Top Choices for Preschool Homeschool Curriculum

A preschool curriculum is a course of study  designed for 2- to 5-year-old children. Preschool curriculums include two key features: a set of developmentally-appropriate learning goals and specific  activities through which the child will achieve those goals. Many preschool homeschool curriculums also include approximate timelines for the completion of the activities, which creates structure and helps parents track their childs progress. Because preschool age includes children as young as 2 and as old as 5,  preschool curriculums are designed to serve a wide range  of ages and skill levels. However, the best curriculums  will provide strategies for modifying activities based on your childs childs cognitive, social, and emotional development. How Preschoolers Learn A young child’s primary tool for learning is play.  Play is a well-documented human instinct that enables  children to practice real-life scenarios. Through play-based learning, children hone their problem-solving and social skills,  increase their vocabularies, and become more physically agile.   Preschoolers also learn through hands-on exploration.  Sensory play—using a variety of tools and materials to engage physically with their environment—builds critical thinking abilities and improves  fine  and gross motor skills.   In order to reach their full developmental potential, preschoolers must have time devoted to play and sensory exploration every day. These  active learning experiences are crucial to early childhood development. What to Look for in a Preschool Homeschool Curriculum When researching preschool curriculums, look for programs that teach the following skills through hands-on  learning opportunities:   Language and literacy skills. Reading aloud to your child is essential for the development of language and literacy skills. When  children watch you read, they learn that letters form words, words have meaning, and printed text moves from left to right. Look for a program that includes the quality of children’s literature and encourages reading and story-telling. Although preschoolers don’t need a formal phonics program, you should look for a curriculum that teaches letter sounds and recognition and demonstrates rhyming through stories, poems, and songs. Math skills. Before children can learn arithmetic, they must understand basic mathematical concepts like quantity and comparison.  Look for a preschool curriculum that encourages children to explore  mathematical concepts through hands-on activities. These activities may include  sorting and categorizing, comparing (bigger/smaller, taller/shorter), shapes, patterns,  number recognition, and one-to-one correspondence (understanding that â€Å"two† isn’t just a word but that it represents two objects).   Children should learn the basic colors, which may not seem to be a math skill but is important in sorting and categorizing. They should also begin learning simple time concepts such as morning/night and yesterday/today/tomorrow, along with the days of the week and months of the year. Fine motor skills.  Preschool-aged children  are still honing their fine motor skills. Look for a curriculum that gives them opportunities to work on these skills through activities such as coloring, cutting and pasting, stringing beads, building with blocks or tracing shapes. Top Choices in Preschool Homeschool Curriculum These preschool homeschool curriculums encourage active learning through play and sensory exploration. Each program includes specific hands-on activities that support the development of literacy, math, and fine motor skills. Before Five in a Row: Designed for  children ages 2-4,  Before Five in a Row  is a guide  for learning with your child through quality childrens books. The  first part of the guide is a list of 24 high-quality childrens books accompanied by related activities. Because the guide was originally published in 1997, some of the suggested titles are out of print, but most will be available through your local library or the Five in a Row website. The second section of the curriculum  focuses on making the most of learning moments in everyday life.  There are ideas for turning bath time, bedtime, and trips to the store into engaging educational experiences for your preschooler. WinterPromise: WinterPromise is a Christian, Charlotte Mason-inspired curriculum with two distinct options for preschoolers. The  first,  Journeys of Imagination,  is a 36-week read-aloud program featuring classic picture books like  Mike Mulligan,  Corduroy, and various  Little Golden Book titles. The teacher’s guide includes questions to ask your child about each story in order to build their  critical thinking, narration, and listening skills. Parents can use Journeys of Imagination alone or couple it with  I’m Ready to Learn, a 36-week program designed for kids aged 3-5 that teaches specific language and math skills through hands-on activities and themed units. Sonlight: Sonlight’s preschool homeschool curriculum  is a book lover’s dream come true. The literature-based  Christian preschool curriculum  features over a dozen quality children’s books and more than 100 fairy tales and nursery rhymes. The program emphasizes quality family time, so there  is no daily schedule. Instead, families are encouraged to enjoy the books at their own pace and track their progress using trimester-based checklists. The curriculum set also includes pattern blocks, mix-and-match memory games, scissors, crayons, and construction paper so that children can  develop spatial reasoning and fine motor skills through hands-on play. A Year of Playing Skillfully: A Year of Playing Skillfully is a play-based curriculum for children ages 3-7. Based on the book  The Homegrown Preschooler, A Year of Playing Skillfully is a year-long program that parents can use to guide their children through  exploration-based learning. The curriculum offers a list of recommended children’s books to read and field trips to take, as well as plenty of hands-on  activities to promote language and literacy, math skills, science and sensory exploration, arts and music, and motor skill development. BookShark:  BookShark is a literature-based, faith-neutral curriculum. Aimed at children ages 3-5, BookShark features 25 books designed to teach preschoolers about the world around them. The curriculum includes classics such as Winnie the Pooh and The Berenstain Bears  as well as  beloved authors like  Eric Carle and Richard Scarry. The all-subject package  includes hands-on math manipulatives to help your preschooler explore numbers, shapes, and patterns. Children will also learn about plants, animals, the weather, and seasons.

A Biography of Richard the Lionheart

Richard the Lionheart was born on September 8, 1157, in Oxford, England. He was generally considered to be his mothers favorite son, and has been described as spoiled and vain because of it. Richard was also known to let his temper get the better of him. Nevertheless, he could be shrewd in matters of politics and was famously skilled on the battlefield. He was also highly cultured and well-educated, and wrote poems and songs. Through most of his life he enjoyed the support and affection of his people, and for centuries after his death, Richard the Lionheart was one of the most popular kings in English history. Early Years Richard the Lionheart was the third son of King Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, and although his eldest brother died young, the next in line, Henry, was named heir. Thus, Richard grew up with little realistic expectations of achieving the English throne. In any case, he was more interested in the familys French holdings than he was in England; he spoke little English, and he was made duke of the lands his mother had brought to her marriage when he was quite young: Aquitaine in 1168, and Poitiers three years later. In 1169, King Henry and King Louis VII of France agreed that Richard should be wed to Louiss daughter Alice. This engagement was to last for some time, although Richard never showed any interest in her; Alice was sent from her home to live with the court in England, while Richard stayed with his holdings in France. Brought up among the people he was to govern, Richard soon learned how to deal with the aristocracy. But his relationship with his father had some serious problems. In 1173, encouraged by his mother, Richard joined his brothers Henry and Geoffrey in rebelling against the king. The rebellion ultimately failied, Eleanor was imprisoned, and Richard found it necessary to submit to his father and receive a pardon for his transgressions. From Duke to King Richard In the early 1180s, Richard faced baronial revolts in his own lands. He displayed considerable military skill and earned a reputation for courage (the quality that led to his nickname of Richard the Lionheart), but he dealt so harshly with the rebels that they called on his brothers to help drive him from Aquitaine. Now his father interceded on his behalf, fearing the fragmentation of the empire he had built (the Angevin Empire, after Henrys lands of Anjou). However, no sooner had King Henry gathered his continental armies together than the younger Henry unexpectedly died, and the rebellion crumpled. As the oldest surviving son, Richard the Lionheart was now heir to England, Normandy, and Anjou. In light of his extensive holdings, his father wanted him to cede Aquitaine to his brother John, who had never had any territory to govern and was known as Lackland. But Richard had a deep attachment to the duchy. Rather than give it up, he turned to the king of France, Louiss son Philip II, with whom Richard had developed a firm political and personal friendship. In November of 1188 Richard paid homage to Philip for all his holdings in France, then joined forces with him to drive his father into submission. They forced Henry—who had indicated a willingness to name John his heir—to acknowledge Richard as heir to the English throne before he died in July 1189. The Crusader King Richard the Lionheart had become King of England; but his heart wasnt in the sceptred isle. Ever since Saladin had captured Jerusalem in 1187, Richards greatest ambition was to go to the Holy Land and take it back. His father had agreed to engage in the Crusades along with Philip, and a Saladin Tithe had been levied in England and France to raise funds for the endeavor. Now Richard took full advantage of the Saladin Tithe and the military apparatus that had been formed; he drew heavily from the royal treasury and sold anything that might bring him funds—offices, castles, lands, towns, lordships. In less than a year after his accession to the throne, Richard the Lionheart raised a substantial fleet and an impressive army to take on Crusade. Philip and Richard agreed to go to the Holy Land together, but not all was well between them. The French king wanted some of the lands that Henry had held, and that were now in Richards hands, which he believed rightfully belonged to France. Richard was not about to relinquish any of his holdings; in fact, he shored up the defenses of these lands and prepared for conflict. But neither king really wanted war with each other, especially with a Crusade awaiting their attention. In fact, the crusading spirit was strong in Europe at this time. Although there were always nobles who wouldnt put up a farthing for the effort, the vast majority of the European nobility were devout believers of the virtue and necessity of Crusade. Most of those who didnt take up arms themselves still supported the Crusading movement any way that they could. And right now, both Richard and Philip were being shown up by the septuagenarian German emperor, Frederick Barbarossa, who had already pulled together an army and set off for the Holy Land. In the face of public opinion, continuing their quarrel was not really feasible for either of the kings, but especially not for Philip, since Richard the Lionheart had worked so hard to fund his part in the Crusade. The French king chose to accept the promises that Richard made, probably against his better