On Difference Between Hobbes And Rousseau's Theory Of The State Of Nature

Hobbes and Rousseau use the state of nature to deduce their theory of philosophy of law.However, they go with the passers-by, similar age, the philosophy of law theory in its basic doctrine of the natural state, but it took a different path of theoretical development. In terms of the modern natural law tradition, Rousseau dose not follow Hobbes. Their difference lies in the philosophy of law theory, the natural state of their doctrine is different from the state of nature to them to make a powerful difference between theory analysis, we must fundamentally understand the intention of their problems.Based on Strauss's interpretation, this paper argues that Hobbes is the medieval idea of the tit for tat, as the founder of modern political philosophy, Hobbes changes the political and moral problems into technical problems. Hobbes breaks first in the ancient order, with the new natural philosophy to replace the ancient natural philosophy, and introduce the state of nature theory to provide justification for the modern political order. Rousseau's main interlocutor is Hobbes. Hobbes technifies the political and moral issues, and put on the cloak of civilization to the nature .With scientific progress and moral deterioration , a person's moral issue is ignored.Rousseau was critical of Hobbes. He tried to strip the natural coat of civilization , re-thinking civic virtue question. Beacause of Hobbes and Rousseau's thinking differently determines that their state of nature theory and the philosophy of law based on it is different.This paper divided into three parts. The first part outlines the state of nature theory of Hobbes and Rousseau.It includes: the historical background of Hobbes and Rousseau's theory of the state of nature,the intention of Hobbes and Rousseau's theory of the state of nature, the same point of Hobbes and Rousseau's theory of the state of nature. All theories are inseparable from a certain historical context,so they are placed in the historical context in the study. As development of the theory is the process of transmission, Hobbes and Rousseau's natural state theory are some similarities.The second part discusses the difference of Hobbes and Rousseau's theory of the state of nature, which is a core part of this article. This section includes the ethical basis and the construction aspects of civil society to articulate the state of nature Hobbes and Rousseau's theory of differences. As for the ethical basis,it mainly analse Hobbes's argument of nature evail and Rousseau's argument of nature good(ie, compassion, self-esteem and competition, suspicion, honor).On the part of the construction of civil society, it bases on natural law and natural state of transition to civil society (including the social contract and sovereign nation) for the analysis of point of view. As for Hobbes, the natural state of turning civil society is the birth of a powerful Leviathan, and is the new legal right to order. As forRousseau, they are the public will and the formation of the theory of popular sovereignty as well as the return of civic virtue and moral persons to shape.The third part discusses theoretical and practical impact of Hobbes and Rousseau's theory of the state of nature difference. In theory, Locke, Montesquieu, Hobbes Schmidt number are subject to the impact, particularly German jurist Schmitt absorbs and transformates Hobbes's theory deeply. Kant and Hegel's ideas are subject to, some extent, the impact of Rousseau. Hobbes's theory almost have no impact to British political reality. Rousseau's theory has far-reaching implication to the political realities, affecting the French Revolution, particularly affecting the revolutionaries, and political theorist Robespierre.The general conclusion of this article summarizes and emphasizes the text of the theme, pointed out that Hobbes and Rousseau's theory of the state of nature is different for their different intention. Through analyzing the ancient modern concept of contrast, we can see the differences of modern Philosophy of Law. The difference between Hobbes and Rousseau lies in the era of internal difference, which is the difference between the modern thinker. In terms of fighting against medieval ideology, they are consistent. By analyzing the differences between the two theory of the state of nature ,we can see clearly the history of western philosophy of law and method of context as well as the formation of philosophical pedigree of law affected by their theory of natural state differences.