Aristotle and Hobbes have very different views on the nature of political science.

For each of them, the study of political science produces a type of knowledge which their theory of political science contributes to the use of that knowledge. The question remains, who has a better understanding of the nature of political science? Out of the two, Aristotle has the better understanding and theory of political science. Aristotle saw political science as a necessity because we are political animals. We need politics to function properly as human beings and to fulfill our potential. In order to function properly, we need to be virtuous. Politics is how we achieve that virtue. Aristotle views the nature of politics to be that which pushes us to become virtuous. It is within politics that we find and recognize our humanity. The laws and rules within the political community, which are political animal natures push us to form and live in, is that which encourage and push us to live more moral and virtuous lives. Hobbes reduces us to animal nature when he talks about politics. Hobbes thinks that there is no humanness to us except what is in our minds. While Aristotle promoted the idea of rationalism, Hobbes favors nominalism. With Aristotle, our essence of being human was realized through politics while Hobbes does not see any humanness or essence to us. Hobbes sees politics as being such that it needs an absolute authority over it. Because politics is of such a nature that there is a lot of pluralism and fighting (an all versus all scenarios) within it, this Leviathan of the Common-Wealth (which we have created) is needed to be absolute government. It is this Leviathan that controls politics by telling us what is just and what is not t defines things for us so that we do not have a society full of many conflicting definitions that are all competing for power. Hobbes sees this nature also as a protection.

For Aristotle, the study of political science produces the knowledge of not just reason but also morality and virtue. Hobbes, however, sees it as the knowledge of definition. It defines our passions (appetites and aversions) so that we know which is which and which we are to follow. For Aristotle, having the knowledge of virtue that politics gives us, allows us to continue to become more virtuous and to further our reason. Once we have the definitions that absolute government gives us, according to Hobbes, we are able to apply these definitions to our lives. Aristotle seems to have a better understanding of the nature of political science. He realizes that politics help to enforce moral law and encourage virtue. This is important because of the objective justice that he mentions that political science brings about. Aristotle also seemed to have a much more stable view of the nature of political science. Hobbes sees politics as being what the sovereign government defines it to be. For Aristotle, politics is something we need as humans so that we can recognize our humanity and live more virtuous lives. It is in a sense building on what we already have within us. Aristotle and Hobbes have different views on the nature of political science which leads to different knowledge from and use of that knowledge through political science. Out of the two, Aristotle seems to have a much better view of the nature of political science.

Leo Strauss presents the argument that Locke is only a disguised version of Hobbes that is they both use the same logic. Even though they have different theories of government, they use the same logic to reach their theories of government. Strauss does seem to have a very believable and seemingly correct view of Locke and Hobbes. In their arguments, Locke and Hobbes reference the social contract theory to argue their points of view about their theories of government. Locke believes that when we are governed, we consent to a social contract. This contract is where both the people and the government are held accountable for their actions. In Hobbess view of the social contract, consent does not have to be given to the government for the government to rule over the people. Within this, the government is above the contract (which acts more like a covenant). The government does not have to be held accountable for its actions to us. They use the same terminology but with different meaning. Their arguments are much more closely tied and seem to use much of the same logic when looking at what Locke meant by consent. For him, tacit consent was what was necessary, explicit consent was not. By continuing to live in a nation we are giving our consent. It is when we leave a nation (or rebel which is not acceptable for Hobbes) that we are no longer giving our consent to be governed. Strausss view of their logic being similar is furthered when looking at areas where Hobbes and Locke agreed. They both say that the people are able to defend themselves against others and the government (though Hobbes seems to grudgingly admit this while Locke seems to be very okay with this idea). This means that if someone were to try and kill or harm a person, that person could fight back.

Hobbes thinks that politics is a state of war with all versus all. Locke tries to disagree by saying it is instead of state of nature because we do sometimes care for others and are not completely self-interested. He does admit, however, that this state of nature can descend easily into a state of war. Both do seem to try to be doing their best to come up with ways that preserve the peace (or in Lockes case the state of nature). Locke seems to be using the logic of Hobbes when talking about parental power. Hobbes thought that absolute government was needed to give meaning to things; we need it to rule over us. Locke seems to agree when talking about parental power. He says that mothers and fathers have a claim and a right over their children (an absolute power). Locke does reason that this absolute power is only temporary it is only necessary until the children have grown up. Locke and Hobbes use many similar points and use similar logic even though they seem to reach and promote different theories of government. Strauss does seem to be correct when he thinks that Locke is really Hobbes in sheeps clothing.

Locke argues for a limited form of government consistently throughout his book, Second Treatise on Government, until the very end of the book. At the end , he argues for a theory of prerogative government. Does Lockes theory of prerogative undermine his theory of limited government? Lockes theory of prerogative government and his theory of limited government might, at first, seem to undermine each other, but in all actuality they do not. At the end of his book, Locke talks about the prerogative powers that the government has. This power gives the government the power and ability to overrule laws that the legislative part of the government puts forth. Locke saw the main purpose of the government as being able to preserve and enable freedom. We are under a moral and natural law whose goal is to preserve the species (which can be helped in some sense through freedom). In limited government, there can be laws which do not work towards the common good or the preservation of the species. In cases such as these, for the preservation of and the enlargement of freedom to continue, the government needs to have the ability to take a prerogative to get rid of the harmful laws. This, according to Locke, does no threaten limited government but rather helps to preserve it. Locke does not have a form of what we know as the judicial branch in the United States in the branches of government that he talks about. Locke, instead, discusses the legislative, federative, and executive branches of limited government. The federative and executive branches that he talks about are very similar to what is known as the executive branch in the United States. This prerogative that Locke writes about seems to be very familiar to the judicial branch that we have in the United States today (an almost seems to be a very early form the judiciary branch that Montesquieu first writes about). It seems to be a way that Locke creates for there to be a

safeguard to the limited government rather than a way to make the limited government more absolute. Because Locke believes in the social contract theory that the government is part of the contract and must be held accountable to its actions and that we have the right to rebel, this prerogative does not harm limited government. If those who had the ability to exercise the prerogative did so improperly, the people under the government would be well within their rights to rebel against the government or try to reform it. This threat of rebellion seems to be another way for there to be a safeguard against the prerogative from being taken advantaged. As Locke had earlier stated, the government only has what powers that we give it. If we allow it to get away with things it should not, then it is our fault for giving it too much power. The prerogative that Locke mentions in the end of his book does not go against his theory of limited government. Instead, it actually seems to help his theory of limited government.