Theories on the State of Human Nature and Civilization

Discussion about whether human beings are good or bad is a problem that constantly fascinates philosophers. Two philosophers in the 17th and 18th centuries were focusing on human subjects because of their similar opposite theory. One of the philosophers is Thomas Hobbes, whose theory is based on the pessimistic view of natural people, whose life is selfish and vicious. The opposite philosopher is Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who is born with good intentions and believes that the situation of natural people is better than what we saw in Europe's life.

Natural state - If there is no common power to detain government, civilization, law, humanity, "natural conditions of mankind" will exist. The state of nature is "every war against all". In this war, human beings are constantly trying to destroy each other constantly in the process of pursuit of power. Life in a natural state is "hatred, barbarism, and short-lived".

The first part is an explanation about the human being in a state of pure nature released from the destruction of Rousseau's civilization and socialization. This method of examining the nature of human beings is consistent with the views of other contemporary thinkers, but the paintings of Rousseau of "people in a natural state" are quite different. Because Hobbes explains that all people in the state of nature are constantly fighting with all others, life in a natural state is lonely, poor, awkward, savage and short-lived . But Rousseau believes that previous stories such as Hobbes did not actually describe humans in real nature. Instead, they took the civilized man and simply removed the law, government and technology. According to Rousseau, these faculties are not natural, they have developed in history. In sharp contrast to Hobbes, Rousseau explains the natural people that they are concerned about what the future brings as lonely, timid, quiet, quiet and foresightless.

Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries and had a similar but distinct theory about the nature of humans. The theory of Hobbes is based on the assumption that human nature is competitive and violent and the theory concerning the state of Rousseau's "natural person" is a life harmonized with nature, what is seen in the life of Europe It is better than. Hobbes was criticized for his excessively ironic cynicalism and Rousseau was criticized for his simple nature of humanity. In this article, although both theories are flawed, Rousseau's "natural person" is a very idealized concept, indicating that Hobbes 'ability to destroy His argument is higher than Hobbes' natural person. Therefore, Hobbes has a more rational theory of humanity.