Growing Thoughts and the Growing Politics - Essay Example

Topic: THE GROWING THOUGHTS AND THE GROWING POLITICS Introduction A Thought can be defined as an arrangement of ideas as a result of engaging one’s intellectual process. On the contrary, politics can be defined as a work of art and science that that deals with influencing the behaviour of people in relation to getting and keeping power in a leadership position. Growth of thought in relation to political growth can be equated to the different views held different scholars over a long period. As a means of trying to expound on our topic, we shall analyse the works of modern Philosophers like Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. With reference to the works of ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle and their views on politics (Plato, Richard, Sterling and William, pp.30-35). Thoughts of Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in relation to the purpose of politics against ancient philosophers like Aristotle and Plato Niccolo Machiavelli is considered to have set the foundation of present political thoughts through his writing current politics cannot function without reference to his book. In his book the prince and the discourses, he feels that the state is the form of human relationships thus indispensable for human welfare promotion. He further says that the state should be honoured even by sacrificing the individual for the state’s interest. Machiavelli further identifies prince as a process as power acquisition (Machiavelli, pp.203-260). Thomas Hobbes in his book ‘Leviathan’ advocates for a contract theory of the Government where he examines human nature whereby he believes: men just like animals are driven by impulse save for human speech and reason. Due to these and many more lead to his formation of the social contract theory where Man governs himself via a majority consensus. Hobbes finds man to be egocentric (Hobbes, pp. 340-418). John Locke on his book political writings developed the theme of concept and democracy. Democracy means representation of the people through their consent. Locke also echoed Hobbes idea of a social contract theory. While Hobbes used it to advocate absolutism, Locks idea was to develop a limited and constitutional Government (Locke and Wotton, pp.68-127). Aristotle defined politics as a practical science since it dealt with pleasing its citizens. His philosophy was to discover the highest purpose of life. Aristotle feels that all manners of rule e.g. slave-master, monarch and political are the equal. He further asserts that since all communities seek a common good then the state that happens to be the highest aims at the highest good. According to him, the most basic communities are families that combine to make a village while the villages make a state. Aristotle is the one who defined political terms like Aristocracy where minority ruled the majority. Aristotle felt that if the ruling were of family setup then it should be the monarch (Aristotle, pp. 56-130). Plato’s contribution to the political school is through his theory of republic that was developed by his teacher Socrates. Republic is a contribution to ethics; an interpretation of the virtue justice and why individual ought to’s’ to be just. In line with the theory of the republic, each human soul has three parts i.e. reason, spirit and appetite (Plato, Sterling and Scott, PP. 42-60). Differences between Ancient vs. Modern political philosophy Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke are the first break-away from ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. For sure contribution modern philosophers distinctive and similar some way or the other but some aspects striking similarity still way notable. All the three modern philosophers see the nature of man differently and understand it differently. This becomes the basis for their prescription of the best form of Government. Machiavelli sees him naturally as egocentric, rational and cunning while Hobbes believes that Man’s nature is as a result of his birth circumstances and a miserable childhood life. On the contrary, Thomas Locke believes in equality of man and finds his nature to be good and orderly. He asserted that all males are equal but human desires become the basis for all human actions. Since these current philosophers were among the first to study human behaviour as the basis for the formation of a government so as to enhance, peace and stability can be said to be modern. Ancient philosophers like Aristotle and Plato founded their theories on the community and the law of ethics respectively (Hobbes pg.210-211). Hobbes in his book called‘Levathian’ is in direct contrast with Plato and Aristotle by insisting that Man driven by egocentric tendencies but a closer study of Hobbes writings. It reveals a complete different scenario where majority of his laws tackle moral straightness and the question of right and wrong. On the other hand John Locke shares similarities with ancient philosophers like Plato. He was also for conservativeness in his preference for stability and order as opposed to change. Furthermore, his mistrust of specific laws of liberty is also present in the Concerns Plato had about democracy (Hobbes, pp.246-320). In their books the prince and Leviathan, Machiavelli just like Hobbes are equally concerned about restoration of order out of a civil like war-ravaged England just like Plato advocating peace through his theory of the republic. Human Nature and Theology/Religion In his teachings about the prince that implied power acquisition, Machiavelli feels that logical analysis of politics should begin with viewing one’s personal character. He further states that Humans are weak thus all can’t live to expectations as only state laws can ensure security by cooperation and obeying the laws. Machiavelli further believes that some people were well suited to rule as compared to others. Since humans are egocentric and guided by materialistic tendencies, he reasoned that the punishment was the most effective remainder to upkeep the law. On the issue of theology, Machiavelli was a stronger believer in religion and community morality. As a religion played the role of uniting the community and integration of its citizens within the state but always believed in the separation of religion and politics for an effective, powerful state (Machiavelli, pp. 265-317). Hobbes reasoned that human beings are as a result of the situation one was born in and his miserable childhood life. Hobbes further stated that Humans were driven by impulses yet still obsessed with egocentric thoughts. Hobbes argued that men were born equally in mind and body but only slight differences in the faculties of body and mind. He believed human behaviour was a function of law just the same way as Maths and science worked in response to laws. He further stated that only a powerful state can curb the egocentric tendencies exhibited by man. Further, on Hobbes doesn’t feel that religion or theology had a role to play. This is because according to him the state was an invention of man, organized by humans to deal with human problems and its legitimacy and power entirely depended on human authority. He further stated that whatever was done was just since society was a result of the state and reflected the wishes of the ruler (Hobbes, pp. 120-305) On his part, Locke doesn’t accept Hobbes’ and Machiavelli’s views that humans are chaotic people but rather believes in the goodness from human nature. He sees people as decent, orderly and loves the society hence able to rule them. When it came to religion Locke didn’t recognize religion or any significant role it played in the Government (Locke, pp. 68-133). Despite all their differences in their views about politics, the three scholars Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke can be called modern. They don’t believe in the power of religion in leadership and Government being God sent. Forms of Government Machiavelli advocated a statecraft type of Government and felt for it to be powerful the prince who was symbolic of the process of assuming power and as a prince one was supposed to strengthen the state. Machiavelli decided that the state was senior to all forms of associations in the society hence not bound by religious and moral obligations but rather absolute in its working (Machiavelli, pp. 243-262). Hobbes also advocated an auto craft system of Government that was authoritarian that is through a social contract. The social contract got total authority from the contract that was final implying the sovereign’s authority could never be back. Social contract meant people decided and contacted within each other to form a civil society that oversees the running of the State’s affairs. He felt that this form of Government should practice absolutism. From the powers conferred to it, he states that the state would be draconian (Hobbes, pp.47-82). John Locke on his part opted for a Government through the social contract theory the rule of law that curtailed the powers of the Government. The main idea about the contract was to protect and preserve natural rights e.g. life, property and freedom implying the state was formed with specific expectations and was enforced by a simple majority. The supreme power used to govern was identified as legislative and was vested in the hands of the citizens through consent that served as a basis for the government (Locke, pp. 75-112). Work Cited Aristotle. Aristotles Politics; Trans. by Carnes Lord. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2013. Print. Hobbes, Thomas, and E M. Curley. Leviathan: With Selected Variants from the Latin Edition of 1668. Locke, John, and David Wootton. Political Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 2003. Print. Machiavelli, Niccolo. "Concerning a Civil Principality." The Prince and the Discourse. Modern Library College ed. Vol. 10th. McGraw-Hill, 2013. Print. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 1994. Print Plato, Richard W. Sterling, and William C. Scott. The Republic. New York: Norton, 1996. Print. Read More