Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil, is a veritable juggernaut (pun intended) of a book. It is Hobbes' magnum opus, having been circulated widely by the turn of the 17th and 18th Centuries at a time when England was plunged into civil war. Rather than rebel against the new political order (a war crime according to Hobbes which I will revisit later in this post), Hobbes' central thesis is to submit to the absolute authority of an established commonwealth (preferably, in Hobbes' point of view, a "Christian" one), which he compares to the overwhelming biblical sea monster, the Leviathan. Having just finished reading it, I would like to convey my thoughts on his central themes in as short a post as allowed by the breadth of the knowledge he passed on with this read. For this post, I will stick to part 1 (On Man), and deal with the subsequent parts of the book in later posts.
Summary of Part 1: He starts his book outlining the nature of man and self. He argues that dreams and reasonings are but the physical manifestations of the inner workings of the brain, the former being a "train of thoughts unguided" and the latter being a "train of thoughts regulated". He then establishes "Good" and "Evil" as subjective notions based on what one desires or distastes in. From there, he talks about knowledge of fact and consequence, two distinct entities of which the latter exhibits more relevance to his central thesis on submitting to absolute civil and ecclesiastical authority, and from that knowledge stems behavior: the "perpetual and restless desire of power after power... that ceases only in Death" and "desire of ease and... delight [which] disposes men to obey a common power".
Bringing this together, Hobbes describes man as an animal in a constant state of war with its own species, asserting that their natural state is one that is "restless and competitive". From this premise, he argues that social contracts are the penultimate methods to keep these base desires and natural impulses in check. He reasserts his belief in the subjectivity of good versus evil in the concepts of justice and injustice: they are only relevant in societies that practice law and by extension justice (the execution of law). Since religion itself was a historical means to legitimize power and the establishment of civilization (itself an act of violence against Man's impulses and desires), Hobbes argues that religious societies would be prototypically ideal as bedrocks for social contracts and civil/ecclesiastical commonwealths, otherwise, as Hobbes argues, the life of man would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". This was the central motive that spurred Hobbes to write Leviathan: to bring order to the chaos of man.
To conclude Part 1, Hobbes establishes a set of what he calls "Natural Laws", centering on the premise of upholding social contracts and their doing away with the unguided horrors and worse natures of man's actions: murder, vengeance, pride, arrogance, and selfishness, to name a few. He argues the premise of Natural Laws to be descended from the Ten Commandments God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai. Within the confines of the laws established by such a commonwealth, Hobbes argues that people are free to do as they wish.
Thoughts on Part 1: The beginning of the book basically centers around establishing the need for creating a commonwealth to allow for the flourishing of human life. The establishment of good and evil as subjective notions are necessary to justify whatever the commonwealth desires, and since the rule of one absolute leader or tyrant is the law, whatever he/she deems as good and evil therefore becomes law. While the civilization of (wo)man and his/her submission to Natural Law is the sine qua non for the modern nation-state, what Hobbes, I think, fails to capture is that evil may sometimes land in the hands of the solitary leader, who in turn exercises his/her own form of violence - itself an evil that may be deemed "necessary" - to bring a semblance of order to the commonwealth. There is also the assumption that the worse natures of man's actions as described above - vices, mainly - are qualities inherent in man and not the ruler. While the submission of the monarch himself/herself to Natural Law is not required in Hobbes's world, the use and abuse of power become justified so long as all in the commonwealth are adherent to the social contract. Why, then, is this unacceptable to many in the modern world?
Besides concepts such as the separation of powers (executive, judiciary, and legislative), what Hobbes also fails to account for in the sense of the modern city-state are the stratifications of economic power and the abuse of such fiscal ability (i.e. corruption). This is especially important in the wake of nations that are both developing and developed: the layering of the proletariat and bourgeoisie groups creates tensions that hamper economic progress and the evening-out of economic disparities. Such tension breeds conflict in today's largely capitalist environment, and also means the rich get richer and the poor languish by the millions. The centralization of wealth also leads to the centralization of influence and power, thus leading to its abuse among many members of those who supposedly follow the laws set forth by their nation-states.
Putting that aside, however, keep in mind that Hobbes wrote this book years and decades before the effervescence of the Renaissance when definitions of the modern nation-state were advanced by thinkers such as Voltaire and became widely accepted gradually throughout the course of time. Hobbes's premise follows that of religion and civilization as abhorrent yet necessary tools for the benefit of mankind in the realm of a commonwealth. The alternative - at least in the perspective of his time - would be chaos, and the life of man would be fraught with insecurities, vice, and untimely deaths. Suffice it to say, I disagree with his notions that good/evil are subjective, as there are - at least from the perspective of a person who believes in a religion - objective vices that lead to loss of human life and property regardless of who carries it out, and there are actions that promote the preservation of human life and property, again regardless of who carries it out.
I will comment on parts 2, 3, and 4 in future posts. Thank you for reading.
References
1. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Penguin Classics)
2. SparkNotes - Leviathan
3. Leviathan Chapter Summaries
Thoughts on Part 1: The beginning of the book basically centers around establishing the need for creating a commonwealth to allow for the flourishing of human life. The establishment of good and evil as subjective notions are necessary to justify whatever the commonwealth desires, and since the rule of one absolute leader or tyrant is the law, whatever he/she deems as good and evil therefore becomes law. While the civilization of (wo)man and his/her submission to Natural Law is the sine qua non for the modern nation-state, what Hobbes, I think, fails to capture is that evil may sometimes land in the hands of the solitary leader, who in turn exercises his/her own form of violence - itself an evil that may be deemed "necessary" - to bring a semblance of order to the commonwealth. There is also the assumption that the worse natures of man's actions as described above - vices, mainly - are qualities inherent in man and not the ruler. While the submission of the monarch himself/herself to Natural Law is not required in Hobbes's world, the use and abuse of power become justified so long as all in the commonwealth are adherent to the social contract. Why, then, is this unacceptable to many in the modern world?
Besides concepts such as the separation of powers (executive, judiciary, and legislative), what Hobbes also fails to account for in the sense of the modern city-state are the stratifications of economic power and the abuse of such fiscal ability (i.e. corruption). This is especially important in the wake of nations that are both developing and developed: the layering of the proletariat and bourgeoisie groups creates tensions that hamper economic progress and the evening-out of economic disparities. Such tension breeds conflict in today's largely capitalist environment, and also means the rich get richer and the poor languish by the millions. The centralization of wealth also leads to the centralization of influence and power, thus leading to its abuse among many members of those who supposedly follow the laws set forth by their nation-states.
Putting that aside, however, keep in mind that Hobbes wrote this book years and decades before the effervescence of the Renaissance when definitions of the modern nation-state were advanced by thinkers such as Voltaire and became widely accepted gradually throughout the course of time. Hobbes's premise follows that of religion and civilization as abhorrent yet necessary tools for the benefit of mankind in the realm of a commonwealth. The alternative - at least in the perspective of his time - would be chaos, and the life of man would be fraught with insecurities, vice, and untimely deaths. Suffice it to say, I disagree with his notions that good/evil are subjective, as there are - at least from the perspective of a person who believes in a religion - objective vices that lead to loss of human life and property regardless of who carries it out, and there are actions that promote the preservation of human life and property, again regardless of who carries it out.
I will comment on parts 2, 3, and 4 in future posts. Thank you for reading.
References
1. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Penguin Classics)
2. SparkNotes - Leviathan
3. Leviathan Chapter Summaries
Comments
Post a Comment