Περί της φύσης του ανθρώπου

by Thomas Hobbes

Σύμφωνα με τον Χομπς, ο άνθρωπος έχει ως στόχο την κυριαρχία, την προσωπική υπεροχή και τον πλουτισμό σε βάρος των υπολοίπων. Κάθε πόλεμος, κάθε διαμάχη ξεκινάει από το φόβο ή το φθόνο που νιώθει ο ένας για τον άλλο, ενώ μόνο οι αμοιβαίες συμφωνίες θα μπορέσουν να εδραιώσουν την ομόνοια. Ριζοσπαστικός και πέρα για πέρα επίκαιρος, ο Τόμας Χομπς, ένας από τους θεμελιωτές της πολιτικής φιλοσοφίας, αναλύει εκτενώς τα ανθρώπινα πάθη και προτείνει τρόπους καλύτερης συμβίωσης -ίσως και επιβίωσης- σε μια κοινωνία όπου τα ένστικτα είναι αυτά που κυρίως καθορίζουν τις πράξεις και κατ' επέκταση τις ανθρώπινες σχέσεις. Πριν ακόμα παρουσιάσει τον "Λεβιάθαν" -το Κράτος που, έχοντας το μονοπώλιο της απόλυτης εξουσίας, επιδιώκει τη διατήρηση της κοινωνικής ειρήνης-, ο Χομπς επιχειρηματολογεί υπέρ της μη αγαθής φύσης των ανθρώπων, οι οποίοι, υπακούοντας στις επιθετικές ως επί το πλείστον ενορμήσεις τους, οδεύουν προς την αλληλοεξόντωσή τους. (Από την παρουσίαση στο οπισθόφυλλο του βιβλίου)

Genres: Philosophy, Classics, Politics, Nonfiction, Political Science, 17th Century, Sociology

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1640

About the author

Thomas Hobbes was a British philosopher and a seminal thinker of modern political philosophy. His ideas were marked by a mechanistic materialist foundation, a characterization of human nature based on greed and fear of death, and support for an absolute monarchical form of government. His 1651 book Leviathan established the foundation for most of Western political philosophy from the perspective of social contract theory.

He was also a scholar of classical Greek history and literature, and produced English translation of Illiad, Odyssey and History of Peloponnesian War.

Reviews

[Xander · Rating 1 out of 5]

In The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic (1640), Thomas Hobbes sets out to explain the relationship between phyics, psychology and politics. In doing this, Hobbes falls back on Epicurean materialism (there are significant differences between the philosophy of Hobbes and Epicurus though).

In the 1640's, Descartes' philosophy was just taking hold, and would remain influential on the Continent for more than 100 years - it was only in the Enlightenment that Cartesianism gave way to Newton's mechanics. Descartes built his philosophy on the notion of dualism: there is matter and there is the immortal (human) soul. Hobbes, to the contrary, is a monist (like Spinoza after him): for him there was nothing but matter and motion - even spirits are matter in the sense of quantity and dimensions, just invisible to our senses.

Based on his materialistic picture of Nature, Hobbes starts by describing physics in terms of mechanics - maybe this was due to his 1636 visit to the godfather of mechanics, Galilei? After this, Hobbes starts to describe the workings of our mental life in terms of motion. Motion is all there is, according to Hobbes, so even human psychology should be explained in terms of motion. And, since states are in effect conglomerations of human beings, we should view politics as a form of mechanics as well. This leads to Hobbes' picture of the social contract - to be explained in more detail in his 1651 magnum opus Leviathan - whereby all citizens give up their power to an autoritarian sovereign, who wields absolute power (legislative, as well as executive).

This sounds like a plea for dictatorship, and in effect this is exactly what Hobbes is promoting. It is important not to start moralizing right away, and take a look at the time when The Elements of Law (and the Leviathan, for that matter) were written. Hobbes witnessed the collapse of his society in the English Civil War. During this period, English society collapsed in royal and parlementary factions, with all consequent massacres, persecutions and violoent outburst. Hobbes saw in this a return to the natural state of mankind.

This last point is important, because Hobbes' picture of mankind in nature, is a building block for his political philosophy. Man in nature is, according to Hobbes, a 'homo homini lupus' - a wolf for his fellow beings (Hobbes seems to forget/not to know that wolves live in packs, though). In short: life of man in a state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." This view of mankind, is the stepping stone to the rest of his political philosophy. It is easy to see where Hobbes draws this picture from, considering the events he witnessed during his lifetime.