judgment. Among these pledges was Richards agreement to marry Philips sister Alice, who still languished in England, even though it appeared he had been negotiating for the hand of Berengaria of Navarre. Alliance with the King of Sicily In July of 1190 the Crusaders set off. They stopped at Messina, Sicily, in part because it served as an excellent point of departure from Europe to the Holy Land, but also because Richard had business with King Tancred. The new monarch had refused to hand over the bequest the late king had left to Richards father, and was witholding the dower owed to his predecessors widow and keeping her in close confinement. This was of special concern to Richard the Lionheart, because the widow was his favorite sister, Joan. To complicate matters, the Crusaders were clashing with the citizens of Messina. Richard resolved these problems in a matter of days. He demanded (and got) Joans release, but when her dower was not forthcoming he began taking control of strategic fortifications. When the unrest between the Crusaders and the townfolk flared into a riot, he personally quelled it with his own troops. Before Tancred knew it, Richard had taken hostages to secure the peace and begun constructing a wooden castle overlooking the city. Tancred was forced to make concessions to Richard the Lionheart or risk losing his throne. The agreement between Richard the Lionheart and Tancred ultimately benefited the king of Sicily, for it included an alliance against Tancreds rival, the new German emperor, Henry VI. Philip, on the other hand, was unwilling to jeopardize his friendship with Henry and was irritated at Richards virtual takeover of the island. He was mollified somewhat when Richard agreed to share the monies Tancred paid, but he soon had cause for further irritation. Richards mother Eleanor arrived in Sicily with her sons bride, and it was not Philips sister. Alice had been passed over in favor of Berengaria of Navarre, and Philip wasnt in either a financial or military position to address the insult. His relationship with Richard the Lionheart further deteriorated, and they would never recover their original affability. Richard couldnt marry Berengaria quite yet, because it was Lent; but now that shed arrived in Sicily he was ready to leave the island where he had tarried for several months. In April of 1191 he set sail for the Holy Land with his sister and fiancà © in a massive fleet of over 200 vessels. Invasion of Cyprus and Marriage Three days out of Messina, Richard the Lionheart and his fleet ran into a terrible storm. When it was over, about 25 ships were missing, including the one carrying Berengaria and Joan. In fact the missing ships had been blown further on, and three of them (though not the one Richards family were on) had been driven aground in Cyprus. Some of the crews and passengers had drowned; the ships had been plundered and the survivors were imprisoned. All of this had occurred under the governance of Isaac Ducas Comnenus, the Greek tyrant of Cyprus, who had at one point entered into an agreement with Saladin to protect the government hed set up in opposition to the ruling Angelus family of Constantinople. After having rendezvoused with Berengaria and secured her and Joans safety, Richard demanded restoration of the plundered goods and the release of those prisoners who hadnt already escaped. Isaac refused, rudely it was said, apparently confident in Richards disadvantage. To Isaacs chagrin, Richard the Lionheart successfully invaded the island, then attacked against the odds, and won. The Cypriots surrendered, Isaac submitted, and Richard took possession of Cyprus for England. This was of great strategic value, since Cyprus would prove to be an important part of the supply line of goods and troops from Europe to the Holy Land. Before Richard the Lionheart left Cyprus, he married Berengaria of Navarre on May 12, 1191. A Truce  in the Holy Land Richards first success in the Holy Land, after having sunk an enormous supply ship encountered on the way, was the capture of Acre. The city had been under siege by Crusaders for two years, and the work Philip had done upon his arrival to mine and sap the walls contributed to its fall. However, Richard not only brought an overwhelming force, he spent considerable time examining the situation and planning his attack before he even got there. It was almost inevitable that Acre should fall to Richard the Lionheart, and indeed, the city surrendered mere weeks after the king arrived. Shortly afterward, Philip returned to France. His departure was not without rancor, and Richard was probably glad to see him go. Although Richard the Lionheart scored a surprising and masterful victory at Arsuf, he was unable to press his advantage. Saladin had decided to destroy Ascalon, a logical fortification for Richard to capture. Taking and rebuilding Ascalon in order to more securely establish a supply line made good strategic sense, but few of his followers were interested in anything but moving on to Jerusalem. And fewer still were willing to stay on once, theroretically, Jerusalem was captured. Matters were complicated by quarrels among the various contingents and Richards own high-handed style of diplomacy. After considerable political wrangling, Richard came to the unavoidable conclusion that the conquest of Jerusalem would be far too difficult with the lack of military strategy hed encountered from his allies; furthermore, it would be virtually impossible to keep the Holy City should by some miracle he manage to take it. He negotiated a truce with  Saladin  that allowed the Crusaders to keep Acre and a strip of coast that gave Christian pilgrims access to sites of sacred significance, then headed back to Europe. Captive in Vienna The tension had grown so bad between the kings of England and France that Richard chose to go home by way of the Adriatic Sea in order to avoid Philips territory. Once again the weather played a part: a storm swept Richards ship ashore near Venice. Although he disguised himself to avoid the notice of Duke Leopold of Austria, with whom he had clashed after his victory at Acre, he was discovered in Vienna and imprisoned in the Dukes castle at Dà ¼rnstein, on the Danube. Leopold handed Richard the Lionheart over to the German emperor, Henry VI, who was no more fond of him than Leopold, thanks to Richards actions in Sicily. Henry kept Richard at various imperial castles as events unfolded and he gauged his next step. Legend has it that a minstrel called Blondel went from castle to castle in Germany seeking Richard, singing a song he had composed with the king. When Richard heard the song from within his prison walls, he sang a verse known only to himself and Blondel, and the minstrel knew he had found the Lionheart. However, the story is just a story. Henry had no reason to hide Richards whereabouts; in fact, it suited his purposes to let everyone know that he had captured one of the most powerful men in Christendom. The story cannot be traced back any earlier than the 13th century, and Blondel probably never even existed, although it made for good press for minstrels of the day. Henry threatened to turn Richard the Lionheart over to Philip unless he paid 150,000 marks and surrendered his kingdom, which he would receive back from the emperor as a fief. Richard agreed, and one of the most remarkable fund-raising efforts began.  John  was not eager to help his brother come home, but  Eleanor  did everything in her power to see her favorite son return safely. The people of England were heavily taxed, Churches were forced to give up valuables, monasteries were made to turn over a seasons wool harvest. In less than a year nearly all of the exhorbitant ransom had been raised. Richard was released in February, 1194, and hurried back to England, where he was crowned again to demonstrate that he was still in charge of an independent kingdom. The Death of Richard the Lionheart Almost immediately after his coronation, Richard the Lionheart left England for what would be the last time. He headed directly to France to engage in warfare with Philip, who had captured some of Richards lands. These skirmishes, which were occasionally interrupted by truces, lasted for the next five years. By March of 1199, Richard was involved in a siege of the castle at Chalus-Chabrol, which belonged to the Viscount of Limoges. There was some rumor of a treasure having been found on his lands, and Richard was reputed to have demanded the treasure be turned over to him; when it was not, he supposedly attacked. However, this is little more than a rumor; it was enough that the viscount had allied with Philip for Richard to move against him. On the evening of March 26, Richard was shot in the arm by a crossbow bolt while observing the progress of the siege. Although the bolt was removed and the wound was treated, infection set in, and Richard fell ill. He kept to his tent and limited visitors to keep the news from getting out, but he knew what was happening. Richard the Lionheart died on April 6, 1199. Richard was buried according to his instructions. Crowned and clothed in royal regalia, his body was entombed at Fontevraud, at the feet of his father; his heart was buried at Rouen, with his brother Henry; and his brain and entrails went to an abbey at Charroux, on the border of Poitous and Limousin. Even before he was laid to rest, rumors and legends sprang up that would follow Richard the Lionheart into history. Understanding the Real Richard Over the centuries, the view of Richard the Lionheart held by historians has undergone some notable changes. Once considered one of Englands greatest kings by virtue of his deeds in the Holy Land and his chivalrous reputation, in recent years Richard has been criticized for his absence from his kingdom and his incessant engagement in warfare. This change is more a reflection of modern sensibilities than it is of any new evidence uncovered about the man. Richard spent little time in England, it is true; but his English subjects admired his efforts in the east and his warrior ethic. He didnt speak much, if any, English; but then, neither had any monarch of England since the Norman Conquest. Its also important to remember that Richard was more than the king of England; he had lands in France and political interests elsewhere in Europe. His actions reflected these diverse interests, and, though he didnt always succeed, he usually attempted to do what was best for all his concerns, not just England. He did what he could to leave the country in good hands, and while things sometimes went awry, for the most part, England flourished during his reign. There remain some things we dont know about Richard the Lionheart, beginning with what he really looked like. The popular description of him as elegantly built, with long, supple, straight limbs and hair a color between red and gold, was first written nearly twenty years after Richards death, when the late king had already been lionized. The only contemporary description that exists indicates that he was taller than average. Because he displayed such prowess with the sword, he could have been muscular, but by the time of his death he may have put on weight, since the removal of the crossbow bolt was reportedly complicated by fat. Then theres the question of Richards sexuality. This complex issue boils down to one salient point: there is no  irrefutable  proof to support or contradict the assertion that Richard was a homosexual. Each piece of evidence can be, and has been, interpreted in more than one way, so every scholar can feel free to draw whatever conclusion suits him. Whichever Richards preference was, it apparently had no bearing on his ability as a military leader or a king. There are some things we  do  know about Richard. He was very fond of music, though he never played an instrument himself, and he wrote songs as well as poems. He reportedly displayed a quick wit and a playful sense of humor. He saw the value of tournaments as preparation for war, and although he rarely participated himself, he designated five sites in England as official tournament locations, and appointed a director of tournaments and a collector of fees. This was in opposition to numerous decrees of the Church; but Richard was a devout Christian, and diligently attended mass, evidently enjoying it. Richard made many enemies, especially through his actions in the Holy Land, where he insulted and quarreled with his allies even more than his foes. Yet he apparently had a great deal of personal charisma, and could inspire intense loyalty. Though renowned for his chivalry, as a man of his times he did not extend that chivalry to the lower classes; but he was at ease with his servants and followers. Although he was talented at acquiring funds and valuables, in keeping with the tenets of chivalry he was also notably generous. He could be hot-tempered, arrogant, self-centered and impatient, but there are many stories of his kindness, insight and goodheartedness. In the final analysis, Richards reputation as an extraordinary general endures, and his stature as an international figure stands tall. While he cannot measure up to the heroic character early admirers depicted him as, few people could. Once we view Richard as a real person, with real foibles and quirks, real strengths and weaknesses, he may be less admirable, but he is more complex, more human, and much more interesting.

Hobbes Vs Rousseau Free Essays

Thomas Hobbes’ imagined â€Å"state of nature† is full of â€Å"masterless men† (p. 140). Jean Jacque Rousseau’s imagined â€Å"state of nature† is full of radically independent, solitary individuals who are innocent of good and evil. We will write a custom essay sample on Hobbes Vs Rousseau or any similar topic only for you Order Now How does Hobbes come to that conclusion about man in the state of nature? On what kinds of evidence does he rely? How does Rousseau come to his conclusion about individuals in the state of nature. On what kind of arguments does he rely? Compare and contrast their imagined states of nature making sure you reference the evidence they draw upon to build heir argument. It is important to remember when relating Hobbes and Rousseau and their ideas of the natural state that they are not speaking of the same thing. Hobbes defines the state of nature as the time when men lived without a common power. Men would constantly be at war with each other, and the elements around them. There would be no laws or authority and without them, men would believe that everything is theirs. It is very similar to the mindset of a child. Children are not born with a natural inclination to share. That is something that parents must teach them as they grow. Greed is naturally instilled in men and because of this men have been fighting and violent even before societies were developed. Men were fghting, stealing, and murdering each other for survival. Rousseau argues with Hobbes. Rousseau describes a hypothetical time when society did not exist and men only acted on their natural instincts which were peaceful and timid. Men would not have any sense of right and wrong because they had not been molded by societys standards yet. Hobbes states that in the state of nature men would be fearful and greedy and because of this it was necessary for societies to exist. Humans need protection from each other because instinctually we are violent and pose a threat to others. Men naturally crave property and self-preservation and in this environment peace is not possible. When men come together to form societies social contracts are necessary to guarantee the protection of rights of each man. Once a social contract is established man gave his rights over to the sovereign. A social contract is an understanding in which multiple individuals come together and give their rights to one man. Once the individuals give their rights over them become one sovereign. The rights and rotection of a single individual is no longer important; only the protection of the sovereign as a whole. This is when men could begin to live their lives without fear. Once order was imparted on the people or a society they would live in harmony with each or be forced to leave. If this occurs that individual would no longer be under the protection of the sovereign. Hobbes