Do you agree or disagree with the text below? Why or Why Not?

As we have seen throughout the assigned readings and mentioned in Professor Pierceson's lectures, the design of modern political thought is mostly to decline most of the classical political thought. With this, we begin the see the shift of going towards more modern political thought and leaving mostly classical political thought as a thing of the past times. In my opinion, the turn toward modern political thought can be positive and negative. When looking at Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan, the one thing that I found interesting and can go along with the positive outlook on modern political thought is Hobbes's stance on war. The reason I say this is a positive because it seems that Hobbes is against war. Hobbes states "Whatsoever therefore to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain;" (Cahn 320). From what I gain from this quote, Hobbes is against war due to it producing uncertainty. With Hobbes being against war, this can be a positive turn in philosophical thinking as someone like Hobbes disagrees with war while someone in classical political thought like Plato would be for war as Plato thinks that war is a necessary evil and can nurture certain goods.

Now, let's move on to John Locke's Second Treatise of Government with still being on the topic of war. John Locke says "The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction... it being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction. For by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: And one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion" (Cahn 368). Here, John Locke is basically saying that war can be reasonable if provoked or threatened. As much as I understand Locke's point of view, I believe that it still falls under the negatives of taking political philosophy down a dangerous path. Some of you or people in the political science may agree or disagree but the overall thought of war is negative. Having Hobbes disagree with war is a positive as it promotes peace while Locke being for war if provoked is a negative that can lead to political philosophy down a dangerous path especially when it comes to heavy topics with war and people's lives. This can potentially lead to a battle of philosophers fighting over the justification or the disapproval of war.