Hobbes and Plato on human nature, justice, and government

Human Nature

A Comparison of Hobbes' and Plato's Philosophical Views

Trying to understand how a philosopher arrives at the reasoned opinions they put on paper is essential to also understanding what they wrote. The how is often a matter of the people they have borrowed from, but that can be an unreliable method of determining the origins of their philosophy also. Two in particular are difficult to judge using the influences they had because some of their ideas were relatively radical for the times in which they made them. Plato and Thomas Hobbes embraced philosophical stances that were different from others around them, and different from those who had come before. Both wrote extensively on human nature, which led to their ideas regarding justice and government, but they did so with an understanding of that was different from contemporaries. It is interesting to note then that some of their ideas meshed (to an extent) while, more believable, many of their positions clashed deeply. This paper is an exploration of two very different philosophies, with emphasis on the two philosophers views of human nature, and where those philosophies coincide and deviate, and why this is so.

Plato Idealism vs. Hobbes' Empiricism

The differences in how the two arrived at their differing views of knowledge acquisition leads directly into their philosophical stances. Plato was an idealist which means that he thought that there were ideals which people constructed around which knowledge was based. Hobbes, an empiricist, believed in the sanctity of experiencing the physical world.

Idealism can be explained by using a quote from The Last days of Socrates. In this book, during a conversation with Socrates, he says "(S): And did we not acquire our other senses as soon as we were born? (P): Certainly. (S): Then we must have acquired the knowledge of the ideal equal at some time previous to this. (P): Yes. (S): That is to say, before we were born, I suppose. (P): True" (Plato, 1967, 90). In this discourse, Plato reveals to Socrates his belief that the ideal was acquired for every person prior to their being born. It can be inferred from this that there was some divine agent who gave that ideal to humans. Thus, perfected knowledge comes from this ideal, rather than the imperfect representations of the ideal which exist in the skewed world.

Hobbes would counter this by saying that both of these types of knowledge work together. Hobbes also believed in the two types of knowledge (he called them the knowledge of fact and the knowledge of consequence). In Leviathan, he states "as for the knowledge of fact, it is originally, sense; and ever after, memory. And for the knowledge of consequence, which I have said before is science, it is not absolute, but conditional" (Hobbes, 1904, 39). It can be seen from this passage that Hobbes believed in the same two types of knowledge that Plato did. Sense is that innate knowledge that one has already because they have senses with which to interact with the world. Science is that knowledge which is gained through empirical means. Thus, the two work together to form the whole. Hobbes was one of the first who believed that a person was born with the ability to interact with the world around themselves, but there was no prior knowledge other than the fact that humans have sensory organs. He says, "There is no other act of man's mind, that I can remember, naturally planted in him, so, as to need no other thing, to the exercise of it, but to be born a man, and live with the use of his five senses" (Hobbes, 1904, 12). Thus, it can be seen that there was a great divide between the epistemologies and philosophies of the two men.

Human Nature

Understanding how the two men thought is important in studying what they believed about human nature. Since Plato believed that pure knowledge came from a divine source, it would stand to reason that he would also believe that nature would also come from there. Hobbes has a very dim view of human nature. The beliefs of both men are interesting in that they determine what many believe in the present world.

Plato demonstrated his views regarding human nature while discussing a subject that he is famous for. The philosopher is known to have believed that there had been a race of people who lived on an island called Atlantis. He says of these people;

"For many generations, as long as the divine nature lasted in them, they were obedient to the laws, and well affectioned towards the god, whose seed they were; for they possessed true and in every way great spirits, uniting gentleness with wisdom in the various chances of life, and in their intercourse with one another. They despised everything but virtue, caring little for their present state of life, and thinking lightly of gold and other property, which seemed only a burden to them" (Plato, 2008a, 18).

In this passage Plato demonstrates what he believes is the perfect human nature. The gods delivered the Atlantians to the island and they had the same perfect nature that the gods had (although this is counter to many of the Greek myths which showed gods who had human traits). These people exemplified all the best that was human nature because they had the nature of the gods. However they did not remain that way because they were corrupted by the imperfect world that they were sent to inhabit (Plato, 2008a, 19).