believes that there are three principles that cause violence: competition, glory, and difference. If one man sees another with an item that he craves competition will take over and he will take the item using force or other means. Glory drives a man to be superior. Without a firm authority established one will be driven to be the most powerful. Rousseau disagrees with Hobbes and insists that in the state of nature the only factor is survival. In this case I believe that Hobbes is thinking too much from a society stand point and he is also contradicting himselt. Society molds us into competing tor glory. In the state ot nature this would not be the case. Hobbes and Rousseau both agree that in the state of nature reason and inequality do not exist yet and it would not be possible for man to understand that he should be more powerful than another. If inequality does not exist then it ould not be possible for one man to be more powerful then another. In Rousseau’s natural state men are solitary, timid, and greed doesn’t exist because society has not corrupted their innocence yet. Rousseau believes that human nature is inherently good and it wasn’t until societies began to establish that human’s instincts became corrupted. When man is in its natural state they are solitary and have no sense of ownership over anything. They struggle with their environment and their natural conditions. Individuals are looking out for themselves and self- preservation is guiding them, Just as in Hobbes natural state, however Rousseau says here is no violence between them. Rousseau compares man to animals by saying man needs to satisfy their physical needs for survival, however we have a natural repugnance for seeing others in pain. Because of this we would never harm another person for our own selfish desires. Language does not exist yet because people are solitary and keep to themselves. Because of this reason does not exist. Without reason there is no Jealously, inequality, or other negative emotions that lead to violence. This seems too optimistic to be accurate. Compassion would exist to an extent but self-preservation will always be more of a priority. If a man has to cause pain to another because there are limited resources then so be it. For example, let’s say it was winter and a man found a small cave. There was already someone else in there and it was only big enough to fit one. Rousseau believes that since men have no sense of ownership, and are solitary creatures that one would simply leave because they don’t have to reasoning to think, â€Å"l was here first, so it is mine. † Hobbes would say that men are violent and greedy and in this situation violence would occur. Men are born with a natural instinct to survive and because of this both men would fght over shelter. Humans would not do harm Just to be â€Å"evil† because good and evil would not exist yet. Once families started to form humans had more time to do other activities and with this came reason and inequality. Rousseau gives the example of a dance around a fire. One man will look at another and see that this man is bigger than another and reason would lead him to believe that one must be better than the other. Once inequality is established man has a need to be more powerful then another. Another factor that leads to inequality is the ownership of land. Rousseau states, â€Å"The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said â€Å"This is mine,† and ound people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody. † Once man owns land and inequality has set in men will become greedy and want more believing that owning land is a symbol of power. Man ill begin to want more wealth and glory and this is when violence starts. The natural instincts of being solitary and peaceful have been corrupted by the society and humans have now been molded into greedy power hungry people. Rousseau states, â€Å"l must make everyone see that bonds ot servitude are tormed trom the mutual dependence of men. It is impossible to slave a man without first putting him in the positions of being unable to do without another person. Rousseau believes that when men live alone they cannot be corrupted because they rely on no one but themselves for survival. Once men come together and form families and societies they become enslaved by dependence into that society. After looking at both ideas I believe that Hobbes is not most accurate in his thinking. Rousseau has an optimistic, humanist way of looking at men, but I believe that it doesn’t matter how far back in history one goes, men were always violent, greedy, fearful creatures. Just because reason didn’t exist does not mean that men wouldn’t have a wanting for resources that weren’t theirs. Men may not have been able to reason why they wanted something, but the greed was still there. Society and social contracts did not cause or mold our greediness, and violence like Rousseau believes. Those instincts were instilled in men from the beginning as a way of survival. It is impossible to have any absolute truth over who is right in this argument. Once man has been civilized the effects cannot be reversed. We would never be able to go back to the state of nature and this is why the debate is still continuing today. Nature vs. nurture is a topic that is debated today because it is impossible to know for sure what is instinct and what has been molded by our society. How to cite Hobbes Vs Rousseau, Papers