What do you think?
Rate this book
The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis and Its Genesis
In this classic analysis, Leo Strauss pinpoints what is original and innovative in the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. He argues that Hobbes's ideas arose not from tradition or science but from his own deep knowledge and experience of human nature. Tracing the development of Hobbes's moral doctrine from his early writings to his major work The Leviathan, Strauss explains contradictions in the body of Hobbes's work and discovers startling connections between Hobbes and the thought of Plato, Thucydides, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, and Hegel.
190 pages, Paperback
First published January 10, 1936
18 people are currently reading
350 people want to read
About the author
Leo Strauss
156 books373 followersLeo Strauss was a 20th century German-American scholar of political philosophy. Born in Germany to Jewish parents, Strauss later emigrated from Germany to the United States. He spent much of his career as a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he taught several generations of students and published fifteen books.
Trained in the neo-Kantian tradition with Ernst Cassirer and immersed in the work of the phenomenologists Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, Strauss authored books on Baruch Spinoza and Thomas Hobbes, and articles on Maimonides and Al-Farabi. In the late 1930s, his research focused on the texts of Plato and Aristotle, retracing their interpretation through medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophy, and encouraging the application of those ideas to contemporary political theory.
Trained in the neo-Kantian tradition with Ernst Cassirer and immersed in the work of the phenomenologists Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, Strauss authored books on Baruch Spinoza and Thomas Hobbes, and articles on Maimonides and Al-Farabi. In the late 1930s, his research focused on the texts of Plato and Aristotle, retracing their interpretation through medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophy, and encouraging the application of those ideas to contemporary political theory.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
January 14, 2020
Strauss does a great job highlighting not only the basis of Hobbes' political philosophy, but also the genesis, or the progression of his ideas along the way. While I think the book leans slightly towards more genesis than basis, it is still an excellent read.
Up until reading this, I had a vague knowledge of Hobbes but definitely not a strong suit of mine. This book has done a fantastic job in, I feel, bringing me more up-to-speed with the place of Hobbes in the canon. Hobbes is often said to have been the individual who began modern political philosophy. While Strauss, in the preface, has some reservations about this classification in hindsight - he thinks Machiavelli's Discourses may actually have began modern political philosophy - the influence of Hobbes is certainly undeniable.
Up until Hobbes, political philosophy had existence in an awkward tension between ideal theory - assuming that individuals will abide by the correct principles - and reality, wherein often times individuals do not abide by the correct principles. This has its roots in Plato - when Plato sets out his political philosophy in Republic, he notes that such a society may never be possible, thus the disconnect between what Reason dictates and what seems possible. Hobbes, in the course of his thinking, problematizes this distinction - he seeks an answer to how to remedy this gap because theory and practice. While first turning to history to see how one can be informed about how to bring about good results, Hobbes eventually rejects ideal theories like Plato's in the first place - Hobbes main contribution is the collapse of the theory/practice distinction by seeking to ground his political philosophy in something practical.
Hobbes views human nature as having two tenets - a desire for superiority over another, and a fear of violent death. The former he calls vanity, which is the root of evil, and the latter he calls Reason, which is the root of good and justice. Beginning from Reason, Hobbes seeks to ground all of his political philosophy in human nature, or rather, human experience. He sees the fear of violent death as common to all, and by grounding his political philosophy in this, he creates a politics that is justifiable to anyone, anywhere, and any time. In essence, Hobbes creates the first sort of social contract theory - because of our fear of violent death in the state of nature, we will give up anything except our own lives in order to ensure our safety.
The form of the politics grounded in our fear of violent death also falls back on the aforementioned grounds - vanity and Reason. Since vanity is public, while Reason is private - we seek to appear strong around other but when alone, are given the space to truly contemplate and consider - the preferable form of government is a Monarchy. The nature of a public, deliberative politics is grounded in vanity. Since vanity is the root of evil, it follows that any sort of democracy is necessarily flawed. Instead, we ought to opt for a politics that allows decisions to be made free of vanity - by having one individual who is afforded the ability to deliberate and govern in private, hence the monarch.
As well, it can be said that Hobbes' revolutionized political philosophy by turning from a state-centric approach - such as that of Plato and Aristotle, who began with the creation of a State and laws and then worried about individuals - to an individual-centric approach, as Hobbes grounds his political philosophy in a feature of the individual, their fear of violent death. So, Hobbes main contributions are problematizing the ideal nature of political philosophy, turning his focus from the state to the individual and grounding his theory in a single principle.
I now turn, to criticisms of both Hobbes, as explained by Strauss, and Strauss generally. It seems to me that, despite Hobbes grounding his political philosophy in only the fear of violent death, that we may demand more. While it surely is a minimum, necessary requirement that a politics ensures us safe from violent death, it seems that we also want to have, such as Rawls claims, the social bases of self-respect. If we care about death insofar as we value life, it seems that we also require from our politics the ability to make our life and its projects worthwhile. As well, since we need not only the social bases of self-respect to make our projects worthwhile, but also the ability to pursue them, it seems we also may require some sufficient level of material well-being that allows us to attend to our life's projects. This all comes from a viewing of death as not bad-in-itself, but as contingently bad, depending on whether we view our lives as worth living.
Turning now to Strauss himself, it is incredibly annoying that he quotes, at length, from many works without translation. Since I myself and not fluent in French, Latin, German or Greek, his mass quotations from authors in their native tongue seems unnecessary. While I understand a general aversion to translation, it seems to me to be even more foolish to assume the readers' familiarity with several different languages. As well, one other problematic element is the disparity between usage of terms in Hobbes' time, and contemporary usage. In the later chapters, Strauss talks about how Hobbes' morality is bourgeois. This usage is entirely unclear - bourgeois in Hobbes' time may have simply referred to a morality of a community, rather than a morality restricted to aristocrats. He seems to, at points, mean it thus. However, given Strauss is writing in the early 20th century, it could also mean bourgeois in a Marxist sense - he could be claiming that Hobbes' morality is a capitalistic, consumption-based ethic, which he also seems to mean in places.
Lastly, at times, Strauss seems to move too fast and use words that carry an incredible amount of baggage without explanation. This lead to me being a bit disoriented at times, however, I'm unsure if this is a flaw of me, as a reader, or Strauss, as writer.
In sum, though, this book is an excellent historical and philosophical exposition of Hobbes' political thought, and I would have a hard time not recommending it to anyone who is curious about Hobbes' place in the canon.
Up until reading this, I had a vague knowledge of Hobbes but definitely not a strong suit of mine. This book has done a fantastic job in, I feel, bringing me more up-to-speed with the place of Hobbes in the canon. Hobbes is often said to have been the individual who began modern political philosophy. While Strauss, in the preface, has some reservations about this classification in hindsight - he thinks Machiavelli's Discourses may actually have began modern political philosophy - the influence of Hobbes is certainly undeniable.
Up until Hobbes, political philosophy had existence in an awkward tension between ideal theory - assuming that individuals will abide by the correct principles - and reality, wherein often times individuals do not abide by the correct principles. This has its roots in Plato - when Plato sets out his political philosophy in Republic, he notes that such a society may never be possible, thus the disconnect between what Reason dictates and what seems possible. Hobbes, in the course of his thinking, problematizes this distinction - he seeks an answer to how to remedy this gap because theory and practice. While first turning to history to see how one can be informed about how to bring about good results, Hobbes eventually rejects ideal theories like Plato's in the first place - Hobbes main contribution is the collapse of the theory/practice distinction by seeking to ground his political philosophy in something practical.
Hobbes views human nature as having two tenets - a desire for superiority over another, and a fear of violent death. The former he calls vanity, which is the root of evil, and the latter he calls Reason, which is the root of good and justice. Beginning from Reason, Hobbes seeks to ground all of his political philosophy in human nature, or rather, human experience. He sees the fear of violent death as common to all, and by grounding his political philosophy in this, he creates a politics that is justifiable to anyone, anywhere, and any time. In essence, Hobbes creates the first sort of social contract theory - because of our fear of violent death in the state of nature, we will give up anything except our own lives in order to ensure our safety.
The form of the politics grounded in our fear of violent death also falls back on the aforementioned grounds - vanity and Reason. Since vanity is public, while Reason is private - we seek to appear strong around other but when alone, are given the space to truly contemplate and consider - the preferable form of government is a Monarchy. The nature of a public, deliberative politics is grounded in vanity. Since vanity is the root of evil, it follows that any sort of democracy is necessarily flawed. Instead, we ought to opt for a politics that allows decisions to be made free of vanity - by having one individual who is afforded the ability to deliberate and govern in private, hence the monarch.
