DO CIDADAO

by Thomas Hobbes

Por muito tempo se considerou Do Cidadão como a obra mais importante de Hobbes. Hoje, a maior parte dos estudiosos se concentra em Leviata, o que nos dá, justamente, uma boa razão para ler Do Cidadão. Sob vários aspectos, os dois livros se complementam, havendo passagens que se repetem, mas muitas outras em que um esclarece o outro.

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

440 pages

First published August 20, 1998

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

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book, one of Hobbes's works, similar and prior to Leviathan, was the basis of one of my papers in college. It outlines a type of social contract, and is quite similar to other works, such as Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government. It is an excellent book for anyone with an interest in constitutionalism and social contract theory.

[biungy · Rating 4 out of 5]

homo homini lupus 🔛🔝

[Prabidhik KC · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just as in Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes talks about the necessity of the absolute power of a sovereign with reference to the natural law of self-preservation and social contract theory. Hobbes writes that due to self-centric nature of human beings, an absolute authority is required to take the society out of the constant state of war and mistrust and move towards the stable and order society.

[jade · Rating 2 out of 5]

farò finta di aver capito qualcosa della parte sulla religione e di non averla letta in ×3

[Benny · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was my first introduction to political philosophy, and I could not have asked for a better one.

Though abstract in argumentation, On the Citizen is intuitively organized, and arguments proceed subsequently from previous reasoning. This intuitive understanding is aided by a fantastic discussion group in my legal theory course and succinct yet extensive lectures from my professor.

Topics foundational to the development of Hobbes' argument: the rejection of Aristotle's idea that humans are born fit from society, natural right (humans can use any means to preserve life and limb), natural equality (human frailty, anyone is able to be killed), natural reason (acting out of fear of violent death), natural law (humans must use any means to preserve life and limb) and its extensions (preservation of life and limb necessitates relinquishing natural right), the state of nature (war or all against all), contract (one-time transfer of rights to establish the sovereign), among many others that shine brilliantly in this seminal gem of modern thought.

Note to self: I did not read the last section on religion, but it is my understanding that this was simply Hobbes' attempt to escape persecution from the Christian powers that be (much like the uncharacteristic ad hoc quoting of ecclesiastical scripture in an earlier section).

[Elia Mantovani · Rating 4 out of 5]

Il "De Cive" è il primo approccio del filosofo alla teoria politica e costituisce in buona parte il canovaccio dal quale poi verrà tratto il ben più noto (e sulle ragioni di questa notorietà si è con curiosità indagato) "Leviatano". La struttura tripartita del trattato affronta i problemi essenziali della filosofia di Hobbes: la libertà, ossia il consenso, il contratto e il discorso giusnaturalista; il potere, ossia lo stato, le leggi e l'autorità irresistibile; la religione, dunque la conciliazione tra il buon cittadino e il buon politico. Il testo è formidabile: oltre ad essere il trionfo di una rigorosissima "architettura filosofica", dimostra quella tendenza (che il sottoscritto adora) a fare filosofia con la ricerca delle definizioni delle parole e dei concetti. Sebbene il lavoro machi di quel profilo sistematico presente invece nell'opera del 1651, traspaiono già con vigore i tratti fondamentali del contrattualismo hobbesiano, con attenzione all'ipotesi del contratto sociale e dell'articolata transizione tra giustnaturalismo e giuspositivismo. Lettura mirabile.

[Alireza Farahani · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hobbes' explanation of the development of political life is the most well-known aspect of his thought. He begins with the assumption that humans live blindly in a state of nature among their peers, and then patiently explains that this condition transforms into a state of perpetual war due to fear and aggression. Eventually, humans enter into a social contract to escape the fear of death, granting unlimited powers to a "sovereign" who guarantees peace. For those reading Hobbes today, it may be less apparent how significant human religiosity is in his explanation, unless they approach Hobbes from a theological perspective. This is where Hobbes' genius and true importance in modern political life become evident. He was the first thinker to consider religious and political conflict as fundamentally one and the same, arguing that these conflicts are intertwined because they share common roots in human nature. As Hobbes understood, the cycle of theological-political violence—violence that Christianity became ensnared in—was not an exceptional aberration in the history of religion, nor could it be resolved merely by making superficial changes to the relationship between church and state or by finding a more enlightened interpretation of the Bible. The religious problem and the political problem are ultimately one and the same, which means they can either remain unresolved or be resolved together

This life exists in a natural state, even if a person is a religious being. However, the fact that humans are religious beings complicates the picture immensely. Two vicious cycles that we have just described—one being the psychological cycle of religious fear and the other the political cycle of social fear—now converge into a single theological-political cycle of violence, fanaticism, superstition, and paralyzing fear

At the center of this picture lies God. Humans believe in God because they fear nature, and they fear nature because they are ignorant and desirous. Yet, as soon as humans conceive of God, they also fear Him; although God may come to help fulfill the heart's needs of humans, if He becomes displeased, He can stand against them just as easily. Although it is well-known that God does not become angry so easily, the threat posed by His displeasure is infinitely greater than any threat arising from another human being. My rival can at most deprive me of my current life, but an angry God will deprive me of eternal life. Thus, in totality, the fear of God outweighs the fear of man. A person who anticipates an attack from a rival can prepare themselves for battle, but what can they do to protect themselves from an angry God? They can worship God and strive to obey Him, but as an ignorant and oblivious being, they can never be sure of what God wants from them. Nevertheless, all priests claim to know the will of God. Of course, they cannot possess such knowledge; no one can—unless descriptions transcend the limits of human understanding. However, the claim to understand God's will is a source of power, and a person who is in a constant struggle for superiority needs to acquire as much power as possible. This issue is irrelevant whether priests believe their claims about divine understanding or not; they may be as much deceivers as they are deceived themselves. What matters is that human beings' need for worship naturally allows religious authority in society to emerge, and this authority is a form of power

[Anto Pujol · Rating 2 out of 5]

En realidad solo me he leído los capítulos:

- IX. sobre el derecho de los padres y de las madres para con sus hijos. y sobre el reino patrimonial.
"La diferenci aqu ehay entre un hombre libre y un siervo es que aquel que es libre noe stá obligado a obedecer más que al Estado, y el siervo ha de obedecer también a algún particular."


- X. Comparación de las tres clases de gobierno según las dificultades de cada una de ellas.
"Fuera de la sociedad civil cada uno goza de una libertad completa, pero infructuosa, porque, como tiene el privilegio de hacer cuanto buentamente quiere, deja también a los demás el poder de hacer que él mismo padezca cuanto les parece. Peor en el gobierno de un Estado bien establecido, cada particular no se rserva más libertad que aquella que precisa para vivir cómodamente y en plena tranquilidad, y aque no quita a los dmeás más que aquellos que les hace temibles." "Fuera de la sociedad civil no hay más que un continuo latrocinio y muerte de uno por el otro."

"La igualdad es un estado de guerra y la desigualdad ha sido introducida por consentimiento universal, que no tiene nada de injusta, pues aquel qu etiene más que los otros no posee más que aquello que se le ha otorgado liberalmente. Los inconvenientes que se encuentran en el gobierno de uno se refieren a la persona, no a la unidad." (Todo este capítulo se lo pasa defendiendo la monarquía frente a la república).

"Hay diversas razones que hacen pensar que las deliberaciones que se toman en las grandes asambleas valen menos que las que se logran en un pequeño consejo. Para deliberar rectamente sobre todo cuanto es de interés público, hay que conocer no solo los asuntos internos, sino también los externos. Mientras todo esto está en posesión de un corto número de personas, entre miles de ellas ¿Para qué puede servir ese número de ignorantes, incapaces de dar un buen consejo, sino para, con sus tontaes advertencias, impedir las deliberacioens inteligentes?"


- XVIII. De las cosas que son necesarias para entrar en el reino de los cielos.
En general este capítulo es infumable, hablando de obediencia, fe y fidelidad. Pero me gusta cómo termina, haciendo referencia a capítulo catorce de la Epístola a los ROmanos:
<>

[Anderson Paz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Obra publicada em 1642, nove anos antes de o Leviatã, em que Hobbes situa a filosofia política sobre base científica e estabelecer a paz cívica. O objeto do livro é sobre os deveres dos homens como homens, como súditos e como cristãos.
O livro é dividido em três partes. Na primeira, Liberdade, Hobbes diz que o contrato social não é um estado natural e surge do temor de um para com o outro no estado de natureza ou estado de guerra. Em busca de paz, o homem faz um contrato social. No estado civil deve existir um poder que force as partes a cumprir o contrato social. As leis da natureza são imutáveis e eternas. As leis natural e moral é dada por Deus como regra para ações e podem ser descobertas pela razão.
Na segunda parte, Domínio, Hobbes diz que para sair do estado de natureza é preciso uma vontade que a todos obrigue. Para formar a sociedade civil, transfere-se o direito de resistência a um homem ou companhia de homens e forma-se o "político". Uma companhia de homens tem vontades difusas. Deve-se delegar a um soberano o direito de punição. O soberano deve declarar leis civis gerais que protejam a propriedade privada de cada um. Aquilo que não for proibido é permitido e não punível. A vontade unificada transforma uma multidão em povo. Em seguida, Hobbes discute sobre as formas de governo e defende a monarquia como melhor das formas de governo por dar mais estabilidade interna e externa. Ainda trata da relação entre senhores e servos, pais e filhos, autoridade dos monarcas, razões internas e externas das sedições, deveres dos governantes para manter a segurança do povo, e a natureza e classificação das leis civis.
Na última parte, Religião, Hobbes busca conhecer as leis divinas para obedecer a Deus e não incorrer em desobediência civil injustamente. A razão natural conhece parte dos comandos divinos, mas pela Bíblia se conhece a vontade de Deus e como viver em seu reino. Por fim, Hobbes apresenta leis do Antigo e Novo Testamentos e a fé e obediência como meios para ingresso no reino dos céus.
Em suma, é uma introdução geral melhor desenvolvido em o Leviatã.

[Atrona Grizel (Sov8840)]

Every readable book that has been written whispers to the reader, as if saying, “Here, take it, consume.” If a piece of writing has turned into a book and reached the hands of a reader—meaning it has not only been written but also published and shared with others—then the writer has a desire to be read, and that alone is enough reason to approach the text with suspicion from the very beginning. Seeing someone buried in a book disturbs me, as if it’s a sign of ignorance, because they are doing exactly what the other side begs for. I never touch the books on my bookshelf, and in this way, a certain air is created, as if saying: “See? I am not reading you. You need me, but I do not need you. What will you do about it?” And thus, the names of all those authors appear pitiful to me. For they are dependent on the reader, and without the reader they lose all their value. The quality of a piece of writing is revealed by how it appears once all of its readers are removed. A text written for a crowd is bound not only to that crowd but also enslaved to its era and its time. On the other hand, writings cast into the void, addressed to no one, will endure their existence for eternity. If only a single human being remained in the world, and that person still produced volumes upon volumes of writing, that—indeed—would be noble.

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

I find reading De Cive clarifies much of Hobbes’ political philosophy in Leviathan, half of which was on religion the pressing issue of his time. De Cive first clarifies in a footnote what Hobbes meant by human nature being antisocial, not solitude which men hate but vanity and diffidence in seeking the company of others for a show of superiority or conflict over desired things that cannot be shared-glory and profit. Another footnote clarifies the meaning of fear as not just flight or cowardice but diffidence-distrust of others and anxiety toward the future. That Hobbes included solitary with nasty brutish and short in Leviathan caused a lot of confusion, but elsewhere Hobbes says people do not wish to remain in such a state long. Hobbes also explicitly describes human nature as bad wheres later Hobbes says government is necessary because man is individualistic by nature rather than bad.

The second part on government, which was Hobbes’ lifelong speciality, mostly retreads what was in the Elements and kept in Leviathan. Two things stuck out: firstly, his requirement for a supermajority to institute a commonwealth given its overwhelming power and security even if with a few defections the majority consensus remains. This strengthens his majoritianism but allows refinement into a constitutional majority, such as John Calhoun’s concurrent majority. Secondly, Hobbes explicitly gives slaves, as defined by those imprisoned or bound, a negative right to flee and even kill their master since it is a relation of pure dominion rather than obligation since it arises not from protection or contract but fear, which is the condition of the state of nature continued. However they are bound by the greater laws of nature still. This was a point Locke would take up as distinguishing servitude from slavery, the former a contractual dominion versus the state of war continued.

In the third part on religion, Hobbes distinguishes the kingdom of God by nature and by covenant, the former universally binding by reason of will-not willed by reason, aligning with a voluntatist view-and the latter dictated to men directly. God’s law is revealed in three ways, the ‘dictate of right reason’ (natural causality, which inverts Grotius’ meaning of the phrase), immediate revelation via visions dreams or inspiration, and prophecy by way of miracles either performed or foretold.

Hobbes’ discussion of biblical covenants, promises by god to humanity, is mainly to dull their revolutionary force and align them with order: firstly the Adamic covenant which was abrogated, but he does not mention the Noahic covenant which would apply to gentiles after the flood and would countenance there being no right in the state of nature, although one of its demands is to establish courts of justice so is exhortive and normative. Instead Hobbes goes to the covenant with Abraham and how it applied to his patriarchal authority not commonwealth until the Mosaic covenant for the Jewish nation, which was in form a priestly kingdom but de facto held by judges, until they asked to be ruled by kings (Davidic covenant) and after the captivity returned to the Mosaic law and held out for fulfillment of the messianic covenant, which Christians believe fulfilled by Jesus and to be completed by His second coming at an unknown time. This last point was addressed to the fifth monarchists who believed Charles I’s regicide marked the end of the fourth monarchy in the book of Daniel, interpreted as Rome given Charles’ supposed ‘popish’ inclinations, and paved the way for a fifth Christian one.

A covenant theology being related to his social contract theory also supports Hobbes’ theory of religious authority as there are only seven at most, two of which applied only to the Jewish state, and Christians wait for fulfillment of the sixth or seventh by a future kingdom of Christ on a new earth while in the meantime are under secular authorities not churches who are meant to teach faith and obedience. This covenant theology and his views on human nature align with a more Calvinist view although Hobbes opposed the Presbyterian form of church government in England as he held Erastian views of state-church relations and a generally secular outlook. His discussion of religious covenants is largely to dismiss their applicability in secular society though as relevant to their use by his political adversaries such as the presbyterians, fifth monarchists, and Scottish covenanters.

In his early work written under Charles I however Hobbes tepidly endorsed apostolic succession which he did not by Leviathan in 1651, when episcopacy was abolished and replaced in 1645 by a directory of public worship which was short of a presbytery establishment, and would go on to blame Charles I’s imposition of the book of common prayer on the Scots as leading to the civil war and their national covenant rejecting Charles’ authority outright. So my conclusions are that Hobbes’ political theology could have benefited from incorporating original sin and either sacramental or covenantal obligations, depending on whether an episcopalian or presbyterian polity, explictly rather than being based upon self-interest and anarchy but these perhaps were contrary to his pretensions of political science, personal sensibilities, and due deference at the time. His distinction of paternal and lordly dominion from commonwealth deserves fleshing out as it suggests Hobbes recognized not all or even most government arose from covenants but from more natural means, although this probably didn’t serve his immediate interests either.

