What do you think?
Rate this book
Leviathan
This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery.
836 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1651
4560 people are currently reading
106472 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Hobbes
673 books1,027 followersThomas 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.
He was also a scholar of classical Greek history and literature, and produced English translation of Illiad, Odyssey and History of Peloponnesian War.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,536 reviews
January 12, 2008
Not only did I disagree with Hobbes' conclusions, I find his assumptions (his arguments based entirely in Christian perspective) essentially worthless. The only value this tract served to me is to "know thy enemy". This is a classic example of mental circus tricks being used to justify the march of Christian dominance across the globe. I can't think of any written text that I despise more, except perhaps Mein Kempf.
Hobbes is my least favorite philosopher. He embodies everything I despise in Western thought. If I met Hobbes in the street I would flash him my tits and then slap him in the face and call him a pervert.
Hobbes is my least favorite philosopher. He embodies everything I despise in Western thought. If I met Hobbes in the street I would flash him my tits and then slap him in the face and call him a pervert.
March 26, 2013
Since some reviewers here seem to rate this work unfairly low because of their disagreements, ignoring both the importance of Leviathan and the basic power of the argument Hobbes forwards in it, I'll refer a couple of good, measured reviews with history and backdrop also found here-
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Originally I planned to adapt an essay I wrote at university on Hobbes and Leviathan (with comparisons against Locke, Rousseau and others) to serve as a review, but it's rather unwieldy and a few of its less esoteric and elaborate points have been made very well and succinctly in some of the accounts above.
Hobbes is the most influential figure in political thinking when it comes to what might broadly be called 'pessimistic philosophy' (contra Leibniz), and in this sense he makes an excellent, more formal and treatise-like accompaniment to the works of Voltaire (whose 'philosophical tales' especially are, beyond the characteristic wit on display, also immensely enjoyable; Kafka, and to certain more personal extent Beckett, are also commendable reads). He doesn't so much set out a modus operandi for a ruler as the Arthshastra or The Prince attempt to do, but tries to justify the power to be accorded a ruler, basically obliterating some of the more open concerns a statesman might have to tactically contend with in Machiavelli. But it may be that of all of Leviathan's contributions, the eponymous Leviathan in the sense of an absolute monarch is the superfluous part.
Given its age, the language of Leviathan is remarkably clear and precise, emphatic as necessary and quite accessible. Hobbes sets out his arguments with almost mathematical proof-like care however, and the book may require patience. I had lecture notes to guide me through when I first read important selections, and perhaps something of that nature will be helpful.
I more recently found it a fascinating exercise to study the thought of this 'school' (roughly speaking) in the context of modern evolutionary thinking as found in very accessible but also rigorous accounts like The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.
Of course, just as science with its empirical concerns does not prescribe but might inform efficient and effective methods for achieving an aim, the pessimists are not prescriptive- they simply caution in the way dystopia in fiction doesn't provide constructive commentary as utopia does, but serve (when done right, in the manner of Orwell for instance) as elaborate warning tales. It is wrong to think of them, especially Hobbes, as social Darwinists. There is willful misinterpretation on nearly every side of modern politics when it comes to philosophers like Hobbes so that arguments which come from the pedestrian self-help-esque philosophy of the likes of Ayn Rand or readings that miss the outré humour of de Sade can be cloaked in the appearance of erudition and thus made less incendiary when shamelessly carted out. This propensity is far from lessened by the argument in Leviathan for monarchy and the easy clamour citing this gains from those blinded and made to follow complacently by the very term 'democracy', whether true in fact or not.
It is perfectly fair to say that Hobbes, with interests very relevant to him personally in his day, fails to give due consideration to other forms of governance than the one he advocates, but this shortcoming does not invalidate or at all detract from the conundrum he poses about trust within his 'state of nature', or the dangers of it. The situation is akin to the Prisoner's Dilemma from game theory and there is the question of what's rational for the society on the whole against what is rational for the individual at each decision. The implications from biology of trust-favouring behaviours and the evolutionarily stable equilibria which may come about through such strategies further elucidate our notions on the human condition when considered alongside the basic problem.
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Originally I planned to adapt an essay I wrote at university on Hobbes and Leviathan (with comparisons against Locke, Rousseau and others) to serve as a review, but it's rather unwieldy and a few of its less esoteric and elaborate points have been made very well and succinctly in some of the accounts above.
Hobbes is the most influential figure in political thinking when it comes to what might broadly be called 'pessimistic philosophy' (contra Leibniz), and in this sense he makes an excellent, more formal and treatise-like accompaniment to the works of Voltaire (whose 'philosophical tales' especially are, beyond the characteristic wit on display, also immensely enjoyable; Kafka, and to certain more personal extent Beckett, are also commendable reads). He doesn't so much set out a modus operandi for a ruler as the Arthshastra or The Prince attempt to do, but tries to justify the power to be accorded a ruler, basically obliterating some of the more open concerns a statesman might have to tactically contend with in Machiavelli. But it may be that of all of Leviathan's contributions, the eponymous Leviathan in the sense of an absolute monarch is the superfluous part.
Given its age, the language of Leviathan is remarkably clear and precise, emphatic as necessary and quite accessible. Hobbes sets out his arguments with almost mathematical proof-like care however, and the book may require patience. I had lecture notes to guide me through when I first read important selections, and perhaps something of that nature will be helpful.
I more recently found it a fascinating exercise to study the thought of this 'school' (roughly speaking) in the context of modern evolutionary thinking as found in very accessible but also rigorous accounts like The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.
Of course, just as science with its empirical concerns does not prescribe but might inform efficient and effective methods for achieving an aim, the pessimists are not prescriptive- they simply caution in the way dystopia in fiction doesn't provide constructive commentary as utopia does, but serve (when done right, in the manner of Orwell for instance) as elaborate warning tales. It is wrong to think of them, especially Hobbes, as social Darwinists. There is willful misinterpretation on nearly every side of modern politics when it comes to philosophers like Hobbes so that arguments which come from the pedestrian self-help-esque philosophy of the likes of Ayn Rand or readings that miss the outré humour of de Sade can be cloaked in the appearance of erudition and thus made less incendiary when shamelessly carted out. This propensity is far from lessened by the argument in Leviathan for monarchy and the easy clamour citing this gains from those blinded and made to follow complacently by the very term 'democracy', whether true in fact or not.
It is perfectly fair to say that Hobbes, with interests very relevant to him personally in his day, fails to give due consideration to other forms of governance than the one he advocates, but this shortcoming does not invalidate or at all detract from the conundrum he poses about trust within his 'state of nature', or the dangers of it. The situation is akin to the Prisoner's Dilemma from game theory and there is the question of what's rational for the society on the whole against what is rational for the individual at each decision. The implications from biology of trust-favouring behaviours and the evolutionarily stable equilibria which may come about through such strategies further elucidate our notions on the human condition when considered alongside the basic problem.
July 20, 2018
Both the conclusions and methodology of "Leviathan" are shocking to the modern reader.
Writing in the seventeenth century, Hobbes attacked medieval political philosophy and religion. However, unlike the enlightenment philosophers he did not base his arguments on the classical authors of Greece and Rome. Instead he made it clear that he considered them to be as much in the wrong as the medieval scholastics. Thus starting from zero, Hobbes then developed the doctrine that every nation or commonwealth requires a undivided sovereign. To the contemporary reader, Hobbes seems to be arguing that we would all be best living in a totalitarian regime.
In Hobbes view men are evil wishing by instinct to dominate and exploit their fellow men. Hence every commonwealth needs to be ruled by a strong sovereign to protect the members of the commonwealth from each other. The sovereign can be a single person, an aristocracy or a democracy. The single person system is best as it allows the most complete concentration of power.
For Hobbes a king and a tyrant are the same thing. Thus the Greeks and Romans of the classical era were wrong to praise tyrannicide and condemn regicide. Both were equally wrong. The crime of the long parliament was not that it executed Charles I, the divinely chosen King of England, but that it killed the sovereign and ensured that civil war would resume in England. Cromwell's great virtue was that he ended the war and protected the English population. The supremet good for the commonwealth member is to support the sovereign.
With the goal of demonstrating that the doctrine of the divine right of kings is nonsense, Hobbes devotes two of the four books of Leviathan to proving that religion is absurd. He fills pages referring to all the contradictions and absurdities in the Christian bible. He points out that there is no way to properly determine which texts belong in the bible and which do not. Even if one believes in God, one has to deal with the second problem which is that there is no way to prove the claims of any of those who claim to speak for God that they are indeed his representatives. Finally, Hobbes points out that the doctrine of the divine right of kings as defended by the Roman Catholic Church has no basis in scripture. Protestants, however, have little reason to be happy with Hobbes as he also demonstrates that many of their doctrines also lack basis in scripture.
Despite his audacity and vigour, posterity has not been kind to Hobbes. Absolutism and totalitarianism are dirty words in today's society. The political thinkers of the eighteenth century returned to the classical theory proposed by many authors but most eloquently by Polybius that the ideal situation is for power in a state to be divided between a king, an aristocracy and a democratically elected assembly. The problem is of course that it is easier to argue against Hobbes than it is to fight totalitarianism's instinctive appeal. In times of crisis, people tend to support strong dictators like Franco, protectors like Cromwell or strong men like Putin.
Writing in the seventeenth century, Hobbes attacked medieval political philosophy and religion. However, unlike the enlightenment philosophers he did not base his arguments on the classical authors of Greece and Rome. Instead he made it clear that he considered them to be as much in the wrong as the medieval scholastics. Thus starting from zero, Hobbes then developed the doctrine that every nation or commonwealth requires a undivided sovereign. To the contemporary reader, Hobbes seems to be arguing that we would all be best living in a totalitarian regime.
In Hobbes view men are evil wishing by instinct to dominate and exploit their fellow men. Hence every commonwealth needs to be ruled by a strong sovereign to protect the members of the commonwealth from each other. The sovereign can be a single person, an aristocracy or a democracy. The single person system is best as it allows the most complete concentration of power.
For Hobbes a king and a tyrant are the same thing. Thus the Greeks and Romans of the classical era were wrong to praise tyrannicide and condemn regicide. Both were equally wrong. The crime of the long parliament was not that it executed Charles I, the divinely chosen King of England, but that it killed the sovereign and ensured that civil war would resume in England. Cromwell's great virtue was that he ended the war and protected the English population. The supremet good for the commonwealth member is to support the sovereign.
With the goal of demonstrating that the doctrine of the divine right of kings is nonsense, Hobbes devotes two of the four books of Leviathan to proving that religion is absurd. He fills pages referring to all the contradictions and absurdities in the Christian bible. He points out that there is no way to properly determine which texts belong in the bible and which do not. Even if one believes in God, one has to deal with the second problem which is that there is no way to prove the claims of any of those who claim to speak for God that they are indeed his representatives. Finally, Hobbes points out that the doctrine of the divine right of kings as defended by the Roman Catholic Church has no basis in scripture. Protestants, however, have little reason to be happy with Hobbes as he also demonstrates that many of their doctrines also lack basis in scripture.
Despite his audacity and vigour, posterity has not been kind to Hobbes. Absolutism and totalitarianism are dirty words in today's society. The political thinkers of the eighteenth century returned to the classical theory proposed by many authors but most eloquently by Polybius that the ideal situation is for power in a state to be divided between a king, an aristocracy and a democratically elected assembly. The problem is of course that it is easier to argue against Hobbes than it is to fight totalitarianism's instinctive appeal. In times of crisis, people tend to support strong dictators like Franco, protectors like Cromwell or strong men like Putin.
April 3, 2017
Preface
A Scheme of Reference
Introduction
A Note on the Text
Select Bibliography
Chronology
--Leviathan, or The Matter, Forme, & Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civill
Explanatory Notes
Index of Subjects
A Scheme of Reference
Introduction
A Note on the Text
Select Bibliography
Chronology
--Leviathan, or The Matter, Forme, & Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civill
Explanatory Notes
Index of Subjects
September 18, 2021
هدفِ اصلی کتاب پاسخ به این پرسش است: چرا به دولت نیاز داریم؟
هابز برای انسان حقی را تعریف میکند به عنوانِ «حقِ طبیعی». حقِ طبیعی یعنی حقِ حفظِ منافع که میتواند منجر به قدرتطلبی و تجاوز به حقوقِ دیگران شود. در نتیجه هابز «وضعِ طبیعی» را وضعِ «جنگ همه علیه همه» میداند. و از اینجا به لزوم بکارگیریِ «قانونِ طبیعی» میرسد تا بتوان به مددِ آن حقوقِ انسانها را حفظ کرد و آنها را مجاب و مجبور کرد که به حقوقِ دیگران تجاوز نکنند. هابز با بسطِ این مفاهیم دولت را نهادی میداند که باید همه به نفعِ آن و با هدفِ حفظِ امنیت و حقوقشان، بخشی از حقوقشان را به آن واگذار کنند.
دولتِ ایدهآل و موفق از نظرِ هابز، دولتیست مقتدر و محق به انجام هر کاری. چرا که ارادهی دولت در عمل ارادهی اشخاصیست که برخی از حقوقِ خود را به آن واگذار کردهاند. و کسی حق ندارد نمایندهی محقِ خود را از حقوقاش محروم کند.
بخش اعظمی از کتاب در مورد دولتِ مسیحی در تقابل با دولتِ ظلمت است. هابز میکوشد که ریشههای دولت را در مسیحیت جستجو کند. این از جمله بخشهاییست که میتوان آن را روزنامهوار خواند.
در شروعِ کتاب هابز از انسان و حرکت صحبت میکند. حسیات، امیال، خیال، تفکر و همه چیز را براساس نوعی حرکت یا سکون در انسان شرح میدهد.
لویاتان نامِ موجودی خیالی و ترسناک است، استعاره از دولت. به نظرِ هابز انسانها بدون ترس خود را نسبت به هیچ قرارداری متعهد نمیدانند. پس دولت باید هر جا لازم باشد با توسل به ترس و زور کارش را پیش ببرد.
هابز برای انسان حقی را تعریف میکند به عنوانِ «حقِ طبیعی». حقِ طبیعی یعنی حقِ حفظِ منافع که میتواند منجر به قدرتطلبی و تجاوز به حقوقِ دیگران شود. در نتیجه هابز «وضعِ طبیعی» را وضعِ «جنگ همه علیه همه» میداند. و از اینجا به لزوم بکارگیریِ «قانونِ طبیعی» میرسد تا بتوان به مددِ آن حقوقِ انسانها را حفظ کرد و آنها را مجاب و مجبور کرد که به حقوقِ دیگران تجاوز نکنند. هابز با بسطِ این مفاهیم دولت را نهادی میداند که باید همه به نفعِ آن و با هدفِ حفظِ امنیت و حقوقشان، بخشی از حقوقشان را به آن واگذار کنند.
دولتِ ایدهآل و موفق از نظرِ هابز، دولتیست مقتدر و محق به انجام هر کاری. چرا که ارادهی دولت در عمل ارادهی اشخاصیست که برخی از حقوقِ خود را به آن واگذار کردهاند. و کسی حق ندارد نمایندهی محقِ خود را از حقوقاش محروم کند.
بخش اعظمی از کتاب در مورد دولتِ مسیحی در تقابل با دولتِ ظلمت است. هابز میکوشد که ریشههای دولت را در مسیحیت جستجو کند. این از جمله بخشهاییست که میتوان آن را روزنامهوار خواند.
در شروعِ کتاب هابز از انسان و حرکت صحبت میکند. حسیات، امیال، خیال، تفکر و همه چیز را براساس نوعی حرکت یا سکون در انسان شرح میدهد.
لویاتان نامِ موجودی خیالی و ترسناک است، استعاره از دولت. به نظرِ هابز انسانها بدون ترس خود را نسبت به هیچ قرارداری متعهد نمیدانند. پس دولت باید هر جا لازم باشد با توسل به ترس و زور کارش را پیش ببرد.
October 12, 2017
A Monster of a Book
12 Oct 2017
Woah, after three weeks I have finally managed to finish the behemoth of a book (which, ironically, Hobbes also wrote a book with that name) and I can now move onto something much lighter. Anyway, there was a time, when I was younger, when I was dreaming of one day getting married, having children, while becoming a hot shot lawyer (is it possible to actually do those two things) that I wanted to read this to my proposed child while he (or she) was still a baby. Mind you, I suggested this to one of my Christian friends, who proceeded to have a heart attack claiming that it was a humanist text similar to the writings of David Hume. Mind you, this particular person is now a lecturer in English Literature at Harvard University so I am still wondering why she was hugely shocked at this idea. Maybe it had something to do with wanting to read it to a baby.
Anyway, this is apparently the book that laid the foundation for political science as we know it today, though I am sort of scratching my head at this suggestion. First of all people have been writing about politics since people first tossed out their unelected kings and began to argue as to the best way to run a country, Mind you, those particular people, such as Plato, pretty quickly came to the conclusion that letting the mob make the rules on a principle of popularity was a pretty bad idea so decided to go back to the drawing board to work out how they can have a system where smart people actually run the country. Mind you, as my Classics history lecturer once told us, the problem with that idea was that all of the smart people actually had much better things to do than running a country. Okay, maybe Plato, being a smart person, would have been perfect for that position, but he seemed to end up spending more time trying to teach rulers how to be a smart ruler, and failing abysmally. As it turned out, being a smart ruler isn't a particularly easy thing to do, and in the end it is much easier to collect taxes and then use the said taxes to build palaces and to go around beating up all the people you don't like. At least Machiavelli had the right idea.
Hobbs seems to follow Plato's opinion, though he doesn't go as far as Machiavelli in actually telling rulers how to be successful rulers. Rather he spends the time exploring the nature of government, and instead of coming up with unworkable ideas, he basically looks at what is around him, and the traditions of the past, to come to the conclusion that the best form of government is a monarchical government based upon the principles of scripture. His theory is basically that because God is sovereign, and because God is the perfect ruler, then ergo the best form of government is that of a Christian king. However, as I have mentioned, the book is pretty chunky, and half of it deals with a theological exposition as to why the Bible supports monarchy. Well, not quite because he does come back to the point in the book of Samuel where the Israelites demand a king, and the main reason that happens is because the Israelites had decided that living under the constitution that God laid out was just that little too hard, and it seems that all of the nations around them were having a awful lot of fun, so why not just live like them. Well, for those of us who know their Bible know how that turned out.
A little context is probably in order though. Hobbes wrote this book during the English Civil war, which was an incredibly messy affair. Basically you had the Catholic monarch on one side wanting to do things his way, and the protestant parliament on the other side basically telling him to bugger off and mind his own business. Things got messier, and messier, and it resulted in Charles basically having his head lopped off. Well, that didn't particularly solve anything because, much like the French revolution, it left a power vacuum. Well, not quite, because they did have Oliver Cormwell, but it turned out that they didn't have an effective succession plan in place, and in the end, when Cormwell died, his son took over, with the resultant mess that ended up with them asking the king to come back and take over.
Hobbes' ideas probably won't sit well in our so called advanced Democracies these days, but then again look at who landed up as President of the United States – a Reality TV star. Okay, he wasn't the only actor to have been elected President, but at least Reagan was a tried and true union man (if you consider the Screen Actors Guild a union, but serious – it is). Mind you, we in Australia can't comment because we elected Tony Abbott – a misogynist that when asked what he felt about the LGBT community, the reply was 'they make me feel uncomfortable'. Actually, when asked to comment on an Australian soldier that was killed in Afghanistan, he reply was 'shit happens' (I kid you not). Well, at least you can say that that is the typical Australian response.
Mind you, while I'm no big fan of totalitarianism, you have to admit that this whole democratic experiment, at least in the west, is pretty messed up. Well, not quite, because the Germans have seemed to have worked it out quite well, and seem to be chugging along quite happily. Even the British seem to have some reasonably level headed people in power (and whatever you think of Teresa May, at least she is nowhere near as bad as Tony Abbot, or the Trumpet for that matter).
Yet, despite Hobbes not really being as applicable to our times, in a way he is. He was looking at a country that was in a complete mess and his solution was to go back to the tried and true method – a king – it certainly had to be better that people running around shooting each other. Maybe we could solve our problems by asking Angela Merkel to come over here and sort us out. Hey, at least the Norwegians made sure that the mining companies actually paid for all of the minerals they took out of their lands – over here we simply let them take them. If I were to walk into a shop and start helping myself to all of their goodies I'd be arrested. I guess that is what the matra of 'jobs, growth, and opportunity' gets you these days.
12 Oct 2017
Woah, after three weeks I have finally managed to finish the behemoth of a book (which, ironically, Hobbes also wrote a book with that name) and I can now move onto something much lighter. Anyway, there was a time, when I was younger, when I was dreaming of one day getting married, having children, while becoming a hot shot lawyer (is it possible to actually do those two things) that I wanted to read this to my proposed child while he (or she) was still a baby. Mind you, I suggested this to one of my Christian friends, who proceeded to have a heart attack claiming that it was a humanist text similar to the writings of David Hume. Mind you, this particular person is now a lecturer in English Literature at Harvard University so I am still wondering why she was hugely shocked at this idea. Maybe it had something to do with wanting to read it to a baby.
Anyway, this is apparently the book that laid the foundation for political science as we know it today, though I am sort of scratching my head at this suggestion. First of all people have been writing about politics since people first tossed out their unelected kings and began to argue as to the best way to run a country, Mind you, those particular people, such as Plato, pretty quickly came to the conclusion that letting the mob make the rules on a principle of popularity was a pretty bad idea so decided to go back to the drawing board to work out how they can have a system where smart people actually run the country. Mind you, as my Classics history lecturer once told us, the problem with that idea was that all of the smart people actually had much better things to do than running a country. Okay, maybe Plato, being a smart person, would have been perfect for that position, but he seemed to end up spending more time trying to teach rulers how to be a smart ruler, and failing abysmally. As it turned out, being a smart ruler isn't a particularly easy thing to do, and in the end it is much easier to collect taxes and then use the said taxes to build palaces and to go around beating up all the people you don't like. At least Machiavelli had the right idea.
Hobbs seems to follow Plato's opinion, though he doesn't go as far as Machiavelli in actually telling rulers how to be successful rulers. Rather he spends the time exploring the nature of government, and instead of coming up with unworkable ideas, he basically looks at what is around him, and the traditions of the past, to come to the conclusion that the best form of government is a monarchical government based upon the principles of scripture. His theory is basically that because God is sovereign, and because God is the perfect ruler, then ergo the best form of government is that of a Christian king. However, as I have mentioned, the book is pretty chunky, and half of it deals with a theological exposition as to why the Bible supports monarchy. Well, not quite because he does come back to the point in the book of Samuel where the Israelites demand a king, and the main reason that happens is because the Israelites had decided that living under the constitution that God laid out was just that little too hard, and it seems that all of the nations around them were having a awful lot of fun, so why not just live like them. Well, for those of us who know their Bible know how that turned out.
A little context is probably in order though. Hobbes wrote this book during the English Civil war, which was an incredibly messy affair. Basically you had the Catholic monarch on one side wanting to do things his way, and the protestant parliament on the other side basically telling him to bugger off and mind his own business. Things got messier, and messier, and it resulted in Charles basically having his head lopped off. Well, that didn't particularly solve anything because, much like the French revolution, it left a power vacuum. Well, not quite, because they did have Oliver Cormwell, but it turned out that they didn't have an effective succession plan in place, and in the end, when Cormwell died, his son took over, with the resultant mess that ended up with them asking the king to come back and take over.
Hobbes' ideas probably won't sit well in our so called advanced Democracies these days, but then again look at who landed up as President of the United States – a Reality TV star. Okay, he wasn't the only actor to have been elected President, but at least Reagan was a tried and true union man (if you consider the Screen Actors Guild a union, but serious – it is). Mind you, we in Australia can't comment because we elected Tony Abbott – a misogynist that when asked what he felt about the LGBT community, the reply was 'they make me feel uncomfortable'. Actually, when asked to comment on an Australian soldier that was killed in Afghanistan, he reply was 'shit happens' (I kid you not). Well, at least you can say that that is the typical Australian response.
Mind you, while I'm no big fan of totalitarianism, you have to admit that this whole democratic experiment, at least in the west, is pretty messed up. Well, not quite, because the Germans have seemed to have worked it out quite well, and seem to be chugging along quite happily. Even the British seem to have some reasonably level headed people in power (and whatever you think of Teresa May, at least she is nowhere near as bad as Tony Abbot, or the Trumpet for that matter).
Yet, despite Hobbes not really being as applicable to our times, in a way he is. He was looking at a country that was in a complete mess and his solution was to go back to the tried and true method – a king – it certainly had to be better that people running around shooting each other. Maybe we could solve our problems by asking Angela Merkel to come over here and sort us out. Hey, at least the Norwegians made sure that the mining companies actually paid for all of the minerals they took out of their lands – over here we simply let them take them. If I were to walk into a shop and start helping myself to all of their goodies I'd be arrested. I guess that is what the matra of 'jobs, growth, and opportunity' gets you these days.
February 7, 2025
خواندن هابز تقریبا نیازی به پیشنیاز ندارد؛ زیرا هابز پس از ماکیاولی، مبدع فلسفهی سیاسی مدرن است و بنابراین شروع بحث است. منتها بد نیست برای درک نحوهی گسست او از کلاسیکها، لااقل جمهور افلاطون و سیاست ارسطو خوانده شود؛ اما اصلا و ابدا واجب نیست. خود هابز کافی است.
هیچ خوانش و شرح صوتی یا تصویری از متن کتاب به انگلیسی و فارسی موجود نیست، مگر یکی که معرفی خواهم کرد. البته تا دلتان بخواهد تک-جلساتی هستند روی اینترنت که به این کتاب یا هابز به طور کلی میپردازند.
مقدمه را بعد از اتمام کتاب بخوانید و نه اولش. هرچند کلا مقدمهی مکفرسون (که بشیریه مقدمهی ایشان را آورده) فقط در بخش معرفی هابز خوب است؛ نقدهایش به هابز به نظرم اصلا وارد نیستند و ناشی از نقطه نظر تنگ مارکسیستی است. مثل همیشه نقدم به این نقدها را در حاشیهی کتاب یادداشت کردهام و اگر لازم شد مطرح خواهم کرد.
و اما درسگفتار. دکتر مسعود انصاری فوقالعاده هستند. بیشتر فصول مهم بخش اول و دوم کتاب را پوشش دادهاند. یعنی قلهی هابز را برای شما فتح میکنند و بعدش میتوانید روی پای خودتان باقی فصول را مطالعه کنید. لینک زیر، اولین وویس این مجموعه است، اما برای باقی وویسها باید کمی در کانال ایشان جستجو کنید تا کل آرشیو را بیابید:
https://t.me/persianliteratures/3416
یک ترجمه از برخی فصلهای بخش دوم (دولت) توسط محمود صناعی انجام شده قبل از انقلاب. اما خوشبختانه دکتر بشیریه همت کردهاند و بخش سوم و چهارم کتاب را هم ترجمه کردهاند؛ بخشهایی که به اندازهی فصول مربوط به دولت، معروف نیستند. خواندن کل کتاب ضروری است برای محققان جدی فلسفهی سیاسی.
هیچ خوانش و شرح صوتی یا تصویری از متن کتاب به انگلیسی و فارسی موجود نیست، مگر یکی که معرفی خواهم کرد. البته تا دلتان بخواهد تک-جلساتی هستند روی اینترنت که به این کتاب یا هابز به طور کلی میپردازند.
مقدمه را بعد از اتمام کتاب بخوانید و نه اولش. هرچند کلا مقدمهی مکفرسون (که بشیریه مقدمهی ایشان را آورده) فقط در بخش معرفی هابز خوب است؛ نقدهایش به هابز به نظرم اصلا وارد نیستند و ناشی از نقطه نظر تنگ مارکسیستی است. مثل همیشه نقدم به این نقدها را در حاشیهی کتاب یادداشت کردهام و اگر لازم شد مطرح خواهم کرد.
و اما درسگفتار. دکتر مسعود انصاری فوقالعاده هستند. بیشتر فصول مهم بخش اول و دوم کتاب را پوشش دادهاند. یعنی قلهی هابز را برای شما فتح میکنند و بعدش میتوانید روی پای خودتان باقی فصول را مطالعه کنید. لینک زیر، اولین وویس این مجموعه است، اما برای باقی وویسها باید کمی در کانال ایشان جستجو کنید تا کل آرشیو را بیابید:
https://t.me/persianliteratures/3416
یک ترجمه از برخی فصلهای بخش دوم (دولت) توسط محمود صناعی انجام شده قبل از انقلاب. اما خوشبختانه دکتر بشیریه همت کردهاند و بخش سوم و چهارم کتاب را هم ترجمه کردهاند؛ بخشهایی که به اندازهی فصول مربوط به دولت، معروف نیستند. خواندن کل کتاب ضروری است برای محققان جدی فلسفهی سیاسی.
August 19, 2010
Though considered to be one of the most influential works of political thought, this manages to be both tedious and frightening – tedious because of Hobbes’s labored phrasing and protracted reasoning, and frightening because his conclusions have been put into play by stars like Stalin and Pol Pot. In brief, Hobbes argues for a strong central government headed by an absolute sovereign.
Frankly, I can’t imagine anyone liking Hobbes, as his take on social contract theory supports the theoretical groundwork for constitutional monarchy instead of republicanism. But some of his other theories are a bit more intriguingly off. I’d love to have a dinner party with Hobbes and a couple of Romantic poets – maybe Wordsworth and Coleridge – and ask them what they thought of Hobbes’s assertion that imagination is “nothing but decaying sense” and is the same as memory. Maybe throw in Yeats as well! That would be even more entertaining than a soiree with Hobbes and Jefferson.
Frankly, I can’t imagine anyone liking Hobbes, as his take on social contract theory supports the theoretical groundwork for constitutional monarchy instead of republicanism. But some of his other theories are a bit more intriguingly off. I’d love to have a dinner party with Hobbes and a couple of Romantic poets – maybe Wordsworth and Coleridge – and ask them what they thought of Hobbes’s assertion that imagination is “nothing but decaying sense” and is the same as memory. Maybe throw in Yeats as well! That would be even more entertaining than a soiree with Hobbes and Jefferson.
September 6, 2022
_ کسی که به صرف لطف کس دیگری سودی عایدش میشود باید چنان عمل کند که شخص بخشنده از عملش که مبتنی بر حسن نیت بوده پشیمان نشود.
خلاصه تموم شد . خیلی خوشحالم. خیلی. حتما واسه خودم یه هدیه میخرم🤪.
و اما کتاب
کلی درگیری ذهنی ایجاد کرد واسم. بعضی وقتها در مقابل حرف هاش کم میاوردم. خیلی رُک حقیقتُ میکوبه به صورت آدم. و یه جاهایی ام احساس کردم نویسنده داره زیرآبی میره تا حرف حرف خودش بشه!
کتاب رو به عنوان یک اثر سیاسی میشناسن اما ورق که بزنید رگه هایی از انسان شناسی هم میبینید.
هابز برای اطمینان از برداشت درست مخاطب در مورد زبان شناسی خودش هم حرف میزنه که مقصود و منظور از برخی گفته ها و واژه ها چیه.
۵۰۰ صفحه است اما دوبرابر این نکته داره. باید با صبر و تامل بخونید. عجله نکنید. پیشنهادم اینه از کتاب های کمکی هم استفاده کنید.
متن یه جاهایی فهمش خیلی ساده میشه اما گول نخورید پشت این حرف ها، حرف هایی پنهان هست و واقعا منظور اون چیزی نیست که نوشته شده.
کتاب های کمکی من:
۱ راهنمای خواندن لویاتان، جانسون بگبی، مجتبی هاتف
۲ اندیشه هابز، ریچارد تاک، حسین بشیریه
۳ هابز، استفان جی.فین، محمد مصحفی
۴ هابز، جورج مک دانلد راس، مسعود آذر فام
۵ فلسفه هابز، مارشال میسنر، خشایار دیهیمی
۶ توماس هابز و سیاست فلسفه طبیعی، استفان جی.فین، زهرا تدین
۷ هابز و آزادی جمهوری خواهانه کوئنتین اسکینر، هرمز همایون فر
و بزودی اضافه میکنم که هر کدوم از این کتاب ها چقدر کمک کرده.
_ وای به حال زندگان، وای به حال مردگان، خوشا به حال آنکس که نه زنده شد و نه مُرد.
_ زندگی صرفا حرکت اندام هاست و سرمنشا حرکت هم عمدتا درونی است.
_ عقل و درایت نه حاصل مطالعه کتاب ها بلکه نتیجه مطالعه احوال آدمیان است.
_ زمان حال تنها در طبیعت وجود دارد، امور گذشته تنها در خاطره وجود دارند، اما امور آینده اصلا وجود ندارند. آینده تنها توهم ذهن است که توالی اعمال گذشته را بذ زمان حاضر اعمال میکند.
_ آخرین میل در جریان تامل اراده خوانده میشود.
اگر بخوام ادامه بدم از هیچ خط کتاب نمیتونم بگذرم.
پیش به سوی بهیموت
خلاصه تموم شد . خیلی خوشحالم. خیلی. حتما واسه خودم یه هدیه میخرم🤪.
و اما کتاب
کلی درگیری ذهنی ایجاد کرد واسم. بعضی وقتها در مقابل حرف هاش کم میاوردم. خیلی رُک حقیقتُ میکوبه به صورت آدم. و یه جاهایی ام احساس کردم نویسنده داره زیرآبی میره تا حرف حرف خودش بشه!
کتاب رو به عنوان یک اثر سیاسی میشناسن اما ورق که بزنید رگه هایی از انسان شناسی هم میبینید.
هابز برای اطمینان از برداشت درست مخاطب در مورد زبان شناسی خودش هم حرف میزنه که مقصود و منظور از برخی گفته ها و واژه ها چیه.
۵۰۰ صفحه است اما دوبرابر این نکته داره. باید با صبر و تامل بخونید. عجله نکنید. پیشنهادم اینه از کتاب های کمکی هم استفاده کنید.
متن یه جاهایی فهمش خیلی ساده میشه اما گول نخورید پشت این حرف ها، حرف هایی پنهان هست و واقعا منظور اون چیزی نیست که نوشته شده.
کتاب های کمکی من:
۱ راهنمای خواندن لویاتان، جانسون بگبی، مجتبی هاتف
۲ اندیشه هابز، ریچارد تاک، حسین بشیریه
۳ هابز، استفان جی.فین، محمد مصحفی
۴ هابز، جورج مک دانلد راس، مسعود آذر فام
۵ فلسفه هابز، مارشال میسنر، خشایار دیهیمی
۶ توماس هابز و سیاست فلسفه طبیعی، استفان جی.فین، زهرا تدین
۷ هابز و آزادی جمهوری خواهانه کوئنتین اسکینر، هرمز همایون فر
و بزودی اضافه میکنم که هر کدوم از این کتاب ها چقدر کمک کرده.
_ وای به حال زندگان، وای به حال مردگان، خوشا به حال آنکس که نه زنده شد و نه مُرد.
_ زندگی صرفا حرکت اندام هاست و سرمنشا حرکت هم عمدتا درونی است.
_ عقل و درایت نه حاصل مطالعه کتاب ها بلکه نتیجه مطالعه احوال آدمیان است.
_ زمان حال تنها در طبیعت وجود دارد، امور گذشته تنها در خاطره وجود دارند، اما امور آینده اصلا وجود ندارند. آینده تنها توهم ذهن است که توالی اعمال گذشته را بذ زمان حاضر اعمال میکند.
_ آخرین میل در جریان تامل اراده خوانده میشود.
اگر بخوام ادامه بدم از هیچ خط کتاب نمیتونم بگذرم.
پیش به سوی بهیموت
Read
May 8, 2024well…i’m reading my lecturer’s second book for my finals so🫠🙃
december 14
i actually read my lecturer’s book for the exam but i can’t add his book here because it has 7 reviews and he might see my profile🤚🏻 so i’m gonna mark this one for my challenge😌
december 14
i actually read my lecturer’s book for the exam but i can’t add his book here because it has 7 reviews and he might see my profile🤚🏻 so i’m gonna mark this one for my challenge😌
August 2, 2018
Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları’nın "Thomas Hobbes" biyografisini okuduktan sonra okuduğum için ünlü düşünürün felsefesini anlamakta zorluk çekmeden okuduğum "Leviathan", özellikle "İnsan Üzerine”" ve "Devlet Üzerine" olan ilk iki bölümüyle neden okunması gereken felsefi başyapıtlar arasında olduğunu ortaya koyuyor. Özgür irade olmadığının altını çizen Hobbes, iradenin özgür olduğunu vurgularken devlet kurumu olmadan insanların yaratılışları itibariyle kontrol altına alınamadığını etkileyici bir şekilde okuyucuya sunuyor. İnsanların özgürlüklerinden vazgeçmeleriyle ancak barışın ve huzurun sağlanacağını belirten "Leviathan", Platoncu monarşik bir devlet anlayışını desteklerken, Aristotelesçi skolastik felsefeyi ağır bir dille eleştiriyor. Doğal yerine "devlet" ve "yasa" gibi yapay oluşumları tercih eden Hobbes’un Tanrı ve dini kavramları maddesel bir zemine yerleştirerek "inanç" kavramında çığır açması da yazarı özel kılan unsurlardan. Yazdıklarıyla yozlaşmış katolik kilisenin otoristesini reddederek bir nevi laik düşüncenin önünü açan "Leviathan"ın son iki bölümünde ise ne yazık ki ilk iki bölümün etkisini bulmak zor. Yine de okudukça yeni şeyler bulduğunuz eserin “hiç kimsenin kazancına veya keyfine zarar vermeyen gerçekler, herkesçe benimsenir.” son cümlesi bile kitabın önemini ortaya koyuyor. Platon, Aristoteles, Cicero, Farabi, Erasmus, Machiavelli, Frances Bacon ve Thomas More’dan okunması gerektiğini düşündüğüm "Leviathan", gerçekten okunması gereken felsefi eserler arasında.
03.05.2018
İstanbul, Türkiye
Alp Turgut
03.05.2018
İstanbul, Türkiye
Alp Turgut
April 5, 2017
Hobbes’s Leviathan appears draconian to most Americans who ascribe to classical liberal values. Their rejection of his social contract coincides with an optimistic Lockean faith in the capabilities and moral fortitude necessary for negative liberties to survive. This naïveté in political legitimacy is analogous to the popularity of the New Testament compared to the Old because, while both texts share equal moral instruction, we fervently prefer a loving and forgiving God to a brutal taskmaster. Hobbesian pessimism in human nature is a cold bucket of water tempering our enthusiastic assumption of a free polis because it demonstrates how democratic freedom is contingent upon the behavior everyone demonstrates.
My political science professor’s ad hominem disparagement of Hobbes as paranoid and neurotic was troubling, given that Hobbes’s support for a Leviathan with absolute sovereignty remains a soberly empirical definition of power and fundamental governmental purpose. Fear of death is the primary motivation for our surrender to political authority. A government's legitimacy therefore necessitates the capacity for retributive action against internal and external threats. The power of the individual and group is relational to the behavioral impact they exact on others. Individual rights and liberties independent of government remain the exception, not the rule, of most persons throughout recorded history, past and present.
How and why do the rights outlined by John Locke, that we often take for granted, exist at all? They depend on the internal morality of the individual who receives them, which themselves depend on Enlightenment values held dear by everyone around that person. I do not think that we are born blank slates in the state of nature, or cynically view moral sentiments as a vacuous social construct. Reading Hobbes’s brutal state and laws of nature, however, brought to mind the inculcations of parents, Sunday School instructors and Sesame Street screenwriters. Socrates’s description of a rational portion of our brain that holds back the appetitive beast within us, for example, is emblematic of an internal Leviathan each individual conscience tacitly consents to for a free society to be possible.
The gradual shift in favorability towards democracy, from Socratic aversion to Jeffersonian approval based upon Locke, reflected the piecemeal formation of internal Leviathans that made democracy possible. Plato’s polemical attack in the Republic against democracy as an ideology suited for morally relativistic pigs made sense, given the amorality of those around him who ignored philosophic truth and diffidently sentenced Socrates to death. His opposition to democracy reflected the observable reality of Hobbes’s first law of nature, namely an avaricious Tony Montana attitude commonly held towards other individuals and groups at that time. Democracy only became a viable alternative to absolute sovereignty after the humble and prudential values diffused by the burgeoning bourgeoisie of Locke’s time attained widespread acceptance. If the hypothetical man of the state of nature is self-reliantly rational and reasonable rather than nasty and brutish, we can entrust him with freedom without risking our security from death.