The problem with Hobbes is, for me, that he writes so dry and abstract, that it is sometimes hard to be convinced by the arguments. Hobbes uses the synthetic method: giving detailed and scrupulously circumscribed definitions and then using logic to deduce new truths. At times, where this method is inapplicable, he resorts to the analytical method: inducing universals from particulars. This leads inevitably to abstruse texts. It makes the works also seem slightly outdated.

An important point to note is that Hobbes was accused by his contemporaries of atheism. And that was a serious offence in 17th century England. It is not hard to see where this accusation comes from: for Hobbes the whole cosmos is matter and motion - no obscure substances like immortal souls and God exists, but we cannot say anything sensible about Him. Hobbes thought he was supported in this by Holy Scripture; the earthly resurrection of all deceased human beings is clearly announced in the bible. His religious contemporaries were less convinced and saw Hobbes' philosophy as a threat to religion (and rightly so, in my opinion).

I cannot recommend this book. It is only interesting as a historical document and as a background to his more important work Leviathan.

[Yann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ce texte de Thomas Hobbes, philosophe anglais du dix-septième siècle connu pour son œuvre majeure, Léviathan, comporte deux parties : dans la première, il s'agit de décrire ce qu'est la nature humaine, et dans la seconde, sont abordés les rapports politiques.

La première partie m'a énormément impressionnée. Ce n'est pas simplement un mais dix traités différents qui semblent condensés en un seul tellement la matière qu'il renferme est à la fois riche et ramassée. Le choix de Hobbes d'articuler son exposer par une succession de définition est excellente: elle donne une impression d'ordre et de rigueur inspirée des mathématiques, comme ses nombreux renvois aux différents paragraphes lorsqu'il invoque telle ou telle notion évoquée précédemment. Le fait que Diderot se soit proposé de le lire tout les ans est parfaitement justifié : traité de la connaissance, des passions, de la liberté, du rire, de l'honneur, ... tout est abordé en détail avec une concision remarquable. On y trouve déjà l'essentiel de l'essai sur l'entendement humain de Locke. Le lecteur n'a plus qu'à parcourir les allées d'un jardin taillé avec ordre, baigné d'une lumière toute grecque.

La seconde partie s'appuie sur la forme de la première, mais doit par contre sacrifier à l'opinion. Si elle est moins éclatante que la première, elle offre un éclairage intéressant de ce que les hommes de cette époque ont pu imaginer pour résoudre les difficultés qui se présentaient à eux. Hobbes fut un traducteur de la Guerre du Péloponnèse de Thucydide. Il épouse les vues du général Athénien, car le spectacle de la vie politique de son temps le ramène à l'époque d'Alcibiade et Nicias. L'idée principale est que l'autorité ne saurait être partagée et que l'on ne peut obéir à deux maîtres : en germe l'idée de séparation de l'église et de l'état, mais aussi une justification de l'absolutisme. Au rebours de Machiavel, qui puisait ses idées républicaines dans l'histoire romaine, Hobbes plonge ses idées monarchiques dans l'histoire grecque, et il ne fait pas mystère de son mépris pour la démocratie, qu'il considère n'être qu'une oligarchie déguisée. Il ne dédaigne pas non plus l'histoire sainte, et s'y appuie fortement pour illustrer ses opinions. Les vues de Hobbes ne manquent pas d'intérêt, mais je trouve que Machiavel avait quand même plus de pénétration.

[Anderson Paz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Os Elementos da Lei Natural e Política foi escrito em 1640 com duas partes: sobre a natureza humana e sobre o corpo político. Só em 1656, a segunda parte da obra foi publicada, após a publicação do Leviatã (1651).
O contexto da escrita dos Elementos foi de conflitos entre o Parlamento e o Rei. Hobbes desenvolve três temas sob uma perspectiva materialista para compreender a ordem do cosmos e a ordenação da sociedade: o corpo natural, a natureza humana e o corpo político.
Hobbes apresenta sua visão monista: a realidade é matéria e movimento. A partir de uma visão materialista da natureza, Hobbes vê a realidade do corpo humano ao corpo político como mecânica de causa e efeito.
No texto sobre a natureza humana, Hobbes apresenta seu empirismo inglês com os temas de sensação, imaginação, mente, discurso, etc. Ele apresenta sua famosa montagem: direito de autodefesa - estado de guerra - contrato social - leis naturais - corpo político. Toda essa discussão é reapresentada na primeira parte do Leviatã anos depois.
Já no texto sobre o corpo político, Hobbes trata da natureza do corpo político e suas leis. Ele fala da relação entre o soberano, as leis civis e as formas de república (democrática, monárquica e aristocrática). Por fim, discute sobre como lidar com controvérsias religiosas mantendo obediência ao soberano. Uma vez mais: toda essa discussão é reapresentada na primeira parte do Leviatã anos depois.
Na última parte que trata do corpo, Hobbes discute sobre o que é filosofia e seu objeto, o corpo (tudo que foi gerado e tem propriedades). O corpo político enquanto problema da filosofia política. O método é a relação entre causa e efeito, no corpo se dá enquanto relações mecânicas. Por fim, ele trata da sensação e movimento animal, corpo enquanto problema da filosofia natural.
Essa obra de Hobbes serve como documento histórico de suas ideias. Temos um monismo materialista que, na busca de ordem, postulou um corpo político universalista capaz de restringir fortemente a liberdade individual.

