hobbes's political theory is that there are no obligations in a state of nature. Hobbes attempted to formulate the problem of social order and was convinced that a highly centralized government with absolute power was the only way that could solve the problem of social order. Hobbes's solution for the problem of social order is often perceived as anti-democratic. Hobbes identified this as a war of all against all as what contemporary political thinkers call anarchy or the absence of a government. Hobbes's notion of the problem of social order is in contemporary politics much debated among scholars and thinkers of IR and particularly between Realist and Liberalists. Although both paradigms accept the notion of some disorder in world politics, both paradigms disagree about the nature, extent and causes of that order (Baldwin 1993: 14). I argue that Hobbes's notion of the creation of a sovereign nation-state with a highly centralized government with absolute power seldom occurs in world politics. Although human beings do not flourish in a natural state, nation-states are more created by war and suppression and not, as Hobbes argues, by a social contract where human beings willingly abandon the use of weapons. One might argue that when one relates the political theory of Hobbes with that of contemporary world politics and paradigms in the field of IR, one can conclude that Hobbes's notions are embedded in contemporary political theories. In addition, the paradigms with the closest connection towards Hobbes theory are those thinkers belonging to the International Organization paradigm which scrutinize the study of International institutions in the field of IR. However, if Hobbes's notion of a government with absolute power is justified, Hobbes's notion would eventually lead to the creation of a world government with absolute power. Obviously, a world government has not been achieved in contemporary world politics although one might argue that the creation of the United Nations is a step closer towards the creation of a world government. The Theory of Paine Paine's famous philosophical political work is The Right of Man written in 1791. Besides the fact that The Right of Man is seen as a vindication of the French Revolution, it also clarifies the basic notions of Liberalism. In this work, Paine developed a political theory that identifies three basic principles; (1) society and civilization, (2) the origin of present old governments and (3) the old and new systems of governments. The first principle, that of society and civilization, Paine argues that order is not created by a government but moreover, has its origin in the principles of the natural constitution of man and of society. Paine continues with the notion that every part of a civilized community is mutual dependence which eventually holds society together. The second principle illustrates Paine's rejection of a monarchy and relates Monarchy directly with robbery and tyranny. However, in contemporary domestic politics, is it justified to relate monarchy with robbery and tyranny It is obvious that Paine's theory about monarchy should be subjected to empirical scrutiny as many democratic nation-states, especially in West Europe, are monarchies. For this reason, I reject Paine's notion of illustrating a monarchy as pure tyranny. Based on the second principle, with the third principle Paine proposes an alternative to reject the traditional form of government and replacing it with a new form of government. Paine argues that the former supporting itself with war while the latter promoting a system of peace based on the right of man. It is obvious that Paine believes in the freedom of the individual, the basic principle of Liberalism. Although Paine's makes a distinction between an old and a new government, in contemporary world politics one should take note that nation-states are a combination of Paine's old and new government and at the same time are recognized as democratic nation-states. The Theory of Plato Plato approaches world politics from a different point of view compared with Hobbes and Paine. Plato, a Greek Philosopher, depicted politics based on the notion of the Republic. The work of Plato is for contemporary science imperative as Plato illustrates a way a good city can be established and analyzed the development and shortcomings. Plato depicts the ideal city as a utopia where a human being should only uses their own comparative advantage. However, I argue that this is an unrealistic political view with the simplistic argument that not only for human beings but also for nation-states and regions, it is quite problematic for them to only perform their comparative advantage. I argue that the argument of human beings using their comparative advantage is too simplistic as a utopian is more complex than only the comparative advantage that Plato depicts in his work. Contemporary theorist of political science and thinkers often relate Plato's theory with Communism, Feminism and totalitarianism. It is beyond this paper to discuss these terms broadly, I only would like to point out the relevance of Plato's theory of how a good city can be established in contemporary politics. Conclusion In the main body of this paper I attempted to describe briefly the political theories from three historical philosophers; Hobbes, Paine and Plato and each with their own assumptions of politics. Choosing the side in the debate between conservatives and liberals based on the ideas of the political theories of Hobbes, Plato and Paine is not as simple as one might think. One can question the obsolete of these historical political theoretical concepts. From the political theories of these philosophers, one can easily conclude that some elements of their political theories remain relevant until today but other parts of these theories one might reject, according to one's own targets and own conditions to judge. Perhaps a combination of these three political theories that I briefly described might be the choice at best. If one wants to incorporate the notions of these philosophers in contemporary politics, I argue that Hobbes's political theory is more closely related to contemporary politics than that of Plato and Paine. This because one can raises serious questions about the relation of monarchy with tyranny that Paine depicts in his work. I agree that principle one and principle three remain relevant in contemporary politics as many theorist and political thinkers have studied the role of the state and government. In addition, Paine's work also depicts the basic principles of Liberalism. I, on the other hand, raise serious questions the relevance of principle two in contemporary politics. It is obvious that principle two should be subjected to more academic scrutiny for the sake of providing more empirical evidence to this debate. Only then, one might come to the conclusion whether one agrees with principle two or reject the principle. In the case of Plato, his theory about how to establish a good state remains relevant as it is often linked by modern political thinkers with utopianism, feminism and communism. However, the first city might be perceived by contemporary politicians as an unrealistic picture as it is quite problematic for human beings to only use their comparative advantage for the sake of establishing a good city. The freedom of an individual gives a human being the rational choice to choose not to perform his comparative advantage based on his own judgment and according to his own targets. Plato does not include the rational choice of a human being in his work. However, this does not automatically mean that one should reject the notion of Plato. Based on the above, when one needs to make a choice between the conservatives and liberalists, I personally account myself towards the liberal camp based on the notion of individual freedom and rights. I agree that governments are a crucial feature for a society only when the government is chosen by its citizens in a democratic way. Incorporating the theoretical concepts of the three philosophers that I briefly described, I conclude that my personal choice would be a combination of the liberal elements of the theoretical concepts of Hobbes and Paine based on the notions that both Hobbes and Paine provides which are the most relevant in contemporary politics. Hobbes's assessment of anarchy remains relevant for contemporary politics and I agree with Hobbes that the world is in need of a world government or at least something like the UN. However, to what extent can a world government be created while prevailing the basic principles of liberalism, that of the freedom of the individual A combination of Hobbes's world government that takes into account the principle of Paine, the right of the man and where individual freedom prevails is a much debated issue among scholars and thinkers. References Adams, J. (ed). 1902. The Republic of Plato, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gourevitch, P. 1978, 'Domestic Politics and International Relations', International Organization, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 881-912. Hobbes, T. & MacPherson, C.B. 1982. Leviathan, Penguin Classics, New York. Keohane, R. 1988, 'International Studies: Two Approaches', International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 379-396. Kraut, R. (ed.) 1992, The Cambridge Companion to Plato, Cambridge University Press. Oneal, J.R. & Russet, B. 1999, 'The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organization, 1885-1992', World Politics, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 1-37. Ostenfeld, E.N. 1998. Essays on Plato's Republic, Aarhus University Press, Aarhus. Paine, T. 2005. Common Sense, Longman, New York. Paine, T. 2000. The Right of Man, Dover Publications, New York. Pappas, R. 1999. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Plato and the Republic, Routledge, London and New York. Reeve, C.D.C. 1988. Philosopher-Kings: The Argument of Plato's Republic. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Read More