In the 17th century, political philosophy was widely practiced as a discipline adhering to the psychological-realist school. Thus, theories of governance and the State have been theorized based on what human beings are, not on 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. In this perspective, the government has been attentive to the ways in which socio-political structures are fundamental to the human experience and how they shape individual behavior. Similarly, the state was seen as a powerful entity, as it is today, created to regulate the behavior of its citizens, exerting some influence on the affective processes of individuals' lives. In contrast, today's governments do, dominated by the "market state", in which governments claim that they will regulate the market in such a way as to maximize opportunities. This approach is in stark contrast to the 17th century approach, according to which, according to Spinoza, the pejorative of the state is to provide liberation and empowerment to its citizens. In contrast, Hobbes's naturalistic approach to the state is based firmly on the ruler's assertion of instilling a sense of fear in citizens, so that they comply with the rules and laws of the state. In this essay I will argue that Spinoza's vision of the state is philosophically more justifiable than Hobbes' and should be used as a model for current political leaders. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Spinoza is one of the leading political philosophers of the 17th century. His political philosophy of hope centers on the syllogism that the state has a purpose; that is, to maximize the liberation and emancipation of its citizens. In doing so, Spinoza argues that the state will advance such goals more effectively if it does so by providing hope rather than relying on a system of fear to subjugate 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 challenge of the state is to develop and promote a vision of human empowerment, which enables the completion of individual empowerment. Here Spinoza differs from more modern liberal philosophers, arguing that individual empowerment cannot be achieved without the guidance of the state to facilitate collective empowerment. Here Spinoza argues that “first of all to understand what is sufficient about Nature to acquire this nature; then, to form a society of the desirable kind, so that the greatest number of people may attain it as easily and safely as possible (Treaty on the Amendment of the Intellect, section 14).” Here Spinoza clearly advocates a society in which individual empowerment, through the acquisition of knowledge of one's own nature, comes first. Spinoza's metaphysics offers not only a practical element, but above all an element that contributes to individual empowerment, knowing our nature and thus extending what we can do. This requires focusing on the character of the generic terms that constitute the second type of knowledge, that is, the way in which human beings can overcome their own falsity and accumulate active and adequate knowledge. For Spinoza, this consists inactively and automatically shift one's vision from the use of one's imagination to the rational basis that is inherent in one's intellect. The personal activation of their intellect occurs through the creation of common notions, which express the universal properties of all things. So, for societyTo achieve empowerment, individuals must properly use their reasoning functions. In contrast, Hobbes's political psychology is based firmly on his belief in natural law. Hobbes states that reason can distinguish only certain “eternal and immutable” natural laws that govern the conduct of individuals. Such principles are laws given by our nature, rather than by God. Thus, Hobbes is correct in establishing that reason is knowable and does not require divine intervention (in contrast to Spinoza). Hobbes' philosophy is deeply rooted in two fundamental principles: namely, that rational imperatives preserve the life of the individual and at the same time promote peace; and they are a tool through 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 a state of terror and war, if and only if they are the judges of right and wrong. Since according to Hobbes our individual rationality can only guide us towards what is right and what is wrong, which is often characterized by aversions and fluctuating appetites. This view is driven by Hobbes' normative belief that because the ruler allows people to be led 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, as it is a threat to their self-preservation, but rational actors should also recognize that the absence of war, i.e., peace, is a good result. Furthermore, according to Hobbes, the means of ensuring peace are irrelevant since peace is the ultimate good; and that justice is good because it is a means of making peace. Therefore, Hobbes' moral philosophy centers on peace and the means by which human beings can achieve a better life. Morality is not inherent in human morality, it is not found in the natural (unsociable) state, morality is the consequence of the value that human beings themselves attribute to their own self-preservation, which constitutes the basis of all goods. Therefore, morality is a human construct, justified fundamentally by the extent to which it advances human interests. For Hobbes, morality is governed by rational self-interest and is understood by acting in obedience to moral law – which is only possible when civil law is based on natural law, with the application of punishment. Thus, according to Hobbes, only in a state of nature, where agents agree to be guided by civil law, can peace be achieved. Hobbes' vision of the state is firmly based on the affirmation of fear. Hobbes argued in De Cive that “the natural disposition of men is such that if they are not restrained by fear of a common power, they will distrust and fear one another.” Here Hobbes argues that the state, at its most fundamental level, is intent on replacing the pervasive state of nature anxiety inherent in individuals and replacing it with a more alert and less unnerving form of fear: fear of the sovereign. . For Hobbes, his primary motivation is to allow individuals to mutually agree to conform to authority, and thus he advocates establishing a "sovereignty by institution", that is, a natural order, in which individuals.