Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://doi.org/10.25143/RSU_filos-antrop-III_2024_ISBN-9789934618390.025-054
Title: | Cilvēka dabiskais stāvoklis Hobsa, Loka un Ruso skatījumā |
Other Titles: | The Natural State of Human Beings According to Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau: Summary |
Authors: | Graudiņa, Elīna |
Keywords: | Cilvēka dabiskais stāvoklis;valsts;sabiedrība;T. Hobss;Dž. Loks;Ž. Ž. Ruso;apgaismība;vara |
Issue Date: | 2024 |
Publisher: | Rīgas Stradiņa universitāte |
Citation: | Graudiņa, E. (2024). Cilvēka dabiskais stāvoklis Hobsa, Loka un Ruso skatījumā. Filosofiskā antropoloģija III: Rakstu krājums. 25–54. https://doi.org/10.25143/RSU_filos-antrop-III_2024_ISBN-9789934618390.025-054 |
Abstract: | Elīna Graudiņa in her article “The Natural State of Human According to Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau” examines the views and visions of Enlightenment thinkers on the position of an individual and society in relation to the State, society and each other. Hobbes describes the natural human condition as a selfish desire for self-preservation, characterised by a spirit of competition, distrust and fear. It is the development of “natural law” according to which a man is free to do whatever they like, and “the state of war of all against all” begins. In his natural state, man has both external freedom of action and internal freedom of will, and therefore a natural right to everything. A state where duties and rights are based on contract is a system in which the individual’s selfishness is overridden by his duty to himself, to his neighbour and to the state at large. John Locke argues that there is no innate knowledge in the individual and that man is born as a “blank slate”. He believed that an individual’s personality, knowledge and character are formed as a result of the influences of the world around him. All human beings are free, equal and independent by nature. Thomas Hobbes’s social contract theory was further developed and simultaneously criticized by Jean Jacque Rousseau. He describes transition from the state of nature to the state of citizenship. This transition brings about a remarkable change in man, replacing instinct with justice in their behaviour, giving their actions a moral meaning. What man loses with the social contract is their natural freedom, limited only by the forces of an individual. It must be distinguished from civil liberty, which is limited by the general will and property. Rousseau defends the thesis that man is good by nature and only society corrupts them morally. The philosopher cites a faulty education as one of the reasons for this, and therefore calls for an immediate reform of pedagogy, replacing traditional methods of education with “natural education”. The reform in question is based on precise knowledge of the nature of the child. Several centuries have passed since Hobbes’s conclusions on the selfishness of human nature, but this does not change the fact that the “natural state” of man has not really changed, emphasises Elīna Graudiņa. Elīna Graudiņa rakstā “Cilvēka dabiskais stāvoklis T. Hobsa, Dž. Loka un Ž. Ž. Ruso skatījumā” aplūko apgaismības laika domātāju redzējumu un uzskatus par indivīda un sabiedrības stāvokli attiecībā pret valsti, sabiedrību, citam pret citu. |
DOI: | https://doi.org/10.25143/RSU_filos-antrop-III_2024_ISBN-9789934618390.025-054 |
ISBN: | 978-9934-618-39-0 |
License URI: | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
Appears in Collections: | Rakstu krājums "Filosofiskā antropoloģija III" |
Files in This Item:
File | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|
RSU_Filos-Antrop_2024_III-seej_IPD-4117_02-Graudinja.pdf | 514.27 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open![]() |
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License