Hobbes Vs Bossuet
The seventeenth century was characterized by the civil and religious division of the Thirty Years’ War, European Wars (1660-1714), and English Civil War, which was followed by a tune of violence and political turmoil across the lands of Europe. Thus, political theorists, such as Thomas Hobbes and Jacques-Benigne Bossuet began addressing questions pertaining to power in relation to government and man to achieve a stable and relatively peaceful society. Although Hobbes and Bossuet shared arguments on a strong, unlimited government as a solution, the philosophers contrast in the approach and method of achieving absolute monarchy.
Bishop Bossuet (1627-1704) was regarded as the most influential theorists of absolutism with his book, Politics Drawn …show more content…
Where Bossuet uses religion to support his theory, Hobbes uses a secular approach, rejecting traditional views of the Divine Right of Kings, with logical arguments. Hobbes provides a secular justification for what he calls the state of nature, a metaphorical period before a government was established that was characterized by chaos. In this state, Hobbes states three principle causes of why man cannot live without misery and violence: competition for gain, diffidence for safety, and glory for reputation (6). This constant battle between man subsequently opens Pandora’s box, unleashing hatred and resulting in war. Hobbes states, “Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war […] and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” (6). The natural, yet chaotic behavioral cycle of man, Hobbes stresses, will continue to cause conflict without the presence of a strong government.
Consequently, Hobbes then introduces common wealth and power, which he argues, is both logical and necessary to save man from their destructive qualities. This can be achieved through the means of a covenant, which allows men to willingly submit to one man who will advocate unity and be the voice of the commonwealth to bring peace. To reach peace and unity Hobbes states that men must, “confer all their power and strength upon one Man […] reduce all their Wills, by plurality of voices, unto one Will” (7). Hobbes theory continues to state that common wealth can only be created through force or voluntary
Bishop Bossuet (1627-1704) was regarded as the most influential theorists of absolutism with his book, Politics Drawn …show more content…
Where Bossuet uses religion to support his theory, Hobbes uses a secular approach, rejecting traditional views of the Divine Right of Kings, with logical arguments. Hobbes provides a secular justification for what he calls the state of nature, a metaphorical period before a government was established that was characterized by chaos. In this state, Hobbes states three principle causes of why man cannot live without misery and violence: competition for gain, diffidence for safety, and glory for reputation (6). This constant battle between man subsequently opens Pandora’s box, unleashing hatred and resulting in war. Hobbes states, “Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war […] and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” (6). The natural, yet chaotic behavioral cycle of man, Hobbes stresses, will continue to cause conflict without the presence of a strong government.
Consequently, Hobbes then introduces common wealth and power, which he argues, is both logical and necessary to save man from their destructive qualities. This can be achieved through the means of a covenant, which allows men to willingly submit to one man who will advocate unity and be the voice of the commonwealth to bring peace. To reach peace and unity Hobbes states that men must, “confer all their power and strength upon one Man […] reduce all their Wills, by plurality of voices, unto one Will” (7). Hobbes theory continues to state that common wealth can only be created through force or voluntary