As well, it can be said that Hobbes' revolutionized political philosophy by turning from a state-centric approach - such as that of Plato and Aristotle, who began with the creation of a State and laws and then worried about individuals - to an individual-centric approach, as Hobbes grounds his political philosophy in a feature of the individual, their fear of violent death. So, Hobbes main contributions are problematizing the ideal nature of political philosophy, turning his focus from the state to the individual and grounding his theory in a single principle.
I now turn, to criticisms of both Hobbes, as explained by Strauss, and Strauss generally. It seems to me that, despite Hobbes grounding his political philosophy in only the fear of violent death, that we may demand more. While it surely is a minimum, necessary requirement that a politics ensures us safe from violent death, it seems that we also want to have, such as Rawls claims, the social bases of self-respect. If we care about death insofar as we value life, it seems that we also require from our politics the ability to make our life and its projects worthwhile. As well, since we need not only the social bases of self-respect to make our projects worthwhile, but also the ability to pursue them, it seems we also may require some sufficient level of material well-being that allows us to attend to our life's projects. This all comes from a viewing of death as not bad-in-itself, but as contingently bad, depending on whether we view our lives as worth living.
Turning now to Strauss himself, it is incredibly annoying that he quotes, at length, from many works without translation. Since I myself and not fluent in French, Latin, German or Greek, his mass quotations from authors in their native tongue seems unnecessary. While I understand a general aversion to translation, it seems to me to be even more foolish to assume the readers' familiarity with several different languages. As well, one other problematic element is the disparity between usage of terms in Hobbes' time, and contemporary usage. In the later chapters, Strauss talks about how Hobbes' morality is bourgeois. This usage is entirely unclear - bourgeois in Hobbes' time may have simply referred to a morality of a community, rather than a morality restricted to aristocrats. He seems to, at points, mean it thus. However, given Strauss is writing in the early 20th century, it could also mean bourgeois in a Marxist sense - he could be claiming that Hobbes' morality is a capitalistic, consumption-based ethic, which he also seems to mean in places.
Lastly, at times, Strauss seems to move too fast and use words that carry an incredible amount of baggage without explanation. This lead to me being a bit disoriented at times, however, I'm unsure if this is a flaw of me, as a reader, or Strauss, as writer.
In sum, though, this book is an excellent historical and philosophical exposition of Hobbes' political thought, and I would have a hard time not recommending it to anyone who is curious about Hobbes' place in the canon.
November 3, 2025
Esse livro tem tudo:
erudição, método, digressões, confusão, história, um milhão de notas de rodapé...
erudição, método, digressões, confusão, história, um milhão de notas de rodapé...
February 25, 2017
I didn't really embrace this. Perhaps its because Strauss inaugurated a reading of Hobbes that has now become mainstream, it was was hard to see what was at stake for Strauss.
May 30, 2022
Strauss cogently situates Hobbes within the history of Western political theory, compares his thought to that of over major thinkers, and justifies his place in the canon. Despite the name, the book is not a useful introduction to the content of Hobbes' political philosophy. The book was written in 1936, before Strauss had developed the controversial esoteric approach to intellectual history, so should not pain readers who are critics of Straussian historiography.
Hobbes is often claimed to be the first modern political philosopher (though, as Strauss points out, the title should really go to Machiavelli). Nonetheless, this is certainly how Hobbes understood himself- he claimed that he had produced a new kind of political philosophy that would replace the theory produced by humanism and scholasticism. Hobbes claims that this achievement was made possible by the application of a new "resolutive-compositive" method. There are three steps in this method. First, the given political facts are analysed (pertaining to the nature of the state, for example); secondly, the facts are reduced to their elements (the respective wills of the individuals who relate to these political facts); and, finally, a collective will is deduced from the interaction between these individual wills. Hobbes was inspired by the deductive method of Euclid and Galileo. His method replaced the Aristotelian strategy of basing one's reasoning off doxa, or commonly-held opinions.
However, Hobbes is wrong to cite a change in methodology as the producer of his new political method. The resolutive-compositive method assumes that we already know the nature of individual wills; the method cannot by itsel explain why the nature of an individual will is what it is. As is widely known, Hobbes believed that the two basic motivations on human actions were vanity and fear of death. Some scholars claim that Hobbes arrived at his pessimistic view of human nature from his mechanistic pscyhology, which is also inspired by his scientific method. However, it is obvious that he maintains this view of human nature before he had developed his psychology and before he had read Euclid, which he did relatively late in life.
