Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Hobbes’s moral philosophy therefore provides justification for, and informs, the theories of sovereignty and the state of nature that underpin his political philosophy. [2] In utilising methods of deductive reasoning and motion science, Hobbes examines human emotion, reason and knowledge to construct his ideas of human nature (moral ...
Bellum omnium contra omnes, a Latin phrase meaning "the war of all against all", is the description that Thomas Hobbes gives to human existence in the state-of-nature thought experiment that he conducts in De Cive (1642) and Leviathan (1651).
Thomas Hobbes (/ h ɒ b z / HOBZ; 5 April 1588 – 4 December 1679) was an English philosopher, best known for his 1651 book Leviathan, in which he expounds an influential formulation of social contract theory. [4]
Hobbes begins his treatise on politics with an account of human nature. He presents an image of man as matter in motion, attempting to show through example how everything about humanity can be explained materialistically, that is, without recourse to an incorporeal, immaterial soul or a faculty for understanding ideas that are external to the ...
For science is of that nature, as none can understand it to be, but such as in a good measure have attained it. [5] On a later work, De Corpore (1655), also written in Latin, Hobbes expanded the same idea: The end or scope of philosophy is, that we may make use to our benefit of effects formerly seen ... for the commodity of human life ...
De Cive is the first of a trilogy of works written by Hobbes dealing with human knowledge, the other two works in the trilogy being De Corpore ("On the body"), published in 1655 and De Homine ("On man"), published in 1658.
Human nature comprises the ... civilized life and human nature, but unlike Hobbes, ... many important human characteristics. [94] Ramsey quotes the ...
Hobbes applied his understanding of the science of human nature to explain why the English Civil War came to pass. He was able to do this because he "did not make an impassable gulf between his rational understanding on the one hand and the particular events which he witnessed, remembered, or heard about on the other". [ 2 ]