[Elia Mantovani · Rating 3 out of 5]

Letto nell'edizione italiana del Pacchi. Questo è il primo trattato sulla materia politica di Hobbes che, sebbene 50enne, è col presente lavoro che affronta la questione del potere. Come per i capolavori più noti, qua il trattato procede per costruzione logico-architettonica da assiomi apodittici fino a derivare teoremi per nesso deduttivo. Pregevole il modo e la realizzazione (come anche la superficialità che questa volta riserva all'ecclesiologia, ndr) anche se, come intuibile, meno sofisticato del "De Cive" e del "Leviatano". Utile per comprendere l'evoluzione del pensiero hobbesiano e per entrare nelle analogie tra la politica, la fisica e la logica.

[Socrate · Rating 3 out of 5]

Din cele două părţi principale ale naturii noastre, ra­ţiunea şi pasiunea, provin două tipuri de cunoaştere: ma­tematică şi dogmatică. Primul tip este scutit de controverse şi dispute, deoarece constă doar în compararea figurilor si miscării, lucruri în care adevărul si interesul oameni­lor nu se opun. În ceea ce îl priveşte pe cel de-al doilea, nimic nu este mai discutabil, deoarece el compară oame­nii şi se amestecă în drepturile şi câştigurile lor, lucruri în privinţa cărora pe cât de des îi este raţiunea potrivni­că omului, pe atât de des îi este omul potrivnic raţiunii. Ca urmare, cei care au scris despre drept şi despre poli­tică în general s-au încurcat unii pe alţii şi pe ei înşişi în contradicţii.

[Declan · Rating 3 out of 5]

(read for class) we have thoughts that become speech become action become we should have an absolute monarch

[Ed Fernyhough · Rating 4 out of 5]

A clear exposition of early-modern empiricism which Hobbes uses to draw conclusions about his desired structure of the state. He explains that democracy precedes monarchy since the demos has to authorise the rule of a single person, but that monarchy is preferable to democracy. I disagree with him for numerous reasons, but it would be disingenuous to give the book a low score on this basis, since it is such a well-argued and dispassionate account which must be understood in its context of civil war. More accessible than Leviathan.

[Christopher Byram · Rating 3 out of 5]

I first heard about Thomas Hobbes briefly, in passing, while browsing through philosophy.... Well I cannot actually remember, but his name "rings a bell". It was probably when I heard about his work "Leviathan". I discovered his work "Human Nature and De Corpore Politico" when it featured in a list of "Oxford World's Classics" on the final couple of pages of James George Frazer's "The Golden Bough".

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ve been studying Thomas Hobbes’ Elements of Law, Natural and Politic (1640) as a crucial early sketch of his thought, laying the foundation for Leviathan (1651). Divided into two parts—human nature and the body politic—Elements systematically explores law, governance, and behavior through a mechanistic lens. Less polished than Leviathan or De Cive, it reveals tensions and developments in Hobbes’ views on natural law, civil authority, and liberty. My reading found what I consider Hobbes’ proto-liberal aspects, especially his negative definition of liberty and egalitarian leanings, alongside his broader claims about law, religion, and governance. For me, Chapters XXI–XXIV form the meat of the book, diving into the core of political organization, and I suspect XXI, alongside XXVII, ranking among the longest, reflects their depth.

Human Nature and the Will
In the first half, Hobbes delves into human nature, grounding his politics in a comprehensive materialist psychology of which he divides into voluntary and involuntary motion. In Chapter XII, I find his definition of the will as “the last appetite in deliberation” striking—a product of voluntary motion, like computer software responding to stimuli, distinct from involuntary vital motion, like hardware. I found this as resonant with behaviorist functionalism: behavior arises from sense impressions whereas memories derive from decaying sense (themselves from stimuli and reflexes) while imagination is reckoning different outcomes of our actions from these inputs. The strongest impressions shape desires, culminating in choices that manifest as will as the final result. Voluntary motion matters the most for politics because it enables deliberation and choice, yet its variability necessitates civil law to curb conflict.