Instead, Hobbes' understanding of human nature derived from his philosophical break with Aristotle. In his early years of philosophising, he was very much inspired by humanism. As his thought developed, he proposed a series of modifications to humanist thought. These grew in severity as Hobbes' thought moves further away from Aristotle's until the modifications became objections. Hobbes' main objection with Arisotelianism was the impotence of reason. Aristotle argued that (at least some) men could become virtuous by following rationally derived moral percepts. Inspired by his reading of Thucydices, Hobbes believed that the power of the passions would cause men to disobey these percepts. At first, Hobbes favours history over philosophy since he believed that the examples it provided would be better. Later in his philosophy, Hobbes justifies state authority using rational prudence, rather than moral obedience.
Hobbes is often claimed to be the first modern political philosopher (though, as Strauss points out, the title should really go to Machiavelli). Nonetheless, this is certainly how Hobbes understood himself- he claimed that he had produced a new kind of political philosophy that would replace the theory produced by humanism and scholasticism. Hobbes claims that this achievement was made possible by the application of a new "resolutive-compositive" method. There are three steps in this method. First, the given political facts are analysed (pertaining to the nature of the state, for example); secondly, the facts are reduced to their elements (the respective wills of the individuals who relate to these political facts); and, finally, a collective will is deduced from the interaction between these individual wills. Hobbes was inspired by the deductive method of Euclid and Galileo. His method replaced the Aristotelian strategy of basing one's reasoning off doxa, or commonly-held opinions.
However, Hobbes is wrong to cite a change in methodology as the producer of his new political method. The resolutive-compositive method assumes that we already know the nature of individual wills; the method cannot by itsel explain why the nature of an individual will is what it is. As is widely known, Hobbes believed that the two basic motivations on human actions were vanity and fear of death. Some scholars claim that Hobbes arrived at his pessimistic view of human nature from his mechanistic pscyhology, which is also inspired by his scientific method. However, it is obvious that he maintains this view of human nature before he had developed his psychology and before he had read Euclid, which he did relatively late in life.
Instead, Hobbes' understanding of human nature derived from his philosophical break with Aristotle. In his early years of philosophising, he was very much inspired by humanism. As his thought developed, he proposed a series of modifications to humanist thought. These grew in severity as Hobbes' thought moves further away from Aristotle's until the modifications became objections. Hobbes' main objection with Arisotelianism was the impotence of reason. Aristotle argued that (at least some) men could become virtuous by following rationally derived moral percepts. Inspired by his reading of Thucydices, Hobbes believed that the power of the passions would cause men to disobey these percepts. At first, Hobbes favours history over philosophy since he believed that the examples it provided would be better. Later in his philosophy, Hobbes justifies state authority using rational prudence, rather than moral obedience.
January 17, 2021
Escrever sobre qualquer autor enciclopédico é um grande desafio.
De acordo com Strauss, Hobbes partiu do direito natural como origem de toda lei, baseou sua visão política no pessimismo da intenção humana e fez isso à parte da tradição e ciência moderna.
O autor destaca, de início, que Hobbes buscou fundar sua filosofia em uma ciência do homem e do Estado, mas a base de seu pensamento foi pré-científico, a saber, o pessimismo sobre a intenção humana.
Strauss sustenta que a filosofia política, para Hobbes, baseia-se no postulado de que o que move o homem é a vaidade, sendo necessário que o Estado limite o orgulho humano. O ser humano é composto por apetite natural e razão natural, por isso busca autopreservação. O medo da morte é a origem da lei e do Estado. Isso dá base ao princípio da moralidade hobbesiano: o medo da morte violenta.
Hobbes foi muito influenciado na juventude por Aristóteles, mas depois rompeu e preservou apenas a influência humanista retórica aristotélica. A partir disso, a ética hobbesiana preservou a honra como virtude da aristocracia. A magnanimidade é a origem da virtude, da honra e da justiça. A intenção é o princípio moral que orienta a magnanimidade.
Em Hobbes, a monarquia é entendida como Estado natural e a melhor forma de governo. Com o tempo, o pensamento hobbesiano se desenvolve para um entendimento de monarquia artificial em que há o reconhecimento da monarquia pelo povo para sair do estado de natureza. A religião é submetida ao construto estatal.
Para Hobbes, as normas políticas não podem derivar de fatos históricos. Sua filosofia política se torna uma narrativa histórica. Hobbes abandonará a virtude aristotélica baseada na honra e fundará uma nova moralidade baseada na virtude e justiça com medo da morte violenta, e acrescentará as virtudes do trabalho e parcimônia em que o Leviatã deve proteger o ambiente de negócios.