Plato does not see human nature in this perfect vein any more than Hobbes does. Plato is not so jaded by his idealistic leanings that he believes that people are in some way actually good at the root of their being. He differentiates what he believes about the two natures in The Last Days of Socrates. He says "the soul is in the very likeness of the divine, and immortal, and intelligible, and uniform, and indissoluble, and unchangeable; and the body is in the very likeness of the human, and mortal, and unintelligible, and multiform, and dissoluble, and changeable" (Plato, 1967, 96). His differentiation is that of the two natures that are said to exist within humans. The soul is perfect and only wishes for the best. Because it comes from the divine, it is "unchangeable" from what it was before the individual was born. However, the body is "changeable." Therefore, the evil nature of man is in the imperfect body which interacts with the imperfect world. Plato again makes this case when he talks about the sensation which the empiricists value so highly. "[T]hey should all have in them one and the same faculty of sensation, arising out of irresistible impressions; in the second place, they must have love, in which pleasure and pain mingle; also fear and anger, and the feelings which are akin or opposite to them" (Plato, 2008c, 29). Humans have the capacity to express love, which is a pure gift from the divine, but they pervert that with the sensations they have. Plato believed that humans had an imperfect nature because of their interaction with the world, but he also believed "man cannot exist in isolation…love is the mediator and reconciler of poor divided human nature" (Plato, 2008b, 24). Love will perfect the imperfect nature. Hobbes on the other hand was not so generous in his thoughts on human nature.

Thomas Hobbes does not begin by saying that the nature of humans is some poor and corrupt thing. He begins by saying that it is natural, as the nature of all beasts is natural. "Man's nature is the sum of his natural faculties and powers, as the faculties of nutrition, motion, generation, sense, reason, For these powers we do unanimously call natural, and are contained in the definition of man, under these words, animal and rational" (Hobbes, 2010, 4). People all have the same basic motives. All must move about, all must propagate to preserve the species, all humans have to eat and drink. These are normal functions that no one could find fault with. To survive in the world these must naturally be present in a human. People are also gifted with reason by which they are differentiated from common animals. The last part of the quote shows this distinction. The two parts of the human nature are "animal and rational." So, even in the beginning of his discourse he says that people are at least partly rational. But it is how people use this ability that he takes issue with.

He actually makes many statements about how people demonstrate their true nature. In On the Citizen, he says "Thus I obtained two absolutely certain postulates of human nature, one, the postulate of human greed by which each man insists upon his own private use of common property; the other, the postulate of natural reason, by which each man strives to avoid violent death as the supreme evil in nature" (Hobbes, 1998, 6). He is saying that the true nature of people can be seen in two primary responses that they have. People are essentially self-interested, and there is no other means by which they can be described. From reading much of what he has written, it is easy to see that his dim view of human nature, when it was not perfected by use of reason and the senses, was that people will do whatever is necessary to further their own interests. However, people will acquiesce their own interests, for a small amount of time, in order to avoid violent death. Hobbes believed that this was the greatest fear that people had. He also believed that "man's natural disposition is such that if they are not restrained by fear of a common power, they will distrust and fear each other, and each man rightly may, and necessarily will, lookout for himself from his own resources" (Hobbes, 1998, 10). So, Hobbes also saw his fellow humans as not desiring the company of others, but disdaining it. His thought was that since people are completely self-absorbed, they will believe that there is no actual need for community. People actually are suspicious of the motives of another person. The thought is that if someone gets too close all they want is to take what that person has. Because people think this way, there natural state is to live as far from one another as possible and only do what comes naturally to themselves individually. Unless of course, there is some threat that is common to all of the people in an area. Then the people will band together to fight the common threat that they have. It must always be remembered, that in Hobbes philosophy self-interest could only be defeated by the threat of a violent death. That is why people banded together in ancient times and formed societies. It was not because the people wanted to be around one another, it was because someone stronger than themselves was threatening the collective group. This plays into what Hobbes thought about government also, but that will come later.

