Re: Which philospopher do you agree with most - Hobbes or Rousseau?
I agree with the View of Thomas Hobbes, saying that "without an effective state power people will lapse into a state of war", this has been proven many times over with a prime example being many African nations today. Corruption in these countries mean that there is no effective state power with many states having bitter and bloody civil wars. The reason I do not agree with Rousseau's theory is because he says that people will automatically form a democracy, this is untrue as people in most situations usually form a chain of command, with someone ruling. Oh and 1st again Tom=More awesome than AlexP
After reading the views of both philosophers I have come to the conclusion that I don't agree fully with either. I feel that Rousseau is naϊve and idealistic in thinking that people are naturally good and will opt for what is best for everyone. No human is truly good because we all have our own desires and are inherently selfish. Likewise Hobbes' views are equally misguided but in the opposite direction. Not all people are evil and lawless. In some situations humans are minded to perform great acts of altruism and self sacrifice. I believe that all people are born indifferent and therefore have a choice. Our morals are what guide us to do good or evil. If a just government is in power the society will tend to the good; if an unjust government is in power society will tend to the bad. E.g. Hitler's Nazi Germany. If I had to choose, even a bad government is better than no government and therefore I would agree with Hobbes more than Rousseau.
Big mistake Thomas or should I say... CHRIS! As the old saying goes, "first the worst, second the best, third the one with the hairy chest" Alex > Tom/Chris
I agree with Hobbes the most, but I also agree with some of Rousseau's ideas. Hobbes' ideas are very realistic and true, I believe there is not a selfless deed, and everyone is 'ultimately self serving'. If you do a good deed, you feel better in yourself or you get praised over it. If you don't, you face the guilt or regret for not doing it, so you do it anyway. Either way, it's to make you feel better, which is selfish. I think there should be a leader, otherwise society will lapse into a state of war. For example, think of football, they have a captain to keep charge. If the referee awards a foul, the captain talks to both the player and the referee, to sort the situation out. But I think the head of the society should be decided fairly, and should be democratic. Other than that point, Rousseau's thoughts or of how we should act, rather than how we do. But contradicting what I have just said, everyone is different, so there is mixture of both people.
LOL at the spelling of 'philosopher' in the question ;P