Free Essays on Hobbes And Locke Comparision

Similar to Hobbes, Locke starts his treatise by defining the concept of a state of nature. Their basic aim is to show the nature of man's existence before the establishment of the society and sovereign state and make a rational and reliable point for their philosophical enquiries. Starting from this point, both of them proceed to the abstraction of the human nature and constructed a theory of society. However unlike the very pessimistic state of nature understanding of Hobbes, the state of nature as described by Locke is quite optimistic where, all men are born equal and are free, subject to the laws of nature which dictate them, that man shouldn’t destroy himself or any other person due to his commitment to God to protect the life given by God. The only exception to this is against the men who break the law, since the law ones broke it is not any more state of nature but state of war, a more similar situation to the Hobbesian understanding. However, despite the common starting points of their theories, their approaches to the question of property are quite differentiated. Whereas Hobbes did not dealt with the question of property in detail except entrusting it to the Leviathan, Locke shows a great enthusiasm for explaining the origins of property. He refuses the arguments of theorists, who see the property as the natural right of the men. According to him, all men are born free and equal regardless of what generation they have been born into and, private property does not arise from consent to divide up original common property. For explaining the origins of property, he employs the concept of labor. Basically he argues that God gave the world to all men commonly to be used to preserve life and liberty, and therefore the objects of nature, which are labored by men, belong to him. Man has property of his own person and therefore owns his labor and thus the objects created by his labor belong to him as well. In the Locke’s underst... Free Essays on Hobbes And Locke Comparision Free Essays on Hobbes And Locke Comparision Similar to Hobbes, Locke starts his treatise by defining the concept of a state of nature. Their basic aim is to show the nature of man's existence before the establishment of the society and sovereign state and make a rational and reliable point for their philosophical enquiries. Starting from this point, both of them proceed to the abstraction of the human nature and constructed a theory of society. However unlike the very pessimistic state of nature understanding of Hobbes, the state of nature as described by Locke is quite optimistic where, all men are born equal and are free, subject to the laws of nature which dictate them, that man shouldn’t destroy himself or any other person due to his commitment to God to protect the life given by God. The only exception to this is against the men who break the law, since the law ones broke it is not any more state of nature but state of war, a more similar situation to the Hobbesian understanding. However, despite the common starting points of their theories, their approaches to the question of property are quite differentiated. Whereas Hobbes did not dealt with the question of property in detail except entrusting it to the Leviathan, Locke shows a great enthusiasm for explaining the origins of property. He refuses the arguments of theorists, who see the property as the natural right of the men. According to him, all men are born free and equal regardless of what generation they have been born into and, private property does not arise from consent to divide up original common property. For explaining the origins of property, he employs the concept of labor. Basically he argues that God gave the world to all men commonly to be used to preserve life and liberty, and therefore the objects of nature, which are labored by men, belong to him. Man has property of his own person and therefore owns his labor and thus the objects created by his labor belong to him as well. In the Locke’s underst...

Pendant que and the French Subjunctive

Pendant que and the French Subjunctive Is  pendant que  subjunctive or indicative? This is a question that challenges many French students and theres a simple answer. First, you must ask if  pendant que  (while) is indeed a fact. Does Pendant que Need the Subjunctive? No, pendant que does not take the subjunctive. Pendant que  means while and the act of doing something  while  something  else is occurring  is a reality and a truth. There is no question to pendant que. Heres an example sentence: Jà ©tudie pendant quil fait la cuisine.I study while he cooks. Why doesnt it take the subjunctive? Because the word  while  states a fact. There is no question in this example that I am studying while he cooks. The fact is, therefore, an indicative mood. If there were any question as to the nature of  while  or  pendant que, then it would be subjunctive. Lets look at another example: Elle dessine pendant que je regarde.She draws while I watch. Is there any question here about the reality of her drawing? No, it is a fact that she  is  drawing and that I am watching. There is no question or uncertainty in this sentence.   One last example should concrete the concept of  pendant que: Il attend pendant quils  rà ©parent la voiture.He is waiting while they repair the car. Again, these are facts and there is no question as to what each person involved is doing. Tip:  The same subjunctive rules that apply to  pendant que  also cover  tandis que, which also means while. Its All About Facts Pendant que states a fact. Always keep in mind that the subjunctive has some degree of uncertainty. If your statement cannot be subjective, then it cannot be subjunctive. Use this theory as you encounter and question other possible subjunctive and indicative words and phrases.