The American middle class is often derisively mocked at my University for the values its members hold dear. Their sexual abstention, proudly traditional religiosity, and lowly aspirations for a quiet life of monetary gain with a nuclear family strike many supposed “free spirits” as an archaic edifice to topple. The eternal Hobbesian preeminence of security within us, however, makes it wiser to consider the utilitarian importance of their self-restraint for the preservation of any freedom at all.
My political science professor’s ad hominem disparagement of Hobbes as paranoid and neurotic was troubling, given that Hobbes’s support for a Leviathan with absolute sovereignty remains a soberly empirical definition of power and fundamental governmental purpose. Fear of death is the primary motivation for our surrender to political authority. A government's legitimacy therefore necessitates the capacity for retributive action against internal and external threats. The power of the individual and group is relational to the behavioral impact they exact on others. Individual rights and liberties independent of government remain the exception, not the rule, of most persons throughout recorded history, past and present.
How and why do the rights outlined by John Locke, that we often take for granted, exist at all? They depend on the internal morality of the individual who receives them, which themselves depend on Enlightenment values held dear by everyone around that person. I do not think that we are born blank slates in the state of nature, or cynically view moral sentiments as a vacuous social construct. Reading Hobbes’s brutal state and laws of nature, however, brought to mind the inculcations of parents, Sunday School instructors and Sesame Street screenwriters. Socrates’s description of a rational portion of our brain that holds back the appetitive beast within us, for example, is emblematic of an internal Leviathan each individual conscience tacitly consents to for a free society to be possible.
The gradual shift in favorability towards democracy, from Socratic aversion to Jeffersonian approval based upon Locke, reflected the piecemeal formation of internal Leviathans that made democracy possible. Plato’s polemical attack in the Republic against democracy as an ideology suited for morally relativistic pigs made sense, given the amorality of those around him who ignored philosophic truth and diffidently sentenced Socrates to death. His opposition to democracy reflected the observable reality of Hobbes’s first law of nature, namely an avaricious Tony Montana attitude commonly held towards other individuals and groups at that time. Democracy only became a viable alternative to absolute sovereignty after the humble and prudential values diffused by the burgeoning bourgeoisie of Locke’s time attained widespread acceptance. If the hypothetical man of the state of nature is self-reliantly rational and reasonable rather than nasty and brutish, we can entrust him with freedom without risking our security from death.
The American middle class is often derisively mocked at my University for the values its members hold dear. Their sexual abstention, proudly traditional religiosity, and lowly aspirations for a quiet life of monetary gain with a nuclear family strike many supposed “free spirits” as an archaic edifice to topple. The eternal Hobbesian preeminence of security within us, however, makes it wiser to consider the utilitarian importance of their self-restraint for the preservation of any freedom at all.
September 21, 2017
hobbes' theory is a misanthropic, elitist vision that humans are basically corrupt, evil and stupid, and must be lead by a far-sighted guardian or "leviathan" which enforces private property relations and prevents people from following their "evil impulses."
yikes.
May 31, 2009
Three essential hallmarks of the Hobbesian system are important: the war of each against all, the role of human rationality in ending this; the use of knowledge/science as a basis for societal engineering. His view of the state of nature--that time before government and the state existed--is unsurprising when one understands that he was born in the year of the erstwhile invasion by the Spanish Armada (1588) and lived through civil turmoil and revolution in England throughout his life.
Hobbes begins with a view of human life that would be inconceivable to the Greeks--life in a state of nature, the time before government, laws, and the state existed. In this state, humans are equal. In terms of physical prowess, of course, some are stronger than others. However, the weakest, through guile, can still kill the strongest. In that sense, there is equality. Without the power of government to keep people in check, though, we find quarrels routinely breaking out. The motives are threefold: self-gain, safety, and reputation (or glory). The result is horrible, and here follows perhaps the single most well known statement penned by Hobbes: "Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in a condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. . . .In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."
However, the fear and terror of the state of nature can be escaped. Humans are, after all, according to Hobbes, capable of reason. Individual reason leads people to realize that they must do something to escape ". . .Feare of Death; Desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a Hope by their Industry to obtain them." Furthermore, human reason allows individuals to understand laws of nature. This is defined by Hobbes as ". . .a Precept, or general Rule, found out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same." To preserve life, and the fruits of industry that might be gained by peace, human reason lets people realize that only by giving up some of their freedoms, liberties, rights in order to establish a system that will end perpetual war of each against all. The mechanism for this is the "social contract," by which people in the state of nature covenant with one another to form a powerful government, so powerful that it can suppress individuals' efforts to seek self-advantage as under the state of nature. A "Leviathan" is needed.
However, if the state ceases to protect people's lives, the contract can be voided; revolution is an acceptable option for the citizenry then. However, the price is terrible, for with the dissolution of the state, people are plunged back into the nightmare of the state of nature. They would have to re-enact a contract to escape the ravages of the perpetual war.
Key points in Hobbes: the focus is on the individual rather than society, hence this is an individualistic system; human reason is considered to be central to attaining peace and harmony; humans can perceive the essence of natural laws through the powers of their reason; by contracting with one another, the people can control their destinies and produce an environment which they find more commodious for living fruitfully. An important early work in the development of Modern thinking and liberal political thought. A must read work for those interested in Western political philosophy.
Hobbes begins with a view of human life that would be inconceivable to the Greeks--life in a state of nature, the time before government, laws, and the state existed. In this state, humans are equal. In terms of physical prowess, of course, some are stronger than others. However, the weakest, through guile, can still kill the strongest. In that sense, there is equality. Without the power of government to keep people in check, though, we find quarrels routinely breaking out. The motives are threefold: self-gain, safety, and reputation (or glory). The result is horrible, and here follows perhaps the single most well known statement penned by Hobbes: "Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in a condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. . . .In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."
However, the fear and terror of the state of nature can be escaped. Humans are, after all, according to Hobbes, capable of reason. Individual reason leads people to realize that they must do something to escape ". . .Feare of Death; Desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a Hope by their Industry to obtain them." Furthermore, human reason allows individuals to understand laws of nature. This is defined by Hobbes as ". . .a Precept, or general Rule, found out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same." To preserve life, and the fruits of industry that might be gained by peace, human reason lets people realize that only by giving up some of their freedoms, liberties, rights in order to establish a system that will end perpetual war of each against all. The mechanism for this is the "social contract," by which people in the state of nature covenant with one another to form a powerful government, so powerful that it can suppress individuals' efforts to seek self-advantage as under the state of nature. A "Leviathan" is needed.
However, if the state ceases to protect people's lives, the contract can be voided; revolution is an acceptable option for the citizenry then. However, the price is terrible, for with the dissolution of the state, people are plunged back into the nightmare of the state of nature. They would have to re-enact a contract to escape the ravages of the perpetual war.
Key points in Hobbes: the focus is on the individual rather than society, hence this is an individualistic system; human reason is considered to be central to attaining peace and harmony; humans can perceive the essence of natural laws through the powers of their reason; by contracting with one another, the people can control their destinies and produce an environment which they find more commodious for living fruitfully. An important early work in the development of Modern thinking and liberal political thought. A must read work for those interested in Western political philosophy.
July 17, 2025
"Man to man is wolf". Freud's favorite maxim
Thomas Hobbes is usually mistaught as the ne plus ultra of reactionaries; a proto-fascist who gave absolutism a bad name. Nothing could be further from the truth. LEVIATHAN is a work on human nature, and only after Hobbes has psychoanalyzed men (women held no interest for him, and he remained a life-long bachelor) does he unleash the Hobbesian political program. To read Hobbes properly you must know that he was A) an atheist, albeit a secret one since in 17th century England atheism could lead to the gallows, B) an atomist. Hobbes believes humans are mechanical animals and have no free will at all and C) an absolute pessimist; left to themselves in a world without God or purpose humans will tear each other to pieces. Only then can one understand his politics of a social contract laying the foundation for absolute monarchy. One-man rule is established as the only viable alternative to perpetual terror. Yet, the government still rests on men willingly giving up all their rights to the sovereign. Only the right over your own body is inalienable, and that includes the right not to be tortured. Property rights may be abrogated in extreme circumstances, however, such as foreign invasion, disease, and civil war. This piercing look into the black heart of humanity is well worth a read even if you do not wish for absolutism. A demolition man of optimistic platitudes on humanity and its capacity for good, Hobbess precedes Nietzsche and Freud. Christians and democrats should fear LEVIATHAN and are also in most need of reading it. The second book of LEVIATHAN, "Of a Christian Commonwealth" makes a strong case against both theocracy and those folk who argue the state may be challenged on the grounds of conscience. No Christian Right or Martin Luther King for Hobbes.
Thomas Hobbes is usually mistaught as the ne plus ultra of reactionaries; a proto-fascist who gave absolutism a bad name. Nothing could be further from the truth. LEVIATHAN is a work on human nature, and only after Hobbes has psychoanalyzed men (women held no interest for him, and he remained a life-long bachelor) does he unleash the Hobbesian political program. To read Hobbes properly you must know that he was A) an atheist, albeit a secret one since in 17th century England atheism could lead to the gallows, B) an atomist. Hobbes believes humans are mechanical animals and have no free will at all and C) an absolute pessimist; left to themselves in a world without God or purpose humans will tear each other to pieces. Only then can one understand his politics of a social contract laying the foundation for absolute monarchy. One-man rule is established as the only viable alternative to perpetual terror. Yet, the government still rests on men willingly giving up all their rights to the sovereign. Only the right over your own body is inalienable, and that includes the right not to be tortured. Property rights may be abrogated in extreme circumstances, however, such as foreign invasion, disease, and civil war. This piercing look into the black heart of humanity is well worth a read even if you do not wish for absolutism. A demolition man of optimistic platitudes on humanity and its capacity for good, Hobbess precedes Nietzsche and Freud. Christians and democrats should fear LEVIATHAN and are also in most need of reading it. The second book of LEVIATHAN, "Of a Christian Commonwealth" makes a strong case against both theocracy and those folk who argue the state may be challenged on the grounds of conscience. No Christian Right or Martin Luther King for Hobbes.
February 7, 2019
«فراغت مادر فلسفه است و دولت مادر صلح و فراغت.»
لویاتان هابز بهعنوان یکی از اولین نوشتههای علمی سیاسی که به بررسی و نقد دولت میپردازد جایگاه مهمی در اندیشه سیاسی دارد. دو بخش نخست این اثر از ظرافت و دقت خاصی بهخصوص در حوزهی زبان برخوردار است. همین نکتهسنجی و بررسی تاحدودی زبانشناسانه جذابترین ویژگی لیواتان را رقم میزند. هابز بهکرات مینویسد عدم استفاده درست از واژههاست که انسان را به ورطهی شناخت نادرست و دشمنیهای بیاساس سوق میدهد. همچنین به فلاسفهی یونان و میراثشان میتازد و آن را بیشتر بازی کلامی میداند تا بحثی که شناخت را ممکن سازد یا انسان را قدمی به حقیقت نزدیکتر کند.
با اینحال، لویاتان ضعفهایی دارد چرا که هابز میخواهد ثابت کند بهترین وضعیت انسان در وجود یک دولت خلاصه میشود که کمترین چندگانگی قدرت را داشته باشد و برای این منظور و باتوجه به برههی تاریخی زیست خود بهترین شکل حکومت را پادشاهی میداند، آن هم یک پادشاهی تمامعیار که اختیارات شخص پادشاه در آن حدواندازه ندارد.
گاه بهگاه هابز نتیجهگیریهایی میکند که در واقع هیچ ارتباطی به برهانهایش ندارد. مثلا هرچیز موجود در طبیعت را به دولت تعمیم میدهد در صورتی که دولت و پیدایش آن ربطی به طبیعت ندارد حتی چنانچه پاسخ منطقی انسان به محیط پیرامونش دانسته شود.
در زمینهی اخلاقی اگرچه دیدی نوین داشته و اخلاق را نسبی میدیده، بهمنظور حفظ دولت همهچیز را قراردادی بررسی میکند و لابهلای سخنانش میگوید که باید از حفرههای قانونی و قراردادی بهره جست تا بتوان بهتر حکم راند. چنین نوشتههایی اگرچه تاحدی واقعگرایانه است اما انگار بوی استثمار میدهد و به راهگشایی و توجیهی برای رفتاری که من آن را انگلیسی مینامم، میماند.
دو بخش اخر بررسی جوامع مسیحی است و پر از ارجاعات به متون مذهبی که برای خوانندهی علاقمند به این حوزه میتواند جالب باشد اما برای من نکتهی تازهای نداشت چرا که پیشتر رسالهی الهیاتی سیاسی اسپینوزا را خوانده بودم و اگرچه اسپینوزا از هابز تاثیرپذیرفته، از جسارت بیشتری برخوردار بوده و در نتیجه نقدی تندتر و پرمایهتر را به تحریر در آورده است.
از متن کتاب:
گرچه من برای آن دسته از متقدمینی که صراحتا حقایق را مطرح کرده و یا ما را بهطریق بهتری برای دستیابی به آنها رهنمون شدهاند، احترام میگذارم لیکن خود را مدیون عهد باستان نمیدانم؛ زیرا اگر به قدمت و درازی عمر احترام میگذاریم، در آن صورت عصر حاضر قدیمیترین و پر سالترین عصر است و اگر برای قدمت خود نویسندگان احترام قائل میشویم، در آن صورت معلوم نیست که نویسندگانی که چنین شأن ومنزلتی به ایشان داده میشود وقتی کتب خود را مینوشتند، قدیمیتر از منی بوده باشند که الآن کتاب مینویسم اما اگر نیک بنگریم، تمجید و ستایش نویسندگان قدیم، ناشی از احترام به مردگان نیست بلکه از رقابت و حسادت متقابل در بین زندگان برمیخیزد.
