The term "state of nature" is used to describe and understand what the natural attributes and characteristics of human beings would have been like in the absence of civilization and enlightenment and how they would have interacted with one another in this state. This view of humans in their natural state is split between philosophers such as Hobbes and Spinoza who have a relatively pessimistic on the view of human nature, agreeing on themes such as the hazardous nature of man within the state of nature the need for a central sovereign figure but differ on their reasoning on how they come to such a conclusion. This view is different to the themes of philosophers such as Locke, who have a more optimistic view on human nature, believing men are not destined to perpetual war as suggested by Hobbes. These are the key views that are to be contrasted within this essay. To analyze the state of nature, we must, therefore, analyse the nature and characteristics of men.
Hobbes view of men is that all men are equal as the differences in mind and body between men is relatively small, and the weakest man can kill the strongest ˜either by secret machination or confederacy with others.' (Hobbes, 1651: ), and all men are ˜content with his share'(Hobbes, 1651: ) as all men think they are smarter than everyone else. This equality, however, is what leads men to have the equal hope with every other man of reaching their goals or objectives in life which are towards self-preservation or indeed a pleasure and as this equal hope for the same things which ˜nevertheless they cannot both enjoy' (Hobbes, 1651: ) make men eternal enemies. This in turn makes it man's nature to destroy or subdue one another that are in pursuit of common goals and in order to protect himself and also the fruits of his labour which are open to invasion by other men who are example are not satisfied with achievement of their security and are interested in conquering others.