Natural and Civil Law
Hobbes defines three laws—divine, natural, human—but I’d argue he reduces them to two: natural, rooted in necessity, and civil, an artifice of instrumental reason. I see divine law, God’s commands, encompassing natural law, as God authors nature, aligning with “right reason”—self-preservation and pursuing desires (Chapter XIV). Influenced by thinkers like Grotius and Suarez, I think natural law reflects what rational people deem necessary for survival: the inalienable right to self-defense and necessities like food or space (Chapter XVII).

Civil law meanwhile is a human construct to secure preservation where nature fails. Here, I spot proto-liberalism: law consists of pragmatic commands, clear to common people, liberty is defined as what’s not prohibited, except where it conflicts with the right to survival (Chapter XXIX). Equating common law with natural law undermines judicial authority and suggests equality: one person’s reason is as valid as another’s, as King James reportedly asserted against Sir Edward Coke for his authority as steward of the people. Yet, I note, Hobbes insists civil law serves individual, not collective, ends, deriving from self-preservation.

Hobbes also addresses religion here, though it’s less prominent than in his later works. In Chapter XXIX he subordinates ecclesiastical authority to civil law, ensuring the sovereign controls religious matters to prevent division. For Christians, he argues conscience doesn’t conflict with civil obedience if it centers on the core belief that Christ is the Messiah, which aligns with state stability, or if conscience remains private, with believers accepting punishment for disobedience (Chapter XXV). This, I think, reinforces his proto-liberalism: individual belief is tolerated privately, but public order trumps personal conviction, balancing conscience with sovereignty.

Governance and Liberty
In Chapters XXI–XXIV, which I regard as the heart of Elements, Hobbes critiques democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy in that order, and I find his analysis sharp, layered, and packed with tensions that reveal his priorities—likely why XXI feels like one of the book’s longest chapters. One point that stands out is his view that, among governments by institution, democracy comes first, prior to aristocracy and monarchy, even though he ranks it least in practice (Chapter XXI). I see him arguing that democracy emerges naturally as people initially hold sovereignty collectively, but its instability leads them, by necessity of right reason, to alienate that sovereignty for survival and equity. This paradox grips me: the people willingly surrender power through covenants, not just out of fear but because reason demands a structure to secure life and fairness (Chapter XV).

Hobbes’ disdain for democracy is biting. In Chapter XXI, he calls it an “aristocracy of orators,” a jab I find amusing and telling—it risks factionalism because persuasive speakers dominate, fragmenting unity. He writes, “democracy is but the government of a few orators,” suggesting it’s not truly the people’s rule but a masquerade of elite rhetoric (Part II, Chapter XXI). Aristocracy, I note, fares slightly better, concentrating power in a select group, but Hobbes sees it as nearly indistinguishable from democracy in effect—both are prone to division and lack the singular will he craves (Chapter XXI).

Monarchy, he explicitly prefers, as solitary rule defined by no term limits, for its unified authority to enforce covenants (Chapter XV). I’m struck by his bold defense of monarchy’s divine roots, which jars with his materialist worldview. He argues that “the world, as it was created, so also it is governed by one God Almighty,” linking monarchy to ancient customs, divine myths, and even paternal rule from creation itself, while other governments are mere “pieces of broken monarchies cemented by human wit” (Part II, Chapter XXI). This divine-right rhetoric feels like an odd fit for a thinker obsessed with reason and mechanics, and I think it shows Hobbes hedging his bets rhetorically—leaning on tradition to bolster his case for monarchy’s stability.

Another angle I find compelling is Hobbes’ view of the monarch’s role, which foreshadows a modern executive through his distinction between command and counsel (Chapter XXIX). I see him arguing that monarchy’s strength lies in its ability to issue clear commands—binding imperatives—unlike the mere counsel of assemblies, which lacks decisive force. In Chapters XXI and XXIV, the monarch functions as an executive, consolidating decision-making to enforce covenants and maintain order, unhampered by the factionalism of democracy or aristocracy. This command-over-counsel preference, I think, underscores his vision of sovereignty as singular and action-oriented, cutting through deliberative noise to secure subjects’ survival.

