Some notes on Aristotle, Hobbes and Locke

There seems to be a radical antagonism between the ideas of men and society of Aristotle and Hobbes. Both seem to represent two contradictory interpretations of why men gather in society and constitute government. This difference springs from their radical opposite conceptions of what the nature of man is. However I find interesting that Locke in his Second Treatise of Government seems to be in a middle point between the two.

This is nothing but a mere sketch of an idea I developed some months ago reading Locke. It might be read as a temporary hypotheses. The premises are:

i. While Hobbes interprets man's nature from his strictly emotional self-centered condition, he underlines an antisocial tendency of man's individuality that is deduced from the apparently constant competitive behavior between, among and of each other. Because all men praise their safety above all else, there is a natural tendency to distrust and fear others as potential threats to his life and welfare. So man's first goal in life is security.

ii. Aristotle on the other hand interprets man's nature from his ethical inclination towards happiness and friendliness, which he deduces from the fact that all men live in society and none is known to be born and raised in solitude. Because all men seem to aim at happiness as the goal of life, and friendship is among the most praised goods from where happiness springs, men cultivate friendship, which in the aggregate forms society.

iii. However Locke agrees with Aristotle that there is a natural tendency given by God in man's nature which makes him sociable. But contrary to Aristotle and in agreement with Hobbes (and all Modern tradition in this sense), he considers that government is a rationally created institution for the preservation of all against each, as if the possibility of aggression is enough to distrust each other, but no so much as to render society impossible.

Conclusions: For Aristotle government springs naturally from the human condition of sociability. Man as the political animal lives under government in his natural self, whereas for Hobbes government and society are rationally established by individuals by their natural tendency to fear and distrust each other, but for the purpose of permitting civil life in tranquility. In Hobbes, society and government is built against nature, whilst in Aristotle it springs from human nature itself. For Locke society springs from human nature, but not government. Locke's State of Nature is a society without government. It is implicit in Locke that men can live without the need of government. The emergence of it is a rationally deduced mutual conclusion based on the utility of its existence. Therefore, the Minimal State is really justified by this idea that men can actually live in society without the help of government.

Secondary conclusions: in Antiquity, political man interpreted as natural, the vision of politics is somehow seen in an organic form. Government and politics, all its changes and eventualities are by nature, and hence by necessity. Liberty cannot be conceived in this way as the capacity of man to take control of his actions. In Christian and Western thought the notion is different. Human rational capacities are seen as superior to nature. So man makes himself the master of his nature and not his product. Therefore unless he is the rational author of government and his political condition, no notion of liberty can be imagined. This is the most profound and radical difference between all Ancient and Modern thought regarding politics and the human condition. The brilliant mind of Hanna Arendt traces the birth of this difference in St. Paul's discovery of the human will.