The above case is better stated in something that Hobbes wrote in On the Citizen. He said;

"[I]f man naturally loved his fellow man, loved him, I mean, as his fellow man, there is no reason why everyone would not love everyone equally as equally men; or why every man would equally seek the company of men whose society is more prestigious and useful to him than others. By nature then we are not looking for friends but for honour or advantage from them. this is what we are primarily after, friends are secondary" (Hobbes, 1998, 22). Here he is trying to shore up his case by stating something that was prevalent in his day, but which remains a fact presently. He is saying that when people do congregate together, they prefer the company of others who are like themselves. But, if people actually wanted to be around others, they would not distinguish between the different ethnic and racial groups (or any other type of grouping) that exists, the person would be happy to be with other people just because they are people. Hobbes believes this shows the true nature of his fellow human beings. In a writing from another book, The Elements of Law Natural and Politic, he logically solidifies his case. He states "Every man…calleth that which pleaseth, and is delightful to himself, good; and that evil which displeaseth him: insomuch that while every man differeth from other in constitution, they differ also from one another concerning the common distinction of good and evil" (Hobbes, 2010, 22). In this he is making a case against religion and against what people randomly assign as good or evil. Basically it is akin to the saying "One man's trash is another man's treasure." But, the trash or treasure is another human being, system of beliefs, or anything else that can be divided into the notion of good or evil. Because people are self-interested, they see what another person does as evil because that is not the way they would do it. This essential part of the Hobbes philosophy demonstrates his feelings on why people were not actually made to be in societies, but were fashioned to be alone (Hobbes did believe in a Creator Being because he did not have the advantages of science that are available today. However, his view of God was of a disinterested Being who created, but did not, in turn, meddle).

Justice

Plato lived in a world that was unjust. He saw the death of Socrates (Plato, 1967) and realized that the society of his beloved city had become corrupt and unjust. Therefore, he set forth to discover what justice actually was and he wrote the Republic to explain what it actually was. He saw the idea of justice as human perfection (Plato, 1930, 13). He believed that people were corrupted by the natural world, but that the divine nature, the soul, was just. He set forth a society based on this principle.

Hobbes, again, was not so generous. He did not believe that people were just; he believed that the only justice people showed was toward themselves, as it was with everything else. However, he did believe that people were just to one another against their natural inclinations. He said "all men (since all men are born infants) are born unfit for society; and very many (perhaps the majority) remain so throughout their lives, because of mental illness or lack of training. Yet as infants and as adults they do have a human nature. Therefore, man is made fit for society not by nature, but by training" (Hobbes, 1998, 25). The only way for one human to be just to another was through training from those who had already perfected their societal nature to some extent. He believed that this was against what these people wanted to do, in actuality, but they acted justly because they had to in a society.

Government

This all leads, finally to a discussion about something that the two men did actually agree on. Plato talked about an ideal society in The Republic whose principle was based on the education of the masses and a dividing of those people into jobs that they were suited for. It is interesting how closely his proposal mirrors present day socialism. Plato said that there was a guardian class from which the leaders would come, a soldier class that would provide protection for the entire society, and an artisan class which was actually the most exalted class. All of these people would remain in harmony because they would realize their individual places, and be content in them. The guardians were to be benevolent, educated philosophers who sought only the best for the entire society. Of course, this is the epitome of the ideal that Plato based his philosophy and view of human nature on.

Hobbes primary belief was that "The right of nature…is the liberty that each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything, which in his own judgment, and reason, he shall conceive shall be the aptest means thereunto" (Hobbes, 1904, 86). Sometimes, Hobbes reasoned, this "aptest means" was that the individual must give up some of the rights guaranteed by nature to secure their person. When a bad enough threat existed, humans were apt to seek the comfort of others like themselves. These people would even give up their rights to a sovereign authority, a government, because they realized that without this protection, a conqueror could violently end their life. Thus, neither government nor society was designed to bring people together, but to protect their selfish natures. Of course the best form of government was a sovereign who would allow the people to pursue their own self-interests while living under the protection of the sovereign authority. This is much like the thoughts that Plato had on the government. The best government is one which allows each person do what they are best at. Although the two views are arrived at differently, they end up with the same thought.

Conclusion

Following the diverse road that these two philosophers take the reader down, it is difficult to see that they might end at a place that is very similar. But, in retrospect, their views about the base nature of man are relatively similar because they do see that people are ruled by their individual passions rather than any actual good feelings toward one another. Plato does account for a divine nature that can be achieved through the soul, but Hobbes does not believe that humans are capable of ant real feelings for one another. He does accept a Creator, but it is one that was only interested in making the experiment, not in keeping track of it. In the end, it is fascinating that the purely empiricist and rational could come up with a perfect society that matched the idealist society in so many ways.