Leviathan

Mar 25, 2013 Steve aka Sckenda rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Those Interested in Intellectual Political Philosophy

Recommended to Steve aka Sckenda by: Great Books of Western World

Shelves: philosophy, political-philosophy, conservative, evil, great-books, government

The fundamental law dictating the behavior of all life is “nature’s law of red tooth and claw.” British political philosopher Thomas Hobbes declared in “Leviathan” (1651) that all humans, “in nature,” are untrustworthy and corrupt beings, so each must protect his or her own individual interests from other humans --“just as beasts in the jungle do.” Moreover, humans are so quarrelsome and belligerent that, except for brief interludes, we are constantly in a state of war.

Violent reality dictates...more The fundamental law dictating the behavior of all life is “nature’s law of red tooth and claw.” British political philosopher Thomas Hobbes declared in “Leviathan” (1651) that all humans, “in nature,” are untrustworthy and corrupt beings, so each must protect his or her own individual interests from other humans --“just as beasts in the jungle do.” Moreover, humans are so quarrelsome and belligerent that, except for brief interludes, we are constantly in a state of war.

Violent reality dictates that individuals must protect themselves by joining groups for self-defense. Thus, self-preservation is the first law of nature, which compels humans to cooperate with others by entering into “social contracts.” The social contract substitutes the communal Golden Rule for nature’s law (that “might makes right”). “A man must be willing, for the sake of peace, to lay down his natural right, and be content to limit his liberties to the extent that others are willing to curb theirs.” Hobbes explores at least 13 principles of political philosophy that flow from this premise.

What happens if one party violates the social contract? Hobbes answers that a power greater than those who are party to the contract must be empowered to act. This power he calls “the Leviathan,” a mortal god, who is either the king with absolute power or the "Commonwealth" (state). Hobbes on government:

Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man. Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time or war where every man is enemy to every man, the same is consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is ... continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. (Great Books ed., 21:85)

Hobbes’ view of the social contract differs from Aristotle’s, because Aristotle saw the State as “a natural condition” rather than Hobbes who saw anarchy as natural. Unlike John Locke’s concept of a state, which can be amended or overthrown by a majority, Hobbes’ Leviathan is not subject to will of people.

Hobbes was an atheist. Because he saw no sign of religion in animals he believed that religion had it source of origin in humans only:

Ignorance of natural causes disposes a man to credulity, so as to believe many times impossibilities…. And credulity, because men like to be hearkened unto in company, disposeth them to lying…. Fear of things invisible is the natural seed of that which everyone in himself calls religion; and in them that worship of fear that power otherwise than they do, superstition. And this seed of religion, having been observed by many, some of those that have observed it have been inclined thereby to nourish, dress, and form it into law; and to add to it, of their own invention, any opinion of the causes of future events by which they thought they should best be able to govern others and make unto themselves the greatest use of their powers. (21:78)

Hobbes also believed in the priority of sense experience over reason. Thus in the debate between the epistemologies (systems of belief), Hobbes falls into the camp of empiricism (Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Hume) rather than that of rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hegel).

Despite having written “Leviathan” 362 years ago, I believe Hobbes is easier to read than most modern works of systematic philosophy, because Hobbes writes without jargon or undue abstraction. There is a reason that traditional conservatives tend to distrust all utopias, social safety nets, and global organizations. To them and to Hobbes, humans are neither perfectible nor trustworthy. (Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney is often described as “Hobbesian.”)

Hobbes lived through the English Civil War, and his parents lived through the religious uncertainty during the Tudors. Hobbes is one of the first philosophical articulators of the pessimistic or realistic (choose your own adjective) worldview, so I believe that an understanding of Hobbes helps us to understand the current political divisions among people. Until you understand peoples’ fear, you are probably wasting your breath trying to persuade them with logic. (less)

30 likes · like · see review

Oct 03, 2011 Aurochz rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, psychology

Many people when talking about philosophy pose the question, who is the most misunderstood philosopher in history? The most often heard candidate I hear is "Nietzsche." Though since Bertrand Russell's rather ill informed chapter on him in A HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY, I can say Nietzsche has had quite a good public relations campaign in the last half century or so since. There are a few philosophers who history still hasn't given an adequate reevaluation, Hobbes is one such philosopher.

Often...more Many people when talking about philosophy pose the question, who is the most misunderstood philosopher in history? The most often heard candidate I hear is "Nietzsche." Though since Bertrand Russell's rather ill informed chapter on him in A HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY, I can say Nietzsche has had quite a good public relations campaign in the last half century or so since. There are a few philosophers who history still hasn't given an adequate reevaluation, Hobbes is one such philosopher.

Often overlooked or belittled because of his political philosophy which has taken precedent over everything else he has done. For that being his most remembered contribution to philosophy, you think people would get his views on it right. No such luck for Hobbes, he is even widely misunderstood in the one area he is most remembered for.

Hobbes became interested in philosophy much later in life than most. He disputed a well known aspect of Euclidean geometry to a friend and was quickly rebuked with a proof of what he disputed. Rather then being dismayed, Hobbes was amazed by the power of reason to change a persons mind so definitively. He quickly became immersed in the accumulated knowledge of his era.

Other than political philosophy, Hobbes was one of the first people to formulate the idea of psychological egoism. He was the first of his era to have a now commonly held view of humans as complex biological machines. The general philosophical idea wasn't new but he gave the best exposition of the problem of compositional identity in his "Ship of Theseus" metaphor. An undercurrent of his philosophy which was radical at the time and still radical to this day, is his emphasis on materialism something we wouldn't see again in philosophy until David Hume a century or so later. Although he firmly held to materialistic views, Hobbes was one of the few of this early era of Science, then called natural philosophy to have a critical eye towards the methodology, while still contributing and putting his own ideas forward. In the history of the philosophy of science, Hobbes was the first to put forward the problem of instruments. An idea that can be summed up as, "are we discovering things with our instruments or manufacturing them?" A problem we still cant get around to some degree and that has plagued science based on complex instruments ever since.

Hobbes has had many contributions outside of political philosophy that are still important today. In this book he does focus on political philosophy though and his position though commonly stated as being thus: Since life without government is nasty brutish in short, we should have an absolute ruler with no caveats or further justification. Hobbes didn't believe in absolute rulers and he didn't exclude himself from being a party to psychological egoism. He saw government as a necessary evil, but still saw that it had its drawbacks. That is why he didn't believe rulers were chosen by divine providence or through any other means then materialistic forces such as popular consensus and his formulation of the social contract. He was the first person to put forward the idea of a social contract, or a secular approach to how governments form. He thought unjust rulers were tyrants and that they should be resisted as such. He thought Aristocratic and church interests separate a nation and as such they and their interests should be separated from the sovereignty much more than they were in his time. Hobbes without saying put forward the earliest formulation I know of between positive and negative liberty.

He heavily criticized miracles and supernatural forces and believed god if existing was a naturalistic being within the same universe as us. More than half of this book is dedicated to refuting or extremely deflating super-natural ideas. His views were far from complacent or in the line of the status quo and as such he drew criticism and even talk of death threats and excommunications from virtually every corner of political power over his views in Leviathan. He was also barred from writing in the United Kingdom and excluded from lucrative academic posts and groups.

Berkeley is often touted as the extreme road taken on the mental half of Cartesian dualism. Although Hobbes came first I think he can be similarly seen as the extreme half of the materialist side of the coin. Seeing as idealism ultimately led to Hegel. It is Funny that Hegel and Hobbes philosophy though on two totally opposite sides of the philosophical dualistic road led to a lot of the same conclusions. A super entity that represents the people, an approach to knowledge that takes a historical account and an ambiguous redundant god that seems to take a novelty place in both philosophies and unwavering support of kings instead of the other governmental options.

Leviathan is an important, but hard read. Not for those new to philosophy or political science. I would recommend it to those who have done their homework and who can really appreciate and see that Hobbes is not as bad as history has made him out to be. His political philosophy has ultimately been proven to be historically inaccurate and to an extent irrelevant today. There are however aspects of it, that we use and owe to Hobbes to this day.
(less)

7 likes · like · see review

Jan 12, 2008 Charissa rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: nobody!

Recommended to Charissa by: Linda my undergraduate philosophy professor

Shelves: weltanschauung, threw-across-room

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 West...more

22 likes · like · see review

Jul 18, 2012 Savanna rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: reviewed, non-fiction, philosophy

In his Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes claims that the acts of a sovereign are always the acts of each of the subjects, so no subject can ever be wronged by the sovereign. He makes this assertion to justify the power structure of a monarchist commonwealth, and he bases this conclusion on a contract he believes arises when a nation chooses to be governed instead of remaining in a state of anarchy he calls the state of nature. I’ll explain why by showing how a sovereign is raised and the nature of the c...more In his Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes claims that the acts of a sovereign are always the acts of each of the subjects, so no subject can ever be wronged by the sovereign. He makes this assertion to justify the power structure of a monarchist commonwealth, and he bases this conclusion on a contract he believes arises when a nation chooses to be governed instead of remaining in a state of anarchy he calls the state of nature. I’ll explain why by showing how a sovereign is raised and the nature of the contract between him and his subjects.
Because the anarchic state of nature entails constant competition, which is a state of war, and because every person harbours an inherent desire for peace so as to be able to pursue her desires, people are compelled to abandon the state of nature in favour of a civil society. Lacking a common power of government, there is neither law nor justice, and people are therefore disrupted in their endeavours to pursue an ideal life by a constant fear of death. The desire for peace compels people to relinquish their complete freedom for a freedom limited to the permissibility of doing to all other people only as much as one would allow to be done to oneself. When such rights are transferred between more than one party the exchange constitutes a contract that is binding by the laws of justice. Importantly, the contract applies to all individuals that are members of a party of a contract, and their consent binds them as though they were one consenting person.
Such a contract is forged between the nation and one person to be held above by virtue of the contract (although innately each person is equal ) when people choose to leave the state of nature, and its result is the creation of a commonwealth in which the sovereign, through the consent of the people, rules over the people in their own interest. Hobbes writes that a single person or a small group of persons must be appointed to speak for the entire group seeking protection from the state of nature to be able to live contentedly. As this person or group is chosen by the collective for the specific end of ensuring the protection of all, all those who consent to relinquishing their natural liberties in favour of common protection under this person’s judgement have bindingly subjugated themselves to that judgement. This is how Hobbes accounts for the emergence from the constant war of the state of nature to a united commonwealth beneath a sovereign who represents the consent and will of the people. As we shall see, this consent figures into the impossibility of the sovereign wronging subjects.
According to Hobbes, the authority, power, and rights of the sovereign are derived from the consent of the commonwealth. Because of the contract, obedience is owed to the sovereign alone, except when the sovereign appoints other leaders beneath him. The bond between sovereign and commonwealth also prohibits the abandonment of the since it would breach the contract of consent in the sovereign’s leadership and thereby constitute an injustice. Not only must the sovereign be obeyed in all things because of the contract, but the sovereign also cannot himself breach a covenant with any of his subjects. He could not have made a covenant before the establishment of the commonwealth because it would either have to be with the group as a collective, unitary body—which is impossible since the group only becomes a unitary body through the establishment of a commonwealth—or he would have had to make a covenant with each person individually—which as well as being fairly preposterous wouldn’t matter after he became sovereign, because an agreement made between equals would be nullified when the one party ascends to sovereignty. Once a commonwealth is established, the sovereign represents each individual person in the state—even those that did not offer their consent in raising him. Merely by taking part in the congregation, he declared his will to abide by the decision of the majority. Thus, the sovereign stands as embodiment of the will of all the members of the commonwealth as a collective body, and his absolute powers of judgement are derived from the consent of each individual therein, all of whom are thereby subjugated beneath him.
Since the power of the sovereign is derived from all members of the commonwealth and since any ties that bound them with the sovereign as equals before his ascension are voided by his new superiority, Hobbes claims that no action or judgement of the sovereign can be unjust or wrong the members of the commonwealth in any way. By having imbued him with his supreme executive powers themselves, subjects are “the authors” of everything he does. Because people can’t properly be said to commit injustice to themselves, and since the sovereign acts as representative for each person, the sovereign can do no wrong to any of his subjects. So according to Hobbes, not only can the sovereign not commit injustices because he determines all laws and their adjudication, but also by virtue of his ascension to superiority through the consent of each member of the commonwealth established, the nature of which makes him always act on their behalf as their representative and makes each of them responsible for all of his actions.
Thus, because of the contract that makes the sovereign represent all subjects through their consent, Hobbes claims he cannot wrong his subjects.(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Jun 05, 2011 Mel Vincent rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: political-philosophy

This is truly the greatest written political work of all time. It meticulously dissects the areas of the political body and mind, the Leviathan itself, and it also deals with the fundamental properties that enable that political body to work such as human reason, ideology, government and also religion.

Every question that I have conceived within the confines of my mind, this book has answered it perfectly and efficiently. It is amazing how Thomas Hobbes has argued, analyzed and even criticized th...more

4 likes · like · see review

May 18, 2013 JP rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Hobbe's work is more completely titled "The Matter, Form, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil." There is a lot of depth in this work and my weak attempt here is meant more to reinforce the reading within my own mind than to actually convey the entire meaning of Hobbe's great work. Hobbes is among the first in a series of thinkers to contemplate the meaning of life, politics, religion, and humanity in order to put them into some logical context. He does a perfect job of building...more

like · see review

May 12, 2013 Alex rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Whereas I am trying to broaden my knowledge base and learn more basic philosophy, and whereas I am reading for pleasure rather than to create or support any argument, and whereas Hobbes likes to define and use italics profusely, and whereas his writing is in a style most soporific and whereas it takes him nearly half the book to get to the point, while I have been dreading picking up a book for weeks, expecting to get mired in some sidetrack defining all the different types of contracts one may...more

like · see review

May 04, 2013 Kyle French rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: couldn-t-finish, classic-philosophy, political-theory

I was taught, somewhere around high school, that Hobbes was the great balancing influence opposite Locke in the carefully constructed political philosophy of the US Constitution. Locke gives us the concept of inalienable human rights that are found in a state of nature, and Hobbes gives us a proper horror of the constant state of war that is found in a state of nature, where there is no authority figure to arbitrate the ways that the rights of one person may violate those of another.

In other wor...more I was taught, somewhere around high school, that Hobbes was the great balancing influence opposite Locke in the carefully constructed political philosophy of the US Constitution. Locke gives us the concept of inalienable human rights that are found in a state of nature, and Hobbes gives us a proper horror of the constant state of war that is found in a state of nature, where there is no authority figure to arbitrate the ways that the rights of one person may violate those of another.

In other words, according to Hobbes, we need the Leviathan. One supposes Hobbes was literate enough to understand that the leviathan in scripture was a sea monster commonly understood to represent the devil.

My expectations were a little bit unrealized. Reading the introduction, it became clear that the only people who loved this book were people who hate orthodox Christianity. That isn't an exaggeration. Hobbes set out to cast down the Reformational/Puritan scholastics that he hated from his experience at Oxford, and spent a good deal of time after he wrote the book attempting to prove that his philosophies didn't count as heresy.

So I expected to hate him, but I expected it to be awful in a way that was at least spectacular, and that's where I was disappointed. It turns out that the thing about Oxford that Hobbes apparently hated the most was Aristotle, and by all appearances, Leviathan was his best shot at overthrowing Aristotle - by being Aristotle.

Now I'm all about working things out from first principles, but Leviathan is a book of political theory - how governments are made legitimate, why we need government, how government can be effective. But Leviathan doesn't start with government. He starts with defining the difference between imagination and perception and the difference between dreams and fantasy. From there, where he was going, I'm not sure I could tell.

I can, however, give you a thumbnail sketch of his procedure, since he was kind enough to throw that out at the start. The basic idea he has is that men (meaning people) are by nature artists who create representational figures in their art. Government, or I should say society, is nothing more than a cooperative representation of a human being. Everything that a human being accomplishes in his own life, society accomplishes as a group - a man made up of men. Therefore, if we determine what exactly it is that a human being is and does - how he receives information about the world, how he adjusts to it and makes himself successful - we should be able to extrapolate that into what collections of human beings are and do, and how we coordinate as a society to understand our world collectively, adjust to it, and approach those peak points of culture.

Immediately, I was struck with two points which forced me completely out of engagement with the book. The first was that he assumes one of the key points in the current debate about individual liberty and government, which is that society and government are the same thing. If you make society and government identical with each other, then you rule out the possibility of tyranny from the get-go. If the problem with anarchy is that you've always got somebody trampling on his weaker neighbor, you can't solve it by insisting that both parties are part of a collective group, ruled by a careful administrator. It always turns out that the 'administrator' bears a striking resemblance to the trampler and the rest of the group bears a good deal more resemblance to the trampleee. Governments in society are only ever safe when there is an infinite regression of other parts of society that can come together with sufficient force to tell the government "no!" and really make it stick. If society is government, then government is tyranny.

In case you weren't watching, tyranny is generally considered bad.

The other thing that kept sticking out to me is that Hobbes really hated Aristotle. Now, I've read a bit of Aristotle, and I really kind of like him. He really has a lot of sticking power. The renaissance and modern science made a pretense of overthrowing him for a long while, but all that is starting to look more like a 500 year fad. Aristotle says that when you drop a rock, it falls down instead of floating up because rocks have a natural resting place, such that, when you let it go, it is drawn to that resting place by its nature. Einstein tells us with mathematical clarity that it is nothing of the kind: It's just that bodies with enormous mass cause space to curve so that other objects with mass are drawn into them. Which is really another way of saying the exact same thing. What is mass, and the curvature of space, except "nature"? The progress we've made in understanding the natural world, for the most part amounts to nothing more than better engineering and finer precision. The basic concepts are surprisingly consistent.

So also with Hobbes. He apparently hated Aristotle, or at least the approach of the scholastics of his day, who put a great deal of emphasis on Aristotle. But reading Hobbes, he sounds a great deal like Aristotle, proceeding by the same kinds of measures. But where Aristotle might have made an appeal to classical history, or to clear observations about the world that everybody was familiar with during his time, Hobbes frequently makes reference to science. Now Hobbes' science may have been quite good, maybe even groundbreaking in his day. I gathered from the introduction that many think he's an early modern precursor to dozens of modern fields of study. But the truth is, my poor background in modern science is a good deal clearer and cleaner than his thorough background in 16th century science. So even in the first chapter, Hobbes starts making observations about sense and perception based on the nature of dreams, and I'm rolling my eyes on two different levels (which is a very difficult thing to do), because not only is it clear that Hobbes doesn't know what he's talking about in terms of how the brain processes and analyses sense information, it's also pretty evident that part of what he's trying to do is prove he can be Aristotle too.

At some point in my reading, I just gave up. A book only has so many pages to hook my attention and convince me that it's worth my time to go on reading. Leviathan failed to do that. To mix metaphors from fields in which I have no experience, I felt my time would be better spent with someone who was spending less effort trying to knock every ball out of the park, and more trying to move the ball a few more yards toward the goal. He probably has some decent ideas in here, but it's just not worth the effort to go digging them out in the original. A well-written summary could probably do the trick with less frustration. (less)

like · see review

Dec 02, 2011 Andrew rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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 subj...more

5 likes · like · see review

Jan 09, 2011 Cody rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Leviathan is really four books: "Of Man," "Of Common-wealth," "Of a Christian Common-wealth," and "Of the Kingdom of Darkness." The first book is the philosophical framework for Leviathan. The remaining books elaborate upon the arguments presented in the beginning:
• "Of Common-wealth" discusses rights of sovereigns and subjects and goes over the legislative mechanics of the commonwealth.
• "Of a Christian Common-wealth" discusses the compatibility of Christian doctrine with Hobbes' idea of the Le...more Leviathan is really four books: "Of Man," "Of Common-wealth," "Of a Christian Common-wealth," and "Of the Kingdom of Darkness." The first book is the philosophical framework for Leviathan. The remaining books elaborate upon the arguments presented in the beginning:
• "Of Common-wealth" discusses rights of sovereigns and subjects and goes over the legislative mechanics of the commonwealth.
• "Of a Christian Common-wealth" discusses the compatibility of Christian doctrine with Hobbes' idea of the Leviathan.
• "Of the Kingdom of Darkness" discusses false religious beliefs and argues that the political implementation of the Leviathan is needed to achieve a secure Christian commonwealth.

Hobbes starts off by considering the motions of matter, arguing that every aspect of human nature can be deduced from materialist principles. He depicts the natural condition of mankind as inherently violent, awash with fear. He claims the state of nature is the "war of every man against every man," in which people constantly seek to destroy one another. This state is so horrible that human beings seek peace, and the best way to achieve peace is to construct the Leviathan, a commonwealth head by a sovereign ruling head, through a social contract.

I can see Hobbes' influence in Locke and Hume. And while I admire the methodical way in which he wrote, in my opinion it is an extreme view to feel mankind is condemned with incurable violence or as Hobbes put it in Leviathan, a "war of all against all." And I disagree with his famous, oft-quoted statement that "men's lives are solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

I believe Hobbes' analysis of human nature, like everyone else's, is a reflection of his own views of himself. While I would never underestimate the power of fear, as world leaders of history have used it greatly to their advantage, there is much to be said for human dignity and empathy. There is much to be said for love and compassion.

And like Nietzsche, Hobbes also goes out of his way to speak with an atheistic attitude, all the while seeming to give credence to the very thing he does not seem to want to believe in. One can not vehemently oppose an idea, if that idea does not exist. Fighting an idea only gives that idea more power.

Hobbes' Leviathan is far too fascist and totalitarian for my tastes and I prefer Rousseau's more positive view of man. Men's behavior is a reflection of how they are treated. Or as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe put it, "Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you help them to become what they are capable of being."(less)

1 like · like · see review

Aug 19, 2010 Laura rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: assigned-reading, classic

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 gr...more

5 likes · like · see review

Jun 03, 2010 Rowland Bismark rated it 4 of 5 stars

Leviathan, Hobbes's most important work and one of the most influential philosophical texts produced during the seventeenth century, was written partly as a response to the fear Hobbes experienced during the political turmoil of the English Civil Wars. In the 1640s, it was clear to Hobbes that Parliament was going to turn against King Charles I, so he fled to France for eleven years, terrified that, as a Royalist, he would be persecuted for his support of the king. Hobbes composed Leviathan whil...more Leviathan, Hobbes's most important work and one of the most influential philosophical texts produced during the seventeenth century, was written partly as a response to the fear Hobbes experienced during the political turmoil of the English Civil Wars. In the 1640s, it was clear to Hobbes that Parliament was going to turn against King Charles I, so he fled to France for eleven years, terrified that, as a Royalist, he would be persecuted for his support of the king. Hobbes composed Leviathan while in France, brilliantly articulating the philosophy of political and natural science that he had been developing since the 1630s. Hobbes's masterwork was finally published in 1651, two years after Parliament ordered the beheading of Charles I and took over administration of the English nation in the name of the Commonwealth.

Leviathan's argument for the necessity of absolute sovereignty emerged in the politically unstable years after the Civil Wars, and its publication coincided with that of many Republican treatises seeking to justify the regicide (killing of the king) to the rest of Europe (John Milton's Tenure of Kings and Magistrates is a famous example of these regicide tracts). Not only was the political argument of Leviathan controversial at the time of its publication, but the philosophical method employed by Hobbes to make his claims also scandalized many of his contemporaries--even those writers, such as Robert Filmer (the author of the Royalist tract Patriarcha), who otherwise supported Hobbes's claims for absolute sovereignty.

Hobbes's materialist philosophy was based upon a mechanistic view of the universe, holding that all phenomena were explainable purely in terms of matter and motion, and rejecting concepts such as incorporeal spirits or disembodied souls. Consequently, many critics labeled Hobbes an atheist (although he was not, in the strict sense). Associated with both atheism and the many deliberately terrifying images of Leviathan, Hobbes became known as the "Monster of Malmsbury" and the "Bug-bear of the Nation." In 1666, Hobbes's books were burned at Oxford (where Hobbes had graduated from Magdalen College in 1608), and the resulting conflagration was even blamed in Parliament for having started the Great Fire of London. The chaotic atmosphere of England in the aftermath of the Civil Wars ensured that Hobbes's daring propositions met with a lively reaction.

Hobbes knew that Leviathan would be controversial, for not only did the text advocate restoration of monarchy when the English republic was at its strongest (Oliver Cromwell was not instituted as Lord High Protector until 1653, and the Restoration of Charles II did not occur until 1660), but Hobbes's book also challenged the very basis of philosophical and political knowledge. Hobbes claimed that traditional philosophy had never arrived at irrefutable conclusions, that it had instead offered only useless sophistries and insubstantial rhetoric; he thus called for a reform of philosophy that would enable secure truth--claims with which everyone could agree. Consequently, Hobbesian philosophy would prevent disagreements about the fundamental aspects of human nature, society, and proper government. Furthermore, because Hobbes believed that civil war resulted from disagreements in the philosophical foundations of political knowledge, his plan for a reformed philosophy to end divisiveness would also end the conditions of war. For Hobbes, civil war was the ultimate terror, the definition of fear itself. He thus wanted to reform philosophy in order to reform the nation and thereby vanquish fear.

Earlier in the seventeenth century, Francis Bacon--for whom Hobbes had served as secretary in his youth--had also proposed a reform of philosophy, a reform he called the "Great Instauration." Bacon's program was an inductive philosophy based upon the observation of natural facts ("inductive" reasoning derives general principles from particular instances or facts); the experimental manipulation of nature of Bacon's scheme was very influential for the development of the historical period commonly called the Scientific Revolution, and also formed the backbone of the English Royal Society. Like Hobbes's, Bacon's system rejected traditional philosophical knowledge as untrustworthy, instead embracing nature as the only sure basis for all claims for truth. But Hobbes argued that the experimentalist program was also unsuccessful in providing secure, indisputable knowledge. Hobbes therefore rejected the Baconian system and argued vehemently against it. Hobbes's own deductive scientific philosophy was not experimental--in "deductive" reasoning, a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises, rather than being inferred from instances of these premises--but Hobbes maintained that it provided better understanding of the universe and society than both traditional philosophy and experimental science.

Leviathan attempted to create controversy in politics and in science, radically challenging both contemporary government and philosophy itself; yet, despite its very invocation of controversy, Leviathan sought ultimately to annihilate controversy for good. Hobbes's philosophical method claimed to provide indisputable conclusions, and its depiction of the Leviathan of society suggested that the Hobbesian method could put an end to controversy, war, and fear. Hobbes's philosophy was highly influential in certain sectors (Hobbesism was a fashionable intellectual position well into the eighteenth century). However, Hobbes, who died in 1679, never lived to see his work achieve the widespread and totalizing effects for which he had hoped. Excluded from the Royal Society for his anti-experimentalist stance and derided by many contemporaries as an immoral monster, Hobbes neither transformed the nation nor reformed philosophy as he had envisioned. Nonetheless, Hobbes has had a lasting influence in the history of Western philosophy, as he is credited with inaugurating political science; his crowning achievement, Leviathan is still recognized as one of the greatest masterpieces of the history of ideas. Written during a moment in English history when the political structure, social structure, and methods of science were all in flux and open to manipulation, Leviathan played an essential role in the development of the modern world.

Leviathan is divided into four books: "Of Man," "Of Common-wealth," "Of a Christian Common-wealth," and "Of the Kingdome of Darknesse." Book I contains the philosophical framework for the entire text, while the remaining books simply extend and elaborate the arguments presented in the initial chapters. Consequently, Book I is given the most attention in the detailed summaries that follow. Hobbes begins his text by considering the elementary motions of matter, arguing that every aspect of human nature can be deduced from materialist principles. Hobbes depicts the natural condition of mankind--known as the state of nature--as inherently violent and awash with fear. The state of nature is the "war of every man against every man," in which people constantly seek to destroy one another. This state is so horrible that human beings naturally seek peace, and the best way to achieve peace is to construct the Leviathan through social contract.

Book II details the process of erecting the Leviathan, outlines the rights of sovereigns and subjects, and imagines the legislative and civil mechanics of the commonwealth. Book III concerns the compatibility of Christian doctrine with Hobbesian philosophy and the religious system of the Leviathan. Book IV engages in debunking false religious beliefs and arguing that the political implementation of the Leviathanic state is necessary to achieve a secure Christian commonwealth.

Hobbes's philosophical method in Leviathan is modeled after a geometric proof, founded upon first principles and established definitions, and in which each step of argument makes conclusions based upon the previous step. Hobbes decided to create a philosophical method similar to the geometric proof after meeting Galileo on his extended travels in Europe during the 1630s. Observing that the conclusions derived by geometry are indisputable because each of constituent steps is indisputable in itself, Hobbes attempted to work out a similarly irrefutable philosophy in his writing of Leviathan.(less)

4 likes · like · see review

May 31, 2009 Steven Peterson rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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 beg...more 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.
(less)

3 likes · like · see review

Mar 25, 2010 Esiasch rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

If it were not for the fact that the "Leviathan" is a foundational text of any serious study of the history of political philosophy, this book would be better off collecting dust on some neglected shelf. That is not to say that it is not an impressive and well thought out work but rather that it is dated. There are practical applications to the information one can obtain inside its pages but they are few and far between and hold little actual value save for the obvious historical purposes.

More...more

like · see review

Aug 08, 2012 M. rated it 4 of 5 stars

This is considered to be one of the most influential books on Political Philosophy and from the first two parts of the book I can see why the parts of MAN & COMMONWEALTH was great the next two talked too much about the christian dominance and the false religious beliefs with too many biblical words.

I found a big difference between his view and that of Locke or Rousseau, his materialistic views were shown in his work, considering the time the book was written in it must have created a big con...more This is considered to be one of the most influential books on Political Philosophy and from the first two parts of the book I can see why the parts of MAN & COMMONWEALTH was great the next two talked too much about the christian dominance and the false religious beliefs with too many biblical words.

I found a big difference between his view and that of Locke or Rousseau, his materialistic views were shown in his work, considering the time the book was written in it must have created a big controversy about it, challenging everything had been there.

The difference between him and what I have read before is his views about human nature and man kind ,war of every man against every man, that showed we only tend to destroy one another and so we seek peace.

His views on the rights of sovereigns on their subjects and the right of their subject in the commonwealth I didn't like that as he based all his arguments on the christian perspective.On all of that he supports a constitutional monarchy instead of republicanism or any form with a monarchy ruling like all I was reading about, but he based a good ground for civil right and legislation and the idea of the social contract to form the Leviathan.

He wrote the book during the civil war so I can see why he supported a constitutional monarchy as a form of stability and to stop the killing in a form of a common ground.

This is still on of the greatest work of political philosophy in the English language and after the long read I will give it a 3.5/5.

From the book:-

To conclude, the light of humane minds is perspicuous words, but by exact definitions first snuffed, and purged from ambiguity; reason is the pace; increase of science, the way; and the benefit of mankind, the end

For there is no such thing as perpetual tranquillity of mind, while we live here; because life itself is but motion, and can never be without desire, nor without fear, no more than without sense.

For such is the nature of man, that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent, or more learned; Yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves: For they see their own wit at hand, and other mens at a distance.

(less)

like · see review

Oct 31, 2011 Alex MacMillan rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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 in a commonwealth. 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 b...more 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 in a commonwealth. 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. The legitimacy of a commonwealth therefore necessitates the capability of 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 societal construction. 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.
(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Jul 20, 2010 Jeremy added it

Shelves: philosophy, politics

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 worl...more

2 likes · like · see review

Mar 24, 2012 Akeyla Pratt rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This book is VERY long and, no lie, it is extremely difficult to get through. But to Hobbes' credit, I learned a lot from reading it.

Hobbes clearly outlines the importance of defining EVERYTHING in an argument, a habit which I've learned is essential if you don't want people who are clever with semantics to twist everything you say. He also pioneered the concept of the State of Nature, which continues to be a very relevant idea even in literature and philosophy nowadays. I'm constantly finding r...more

like · see review

Jun 10, 2007 Alex rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy

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.

2 likes · like · see review

Oct 28, 2012 dejah_thoris rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: primary-source

Yes, I suffered through Hobbes, but I'm glad I did once I got accustomed to the language.

Most of Hobbes' argument is in the first two sections of Leviathan, namely that it is better to have a ruler, any ruler, than none at all, because without someone to cede authority to in exchange for protection, mankind falls into a state of perpetual warring chaos.

The argument itself is rather interesting, however, in that Hobbes begins examining man's natural inclinations before moving to a spiritual rat...more

like · see review

Aug 23, 2011 Brian rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

A great foundational political philosophy text. Hobbes touches on humans as a starting point for government: monarchy vs. aristocracy vs. democracy (he sure loves his absolute monarchy), liberty, crime and punishment (the only reason for punishment is deterrence). He then takes on religious issues, though these are abridged in this edition. He constantly decries superstition and believing people who claim special knowledge of God, and he goes through the books of the Bible describing how none we...more

like · see review

Aug 30, 2011 Matt rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Leviathan is Hobbes’ metaphor for the State.

According to Hobbes, the use of speech has four abuses. The second of which is when men “use words metaphorically, that is, in other sense than that they are ordained for, and therby deceive others.” Bk. 1, Ch. IV, pg. 17.

I’ll come back to this.

Hobbes is best known for his -life is short and brutish- quip which is a good summary of his first book. He does not hide his disdain for the Greek philosophers adopted by the church Schoolmen that came before h...more Leviathan is Hobbes’ metaphor for the State.

According to Hobbes, the use of speech has four abuses. The second of which is when men “use words metaphorically, that is, in other sense than that they are ordained for, and therby deceive others.” Bk. 1, Ch. IV, pg. 17.

I’ll come back to this.

Hobbes is best known for his -life is short and brutish- quip which is a good summary of his first book. He does not hide his disdain for the Greek philosophers adopted by the church Schoolmen that came before him. However, the approach to his own political philosophy is simultaneously an imitation of, and rejection of, those same Greeks. Like Aristotle, Hobbes believes in the Euclidean process of defining terms which, when used logically, will then unambiguously reach to solid conclusions. Unlike Plato‘s The Republic, Aristotle‘s Politics or even Machiavelli’s The Prince, Hobbes makes no attempt, initially, to establish a State around some defined good. The State exists because men fear the state of nature in which all are at war with each other. The sovereign is a tool of those governed. The sovereign's empowered to help avoid utter chaos. All are bound to the sovereign because the sovereign is the expression of their will. And their will is a double-negative version of the Golden Rule- do not do unto others what you don’t want done to you. The values men have in a state of nature are given as inherent truths. Hobbes lists them off with a brief statement as to why with no debate. For example, “Riches are honorable, for they are power. Poverty, dishonourable.” Bk. 1, Ch. X, pg. 53. Again, the focus is on what men are like in a state of nature, not an attempt to create new values.

Most people focus on the first book, but there are three others. The second book comprises mechanisms for the State. it’s not terribly engaging as it lays out reasons why monarchy is best the system of government and elaborates on the ways to avoid civil strife.

Then religion comes into play and the entire book loses cohesion. Any suspicions I had the Hobbes was an atheist were obliterated with the third book. Page after page of scathing criticism of the Church culminates in Hobbes’ reinterpretation of Scripture that:

The laws of God, therefore, are none but the laws of nature, whereof the principal is that we should not violate our faith, that is, a commandment to obey our civil sovereigns, which we constituted over us by mutual pact with another. Bk. 3, Ch. XLIII, pg. 399.

Hobbes does not follow through with the idea of savage men bonding together in a social contract on their own terms to avoid living in a state of fear. No, Hobbes is really talking about Christians bonding together to enforce biblical commandments. The State and Christianity combine into one sovereign over the Commonwealth.

Overall, the first book is fascinating in its raw vision of humanity. The later chapters soften that image until Hobbes becomes nothing more than a theological reformer. The imagery of a monster State ruling over its subjects is not the image Hobbes is after. The subtle Christian reference to the Leviathan (Job 41) becomes clearer by the end of the book. His metaphor deceived me.(less)

like · see review

Aug 05, 2007 Moses Allen rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: the philosophic or political mind

Shelves: philosophy

This is a difficult read because it was written in the seventeenth century, but book XIII is probably the most important part. I would even go so far as to say you could read only the introduction and books X-XIV and get best of the book.

2 likes · like · see review

May 21, 2009 Juan Pablo rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: partially-read

Otro libro leído sólo parcialmente...
Hobbes es bastante duro al referirse al estado natural del hombre, ´como es sabido. De una forma para nada optimista, es enfático en decir que originariamente todo hombre está en guerra con los demás, buscamos imponernos violentamente para lograr que los demás nos consideren a la misma altura que nosotros mismo, y que por lo tanto estamos sumidos en un ambiente incivilizado en el que la vida es “solitaria, pobre, desgraciada, brutal y corta.”

Prosigue luego H...more

like · see review

Feb 17, 2009 Gina rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

hobbes is the author of political dictatorship and monarchy. having been returned politically to a hobbesian state during the last us presidency, i found this book incredibly informative about the nature of surrender. Hobbes' state of nature is defined primarily by the constant fear of death and engagements of war. By acknowledging a "Leviathan" (sea monster, figure head) a state of relative peace is gained. The social contract states that in trade for protection from each other, we agree to giv...more

like · see review

Dec 10, 2008 eesenor rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Hobbes proposes that each individual is motivated by selfishness, and devises a political body that would exist to prevent a war of all against all.

1 like · like · see review

Nov 02, 2011 Xon rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

An epic tome about political philosophy--at least that's what I have heard said about the book by enlightened intellectuals.

I read this a while ago, so same here, I should have to reread to give it a fair review.

Nonetheless, it is as the enlightened intellectuals posit: a great work on political philosophy. A lot of where we are in the western cultures today, politically, culturally, philosophically, comes from Hobbe's erudite treatise.

This is no Sunday afternoon relaxing read. One has to get in...more

like · see review

Nov 21, 2010 Andrew added it · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, 16c-17c-nonfiction

Over the years, the idea of Thomas Hobbes has become far more important than Hobbes himself. We all know his line about the state of nature-- "nasty, brutish, and short"-- that can be applied to high school wrestlers as easily as it can to his proto-Enlightenment convictions about primitive man.

But that's the thing, we all know it. And when we hear his shitty, absurdly baroque argument, we like it even less. To a modern reader, Hobbes is his own worst enemy. If you have a historical interest in...more

2 likes · like · see review

Mar 26, 2012 Jesse Schexnayder rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Hobbes thesis that the natural state of man is chaos and war is the primary justification he provides for an all encompassing authority to be placed unalterably in the hands of the Sovereign, or Leviathan. What he neglects to address is the absolutely corrupting influence such power has on the all too human Kings, Queens, and legislative bodies which hold such power over their fellow creatures.

There is a saying that if men were were angels we would not need government, or if that angels administ...more Hobbes thesis that the natural state of man is chaos and war is the primary justification he provides for an all encompassing authority to be placed unalterably in the hands of the Sovereign, or Leviathan. What he neglects to address is the absolutely corrupting influence such power has on the all too human Kings, Queens, and legislative bodies which hold such power over their fellow creatures.

There is a saying that if men were were angels we would not need government, or if that angels administered man's government then we would not need to worry as to constraining them. But neither of these delusions can be ever be achieved by fallible man, no matter how much certain individuals may otherwise hope. You cannot legislate morality and you cannot make men charitable by forcing them to give. And much to the annoyance of Plato, no amount of education or cultural refinement can immunize man to the ever present threats of avarice, arrogance, and blind ambition. There must be checks on this power if men are to retain their hard-fought liberty and if the ultimate power of the government is to maintain its rightful abode with the People.

As we in America have learned, there is a concept of government much more attuned to the particulars of human nature than the false bravado of Leviathan. It is limited government, where every individual choose for himself what he thinks is best, to the degree that he does not infringe on the natural rights of his fellows. Freedom of oppression from the government is our nation's calling card, and it has empowered and enriched man to a degree never before imagined. It seems that man's natural state, when guaranteed certain inalienable rights, was far flung indeed from an interminable warfare on his neighbors.

So, Hobbes had a lot to learn but perhaps not the opportunity to do so. However, I did enjoy and learn much from him in his thorough and unbiased defense of his monarchical position using the Scriptures. He has an immense mastery of them, and cuts through some of the more confusing points of contention between the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches. He even goes so far as to address the varying degrees of heaven, the existence (or not) of an everlasting Hell, and Baptism for the Dead. It provided me with an excellent base from which to further understand the faith of the early American colonists and the churches they established in the lead-up to the American Revolution.

Still, this is one of the more difficult books on this subject I've yet to slog through and so be warned that you may want to start with some lighter tomes on this subject.(less)

like · see review

Nov 09, 2011 MOL rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: law-school

Ne visą skaičiau, nes politikai tereikėjo dalies (135-347 puslapiai). Pradžioje skaitėsi įdomiai ir lengvai - parašyta labai geru stiliumi, bet ilgainiui pradėjau nesutikti su Hobbes'o idėjomis apie suvereno sudievinimą, jo absoliutų teisingumą ir apie draudimą protestuoti prieš aukščiausią valdžią, juo labiau ją nuversti ar bent jau pakeisti valdymo formą. Dar vienas trūkumas - tas Leviatano statymas, valstybės ypatumus paverčiant metaforomis apie žmogaus kūną - atrodė vaikiškai ir nerimtai.
Vis...more

like · see review

topics	posts	views	last activity
Is Leviathan a reflex of what happens nowadays?	3	19	Jan 27, 2013 04:24am
Similar thinkers to Hobbes?	4	30	Jan 16, 2013 01:12am

title link	preview: Leviathan
avg rating	preview: Leviathan Goodreads rating: 3.55 (12066 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/917275.Leviathan?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1179437498l/917275.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/917275.Leviathan?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes[/url]

Leviathan

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (146)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Thomas Hobbes

Books by Thomas Hobbes

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Leviathan

Quotes from Leviathan