In the 17th century, political philosophy was widely practiced as a discipline adhering to the psycho-realist school. Theories of governance and the state have been theorized on the basis of what humans are, not what the state “wants them to be” (Spinoza, Tractactus Politicus 1/1). The perspective of political philosophy was to analyze the role of government and the state in terms of fundamental human motivations and psychology. From this perspective, the government has been attentive to the ways in which sociopolitical structures are fundamental to human experience and how they shape individual behavior. Likewise, the state was seen as a powerful entity, as it is today, created to regulate the behavior of its citizens, exerting some influence over the affective processes of individuals' lives. This is the opposite of what today's governments, dominated by the "market state", do, where they claim they will regulate the market in a way that maximizes opportunity. This approach contrasts sharply with that of the 17th century, whereby, according to Spinoza, the pejorative character of the state was to provide liberation and empowerment for its citizens. In contrast, Hobbes's naturalist approach to the state rests firmly on the assertion that the sovereign instills a sense of fear in citizens, so that they follow the rules and laws of the state. State. In this essay, I will argue that Spinoza's vision of the state is philosophically more justifiable than Hobbes's and should be used as a model for today's political leaders. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Spinoza was one of the leading political philosophers of the 17th century. His political philosophy of hope centers on the syllogism that the state has a single purpose; that is, maximizing the liberation and empowerment of its citizens. In doing so, Spinoza argues that the state will further these goals more effectively if it does so by providing hope rather than relying on a system of fear to enslave its citizens. Therefore, Spinoza argues that to achieve a just state, the state itself must choose to maximize civil liberties, through the promotion of hope, peace and trust. Spinoza's politics of hope centers on the continuity of his ethical and political goals. Spinoza argues that the key test of the state is to develop and promote a vision of human empowerment, which allows individual empowerment to be realized. Here Spinoza differs from more modern liberal philosophers, arguing that individual empowerment cannot be achieved without state leadership to facilitate collective empowerment. Spinoza here argues that “first, one must understand nature as much as is sufficient to acquire such a nature; next, to form a society of the desirable type, so that as many as possible may achieve it as easily and surely as possible (Treatise on the Improvement of the Intellect, section 14). Spinoza here clearly argues for a society where individual empowerment, through the acquisition of knowledge of one's nature, is above all else. Spinoza's metaphysics offers not only a practical element, but above all one that contributes to individual empowerment, by knowing our nature and thus expanding what we can do. This requires focusing on the character of the generic terms that constitute the second type of knowledge, that is, how humans can overcometheir falsity and acquire active and adequate knowledge. For Spinoza, this involves actively and automatically shifting the individual's point of view from the use of their imagination to the rational basis inherent in their intellect. The personal activation of their intellect arises from the creation of common notions, which express the universal properties of all things. So, for society to achieve empowerment, individuals must properly use their reasoning functions. In contrast, Hobbes's political psychology rests firmly on his belief in natural law. Hobbes asserts that reason can only distinguish a few “eternal and immutable” natural laws that govern the conduct of individuals. Such principles are laws given by our nature rather than by God. Hobbes is therefore right to establish that reason is knowable and does not require divine intervention (unlike Spinoza). Hobbes' philosophy is deeply rooted in two fundamental principles: namely, that rational imperatives preserve an individual's life while promoting peace; and are a means by which the promotion of goods and peace can be harnessed and preserved. Hobbes thus combines an egoistic form of moral psychology and conceptualizes morality through natural law. He argues that people's state of nature is ultimately one of terror and war, if and only if they are judges of good and evil. As according to Hobbes, our individual rationality can only guide us towards what is right and wrong, which is often characterized by fluctuating aversions and appetites. This view is guided by Hobbes's normative belief that if the sovereign allows people to be guided by their appetites, they see that war is the inevitable consequence of those appetites. Hobbes argues that as rational actors, people implicitly know that war is undesirable, because it is a threat to self-preservation, but rational actors should also recognize that the absence of war , that is, peace, is a good result. Furthermore, according to Hobbes, the means of securing peace do not matter since peace is the ultimate good; and that justice is good because it is a means of making peace. Therefore, Hobbes's moral philosophy focuses on peace and the means by which humans can live their best lives. Morality is not inherent to man, it is not found in the natural (non-sociable) state, morality is the consequence of the value that man himself attaches to his own self-preservation, which defines the basis of all goods. Thus, morality is a human construct, fundamentally justified by the extent to which it furthers human interests. For Hobbes, morality is governed by rational self-interest and means acting in obedience to the moral law – which is only possible when civil law is based on natural law, with the application of sanctions. Thus, according to Hobbes, peace can only be achieved in a state of nature, where agents agree to be guided by civil law. Hobbes's view of the state is firmly based on the affirmation of fear. Hobbes asserted in De Cive that “the natural disposition of men is such that if they are not restrained by the fear of a common power, they will distrust and fear each other.” Hobbes here makes the argument that the state, at its most fundamental level, intends to replace the pervasive state-of-nature anxiety inherent in individuals with a more mindful and less enervating form of fear: fear of the sovereign. . For Hobbes, his primary motivation is to enable individuals to mutually agree to conform to authority, and thus advocates..