[Adrián Viéitez]

A priori, su interés como doctrina política es historiográfico: Hobbes es un escalón necesario entre las proclamas totalitarias de Maquiavelo y la fiebre contractualista del siglo XVIII. En cualquier caso, y aunque no comparta sus alternativas, me parece que resulta de lo más contemporánea su crítica a la democracia —al plantearla como una forma más de totalitarismo, a su juicio más desorganizada y falible—.

Por lo demás, ¡menudo lector de la Biblia era Hobbes! No me interesa mucho su estrechez hermenéutica, pero me impresiona mucho su exhaustividad.

[Eric Cagnant · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hobbes pose avec cet ouvrage paru en 1642 les fondements de la philosophie politique. Certes, d'autres avant lui (Platon, Aristote, Saint Thomas...) avait tenté d'embrasser le chantier des fondements d'une civilisation mais c'est Hobbes avec cet ouvrage qui jette vraiment les bases de ce que sont que l'état de nature, l'Etat, les pactes, les alliances, les formes de gouvernements, etc...un monument donc qui sera affiné et complété par son oeuvre majeure quelques années plus tard, le Léviathan.

[Laurent Dv · Rating 4 out of 5]

La version précédente du Léviathan, plus courte, quasiment le même contenu à part (même plan et mêmes chapitres quasiment) certaines sections qui entrent plus en détails sur des sujets (exemple la loi naturelle) ou avancent des thèses qui disparaitront (exemple le fait du punir les athées ou discussion là dessus). Traduction agréable à lire, bonne édition avec gros caractères et introduction utile, notes de bas de page copieuses et érudites.

[Fausto Lammoglia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Questo testo è un caposaldo della filosofia politica che, troppo spesso, è stato maltrattato. Per come viene insegnato e studiato, Hobbes viene non compreso nelle superiori. Il suo punto di vista, che è e rimane monarchico, fa però una ottima analisi dei meccanismi democratici (che, per lui, sono a fondamento anche della monarchia).

Quindi, al di là delle parti religiose (che sono comunque un di più), è un testo importante per la riflessione politica.

[Tona Negrete · Rating 4 out of 5]

El primer escrito de Hobbes que leo y que, sinceramente, me parece interesante a más no poder.
Si hubo cuestiones en las que no terminé de concordar con el autor, pero que al fin y al cabo sirven mucho para reflexionar, además de pensar.
Después de este libro, me quedan más ganas de leer su Leviatán... Aunque tal vez más adelante.

[N Perrin · Rating 3 out of 5]

De Cive can be read as a kind of preliminary draft of Leviathan which can stand on its own ground as an important formulation of political philosophy but is expanded and improved through the Leviathan which was written only a few years later.

[Jaq · Rating 2 out of 5]

'Perciò, che si debba cercare la pace, finché resta qualche speranza di ottenerla; e quando non si può ottenerla, che si debba cercare aiuti per la guerra.'

[cinlin]

Read chapters I "Of the State of Men Without Civil Society" and II "Of the Law of Nature Concerning Contracts" for Philosophical Ethics.

[Naitirofanboy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Capítulos 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14

[Ernesto Medina]

Ar

[Aaron Schuschu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Basically, contracts suck, because human nature, and then Jesus fixes everything

[Guida Al·lès · Rating 4 out of 5]

"La revancha, si sólo mira hacia el pasado, no es nada más que un cierto triunfo y gloria del yo, que no apunta a ninguna finalidad, pues la finalidad es algo por venir. Mas aquello que no tiene finalidad es vano". (pàg 88).

[Jacob Rose · Rating 5 out of 5]

pretty raunchy, puts hobbes in a far better context than it is given credit for

[Jacob Rose · Rating 5 out of 5]

cant find this in english, but basically diet leviathan