این بخش از نوشتهاش عجیب به دلم نشست، بهراستی که اکثر مواقع بار احترام به پیشینیان مانع از نقد درست و صادقانهی آثار میشود؛ هابز خود با جسارت به فلاسفهی پیشین حمله میبرد و ایراداتی که وارد میکند اکثرا درست و بهجاست. بهنظرم خواننده باید همین رویه را در پیش بگیرد و بر حیرت و شگفتی خود از آثار گذشته مسلط شود تا بتواند گامی به جلو بردارد.
در پایان باید گفت ترجمهی حسین بشیریه بسیار روان است و خوانش این اثر را ساده و هموار میسازد.
لویاتان هابز بهعنوان یکی از اولین نوشتههای علمی سیاسی که به بررسی و نقد دولت میپردازد جایگاه مهمی در اندیشه سیاسی دارد. دو بخش نخست این اثر از ظرافت و دقت خاصی بهخصوص در حوزهی زبان برخوردار است. همین نکتهسنجی و بررسی تاحدودی زبانشناسانه جذابترین ویژگی لیواتان را رقم میزند. هابز بهکرات مینویسد عدم استفاده درست از واژههاست که انسان را به ورطهی شناخت نادرست و دشمنیهای بیاساس سوق میدهد. همچنین به فلاسفهی یونان و میراثشان میتازد و آن را بیشتر بازی کلامی میداند تا بحثی که شناخت را ممکن سازد یا انسان را قدمی به حقیقت نزدیکتر کند.
با اینحال، لویاتان ضعفهایی دارد چرا که هابز میخواهد ثابت کند بهترین وضعیت انسان در وجود یک دولت خلاصه میشود که کمترین چندگانگی قدرت را داشته باشد و برای این منظور و باتوجه به برههی تاریخی زیست خود بهترین شکل حکومت را پادشاهی میداند، آن هم یک پادشاهی تمامعیار که اختیارات شخص پادشاه در آن حدواندازه ندارد.
گاه بهگاه هابز نتیجهگیریهایی میکند که در واقع هیچ ارتباطی به برهانهایش ندارد. مثلا هرچیز موجود در طبیعت را به دولت تعمیم میدهد در صورتی که دولت و پیدایش آن ربطی به طبیعت ندارد حتی چنانچه پاسخ منطقی انسان به محیط پیرامونش دانسته شود.
در زمینهی اخلاقی اگرچه دیدی نوین داشته و اخلاق را نسبی میدیده، بهمنظور حفظ دولت همهچیز را قراردادی بررسی میکند و لابهلای سخنانش میگوید که باید از حفرههای قانونی و قراردادی بهره جست تا بتوان بهتر حکم راند. چنین نوشتههایی اگرچه تاحدی واقعگرایانه است اما انگار بوی استثمار میدهد و به راهگشایی و توجیهی برای رفتاری که من آن را انگلیسی مینامم، میماند.
دو بخش اخر بررسی جوامع مسیحی است و پر از ارجاعات به متون مذهبی که برای خوانندهی علاقمند به این حوزه میتواند جالب باشد اما برای من نکتهی تازهای نداشت چرا که پیشتر رسالهی الهیاتی سیاسی اسپینوزا را خوانده بودم و اگرچه اسپینوزا از هابز تاثیرپذیرفته، از جسارت بیشتری برخوردار بوده و در نتیجه نقدی تندتر و پرمایهتر را به تحریر در آورده است.
از متن کتاب:
گرچه من برای آن دسته از متقدمینی که صراحتا حقایق را مطرح کرده و یا ما را بهطریق بهتری برای دستیابی به آنها رهنمون شدهاند، احترام میگذارم لیکن خود را مدیون عهد باستان نمیدانم؛ زیرا اگر به قدمت و درازی عمر احترام میگذاریم، در آن صورت عصر حاضر قدیمیترین و پر سالترین عصر است و اگر برای قدمت خود نویسندگان احترام قائل میشویم، در آن صورت معلوم نیست که نویسندگانی که چنین شأن ومنزلتی به ایشان داده میشود وقتی کتب خود را مینوشتند، قدیمیتر از منی بوده باشند که الآن کتاب مینویسم اما اگر نیک بنگریم، تمجید و ستایش نویسندگان قدیم، ناشی از احترام به مردگان نیست بلکه از رقابت و حسادت متقابل در بین زندگان برمیخیزد.
این بخش از نوشتهاش عجیب به دلم نشست، بهراستی که اکثر مواقع بار احترام به پیشینیان مانع از نقد درست و صادقانهی آثار میشود؛ هابز خود با جسارت به فلاسفهی پیشین حمله میبرد و ایراداتی که وارد میکند اکثرا درست و بهجاست. بهنظرم خواننده باید همین رویه را در پیش بگیرد و بر حیرت و شگفتی خود از آثار گذشته مسلط شود تا بتواند گامی به جلو بردارد.
در پایان باید گفت ترجمهی حسین بشیریه بسیار روان است و خوانش این اثر را ساده و هموار میسازد.
December 3, 2011
Leviathan is a major work of philosophy. Full stop.
It's interesting to think that this book is the fundamental root of a lot of ultra-conservative brains. On some level, I can understand this. Hobbes defends the divine right of royal power (to a certain extent) and proceeds to define this power as absolute. Without question, subjects must bow to their masters, under any circumstances. In all this, however, he ultimately says that a monarch's power is granted him by his subjects, for without subjects a monarch is king of nothing, decrees cannot be carried out, etc.
I don't remember the text of the book all that much. I read it mostly while on the bus to my job at Domino's Pizza a couple years ago. I suppose it comforted me to think that having to deal with my egomaniacal boss was a work of divine devotion, as opposed to an oppressive hell. The book did convince me of some truths that needed accepting at the time, that for all the brutality of my boss at work, he would ultimately fall, when his actions became tyrannical enough to convince his employees that he was not fit to rule. Which they did forthwith, and he was subsequently fired. So they told me. Another employee told me he went to work at the Domino's in Federal Way, some miles south of Seattle, which seems like a suitable enough punishment, if you feel like I do about Federal Way (i.e. why is it there? what good is it doing?)
Leviathan changed my life. The old-timey language and syntax took some getting used to, but it's definitely worth a read.
It's interesting to think that this book is the fundamental root of a lot of ultra-conservative brains. On some level, I can understand this. Hobbes defends the divine right of royal power (to a certain extent) and proceeds to define this power as absolute. Without question, subjects must bow to their masters, under any circumstances. In all this, however, he ultimately says that a monarch's power is granted him by his subjects, for without subjects a monarch is king of nothing, decrees cannot be carried out, etc.
I don't remember the text of the book all that much. I read it mostly while on the bus to my job at Domino's Pizza a couple years ago. I suppose it comforted me to think that having to deal with my egomaniacal boss was a work of divine devotion, as opposed to an oppressive hell. The book did convince me of some truths that needed accepting at the time, that for all the brutality of my boss at work, he would ultimately fall, when his actions became tyrannical enough to convince his employees that he was not fit to rule. Which they did forthwith, and he was subsequently fired. So they told me. Another employee told me he went to work at the Domino's in Federal Way, some miles south of Seattle, which seems like a suitable enough punishment, if you feel like I do about Federal Way (i.e. why is it there? what good is it doing?)
Leviathan changed my life. The old-timey language and syntax took some getting used to, but it's definitely worth a read.
February 15, 2024
"No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Damn, it's been more than a decade since I first read this in high school. It's as dense as I remember it, and boy, it took me three months to read this back then, lol. That's my biggest gripe against this behemoth of a tome.
I enjoy reading the works of Thomas Hobbes and other Social Contract theorists such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rosseau, and Immanuel Kant. Whether you agree or disagree with Hobbes' standing, I'm always fascinated by reading different philosophies on human nature, state of nature, and government.
Hobbes, who wrote this after the onset of the English Civil War, presents us with a rather grim Tinder bio for humanity. In the state of nature, we're all equal, but not in a feel-good, kumbaya kind of way. More like, "I can kill you, you can kill me, so let's maybe not?" This form of equality ushers in a trifecta of societal ills: competition, distrust, and the pursuit of glory. Without the constraints of society, our lives resemble a cross between "The Purge" and "Lord of the Flies."
Hobbes doesn't sugarcoat. He depicts the natural human condition as this endless free-for-all, where life is, in his famous words, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." To dodge this scenario, Hobbes suggests we need some rules. We need laws of nature that encourage us to seek peace, play nice, and give up some freedoms in exchange for security.
Enter the social contract: we all agree to live under a set of rules so we don't end up at each other's throats over a loaf of bread. He advocates for a powerful, central government.
Hobbes, the ever-unflinching pragmatist and rationalist, is not about waxing poetic on the goodness of humanity or divine rights. Nope. He's all about survival and self-interest. Because "Getting along isn't just nice – it's the logical choice."
Damn, it's been more than a decade since I first read this in high school. It's as dense as I remember it, and boy, it took me three months to read this back then, lol. That's my biggest gripe against this behemoth of a tome.
I enjoy reading the works of Thomas Hobbes and other Social Contract theorists such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rosseau, and Immanuel Kant. Whether you agree or disagree with Hobbes' standing, I'm always fascinated by reading different philosophies on human nature, state of nature, and government.
Hobbes, who wrote this after the onset of the English Civil War, presents us with a rather grim Tinder bio for humanity. In the state of nature, we're all equal, but not in a feel-good, kumbaya kind of way. More like, "I can kill you, you can kill me, so let's maybe not?" This form of equality ushers in a trifecta of societal ills: competition, distrust, and the pursuit of glory. Without the constraints of society, our lives resemble a cross between "The Purge" and "Lord of the Flies."
"If men are naturally in a state of war, why do they always carry arms and why do they have keys to lock their doors?"
Hobbes doesn't sugarcoat. He depicts the natural human condition as this endless free-for-all, where life is, in his famous words, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." To dodge this scenario, Hobbes suggests we need some rules. We need laws of nature that encourage us to seek peace, play nice, and give up some freedoms in exchange for security.
Enter the social contract: we all agree to live under a set of rules so we don't end up at each other's throats over a loaf of bread. He advocates for a powerful, central government.
Hobbes, the ever-unflinching pragmatist and rationalist, is not about waxing poetic on the goodness of humanity or divine rights. Nope. He's all about survival and self-interest. Because "Getting along isn't just nice – it's the logical choice."
"Every time reason stands against the human, the human will stand against the reason"
October 17, 2016
Κατ’ αρχάς μια πολύ ωραία και προσεγμένη έκδοση. Είναι το έργο ζωής του Thomas Hobbes, άγγλου φιλόσοφου, γιου προτεστάντη κληρικού, που έζησε τον 17ο αιώνα.
Μέρος πρώτο: περί ανθρώπου. Εξαιρετικό.
Μέρος δεύτερο: περί πολιτικής κοινότητας. Αναπτύσσει την βασική του πολιτική φιλοσοφία, βέβαια θεωρώ πως είναι ξεπερασμένη σήμερα.
Έως εδώ καλά!
Μέρος τρίτο & τέταρτο: περί χριστιανικής πολιτικής κοινότητας και βασιλείου του σκότους. Δηλαδή περί θαυμάτων, περί της σημασίας του λόγου των προφητών, περί του σκότους που προέρχεται από κενή φιλοσοφία και ποιοι το καρπώνονται και άλλα τέτοια κουλά. Εν ολίγοις μου προκάλεσε απογοήτευση και διάβασα μόνο τους τίτλους.
Μέρος πρώτο: περί ανθρώπου. Εξαιρετικό.
Μέρος δεύτερο: περί πολιτικής κοινότητας. Αναπτύσσει την βασική του πολιτική φιλοσοφία, βέβαια θεωρώ πως είναι ξεπερασμένη σήμερα.
Έως εδώ καλά!
Μέρος τρίτο & τέταρτο: περί χριστιανικής πολιτικής κοινότητας και βασιλείου του σκότους. Δηλαδή περί θαυμάτων, περί της σημασίας του λόγου των προφητών, περί του σκότους που προέρχεται από κενή φιλοσοφία και ποιοι το καρπώνονται και άλλα τέτοια κουλά. Εν ολίγοις μου προκάλεσε απογοήτευση και διάβασα μόνο τους τίτλους.
August 3, 2020
Scared Shitless but Not Witless
In his autobiography, Thomas Hobbes said that his mother had given “birth to twins: myself and fear”, which might be taken as a very clear hint that Hobbes’s mindset was that of a very pessimistic and distrustful man. And yet, Hobbes was not afraid to voice his opinions on man in general and the organization of what he calls the Common-Wealth in particular with a frankness that does anything but bespeak of fear or pusillanimity at a time when to be frank on matters like these was especially risky to a person’s health. Nevertheless the pessimism and distrust of human nature mentioned above seem to be at the bottom of Hobbes’s whole philosophy, which makes a good case for the timelessness of his thoughts if you take them with the proverbial grain of salt.
