Difference Between John Locke And The African Man

1473 Words6 Pages
A Lockean man is neither a Hobbesian man nor a Rousseauan man. What is an African Man? The nature of man, and the African man in particular, is a controversial subject that has plagued the minds of some of the world’s most brilliant scholars and philosophers who have attempted to classify the nature of probably the most dominant and unpredictable species on the planet. Three of the most prominent of these philosophers are Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke who each had contrasting views on the seemingly elaborate subject that is the nature of man. The views of these three philosophers will be carefully analysed and compared to one another in order to answer the key question: “what is the African man?” I will argue that the African man is neither good nor evil but is instead neutral. This argument will be developed by referring to the provided short stories and articles, factual and fictional, as well as real historical events in Africa’s incredibly turbulent history. Jean-Jacques Rousseau hypothesised that man is basically good in the state of nature and that man has been corrupted by society. According to Rousseau, man once lived in peace and harmony with nature without a sense of morality and man was essentially good before society was formed, (SparkNotes Editors, 2005). Society has made man competitive and consequently selfish; however Rousseau believed that man is still good at heart. Rousseau’s argument is evident in the manner in which man constantly

More about Difference Between John Locke And The African Man

Open Document