One of the fascinating elements of John Locke's Second Treatise of Government is the way in which it essentially inverts the absolutist monarchal philosophy of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.
Leviathan makes deliberate assumptions about the God-given right of the king to dictate law for all people within his kingdom. Locke, however, proposes that this model is basically upside-down. Rather than assuming the divine right of the monarch to rule, Locke states that the people, as individuals, should be allowed to govern themselves, willfully participating in a system of limited government meant for the benefit of all.
One of the rather fascinating differences between Hobbes and Locke is the difference in writing style and quality. While this logically shouldn't affect the actual content of their work, Hobbes' writing simply comes off as being less intelligent than Locke's by a longshot. Throughout Leviathan, Hobbes writes in long, complicated, and often-unclear sentences. Worse, his argument is quite literally hypocritical. He claims that argumentative writing (especially with elements such as metaphor) is a crime of sorts, yet he himself commits this crime with Leviathan itself. The cliché "do as I say, not as I do" seems to apply. Hobbes seems paranoid and frightened, writing more from a place of fear (fear of the great unknown power of the populous) rather than reason.
Locke, on the other hand, writes in clear prose, with obviously well-thought-out reasoning. He does still work with assumptions (the assumption that all men are imbued with the personal right of property of self, as opposed to the monarch's divine right to rule), however, he supports these assumptions with a foundation of clear reasoning based on observation and what most would call "common sense."
In my opinion, most modern readers of Hobbes will undoubtedly feel the need to question his words; most modern readers of Locke will find little to disagree with.
Excellent observations here. I would add to your claims about the difference in their writing styles that Locke is better at picking examples with which to illustrate his points. Claims about America are far more effective than Hobbes's use of tennis. The only thing I would disagree with in what you say is that form does not affect content. For a long time, we have treated philosophy in this way -- acting as if its language is transparent and has no effect on how the message comes across. More recently, it has been argued that the very language and form of philosophical writings can tell us a lot about what the author is conveying. In this way, what is true for the literary text is true for the philosophical one.
ReplyDelete