Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke Aristotle, Locke, Hobbes and the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence It has been said that authors such as Aristotle, Locke and Hobbes greatly influenced the "Founding Fathers" of the United States Constitution. The purpose of this paper is to explore the writings of these authors as well as review the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and to form an opinion as to whether or not it

However, when looking more closely at the specific philosophy suggested by Socrates, a more specific view appears to suggest itself. Socrates appears to favor the view that true knowledge is only possible once the soul separates itself from the body. For Socrates, the sense, i.e. touch, hearing, sight, taste, and smell only distract what he refers to as the "soul" from truly experiencing the nature of the external world. According

The question arising from this claim is whether evidence exists to prove that there exists an infinitely good, powerful, and wise God where morality naturally emerges. Humes argues that is hard to imagine that an all-good, powerful God exists in this world full of pain and misery. From these claims, one can argue that this insight, or God, has both evil and good, as is present in man if

Certainly, rhetoric lends itself to the discovery of truth, as truth (Aristotle suggests) always makes more intuitive and intellectual sense compared to falsehood, and so equally talented rhetoricians will be more convincing sharing the truth than sharing falsehood. However, critics have pointed out that there is so "tension between Aristotle's epistemological optimism and his attempt to come to terms with rhetoric as a culturally and contextually specific social institution....

Berkley stated that because the senses were potentially faulty, everyone's sense perceptions and thus everyone's 'truth' was unique and variable. However, most empiricists like Locke believed that some (few) things could be known with certainty, like shape and color, even if other properties of things could not be known. The empiricists come from the Aristotelian rather than the Platonic tradition of philosophy, and had rigorous standards of truth based upon

Therefore, the welfare of others cannot be relevant to judging what one ought to do. This is a very interesting argument, but it does not establish its conclusion. Although it may be that every human being has a right to preserve his own life, one would like some evidence in support of this key premise. Even if there is a human right to self-preservation, it does not follow that