Locke is thought to be a founder of empiricism. In “A Letter Concerning Toleration” (1689) he solves what he thinks a problem the relationship between government and church. This probably originated as a fear concerning the state of England and the Catholic religion, which at the time the latter was attempting to dominate the former. Basically, Locke argues for a new understanding of the relationship between government and religion. This is the basis for the modern day concept of “separation of church and state” (although this is rarely put into complete effect under force of law). One prime aspect of Locke's work is that of the non-toleration of atheists, who, according to him, cannot uphold oaths and other various ceremonies involving government. After close analysis it is important if not vital to note that Locke's claim to fame as an empiricist has been granted by those who do not understand the meaning of empirical thought and deduction.

On the other hand, in “Of Man” (1660), Hobbes takes a slightly different and opposing method of defining the structure of a society. After reading the first portion of Leviathan the best that could be said of Hobbes is that he was attempting to make axioms to generate relevant discourse from and sound logical principles. This approach is intrinsically flawed (more on this later). Supposedly, according to external sources, science plays a role in Hobbes' work and society articulated throughout. Instead of it being as so, it looks more like a general and vague concept of what “science” is - as if it is some popular party house.

Themes common in both pieces of work include that of power, rights, natural rights, government, peace, war, and the state of men and women alike. These themes will be further analyzed according to the views of Locke and Hobbes accordingly. Finally a presentation of the common ground and the fighting ground between the two men will be presented. Ultimately a description of “where they went wrong” will also be given as a conclusion to this analysis. A theme, or perhaps premise is shared between the two philosophers (and indeed most of the social sciences) that “social science” is “science” - this too will be analyzed.

Of Reason and Hobbes

Hobbes and reason did not get along. He wrote passages such as this: `For Reason, in this sense, is nothing but Reckoning (that is, Adding and Substracting) of the Consequences of generall names agreed upon, for the Marking and Signifying of our thoughts;` . Though Hobbes goes to great lengths to define reason, he fails. This is because, according to Hobbes, reasoning is the process of applying axioms. Axioms are self-evident truths (such as those “general names agreed upon”). Readers of Hobbes claim that he takes a more scientific approach. Never in the history of science would any self-respecting and competent scientist start off by accepting “self-evident truths”. Science is the systematic search for truth. If it was not Hobbes intention to adhere to scientific values then it is required that Hobbes was not searching for the truth. By including anything similar to “self-evident truths” he throws everything off balance. This basically renders the rest of the work in a stance unable to be sufficiently analyzed as much as somebody such as Hobbes (or even Locke) might want. Furthermore, take this portion: ` I say Marking them, when we reckon

by our selves; and Signifying, when we demonstrate, or approve our

reckonings to other men.` Here it is said that by reasoning we can change the composition/actuality of the world. In reality this is just an advanced method of spreading ideas from one person to another by using fancy terms such as reason, science, rights, and a herd of others for the sake of the ideas' existence itself (with possible good intentions of the authors/speakers).

Of Reason and Locke

`Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated.`

Here we see that John Locke argues against any reason for the toleration of atheists. By suggesting the non-toleration of atheists he is taking the stance of atheists against them: “you do not believe in the existence of a God and as such I will further believe that you are wrong”. This is more like child play than actual reasoning. Again, Locke's understanding of reason (or logic) must also be questioned.

Hobbes and Locke on Reason … and most of the other Social Sciences

For some reason there is this general stance that the basic unit that should be studied through the social sciences is that of the person. The person is then given certain rights and in some cases certain rights are taken away. Rights are like privileges. At no one point does anybody tend to classify the structures of society in some hierarchal order. There is no order to the study of the construction of societies in relation to the nature of humans. Indeed, human nature is in fact ignored and replaced by the vague allusions of the authors on the `self-evident nature of mankind'. This is the type of thinking that creates statements like `Secondly, no private person has any right in any manner to prejudice another person in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church or religion.` (Locke) and `And in this law of nature consisteth the fountain and original of justice. For where no covenant hath preceded, there hath no right been transferred, and every man has right to everything and consequently, no action can be unjust.` (Hobbes). The first statement written by Locke is more like a command rather than any a result of observation, hypothesis, theory and all the other steps of the scientific process. From what did this idea derive from? The second quote, words of Hobbes, explains a law of nature by curiously resorting to phrases such as “fountain and original of justice” - whatever that may or may not mean. If people were to subscribe to this line of thought then this paper would receive an automatic 100% as no action is unjust (such as the recording of these words to meet the requirements to attain the 100%). (Which is obvious bologna).

The works of both Locke and Hobbes take some type of moral perspective on the nature of things. Though they differ in their ideas they take this common ground. From this there drives the area of study considered the social sciences. From these two papers there appears to be only two options:

Both authors disregard the instance of something “in between” or outside of this spectrum. The vaguest theme present in both works is that of society with a mix of philosophy. The messages conveyed in these works are aimed towards the people although each is given an academic flair (the spelling in Hobbes' suggests a writing for the common man). Presently, modern day society relies upon the work of Locke, and not much of Hobbes. These works effect my life through the effects on modern day society. This creates problems such as people using out dated terms and “studies” from “social science”. I think I have been made to read this for a handful of reasons:

“If any man err from the right way, it is his own misfortune, no injury to thee; nor therefore art thou to punish him in the things of this life because thou supposest he will be miserable in that which is to come.”

Bryan Bishop On Locke & Hobbes February 27^th, 02006