Hobbes entende ter formulado uma filosofia política científica que deve ser seguida, mas para isso assumiu uma série de pressupostos sobre o Estado, sobre o ser humano e sobre a finalidade da vida. Seus fundamentos não são provados, mas apenas pressupostos.
Essa é uma obra de difícil leitura. Não cheguei a uma conclusão se a interpretação de Strauss trouxe alguma novidade. O autor do livro parece pouco afeito a Hobbes e isso traz implicações a sua análise. Acho que a obra de Skinner, "Hobbes e a liberdade republicana", uma interpretação mais confiável da obra hobbesiana.
De acordo com Strauss, Hobbes partiu do direito natural como origem de toda lei, baseou sua visão política no pessimismo da intenção humana e fez isso à parte da tradição e ciência moderna.
O autor destaca, de início, que Hobbes buscou fundar sua filosofia em uma ciência do homem e do Estado, mas a base de seu pensamento foi pré-científico, a saber, o pessimismo sobre a intenção humana.
Strauss sustenta que a filosofia política, para Hobbes, baseia-se no postulado de que o que move o homem é a vaidade, sendo necessário que o Estado limite o orgulho humano. O ser humano é composto por apetite natural e razão natural, por isso busca autopreservação. O medo da morte é a origem da lei e do Estado. Isso dá base ao princípio da moralidade hobbesiano: o medo da morte violenta.
Hobbes foi muito influenciado na juventude por Aristóteles, mas depois rompeu e preservou apenas a influência humanista retórica aristotélica. A partir disso, a ética hobbesiana preservou a honra como virtude da aristocracia. A magnanimidade é a origem da virtude, da honra e da justiça. A intenção é o princípio moral que orienta a magnanimidade.
Em Hobbes, a monarquia é entendida como Estado natural e a melhor forma de governo. Com o tempo, o pensamento hobbesiano se desenvolve para um entendimento de monarquia artificial em que há o reconhecimento da monarquia pelo povo para sair do estado de natureza. A religião é submetida ao construto estatal.
Para Hobbes, as normas políticas não podem derivar de fatos históricos. Sua filosofia política se torna uma narrativa histórica. Hobbes abandonará a virtude aristotélica baseada na honra e fundará uma nova moralidade baseada na virtude e justiça com medo da morte violenta, e acrescentará as virtudes do trabalho e parcimônia em que o Leviatã deve proteger o ambiente de negócios.
Hobbes entende ter formulado uma filosofia política científica que deve ser seguida, mas para isso assumiu uma série de pressupostos sobre o Estado, sobre o ser humano e sobre a finalidade da vida. Seus fundamentos não são provados, mas apenas pressupostos.
Essa é uma obra de difícil leitura. Não cheguei a uma conclusão se a interpretação de Strauss trouxe alguma novidade. O autor do livro parece pouco afeito a Hobbes e isso traz implicações a sua análise. Acho que a obra de Skinner, "Hobbes e a liberdade republicana", uma interpretação mais confiável da obra hobbesiana.
August 27, 2023
Hobbes is weird. Nobody likes him, everybody is him.
Like Machiavelli, his name’s got a strong negative connotation. Hated by conservatives and liberals alike… odd for the “grandfather of modernism”
But don’t be fooled, his ideas may initially cause you to roll your eyes or scoff… but the dude captured a lot of what we all believe deep down… easy to point a finger and call him brutish/repulsively-utilitarian. I did that until I realized some of his worst ideas were also my own.
Regarding the actual book…Leo Strauss is clearly a genius. You immediately know you’re in good hands within just a few pages…however…necessarily… that means it suffers from the esoteric-y style of 20th century philosophers…untranslated Greek/Latin laced throughout.
He looks at how Hobbes premises/conclusions came to exist; how certain ideas were sparked by his upbringing; how he evolved after becoming disenchanted with Aristotle; how his ideas originated from an obsession with Thucydides (early on, Hobbes translated T.’s work from its original Greek & prefaced it with a super philosophical introduction that would later be expanded -logically & physically- into Leviathan & other works)…
tldr; the book is about the genesis of Hobbes’ philosophy
Don’t pick up unless you’re itching to know more.