Although probably not an empiricist in the strictest sense of the word, Hobbes is allergic to any kind of metaphysical malarkey when he claims that philosophy should be based on clear-cut definitions which will allow people to discuss both the natural and the social world in terms of intersubjective concepts. The prime sources of knowledge to him are our senses which are influenced by impressions that work on them via certain motions. How these motions are deciphered and interpreted by our senses, however, is a question Hobbes leaves in the dark. One of the methods he recommends in order to understand man, though, is careful introspection. So it is little wonder that Hobbes even comes to present the origins of religion in terms of psychological needs of man, as for example here:
This is probably one of the reasons why Hobbes is abhorred by so many full-time do-gooders and free-time mythicists all over the world: Hobbes destroys cherished beliefs and slams shut the door to cloud-cuckoo-land, and what he offers us instead might be neither flattering nor soothing. His view on man as motivated by self-interest only – which culminates in the will to survive – and his rejection of natural laws [1] granting life, dignity and candy floss as unalienable rights to every human being may insult human vanity – although they certainly testify to Hobbes’s awareness of the rules of the game of capitalism. That being said, it should be added that for all of Hobbes’s radical clear-sightedness he fails to acknowledge the existence of certain pre-state powers that pacify this dominant egocentrism of man, such as religion, [2] social codes of behaviour and mores arising from human interdependence, whose infringement is normally punished by peer pressure and ostracization, if not by more physical consequences. We might and should applaud this as the process of civilization.
In Hobbes’s view, however, the institution of a central government – no matter if in the form of a monarch or a group of legislators – is the only form of civilization, and this is where his ideas fall short. Hobbes’s failure to consider other socio-cultural sources of disciplining man’s innate egoism (by appealing to it via introducing severe disadvantages in case of anti-social behaviour) is the reason why he seems to bar any right on the individual’s part to resist the sovereign power once it has been established. Albeit he claims that the sovereign has the duty to protect his subjects’ lives and well-being, and he even appears to introduce a right to resistance by the back-door when he says
Here it is not said in so many words that a man may not disobey his government as such but at least he need not obey the law against his own vital interests – as Kant and others would later have it.
Of course, Hobbes leaves no doubt that the sovereign is exempt from any form of control or checks and balances, and he could by no means accept the concept of a separation of powers, and I am pretty sure that no one would like to live in the Common-Wealth designed and justified by Hobbes, or at least no one that has not experienced the insecurity of a lack of reliable government and of civil war. Nevertheless there is one big merit one has to do Hobbes justice for, and this is that he is one of the first modern European philosophers who had a utilitarian idea of the state and of government. According to him the state and the sovereign are neither God-given nor anything eternal and ethereal, least of all a super-organism, that makes the individual find the kind of sense he would never discover as an individual – you know, that sort of claptrap crap you would find in German Idealism. In Hobbes’s eyes, government and the state seem to be a necessary evil, something that has a practical benefit, namely to make the “life of man” less “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” (p.186) [3] Once this much is clear, we can discuss the state as a man-made commodity deciding on how much central interference we are ready to accept as necessary and how much control and individual freedom we would like to retain. It is in this sense that Hobbes is essentially modern.
All in all, reading Hobbes with an unprepossessed mind could, paradoxically, teach us to call into question the tendencies of governments and super-governmental institutions trying to educate their citizens and make them behave according to certain moral principles and operating with terms such as social equality to meddle with people’s daily lives, forever introducing new regulations and prescribed terminologies, thus diminishing the sphere of individual responsibility and freedom.
[1] His definition of natural law is not a normative one, but the descriptive law of the bellum omnia contra omnes.
[2] Hobbes is focused on religion as an instrument of political power, and so he tends to neglect its nobler effect of instilling people with empathy for each other and of urging them to control their most egoistic impulses – not only by way of creating empathy but also, and maybe mainly, by way of threatening offenders with eternal punishment.
[3] I really had to get this famous quotation in somewhere.
In his autobiography, Thomas Hobbes said that his mother had given “birth to twins: myself and fear”, which might be taken as a very clear hint that Hobbes’s mindset was that of a very pessimistic and distrustful man. And yet, Hobbes was not afraid to voice his opinions on man in general and the organization of what he calls the Common-Wealth in particular with a frankness that does anything but bespeak of fear or pusillanimity at a time when to be frank on matters like these was especially risky to a person’s health. Nevertheless the pessimism and distrust of human nature mentioned above seem to be at the bottom of Hobbes’s whole philosophy, which makes a good case for the timelessness of his thoughts if you take them with the proverbial grain of salt.
Although probably not an empiricist in the strictest sense of the word, Hobbes is allergic to any kind of metaphysical malarkey when he claims that philosophy should be based on clear-cut definitions which will allow people to discuss both the natural and the social world in terms of intersubjective concepts. The prime sources of knowledge to him are our senses which are influenced by impressions that work on them via certain motions. How these motions are deciphered and interpreted by our senses, however, is a question Hobbes leaves in the dark. One of the methods he recommends in order to understand man, though, is careful introspection. So it is little wonder that Hobbes even comes to present the origins of religion in terms of psychological needs of man, as for example here:
”And in these foure things, Opinion of Ghosts, Ignorance of second causes, Devotions towards what men fear, and Taking of things Casuall for Prognostiques, consisteth the Naturall seed of Religion; which by reason of the different Fancies, Judgements, and Passions of severall men, hath grown up into ceremonies so different, that those which are used by one man, are for the most part ridiculous to another.”(pp.172f.)
This is probably one of the reasons why Hobbes is abhorred by so many full-time do-gooders and free-time mythicists all over the world: Hobbes destroys cherished beliefs and slams shut the door to cloud-cuckoo-land, and what he offers us instead might be neither flattering nor soothing. His view on man as motivated by self-interest only – which culminates in the will to survive – and his rejection of natural laws [1] granting life, dignity and candy floss as unalienable rights to every human being may insult human vanity – although they certainly testify to Hobbes’s awareness of the rules of the game of capitalism. That being said, it should be added that for all of Hobbes’s radical clear-sightedness he fails to acknowledge the existence of certain pre-state powers that pacify this dominant egocentrism of man, such as religion, [2] social codes of behaviour and mores arising from human interdependence, whose infringement is normally punished by peer pressure and ostracization, if not by more physical consequences. We might and should applaud this as the process of civilization.
In Hobbes’s view, however, the institution of a central government – no matter if in the form of a monarch or a group of legislators – is the only form of civilization, and this is where his ideas fall short. Hobbes’s failure to consider other socio-cultural sources of disciplining man’s innate egoism (by appealing to it via introducing severe disadvantages in case of anti-social behaviour) is the reason why he seems to bar any right on the individual’s part to resist the sovereign power once it has been established. Albeit he claims that the sovereign has the duty to protect his subjects’ lives and well-being, and he even appears to introduce a right to resistance by the back-door when he says
”When a man is destitute of food, or other thing necessary for his life, and cannot preserve himselfe any other way, but by some fact against the Law; as if in a great famine he take the food by force, or stealth, which he cannot obtaine for mony nor charity; or in defence of his life, snatch away another man’s Sword, he is totally excused, for the reason next before alledged.” (p.346)
Here it is not said in so many words that a man may not disobey his government as such but at least he need not obey the law against his own vital interests – as Kant and others would later have it.
Of course, Hobbes leaves no doubt that the sovereign is exempt from any form of control or checks and balances, and he could by no means accept the concept of a separation of powers, and I am pretty sure that no one would like to live in the Common-Wealth designed and justified by Hobbes, or at least no one that has not experienced the insecurity of a lack of reliable government and of civil war. Nevertheless there is one big merit one has to do Hobbes justice for, and this is that he is one of the first modern European philosophers who had a utilitarian idea of the state and of government. According to him the state and the sovereign are neither God-given nor anything eternal and ethereal, least of all a super-organism, that makes the individual find the kind of sense he would never discover as an individual – you know, that sort of claptrap crap you would find in German Idealism. In Hobbes’s eyes, government and the state seem to be a necessary evil, something that has a practical benefit, namely to make the “life of man” less “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” (p.186) [3] Once this much is clear, we can discuss the state as a man-made commodity deciding on how much central interference we are ready to accept as necessary and how much control and individual freedom we would like to retain. It is in this sense that Hobbes is essentially modern.
All in all, reading Hobbes with an unprepossessed mind could, paradoxically, teach us to call into question the tendencies of governments and super-governmental institutions trying to educate their citizens and make them behave according to certain moral principles and operating with terms such as social equality to meddle with people’s daily lives, forever introducing new regulations and prescribed terminologies, thus diminishing the sphere of individual responsibility and freedom.
[1] His definition of natural law is not a normative one, but the descriptive law of the bellum omnia contra omnes.
[2] Hobbes is focused on religion as an instrument of political power, and so he tends to neglect its nobler effect of instilling people with empathy for each other and of urging them to control their most egoistic impulses – not only by way of creating empathy but also, and maybe mainly, by way of threatening offenders with eternal punishment.
[3] I really had to get this famous quotation in somewhere.
June 26, 2011
Thomas Hobbes discourse on civil and ecclesiatical governance, he analyses this in four parts, firstly via a discourse of man and the first principles of society; secondly he looks at the institution of a commonwealth and varying principles governing such, as here listed:
"The sovereign has twelve principal rights:
1. because a successive covenant cannot override a prior one, the subjects cannot (lawfully) change the form of government.
2. because the covenant forming the commonwealth results from subjects giving to the sovereign the right to act for them, the sovereign cannot possibly breach the covenant; and therefore the subjects can never argue to be freed from the covenant because of the actions of the sovereign.
3. the sovereign exists because the majority has consented to his rule; the minority have agreed to abide by this arrangement and must then assent to the sovereign's actions.
4. every subject is author of the acts of the sovereign: hence the sovereign cannot injure any of his subjects and cannot be accused of injustice.
5. the sovereign cannot justly be put to death by the subjects.
6. because the purpose of the commonwealth is peace, and the sovereign has the right to do whatever he thinks necessary for the preserving of peace and security and prevention of discord. Therefore, the sovereign may judge what opinions and doctrines are averse, who shall be allowed to speak to multitudes, and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they are published.
7. to prescribe the rules of civil law and property.
8. to be judge in all cases.
9. to make war and peace as he sees fit and to command the army.
10. to choose counsellors, ministers, magistrates and officers.
11. to reward with riches and honour or to punish with corporal or pecuniary punishment or ignominy.
12. to establish laws about honour and a scale of worth. " (got this list from wikipedia but this is in chapter 18 of part one)
The types of commonwealth are also considered; monarchy, aristocracy and democracy... so too succession, religion, taxation etc. etc.
Thirdly, Hobbes considers a 'Christian commonwealth' and governance based on 'the scriptures', considering discrepancies between scriptural and civil law...
Fourthy, the 'kingdom of darkness' is considered in reference to ignorance, and the absence of the light of knowledge.
Leviathan was written during the English Civil War and Hobbes reiterates his views on sovereignity and social contract theory...
Overall I think this was a rather interesting read and would recommend it to anyone who makes politics thier interest.
"The sovereign has twelve principal rights:
1. because a successive covenant cannot override a prior one, the subjects cannot (lawfully) change the form of government.
2. because the covenant forming the commonwealth results from subjects giving to the sovereign the right to act for them, the sovereign cannot possibly breach the covenant; and therefore the subjects can never argue to be freed from the covenant because of the actions of the sovereign.
3. the sovereign exists because the majority has consented to his rule; the minority have agreed to abide by this arrangement and must then assent to the sovereign's actions.
4. every subject is author of the acts of the sovereign: hence the sovereign cannot injure any of his subjects and cannot be accused of injustice.
5. the sovereign cannot justly be put to death by the subjects.
6. because the purpose of the commonwealth is peace, and the sovereign has the right to do whatever he thinks necessary for the preserving of peace and security and prevention of discord. Therefore, the sovereign may judge what opinions and doctrines are averse, who shall be allowed to speak to multitudes, and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they are published.
7. to prescribe the rules of civil law and property.
8. to be judge in all cases.
9. to make war and peace as he sees fit and to command the army.
10. to choose counsellors, ministers, magistrates and officers.
11. to reward with riches and honour or to punish with corporal or pecuniary punishment or ignominy.
12. to establish laws about honour and a scale of worth. " (got this list from wikipedia but this is in chapter 18 of part one)
The types of commonwealth are also considered; monarchy, aristocracy and democracy... so too succession, religion, taxation etc. etc.
Thirdly, Hobbes considers a 'Christian commonwealth' and governance based on 'the scriptures', considering discrepancies between scriptural and civil law...
Fourthy, the 'kingdom of darkness' is considered in reference to ignorance, and the absence of the light of knowledge.
Leviathan was written during the English Civil War and Hobbes reiterates his views on sovereignity and social contract theory...
Overall I think this was a rather interesting read and would recommend it to anyone who makes politics thier interest.
January 16, 2015
اللفياثان
كتاب طويل ولكن لن تشعر ابدا بطول
فالكتاب ليس فلسفيا وليس سياسيا وليس ملحمة او عملا أدبيا
هو خلط من كل ما كتبت ، فكتاب هوبز هذا المقسم الى أربعة اجزاء تحدى فيه سلطان الكنيسة والدين البابوي بشكل لا يصدق
في الجزء الاول يتحدث هوبز عن الانسان ، عن أهمية اللغة والحكمة وكيفية التفكير معطيا اول التلميحات لنظرية المثالية
في الكتاب بعد ان هئ هوبز للإنسان المثالي ينتقل الى الدولة المثالية عبر ترميزها في وحش بحري أسطوري هو اللفياثان
فأيرادات الدولة تمثل دماء الوحش ومفاصلها هي وزراءها
اما رأس الوحش فهو زعيم الدولة او ملكها
فرؤية هوبز السياسية تتمثل في انتخاب رئيس يدوم مدى الحياة له سلطة تعادل سلطة الاله بل ان هوبز في الجزء الثالث من الكتاب قد أعلن رأس الدولة الاله الأرضي ولا شئ قبل او بعده
وفي الجزء الثالث دمر هوبز المعتقد للمسيحي بالكامل مستعملا الإنجيل نفسه لفعل ذلك فقد جعل من الإنجيل خادما لفلسفته وهو امر معاكس لما كات يفعل الفلاسفة من قبله من شاكلة اوغسطين والاكويني
ويصف هوبز بأن سلطة رأس الدولة هي فوق كل دين او مبدأ
لذا ارى ان هوبز قد رسم شكلا للدولة العلمانية ليكون لول من كتب وهندس بنية الدولة العلمانية بشجاعة يحسد عليها في وقت كانت فيه الكنيسة قوة تضرب كل مهرطق من شاكلة هوبز
كتاب طويل ولكن لن تشعر ابدا بطول
فالكتاب ليس فلسفيا وليس سياسيا وليس ملحمة او عملا أدبيا
هو خلط من كل ما كتبت ، فكتاب هوبز هذا المقسم الى أربعة اجزاء تحدى فيه سلطان الكنيسة والدين البابوي بشكل لا يصدق
في الجزء الاول يتحدث هوبز عن الانسان ، عن أهمية اللغة والحكمة وكيفية التفكير معطيا اول التلميحات لنظرية المثالية
في الكتاب بعد ان هئ هوبز للإنسان المثالي ينتقل الى الدولة المثالية عبر ترميزها في وحش بحري أسطوري هو اللفياثان
فأيرادات الدولة تمثل دماء الوحش ومفاصلها هي وزراءها
اما رأس الوحش فهو زعيم الدولة او ملكها
فرؤية هوبز السياسية تتمثل في انتخاب رئيس يدوم مدى الحياة له سلطة تعادل سلطة الاله بل ان هوبز في الجزء الثالث من الكتاب قد أعلن رأس الدولة الاله الأرضي ولا شئ قبل او بعده
وفي الجزء الثالث دمر هوبز المعتقد للمسيحي بالكامل مستعملا الإنجيل نفسه لفعل ذلك فقد جعل من الإنجيل خادما لفلسفته وهو امر معاكس لما كات يفعل الفلاسفة من قبله من شاكلة اوغسطين والاكويني
ويصف هوبز بأن سلطة رأس الدولة هي فوق كل دين او مبدأ
لذا ارى ان هوبز قد رسم شكلا للدولة العلمانية ليكون لول من كتب وهندس بنية الدولة العلمانية بشجاعة يحسد عليها في وقت كانت فيه الكنيسة قوة تضرب كل مهرطق من شاكلة هوبز
July 17, 2020
In the Leviathan (1651), Hobbes builds on his earlier works to offer his contemporaries the solution to the horrors of the English Civil War: an authoritarian dictatorship. How succesful Hobbes was in convincing his contemporaries is beyond my knowledge, but I do know that Hobbes was treated as a black sheep even after his death. A huge part of this treatment has its origins in Hobbes' materialistic (and, according to contemporarties: atheist) philosophy, but I can't shake the belief that Hobbes' plea for absolute sovereignty was perceived as a threat to nobility and clergy alike.
I will not go into Hobbes' philosophy (see my earlier review of his 1641 book, The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic). Suffice it to say that Hobbes starts with a pessimistic view of man in nature: a perpetual war of all against all, with no place for industry and society. To end this horrible state of nature, mankind agrees to give up the right of defending themselves (i.e. using violence against each other) and collectively transfer this power to an absolute sovereign. This sovereign is absolute, in the sense that it has legislative and executive power.
There's a lot more to say about Hobbes' picture of the state, which I will not do in this review. To name just two examples, Hobbes seems to have the most confidence in an absolute monarchy - he doesn't seem to be a fan of aristocracy, let alone democracy. This is understandable: Hobbes had friends in high (royal) circles, who protected him from persecution by religious zealots, and maybe he was just plain honest in wishing the old pre-Civil War situation restored (England ruled by a royal family). According to Hobbes', monarchy is the most stable; but maybe we can have a different opinion in the 21st century, having lived in prosperous and peaceful democracies for more than a century. Anyway, I will not moralize historical works.
A second interesting point is that, even though half of the Leviathan is concerned with religion, Hobbes seems to attack Christianity outright. I'm not talking about his materialist philosophy, but about his view on power. Hobbes promotes dictatorship: the sovereign power (be it aristocracy, monarchy or democracy) decides what goes; the church has to obey. If there's a conflict of interest between church and state, good Christians should obey the state. In effect, what Hobbes does is transferring all church power to the sovereign - no wonder that most of his Christian contemporaries were furious!
How does Hobbes legitimate this claim? Well, we should dsitinguish between heavenly and earthly power. The sovereign (preferably the king) rules the earthly state; the church has only power concerning spiritual powers. A good Christian should believe in Jesus Chirst and obey the laws - and for Hobbes God's laws are natural laws, according to which the state is run. The church has no power over the sovereign.
It is hard to understand the importance of the Leviathan for modern-day readers: most of us are used to living in secular countries. But this is really the first major (historical) step towards a secular state; before Hobbes, there was no convincing philosophical justification of the seperation between church and state. This is a trend that later social contract/political writers like Spinoza, Locke and Rousseau would follow.
Leviathan is hard to follow at times, and in general seems outdated and abstract. It is an important historical document though. This makes it worth reading (maybe just some parts).
--------
On my re-read I feel like I understand Hobbes' train of thoughts much more thorough, especially the intricate connection between his conception of matter, man and state.
On a material level, Hobbes' materialism means humans are just that, matter in motion. He explains the passions as the impressions of external objects and internal states, deliberation as the train of passions before acting on it, and the will as the final passion acted out. On a higher level, the state is a Leviathan, a Sovereign with Absolute Power who translates natural law into civil law, and through this, guides society on a path to peace and prosperity. Leviathan, referring to the Book of Job, is a name well-chosen: Pride and Vanity are two of the most common and dangerous passions of Man, which lead to strife. According to Hobbes, the State is an Artificial Man, with its own particular organs, limbs, and functions.
It is still unclear to me what Hobbes' stance was on religion. His own doctrines seem to counter religious doctrines on fundamental points, yet almost half of Leviathan is dedicated to religion, and in pointing the Catholic Church to the notion that the Kingdom of God is still to come, (so their claim to Universal Authority over Kings, is misguided and deceitful) Hobbes uses countless examples and interpretations from the Scripture.
Interesting thoughts: his fulminating against the Catholic Church and the Scottish Church, as well as the Universities as the 'Kingdome of Darkness' with their muddled and deceitful doctrines. He destroys Aristoteleanism with the simple statement that this whole philosophy is based on concepts which signify Nothing. Essences, entities, essentialities, etc. are nothing but empty words - truth only houses in the method of resolution (analysis) and composition (synthesis): the breaking down of things into their parts and the building up of things from their components.
We see here, in Hobbes, the radical break with the past, as was happening at the time with Galileo, Descartes and Gassendi (whom Hobbes met on his various European Tours). And this historical fact, the epic and radical thoughts contained in Leviathan, its completeness and consistency, as well as its literary value - all this makes me appreciate Hobbes and his Leviathan all the more. I am glad I re-read it, so I can adjust my own perception of his philosophy and the book in particular.
Book 1: The workings of nature and man - materialism, passions, virtues and vices, state of nature, natural laws, institution of the state/introduction of morality.
Book 2: The commonwealth - Sovereign, Absolute Power, conditions and threats of commonwealths, civil law as justice, the workings of the social body (political bodies, justice, economics, taxation, education, ministers, councils, etc.).
Book 3: The role and place of the Church - subservient to the State. Sovereign is God's servant, Church is not. Sovereign determines freedom of individuals, also Church doctrines. Censorship and State-religion. Illustration from Biblical books.
Book 4: The corruption of the Catholic and Presbyterian Churches; the delusionial Schools and Universities.
I will not go into Hobbes' philosophy (see my earlier review of his 1641 book, The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic). Suffice it to say that Hobbes starts with a pessimistic view of man in nature: a perpetual war of all against all, with no place for industry and society. To end this horrible state of nature, mankind agrees to give up the right of defending themselves (i.e. using violence against each other) and collectively transfer this power to an absolute sovereign. This sovereign is absolute, in the sense that it has legislative and executive power.
There's a lot more to say about Hobbes' picture of the state, which I will not do in this review. To name just two examples, Hobbes seems to have the most confidence in an absolute monarchy - he doesn't seem to be a fan of aristocracy, let alone democracy. This is understandable: Hobbes had friends in high (royal) circles, who protected him from persecution by religious zealots, and maybe he was just plain honest in wishing the old pre-Civil War situation restored (England ruled by a royal family). According to Hobbes', monarchy is the most stable; but maybe we can have a different opinion in the 21st century, having lived in prosperous and peaceful democracies for more than a century. Anyway, I will not moralize historical works.
A second interesting point is that, even though half of the Leviathan is concerned with religion, Hobbes seems to attack Christianity outright. I'm not talking about his materialist philosophy, but about his view on power. Hobbes promotes dictatorship: the sovereign power (be it aristocracy, monarchy or democracy) decides what goes; the church has to obey. If there's a conflict of interest between church and state, good Christians should obey the state. In effect, what Hobbes does is transferring all church power to the sovereign - no wonder that most of his Christian contemporaries were furious!
How does Hobbes legitimate this claim? Well, we should dsitinguish between heavenly and earthly power. The sovereign (preferably the king) rules the earthly state; the church has only power concerning spiritual powers. A good Christian should believe in Jesus Chirst and obey the laws - and for Hobbes God's laws are natural laws, according to which the state is run. The church has no power over the sovereign.
It is hard to understand the importance of the Leviathan for modern-day readers: most of us are used to living in secular countries. But this is really the first major (historical) step towards a secular state; before Hobbes, there was no convincing philosophical justification of the seperation between church and state. This is a trend that later social contract/political writers like Spinoza, Locke and Rousseau would follow.
Leviathan is hard to follow at times, and in general seems outdated and abstract. It is an important historical document though. This makes it worth reading (maybe just some parts).
--------
On my re-read I feel like I understand Hobbes' train of thoughts much more thorough, especially the intricate connection between his conception of matter, man and state.
On a material level, Hobbes' materialism means humans are just that, matter in motion. He explains the passions as the impressions of external objects and internal states, deliberation as the train of passions before acting on it, and the will as the final passion acted out. On a higher level, the state is a Leviathan, a Sovereign with Absolute Power who translates natural law into civil law, and through this, guides society on a path to peace and prosperity. Leviathan, referring to the Book of Job, is a name well-chosen: Pride and Vanity are two of the most common and dangerous passions of Man, which lead to strife. According to Hobbes, the State is an Artificial Man, with its own particular organs, limbs, and functions.
It is still unclear to me what Hobbes' stance was on religion. His own doctrines seem to counter religious doctrines on fundamental points, yet almost half of Leviathan is dedicated to religion, and in pointing the Catholic Church to the notion that the Kingdom of God is still to come, (so their claim to Universal Authority over Kings, is misguided and deceitful) Hobbes uses countless examples and interpretations from the Scripture.
Interesting thoughts: his fulminating against the Catholic Church and the Scottish Church, as well as the Universities as the 'Kingdome of Darkness' with their muddled and deceitful doctrines. He destroys Aristoteleanism with the simple statement that this whole philosophy is based on concepts which signify Nothing. Essences, entities, essentialities, etc. are nothing but empty words - truth only houses in the method of resolution (analysis) and composition (synthesis): the breaking down of things into their parts and the building up of things from their components.
We see here, in Hobbes, the radical break with the past, as was happening at the time with Galileo, Descartes and Gassendi (whom Hobbes met on his various European Tours). And this historical fact, the epic and radical thoughts contained in Leviathan, its completeness and consistency, as well as its literary value - all this makes me appreciate Hobbes and his Leviathan all the more. I am glad I re-read it, so I can adjust my own perception of his philosophy and the book in particular.
Book 1: The workings of nature and man - materialism, passions, virtues and vices, state of nature, natural laws, institution of the state/introduction of morality.
Book 2: The commonwealth - Sovereign, Absolute Power, conditions and threats of commonwealths, civil law as justice, the workings of the social body (political bodies, justice, economics, taxation, education, ministers, councils, etc.).
Book 3: The role and place of the Church - subservient to the State. Sovereign is God's servant, Church is not. Sovereign determines freedom of individuals, also Church doctrines. Censorship and State-religion. Illustration from Biblical books.
Book 4: The corruption of the Catholic and Presbyterian Churches; the delusionial Schools and Universities.
July 19, 2014
It's not hard to see why this is considered so important. He goes one step beyond Machiavelli and just totally blows apart the last remaining shreds of virtue-derived political praxis. Politics no longer has anything to do with the idea of 'the good,' what we have now is a secular system in which we consent to have rulers to protect our own interests, however noble or terrible they may be, because without that framework we'd just live like animals, fighting absolutely everything else in the world for resources. Sure, it's pessimistic, if you had lived through a civil war in which 1/10 of your countrymen had been killed, how positive would you have been? Some of it's a bit creepy, like his notion that you can't legitimately criticize the sovereign, etc. The biggest obstacle to this is his writing style. This has to be one of the driest texts of any kind I've come across. He exhaustively clarifies absolutely every assertion, and usually offers some kind of addendum for each clarification. If you think Aquinas and Aristotle are too sloppy, this is probably to your liking. Personally, I found it hard to stay awake for large tracts of it.
March 19, 2020
2020 Review: 5 stars
One of my students refused to engage in discussion group because he didn't "agree with Hobbes." I kind of hope no one wholly agrees with Hobbes. But this re-read (admittedly, something of a skim for the last half), I was forced to admit the truth of what my professor says. "You may disagree with Hobbes's conclusions, but you cannot fault his logic."
2013 Review: 3 stars
One of my students refused to engage in discussion group because he didn't "agree with Hobbes." I kind of hope no one wholly agrees with Hobbes. But this re-read (admittedly, something of a skim for the last half), I was forced to admit the truth of what my professor says. "You may disagree with Hobbes's conclusions, but you cannot fault his logic."
2013 Review: 3 stars
February 13, 2014
Le Leviathan est un livre remarquable. Écrit par un Anglais au beau milieu du dix-septième siècle, alors qu'en France la Fronde secoue la paix du royaume, que l'Angleterre est également la proie de troubles, et qu'enfin l'Europe est encore meurtrie par les guerres de religion, cet ouvrage a pour ambition de tracer nettement la frontière entre les prérogatives de la Religion chrétienne et celles de l’État, quand à l'usage des lois, et de la force pour les faire respecter. Hobbes peut être compté parmi le petit nombre de ces auteurs qui ne cherchent pas à en imposer avec les fumées d'un vain savoir, paré de jargon et d'importance, mais cherche au contraire à ramener la lumière, là où la malice a profité des ténèbres de l'ignorance pour prospérer. Les définitions abondent, sont agrémentées d'exemples, les étymologies sont épluchées consciencieusement, les raisonnements sont serrés: il pose ses hypothèses puis chasse les incohérences. On ne s'étonnera pas du fait que Hobbes fut un lecteur assidu de Thucydide, tant sa lecture du monde est à la fois sombre et réaliste. La nature du pouvoir y est expliquée avec le même esprit d'objectivité et d'utilité. On trouvera même les idées les plus fortes de "L'essai sur l'entendement humain" de Locke , ce qui n'a pas laissé de me surprendre et de m'impressionner. Une excellente charge contre le Royaume des ténèbres.
January 6, 2024
For the most part, I admire Hobbes even if I disagree with half of what he's saying. The first part of this book appeals to me mostly because both of us acknowledge the inherent shortcomings of human kind. While I can't really deny that there is a "mutual relationship between protection and obedience", I'm my view there is a limit to it. The social contract should not be respected by the populus without complaint or demand. What is needed is a democracy not a tyranny.
For the most part, I think it's easy to ignore Hobbes since we live in a fairly stable democracy, but that's the wrong attitude to take. Because when a revolution or a radical attempt at change goes wrong, you can't say Hobbes didn't warn you.
For the most part, I think it's easy to ignore Hobbes since we live in a fairly stable democracy, but that's the wrong attitude to take. Because when a revolution or a radical attempt at change goes wrong, you can't say Hobbes didn't warn you.
February 4, 2016
The Open Syllabus Project, the systematic study of over one million college syllabi ranks this book as the seventh most popular book cited by syllabi. After having listened to this book I know exactly why. The Age of Enlightenment starts with this book.
It's clear that the project of the Enlightenment was the dialectic of answering the pessimism of Hobbes with the optimism of John Locke. They might not have had to agree with Hobbes, but they had to respond to him.
Hobbes is very subtle in some of his arguments. The time period still believes in witches and superstition, and beliefs based on authority. Hobbes does not. The strength of Hobbes arguments is he understands what knowledge is, what absolute knowledge means, and how misleading 'belief in' and 'faith' are as foundations for understanding and explaining. Hobbes has an advanced way of putting the nature of knowledge on a firm foundation. Chronologically Hobbes comes after Bacon and Galileo but before Newton, and is laying a foundation for Newton to think of knowledge as Universal, Necessary and Certain for explaining and understanding the natural world. (Newton with his laws of gravity will see the world in those terms as will Kant, but Heidegger and Kuhn much later will show how knowledge is best thought of as particular, contingent and probable).
Hobbes is also not very subtle in some of his arguments. He is an absolute authoritarian when it comes to the power vested in the sovereign. I realize now why Richard Nixon in the David Frost interviews argued that the chief executive could not possibly break the law and why some would think the Nuremberg defense was reasonable (Hobbes would defend both). Even in all his muddle arguments sometimes real gems of wisdom pop out. For example, no man can be trusted when his job is on the line, or those who are influential and widely known are more responsible for inciting violence than those who are unknown.
There are two things I know with certainty: 1) everyone should listen to (or read) this book, 2) nobody should listen to the third chapter of this book (probably 8 hours long), the one on the commonwealth of the church. The third chapter had way too many bible verses and I would say that the Enlightenment ignored that chapter for the most part with one exception. I had just recently read the "Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine, and it is obvious to me that in his first edition of the book he took Hobbes chapter three and used that to show why the bible was not holy and he also directly restates Hobbes points about how revelation from God most always be second hand to everyone but the person who speaks directly to God. An aside, it seemed obvious to me that Hobbes was an atheist (or deist), but he never would be explicit about it. Though, in that dreaded third chapter (please skip it if you can!) he is really interested in showing why the "papist' have less authority than the Church of England.
I really can't understate the obvious importance that this book has in the jump starting of the Age of Enlightenment. The book itself can be dry (and it is dryly read), but sprinkled through out the book are real pearls of wisdom. This book deserves to be the seventh most cited book on college syllabi. My only hesitation in recommending this book is the 3rd chapter with its endless bible citations. Don't skip the fourth chapter. There is a real elegant refutation against Aristotelian thought and the danger of appealing to authority over reason. After all, the Age of Enlightenment is most readily described by rejecting authority as your primary source for knowledge and appealing to reason instead.
It's clear that the project of the Enlightenment was the dialectic of answering the pessimism of Hobbes with the optimism of John Locke. They might not have had to agree with Hobbes, but they had to respond to him.
Hobbes is very subtle in some of his arguments. The time period still believes in witches and superstition, and beliefs based on authority. Hobbes does not. The strength of Hobbes arguments is he understands what knowledge is, what absolute knowledge means, and how misleading 'belief in' and 'faith' are as foundations for understanding and explaining. Hobbes has an advanced way of putting the nature of knowledge on a firm foundation. Chronologically Hobbes comes after Bacon and Galileo but before Newton, and is laying a foundation for Newton to think of knowledge as Universal, Necessary and Certain for explaining and understanding the natural world. (Newton with his laws of gravity will see the world in those terms as will Kant, but Heidegger and Kuhn much later will show how knowledge is best thought of as particular, contingent and probable).
Hobbes is also not very subtle in some of his arguments. He is an absolute authoritarian when it comes to the power vested in the sovereign. I realize now why Richard Nixon in the David Frost interviews argued that the chief executive could not possibly break the law and why some would think the Nuremberg defense was reasonable (Hobbes would defend both). Even in all his muddle arguments sometimes real gems of wisdom pop out. For example, no man can be trusted when his job is on the line, or those who are influential and widely known are more responsible for inciting violence than those who are unknown.
There are two things I know with certainty: 1) everyone should listen to (or read) this book, 2) nobody should listen to the third chapter of this book (probably 8 hours long), the one on the commonwealth of the church. The third chapter had way too many bible verses and I would say that the Enlightenment ignored that chapter for the most part with one exception. I had just recently read the "Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine, and it is obvious to me that in his first edition of the book he took Hobbes chapter three and used that to show why the bible was not holy and he also directly restates Hobbes points about how revelation from God most always be second hand to everyone but the person who speaks directly to God. An aside, it seemed obvious to me that Hobbes was an atheist (or deist), but he never would be explicit about it. Though, in that dreaded third chapter (please skip it if you can!) he is really interested in showing why the "papist' have less authority than the Church of England.
I really can't understate the obvious importance that this book has in the jump starting of the Age of Enlightenment. The book itself can be dry (and it is dryly read), but sprinkled through out the book are real pearls of wisdom. This book deserves to be the seventh most cited book on college syllabi. My only hesitation in recommending this book is the 3rd chapter with its endless bible citations. Don't skip the fourth chapter. There is a real elegant refutation against Aristotelian thought and the danger of appealing to authority over reason. After all, the Age of Enlightenment is most readily described by rejecting authority as your primary source for knowledge and appealing to reason instead.
June 12, 2023
How to rate a philosophical text?
I find it very strange that reviewers say you shouldn’t rate a philosophical work according to if you agree with it or like the philosophy. The goal of any philosophical text is to present arguments and convince the reader of the conclusion that follows.
If a philosophical text presents faulty arguments or the conclusion doesn’t follow from the arguments, it’s a bad text and you should rate it accordingly. The same as if a text aims to be a comedy but fails to be funny. You should rate a book by the quality of its content and not by how “important” the author was historically, or how “influential” the text was. Bad texts can be written by important and influential people.
My Thoughts
I read excerpts of this book in my political philosophy class in university. The strangest thing about this book is that it advocates for a government of total dictatorship in order to “protect the people”. Hobbes doesn’t give many convincing arguments for how this will work or why it’s a morally acceptable form of government. His main argument is that religion can influence people to accept their place and accept the absolute authority of the monarch.
Reading this in a world that has now seen many dictatorships rise and fall, destroy entire populations through war, starvation, policing and killing citizens, we can conclude that giving absolute power to one individual over an entire population is not a good idea. It does not protect the people.
Is an absolute government ever justified?
My philosophy professor really tried to give us a generous interpretation of Hobbes by reminding us that he lived at a time of constant war, and he saw central, absolute power as a way to create stability and stop wars from occurring.
An interesting theory, but in practice, well… history has run this experiment already several times. Many people have died nasty and brutal deaths during these experiments. If Hobbes could see the 20th century, he would probably change his stance.
Maybe I’ll re-read it in the future, to get a deeper understanding. However I do find the philosophy of Hobbes to be misguided and contradictory in its assumptions about human nature. If humans are so prone to hurting each other, why would it be a good idea to give total power to one human to wield over others? It seems obvious that according to Hobbes' own view of humans, giving power to a human means that person will hurt others with it. It’s an inconsistency in his view of human nature.
I find it very strange that reviewers say you shouldn’t rate a philosophical work according to if you agree with it or like the philosophy. The goal of any philosophical text is to present arguments and convince the reader of the conclusion that follows.
If a philosophical text presents faulty arguments or the conclusion doesn’t follow from the arguments, it’s a bad text and you should rate it accordingly. The same as if a text aims to be a comedy but fails to be funny. You should rate a book by the quality of its content and not by how “important” the author was historically, or how “influential” the text was. Bad texts can be written by important and influential people.
My Thoughts
I read excerpts of this book in my political philosophy class in university. The strangest thing about this book is that it advocates for a government of total dictatorship in order to “protect the people”. Hobbes doesn’t give many convincing arguments for how this will work or why it’s a morally acceptable form of government. His main argument is that religion can influence people to accept their place and accept the absolute authority of the monarch.
Reading this in a world that has now seen many dictatorships rise and fall, destroy entire populations through war, starvation, policing and killing citizens, we can conclude that giving absolute power to one individual over an entire population is not a good idea. It does not protect the people.
Is an absolute government ever justified?
My philosophy professor really tried to give us a generous interpretation of Hobbes by reminding us that he lived at a time of constant war, and he saw central, absolute power as a way to create stability and stop wars from occurring.
An interesting theory, but in practice, well… history has run this experiment already several times. Many people have died nasty and brutal deaths during these experiments. If Hobbes could see the 20th century, he would probably change his stance.
Maybe I’ll re-read it in the future, to get a deeper understanding. However I do find the philosophy of Hobbes to be misguided and contradictory in its assumptions about human nature. If humans are so prone to hurting each other, why would it be a good idea to give total power to one human to wield over others? It seems obvious that according to Hobbes' own view of humans, giving power to a human means that person will hurt others with it. It’s an inconsistency in his view of human nature.
December 31, 2024
“Hell is truth seen too late.”
This is undeniably a cornerstone of political philosophy, but as a modern reader, I found it an absolute slog to get through. The text is dense, repetitive, and, at times, outright exhausting, making it an incredibly challenging read that felt more like an exercise in endurance than a rewarding intellectual journey.
While I can respect Hobbes' influence and the historical significance of his work, the experience of actually reading Leviathan was far from engaging. The prose is labyrinthine, with lengthy digressions and an overreliance on outdated theological and philosophical assumptions that often obscure his central arguments.
Hobbes' concept of the "state of nature" and his case for an all-powerful sovereign are intriguing on a theoretical level but are presented in such a heavy-handed and dogmatic way that it left little room for nuance. The authoritarian undertones of his "solution" to humanity's chaos—essentially surrendering all freedom for security—felt not only extreme but also unsettling in its implications.
As a foundational text, I understand its value in shaping political thought and the social contract theory, but its ideas could have been presented far more clearly and succinctly. For me, Leviathan represents a necessary, albeit unenjoyable, piece of intellectual history—one better left to summaries or secondary analyses than a direct reading.
This is undeniably a cornerstone of political philosophy, but as a modern reader, I found it an absolute slog to get through. The text is dense, repetitive, and, at times, outright exhausting, making it an incredibly challenging read that felt more like an exercise in endurance than a rewarding intellectual journey.
While I can respect Hobbes' influence and the historical significance of his work, the experience of actually reading Leviathan was far from engaging. The prose is labyrinthine, with lengthy digressions and an overreliance on outdated theological and philosophical assumptions that often obscure his central arguments.
Hobbes' concept of the "state of nature" and his case for an all-powerful sovereign are intriguing on a theoretical level but are presented in such a heavy-handed and dogmatic way that it left little room for nuance. The authoritarian undertones of his "solution" to humanity's chaos—essentially surrendering all freedom for security—felt not only extreme but also unsettling in its implications.
As a foundational text, I understand its value in shaping political thought and the social contract theory, but its ideas could have been presented far more clearly and succinctly. For me, Leviathan represents a necessary, albeit unenjoyable, piece of intellectual history—one better left to summaries or secondary analyses than a direct reading.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,536 reviews