Human Nature and Political Practice:The Comparison between Machiavelli and Hobbes

• Main Authors: Jyun-Yu Chen, 陳俊宇
• Other Authors: none
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2012
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/21340616289664636364

碩士 === 東吳大學 === 政治學系 === 100 === This thesis attempts to analyze the difference and similarity between Machiavelli and Hobbes’ theory of human nature and how they based on the human nature as a further reflection of political practice. Both of Machiavelli and Hobbes observed human nature from a pessimistic perspective, they thought that human nature is imperfect. Harmful components of human nature must be constrained by external forces, and therefore the political order is the indispensable condition of populations living. Although Machiavelli and Hobbes had similar perceptions on humanity, they took a very different view point on the political practice. Because of the imperfect human nature, Hobbes negated the ability to political action of the vast majority of man. He claimed all powers of actions and judgements in the political sphere should be centralized, held and exercised by the sovereign. Machiavelli considered the possibility of action in a positive attitude. He treated some motives and actions of private interests or individual desires as reasonable purposes, and affirmed mass participation would contribute to maintain the political order. By comparing the political theories of Machiavelli and Hobbes, this thesis plans to show two kinds of theoretical modes of ideal political life. Hobbes' political philosophy aimed to explore universal truths of human collective life, and tried to draw up an ideal blueprint for political life; Machiavelli’s political thoughts focused on how man acts in specific situations, his ideal political life depended on a dynamic equilibrium by which variety of individuals or groups interact in the political field.