Like Machiavelli, his name’s got a strong negative connotation. Hated by conservatives and liberals alike… odd for the “grandfather of modernism”
But don’t be fooled, his ideas may initially cause you to roll your eyes or scoff… but the dude captured a lot of what we all believe deep down… easy to point a finger and call him brutish/repulsively-utilitarian. I did that until I realized some of his worst ideas were also my own.
Regarding the actual book…Leo Strauss is clearly a genius. You immediately know you’re in good hands within just a few pages…however…necessarily… that means it suffers from the esoteric-y style of 20th century philosophers…untranslated Greek/Latin laced throughout.
He looks at how Hobbes premises/conclusions came to exist; how certain ideas were sparked by his upbringing; how he evolved after becoming disenchanted with Aristotle; how his ideas originated from an obsession with Thucydides (early on, Hobbes translated T.’s work from its original Greek & prefaced it with a super philosophical introduction that would later be expanded -logically & physically- into Leviathan & other works)…
tldr; the book is about the genesis of Hobbes’ philosophy
Don’t pick up unless you’re itching to know more.
May 9, 2022
This essay is rightly considered to have initiated a new interpretative seam within the 1900 Hobbesian scolarship, resizing the traditionally reckoned political innovation by the English thinker and highlighting his debts toward the fathers of ancient and medieval thought. Strauss' survey manages to outline a new perspective on Hobbes' moral and political philosophy, on the one hand focusing on the role of passions and vanity within the tradeoff between instincts and reason which causes human action, on the other underlining the Aristotelian style of its method and contents. The main merit of this study is the liberal view on Hobbes'political precepts, albeit (at least in my opinion) remaining less relevant than the one by Macpherson.
January 6, 2022
It's vastly better than his Spinoza book, and definitely insightful. My suspicion comes from the fact that Strauss seems to interpret Hobbes through the lens of Hegel and Nietzsche (Section 2 and 7, where he didn't even quote them). Whether a Hegelian Hobbes or a Nietzschean Hobbes is really THE Hobbes, is a question. Perhaps this book is more of Strauss' own views than a Hobbes scholarship.
March 17, 2022
Truly what is says on the tin. Strauss assumes quite a lot from the reader, like reading fluency with Latin and French, in addition to a deep familiarity with Hobbes' theory. So it is in no way an introduction. Very detailed comparisons with Bacon, Aristotle and Plato.
July 12, 2025
Definitivamente não é uma introdução. As citações são feitas em latim, os conceitos hobbesianos não são explicados e as questões abordadas fogem completamente do meu interesse. Não recomendo mesmo.
September 10, 2024
Strauss in this early work considered Hobbes a humanist reversing Aristotle in order to establish political realism rather than reducing political philosophy to science. Hobbes for Strauss derived natural right from subjective human will as opposed to metaphysics or theology and his political philosophy is inherently normative, further Hobbes in this respect follows a christian way of thinking implicitly that man is by nature bad and needs to be governed but by his own conscience, but the fear of god is replaced with the fear of death, sin is replaced with vanity, and divine law with civil law as Hobbes could not look to reason revelation or history for moral precepts as discussed in the book. Strauss seemed to move away from this position and placed Machiavelli as the founder of modernity but still considered Hobbes the founder of small-l liberalism even if inadvertently and I think mainly from critiques of Hobbes. I think Strauss is onto something but seems to take this negatively. Other early modern thinkers started from similar premises as Hobbes but reached different conclusions.
In the rest of the book Strauss uncovers Hobbes’ implicit natural state of patrimonial (hereditary) monarchy starting in patriarchal authority and conquest based in honor/glory for the masters who then mutually recognize a monarch, as opposed to the artificial state of democracy based in trust and hope. Something of this remains in his description of a familial household as a little kingdom and justification of dominion by acquisition in Leviathan. Over time Hobbes replaces honor with vanity since it cannot be held by all men and is a source of conflict and advocates its opposite fear, of violent death at the hands of others, towards self-preservation as the motive for the civilized virtues of peace and justice based in reason which is private and equal in every person. This universalizes the foundations for civil society in the passions of the individual but Hobbes was still able to justify monarchy as the best state due to centering honor in one individual while it remains as a qualified virtue of the soldier towards external threats. There is however a tension between the honor that is required to maintain contracts and the fear of death that can motivate the wicked to obey laws which would account for the different forms of government.
