What do you think?
Rate this book
Hobbes on civil association
This new collection presents Michael Oakeshott's four principal essays on Hobbes and the nature of civil association as it pertains to ordered liberty. The foreword by Paul Franco remarks the place of these essays within Oakeshott's entire corpus.The essays are"Introduction to Leviathan" (1964)"The Moral Life in the Writings of Thomas Hobbes" (1960)"Dr. Leo Strauss on Hobbes" (1937)" A Myth"(1947)
- GenresPhilosophyPolitics
154 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1975
About the author
Michael Oakeshott
63 books130 followersEnglish philosopher and political theorist who wrote about philosophy of history, philosophy of religion, aesthetics, and philosophy of law. He is widely regarded as one of the most important conservative thinkers of the 20th century, although he has sometimes been characterized as a liberal thinker.
Oakeshott was dismayed by the descent into political extremism that took place in Europe in the 1930s, and his surviving lectures from this period reveal a dislike of National Socialism and Marxism.
In 1945, Oakeshott was demobilized and returned to Cambridge for two years. In 1947, he left Cambridge for Nuffield College, Oxford. After only a year, he secured an appointment as Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics (LSE), succeeding Harold Laski. He was deeply unsympathetic to the student action at LSE that occurred in the late 1960s, on the grounds that it disrupted the aims of the university. Oakeshott retired from LSE in 1969.
Oakeshott refused an offer of Knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II, for which he was proposed by Margaret Thatcher.
Oakeshott was dismayed by the descent into political extremism that took place in Europe in the 1930s, and his surviving lectures from this period reveal a dislike of National Socialism and Marxism.
In 1945, Oakeshott was demobilized and returned to Cambridge for two years. In 1947, he left Cambridge for Nuffield College, Oxford. After only a year, he secured an appointment as Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics (LSE), succeeding Harold Laski. He was deeply unsympathetic to the student action at LSE that occurred in the late 1960s, on the grounds that it disrupted the aims of the university. Oakeshott retired from LSE in 1969.
Oakeshott refused an offer of Knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II, for which he was proposed by Margaret Thatcher.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
August 5, 2019
Oakeshott is a tremendous essayist.
Read
June 17, 2023Overview
In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes presents a picture of government in terms of what people stand to gain over an absence of government. The Leviathan uniquely combined two less unique ideas:
1. Governments are created by people and for people rather than being natural or God-given.
2. Due to the various demands of life, people have no choice but to be contentious and anti-social.
This bleak picture of the world (combined with too many bleakly innovative remarks about the Bible) made Hobbes's name go down in infamy. Modern political philosophy arose in part out of an enthusiasm to discredit him.
This Introduction to Leviathan was written by Michael Oakeshott, who is a political philosopher in his own right using Hobbes for his own ends, but I haven't looked into him.
Points of Interest
* Hobbes uses the word Felicity to refer to the lifelong human process of desiring something and obtaining it. Felicity places all desires on an equal plane, so it includes survival, moral obligations and pleasure, leaving prioritization up to the individual. The ideal situation would be for every person to have felicity. But different people's felicity can conflict and create a dispute. This dispute is the problem which politics exists to resolve.
* If people could live without government, they would be free to pursue their own felicity as far as their own strength and ingenuity allows them to. But this total freedom would come with great risk. The absence of a legal infrastructure would mean the absence of any shared vision of morality or rationality. In response to a dispute, everyone would have to decide for themselves how to resolve it according to their own deferent or violent dispositions.
* In order to alleviate the severity of this situation, people might make agreements among themselves. However, the pursuit of felicity will always threaten to undermine any security these agreements can establish because no agreement can erase the gainful outcomes of infractions.
* Agreements are only secured if they are both public and enforced. Governments do make agreements public and they do enforce those agreements. Hobbes proposes this as the reason that people want government, rather than no government. Even though submitting to a government limits one's freedom to pursue felicity, people will concede to this loss for fear of what might happen without the security government provides. In short, government is the outcome of a willful exchange of freedom for security.
Practical Implications
* Governments are made what they are by the common acceptance that it gives the final word on disputes. If not enough people accept the government, then the government ceases to be a government and becomes a mere force, like a gang, or a mob, or any other ungoverned entity.
* Governments are not necessarily just, wise, conscientious, or effective. As such, the government will likely antagonize your personal welfare.
* This antagonism could constitute a reason to reject the government. After all, your morality, your rights, your family, and your wealth really are more important than the government. But unless these things are supported by a government, then their security is as fleeting as your own life.
In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes presents a picture of government in terms of what people stand to gain over an absence of government. The Leviathan uniquely combined two less unique ideas:
1. Governments are created by people and for people rather than being natural or God-given.
2. Due to the various demands of life, people have no choice but to be contentious and anti-social.
This bleak picture of the world (combined with too many bleakly innovative remarks about the Bible) made Hobbes's name go down in infamy. Modern political philosophy arose in part out of an enthusiasm to discredit him.
This Introduction to Leviathan was written by Michael Oakeshott, who is a political philosopher in his own right using Hobbes for his own ends, but I haven't looked into him.
Points of Interest
* Hobbes uses the word Felicity to refer to the lifelong human process of desiring something and obtaining it. Felicity places all desires on an equal plane, so it includes survival, moral obligations and pleasure, leaving prioritization up to the individual. The ideal situation would be for every person to have felicity. But different people's felicity can conflict and create a dispute. This dispute is the problem which politics exists to resolve.
* If people could live without government, they would be free to pursue their own felicity as far as their own strength and ingenuity allows them to. But this total freedom would come with great risk. The absence of a legal infrastructure would mean the absence of any shared vision of morality or rationality. In response to a dispute, everyone would have to decide for themselves how to resolve it according to their own deferent or violent dispositions.
* In order to alleviate the severity of this situation, people might make agreements among themselves. However, the pursuit of felicity will always threaten to undermine any security these agreements can establish because no agreement can erase the gainful outcomes of infractions.
* Agreements are only secured if they are both public and enforced. Governments do make agreements public and they do enforce those agreements. Hobbes proposes this as the reason that people want government, rather than no government. Even though submitting to a government limits one's freedom to pursue felicity, people will concede to this loss for fear of what might happen without the security government provides. In short, government is the outcome of a willful exchange of freedom for security.
Practical Implications
* Governments are made what they are by the common acceptance that it gives the final word on disputes. If not enough people accept the government, then the government ceases to be a government and becomes a mere force, like a gang, or a mob, or any other ungoverned entity.
* Governments are not necessarily just, wise, conscientious, or effective. As such, the government will likely antagonize your personal welfare.
* This antagonism could constitute a reason to reject the government. After all, your morality, your rights, your family, and your wealth really are more important than the government. But unless these things are supported by a government, then their security is as fleeting as your own life.
July 25, 2017
Oakeshott does an original evaluation of Hobbes political philosophy. As ever, his analysis is fascinating and one of the greatest essayists ever lives up to his usual high standards. The subject is also novel and its refreshing for Hobbes to be discussed in such an open-minded manner. Where the book does go flat a little bit is in the lack of clear theses underpinning the essays, a comviction in what was written, and the style is a little flat, notwithstanding the merits of the author. A really great book to understand Hobbes, however.
August 28, 2025
This is not a book to read for those unfamiliar with Hobbes, of course, and it is highly beneficial if one is also familiar with the themes of Oakeshott's work. But it is essential reading in understanding both. At times Oakeshott can be accused of reading into Hobbes ideas that are not really there, but this is where one sees the development of his own philosophy.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews