Women's role in The Bronze Age Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Women's role in The Bronze Age - Research Paper Example The Euripides world has been in existence since the dawn of times and this has been usefully applied to support human life. This shows that is role is unique and applies to all the spheres of humanity. People therefore embrace bronze age and define it depending on the specific role it plays in defining the role of humanity in the prehistoric period. The archeological environment appears to be minute and is administered at various integrated levels, making it important to the entire group of people or even to the community. The stylistic consideration helps to establish the power of women and how these were centered in the definition of possession, position and family setup. In virtue of Menelaus, the wife' appeared to be mostly attached to the people’s believes and undertakes a reflection of battling for position. The narrative identifies the Greek originality and hence redefines the cultural thought that has been ideologically classified on the basis of willingness to underst and the empirical role of women in the ancient Bronze Age. Cultural formulations in the descriptive content offer people’s understanding of their role and especially when it comes to ensuring that the poor are supported. Further, the society provides the required morals and this is equally identified by its notable change in thinking, (Abramson and Inglehart, 1994). The assumptions hypothesized explore the optimism created by people’s voluntary support. This consciousness is explored based on notable possibilities described by scholars of psychology. The nature of Bronze Age is far beyond inborn character and it is non objective, it is non-predictive yet it is direct and based on a willing heart. In accordance with the moral exercise defined above, the notable inclusion of women in the changing attributes of the Greek mythology is considerably balanced against any possible disruptions. The conceptual analysis of the Women in Bronze Age brings body determinants as well as child disturbances in growth and relative human development values. The aggressive process involved in any developmental platform involves paths taken within the complex human evolution; growth and Archaeological record offers a reflection of existing sexual theories. Development precedents as well as essential incremental issues are phenomenal and this greatly impact on the increasing role of archaeological record complex. However, a comprehensive look at the elaborated natured of its visualized terminology provides a judgmental point of reference that relatively prevails in today’s family changeover compositions. Further, the core aspects which are re-enacted are provisionally defined through a list of processes working on political, social and managerial positions, (Banfield, 1958). An integral analysis of a conceptualized approach give a consultative terminology which womanly experience give a significant impact on the tremendous definition of erotic desires including incestuous desire as well as matricide. The understanding and study analysis of psychopathology as well as related human behaviors equality create significance in identifying the roles of women in the Stone Age period. This reflection projects the impact of universal fantasies in areas of parentage, incestuous relations and growing situational reflections explain dissatisfaction and high levels of uncalled substitutions within which marital challenges are supplemented. Conflict presentation has presently been frequented according to Archaeological record and a correlative composite explain parent’s contrasting roles and opinioned transference which actually give a non-predictable ideals within a family setting. Tragedies attached to growing disconnection between a family unit including sexual malfunctioning and

What Really Is Actor Network Theory Philosophy Essay

What Really Is Actor Network Theory Philosophy Essay In the 1990s there was a war going on in science, or maybe a few wars the so called Science Wars. From one side there were the postmodernists (better known as post-structuralists), on the other side there were the natural scientists. The war started, or better, culminated with an article, that was really a hoax, published in the journal Social Text, one of the most notorious postmodernist journals. The article/hoax entitled Transgressing the boundaries: Towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity was written by the physicist Alan Sokal (1996), and its purpose was to show to the world how stupid and meaningless was/is the postmodernist endeavor in the studies of science. The whole article was made up just by meaningless phrases that sounded postmodern (see Sokal 2008 the entire Part I). After the revelation of the hoax Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont wrote a book entitled Fashionable Nonsense. Postmodern Intellectuals Abuse of Science  [1]   (1998) in which they bombed the whole French post-structuralist scene, and a little bit more. In a nutshell, they showed that most of the French post-structuralists and other close-to-post-structuralism philosophers hadnt had really a clue about science, and that most of their theories come out of ignorance of the fields they were/ are writing about. One of the fashionable guys attacked in Fashionable Nonsense was Bruno Latour (92-99, 124-133  [2]  ), the major representative of Actor-Network Theory (from now on: ANT). He was attacked mainly for pushing extreme