Introduction to Political Philosophy (pages 570-571)

Hobbes from Leviathan (pages 576-585)

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) is best known for his political philosophy and his work, Leviathan (1651). One way to best understand his perspective and Leviathan is to compare him to another philosopher whom we have already studies, John Locke. But before the comparison, is a very brief overview of what Hobbes sets out to accomplish in his best-know work. Your textbook reading is an excerpt from Leviathan.

For Thomas Hobbes, humans are not the best of creatures, and he goes forth to paint a vey pessimistic picture of people. Humans have a propensity toward self-destructing and violence. His idea of a human consists of a being that is a machine. This machine works in tandem with other machines (other people) in the formation of a larger machine called government.

For Hobbes, this larger machine must exist because humans cannot function without violence unless there is some sort of organized government, and, at the head of this government is the leviathan. Humans, it seems to him, to be a collection of biological machinery having both sameness and individuality with one another. Even within names, there are varieties of perceptions. Words are important to Hobbes in the sense that they help to back of his idea that both people and their minds are all material. There is no substance that is not material. Hobbes has a very practical view of philosophy as seen in how he views the make-up of humans materialistically and how each individual forms together, for better or worse, larger systems like government.

Hobbes’ idea of reason reflects materialism because he does not see reason as an innate quality. Sense is not the same as reason nor is memory as it is born with individuals, as he points out in chapter five. Reason is not be obtained via experience, but, instead, reason is obtained by industry, where naming becomes important. There are causal relationships in Hobbes schema. The consequences of naming, he says, of a particular subject is termed as science. This “science” in his estimation, ends up being knowledge of consequences as one fact is built upon another. People have the opportunity to observe such consequences (or effects) from causes. However, for children, Hobbes argues that reason is not yet available until they develop speech. This demonstrates an emphasis on language as integral part of humans’ abilities to reason. In chapter nine, he equates this science and consequences with philosophy.

Within the consequences of science, Hobbes further subdivides philosophy/science in to natural philosophy ( “consequences from accidents of bodies…”) and politics and civil philosophy (“consequences from the accidents of politique bodies…” From natural philosophy, he continues to subdivide until he gets to such subjects like geometry, math, astronomy, astrology, ethics, poetry, and many more.

In Leviathan, Hobbes seeks to outline what he views as the human condition. He describes how many functions physically both in mind and body. He also outlines the natural state, that which exists in nature. For people, this means a tendency to be violent, and violent without repercussions. The rights of individuals do not exist in the natural state, but through the reasoning of people, an artificial state with the leviathan at the head can ensure a sense of individual rights. This is like a quid pro quo in the sense that for stability and order to exist, then something must be given up in exchange. The natural state of man has to be restricted so that organized society can exist. An organized society can rebuke and temper the unruly nature of people. Hobbes manages to connect the idea of human as machine in body and mind as an individual entity that is also one of a steady connective structure to form a larger, artificial community.

Comparing Hobbes and Locke: In regards to human nature, Hobbes views people as brutish beings that require a master. The individual being is not able to exist in a society. Locke views humans has being social creatures, and he seems people in a much more agreeable, positive light than Hobbes.

Concerning states of nature, again, Hobbes has a grim view of man and his ability to exist on his own in a peaceful state. Locke views all humans equal at birth, and it is only through education that differences emerge. This idea fits neatly with his notion of the tabula rasa. Both men admit that people are born with rights, but Hobbes argues that people must give up rights to have order preserved. For Locke, basics rights are extremely important; this ideas helps further his ideas on political philosophy that because of these rights, government can offer the protection of the rights of people property, freedom, and existence.

Social and political philosophy: Hobbes believes that people are not trustworthy enough to govern themselves, and that the purpose of government should be to maintain a status quo of law and order. And, at the top or head of this strongly governed society, is the ruler who has absolute authority over all. It matters not is individuals are mistreated as the sovereign has absolute power. Locke, on the other hand, believes that all people have certain rights and could reasonably govern themselves. Basically, the one philosopher, Hobbes, advocates an absolute monarchy, and the other, Locke, advocates a democratic style of government. Given what both men have to say about human nature and states of nature, it is not a surprise that Hobbes suggests a strong leader and government is needed to keep people in line because they are, by nature, unruly creatures. And for a person, like Locke, who argues that people are quite capable of governing themselves because people can learn and are naturally good, democracy is a logical choice for government styles.

Is Hobbes justified in arguing that people act out of fear and distrust, and because of that (and other reasons), therefore, only an absolute sovereign could ensure peace and tranquillity for a civilized society? Why? Is Locke’s system better? Is it possible to have both systems, with elements of both, function in tandem? Explain.