Hobbes’ affinity to Plato is explored in one chapter although Strauss disputes Hobbes’ interpretation that Plato by being forthright that his state is an ideal not a natural or practically attainable state does not engage in the rhetorical subterfuge of Aristotle and by extension Cicero and the scholastics. Plato’s philosophy is a kind of hyper realism that admits of a dualism allowing the philosopher to describe their ideal state in words as an exploration of human nature but precludes their subversive role in politics. This is a potential resolution of the division of the ancients and moderns central in Strauss’ thought, that we can take Machiavelli literally that philosophers imagine states that cannot exist yet without denying the utility of that exercise.
In the rest of the book Strauss uncovers Hobbes’ implicit natural state of patrimonial (hereditary) monarchy starting in patriarchal authority and conquest based in honor/glory for the masters who then mutually recognize a monarch, as opposed to the artificial state of democracy based in trust and hope. Something of this remains in his description of a familial household as a little kingdom and justification of dominion by acquisition in Leviathan. Over time Hobbes replaces honor with vanity since it cannot be held by all men and is a source of conflict and advocates its opposite fear, of violent death at the hands of others, towards self-preservation as the motive for the civilized virtues of peace and justice based in reason which is private and equal in every person. This universalizes the foundations for civil society in the passions of the individual but Hobbes was still able to justify monarchy as the best state due to centering honor in one individual while it remains as a qualified virtue of the soldier towards external threats. There is however a tension between the honor that is required to maintain contracts and the fear of death that can motivate the wicked to obey laws which would account for the different forms of government.
Hobbes’ affinity to Plato is explored in one chapter although Strauss disputes Hobbes’ interpretation that Plato by being forthright that his state is an ideal not a natural or practically attainable state does not engage in the rhetorical subterfuge of Aristotle and by extension Cicero and the scholastics. Plato’s philosophy is a kind of hyper realism that admits of a dualism allowing the philosopher to describe their ideal state in words as an exploration of human nature but precludes their subversive role in politics. This is a potential resolution of the division of the ancients and moderns central in Strauss’ thought, that we can take Machiavelli literally that philosophers imagine states that cannot exist yet without denying the utility of that exercise.
July 21, 2022
Este ensayo de Strauss ofrece al lector interesado un panorama amplio pero concreto de la filosofía política de Hobbes. Con paciencia y economía del lenguaje (pero no por ello parco en ideas ni figuras iluminadoras) Strauss emprende un viaje de reconocimiento a los temas principales que interesaron al filósofo, desde su llamada "etapa humanista" hasta el punto culminante de su pensamiento, haciendo un análisis comparativo de sus obras más representativas: De Cive, English Works, Elements of Law y Leviatán. Es de agradecerse que Leo Strauss no sea otro maquinista más de ese trenecito histórico que tanto gusta al academismo (el cual pretende exhibir la obra intelectual como si fuera objeto de una evolución gradual), y nos muestre los recovecos, conflictos y contradicciones del filósofo en cuya pluma nació la filosofía política moderna. Sin duda alguna, este ensayo es de gran utilidad para quienes acaban de conocer a Hobbes y buscan una referencia confiable antes de sentarse a dialogar con él. De sobra está decir que Strauss también es un conversador excelente.
*Se recomienda tener a la mano un diccionario de latín, pues los editores del FCE (que mucho han hecho ya por traducir esta obra al español) decidieron mantener las citas más puntuales de Hobbes en su idioma original. Eso es, probablemente, lo único engorroso de esta edición. Fuera de eso, la lectura fluye como el agua, un agua, cabe decir, agitada por un enorme monstruo primigenio.
*Se recomienda tener a la mano un diccionario de latín, pues los editores del FCE (que mucho han hecho ya por traducir esta obra al español) decidieron mantener las citas más puntuales de Hobbes en su idioma original. Eso es, probablemente, lo único engorroso de esta edición. Fuera de eso, la lectura fluye como el agua, un agua, cabe decir, agitada por un enorme monstruo primigenio.
June 16, 2019
The book quotes from latin repeatedly and at length, and it never translated a word of it. Would have been a four with translations
June 26, 2007
Thesis work . . .
