Leviathan
A Comparison and Contrast Analysis of the Non-Rational Elements of Political Order in the Philosophy of Plato’s The Republic and Thomas Hobbes’ The Leviathan
This philosophical analysis will compare and contrast the non-rational elements of political power that are defined in The Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, and The Republic by Plato. These non-rational views will define how non-rational ideologies can subvert or maintain existing political structures by evaluating the natural order of human hierarchies. Plato defines the appetite for desire as a lower order form of the tripartite soul, which has reasoning and sprit as higher order functions in the human ability to govern political institutions. In similar way, Hobbes recognizes the conflict …show more content…
However, the argument of opposites (reasoning versus appetites) in this manner contradicts how Hobbes would view the appetites as part of human nature. Plato, of course, does not view the appetitive soul as a natural part of maintaining positive political orders because of the selfish and degrading aspects that it brings as a polar opposite of reasoning. For Hobbes, the appetites are part of the natural inclination of human beings to always desire power as a part of political institutions. Therefore, it is the inherent “nature” of appetites that drive men to continually seek power, which does not necessarily oppose the ability to use rational thought to achieve these goals. The use of political power to gain resources and control over others is part of Hobbes’ view of the “natural’ desire to govern that exists within the human social organizations: “So that in the first place I put for a general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death” (Hobbes Ch. XI, para.2). Hobbes believed in the positive attributes of political orders, which allowed men to naturally pursue their own self-interests. Plato, on the other hand, did not view this type of self-interest as being a sustainable way to preserve the grater good of political orders in the
This philosophical analysis will compare and contrast the non-rational elements of political power that are defined in The Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, and The Republic by Plato. These non-rational views will define how non-rational ideologies can subvert or maintain existing political structures by evaluating the natural order of human hierarchies. Plato defines the appetite for desire as a lower order form of the tripartite soul, which has reasoning and sprit as higher order functions in the human ability to govern political institutions. In similar way, Hobbes recognizes the conflict …show more content…
However, the argument of opposites (reasoning versus appetites) in this manner contradicts how Hobbes would view the appetites as part of human nature. Plato, of course, does not view the appetitive soul as a natural part of maintaining positive political orders because of the selfish and degrading aspects that it brings as a polar opposite of reasoning. For Hobbes, the appetites are part of the natural inclination of human beings to always desire power as a part of political institutions. Therefore, it is the inherent “nature” of appetites that drive men to continually seek power, which does not necessarily oppose the ability to use rational thought to achieve these goals. The use of political power to gain resources and control over others is part of Hobbes’ view of the “natural’ desire to govern that exists within the human social organizations: “So that in the first place I put for a general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death” (Hobbes Ch. XI, para.2). Hobbes believed in the positive attributes of political orders, which allowed men to naturally pursue their own self-interests. Plato, on the other hand, did not view this type of self-interest as being a sustainable way to preserve the grater good of political orders in the