John Locke and Thomas Hobbes may have been the most significant people of their time. Locke is a well-known philosopher in science and politics, while Hobbes was known for his political work. Mr. Locke's scientific background made him famous when he coined the term “Tabula Rasa,” meaning a blank slate, a blank surface, where everyday experiences help shape who we are. Mr. Locke wrote one of his most important ideas in the book entitled “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”. When it comes to the political side of John Locke, his beliefs are almost similar. He and Mr. Hobbes have similar ideas when it comes to the government, but Mr. Locke goes against his father and argues that the government must respect the rights of individuals. In this case Locke must understand what his idea of ​​natural law and natural rights is. Mr. Locke talks about natural laws and rights and how they apply to everyone, he believes that we are all separate and have some sort of free will. Explain that people should have protection of their personal rights in all societies. He felt that we were offering some of our rights to the government to maintain order, that's fine, but they have to have legitimate reasoning. This means that we should have a say when it comes to government and limit their control over everything. Over time almost political points have had some kind of shape or form around gods and priests. Mr. Locke had the ability to express his theory without using too much God in his works. He believed that God created us to achieve our happiness by avoiding fear and pain and that political leaders should not impose their beliefs on other people. This is where his nature and upbringing also come into play because everyone has their own experiences and reasoning, so there would always be some conflict of ideas. Although Mr. Locke's idea was influenced by Mr. Hobbles, they both have very different Lockean ideas, where Mr. Hobbes's ideas about the state of nature are barely practiced. During Mr. Hobbes' time period he didn't like the idea of ​​the church having power, so he found a way to make them lose their power, while also changing the reasoning for having kings. His idea of ​​the state of nature was more based on the morality of the individual, where he believed that everyone was greedy, selfish and pursuing their own self-interest and this would lead to us having wars among ourselves. In his works he believes that societies are a sort of social contract. This led him to argue that the government should have more control over the people, otherwise there would be "war of all against all" and this would lead him to say that if we have a weak government and less control wars will break out, which would result in us being killed and overturned. In other words, he believes that our selfishness dominates and has total control over our behavior and therefore makes us weak and vulnerable. So, according to his theory, the structure of government would make us antisocial, where we would not come together collectively like in the society we have today. Furthermore, this type of system would play a significant role on our emotions, scaring us with anarchy and civil wars. The way they could get away with it would be to say it's for our safety and peace with other societies. This would lead to the government protecting our lives, but in return we would have to give everything we have