This paper examines the major philosophical contributions of Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), focusing on his materialistic view of human nature, his concept of naturalistic self-interest, and his argument for a social contract as the foundation of organized government. The paper situates Hobbes within the historical context of the English Revolution and traces his role in shifting Western thought away from Scholasticism toward secular political theory. It also briefly contrasts Hobbes' empirically grounded, practical approach with Plato's more abstract theory of Forms and levels of knowledge, concluding that Hobbes offers a more actionable framework for understanding and structuring society.
The paper demonstrates the technique of contextualizing a philosopher's ideas within their historical moment. By explaining that Hobbes was reacting to the decentralizing forces of the Reformation and the chaos of the English Revolution, the writer shows how social and political conditions shape philosophical output — a hallmark of intellectual history analysis.
The paper opens with a biographical and historical introduction, then addresses Hobbes' core theories of human nature and self-interest, followed by his political solution (the social contract). It then reflects on the educational and societal implications of Hobbes' philosophy before closing with a comparative contrast against Plato. Each section builds on the last, ending with an evaluative conclusion favoring Hobbes' practical framework.
Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was a famous English philosopher and political theorist who profoundly influenced political events during the so-called English Revolution (1640–1660), a time of great upheaval and disorder. Hobbes wrote his famous work Leviathan (1651) during this period, in which he advocated a form of government in which subjects hand over all authority to the ruler. Hobbes is also considered a major influence behind the ethical philosophy of Utilitarianism and contributed greatly to the development of psychology and modern sociology.
Hobbes was one of the first philosophers to provide a secular justification for a secular state and was responsible for the departure from religiously centered thinking — specifically Scholasticism — in Europe. Scholasticism was opposed to any new ideas beyond Christian theology and Greek philosophy. This departure is considered one of the turning points in Western civilization: as secularism became increasingly important, the all-pervasive influence of religion and theology on governance and everyday life declined gradually.
Hobbes' theories also had a significant effect on human social relations, as he applied the principles of naturalism — or mechanism — to explain human behavior and motivation. This was a significant departure from the prevalent doctrine of teleology, which held that nature and creation are ordered and regulated by a divine plan. Instead, Hobbes attempted to explain natural phenomena through the scientific and mechanical laws of nature.
In the field of human psychology, Hobbes presented his concept of naturalistic self-interest. He believed that all human behavior is governed by an instinct for self-interest. He proposed his theory of appetite and aversion, which explains human behavior as a constant effort by individuals to move toward pleasure and away from pain. His materialistic theories brought him into conflict with the authorities during his lifetime, as his work was considered atheistic. In his Leviathan, he famously observed that "human life in its state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" and that it is engaged "in a war of all against all."
As a consequence of this bleak view of the natural human condition, Hobbes greatly emphasized the importance of organized society. He argued that in order to avoid anarchism and a culture of "dog eat dog," people seek security by entering into a social contract, in which each person's original power is yielded to a sovereign — or government — who then regulates conduct and maintains order.
Children who are educated on the principles of Hobbes' theories are likely to grow up being skeptical of theories of divine religion, although not necessarily irreligious. This is because Hobbes was not a militant atheist; he was simply arguing for a distinction between knowledge and faith, believing that a belief in God was a matter of faith and that one could not "gain" knowledge of God through reason or evidence alone.
One must also remember the historical context in which Hobbes presented his theories, as he was reacting to the decentralizing ideas of the Reformation in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In this light, children brought up with knowledge of Hobbes' philosophy would likely be more aware of human psychology and better equipped to understand the foundations of civil society.
You’re 71% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.