Plato vs. Hobbes

Dawood Altaf

37393

PHI 201

PLATO vs. THOMAS HOBBES

Plato and Thomas Hobbes differ significantly in their epistemological philosophies, especially in their view on human nature. Plato in his book, The Republic defines human beings as intrinsically good while Hobbes in his book, Leviathan defines man to be constituted by desire for power and what protects them the best. But, in spite of Plato’s this optimistic outlook on human nature and Hobbes’s completely opposite, pessimistic viewpoint on it, both of them agree on the subversion of truth if it serves the interests of the society. This essay will discuss in detail, Plato’s and Hobbes’s view on human nature and how these views contradict and lead these two philosophers into different fields of epistemologies whereby each will come up with a political theory and a suggested form of government that will lead to a ‘just society’. But in spite of that Plato and Hobbes both uphold that the peace and wellness of the society should not be compromised in order to publish a truth that can harm or destabilize the society or their political systems and it is better to subvert that truth.

Plato believes that there is a strong connection between intellectual knowledge and moral motivation and he emphasizes on the Form, the perfect and abstract objects, of the Good to be designed to show how the acquisition of knowledge of the Forms provides one with the motivation to be virtuous. He says that even though humans are capable of committing horrible actions, this is only because of appetites and desires rather than a fundamental flaw in the human nature and also because human beings want things that are intrinsically good “even if the person does not realize the true nature of what is good” (Plato, pg. 156). Plato defends human nature and argues that humans do good not only for its consequences but also for its own sake and that is because human beings seek for the health and harmony of the soul which in turn leads to the...