social constructivism in social sciences and sciences all together. Basically, Latour supported the thesis that there arent scientific facts but just the social construction of scientific facts as was a fashion of the strong program in the sociology of science  [3]  . Hor instance, he used, no more no less, Einsteins theory of relativity to explain how scientific knowledge is socially constructed, but it seems he didnt really understand Einsteins theory. Latour has lately (2004) changed a little bit his mind about the extreme constructivist positions, maybe because he has seen that his positions really helped not sociology but the political and religious conservative and far right in pushing their ideas about creationism, global warming and similar issues. He even asked himself [w]as [he] wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we said? Why does it burn my tongue to say that global warming is a fact whether you like it or not? Why cant I simply say that the argument is closed of for good? (2004:227). This retreat isnt that new. As Gross and Levitt  [4]  noted (1998:59), Latour is aways ready to recast and, in effect, retract what he previously said. In other contexts he will, with an apparently straight face, admit that there is a natural universe out there and that scientific theories are shaped by it in important ways. Simultaneously, he will censure rigorously the dogmatics of strict cultural constructivism. Just as he pictures (literally) the mind-set of science as a Janus-faced dualist, he too is constantly springing from one side of a dichotomy to the other. Bruno Latour, even though he, as we have seen, did repent for the consequences that his and other strong program theorists work provoked, in 2005 wrote an introductory book on ANT: Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. In that book he tried to explain again the whole ANT story, but not that well, in my opinion  [5]  . In the following lines Ill try to explain, more or less, what ANT is or should be, not just based on the mentioned book, but also on various articles on ANT that can be retrieved on the Internet and other books and journals. ANT seems to be a particular or distinctive approach to social theory and research which has its origins in the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS), mostly developed by Michel Callon, Bruno Latour and John Law. In the last twenty years ANT has been used as a tool for research in fields such as organizational analysis (for ex. Cochoy 2009), informatics (for ex. McInerney 2009), health studies (for ex. Dent 2003), geography (for ex. Smith 2003), sociology, anthropology, feminist studies and economics (for ex. Jones 2008). Already the title of the theory is very problematic. Bruno Latour states in his book (2005:9) that [] the historical name is actor-network-theory, a name that is so awkward, so confusing, so meaningless that it deserves to be kept. Every part of the ANT is questionable. Its not really about actors in a classic sociological sense, the network part is misleading (see Latour 1998) because it doesnt refer to the concept of network as in Social Network Analysis or electronic networks  [6]  , and it is not really a theory in the classic sense, it can be reckoned as a set of theories which have similar characteristics. As a matter of fact, he admits that he was ready to drop this label for more elaborate ones like sociology of translation, actant-rhyzome ontology, sociology of innovation, and so on []. (2005:9). How then we can recognize a theory that belongs to the ANT family? Latour puts forward three tests in order to do that (2005:10-11): One of them is the precise role granted to nonhumans. They have to be actors [] and not simply the hapless bearers of symbolic projection. [] [A]ny study that gives non-humans a type of agency that is more open than the traditional natural causality but more efficient than the symbolic one can be part of [ANT] corpus, even though some authors would not wish to be associated in any way with this approach.(10). Another test is to check which direction the explanation is going in. [] If the social remains stable and is used to explain a state of affairs, its not ANT. (10) A third and more difficult test would be to check whether a study aims at reassembling the social or still insists on dispersion and deconstruction. [] Dispersion, destruction, and reconstruction are not the goals to be achieved [as in postmodern theories,] but what needs to be overcome. Its much more important to check what are the new institutions, procedures, and concepts able to collect and reconnect the social []. (11). We can see that Latour is very vague, and it seems he wants to be like that. In short we can say that in ANT humans, nonhumans and language are all on the same level. They all together form a network of actors that form the world. He uses and criticizes very often the concept social, many times as opposed to the concept associations. Social is for him a concept that many sociologists use as a name for a material the society is made of (2005:1), or some glue of society. But thats wrong, because there isnt something social, there are associations between heterogeneous elements (2005:5). Thus, social, for ANT, is the name of a type of momentary association which is characterized by the way it gathers together into new shapes. (2005:65). In my opinion this is not that groundbreaking. Well, the association of humans and nonhumans might be a little bit strange (or Im too positivist and backwarded), but the idea of not using concepts as social forces and similar black magic (or as Latour wo uld call, as we shell see, black boxes) terms is present in sociology much longer than ANT. For example we can check Howard S. Becker (2007) where he explains the errors of using vague concepts as social forces, etc So, interactionists (try to) explain already very well what people do and how they create everyday life, without going into exotic theories that are not that clear even to their main representatives. ANT is considered sometimes a method and sometimes a theory. [A]nti-essentialism informs both the conceptual frame used for interpretation and guides the processes through which networks are examined. (Ritzer 2004:2). There are three methodological principles in ANT: agnosticism. We should abandon any a priori assumptions of the nature of networks, causal conditions, or the accuracy of actants accounts (Ritzer 2004:2). There should be impartiality from our side. This principle reminds us about Grounded Theory methodology with the added value of impartiality towards objects that are not humans. generalized symmetry. Everybody in a network is the same: computers and programmers, clerks and computer networks Basically we should dissect everything free association. there shouldnt be any distinction between natural and social phenomena. The ANT methodology is usually ethnographic. To be precise they often use the case study method. They use to spend time like anthropologists, but not in forests, and other places typical for anthropological research, but in laboratories with scientists. ANT scholars also study inscriptions, a phrase which refers to all texts and communications in all media (Garson 2008). Let us see which are the central concepts of ANT. I will use secondary analyses of ANT by Felix Stalder and David Garson. Here are the main concepts: Actors: entities that do things (Latour, 1992a, p. 241, as cited in Stalder 1998), no matter whether they are humans or any kind of nonhumans. Some authors use actors for humans and actants for other parts/ system elements of the network (Garson 2008)  [7]  . The distinction between humans and non-humans, embodied or disembodied skills, impersonation or machination, are less interesting than the complete chain along which competences and actions are distributed. (Latour, 1992a, p.243, as cited in Stalder 1998) [] An actor is an actant endowed with a character. (Akrich, Latour, 1992, p.259 as cited by Stalder). In Ritzer (2004:1) we can find that [t]he volitional actor for ANT, termed actant, is any agent, collective or individual, that can associate or disassociate with other agents. Actants enter into networked associations, which in turn define them, name them, and provide them with substance, action, intention, and subjectivity. In other words, actants are considered foundationally indeterminate, with no a priori substance or essence, and it is via the networks in which they associate that actants derive their nature. Network: the network is defined as a group of unspecified relationships among entities of which the nature itself is undetermined. (Callon, 1993, p.263 as cited in Stalder 1998). The inclusive character of this definition becomes more evident when contrasted with one of the conventional sociological definitions of network where a social network consists of a finite set or sets of actors and the relation or relations defined on them (Wasserman, Faust, 1994, p.20 as cited in Stalder). An actor-network is not restricted to social actors, not even to actors in the theorys broader sense. There is no structural difference between large and small actors, between a major institution or a single individual or even a thing as mundane as a door opener (Latour, 1992 as cited by Stalder 1998). Black Box: simply put, a black box contains a sealed network of people and things. But lets see what ANTers say: A black box contains that which no longer needs to be considered, those things whose contents have become a matter of indifference. (Callon, Latour, 1981 p.285 as cited in Stalder 1998). A black box, therefore, is any setting that, no matter how complex it is or how contested its history has been, is now so stable and certain that it can be treated as a fact where only the input and output counts. (Stalder 1998). For example, all the concepts in sociology as social forces, etc are black boxes. Cars are black boxes because we can drive them even though we dont know how are they built. The more it costs to reopen a black box, the more it will be stable. Its not just a matter of the black box, but also of the environment in which it is settled (well, everything is in the network). At the end of the day it seems that ANT became a black box too, because it became a fixed center or obligatory point of passage by the mid-1990s (Ritzer 2004:3). Other important concepts are: Punctualisation: a concept that means that the whole actor-network is greater than the sum of its constituent parts. As networks build, synergistic capabilities are enabled; as networks fall apart, de-punctualisation refers to the collapse of networked capabilities as individual components struggle to pursue their individual goals separately. (Garson 2008). Tokens: are the quasi-objects created through the synergy of network punctualisation. (Garson 2008). The constant creation of tokens reifies a network, when they stop being reproduced the network breaks down, or, there is de-punctualization. Translation: is the process of forming a network. This process occurs in the four following moments or steps (Garson 2008): Problematisation: defines the problem and the set of relevant actors who become indispensable Interessement: primary actor(s) recruit other actors to assume roles in the network, roles which recognize the centrality of the primary actors own role Enrolment: roles are defined and actors formally accept and take on these roles Mobilisation: primary actors assume a spokesperson role for passive network actors (agents) and seek to mobilize them to action. Translation is really a negotiation among human actors and representatives of material actants. Stories: The complex process of translation which forms a network also occasions some actors to emerge as spokespersons, articulating the views and wishes of other silent actors in the network. Negotiation in the translation process is marked by: Obligatory points of passage (OPP): they are critical network channels often designed by the primary actor to ensure that communication must pass through his or her domain. In this way the actor becomes functionally indispensable to the network Cooptation: it is a subprocess by which actants seek to have their individual objectives become agreed to by other actants as part of defining network objectives. Actors advance favored goals and solutions, then recruit other actors to be allies in the process of forming commitments to emerging networks. (Garson 2008). Translation model of power: it is a term for viewing power as a relation emerging bottom-up rather than imposed top-down. Those who hold power in principle may not hold power in practice as the latter requires the ability to define, create, and stabilize networks of actors motivated to work in conjunction to accomplish a task. That is, power is seen as a consequence of convincing, enrolling, and other network-building activities. (Garson 2008). This concept reminds a lot the foucaultian concept of microphysics of power. Black-boxing: it is a subprocess by which the network becomes more simple by treating subnetworks as single elements in an actor-network Irreversibility: is achieved by an actor-network when it is no longer possible to return to an earlier network state or to alternatives present prior to the network Network instability. Actor-networks are in a continual state of becoming, including possible dissolution. Networks demand continual maintenance or order In my opinion all the concepts are vague, probably intentionally. I really wonder if the whole theory and its concepts could have been explained in a more simple way, and I wonder why is it always like that in post-structuralism (I know, this is an ad hominem mistake)? ANT was often criticized for being managerialist, for emphasizing Nietzschean mastery, as Machiavellian, for colonizing the other, for being antihumanist, and for representing the powerful. (Ritzer 2004:3). I would add that the founders of ANT write pretty much in an elitist and unclear way. It sounds more like poetry or showing off with strange PoMo-style phrases difficult to understand. I got used to that with Baudrillard, Lyotard, etc But what can we do with it in everyday life? We cannot stop natural scientists to laugh about ANT mumbojumbo for sure. I would say that ANT as a research methodology brings nothing new, or nothing newer than the good old methodology of case study, the grounded theory methodology (Glaser/Strauss 2008) or ethnomethodology on which ANT is partially based. As an explanation for what is really going on it is still a safe bet to stick with interactionist theories from one side, and on the other side, we should use more explanatory theories based on strict field research and model building. For that is handy the analytical sociology approach developed, among others, by Peter Hedstroem (see Hedstroem 2005). With the analytical sociology approach we could finally develop more core knowledge which is feeble in sociology (see Cole 1994) but nevertheless it exists (see Collins 1989) and leave the research frontier to a few artists. Analytical sociology seeks to explain complex social processes by carefuly dissecting them and then bringing into focus their most important costituent components. [] It is an approach that seeks precise, abstract, realistic and action-based explanations for various social phenomena. (Hedstroem 2005:1). So, in the analytical approach we have to explain social phenomena, not just describe it as most grand social theories do. We have to dissect the social phenomena to its smallest parts and then abstract the most important parts and build a model. In doing that we must be precise and clear. If it is not perfectly clear what a given theory or theorist is trying to say, how can we then possibly understand and assess the potential merits of the theory being proposed ? (Hedstroem 2005:3-4), asks Peter Hedstroem, and as an example of unclear theory he takes a French (who else could he take?!) sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and his definition of habitus (2005:4). I agree with Hedstrom that social theories should be based on the construction of models, or explaining social mechanisms, and a social mechanism is a constellation of entities and activities that are linked to one another in such a way that they regularly bring about a particular type of outcome (Hedstroem 2005:10). To conclude, I think that ANT is maybe an approach that could have a major success in the future when there will come the time people will understand French philosophy much better  [8]  , until then I propose to stick with more positivist approaches that can actually really explain why things happen.

Dewar’s leader in U.S. Scotch whisky industry Essay -- Business and Ma

Dewar’s leader in U.S. Scotch whisky industry 1. Situational Analysis 1.1 SWOT Analysis Strengths - Dewar’s leader in U.S. Scotch whisky industry, with a market share of 15%. - Past success with the advertising campaigns in maintaining a positive image for Dewar’s among Scotch drinkers. - Strong research and development. - Backup from United Distillers, which is an International leader in the Scotch whisky and Gin markets, and one of the most profitable spirit’s Company in the world. - Dewar’s is positioned as a premium and prestigious blend of Scotch whisky. - Schieffelin & Somerst, distributor of Dewar’s within U.S, is the product of a Joint Venture with Moet Hmessy Louis Vuitton, allowing cost reduction. Weaknesses - Lack of promotional strategies to attract new customers. - Targeting a segment market that is not growing. - Slow reactions. Opportunities - US, the largest liquor market in the world (13% market share) with high profit margins. - Young adults’ good attitude towards the consumption of withe spirits. - Social acceptance of mixed drinks. Threats - Sales in Industry of liquor and withe spirits with a negative growth. - Scotch whisky in the declining stage of product cycle. - Mature target market consuming less Scotch whisky. - Growing social resistance and regulations of liquor consumption in the U.S. - Shift of consumer preference towards lighter alcohol beverages, such as wine and beer. - Risk of becoming over analytical and moving to slowly when implementing the repositioning strategy. 1.2 US Scotch whisky Industry Analysis. Both the industry of liquor and the industry of distilled spirits had suffered a reduction in consumption since 1978. This represents 15 years of constant negative growth. Some of the factors that had caused this phenomenon are the growing of social, regulatory and legal restrictions over drinking. Also, drinking preferences have shifted towards lighter alcohol beverages, such as wine and beer. The Scotch industry has suffered an even greater decline due to the fact that its target market is drinking much less. It has become the distilled spirit with lower consumption per-capita. Mature customers are not loyal to a brand, they are lower priced oriented. If all these factors remain the same, ... ...f the campaigns. 3. Analysis and evaluation of options Three strategies have been developed in order to help managers to take the last decisions in the release of the campaign. Strategy 1 Implementation just of the maintenance campaign directed to mature adults. Strategy 2 Implementing truths and maintenance campaigns at the same time. Strategy 3 Line extension 4. Recommended course of action The most realistic, and practical option that I can recommend to the manager is the second one. She already had researched and developed a big campaign that in just two moths is supposed to be released. We just hope that no changes in the perception of the mature audience will be produced due the expose to both campaigns. Also in terms of lees cost and almost immediate effect in profits, the best choice is the second one. But let's say if there is no budget or time constrains the best option for me is the third one. Keeping each segment with different products it makes it easier to target the audiences. When this young adults reach certain age they will immediate cross the bridge to Dewar’s classic bottle, giving a more serious and respectful image.

The Hard Part of Breaking Up

Its hard to break up with someone. You never know how that person is going to act or say once you tell them why you are breaking up with him or her. There’s never a good way to break up with someone. But if there’s problems in the relationship you have to point them out if not things will never get better. There are three reasons for break ups: falling out of love with that person, cheating, or they were never happy together. One of the reasons why people choose to end their relationship is because they fell out of love with their partner.Some people say that love never dies but it fades once a person realizes what is missing in their relationship. Nobody ever wants to leave their true love but when your tired of trying to fix things or spark up the relationship and nothing seems to work then that’s when you have to let him or her go. Other people just aren’t in love with that person anymore . I hear this all the time â€Å"I love him or her but I’ m not in love with him or her†. I never really get that its either you are in love with that person or you aren’t.Another reason for break ups is cheating. Some people say the reason for cheating is that he or she isn’t taking care of my wants and needs. But when you actually realize it people cheat just to cheat they never have a reason to why they do it they love doing it. I don’t think cheating is right at all. That’s just showing people what type of person you are and should want people to see that side of you. People should always be faithful in their relationships. You shouldn’t want to cheat on your girlfriend or boyfriend.The last reason why break ups happen is because the couple was never happy together. Maybe at a point in their relationship they were happy but everything little thing is an argument. Even when they still try to go out and have a good time it always ends in an argument about stupid things. So they decide to go their separate ways and see other people but when I hear what some people go through in a relationship, I say to talk things out before actually breaking up but when they say they’re tired of it and their done there’s nothing you can really do at that point.But when your not happy together think of what made you happy at the beginning of your relationship to see if you can bring that happiness back. You never want to end a relationship especially if you have been together for years. That’s something you never want to let go but when its time you have to let him or her go. You always want to at least let that person know you still care about them.

John Locke vs. Thomas Hobbes Essay

During the seventeenth century, Great Britain produced Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, two of the greatest political philosophers of all times. Both men are known for their great philosophical ideas that help to explain the role of government in man’s life. Their explanations are based on the description of their understanding of man’s state of nature. While both men do have opposite views on many of their political arguments, the fact that they are able to structure the essence of their conflicting ideologies in to the shell of what they define as the state of man in nature, is the link that relates them to each other. Both man share there desire in an establishment that provides order to ensure not only the protection of the individual, but also the security of the state. In Hobbes philosophy, the state of nature is a very unwelcoming, dull place. His theory is that individuals in their true nature are guided by their innate primal, animalistic instincts, rather then reason. Hobbes’ concept of the state of nature is based on his believe that morality such as the ideas of good and evil do not exist in tis state. He claims that with out guidance, man will use any power at his deposal, to defend his life and positions. In his book Leviathan, Hobbes describes this condition as war, in other words, it is every one against every one. (Hobbes) In addition, he depicted the state of nature as a state in which individuals are without any of the benefits that are taken for granted in modern society. Hobbes describes the lack of these benefits as: â€Å"No commerce, no agriculture, no account of time, no arts, no letters, and no society. (Hobbes)† Hobbes believes that without proper structure, man is in constant state of war. A state where an overbearing sense of fear and grief, triggers men to be on a constant defense in order to protect themselves, and their belongings. Hobbes relates man’s desire to escape from the state of nature and war by seeking peace, which allows man to end his unremitting feeling of fear. In order to obtain peace, Hobbes claims that it is the use of reason that enables man to respond the laws of nature. It is through reason, that man transfers all rights to a higher power, according to Hobbes, which in turn allows man to receive man’s natural right to all things, providing that others will do the same. Hobbes labeled this mutual transferring of rights contract. Hobbes knew, however, that there has to be some collective authority in place to enforce the laws. He believed that human’s appetite for power would be a constant threat to the contract. To prevent this threat, Hobbes saw a necessity for government. He concluded that there aught to be some sovereign authority that could enforce laws and would be authorized to punish anyone who broke the rules; an authority that is endowed with the responsibility to uphold the rights of every individual, as a part of the social contract. Hobbes believed that the best form of government to fulfill this role is in form of an absolute monarch as ruler over the people. He named the role of the absolute sovereign Leviathan. The role of the monarchic ruler was to be successful because it helped to create a endless circle that reinforced the social contract. The sovereign was to control the masses through fear, as he had the power of the threat of punishment bestowed upon him. This power helped to reinforce the mandates that the laws of nature provided, thereby ensuring the continued operation of the social contract that was in place. In turn for turning the responsibility to protect and serve over to the ruler, the people essentially gave up all of their own personal rights to govern themselves to the sovereign. The concept was that people are able to maintain their right to self-preservation by granting the sovereign all of their other rights. Hobbes titled this idea of a system of sovereignty the Commonwealth. It is through this social contract that is upheld between the people and the sovereign in the commonwealth, Hobbes states, that â€Å"man is able to get out of the state of nature and into society. (Hobbes)† Being a philosopher of political theory in the seventeenth century, John Locke understood and believed in the social contract and the state of nature as much as Hobbes. The positions he took on them, however, were most of the time on the polar opposites of the spectrum. Locks interpretation of the state of nature becomes evident in his publication Two Treaties of Government, where he states, â€Å"while there were no civil societies yet formed, people basically were able to live in peace, because the natural laws that governed them were an innate quality which everyone had. (Locke)† In other words, is Locke’s believe that in the state of nature, all people are equal, and have executive power of the natural laws. One of the major clashes between Locke’s and Hobbes’ theories was the interpretation of the state of nature. Hobbes was a firm believer in the state of â€Å"war† as a natural part of the state of nature. Locke on the other hand, alleged himself with the thought that the two states were not the same. Locke’s philosophy states that the human nature is characterized by reason and tolerance. He believed that in the state of nature all men where equal and independent. Further more Locke believed that it is every ons right to protect his rights of life liberty and property. He states that people govern to govern their lives by using reason, and do not need a common superior, or leader. The state of war occurs when people try to force things on others, and it was Locke’s belief that when this occurs, people have the right to wage war because force without right is an adequate basis for the state of war. In order to transition from the state of nature into a civil society, Locke believed that people would innately want to give up their natural freedom in order to assure protection for their lives, liberties, and property. Locke claimed that the most efficient form of government for a civil society would be one that is run by the majority of people with common views, and that the individual, when entering into this society would submit to the will of the majority and follow the rules set forth by it. In transitioning from the state of nature to a civil society, Locke stated that the state of nature differed from a civil society because it lacked â€Å"an established, settled, known law; a known, and different judge; and power to back and support the sentence†. In order to complete this transition into a civilized society, the individual has to relinquish certain natural rights. These rights include the right to do what they wanted within the bounds of the laws of nature, and the power to punish the crimes committed against natural law. Both rights are given up in order to put oneself under the protection of the executive power of the civil society. According to Locke, it is a transfer of these rights to the civil society. Lock states that there will be â€Å"a law, a judge, and [an] executive working to no other end, but the peace, safety, and public good of the people. † Locke’s ideals were considered to be very progressive at the time of their creation and based on the principles of equality and government working to the advantages of the people. After entering into a civil society, Locke stated that the government of the commonwealth, using the element of a majority, should have a single legislative body that was used for the creation of laws. Locke suggests many types of governments such as Democracy, or Oligarchy, but he never states that one is better then the other. This again is another difference in the views between Locke and Hobbes. While Hobbes favored one single person to have the divine power to rule, Locke stated that the power to create law should rest within a majority legislative body and that the law created by it should be absolute. No other body could create laws of its own, and every member of society and the commonwealth must abide by the laws that were created by the legislative majority. While the legislation is an absolute governing body, it does in fact have limits as well. Locke states that the legislative body must govern by fixed laws that apply equally to everyone, and that the laws that are designed are to be done solely for the good of the people; lastly, the legislative body cannot increase taxes on property owners with out the people’s consent. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes ideas about common law governments help to explain, at least from a philosophical ideal, the evolution of man from the animal age to the enlightened seventeenth century in which they resided in. While I believe the critical difference between their views is the amount of power they each placed in the idea of a sovereign power, they also shared many other different ideals, such as the state of nature in which people resided, and their ideas of how people living in the commonwealth should relinquish their rights. However, one crucial element of commonality should be noted that existed between Locke and Hobbes. Even though many of their ideals differed their end result was the same; the common good of the people. Though they both may differ on how this plan works, they are able to base at the crux of each of their arguments, the essential need for reason in man’s life, and how we as a race are able to better ourselves through the tools of reason and government. Work cited: Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. first edition . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909. Print. Locke, John. â€Å"Two Treatises of Government . † 22/04/2003: n. pag. Web. 18 May 2011. .