May 1, 2017
For many years I have been fond of the political philosophy of Harry Jaffa, who was a student of Leo Strauss [1]. Yet until reading this book I had not read the thought of Leo Strauss himself. There are some writers that you can read and instantly appreciate and enjoy and others who one can reject without question, but Leo Strauss is not one of those writers. It is hard to trust this particular author. In reading this book, I had a pretty clear opinion of the political philosophy of Hobbes and its implications, which I will share, but I didn't know if the author was celebrating Hobbes for his thought or pointing out his contradictions in order to discredit him or merely trying to describe his thought and its implications for "modern" political philosophy. Can we trust the author? I don't know. I feel it necessary to suspend disbelief. This is certainly a learned book, even if it is not a perfect one. Fittingly, the author himself recognizes its flaws: "The reason for this failure was that I was not sufficiently attentive to the question of whether wisdom can be divorced from moderation or to the sacrifices which we must make so that our minds may be free (xvi)." Of what does the author want to be free, though?
The author, in under 200 pages, manages to discuss various aspects of the foundation of Hobbes' political thought, most famously in books like the Leviathan, but certainly not only there. After a short introduction the author deals with the defective moral basis of Hobbes' thought, his uncertain and paradoxical relationship with Aristotlelianism, his changing view towards Aristocratic virtue over time, his thoughts on the state and religion, his view of history, his adoption of a new morality, and his desire to put forth a new political history. Throughout this book, the author erroneously considers Hobbes (rather than Machiavelli) to be the first modern political scientist, because he underestimated the importance of prudence in the expression of thought. Likewise, the author seems to want to talk out of both sides of his mouth, in that he freely points out the contradictions that are inherent in all aspects of Hobbes' thought but also wants to praise him for his modernity and for his rejection of traditional morality. It is fairly easy to see why so many people consider Strauss to be untrustworthy as a political philosopher.
After all, the contradictions of Hobbes' own political thought are characteristic of modernity as a whole, and to critique him is to critique ourselves, but that we must do if we are to find truth and reconciliation with God and with each other. Hobbes sought to defend his views with the authority of scripture only to undermine that scripture. He fallaciously used Plato as a club against Aristotle when his thought was more in line with at least the Rhetoric of Aristotle. Hobbes' philosophy was saved from being amoral only by appealing to a morality that Hobbes himself did not believe. Hobbes' hostility to history as a source of authority led him to create an irrational and ahistorical state of nature for his own political philosophy, and in order to gain cachet for making political science a science rather than a branch of philosophy and history, he had to attack the very rational and moral basis he depended on. And so it is with any modern "scientific" perspective within any social science, as the only way to find morality and rationality is to be logically inconsistent with fallacious materialistic tendencies. Hobbes' wasn't the first thinker to be fatally compromised by the paradoxes and inconsistencies and irrationality of the modernist project, but he is certainly a representative of that dishonesty and incoherence.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2010...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2010...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
The author, in under 200 pages, manages to discuss various aspects of the foundation of Hobbes' political thought, most famously in books like the Leviathan, but certainly not only there. After a short introduction the author deals with the defective moral basis of Hobbes' thought, his uncertain and paradoxical relationship with Aristotlelianism, his changing view towards Aristocratic virtue over time, his thoughts on the state and religion, his view of history, his adoption of a new morality, and his desire to put forth a new political history. Throughout this book, the author erroneously considers Hobbes (rather than Machiavelli) to be the first modern political scientist, because he underestimated the importance of prudence in the expression of thought. Likewise, the author seems to want to talk out of both sides of his mouth, in that he freely points out the contradictions that are inherent in all aspects of Hobbes' thought but also wants to praise him for his modernity and for his rejection of traditional morality. It is fairly easy to see why so many people consider Strauss to be untrustworthy as a political philosopher.
After all, the contradictions of Hobbes' own political thought are characteristic of modernity as a whole, and to critique him is to critique ourselves, but that we must do if we are to find truth and reconciliation with God and with each other. Hobbes sought to defend his views with the authority of scripture only to undermine that scripture. He fallaciously used Plato as a club against Aristotle when his thought was more in line with at least the Rhetoric of Aristotle. Hobbes' philosophy was saved from being amoral only by appealing to a morality that Hobbes himself did not believe. Hobbes' hostility to history as a source of authority led him to create an irrational and ahistorical state of nature for his own political philosophy, and in order to gain cachet for making political science a science rather than a branch of philosophy and history, he had to attack the very rational and moral basis he depended on. And so it is with any modern "scientific" perspective within any social science, as the only way to find morality and rationality is to be logically inconsistent with fallacious materialistic tendencies. Hobbes' wasn't the first thinker to be fatally compromised by the paradoxes and inconsistencies and irrationality of the modernist project, but he is certainly a representative of that dishonesty and incoherence.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2010...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2010...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews