Explanation:
In 1651, Thomas Hobbes famously wrote that life in the state of nature – that is, our natural condition outside the authority of a political state – is ‘solitary, poore, nasty brutish, and short.’ Just over a century later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau countered that human nature is essentially good, and that we could have lived peaceful and happy lives well before the development of anything like the modern state. At first glance, then, Hobbes and Rousseau represent opposing poles in answer to one of the age-old questions of human nature: are we naturally good or evil? In fact, their actual positions are both more complicated and interesting than this stark dichotomy suggests. But why, if at all, should we even think about human nature in these terms, and what can returning to this philosophical debate tell us about how to evaluate the political world we inhabit today?
The question of whether humans are inherently good or evil might seem like a throwback to theological controversies about Original Sin, perhaps one that serious philosophers should leave aside. After all, humans are complex creatures capable of both good and evil. To come down unequivocally on one side of this debate might seem rather naïve, the mark of someone who has failed to grasp the messy reality of the human condition. Maybe so. But what Hobbes and Rousseau saw very clearly is that our judgements about the societies in which we live are greatly shaped by underlying visions of human nature and the political possibilities that these visions entail.
Answer:
Judicial, Executive, And Legislative, i believe.
Explanation:
a) Identify factors that led to the Russian Revolution (1917).
The October Revolution in Russia in 1917 signified the collapse of Tsarist Russia and the establishment of a regime by the Bolsheviks and the leader of the Communist Party, Lenin. The main reason, among others, was the dissatisfaction of peasants and workers due to large class differences. The dissatisfaction of workers and peasants was preceded by several wars that Russia led and lost all, but the war with Turkey. Peasants barely survived in unreformed economic agricultural conditions. Workers fought for bigger rights in factories, for shortening working hours, but primacy was in waging wars, rather than dealing with economic issues and dissatisfaction of workers and peasants. Also, Emperor Nicholas spent more time dealing with his own family than on state issues. All this led to the general dissatisfaction of the people and the October Revolution.
b) Identify factors that led to the Mexican Revolution (1910–17).
Some of the factors that led to the Mexican Revolution were the dictatorship-like way of ruling that Porfirio Diaz exhibited for over 30 years, the exploitation and poor treatment of laborers, and the large disparity between rich and poor. While there is no definite cause for the Mexican Revolution, there were many factors that led to the decision to rebel against the government.
c) Explain how land-based and maritime empires gave way to new states in the 20th century.
The land-based and maritime empires gave way to new states in the 20th century when the older, land-based empires such as the Ottoman empire, the Russian empire, and the Qing empire collapsed due to a combination of internal and external factors.
<span>Yucatan Peninsula. Its location is in Maya.
</span>