I also find Hobbes outlining rulers’ duties, particularly in Chapter XXIV, where he stresses their “continual care” to secure peace and protect subjects. I see this tied to natural law’s equity: rulers must ensure a baseline quality of life, providing necessities like safety and sustenance, not just through fear but through a system that distributes justice fairly (Chapter XVII). If a ruler fails this—say, by neglecting protection—covenants dissolve, as subjects retain the right to self-preservation (Chapter XXV). I view this tension—absolute sovereignty versus individual rights—as marking Hobbes’ putative liberalism as “negative”, although unlike liberalism does not neglect the duties for the public weal on other grounds. Unlike Kant or Rousseau’s autonomy or socialists’ equality, I see his liberty as the absence of restraint, bounded by survival but which justifies a measure of equitable distribution. I find his equation of common and natural law democratizing legal understanding, challenging elites while reinforcing the sovereign’s role.

Rebellion and the Law of Nations
In Chapters XXVII–XXVIII, Hobbes addresses rebellion, caused by discontent, pretense of right, and hope of success. Hobbes counters claims that sovereignty can be divided or property precedes the state, familiar territory. I find his conclusion—that the law of nations is natural law, or anarchy—underscoring civil law’s necessity to escape nature’s chaos (Chapter XXIX). However, within these chapters, I see Hobbes elaborating rulers’ duties further, rooted in natural law’s equity. I note he insists rulers must protect subjects and ensure a minimum quality of life, not merely through coercion or bargaining but by upholding fairness—distributing resources and opportunities so no one is wholly deprived (Chapter XXVIII). I think this softens his harshness, showing governance isn’t just about power but about enabling survival for all.

Significance and Proto-Liberalism
As my notes suggest, I see Elements as a rough draft for Leviathan, clarifying Hobbes’ psychology and debts to Grotius. I find its liberal aspects in negative liberty, accessible law, and inalienable rights, prefiguring individualism. Yet, I think his philosophy avoids radical autonomy or equality of outcome of modern liberalism, prioritizing survival and collective stability. I view its egalitarian hints, like equating common and natural law, as challenging legal traditions, though subordinated to sovereignty whether royal or popular.

Compared to De Cive (1642), I find Elements less refined but more revealing of Hobbes’ early struggles. For me, it’s invaluable for tracing his thought’s evolution and his contribution to liberalism—not as freedom’s champion, but as a realist seeing ordered liberty as survival’s scaffold.

[Laurent Dv · Rating 4 out of 5]

Les Éléments de la loi naturelle et politique de Thomas Hobbes sont une œuvre peu connue et précoce, à l’opposé de son œuvre principale qu’est le Léviathan. Il y expose sa philosophie politique, en gros sa théorie sur l’Etat, son origine, son but et la source de son autorité. Pour cela, il définit d’abord dans une première partie de nombreuses notions qu’il utilisera après et qui parlent plus de métaphysique, d’anthropologie, de philosophie morale/éthique que de philosophie politique. Puis il développe sa fameuse théorie politique qui comprend comme thèses l’état de nature de l’homme, le contrat social et la violence légitime (pouvoir absolu) de l’État.

Le livre est assez accessible, moyen/long et cette édition agréable : le texte est en assez gros caractères, une présentation et introduction utile au début et énormément de notes de bas de pages très détaillées et où on apprend beaucoup de choses (situation politique de l’époque, œuvres parallèles et contradictoires comme Aristote, Quintilien, Cicéron, etc.), sur plein d’auteurs et pas seulement Hobbes et ses contemporains.

Hobbes écrit ce traité dans des circonstances particulières où un roi a été renforcé. Ce qui a poussé certains à dire que son œuvre est une défense de la royauté ou de la monarchie parce qu'il défend un pouvoir absolu (un droit absolu du souverain sur ses sujets).

Mais c'est faux, dedans, il ne parle pas d'une structure particulière, de sorte que peu importe qui exerce le pouvoir (un groupe d'hommes, un seul et unique roi ou dictateur, des représentants élus par le peuple, etc.), il dit juste que ce pouvoir est absolu. Il s'oppose ainsi à de nombreux adversaires comme des puritains qui donnaient un droit légitime au peuple de désobéir et même de se révolter si besoin.

Pour la première fois dans l'histoire de la philosophie, Hobbes fonde une théorie politique non pas à partir de faits concrets (des régimes dans le temps) mais à partir de la nature humaine considérée à part de toute expérience, de façon abstraite.

[Krishna Avendaño · Rating 4 out of 5]

*Estrella extra por el prólogo y los comentarios excelsos de Dalmacio Negro.

[Mason Goddard · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ik ur dead so the insult doesn't rly matter but fuck you regardless

[ava · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pessimist final boss

[Phillip · Rating 5 out of 5]

This volume should be of interest to undergraduate students of philosophy, politics and political history, especially relevant to the 17th century. J.C.A. Gaskin is the editor of "Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion" and "The Natural History of Religion". Highly recommended!