Similarities Between Locke And Thomas Hobbes

I think that both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are justified with their views on human nature. I believe that human nature is both naturally good and bad but its nature is separate from the actions and beliefs of an individual.
Most controversially, I think this can apply to the infamous Adolf Hitler. Evidently, Hitler possessed many negative natures, it seemed. Hitler was described as controlling and he was very greedy especially when it came to power which reflects the views of Thomas Hobbes. Even at a young age, Hitler was said to be the center of his friend group and wanted to be in control. This followed him into his adulthood and could be seen as he, with help, was able to change his role in the government in Germany from chancellor
to dictator making him the sole ruler of Germany during the 30s. This reflects his controlling nature and greed when it came to power as he sought after power and to be in control and then, once he was, he wanted more. Moreover, I would argue that Hitler also possessed some positive natures. Similar to what John Locke said, Hitler had a great degree of intelligence as seen through his strategies when it came to coming into power but even at a young age, he exemplified his academic ability in school by obtaining very good marks.
Additionally, Hitler, I think, did possess some form of compassion and empathy. It has been known that his childhood was fairly difficult. He was not raised in considerable wealth and his family would eventually perish as her grew up, leaving him virtually alone as he came into adulthood. Because of this experience, Hitler was able to exercise empathy towards the people of a lower class or those that weren’t as well off as other people to spark change in the depreciated economy of Germany after the First World War. During his rise to power, he took it upon himself to make the step towards abolishing the unemployment problem in Germany at the time. Motivated partially by his less than great childhood and also the want for his country to be strong again, Hitler said in an interview that he wanted the Germans to “have the highest standard of living” and very much did not want one social class to rule. It is an idea like this that seems even slightly logical and rational. He developed these beliefs and
desires from the empathy I believe he possessed specifically on this topic which was very close to him. Even though this empathy was clearly not presented in several other instances on his part, I think it is still valid to point out. On the other end of the scale, we have Albert Einstein. Unlike Hitler, he is a person known for his positive contribution to the world in history, mainly with his work in the sciences of the earth and such. He was known to have a “pleasant” personality, one that would make people want to be around him. For one, Einstein was exponentially smarter than any man of his time and has even been said to be the smartest man ever. He successfully came up with ideas and explanations for things that some people never even thought about before. His degree of intelligence lead to some of the greatest discoveries and realizations ever like his famous equation E = MC2, an equation that almost everyone knows even if they don’t understand it. His curiosity could also be considered as another of his positive traits. Einstein’s curiosity was the main driver to his great accomplishments. He constantly wanted to know how the world worked and why and, coupled with his intelligence and determination, he was able to answer most of these questions. In another light, though, one could claim Einstein was selfish and lacked the ability to understand the implications of his desires on the people around him. Some argue this was seen with the relation between his family life and his career. Albert was very passionate about his work and research to a point where he would begin to neglect his family. His desire to find answers, as valid as it was, caused him to forget about how his absence would affect the people that loved him the most like his wife, at the time, and sons. The eldest of his two sons has been quoted in pointing out this. Furthermore, when he wasn’t focussing heavily on his work, he still wasn’t a great companion especially towards his wives. Einstein’s love life was not ideal as a whole. He treated his first wife Mileva horribly when he took another lover, his first cousin maternally, Elsa while still married to Mileva. He and Mileva had children together at the time but in their marriage when things were starting to become far from ideal, Einstein tried to avoid divorce by outlining a list of rules in a contract made by him that essentially would make Mileva maintain cleanliness of all his personal spaces and serve him, while severing any relations between them unless for social reasons and the contract dismissed any physical needs that Mileva would have towards himself. Einstein personal affairs were for solely his own desires and they hurt the people around him. Once actually divorced, however, Albert married his mistress, Elsa, only to do the same to her when he took another mistress only 4 years later, Bette, who was one of his secretaries. That is minus the contract. This repeated situation proves that Einstein, as a human, lived such as his love for women - his want or desire – trumped the potential emotional destruction of those around him, and it could be argued that this was a reflection of selfishness and his inability to understand the effects of his actions.
In the least known of the examples, there is my grandfather, Bobby Tom. He is noticeably not as famous or infamous as Einstein and Hitler were - he is, in other words, an example of an average human being. Even with that though, I know that he possesses positive and negative human nature characteristics. My grandpa is in no way violent. Ever since birth he has been a gentle man who rarely engaged in conflict. In his younger adult years, as a teacher, he would occasionally yell at students and apparently could yell very well. Despite my closeness to my grandpa, I have never seen this. It is his nature to not be terribly violent. As well, my grandpa is very intelligent. In school he excelled in maths and sciences and went onto become a high school math teacher and a coach. On the other hand, though, my grandfather could be described as self-centered and critical. Even though he doesn’t draw too much attention to himself, he certainly expects attention and he wants things the way he believes they should be. He’s very strict on schedule and mainly his own. Both my grandmother and grandfather live in a very precise life. They eat dinner at the same time every day, have coffee at the same time and buy groceries on the same day every week at the same time etc. Their routine is the basis of their living and has been shaped by my grandfather himself, to fit his needs. He also expects my grandma to fulfill the tasks like making dinner and coffee etc. while he usually watches the news. I’ve only ever seen him cut the meat when preparing a family dinner. Additionally, my grandpa is critical. For his whole life he has always believed that any situation could be improved and while this could also be treated as a positive trait, his actions often lead it to being a negative characteristic. He looks for things wrong throughout the world and even in the people closest to him. This can be extremely hurtful when he criticizes things either out of your control or things that you clearly had done well where a typical individual would give praise instead of criticism. Like, if I believed that I had played well in a game -maybe I had scored and goal or something - my grandfather would still pick apart all my mistakes instead of looking at the incredible end result. As valid as it is, it is one of his least appealing characteristics.
In conclusion, most people can see the implication with calling someone like the infamous Adolf Hitler “good”. Personally, I would never deem Hitler as “good” from what I know of his most noted actions and the results occurring (his role in World War 2). However, in terms of the nature of his human nature, it’s more difficult for me to solely call him “bad”. While this is mainly due to the fact that I don’t have extensive knowledge of his life and his thoughts and intentions, I choose to believe that, even in a person ranked among the worst in history, you can find some positive characteristic; and similarly to someone who is ranked among the best in history where you can find negative characteristics of their human nature. I believe the best, the worst and even the most “normal” people will consist of both “good” and “bad” natures that they are born with and that are not learned. For that reason, I would not blatantly say that we can call any person’s nature “good” or “bad” but, because it shares both components every time, it is both and thus I agree with both philosophers. In terms of either of their outlooks on preferred governments, I also believe it should be a mix of both.