What do you think?
Rate this book
The Opinion of Mankind: Sociability and the Theory of the State from Hobbes to Smith
How David Hume and Adam Smith forged a new way of thinking about the modern state
What is the modern state? Conspicuously undertheorized in recent political theory, this question persistently animated the best minds of the Enlightenment. Recovering David Hume and Adam Smith's long-underappreciated contributions to the history of political thought, The Opinion of Mankind considers how, following Thomas Hobbes's epochal intervention in the mid-seventeenth century, subsequent thinkers grappled with explaining how the state came into being, what it fundamentally might be, and how it could claim rightful authority over those subject to its power.
Hobbes has cast a long shadow over Western political thought, particularly regarding the theory of the state. This book shows how Hume and Smith, the two leading lights of the Scottish Enlightenment, forged an alternative way of thinking about the organization of modern politics. They did this in part by going back to the foundations: rejecting Hobbes's vision of human nature and his arguments about our capacity to form stable societies over time. In turn, this was harnessed to a deep reconceptualization of how to think philosophically about politics in a secular world. The result was an emphasis on the "opinion of mankind," the necessary psychological basis of all political organization.
Demonstrating how Hume and Smith broke away from Hobbesian state theory, The Opinion of Mankind also suggests ways in which these thinkers might shape how we think about politics today, and in turn how we might construct better political theory.
What is the modern state? Conspicuously undertheorized in recent political theory, this question persistently animated the best minds of the Enlightenment. Recovering David Hume and Adam Smith's long-underappreciated contributions to the history of political thought, The Opinion of Mankind considers how, following Thomas Hobbes's epochal intervention in the mid-seventeenth century, subsequent thinkers grappled with explaining how the state came into being, what it fundamentally might be, and how it could claim rightful authority over those subject to its power.
Hobbes has cast a long shadow over Western political thought, particularly regarding the theory of the state. This book shows how Hume and Smith, the two leading lights of the Scottish Enlightenment, forged an alternative way of thinking about the organization of modern politics. They did this in part by going back to the foundations: rejecting Hobbes's vision of human nature and his arguments about our capacity to form stable societies over time. In turn, this was harnessed to a deep reconceptualization of how to think philosophically about politics in a secular world. The result was an emphasis on the "opinion of mankind," the necessary psychological basis of all political organization.
Demonstrating how Hume and Smith broke away from Hobbesian state theory, The Opinion of Mankind also suggests ways in which these thinkers might shape how we think about politics today, and in turn how we might construct better political theory.
- GenresPhilosophyPolitics
280 pages, Hardcover
Published February 13, 2018
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 5, 2020
Sagar painstakingly and successfully argues for the recognition of Hume and Smith as political theorists, specifically related to their unique contributions contra Hobbes et al regarding why humans form societies and submit to state authorities. Way too academic for this mere Smith fanboy, but I do look forward to the author's upcoming book on Smith's political philosophy.
October 11, 2018
#學 昨天開始讀這本古典政治學的書，最大的感想是：「人要自愛」。
作者的分析架構來自有關於（現代）國家生成的兩種亙古人性理論：「性善論」與「性惡論」。
歷史之中佔上風的一直是「性惡論」，換句話說，「國家」與「個人」的本質關係是一種緊張對抗關係；而國家存在的目的壓制人的惡，其中以「自私自利」無甚。
奧古斯丁、霍布斯、洛克、盧梭，到近代的羅爾斯都是這個傳統。
而我之所以認為這個傳統的「政治神學」大多讓我有種原始感，在於當它試圖提供一套 doctrine of sovereignty形上學的時候，對於實然歷史社會運作現象是缺乏田野治理的。簡單地說，當一個「王」起義宣稱說自己為「天命之所歸」；論述這套「天命」，與實際上看他如何囤田養士、籠絡世族、起兵奪權的事件分析不能脫節。後面這項分實然的梳理，在如今我們看待准國家行為者、非國家行為者的權力權限及合法性時尤其重要。
而正如匹茲（Jennifer Pitts）在 Boundaries of the International: Law and Empire 所表明的，近代歐洲現代國家生成後的「國際法」，將各國視為對等的主權實體，等同對海外植入歐洲新教革命特殊條件下的壓迫格局。
此書作者發出猶如知音之聲，在於他也注意到 doctrine of sovereignty 的空虛，並試圖為另一種被忽視的傳統請命，也就是休謨和斯密的性善論。斯密的自由市場理論大家熟悉，他相信人性「利己自愛」的目標，不會與人們形成共同市場制度的合作關係抵斥；從而促成整體社會的興旺。
休謨則是一個「愛家主義者」，他相信人的社會性展現在自主形成家庭、世族、部落這些有自然權力運作的社群。因為人們喜好公義（人對不公義的反感，也是一種「自愛」，在一個月大的嬰兒實驗就能證明），所以會願意將「公義」制度化。
雖然鄂蘭在《人的條件》中，注意到打從古希臘以來，一家之父長在「戶口」內擁有實行「私法」的權柄，屬於「公」領域所不得管轄進犯（而這在工業革命布爾喬亞興起後也被繼承，以「家」作為「國政」最基本的分子），但如果「家／戶口」不具備一定的志願性和穩定性，而是本身就要被解構的對象，那麼也不可能成為安邦立國的基層構建。
而「家」的形成，在休謨的體系裡頭，當然是源自人們對「愛」與「連結」的精神需求。
可是我們確定這樣的需求，能夠從另一個人身上滿足嗎？
這個人，難道不是因為與你剛好有一種「對等的異質性」，才能夠互相吸引和成全嗎？但如果人不是自愛和追求成長的，我們如何期待自然的創造能完整提供給人類這種「對等的異質性」來運作社會基礎？
作者的分析架構來自有關於（現代）國家生成的兩種亙古人性理論：「性善論」與「性惡論」。
歷史之中佔上風的一直是「性惡論」，換句話說，「國家」與「個人」的本質關係是一種緊張對抗關係；而國家存在的目的壓制人的惡，其中以「自私自利」無甚。
奧古斯丁、霍布斯、洛克、盧梭，到近代的羅爾斯都是這個傳統。
而我之所以認為這個傳統的「政治神學」大多讓我有種原始感，在於當它試圖提供一套 doctrine of sovereignty形上學的時候，對於實然歷史社會運作現象是缺乏田野治理的。簡單地說，當一個「王」起義宣稱說自己為「天命之所歸」；論述這套「天命」，與實際上看他如何囤田養士、籠絡世族、起兵奪權的事件分析不能脫節。後面這項分實然的梳理，在如今我們看待准國家行為者、非國家行為者的權力權限及合法性時尤其重要。
而正如匹茲（Jennifer Pitts）在 Boundaries of the International: Law and Empire 所表明的，近代歐洲現代國家生成後的「國際法」，將各國視為對等的主權實體，等同對海外植入歐洲新教革命特殊條件下的壓迫格局。
此書作者發出猶如知音之聲，在於他也注意到 doctrine of sovereignty 的空虛，並試圖為另一種被忽視的傳統請命，也就是休謨和斯密的性善論。斯密的自由市場理論大家熟悉，他相信人性「利己自愛」的目標，不會與人們形成共同市場制度的合作關係抵斥；從而促成整體社會的興旺。
休謨則是一個「愛家主義者」，他相信人的社會性展現在自主形成家庭、世族、部落這些有自然權力運作的社群。因為人們喜好公義（人對不公義的反感，也是一種「自愛」，在一個月大的嬰兒實驗就能證明），所以會願意將「公義」制度化。
雖然鄂蘭在《人的條件》中，注意到打從古希臘以來，一家之父長在「戶口」內擁有實行「私法」的權柄，屬於「公」領域所不得管轄進犯（而這在工業革命布爾喬亞興起後也被繼承，以「家」作為「國政」最基本的分子），但如果「家／戶口」不具備一定的志願性和穩定性，而是本身就要被解構的對象，那麼也不可能成為安邦立國的基層構建。
而「家」的形成，在休謨的體系裡頭，當然是源自人們對「愛」與「連結」的精神需求。
可是我們確定這樣的需求，能夠從另一個人身上滿足嗎？
這個人，難道不是因為與你剛好有一種「對等的異質性」，才能夠互相吸引和成全嗎？但如果人不是自愛和追求成長的，我們如何期待自然的創造能完整提供給人類這種「對等的異質性」來運作社會基礎？
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews