Leviathan

good read for anyone who likes the odd stuff in the world i like weird things and this is good read about this things i read a book that had this in it and decieced to but one myself to read more i like it

good read for anyone who likes the odd stuff in the world i like weird things and this is good read about this things i read a book that had this in it and decieced to but one myself to read more i like it

A must-read for any English major! Other than that. . . sections of Hobbes' argument have been greatly helpful in writing articles for my blog; you'd be surprised at how much video games and certain works of literature cross over.

This was a book that I downloaded to my phone. I got an the store kindle app for my android for free, and then found this for free! It's awesome to have a book at the go to read when I have some down time :)

Hobbes, Locke and some guy with a name like Machiavelli (or some such) were to the Framers what the Framers were to today's legislators - relatively God-like. Thy were often cited in the debates over the drafting of the US Constitution.

Levitation is Hobbes's signature work.

The first half of the book is a study of where the authority to govern comes from, and what a legislature and an executive are. But then it gets interest in as the whole rest of the book is about reconciling religion with government, saying that no man should be legally bound by the religious visions of another.

I have serious issues getting past the misspellings and the psychotic notions of Hobbes (or the translator's doing as far as spelling is concern). It is most nonsensical in the 1st part of the book and the religiousity is driving me crazy as I force myself to continue reading ... and to think I have to write an essay on this book. Yipes!

I get that its a classic, touted by my college professor as such an important book. After reading through nearly ten pages and skimming the rest of he book to find it all written in this monotonous, mostly drivling tone, I realized this was an artifact of history only the most ardent enthusiasts could appreciate. This book has its place in the annals of history, but is as pleasent as a bag of needles.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English philosopher, best known for his work in political philosophy. This 1651 book Leviathan established what became known as "social contract theory." He wrote in the book's Dedication, "the endeavour to advance the civil power should not be by the civil power condemned; nor private men, by reprehending it, declare that they think that power too great. Besides, I speak not of the men, but... of the seat of power... That which perhaps may most ordinarily offend are certain texts of Holy Scripture, alleged by me to other purpose than ordinarily they used to be by others. But I have done it with due submission, and ... necessarily; for they are the outworks of the enemy, from whence they impugn the civil power."

He observes, "whereas in the planting of Christian religion ... the number of Christians increased wonderfully every day and in every place by the preaching of the Apostles and Evangelists, a great part of that success may reasonably be attributed to the contempt into which the priests of the Gentiles of that time had brought themselves by their uncleanness, avarice, and juggling between princes. Also the religion of the Church of Rome was partly for the same reason abolished in England and many other parts of Christendom, insomuch as the failing of virtue in the pastors maketh faith fail in the people... I may attribute all the changes of religion in the world to one and the same cause, and that is unpleasant priests; and those not only amongst catholics, but even in that Church that hath presumed most of reformation." (Ch. XII)

The book's most famous quotation [often cited without the preceding context] is: "Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of 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 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 fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." (Ch. XIII)

He argues, "there be something else required, besides covenant, to make [men's] agreement constant and lasting; which is a common power to keep them in awe and to direct their actions to the one common benefit. The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners... is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills... unto one will... This is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them... made by covenant of every man with every man... as if every man should say... I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a Commonwealth... This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather... of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defense... one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenant one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defense." (Ch. XVII)

He suggests, "So it appeareth plainly... both from reason and Scripture, that the sovereign power... is as great as possibly men can be imagined to make it. And though of so unlimited a power, men may fancy many evil consequences , yet the consequences of the want of it, which is perpetual war of every man against his neighbor, are much worse. The condition of man in this life shall never be without inconveniences; but there happeneth in no Commonwealth any great inconvenience but what proceeds from the subjects' disobedience and breach of those covenants from which the Commonwealth has its being." (Ch. XX, pg. 112) He adds, "I have set forth the nature of man, whose pride and other passions have compelled him to submit himself to government; together with the great power of his governor, whom I compared to LEVIATHAN, taking that comparison out of the last two verses of ... Job [Ch. 41]." (Ch. XXVIII)

He states, "If a man therefore should ask a pastor, in the execution of his office... `By what authority doest thou these things...' he can make no other just answer but that he doth it by the authority of the Commonwealth, given him by the king or assembly that representeth it... But the king, and every other sovereign, executeth his office of supreme pastor by immediate authority from God, that is to say, in God's right... And therefore none but kings can put into their titles, a mark of their submission to God only, Dei Gratia Rex, etc." (Ch. XLII)

He actually founds the doctrine of Biblical Criticism, with comments such as these: "for the Pentateuch... We read in the last chapter of Deuteronomy concerning the sepulchre of Moses, `that no man knoweth of his sepulchre to this day,' that is, to the day wherein these words were written. It is therefore manifest that these words were written after his internment. For it were a strange interpretation to say Moses spake of his own sepulchre ... that it was not found to that day wherein he was yet living... the five Books of Moses were written after his time, though how long after it be not so manifest... That the Book of Joshua was also written long after the time of Joshua may be gathered out of many places in the book itself.... From the trouble that Achan raised in the camp, the writer saith, `remaineth unto this day'; which must needs therefore be long after the time of Joshua." (Ch. XXXIII)

He rejects the doctrines of Hell and Purgatory: "We are therefor to consider what the meaning is of `everlasting fire,' and other the like phrases of Scripture... as the elect after the resurrection shall be restored to the estate wherein Adam was before he had sinned; so the reprobate shall be in the estate that Adam and his posterity were in after the sin committed... the texts that mention `eternal fire,' `eternal torments,' or `the worm that never dieth,'contradict not the doctrine of a second and everlasting death, in the proper and literal sense of the world death. The fire or torments prepared for the wicked in Gehenna... may continue forever... and there may never want wicked men to be tormented in them, though not every nor any one eternally. For the wicked... may at the resurrection live as they did... and consequently may engender perpetually, after the resurrection, as they did before: For there is no place of Scripture to the contrary... I see evident Scripture to persuade me that there is neither the word nor the thing of purgatory..." (Ch. XLIV)

Hobbes' book is one of most historically important works of political philosophy. While libertarians and anarchists may despise it, its arguments are still well worth reading today, but the modern student of philosophy.

Wide-ranging, perceptive, and hard-nosed, this book seeks to establish the basis of the legitimacy of national governments, and to show why it is not only just that each of us should be under the absolute and arbitrary power of a sovereign, but that it is also necessary and good.

I came to this book not as one trained in philosophy or political science, but as one continuing to work out his own liberal education. So I had only the roughest idea of what Hobbes’s philosophy was, or how he fit into the world of political philosophy. I knew him mainly as the author of the famous description of the condition of man in the “state of nature”:

"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Well. I guess they don’t call him “Chuckles” Hobbes for nothing.

The state of nature, for Hobbes, is a state of war of every man with every other man. Each looks to his own survival as best he can, and protects himself against the depredations of others as best he can. Everyone has an equal right to everything in the world that he, in his own opinion, thinks might help him in these aims, and if conflict arises between men for any reason, there is no final recourse except to violence. Each issue is resolved with the submission or death of the weaker party in the conflict. Then you hope for a bit of peace before your next conflict. In the state of nature there is no such thing as justice or injustice; there is only survival or death.

In this, it seemed to me, Hobbes was describing the behavior of animals, and in the state of nature he sees the human animal as no different from any other. What does make the human animal different is his capacity for reason and language, which, together, enable him to understand his world better than other animals, and to enter into binding covenants with others of his kind. Our reason permits us to see that our peace and prosperity depend on people’s willingness to refrain from molesting each other, but there is no way to realize this condition except that everyone involved make a mutual covenant to respect this rule. But the covenant alone is not enough; it must be enforced; and for this task the sovereignty of the group must be placed in the hands of one person, and everyone must agree to defer to him as a condition of belonging. And thus the state is born.

This is the “social contract” theory of the state, and, according to Wikipedia, Hobbes was the originator of this theory. This sovereign, who may be an assembly as well as an individual, actually personates the group: he embodies the power of the group. And this is the source of Hobbes’s metaphorical title, for the commonwealth of individuals is compacted into the single great creature Leviathan, embodied in the sovereign. Whatever he does, he does by the will of the group, and this is by the explicit or implicit consent of each person in it. When he makes the rules, it is the group making the rules; when he punishes miscreants, it is the group doing the punishing. It boils down to this: no one can complain of anything the sovereign does, for everything the sovereign does is done with the prior consent of each subject. If I object, I am in effect objecting to my own will, which is an absurdity.

There are all kinds of problems with this idea, and I know that Mortimer Adler, among many other philosophers, rejected the social-contract theory outright. But Hobbes, no doubt conscious of the objections that could be raised against his idea, prepares his case with care and depth.

The first of the many surprises I got in reading this book was in discovering its structure when I opened the table of contents. The work is divided into four parts:

Of Man
Of Commonwealth
Of a Christian Commonwealth
Of The Kingdom of Darkness

I was surprised at the theological tone, and as I read the book I discovered that Hobbes was, among other things, a theologian, and that he had studied the Bible deeply, and drawn his own conclusions from it. These conclusions are key to his argument, for the question of the existence of God is all-important for the political philosopher as it is for any other kind of thinker. Hobbes believed that the existence of God was discoverable by human reason, but that the specific will of God was knowable only through revelation, which had been vouchsafed only to certain individuals, and then made generally known via the Bible. God’s laws are divided into two classes: natural laws, which are discoverable by reason; and positive laws, which are encoded in the Bible. His natural laws apply to everyone, but his positive laws were given to his chosen people, the Israelites, when they accepted him as their sovereign at Mount Sinai. At that time every Israelite covenanted to accept the sovereignty of God, and thus bound himself to accept all of God’s commandments; and this covenant is the type of the social contract. Thus God himself was the King of the Jews until they repudiated him at the time of Saul, when they demanded an earthly king of the same kind as other nations, and God acquiesced in their rejection of him. Then Saul became their sovereign, and the people were bound to him by the same kind of covenant they had made with God.

One of the important consequences of the existence of God for political philosophy is that it makes oaths binding. According to Hobbes, the oath of an atheist or heathen is worthless, because the atheist does not believe that he will be held to account by a supreme cosmic power. He will be tempted to renege if it suits him. The God-fearer, on the other hand, expects to face the consequences of his bad faith, even if no human catches him in it. It’s an important point, because it is of oaths that covenants are made; and covenant is the indispensable basis of any commonwealth.

But this seems to be more of a practical matter than a theoretical one, for Hobbes holds that all covenants are binding, even in the state of nature, and this is due to natural law. As far as I can understand and recall, Hobbes believes that our natural reason can perceive the logic of the covenant, and the necessity that it remain unbroken. But here I’m getting into an area that I find obscure and difficult. For Hobbes is emphatic that there is no such thing as justice or injustice until you have a commonwealth with a positive law given by its sovereign; then, any breaking of that law is an injustice. And anything else whatever is not. The principle by which covenants are to hold even in the state of nature is “equity,” which boils down to the Golden Rule. As far as I can make out, Hobbes is saying that if you break your covenant in the state of nature, you have violated equity, but you have not committed an injustice. To me this seems like a quibbling distinction, but to Hobbes it’s a big deal.

Does this mean that the only valid commonwealth is a Christian commonwealth? Interestingly, no, it does not. For the validity of covenants being applicable in the state of nature, any commonwealth is equally valid as a civil entity. And Hobbes is at pains to show how God in the Old Testament, and Jesus in the New, enjoined us to obey our worldly masters. Both our natural reason and the Bible tell us we should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. According to Hobbes, we each owe unswerving and even unquestioning allegiance to the civil power over us, whatsoever it may be.

This sticks in my gorge, and no doubt in that of almost every modern person. What would Hobbes have made of apartheid, or the Soviet gulag, or other forms of entrenched, “legal” injustice? His view is that whatever the “inconveniences” of one’s existing commonwealth, it is preferable to the condition of civil war, which is the inevitable result of a rip in the sovereignty of the state. For civil war is exactly the condition of divided sovereignty, and it inevitably produces great and undeserved suffering.

He may well have a point. Most of us enjoy the luxury of not having lived through a civil war—a luxury that Hobbes himself did not enjoy, since he was writing at the time of the English civil war, and lived in self-imposed exile for 11 years. As far as Hobbes is concerned, there will always be people who have complaints about the government; these complaints never constitute a reason to overthrow that government. The complainer is underestimating the benefit he continually draws from the state: namely, protection from his criminal neighbors, and protection from invading armies. Taking these protections for granted, he sets them at no value, but in this he is gravely mistaken.

Leviathan is one of the most thought-provoking books I have read; my Great Books copy is now heavily highlighted. Hobbes, while a devout Christian, is also a realist with a modern and scientific outlook. His thinking is rigorous and uncompromising, and he takes great care to work his argument up from basic principles and definitions. As an intellectual achievement it has few peers. Part of my discomfort with the book is due to my sense that many of his assertions, while uncongenial or even distressing, may be difficult to refute. Certainly, if we believe that the universe has an absolute Sovereign, then we can hardly have any fundamental objection to the notion of absolute sovereignty; and Hobbes shows how in bowing to that sovereignty we are most surely following God’s will.

This edition is certainly adequate for a reader who isn't intimidated by 17th Century prose style and doesn't mind the lack of an extensive modern introduction and notes. Ideally, I would like a bit more up-to-date editorial presentation such as might be found in the World's Classics or Penguin Classics edition, but this was cheaper, and I find I can live with it. The substance of the book is, of course, highly interesting, and I was particulary struck by the fact that Hobbes didn't immediately jump into political matters but instead tried to sketch an outline of fundamental philosophical positions. Coming to these from classical materialist philosophy (Lucretius), as I did more or less accidentally was especially interesting, and the fact that I'm reading it along with members of a book group is very helpful. If I were doing it all again, I might get a more modern edition, something a bit less "bare-bones," but apart from that, this will do fine. Just don't think you can read it fast.

Hobbes's LEVIATHAN is not only the most important work of political philosophy ever written in English, it is the work - even more than the writings of Francis Bacon - that kicked off the English tradition in philosophy. Many other claims are made for it, some praiseworthy, some negative. Its materialism caused countless authors to condemn its atheism, while its cold equations reduced man to his "price", in the eyes of many kicking off the tradition that ended with von Mises, Hayek, and Gary Becker (whether fair or not). He is also one of the earliest major figures in the social contract and natural law traditions. On almost every level it remains one of the most original and important books in the history of philosophy, and might be, even today, the most important philosophical book ever written in English, whether you agree with a word he writes.

The problem with the store is that it often clumps editions under a single roof. And editorial comments might have nothing to do with the version one is about to purchase. I own five editions of Hobbes's masterpiece, yet I don't own the best edition, the one edited by Noel Malcolm and which is referred to in the editorial reviews section: Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan (Clarendon Edition of the Works of Thomas Hobbes). I would love to own this, but I simply don't have $300 to drop on a book, even in three volumes. But if Malcolm's intro is anything up to the level of what he did with Hobbes's CORRESPONDENCE, it qualifies as something that any serious student of Hobbes should read.

The five editions I own are the ones edited by Curley (Hackett), Tuck (Cambridge), Macpherson (Penguin), Shapiro (Yale), and Martinich (Broadview). Until Oxford graces us with a paperback edition of the Malcolm, I would recommend these five in this order: Curley or Tuck, Martinich, Shapiro, and Macpherson.

There is little reason to prefer Leviathan: With Selected Variants from the Latin Edition of 1668 to Hobbes: Leviathan: Revised student edition (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought), or vice versa. Both have outstanding introductions, both contain variants of the text, and both have excellent commentary and bibliographies. I generally find I prefer the Cambridge to the Hackett simply because it has a better binding. But you can really toss a coin and do as well with one edition as the other. A. P. Martinch has been as active as any Hobbes scholar as there is today, having written two introductions to his thought, a Hobbes dictionary, a book on Hobbes's religious beliefs, and the best recent biography on Hobbes. His edition of LEVIATHAN, Leviathan, revised edition (Broadview Editions), is an outstanding one. WARNING: Broadview also publishes an abridged edition of LEVIATHAN, so take care to buy the correct edition. I'm not much of a fan of the Shapiro edition that was produced in the overall outstanding Rethinking the Western Tradition series published by Yale University Press. The weakness of that series is that the press rarely expends much effort in providing an improved or definitive text of any of the works in the series. The press relies on public domain texts. In this case the text is largely just the 1651 text with modernized spelling, unlike, say, the Hackett edition produced by Curley, which included variants in the later Latin translation that Hobbes himself made. The value of the Yale edition lies in the four original essays appended to the text. I find that the essays are often worth the cost of the book even if the version of the text is rather pedestrian, such as their edition of Descartes.

I do not recommend the Penguin edition edited by C. B. Macpherson. I do, however, recommend purchasing a rather cheap used edition of the Penguin edition simply in order to get the introduction by Macpherson. One of the great members of the political Left of the previous generation, Macpherson was the author of a profoundly important book entitled THE THEORY OF POSSESSIVE INDIVIDUALISM: FROM HOBBES TO LOCKE. While some of his specific historical claims about possessive individualism cannot be supported by close readings of the philosophers in question, there still is no question that he has identified and trenchantly critiqued undeniable trends in the liberal tradition (using "liberal" in the more precise sense of those who are defenders of property rights and a free market, so that Ronald Reagan is quite properly considered a classic liberal). While Macpherson is not always correct in what he says of Locke and Hobbes, his essays are always worth reading and of the greatest interest. Likewise, moving to the far Right of the political spectrum, the older edition of LEVIATHAN featuring the famous intro by Michael Oakeshott cannot be recommended at all. Oakeshott's introduction, however, remains essential reading. Four essays on Hobbes have been collected in Hobbes on Civil Association, but the better way to acquire both the famous intro and Oakeshott's other famous essay on Hobbes, along with the best of the rest of his essays, is by purchasing his Rationalism in Politics and other essays.

I hope this helps prospective purchasers of Hobbes's great work of political philosophy. Even though I am politically far to the left of Hobbes, I find nearly every page of his work to be fascinating. I virtually never agree with Hobbes, but I never find him boring. Some on the Right do not want to claim Hobbes as a conservative, based on his atheism and his belief in an all powerful central government (or leviathan) to keep people from destroying one another, but his central assumptions - that people are driven by self-interest, that something like a market dominates society, that sympathy and compassion should not be motives for behavior - are shared by today's Right. There is a way, however, of analyzing both Hobbes and almost all other prominent political thinkers, and that is by asking: "Who do you trust?" Hobbes is unusual for a conservative in trusting government self-interested, self-seeking individuals. One could ask the same question of Locke, Rousseau, Marx, Bentham, Rawls, de Maistre, Mill, Jefferson, Lincoln, Nozick, and so on, asking what force in society they most trusted to foment to public good. Most conservatives today tend to trust the unregulated free market and to distrust government. I tend to distrust government, but even distrust the market (which I don't believe either is or ever could be truly free) even more. Rousseau also distrusted government, but distrusted the market even less, while Jefferson distrusted government, but saw the market as a source of evil. Lincoln, on the other hand, both trusted, to a degree, the market and central government, and in fact saw the two working hand in hand (Lincoln at his most typical was the government building a transcontinental railroad by handing out contracts to private corporations). As far as I know, no one has attempted a history of political thought in this vein, but I think it would produce some fascinating results. But regardless of how one reads political history, Hobbes will remain one of the 3 or 4 most important figures with whom to come to terms.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English philosopher, best known for his work in political philosophy. This 1651 book Leviathan established what became known as "social contract theory." He wrote in the book's Dedication, "the endeavour to advance the civil power should not be by the civil power condemned; nor private men, by reprehending it, declare that they think that power too great. Besides, I speak not of the men, but... of the seat of power... That which perhaps may most ordinarily offend are certain texts of Holy Scripture, alleged by me to other purpose than ordinarily they used to be by others. But I have done it with due submission, and ... necessarily; for they are the outworks of the enemy, from whence they impugn the civil power."

He observes, "whereas in the planting of Christian religion ... the number of Christians increased wonderfully every day and in every place by the preaching of the Apostles and Evangelists, a great part of that success may reasonably be attributed to the contempt into which the priests of the Gentiles of that time had brought themselves by their uncleanness, avarice, and juggling between princes. Also the religion of the Church of Rome was partly for the same reason abolished in England and many other parts of Christendom, insomuch as the failing of virtue in the pastors maketh faith fail in the people... I may attribute all the changes of religion in the world to one and the same cause, and that is unpleasant priests; and those not only amongst catholics, but even in that Church that hath presumed most of reformation." (Ch. XII)

The book's most famous quotation [often cited without the preceding context] is: "Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of 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 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 fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." (Ch. XIII)

He argues, "there be something else required, besides covenant, to make [men's] agreement constant and lasting; which is a common power to keep them in awe and to direct their actions to the one common benefit. The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners... is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills... unto one will... This is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them... made by covenant of every man with every man... as if every man should say... I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a Commonwealth... This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather... of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defense... one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenant one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defense." (Ch. XVII)

He suggests, "So it appeareth plainly... both from reason and Scripture, that the sovereign power... is as great as possibly men can be imagined to make it. And though of so unlimited a power, men may fancy many evil consequences , yet the consequences of the want of it, which is perpetual war of every man against his neighbor, are much worse. The condition of man in this life shall never be without inconveniences; but there happeneth in no Commonwealth any great inconvenience but what proceeds from the subjects' disobedience and breach of those covenants from which the Commonwealth has its being." (Ch. XX, pg. 112) He adds, "I have set forth the nature of man, whose pride and other passions have compelled him to submit himself to government; together with the great power of his governor, whom I compared to LEVIATHAN, taking that comparison out of the last two verses of ... Job [Ch. 41]." (Ch. XXVIII)

He states, "If a man therefore should ask a pastor, in the execution of his office... `By what authority doest thou these things...' he can make no other just answer but that he doth it by the authority of the Commonwealth, given him by the king or assembly that representeth it... But the king, and every other sovereign, executeth his office of supreme pastor by immediate authority from God, that is to say, in God's right... And therefore none but kings can put into their titles, a mark of their submission to God only, Dei Gratia Rex, etc." (Ch. XLII)

He actually founds the doctrine of Biblical Criticism, with comments such as these: "for the Pentateuch... We read in the last chapter of Deuteronomy concerning the sepulchre of Moses, `that no man knoweth of his sepulchre to this day,' that is, to the day wherein these words were written. It is therefore manifest that these words were written after his internment. For it were a strange interpretation to say Moses spake of his own sepulchre ... that it was not found to that day wherein he was yet living... the five Books of Moses were written after his time, though how long after it be not so manifest... That the Book of Joshua was also written long after the time of Joshua may be gathered out of many places in the book itself.... From the trouble that Achan raised in the camp, the writer saith, `remaineth unto this day'; which must needs therefore be long after the time of Joshua." (Ch. XXXIII)

He rejects the doctrines of Hell and Purgatory: "We are therefor to consider what the meaning is of `everlasting fire,' and other the like phrases of Scripture... as the elect after the resurrection shall be restored to the estate wherein Adam was before he had sinned; so the reprobate shall be in the estate that Adam and his posterity were in after the sin committed... the texts that mention `eternal fire,' `eternal torments,' or `the worm that never dieth,'contradict not the doctrine of a second and everlasting death, in the proper and literal sense of the world death. The fire or torments prepared for the wicked in Gehenna... may continue forever... and there may never want wicked men to be tormented in them, though not every nor any one eternally. For the wicked... may at the resurrection live as they did... and consequently may engender perpetually, after the resurrection, as they did before: For there is no place of Scripture to the contrary... I see evident Scripture to persuade me that there is neither the word nor the thing of purgatory..." (Ch. XLIV)

Hobbes' book is one of most historically important works of political philosophy. While libertarians and anarchists may despise it, its arguments are still well worth reading today, but the modern student of philosophy.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English philosopher, best known for his work in political philosophy. This 1651 book Leviathan established what became known as "social contract theory." He wrote in the book's Dedication, "the endeavour to advance the civil power should not be by the civil power condemned; nor private men, by reprehending it, declare that they think that power too great. Besides, I speak not of the men, but... of the seat of power... That which perhaps may most ordinarily offend are certain texts of Holy Scripture, alleged by me to other purpose than ordinarily they used to be by others. But I have done it with due submission, and ... necessarily; for they are the outworks of the enemy, from whence they impugn the civil power."

He observes, "whereas in the planting of Christian religion ... the number of Christians increased wonderfully every day and in every place by the preaching of the Apostles and Evangelists, a great part of that success may reasonably be attributed to the contempt into which the priests of the Gentiles of that time had brought themselves by their uncleanness, avarice, and juggling between princes. Also the religion of the Church of Rome was partly for the same reason abolished in England and many other parts of Christendom, insomuch as the failing of virtue in the pastors maketh faith fail in the people... I may attribute all the changes of religion in the world to one and the same cause, and that is unpleasant priests; and those not only amongst catholics, but even in that Church that hath presumed most of reformation." (Ch. XII)

The book's most famous quotation [often cited without the preceding context] is: "Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of 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 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 fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." (Ch. XIII)

He argues, "there be something else required, besides covenant, to make [men's] agreement constant and lasting; which is a common power to keep them in awe and to direct their actions to the one common benefit. The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners... is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills... unto one will... This is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them... made by covenant of every man with every man... as if every man should say... I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a Commonwealth... This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather... of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defense... one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenant one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defense." (Ch. XVII)

He suggests, "So it appeareth plainly... both from reason and Scripture, that the sovereign power... is as great as possibly men can be imagined to make it. And though of so unlimited a power, men may fancy many evil consequences , yet the consequences of the want of it, which is perpetual war of every man against his neighbor, are much worse. The condition of man in this life shall never be without inconveniences; but there happeneth in no Commonwealth any great inconvenience but what proceeds from the subjects' disobedience and breach of those covenants from which the Commonwealth has its being." (Ch. XX, pg. 112) He adds, "I have set forth the nature of man, whose pride and other passions have compelled him to submit himself to government; together with the great power of his governor, whom I compared to LEVIATHAN, taking that comparison out of the last two verses of ... Job [Ch. 41]." (Ch. XXVIII)

He states, "If a man therefore should ask a pastor, in the execution of his office... `By what authority doest thou these things...' he can make no other just answer but that he doth it by the authority of the Commonwealth, given him by the king or assembly that representeth it... But the king, and every other sovereign, executeth his office of supreme pastor by immediate authority from God, that is to say, in God's right... And therefore none but kings can put into their titles, a mark of their submission to God only, Dei Gratia Rex, etc." (Ch. XLII)

He actually founds the doctrine of Biblical Criticism, with comments such as these: "for the Pentateuch... We read in the last chapter of Deuteronomy concerning the sepulchre of Moses, `that no man knoweth of his sepulchre to this day,' that is, to the day wherein these words were written. It is therefore manifest that these words were written after his internment. For it were a strange interpretation to say Moses spake of his own sepulchre ... that it was not found to that day wherein he was yet living... the five Books of Moses were written after his time, though how long after it be not so manifest... That the Book of Joshua was also written long after the time of Joshua may be gathered out of many places in the book itself.... From the trouble that Achan raised in the camp, the writer saith, `remaineth unto this day'; which must needs therefore be long after the time of Joshua." (Ch. XXXIII)

He rejects the doctrines of Hell and Purgatory: "We are therefor to consider what the meaning is of `everlasting fire,' and other the like phrases of Scripture... as the elect after the resurrection shall be restored to the estate wherein Adam was before he had sinned; so the reprobate shall be in the estate that Adam and his posterity were in after the sin committed... the texts that mention `eternal fire,' `eternal torments,' or `the worm that never dieth,'contradict not the doctrine of a second and everlasting death, in the proper and literal sense of the world death. The fire or torments prepared for the wicked in Gehenna... may continue forever... and there may never want wicked men to be tormented in them, though not every nor any one eternally. For the wicked... may at the resurrection live as they did... and consequently may engender perpetually, after the resurrection, as they did before: For there is no place of Scripture to the contrary... I see evident Scripture to persuade me that there is neither the word nor the thing of purgatory..." (Ch. XLIV)

Hobbes' book is one of most historically important works of political philosophy. While libertarians and anarchists may despise it, its arguments are still well worth reading today, but the modern student of philosophy.

For those who dislike the archaic spelling in Hobbes, this edition with modernized text and spelling is the one for them. The opening sentence suffices to show the difference. The following is the original text:
"Concerning the Thoughts of man, I will consider them first Singly, and afterwards in Trayne, or dependence upon one another." (With Singly and Trayne in italics)
The modernized text in this edition is:
"Concerning the thoughts of man, I will consider them first singly, and afterwards in train, or dependence upon one another." (No italics)

There is a decent introduction by Gaskin, a bibliography, an index and explanatory notes, and this edition is very competitively priced.

As a student at Oxford I chose an optional paper "Political theory from Hobbes". It was "from Hobbes" because modern political philosophy begins with him. Before Hobbes, writers for centuries had accepted the divine right of kings or did not consider the origins of government. In Hobbes we find concepts that became standard in political thought: human nature, state of nature, social contract, absolute and limited government, civil disobedience, censorship, etc.

Hobbes supposes that organized society is a choice. The alternative is the "state of nature" with both a "right of nature" and "laws of nature", but Hobbes uses the terms in an idiosyncratic way. The "right of nature" is "the liberty each man has, to use his own power...for the preservation of his own life" and doing anything that is necessary to achieve this. In addition there are a number of "laws of nature". The first dictates that each person should seek to live with others in peace, and the second is that each person should only retain the right to as much liberty as he is willing to permit others. These (and other laws that follow from them) are found by reason and are utilitarian rather than prudential. Morality does not enter into it. Hobbes is simply saying that if men think about their situation, reason tells them that giving up their natural rights in exchange for others doing the same is the best means of self-preservation, even though this is contrary to human nature.

On human nature Hobbes is cynical. Men have the power of reason that suggests possible advantages of co-operation but this is outweighed by instinct. Men are competitive and selfish. They are also roughly equal in ability, so no one person or group can impose his will on others. Life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Hence men are driven to create government via a pact in which all give up their natural rights to a sovereign authority, which may be either an individual or an oligarchy (Hobbes prefers the former). Hobbes uses the concept of a "social contract". It is not an historical event but a logical device to describe the ongoing basis of consent to government. Very importantly, Hobbes assigns absolute power to the sovereign. Limited government is unworkable, for men are too quarrelsome and selfish and "a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." Hobbes was influenced by the divisive years preceding the English Civil War in which he lived. Among the ten rights Hobbes awards the sovereign the sixth is the power of censorship of opinions he deems harmful to the state. Control of religion is not among the ten rights but Hobbes later argues that the sovereign must seek to restrain discussion of religion because it is a source of conflict. As for anybody seeking to preach a new religion, he should be treated as a criminal. Hobbes was not a religious man but he could not avoid discussing the role of religion in the age in which he lived.

Are there circumstances in which people are justified in breaking the law, and is there an ultimate right of rebellion? The answer is to be found in the nature of the social contract. Men consent to an absolute ruler in order to better secure self-preservation. If a situation arises where the sovereign fails to achieve that then society is dissolved. On civil disobedience Hobbes observes that a criminal going to his execution retains his natural right to resist, but he is not saying it is a "moral" right, and in fact the sovereign is right to execute him. On conscription, Hobbes seems at first sight ambiguous because he declares that a man's natural right to protect his own life extends to refusing to die in military service if conscripted. However, further reading shows that the sovereign has the right to require people to risk their life if the existence of the state is threatened. On the other hand men should have the right to put a volunteer in their place (if one is available) and the sovereign does not have the right to demand the sacrifice of my life if the existence of the state is not threatened.

"Leviathan" is not an easy book, not helped by the fact that the English is that of a man born just 24 years after Shakespeare. However, it is an important work that makes a good study companion to Locke's "Second Treatise", which argues for limited government. Those who prefer the original to this modernized text have many choices, including the Macpherson edition.

Thomas Hobbes lived from 1588 to 1679. Leviathan was published in 1651. The edition used in this review is edited by Nelle Fuller and printed in volume 23 of the Britannica Great Books set, original edition, first published in 1952. Page references are to this volume. Notation is *chapter number: page number*.

The book is divided into four parts: (I) Of Man; (II) Of Commonwealth; (III) Of a Christian Commonwealth; (IV) Of the Kingdom of Darkness. The assignment of chapters is: (I) 1-16; (II) 17-31; (III) 32-43; (IV) 44-47.

A reader wanting to understand Hobbes' view of the State will have to read several chapters into the book before he reaches anything that looks like a discussion of it. Hobbes first looks at the grounds of experience in sensation, the methods of imagination, the function of language, the nature of reason, and the drive of the passions. In chapter 6, the passions are viewed as derived from the fundamental motions of appetite and aversion.

Looking for a moment to his Introduction, we see that Hobbes views the Commonwealth as an artificial man designed by natural man for his protection and defense. He begins the Introduction, though, by mentioning automata and their artificial life. Just as a spring in an automaton is analogous to the human heart, so the sovereignty of the Commonwealth is analogous to the human soul, "giving life and motion to the whole body." So Hobbes' view of the role of appetite and aversion is significant, and he sees their analogue in automata. The passions are what drive man; and in the state of nature, outside the constraint of the Commonwealth State, they result in a constant condition of "every man against every man", which Hobbes calls a state of war. He doesn't say that, though, until chapter 12. This is the chapter with his famous remark that in the condition of nature, the life of man is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." (12: 85)

He's talking about each man as an individual in nature, outside any collective force that might impose itself on others. He doesn't say so at this point, but, recalling how Freud goes about this in Civilization and Its Discontents, this would in its full meaning presumably include the impositions created within a family. (Chapter 20, in Part II, has some discussion on the family.) In nature, no one has a moral right to peace or property. There are no moral rights in nature. The state of nature is a state of contention where everyone has the right to seek his own self-preservation and to take whatever he can get and keep, including taking by force any individual for any sort of use. Good and bad are merely what pleases and what displeases an individual. Good for one might be very bad for another. This so-called right of self-preservation is not a moral right since it imposes no obligation of restraint upon another. In the state of nature there are no morals, only appetite and aversion motivating the choices of men. For Hobbes, morality comes with law and exists only within the force of law.

Because the natural state of mankind, this state of war, is so contentious, men come to desire peace, and so they find what Hobbes calls laws of nature. Chapters 14 and 15 cover his discussion in Part I of these laws. He sees the laws of nature as given by reason, in the sense that they seem to be logical consequences of the desire for peace. In fact, he sees the endeavor for peace as a consequence of the natural right to seek self-preservation, because the state of war is not favorable to life. Seeking peace is a consequence of seeking self-preservation.

In seeking peace, we forgo rights to some of our actions and of what we took in the state of nature where we had the right to whatever we could get and keep and to act however we choose. (Again: a natural right held by someone does not impose any moral obligation or restriction upon anyone else. For Hobbes, a natural right is not a moral right.) This surrendering and transfer of right, often also a transfer of object, from one individual to another is done through speech or actions; and Hobbes believes that this sort of behavior comes to create, within this burgeoning peace, a binding contract or covenant. Indeed, since these contracts and covenants arise from the renunciation and transfer of natural rights for the sake of peace, they would be inconsequential without the creation thereby of obligations, and so, in Hobbes' view, this imposition of obligation upon the individuals involved in the transfer of rights is a law of nature. The natural right to seek self-preservation has led Hobbes, through the pursuit of peace, to the law of contracts.

The transfer of rights not only creates contracts and covenants, and thereby obligations, it also implies the notion of justice. Contracts and covenants have created lawful ownership, and justice is "the constant will of giving to every man his own." (15: 91) Justice is then the enforcement of ownership and the lawful obligations of contracts and covenants; but at this conceptual stage in the pursuit of peace there is no force powerful enough to ensure justice. Without justice - the enforcement of the willing renunciation of our natural right to whatever we can take from another - we are back to the state of nature and of war. "[W]here there is no Commonwealth, there nothing is unjust." (15: 91) Since seeking self-preservation has led us to the need for justice, justice is a law of nature.

Hobbes discovers other laws of nature, one of which is "that at the entrance into conditions of peace, no man require to reserve to himself any right which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest." (15: 94) He acknowledges at the end of chapter 15 that to call such precepts laws is misleading, "for they are but conclusions or theorems concerning what conduceth [sic] to the conservation and defence [sic] of themselves; whereas law, properly, is the word of him that by right hath command over others." (15:96)

That summarizes only Part I of Leviathan. Hobbes has not yet moved man from the state of nature to the realm of justice and thence morals. For this, he requires a Commonwealth.

The natural right of the individual to seek self-preservation is retained by the individual in the formation of a Commonwealth, while the unconstrained implications of this right as they follow within the state of nature are relinquished in order to secure peace. (14: 87, 90, 94. 21: 115) The purpose of the Commonwealth is the protection and defense of those within the dominion of Its sovereignty as personified in the sovereign, who determines all morality and all legal constraints upon the individual.

Hobbes does not mention this (it follows logically from his discussion), but in the state of nature, there is no sovereignty. There is no sovereignty of the individual because no one is under moral obligation to restrain their acts against another. Nor does consent have any moral force of constraint. It is only in the cooperation of individuals towards peace that the notion of obligation (also consent) arises. The Commonwealth ensures this peace through the notion of sovereignty.

The sovereignty of the Commonwealth arises from the consent of the people through covenant, and is a power held by the sovereign. (18: 101-104.) This sovereign can be a single person or a group of persons. Sovereignty is absolute and unconditional, and the sovereign individual or group, as sovereign, holds absolute and unconditional power over the people of the Commonwealth. The sovereign can do no wrong. (20: 109) The sovereign determines law, thereby delineating the moral categories of good and bad, just and unjust, which the people are then obliged to obey. (26: 130-132) The sovereign has the right to punish transgressions because, unlike the citizens of the Commonwealth, he (or each individual of the group comprising the sovereign) has retained the natural right to impose his actions without moral restraint upon another (and by definition, the acts of the sovereign are moral); and he has a purpose in punishment, in that punishment persuades against transgression. (28: 145)

An enemy of the Commonwealth is one who renounces Its sovereignty or is outside of It. Such a person is not under the laws of the Commonwealth and so is related to It only in the state of war, in which there are no moral constraints whatsoever. The Commonwealth, through the sovereign, may then act towards an enemy however It pleases. (28: 146, 147)

In the state of nature, no one held the moral right of ownership, not even over himself. Only in the Commonwealth does justice, and thus the moral right of ownership, arise. So the notion of property, in any moral or legal sense, is contingent upon the notion of sovereignty, which only exists within the context of a Commonwealth. In fact, the sovereign holds the full moral right of ownership, not the individual who through the justice of the Commonwealth has the legal right to a thing. (29: 150) This follows from the power of the sovereign to determine law, and his purpose, which is public safety. (30: 153) It follows, too, that self-ownership is a consequence of the Commonwealth and sustained through the sovereign and his determination of law and hence morality and moral right. The individual is, in essence, property of the State. Indeed, the sovereign may, without doing wrong, kill a member of the Commonwealth, even if he has done no wrong. (21:114)

However: "The obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth [sic] by which he is able to protect them. For the right men have by nature to protect themselves, when none else can protect them, can by no covenant be relinquished." (21: 116)

That summarizes only half the total pages of Leviathan. Parts III and IV remain. I read a chapter or two into Part III, checked through the remaining pages of the book, and then stopped reading altogether. In this second half of Leviathan, Hobbes is concerned with Christian Doctrine and Biblical Interpretation, and adds virtually nothing to the political theory he presents in Parts I and II.

The author of the book, Thomas Hobbes, explained why humans build the state. His eloquent argument connected the description of nature of man with the explanation of the origin of the state. He believed that war is the reason for the formation of the state. This reason, however, is not the one that cannot be replaced. If we believe that human community evolves from the tribe of the primitive society to the state of the civilized society, we may not conceive of the formation of the state that way. We can believe that language is the key for the explanation of the origin of the state. That is, the use of language extends the distance of communication because media can be developed when language is used. When the distance of linguistic communication is extended because human chain linguistic communication as well as written communication can be performed, the community grows large in population and area. When language is used in communication, common interest of those who use that language is also formed. For example, common memory is kept and common religious belief is spread. Then the unity of the community is no longer maintained by kinship ties but by linguistic communication. The state is born and the tribe is dissolved. Thus, if we study the theory of the state, we may look at the state from another perspective instead of the perspective advocated by Hobbes.

Commentator: Xing Yu, the author of the book Language and State: An Inquiry into the Progress of Civilization

Modern political philosophy begins with Hobbes. Before Hobbes, writers for centuries had accepted the divine right of kings or did not think much about the origins of government. In Hobbes we find the concepts that have become standard in political thought: state of nature, social contract, absolute and limited government, civil disobedience, censorship, etc.

Hobbes supposes that the organized state is a choice. The alternative is the "state of nature", where there is both a "right of nature" and "laws of nature". Hobbes uses these terms in a highly individual way. The "right of nature" is "the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power...for the preservation of his own Life". In addition there are a number of "laws of nature". The first dictates that each person should seek to live with others in peace, and the second is that each person should only retain the right to as much liberty as he is willing to permit others. These (and other laws that follow from them) are found by reason and are utilitarian rather than prudential. Morality does not enter into it. Hobbes is simply saying that if men think about their situation, reason tells them that giving up their "rights of nature" in exchange for others doing likewise is the best means of self-preservation, even though it is contrary to human nature.

On human nature Hobbes is cynical. Reason suggests advantages stem from co-operation, but this is outweighed by instinct. Men are fundamentally competitive and selfish. They are also roughly equal in ability so no one person or group can impose his will on others, and all can hope only to protect themselves from others. Life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Hence men are driven to create government via a pact with all others to give up their "right of nature" to a sovereign authority, which may be either an individual or an oligarchy (Hobbes prefers the former). Hobbes uses the concept of a "social contract". It is not an historical event but a logical device to describe the ongoing basis of consent to government. Hobbes' view of human nature is such that he allocates absolute power to the sovereign. Limited government is unworkable for men are too prone to division and selfishness, and "a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." Hobbes was influenced by the divisive years before the English Civil War in which he lived. Among the ten rights Hobbes awards the sovereign the sixth is the power of censorship of opinions harmful to the state. Control of religion is not among the ten rights but Hobbes later argues that the sovereign must seek to restrain discussion of religion because it leads to conflict. Anybody seeking to preach a new religion should be treated as a criminal. Had Hobbes lived a century later religion would have played little or no part in his thinking because he was not himself a religious man, and he was concerned with religion only because because it played a major role in politics in his lifetime.

Are there circumstances in which people are justified in breaking the law, and is there an ultimate right of rebellion? The answer is to be found in the nature of the social contract. Men give up their natural rights to self-preservation to a sovereign to better achieve them. If a situation arises where the sovereign cannot ensure that self-preservation then society is dissolved. On civil disobedience Hobbes says that a criminal going to his execution has the "right" to resist. He is not, however, saying he has a "moral" right, only that it is proper for him to seek to assert his "natural" right, adding that the sovereign should indeed execute him. As for whether men have the right to resist conscription, Hobbes seems at first sight ambiguous because he declares that a man's right to protect his own life extends to refusing to die in military service if conscripted. However, further reading shows that the sovereign has the right to require people to risk their life if the existence of that state is threatened. On the other hand men should have the right to put a volunteer in their place (if one is available) and the sovereign does not have the right to demand that I lay down my life if the existence of the state is not threatened.

"Leviathan" is not an easy book, not helped by the fact that the English is that of a man born just 24 years after Shakespeare. However, it is an important work that makes a good study companion to Locke's "Second Treatise", which argues for limited government. Those who prefer a version with modernized spelling should consider the edition edited by Gaskin.

Hobbes's Leviathan is of course a major and essential work of modern Western political philosophy. But it comes in many different editions, which have different strengths and weaknesses (and which omit or include the full text and other relevant works).
It is not at all helpful that the store lumps the reviews of these different editions together. From this amalgam, you cannot determine which is the best edition for you. I agree with Greg Taylor that the best unabridged paperback editions are published by Cambridge U Press and Hackett. For me, Norton Critical editions contains a good abridged text with excellent supplementary readings. For rich scholars, Oxford U Press has just published the definitive critical edition, edited by Noel Malcolm. There are many other editions -- examine them carefully. (Among other things, some modernize spelling, others don't.)

*The Leviathan* is an excellent place to begin studying political philosophy and the origins of modern political systems. Written in a time of great political turmoil (the English Civil War), Hobbes sought to defend the monarchy by presenting the most compelling argument possible for the rule of kings.

Hobbes' major contribution to the world of political philosophy is the concept of "social contract,” the idea that citizens agree to give up a little bit of their freedom in order to create a state that works for the benefit of all. Individuals (who are naturally self-interested, according to Hobbes) agree to submit to a civil authority because the natural state of man has:
"...no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."

In other words, the social contract makes possible a peaceful coexistence and all the fruits of civil society including the sciences, arts, and letters. Hobbes' writing serves as a wonderful testament to the power of order and thoroughness in philosophical writing, and it calls on the reader to consider their own relationship to being governed and to government in general.

This classic Penguin edition is based on the original 1651 text; it incorporates Hobbes' own corrections while also retaining the original spelling and punctuation and it reads with great vividness and clarity. C.B Macpherson's introduction elucidates for the general reader one of the most fascinating works of modern philosophy.

Readers interested in the roots of modern political philosophy should also read Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s own *The Social Contract*. Rousseau’s work begins from the assumption that man is cooperative by nature (rather than naturally selfish, as Hobbes assumes), and goes on to tell a very different story about the founding of the modern political state. This text should also be read alongside Plato’s *Republic*, the founding text in political philosophy.

Those interested in philosophy of literature and film can read and watch *The Lord of the Flies*, Nobel Prize winning William Golding’s 1954 chilling rendition of Hobbes’ political philosophy.

The Leviathan is an excellent place to begin studying political philosophy and the origins of modern political systems. Written in a time of great political turmoil (the English Civil War), Hobbes sought to defend the monarchy by presenting the most compelling argument possible for the rule of kings.

Hobbes' major contribution to the world of political philosophy is the concept of "social contract,” the idea that citizens agree to give up a little bit of their freedom in order to create a state that works for the benefit of all. Individuals (who are naturally self-interested, according to Hobbes) agree to submit to a civil authority because the natural state of man has:
"...no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."

In other words, the social contract makes possible a peaceful coexistence and all the fruits of civil society including the sciences, arts, and letters. Hobbes' writing serves as a wonderful testament to the power of order and thoroughness in philosophical writing, and it calls on the reader to consider their own relationship to being governed and to government in general.

This classic Penguin edition is based on the original 1651 text; it incorporates Hobbes' own corrections while also retaining the original spelling and punctuation and it reads with great vividness and clarity. C.B Macpherson's introduction elucidates for the general reader one of the most fascinating works of modern philosophy.

Readers interested in the roots of modern political philosophy should also read Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s own The Social Contract . Rousseau’s work begins from the assumption that man is cooperative by nature (rather than naturally selfish, as Hobbes assumes), and goes on to tell a very different story about the founding of the modern political state. This text should also be read alongside Plato’s Republic , the founding text in political philosophy.

Those interested in philosophy of literature and film can read and watch The Lord of the Flies , Nobel Prize winning William Golding’s 1954 chilling rendition of Hobbes’ political philosophy.

(5 stars for story, 3 stars for book size) This tiny book, closer to a short story than to a novella, was the last piece of fiction by author Joseph Roth (1894 - 1939), published posthumously in 1940, a poignant study of Roth's last days as he awaited his expected death. Born in Galicia, near Ukraine, Roth had attended college in Vienna, then served in the Austro-Hungarian army during World War I, later mourning the loss of the Habsburg Empire and all it represented. In Berlin, he began working as a journalist and on fiction, reaching the apex of his career with the publication of The Radetzky March in 1932, a generational family saga, full of the pomp, pageantry, color, and military maneuverings during the last days of the Habsburgs. The day that Hitler became Reich Chancellor in 1933, Roth left Berlin for Paris, never to return. By his early forties, he was a serious and sick alcoholic, rarely able to sustain the long-time concentration needed for long novels. He died at age 45, a suicide by alcohol.

The Leviathan features an observant but illiterate Jew, living in Progrody in the Ukraine, the premier dealer of coral jewelry for the local farmers' wives. Operating his shop from home, he imagines that a coral's biggest dream is to be plucked by a diver and "brought to the surface...to become an ornament on a beautiful peasant woman." Until the coming of the Messiah, Nissen believes, the corals will remain under the control of the Leviathan, a creature who lies curled on the seabed floor beside them.

Nissen has always yearned to see the ocean, and when a young sailor comes home from Odessa, he persuades the sailor to take him back to Odessa when he returns. Bewitched by the ocean, he stays for three extra weeks, drinking, whoring, and neglecting his religious duties. When he returns, he discovers that a new coral seller has arrived, undercutting him in price and stealing his former customers. This new coral seller's dark eyes appear gentle enough, but "they glowed so powerfully that a strange redness appeared to flare up in the midst of all their blackness." Nissen's world dramatically changes as he comes to know this mysterious stranger, and then makes a fateful decision which changes the world as he knows it.

Roth, a master of description, creates a variety of moods and atmospheres as his narrative moves forward, full of tension and urgency. Though the story resembles an allegory for children, the themes and concepts are complex, even enigmatic. It is difficult for a reader not to substitute Joseph Roth for Nissen Piczenik, and the highly respected and literary books written by a sober Roth for the perfect corals of Nissen. The corals of the new seller Lakatos are greatly inferior, suggesting the potboilers and newspaper articles that Roth sometimes wrote to make money. Like Nissen, Roth, too, feels out of place, constantly moving, until Hitler takes over and leaves him permanently homeless-his Jewish culture, like the corals, under threat of extinction.

Direct connections, if any, between free will, God, the Devil, and chance are left to the reader to decide as the conclusion resolves the surface issues. Book club readers should enjoy discussing what Nissen's final actions connote--triumph or failure, a deliberate decision or a desperate impulse, a resolution or a resignation to fate. In the meantime, this touching, allegorical story gives insights into Roth's last days and some of the issues which may have been haunting him. Mary Whipple

Alright, Hobbes is not what you would call casual reading. If you like thick political philosophy, you may enjoy this though. Unlike most political works, you should not feel compelled to agree with everything Hobbes states, as it is quite a difficult sell. But he is very enjoyable, unless of coarse you are an eternal optimist or true-blue believer in democracy.

Although vilified by most for his extreme view of an all powerful head of state governing over the cruel and devilish populace, Hobbes creates a senerio that I think most would agree with in some way or form. People, left to their own devices, will inherently murder and steal from each other to the point that civilized life becomes unbearable. It's quite a world picture that Hobbes presents, and quite fascinating as well. The idea I believe Hobbes asks each person to explore is fundamental--what is the true nature of the individual? His answer in short is chilling--the individual is not to be trusted! While we can ask that education and high moral fiber dictate the peoples actions, do we really want to rely on the goodness of our neighbors, or do we want to keep a steady eye on them while holding fast to our sword?

While I find it hard to believe any person would call themselves a die-hard Hobbesian, I think most people will find themselves answering in agreement to much that he has to say. After all, even many of the founding fathers feared the impulses of the masses and sought refuge in a powerful central government to keep the monsters at bay. Here's a tip: keep short notes while you read. Don't get caught up in all the details, and you'll enjoy this book.

I will only consider some chapters in this approach. The a priori position is that God is the origin of everything, that the Bible is absolutely true about the history of humanity and its “creation” and that the best order is that dictated by God’s law and order in which man is only free in the subjects and situations that have not been ruled out or regulated by God himself. This represents the situation in England in 1651 under the absolute rule of the Puritans led by Oliver Cromwell and named the Commonwealth. But the value for modern human beings can only come if we get the ideas he espouses out of this religious axiom that is like a pillory to his thinking.

The introduction takes us directly into the subject. The general idea he states is that man is the central element of his thinking and this man is positioned in nature. We will have to clarify what he means by nature later on. The idea here is that man as an organism, as an architectural construction is the basis of any other construction that develops from man, that is developed by man. He thus identifies what he calls Leviathan, or the common-wealth or state, as being built on the model of our body and the concept of “sovereignty” is stated to be an “artificial soul.” This metaphor, because it is a metaphor, is even densified by comparing this Leviathan created by man to a simple machine or watch or clock, hence a complex mechanism created by man too. When we bring in the concept of God as the creator of man to his own image we feel a contradiction. Man creates Leviathan or a watch to his own image, not God’s, though this man who is the model of the creations we are speaking of is the image of God, hence Leviathan should be the image of the image of God. Yet Hobbes divides his discourse between nature that governs or should govern us in daily life, man and his civil dimension that organizes the common-wealth for peace and prosperity, and God and the religious principles that govern the ultimate human society and morality. We have the impression God is something added to the previous two levels of nature and man and that it is a sort of wrapping up that reminds us of the creative dimension of this God and of the superior ethical dimension of this God. But the whole discourse has to do with the reality of nature and the civil society organized in some common-wealth and state. In fact, we could consider this approach as very modern if we just set aside the divine supplement and we see that man is extending his own body and his own capabilities into everything he does or creates. In fact we have here the basic concept of the “extensions of man” developed by Marshall McLuhan.

I will then consider chapter 4 that deals with Speech. His starting point is that printing is not such a tremendous invention. He totally neglects the tremendous impact it had on education and all levels of social life, religion, politics, culture, and many others. This is surprising since his book is such an intervention in the field of politics and ethics that is bound to have an impact due to the number of copies that are going to be circulated. But instead of seeing what was caused by the printing press, he goes back in time (a typical and unscientific retrospective method) and considers that the invention of writing was a lot more important than printing. He traces alphabetical writing back to the Phoenicians, which is not false indeed, though that was not the invention of writing per se since there were non alphabetical writing systems before this one. This Phoenician invention reached us through the Greek alphabet. He has a good point there because Homo Sapiens started emerging 300,000 years ago and writing was only invented something like a little bit more than 5,000 years ago. He is right when he speaks of isolating the sounds of speech to represent them with letters that become some kind of conceptual written forms of the isolated sounds. We are here at the root of modern phonemics and phonetics.

He is more surprising by the fact that he still goes back to speech, oral speech. He sticks to the idea of the speech incentive and energy being given to Adam by God though God gave Adam the mission of naming everything, and he considers this speech invention as “the most noble and profitable invention.” In spite of his referring to the Babel Tower myth, he clearly states here speech is an invention of man himself using his “tongue, Palat, lips, and other organs of speech” to produce it, though God is the real “author of speech.” The objective is to “register thoughts.” We can see he is modern in a way since he connects speech to the body though he ignores the larynx and other elements in the body that were developed not for speech but for bipedal long distance fast running. What is important is that he sees the organs he names as the organs of speech implying they were developed to produce speech, which is not the case at all. At the same time speech is used by man to register thoughts for sure but were do these thoughts come from? And by what process are words and sentences with syntactic and paradigmatic architectures produced? It is quite obvious that his reference to God and the Babel Tower myth is nothing but a necessary reference in his society and the fact that God is the author of speech while man is the inventor of it shows we can just get God out and say that the necessity to have a common-wealth to permit the survival of the species requires some kind of communication and man being what he is he uses his physiological resources to produce and invent language, speech if you want. The “author” is the necessary social dimension of man’s life and survival when emerging several hundred thousand years ago. That’s what he could call a “Law of Nature” as we are going to see. God is only a name glued to it and I wonder if it was only opportunistic or really believed.

He is very modern on the uses of language: to register past or present thoughts, findings and the acquisition of arts (old meaning of crafts and artistic productions); to communicate knowledge to others; to give orders and instructions; for pleasure. His conception of speech is centered on “names”, both “proper” or “common universal.” And he reduces what we are (“wise” or “foolish”) to the meaning of the words we use, neglecting the fact that the mind (what we are, wise or foolish) is just like language, it is developed from experience, through experience and by the invention and use of language which develops in the same way through that process.

For him names can designate things, material or sensible and rational, hot or cold, moving or quiet. Then they can indicate the accidents or qualities we perceive in things, both concrete or abstract. And this is done through the properties of our own body. The eyes gives sight that perceives color that becomes our idea or fancy of it in the considered thing. The ears give hearing that perceives sound that becomes our idea, fancy or conception of it, from noise to music. His approach is very interpretative and not genetic. The final use of names, hence of speech, is to be the meta-language describing language itself. As he says names can be “general, universal, special or equivocal” and speeches can be “an affirmation, an interrogation, a commandment; a narration; a syllogism, a sermon, an oration and many others.” Here “speech” means either an utterance (sentence) or a discourse that can be one or several sentences. He even concludes that names are “inconstant” because they reflect the moods and states of mind of the speaker. All that is modern, refuses a frozen and congealed language but once again it is connected to circumstantial use, though there is no dialectic that would state the mind and language develop together one with the other, one development in the mind causing one development in language and vice versa. The approach then is very utilitarian: what we can use language for. That’s why he consider abuses of language which is one particular type of use and nothing else since the basic abuses of language are to say something that is a lie, hence not true, or to aggress and insult people.

If we turn to chapters 14 and 15 we come to the “Laws of Nature” that are in fact the central piece of this book. Let me list them with some comment. First he defines the “right of nature” which is the fact that an individual has the right to do anything he needs to do in order to defend his life. This is the survival instinct but exclusively at the level of the individual. This is important because he does not see the fact that the species per se has a survival instinct and that human beings cannot survive as a species if they do not organize their life collectively. In other words he misses the concept of survival instinct. Then he has to define his concept of “liberty” and it is for him “the absence of external impediments” which is a purely negative definition and he is going to show that such impediments are natural, implying there is no liberty, a conclusion he would absolutely refuse. He has to define the concept of “law” that he opposes to that of “right.” A law gives an obligation for him, whereas a right is a liberty for him. It sounds weird since a right is also established by society and its laws and regulations. He misses history that imposes onto people some limitations and opens to people some possible actions, hence some duties (have to do or have not to do) and some rights (can or may do). But this being said he can consider the laws of nature which are what the consideration of nature implies as for the organization of man’s life.

1- The first law of nature is that every man needs peace or otherwise it is a constant state of war for their individual survival (one against all).
2- The second law of nature is the reciprocal limitation of “the right to all things” to ensure peace. This is what he calls a covenant with the religious reference behind though these covenants are purely human and in no way divine. It is the simple observation that human beings ALWAYS live in groups of various types and even the individuals who live absolutely alone do so in reference to the groups they move out of and away from.
3- The third law of nature is that men have to perform their covenants. He comes then to a simple definition of “just” (what respects covenants) and “unjust” (what goes against covenants). Justice is then the keeping of covenants, hence and therefore the rule of reason. He states though there must be a coercive power to compel men equally to perform covenants. That is where the concept of common-wealth appears.
4- The fourth law of nature is gratitude.
5- The fifth law of nature is natural accommodation or complaisance.
6- The sixth law of nature is the facility to pardon.
7- The seventh law of nature is that in revenges man must respect only the future good.
8- The eighth law of nature is against men’s contumely contempt to one another.
9- The ninth law of nature is against pride.
10- The tenth law of nature is against arrogance.
11- The eleventh law of nature is equity, to proceed equally when dealing with various men.
12- The twelfth law of nature is the equal use by all of things that are common to all.
13- The thirteenth law of nature is “lot,” i.e. the priority of anything to first possession or possessor.
14- The fourteenth law of nature is Primogeniture and first seizing.
15- The fifteenth law of nature is about mediators.
16- The sixteenth law of nature is about one’s submission to arbitrament and arbitrators.
17- The seventeenth law of nature is the fact that no man can be his own judge
18- The eighteenth law of nature is No man can be a judge who has in himself a cause of partiality.
19- The nineteenth law of nature is about witnesses who are supposed to be as numerous as possible.

Hobbes adds a twentieth law of nature in his concluding remarks:

20- The twentieth law of nature is "that every man is bound by Nature, as much as in him lieth, to protect in Warre, the Authority, by which he is himself protected in time of Peace."

It is strange because it states clearly that the existing authority cannot be changed and that everyone is supposed to defend it if it is attacked. This is in full contradiction with the Puritan revolution that attacked the Authority of the King, though they will object that they represented the authority of Parliament that was under attack from the King, but then the Civil war was necessary since the supporters of each authority had the natural obligation to fight for it. What’s more it implies that the Puritan Common-wealth cannot be changed and that all people will have to fight if an attempt is done to change it. Historically this principle is de facto unacceptable. The restoration took place and later the Glorious Revolution took place and the Jacobites were declared illegal and traitors.

We have to point out these laws of nature are based on individualistic considerations. They are laws of nature governing every individual and the social and political facts are only the consequences of this first principle. The second remark is that they are deeply anti-historical. If these laws of nature are the basic covenant of all human commonwealths, if respecting or implementing the covenant is the only basis for justice and finally if “the laws of justice are eternal,” meaning the laws that are devised in application and continuation of the twenty laws of nature, the very essence of any covenant which is the only basis for justice, then there is no possible historical change, which is absurd. He even goes further and declares that “the science of these laws is true moral philosophy.” Such laws are not a science. They are only his own reasoning, hence at best a theory. True enough we are dealing with ethics and nothing else but ethics are not and cannot be “true” because they depend on too many personal choices that have nothing to do with truth, except that they are true at one particular moment in one particular situation for one particular person. And even when one of these ethical elements has been instated as a basic human right, for example the right to enter a same sex alliance, marriage or not, no one is forced to do it: it is a basic human right for those who choose to implement it for themselves. In other words gay marriage is not becoming compulsory for everyone just because it is considered today as a basic human right. Note in the same way that plain marriage of any type is not compulsory either though it is a basic human right.

Then his discussion of “liberty” reveals a lot about his own philosophy.

1- For him liberty is purely individualistic.

2- For him liberty is defined negatively: absence of opposition, “not hindered to do what he has a will to do.” Note here the “he” pronoun is also very meaningful: he does not consider women, just as he does not consider blacks (who are slaves in the colonies), or Indians (who are being slaughtered already in the colonies) or even the Irish who are being ruthlessly colonized) and probably a few more like all Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus.

3- For him it is based on the fear of the law as the incentive to liberty, since liberty and necessity are consistent and here comes his basic religious fundamentalism: man has to do what God wants him to do and man has not to do what God does not want him to do, and beyond these two obligations (to do and not to do) man can and may do what is not covered or included.

4- When he is dealing with the “liberty of subjects” he does not see the contradiction between “liberty” and “subject” (someone who is subjected to another, who submits to the authority of another), even when he asserts “the liberty of sovereigns.” The only important liberty he asserts is the liberty for any man to defend his own body and body’s integrity. This is the Habeas Corpus principle that will only be passed in Parliament in 1679. For him the liberty of subjects is in the silence of the law. This asserts the power of Judicature. This is the premise of what will become with Montesquieu judicial power. But he does not understand how it works: you are tried in a first level lower court. You can then appeal to an appeal court. You can finally appeal to some “supreme court” (House of Lords in England, Supreme Court in the USA) and their decision will edict a total ban on one activity, a total freedom to practice it, or an in-between regulated practice. The best example is abortion and how the US Supreme Court made history for the fifty states by ruling on an attempt to reduce the right to abort for women in Texas. (SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Syllabus: WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. HELLERSTEDT, COMMISSIONER, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15–274, Argued March 2, 2016—Decided June 27, 2016. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf, accessed August 19, 2016)

5- He concludes his book with a call for leniency from the Censors since “there is nothing in this whole Discourse, as far as I can perceive, contrary either to the Word of God, or to good Manners; or to the disturbance of the Publique Tranquillity. Therefore I think it may be profitably printed, and more profitably taught in the Universities.”

This book then is essential to prove the historicity of such concepts as “liberty,” “common-wealth,” including those I did not consider like “democracy,” “monarchy,” “aristocracy,” tyranny,” and “oligarchy” in the direct political field. In England per se we can see that some principles are becoming established: distance from the purely fundamentalist religious approach, the idea that any state organization and social organization are the results of covenants (what J.J. Rousseau will call one century later “social contracts”), the idea that any covenant is the result of some general historical rules that govern the survival of the human species, of any human group and of any human individual, and finally the idea that all human activities are governed by the ability of man to speak, communicate, imagine and create crafts, arts, and sciences. We could add religion that probably came as belief in the supernatural and in a higher level of determinism as soon as Homo Sapiens developed language that enabled him to start his trip on the road to conceptualization.

We are, within this Puritan Common-wealth, at a real round about in history. There are several roads emerging in front of us and choices are both free and determined by the context.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) was born in England, a country that endured great political turmoil during his life. Having lived through that, Hobbes' main aim was to inquire into the basis of order. The question he asked himself was "What kind of political authority will prevent the return of chaos?". And the answer to that question is in this book, "Leviathan" (1651).

The Levianthan is the personification of total power, an authority without limits, created by men who realise that absolute power given to a powerfull ruler (or to an assembly) is their only way out of the dangers of the state of nature. The name that the author chose for his monarch is quite telling: the Leviathan is a sea monster that appears in the Bible and symbolizes power. This kind of monarch seems like an extreme solution for the problem of anarchy, but it is the only one that Hobbes found. Without the Leviathan, life is 'solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.'

Of course, this book includes many more things than those I have already mentioned. For instance, it explains quite well Hobbes opinion regarding human nature (man is naturally a wolf to men), the state of nature (perpetual war of all against all), the origin of political institutions and the relationship between reason and force (pacts without swords are merely words), among other things.

On the whole, I think this book is a classic of Political Philosophy, and I recommend it as such. Despite that, I think a word of caution is in order, so you will be prepared for what you will find when you tackle "Leviathan". Truth to be told, sometimes Hobbes' prose is too dry, and in some chapters you will need to plod through some rather arid pages. Moreover, this book isn't written in modern English, what makes it more difficult to understand. Those are the reasons why I give this book four stars instead of five...

Notwithstanding that, I believe that "Leviathan" is well-worth the effort of reading it, simply because it has some interesting concepts that you should be aware of, even if you don't agree with them. The only way to discuss in a level play field with someone who has totally different ideas is to understand his arguments thoroughly, even if his position seems completely strange to you. I invite you to do that with Hobbes, reading "Leviathan".

Belen Alcat

Hobbes' sole claim to fame these days is the out-of-context quotation from him that life is "nasty, brutish, and short." The full quotation from chapter 13, section 9 which inveighs against the state of war, in concluding the statement on man's condition in such a state, is "and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."-Beats me why "solitary" and "poor" are left out of the popular quotation-The point is, this is the condition Hobbes wanted to AVOID, not to justify! He had just lived through the bloodfest known as the English Civil War in which many of his friends were horribly slaughtered because of their religious beliefs. His whole point in writing this book was to advance arguments that one should not go to war over differences in religion. His controversial alternative is absolute obedience to the state and secular authorities. This alternative combined with the quote, noted above, so maddeningly and frequently taken out of context, have given Hobbes and his work the undeserved reputation as, well, curmudgeonly. One might ask what sort of book you might write if you had just witnessed the horrific slaughter and loss of esteemed friends that Hobbes had. You would probably write a book urging peace at any price even if it meant undue subjugation to the state at times. This is exactly what Hobbes did.-Hobbes belongs to that majestic, good-natured and unflappable tradition of brilliant English heretical political and religious writers including, among others, David Hume (well, Scottish too) and Bertrand Russell who seemed merely humored by the ecclesiastics calling down hell-fire upon them and similar dire threats from men in power. Scholars are STILL trying to debunk the work of these prominent men, among others more obscure, with little success it must be said.- Yes, the prose can be rough-going at times. But if you want an argument against war, specifically war over religion. This is the masterpiece to set your nose to. Once you've finished, it's hard not to smile when you think of Hobbes and his essential decency amidst the turbulent times in which he lived.

I found the Leviathon worth reviewing after having read it many years ago in college. This time around, it helped me understand why we have national governments and why we cede some freedoms to them. A must read for those who want to understand our own history. I rated it four out of five stars because modern readers will find Hobbes' method of argument difficult to follow. Some of us will find that reading Leviathon along with a carefully chosen modern commentary will be helpful.

It normally takes me 2 weeks to finish a book considering that life must be lived. For whatever reason, "Leviathan" took me nearly 2 months. I think I can attribute it mostly to the fact that what I expected to read was not what I did read. I expected "Leviathan" to be a secular treatise on government. Instead, "Leviathan" read as a Christian indicting the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. Not that I have an issue with that, but I order my reading list in a special way and my mood was set on government not religion at the time.

I have no authority or scholarship in regards to philosophy. I am simply an enthusiast. I had general knowledge of Thomas Hobbes prior to reading this book. Many scholars claim that Hobbes was a secular absolutist, materialist, agnostic, or perhaps an atheist. If they were reading "Leviathan" to gather this information, I do believe there would be a significant amount of proof to say otherwise.

Leviathan is Hobbes' "Utopia." It is indeed absolutist, but it is voluntary absolutism, and in no way secular. He refers to it as his Christian-Commonwealth numerous times. His knowledge and application of scripture is impeccable. I take no offense to Hobbes' vision, being an Anarcho-Capitalist-Voluntaryist-Minarchist-leaning Libertarian, because Hobbes' vision is voluntary for the most part. He is by no means a one-worlder. He believes that there should be multiple common-wealths and that they should form according to each common-wealths' desires. Enter his disdain for the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. He makes some incredible and withstanding accusations against the Church and its desire for world domination.

Leviathan is a Christian-Commonwealth in which the people contract their governing to a King. A King who is chosen by them voluntarily. He makes some compelling arguments as to why there should be a monarch as opposed to a legislature. He believes a monarch would care for the people like his own and the legislature would simply sell the people out for self-aggrandizement. History has shown that tyranny is capable by any means of government though, especially by monarchy. He seems a bit dichotomous in his beliefs. On one hand, he believes that man can not be left too much liberty because man is always trying to supplant his neighbor for his own gain. On the other hand, his Christian-Commonwealth would essentially require that every man be a Christian and even the monarch be a Christian. Yet, if everyone lived by Christian ideals, namely the Golden Rule, then there would be no need for government or monarchs at all, hence full liberty which he finds to be dangerous.

I was disappointed that two major issues of Leviathan were not discussed. First, sure the initial generation may voluntarily contract their rights to a monarch, but what about their children? Their children would now live under the authority of an individual with whom they never consented. Secondly, what about non-Christians? The monarch is a Christian. He would be the leader over both the State and the Church. In fact, according to Hobbes the State is the Church. What would be expected of or provided to non-Christians in a Christian State?

I've definitely read worst than Hobbes. I've definitely read better than Hobbes. I give him proper respect for his writing style. It was incredibly unique and entertaining. As an ex-Catholic, I thoroughly enjoyed his connecting the Roman Catholic Church to the Heathen cults of the former empire. (My apologies to any Catholics reading this, I'm not trying to be incendiary, but honest). I did feel there was much lacking in respect to Leviathan, my whole purpose for reading. If you're looking for arguments against the Catholic Church (which could be used even today) then this would be a great read. If you're looking for a philosopher's vision of utopia and the machinations of government, this will probably bore you to tears.

Alright, Hobbes is not what you would call casual reading. If you like thick political philosophy, you may enjoy this though. Unlike most political works, you should not feel compelled to agree with everything Hobbes states, as it is quite a difficult sell. But he is very enjoyable, unless of coarse you are an eternal optimist or true-blue believer in democracy.

Although vilified by most for his extreme view of an all powerful head of state governing over the cruel and devilish populace, Hobbes creates a senerio that I think most would agree with in some way or form. People, left to their own devices, will inherently murder and steal from each other to the point that civilized life becomes unbearable. It's quite a world picture that Hobbes presents, and quite fascinating as well. The idea I believe Hobbes asks each person to explore is fundamental--what is the true nature of the individual? His answer in short is chilling--the individual is not to be trusted! While we can ask that education and high moral fiber dictate the peoples actions, do we really want to rely on the goodness of our neighbors, or do we want to keep a steady eye on them while holding fast to our sword?

While I find it hard to believe any person would call themselves a die-hard Hobbesian, I think most people will find themselves answering in agreement to much that he has to say. After all, even many of the founding fathers feared the impulses of the masses and sought refuge in a powerful central government to keep the monsters at bay. Here's a tip: keep short notes while you read. Don't get caught up in all the details, and you'll enjoy this book.

I will only consider some chapters in this approach. The a priori position is that God is the origin of everything, that the Bible is absolutely true about the history of humanity and its “creation” and that the best order is that dictated by God’s law and order in which man is only free in the subjects and situations that have not been ruled out or regulated by God himself. This represents the situation in England in 1651 under the absolute rule of the Puritans led by Oliver Cromwell and named the Commonwealth. But the value for modern human beings can only come if we get the ideas he espouses out of this religious axiom that is like a pillory to his thinking.

The introduction takes us directly into the subject. The general idea he states is that man is the central element of his thinking and this man is positioned in nature. We will have to clarify what he means by nature later on. The idea here is that man as an organism, as an architectural construction is the basis of any other construction that develops from man, that is developed by man. He thus identifies what he calls Leviathan, or the common-wealth or state, as being built on the model of our body and the concept of “sovereignty” is stated to be an “artificial soul.” This metaphor, because it is a metaphor, is even densified by comparing this Leviathan created by man to a simple machine or watch or clock, hence a complex mechanism created by man too. When we bring in the concept of God as the creator of man to his own image we feel a contradiction. Man creates Leviathan or a watch to his own image, not God’s, though this man who is the model of the creations we are speaking of is the image of God, hence Leviathan should be the image of the image of God. Yet Hobbes divides his discourse between nature that governs or should govern us in daily life, man and his civil dimension that organizes the common-wealth for peace and prosperity, and God and the religious principles that govern the ultimate human society and morality. We have the impression God is something added to the previous two levels of nature and man and that it is a sort of wrapping up that reminds us of the creative dimension of this God and of the superior ethical dimension of this God. But the whole discourse has to do with the reality of nature and the civil society organized in some common-wealth and state. In fact, we could consider this approach as very modern if we just set aside the divine supplement and we see that man is extending his own body and his own capabilities into everything he does or creates. In fact we have here the basic concept of the “extensions of man” developed by Marshall McLuhan.

I will then consider chapter 4 that deals with Speech. His starting point is that printing is not such a tremendous invention. He totally neglects the tremendous impact it had on education and all levels of social life, religion, politics, culture, and many others. This is surprising since his book is such an intervention in the field of politics and ethics that is bound to have an impact due to the number of copies that are going to be circulated. But instead of seeing what was caused by the printing press, he goes back in time (a typical and unscientific retrospective method) and considers that the invention of writing was a lot more important than printing. He traces alphabetical writing back to the Phoenicians, which is not false indeed, though that was not the invention of writing per se since there were non alphabetical writing systems before this one. This Phoenician invention reached us through the Greek alphabet. He has a good point there because Homo Sapiens started emerging 300,000 years ago and writing was only invented something like a little bit more than 5,000 years ago. He is right when he speaks of isolating the sounds of speech to represent them with letters that become some kind of conceptual written forms of the isolated sounds. We are here at the root of modern phonemics and phonetics.

He is more surprising by the fact that he still goes back to speech, oral speech. He sticks to the idea of the speech incentive and energy being given to Adam by God though God gave Adam the mission of naming everything, and he considers this speech invention as “the most noble and profitable invention.” In spite of his referring to the Babel Tower myth, he clearly states here speech is an invention of man himself using his “tongue, Palat, lips, and other organs of speech” to produce it, though God is the real “author of speech.” The objective is to “register thoughts.” We can see he is modern in a way since he connects speech to the body though he ignores the larynx and other elements in the body that were developed not for speech but for bipedal long distance fast running. What is important is that he sees the organs he names as the organs of speech implying they were developed to produce speech, which is not the case at all. At the same time speech is used by man to register thoughts for sure but were do these thoughts come from? And by what process are words and sentences with syntactic and paradigmatic architectures produced? It is quite obvious that his reference to God and the Babel Tower myth is nothing but a necessary reference in his society and the fact that God is the author of speech while man is the inventor of it shows we can just get God out and say that the necessity to have a common-wealth to permit the survival of the species requires some kind of communication and man being what he is he uses his physiological resources to produce and invent language, speech if you want. The “author” is the necessary social dimension of man’s life and survival when emerging several hundred thousand years ago. That’s what he could call a “Law of Nature” as we are going to see. God is only a name glued to it and I wonder if it was only opportunistic or really believed.

He is very modern on the uses of language: to register past or present thoughts, findings and the acquisition of arts (old meaning of crafts and artistic productions); to communicate knowledge to others; to give orders and instructions; for pleasure. His conception of speech is centered on “names”, both “proper” or “common universal.” And he reduces what we are (“wise” or “foolish”) to the meaning of the words we use, neglecting the fact that the mind (what we are, wise or foolish) is just like language, it is developed from experience, through experience and by the invention and use of language which develops in the same way through that process.

For him names can designate things, material or sensible and rational, hot or cold, moving or quiet. Then they can indicate the accidents or qualities we perceive in things, both concrete or abstract. And this is done through the properties of our own body. The eyes gives sight that perceives color that becomes our idea or fancy of it in the considered thing. The ears give hearing that perceives sound that becomes our idea, fancy or conception of it, from noise to music. His approach is very interpretative and not genetic. The final use of names, hence of speech, is to be the meta-language describing language itself. As he says names can be “general, universal, special or equivocal” and speeches can be “an affirmation, an interrogation, a commandment; a narration; a syllogism, a sermon, an oration and many others.” Here “speech” means either an utterance (sentence) or a discourse that can be one or several sentences. He even concludes that names are “inconstant” because they reflect the moods and states of mind of the speaker. All that is modern, refuses a frozen and congealed language but once again it is connected to circumstantial use, though there is no dialectic that would state the mind and language develop together one with the other, one development in the mind causing one development in language and vice versa. The approach then is very utilitarian: what we can use language for. That’s why he consider abuses of language which is one particular type of use and nothing else since the basic abuses of language are to say something that is a lie, hence not true, or to aggress and insult people.

If we turn to chapters 14 and 15 we come to the “Laws of Nature” that are in fact the central piece of this book. Let me list them with some comment. First he defines the “right of nature” which is the fact that an individual has the right to do anything he needs to do in order to defend his life. This is the survival instinct but exclusively at the level of the individual. This is important because he does not see the fact that the species per se has a survival instinct and that human beings cannot survive as a species if they do not organize their life collectively. In other words he misses the concept of survival instinct. Then he has to define his concept of “liberty” and it is for him “the absence of external impediments” which is a purely negative definition and he is going to show that such impediments are natural, implying there is no liberty, a conclusion he would absolutely refuse. He has to define the concept of “law” that he opposes to that of “right.” A law gives an obligation for him, whereas a right is a liberty for him. It sounds weird since a right is also established by society and its laws and regulations. He misses history that imposes onto people some limitations and opens to people some possible actions, hence some duties (have to do or have not to do) and some rights (can or may do). But this being said he can consider the laws of nature which are what the consideration of nature implies as for the organization of man’s life.

1- The first law of nature is that every man needs peace or otherwise it is a constant state of war for their individual survival (one against all).
2- The second law of nature is the reciprocal limitation of “the right to all things” to ensure peace. This is what he calls a covenant with the religious reference behind though these covenants are purely human and in no way divine. It is the simple observation that human beings ALWAYS live in groups of various types and even the individuals who live absolutely alone do so in reference to the groups they move out of and away from.
3- The third law of nature is that men have to perform their covenants. He comes then to a simple definition of “just” (what respects covenants) and “unjust” (what goes against covenants). Justice is then the keeping of covenants, hence and therefore the rule of reason. He states though there must be a coercive power to compel men equally to perform covenants. That is where the concept of common-wealth appears.
4- The fourth law of nature is gratitude.
5- The fifth law of nature is natural accommodation or complaisance.
6- The sixth law of nature is the facility to pardon.
7- The seventh law of nature is that in revenges man must respect only the future good.
8- The eighth law of nature is against men’s contumely contempt to one another.
9- The ninth law of nature is against pride.
10- The tenth law of nature is against arrogance.
11- The eleventh law of nature is equity, to proceed equally when dealing with various men.
12- The twelfth law of nature is the equal use by all of things that are common to all.
13- The thirteenth law of nature is “lot,” i.e. the priority of anything to first possession or possessor.
14- The fourteenth law of nature is Primogeniture and first seizing.
15- The fifteenth law of nature is about mediators.
16- The sixteenth law of nature is about one’s submission to arbitrament and arbitrators.
17- The seventeenth law of nature is the fact that no man can be his own judge
18- The eighteenth law of nature is No man can be a judge who has in himself a cause of partiality.
19- The nineteenth law of nature is about witnesses who are supposed to be as numerous as possible.

Hobbes adds a twentieth law of nature in his concluding remarks:

20- The twentieth law of nature is "that every man is bound by Nature, as much as in him lieth, to protect in Warre, the Authority, by which he is himself protected in time of Peace."

It is strange because it states clearly that the existing authority cannot be changed and that everyone is supposed to defend it if it is attacked. This is in full contradiction with the Puritan revolution that attacked the Authority of the King, though they will object that they represented the authority of Parliament that was under attack from the King, but then the Civil war was necessary since the supporters of each authority had the natural obligation to fight for it. What’s more it implies that the Puritan Common-wealth cannot be changed and that all people will have to fight if an attempt is done to change it. Historically this principle is de facto unacceptable. The restoration took place and later the Glorious Revolution took place and the Jacobites were declared illegal and traitors.

We have to point out these laws of nature are based on individualistic considerations. They are laws of nature governing every individual and the social and political facts are only the consequences of this first principle. The second remark is that they are deeply anti-historical. If these laws of nature are the basic covenant of all human commonwealths, if respecting or implementing the covenant is the only basis for justice and finally if “the laws of justice are eternal,” meaning the laws that are devised in application and continuation of the twenty laws of nature, the very essence of any covenant which is the only basis for justice, then there is no possible historical change, which is absurd. He even goes further and declares that “the science of these laws is true moral philosophy.” Such laws are not a science. They are only his own reasoning, hence at best a theory. True enough we are dealing with ethics and nothing else but ethics are not and cannot be “true” because they depend on too many personal choices that have nothing to do with truth, except that they are true at one particular moment in one particular situation for one particular person. And even when one of these ethical elements has been instated as a basic human right, for example the right to enter a same sex alliance, marriage or not, no one is forced to do it: it is a basic human right for those who choose to implement it for themselves. In other words gay marriage is not becoming compulsory for everyone just because it is considered today as a basic human right. Note in the same way that plain marriage of any type is not compulsory either though it is a basic human right.

Then his discussion of “liberty” reveals a lot about his own philosophy.

1- For him liberty is purely individualistic.

2- For him liberty is defined negatively: absence of opposition, “not hindered to do what he has a will to do.” Note here the “he” pronoun is also very meaningful: he does not consider women, just as he does not consider blacks (who are slaves in the colonies), or Indians (who are being slaughtered already in the colonies) or even the Irish who are being ruthlessly colonized) and probably a few more like all Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus.

3- For him it is based on the fear of the law as the incentive to liberty, since liberty and necessity are consistent and here comes his basic religious fundamentalism: man has to do what God wants him to do and man has not to do what God does not want him to do, and beyond these two obligations (to do and not to do) man can and may do what is not covered or included.

4- When he is dealing with the “liberty of subjects” he does not see the contradiction between “liberty” and “subject” (someone who is subjected to another, who submits to the authority of another), even when he asserts “the liberty of sovereigns.” The only important liberty he asserts is the liberty for any man to defend his own body and body’s integrity. This is the Habeas Corpus principle that will only be passed in Parliament in 1679. For him the liberty of subjects is in the silence of the law. This asserts the power of Judicature. This is the premise of what will become with Montesquieu judicial power. But he does not understand how it works: you are tried in a first level lower court. You can then appeal to an appeal court. You can finally appeal to some “supreme court” (House of Lords in England, Supreme Court in the USA) and their decision will edict a total ban on one activity, a total freedom to practice it, or an in-between regulated practice. The best example is abortion and how the US Supreme Court made history for the fifty states by ruling on an attempt to reduce the right to abort for women in Texas. (SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Syllabus: WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. HELLERSTEDT, COMMISSIONER, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15–274, Argued March 2, 2016—Decided June 27, 2016. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf, accessed August 19, 2016)

5- He concludes his book with a call for leniency from the Censors since “there is nothing in this whole Discourse, as far as I can perceive, contrary either to the Word of God, or to good Manners; or to the disturbance of the Publique Tranquillity. Therefore I think it may be profitably printed, and more profitably taught in the Universities.”

This book then is essential to prove the historicity of such concepts as “liberty,” “common-wealth,” including those I did not consider like “democracy,” “monarchy,” “aristocracy,” tyranny,” and “oligarchy” in the direct political field. In England per se we can see that some principles are becoming established: distance from the purely fundamentalist religious approach, the idea that any state organization and social organization are the results of covenants (what J.J. Rousseau will call one century later “social contracts”), the idea that any covenant is the result of some general historical rules that govern the survival of the human species, of any human group and of any human individual, and finally the idea that all human activities are governed by the ability of man to speak, communicate, imagine and create crafts, arts, and sciences. We could add religion that probably came as belief in the supernatural and in a higher level of determinism as soon as Homo Sapiens developed language that enabled him to start his trip on the road to conceptualization.

We are, within this Puritan Common-wealth, at a real round about in history. There are several roads emerging in front of us and choices are both free and determined by the context.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) was born in England, a country that endured great political turmoil during his life. Having lived through that, Hobbes' main aim was to inquire into the basis of order. The question he asked himself was "What kind of political authority will prevent the return of chaos?". And the answer to that question is in this book, "Leviathan" (1651).

The Levianthan is the personification of total power, an authority without limits, created by men who realise that absolute power given to a powerfull ruler (or to an assembly) is their only way out of the dangers of the state of nature. The name that the author chose for his monarch is quite telling: the Leviathan is a sea monster that appears in the Bible and symbolizes power. This kind of monarch seems like an extreme solution for the problem of anarchy, but it is the only one that Hobbes found. Without the Leviathan, life is 'solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.'

Of course, this book includes many more things than those I have already mentioned. For instance, it explains quite well Hobbes opinion regarding human nature (man is naturally a wolf to men), the state of nature (perpetual war of all against all), the origin of political institutions and the relationship between reason and force (pacts without swords are merely words), among other things.

On the whole, I think this book is a classic of Political Philosophy, and I recommend it as such. Despite that, I think a word of caution is in order, so you will be prepared for what you will find when you tackle "Leviathan". Truth to be told, sometimes Hobbes' prose is too dry, and in some chapters you will need to plod through some rather arid pages. Moreover, this book isn't written in modern English, what makes it more difficult to understand. Those are the reasons why I give this book four stars instead of five...

Notwithstanding that, I believe that "Leviathan" is well-worth the effort of reading it, simply because it has some interesting concepts that you should be aware of, even if you don't agree with them. The only way to discuss in a level play field with someone who has totally different ideas is to understand his arguments thoroughly, even if his position seems completely strange to you. I invite you to do that with Hobbes, reading "Leviathan".

Belen Alcat

Hobbes' sole claim to fame these days is the out-of-context quotation from him that life is "nasty, brutish, and short." The full quotation from chapter 13, section 9 which inveighs against the state of war, in concluding the statement on man's condition in such a state, is "and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."-Beats me why "solitary" and "poor" are left out of the popular quotation-The point is, this is the condition Hobbes wanted to AVOID, not to justify! He had just lived through the bloodfest known as the English Civil War in which many of his friends were horribly slaughtered because of their religious beliefs. His whole point in writing this book was to advance arguments that one should not go to war over differences in religion. His controversial alternative is absolute obedience to the state and secular authorities. This alternative combined with the quote, noted above, so maddeningly and frequently taken out of context, have given Hobbes and his work the undeserved reputation as, well, curmudgeonly. One might ask what sort of book you might write if you had just witnessed the horrific slaughter and loss of esteemed friends that Hobbes had. You would probably write a book urging peace at any price even if it meant undue subjugation to the state at times. This is exactly what Hobbes did.-Hobbes belongs to that majestic, good-natured and unflappable tradition of brilliant English heretical political and religious writers including, among others, David Hume (well, Scottish too) and Bertrand Russell who seemed merely humored by the ecclesiastics calling down hell-fire upon them and similar dire threats from men in power. Scholars are STILL trying to debunk the work of these prominent men, among others more obscure, with little success it must be said.- Yes, the prose can be rough-going at times. But if you want an argument against war, specifically war over religion. This is the masterpiece to set your nose to. Once you've finished, it's hard not to smile when you think of Hobbes and his essential decency amidst the turbulent times in which he lived.

I found the Leviathon worth reviewing after having read it many years ago in college. This time around, it helped me understand why we have national governments and why we cede some freedoms to them. A must read for those who want to understand our own history. I rated it four out of five stars because modern readers will find Hobbes' method of argument difficult to follow. Some of us will find that reading Leviathon along with a carefully chosen modern commentary will be helpful.

It normally takes me 2 weeks to finish a book considering that life must be lived. For whatever reason, "Leviathan" took me nearly 2 months. I think I can attribute it mostly to the fact that what I expected to read was not what I did read. I expected "Leviathan" to be a secular treatise on government. Instead, "Leviathan" read as a Christian indicting the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. Not that I have an issue with that, but I order my reading list in a special way and my mood was set on government not religion at the time.

I have no authority or scholarship in regards to philosophy. I am simply an enthusiast. I had general knowledge of Thomas Hobbes prior to reading this book. Many scholars claim that Hobbes was a secular absolutist, materialist, agnostic, or perhaps an atheist. If they were reading "Leviathan" to gather this information, I do believe there would be a significant amount of proof to say otherwise.

Leviathan is Hobbes' "Utopia." It is indeed absolutist, but it is voluntary absolutism, and in no way secular. He refers to it as his Christian-Commonwealth numerous times. His knowledge and application of scripture is impeccable. I take no offense to Hobbes' vision, being an Anarcho-Capitalist-Voluntaryist-Minarchist-leaning Libertarian, because Hobbes' vision is voluntary for the most part. He is by no means a one-worlder. He believes that there should be multiple common-wealths and that they should form according to each common-wealths' desires. Enter his disdain for the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. He makes some incredible and withstanding accusations against the Church and its desire for world domination.

Leviathan is a Christian-Commonwealth in which the people contract their governing to a King. A King who is chosen by them voluntarily. He makes some compelling arguments as to why there should be a monarch as opposed to a legislature. He believes a monarch would care for the people like his own and the legislature would simply sell the people out for self-aggrandizement. History has shown that tyranny is capable by any means of government though, especially by monarchy. He seems a bit dichotomous in his beliefs. On one hand, he believes that man can not be left too much liberty because man is always trying to supplant his neighbor for his own gain. On the other hand, his Christian-Commonwealth would essentially require that every man be a Christian and even the monarch be a Christian. Yet, if everyone lived by Christian ideals, namely the Golden Rule, then there would be no need for government or monarchs at all, hence full liberty which he finds to be dangerous.

I was disappointed that two major issues of Leviathan were not discussed. First, sure the initial generation may voluntarily contract their rights to a monarch, but what about their children? Their children would now live under the authority of an individual with whom they never consented. Secondly, what about non-Christians? The monarch is a Christian. He would be the leader over both the State and the Church. In fact, according to Hobbes the State is the Church. What would be expected of or provided to non-Christians in a Christian State?

I've definitely read worst than Hobbes. I've definitely read better than Hobbes. I give him proper respect for his writing style. It was incredibly unique and entertaining. As an ex-Catholic, I thoroughly enjoyed his connecting the Roman Catholic Church to the Heathen cults of the former empire. (My apologies to any Catholics reading this, I'm not trying to be incendiary, but honest). I did feel there was much lacking in respect to Leviathan, my whole purpose for reading. If you're looking for arguments against the Catholic Church (which could be used even today) then this would be a great read. If you're looking for a philosopher's vision of utopia and the machinations of government, this will probably bore you to tears.

I got interested in Hobbes because I was reading a lot about the Founding Fathers of the United States and I wanted to familiarize myself with the books that influenced them.

Reading Leviathan is not easy. It requires a lot of concentration. I found it helpful to read the Wikipedia explanation of the book before reading the book itself.

However, the book is brilliant if you take away the religious part of it and focus on the ideas that are based upon reason.

You can almost feel humanity (or part of humanity, anyway) waking up at this time in history to figure out what government is actually supposed to be.

John Christmas, author of "Democracy Society"

Being a free Kindle edition there is no introduction and no notes - but you do get most of the text and all the passages that matter. The main difference from the original is that there are fewer capitals and italics. Hobbes used them for emphasis very much more than a modern writer would, and their pruning in this edition makes the text easier to read.

Modern political philosophy begins with Hobbes. Before Hobbes, writers for centuries had accepted the divine right of kings or did not think much about the origins of government. Hobbes provides reasons as to how and why men come together to form government. He starts with the assumption that the organized state is a choice. The alternative is the "state of nature", where there is both a "right" of nature and "laws" of nature. Hobbes uses these terms in a very individual way. The "right" of nature is "the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power...for the preservation of his own Life". The "laws" of nature dictate that each person should seek to live with others in peace, and should only retain the right to as much liberty as he is willing to permit others. These "laws" are found by reason, and are utilitarian rather than moral. Hobbes is simply saying that if men think about their situation, reason tells them that giving up their natural rights in exchange for others doing likewise is the best means of self-preservation, even though actually doing it is contrary to human nature.

On human nature Hobbes is cynical. Reason suggests advantages stem from co-operation, but unless men are constrained by an external authority this is outweighed by instinct. Men are fundamentally competitive and selfish. They are also roughly equal in ability so no one person can impose his will on others, and the most one can hope for is to protect oneself from others. Life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Men are therefore driven to create government via a pact with others to give up their natural rights to a sovereign authority, which may be either an individual or an oligarchy (Hobbes prefers the former). Hobbes uses the concept of a "social contract". It is not an historical event but a logical device to describe the ongoing basis of consent to government. Hobbes' view of human nature is such that he allocates absolute power to the sovereign. Limited government, he believed, is unworkable for men are too prone to division and selfishness, and "a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." Influenced by the divisive years preceding the English Civil War, Hobbes grants the sovereign the power of censorship, including the ability to prevent discussion of religion because such discussion leads to conflict. Anybody seeking to preach a new religion should be treated as a criminal.

Had Hobbes been writing a century later then religion would almost certainly have played no part in his writings. He himself was not a religious man. His concern with religion stemmed from its role in the conflict leading to the English Civil War, a period during which he lived.

Is there an ultimate right of rebellion against the absolute ruler? The answer is to be found in the nature of the social contract. Men give up their natural right to self-preservation to a sovereign in order to to better achieve it. If a situation arises where the sovereign cannot ensure that safety then society is dissolved. Can any action by the sovereign be challenged? Yes, if a man is conscripted into military service (an obvious threat to life) in circumstances where the survival of the state is not threatened. If the survival of the state is threatened then so are the lives of its citizens, and in these circumstances the sovereign can impose conscription. Hobbes adds that even in this case a citizen should have the right to replace himself with a volunteer if one is available.

"Leviathan" is not an easy book, not helped by the fact that the English is that of a man born just 24 years after Shakespeare. However, it is an important work that makes a good study companion to Locke's "Second Treatise", which argues for limited government.

Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan was the first modern political theorem written in the English language. Poetry, essays, plays and a few academic analyses on Politics existed before that, but it was Hobbes who fathered modern political thought in all its rational and logical stipulation. It was Hobbes who questioned and fought the traditional notions of political understanding; nobody prior to Hobbes had ever cross-examined the foundations of a Monarchic structure within society and the genesis of government. In the introduction itself, Hobbes asserts his assumption that an organized state of life is a choice, just as chaos is a choice as well. He makes it clear in the start that nature predisposes everyone with certain rights and a prerequisite set of laws. Every man has a right to defend his life with all his ability and the law that nature imposes on every being is to live a life of peace and to treat others as one would like to be treated. He states that for self-preservation, man must bind himself in contract with other men to give up our birthrights to be protected by a collectively elected sovereign power. This sovereign power must have unconditional authority in every single aspect of life; there is no entity that boasts more strength or questions the elected sovereign power; everything else besides the sovereign is reigned by the sovereign.

According to Hobbes, the nature of man is motivated by his passions, and there is no greater and intense passion than fear. Fear triumphs over all other emotions and man's primal fear is of losing his life by force, which can even make him take irrational decisions. It is this logical prognosis of his that made him believe that whatever can go wrong, will go wrong, unless man follows the law of nature; to live in peace and preserve his life in unison with his fellow citizens. His cynicism for human nature is established when he states that the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". He says the only way to overcome the innate fear of death and the knowledge of the nature of human nature is to bind oneself in contract with the State so that everyone can be protected and life can go on without the pre-dominant instinctual fears that corrupt men into malice. Hobbes' approach to all his findings is very mechanical and stems from deductive reasoning. And as no arguments and understanding prior to him existed in the field of his discourse, a majority of his conclusions are axiomatic in definition. Because he wants his audience to think with the same rationality that he commands, Hobbes explains in microscopic detail the machinations of human civilization, beginning with an acute explanation of Man and his senses. He geometrically divides and disassembles our understanding of ourselves and then chauffeurs us to a perspective change that is required to comprehend all Hobbesian deduction.

While the twenty first century's modern man might question Hobbes' reasoning behind granting all power to the "State", one must have an understanding of the epistemology of the Hobbesian thought that stemmed from an elongated suffering due to prolonged war, which arose due to the weakness in the Government that commanded during his youth. Thus, to evade the chaos of civil disagreement, Hobbes yields his logic and grants all existing power and importance to one sole entity. He grants power to the sovereign to literally do anything without any repercussions and also grants it an authority higher than that of God. All this is done because the sovereign is the selected representative of the whole population of his state, making this sole source of power also a theoretical manifestation of the state. This concept of the all-powerful state, an entity that embodies the constituency of all its citizens, officials and the sovereign power collectively is called the Leviathan; A form of a living and breathing beast that nothing in this world can oppose. Hobbes states that the existence of such a state is imperative to subdue all its' subjects in obedience, because fear is the only emotion a human being will submit to unconditionally, especially whence it is from a behemoth to the likes of a Leviathan.

Hobbes' diction and grammatology is an arduous passage to cross, but the ideas and theories he is postulating required him to twist his words in his times' verbatim. One must always acknowledge the colloquial dialect of the English language Hobbes' time nurtured him with. He creates layers of ideas upon layers of laws that are meant to take the reader to precise conclusions. The purpose of his loquacity is to reach at one sole conclusion only, and that is what makes Leviathan a timeless study of logic.

It is quiet evident that even after five centuries of radical polarization in the perception of government and politics, Leviathan still stands like the name of the entity it bears. It was this book that inspired almost all political theoreticians for many centuries to come. Students and admirers of both liberal and conservative political thought will benefit from reading Leviathan.

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.

Tommy Hobbes was Francis Bacon's favorite secretary, and it shows in the math-like precision with which he attempts to build a model of human political interaction -- one that justifies the need for a strong state to hold human "appetites" in check. Hobbes' argument reads like a geometrical proof, which goes something like:
We take it as a given that people, like Galilean celestial bodies, are in perpetual motion, moved by appetites for power. The power of a person is his or her present means to obtain some future good. Every person's power resists and hinders the effects of other people's power. Thus, if all people are created equal in a hypothetical state of nature, then:
1. From equality proceeds mutual fear.
2. From mutual fear proceeds warfare.
3. In such warfare, nothing is unjust.
4. But reason suggests a better way to self-preservation (to peace): the right and laws of nature.
5. The right of nature is the liberty we have to use our power for self-preservation.
6. The 1st law of nature is that we ought to strive for peace, but when we cannot obtain it then it's war.
7. The 2nd law of nature is that in the interests of peace we will lay down our natural right to give us as much liberty as we would allow others to have against us (the golden rule).
8. This mutual laying down of our natural right is a social contract.
9. There must be a coercive power (the commonwealth) to enforce this contract.
10. The commonwealth is ruled by a sovereign who embodies the will of the people and is granted certain inalienable rights to enforce the social contract.
In short, those who fear authority (anarchists, libertarians, etc.) will revile Hobbes, because of power's potential for abuse, but Hobbes would argue that a true Leviathan could never abuse its subjects because it is actually made up of those same subjects (in other words, a roundabout defense of liberal democracy).

I won't repeat the details of Hobbes' biography. In addition to the foregoing, a deep familiarity with this book is invaluable if you intend on studying political science in any serious manner-- either if you are an undergraduate poli-sci major and you intend on being noticed favorably by your professors, or-- needless to say-- you intend to do any post-graduate work in political science. I wasn't a philosophy major; but, if reading this book fails to improve your life, I'll double your money back.

I'm only half-kidding about that (well, more than half on the money part-- you aren't sending me any).

Personally, I was fascinated by Hobbes and I've always enjoyed reading; so... that's my disclaimer. I concede that it takes a little getting used to reading the archaic style; but, the truth of his statements and the way that they fell into place seemed to me just about as mathematical as such a subject could be. In the end, just the fact that I could demonstrate legitimate, intimate understanding of this book ultimately impressed the Hell out of no end of professors, etc.

Political science majors all ultimately meet the same folks: Descartes, Rousseau, Adam Smith, Plato, Socrates, Locke, Machiavelli, etc., and the more familiar you can be with them, the better. But, in my opinion, the one who had reality figured out was Hobbes. If you find a rabid Rousseau fan writing a similar review on "The Social Contract," I'm not going to slam the competitor's product-- but, if you only have time to wade into one tough read, I suggest that you make it this one.

*BUT* One bright, shining ray of hope for the over-burdened scholar is that I only recommend exerting yourself on Part I ("Of MAN"), which only constitutes 1/3 of the book. My personal (very) simplified synopsis is that Hobbes spends the first part of his book doing an excellent job describing the nature of essentially the broad spectrum of reality, most importantly Man and Power in its multitudinous forms and how that motivates Man in his selfish desire to garner it unto himself. Then, after essentially describing what a despicable creature man is after absolute power has corrupted absolutely, his recommendation is, incredibly, to hand over absolute power to one of those absolutely selfish creatures and toss a crown on his head. After Part I, I release you from your bondage. Feel free to read on-- in fact, I recommend it. But, if the style of prose is overwhelming to you, you are really prepared for whatever may come with a thorough understanding of "Of MAN."

Hobbes uses "Of MAN" as the pigments with which he attempts to paint a portrait of what society should be. If you have a real understanding of the materials with which he was working, you have what you need to understand his scheme, or to engineer a better one. I perceive the rest of Leviathan mostly as a basis for critiquing Hobbes-- which is of questionable practical value except as an academic. My first impression upon reading "Of MAN" was that I seemed to be reading the equivalent of an enormous geometry proof. I later found out that that was no coincidence. Hobbes had become fascinated with geometry, and sought to create a philosophy that began with inarguable facts and built to a model for society. I think he does brilliantly until he reaches the point at which his "Soveraign," which embodies society as agreed upon by its founding subjects, is made a single monarch, as he recommends, or a self-perpetuating assembly. In the case of a lone monarch, he depends too much upon the "Soveraign" on the throne not not being a Man on the throne. He expects him to do good because it is his role in society-- the Soveraign appears as a deus ex machina to solve the problems of managing his society, which may have been the best idea that could occur to him, but, given the hindsight from the 21st Century, the idea's weaknesses are obvious to us. Even in the case of an assembly, he allows for no means of course correction should the will of the "Soveraign" begin deviating from its original trajectory and cease to represent the will of the people. Considering that he was surrounded by nothing but monarchies in the 17th Century, I have to excuse the guy for not imagining a bi-cameral legislature, separate executive and legislative branches, etc. The United States didn't even establish the supremacy of its Supreme Court until Marbury v. Madison.

Personally, I believe that Hobbes is better than anyone else at explaining the nature of man and the nature of power. After that, budding social architects are cautioned AGAINST attaching the included "Commonwealth" pack. Obtain social architecture separately. Recommended:The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America

To understand Hobbes' LEVIATHAN, the reader must first focus on 'fear.' His contemporaries were terrified of chaos and anarchy and would move heaven and earth to preserve the continuity of the state. Nowhere does he mention the word 'fear' but his real, if underlying purpose becomes clear enough as the reader plows through his dense tract that has as its purported goal to explain the origin of political institutions and to define their powers and proper limits. Hobbes sets up this thesis by first insisting that all of men's ideas originate from sense impressions, which take their cue from the external universe infringing on these sense organs. This emphasis on sense impression led Hobbes next to consider how the external universe manages this neat trick. Motion, according to Hobbes, is the key. Motion naturally leads man, for good or ill, to impact on other men. This impacting may be beneficial, as in man agreeing to help one another respect their respective rights, or it may be harmful, as in man being in a state or war. It was this fear that humanity might start to question the wisdom of the ruling nobility that caused Hobbes to write the longest defense of the royal right of kings ever written. Hobbes cleverly compared man to a wind-up clock: 'That great Leviathan is but an artificial man with an artificial soul.' As the reader follows this geometric logic, he is pressured to accept Hobbes' true premise: that it is better for the common man to put up with the occasional despot than to risk what he terms the horror of 'that condition which is called Warre, and such a warre as is of every man, against every man.'
Even if that regime becomes so thuggish that its citizens wish to break it, Hobbes says 'No way.' If these citizens do break this covenant, then Hobbes warns that their lives will be 'solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.' Clearly Hobbes was a man of his times, one who was a paid shill of the crowned heads of Europe. Such a man today we would label as a fearful toady who desperately needs to maintain his own precarious hold on power. So why is LEVIATHAN still read today? Perhaps Hobbes points out the road that humanity might have once chosen to travel. We, like Robert Frost, have thankfully chosen the other less travelled by.

Hard to read, the text of the famous thinker can be summed up in one word: absolutism. Hobbes thought that the best form of government was absolutism. The people were to make a social contract and grant that power. Written after the beheading of King English and the establishment of a parliamentary government. A pioneer in this type of thinking, many theories of government develop later.

I won't go into a great deal of detail repeating what has already been said. In addition to the foregoing, a deep familiarity with this book is invaluable if you intend on studying political science in any serious manner-- either if you are an undergraduate poli-sci major and you intend on being noticed favorably by your professors, or-- needless to say-- you intend to do any post-graduate work in political science. I wasn't a philosophy major; but, if reading this book fails to improve your life, I'll double your money back.

I'm only half-kidding about that (well, more than half on the money part-- you aren't sending me any).

Personally, I was fascinated by Hobbes and I've always enjoyed reading; so... that's my disclaimer. I concede that it takes a little getting used to reading the archaic style; but, the truth of his statements and the way that they fell into place seemed to me just about as mathematical as such a subject could be. In the end, just the fact that I could demonstrate legitimate, intimate understanding of this book ultimately impressed the Hell out of no end of professors, etc.

Political science majors all ultimately meet the same folks: Descartes, Rousseau, Adam Smith, Plato, Socrates, Locke, Machiavelli, etc., and the more familiar you can be with them, the better. But, in my opinion, the one who had reality figured out was Hobbes. If you find a rabid Rousseau fan writing a similar review on "The Social Contract," I'm not going to slam the competitor's product-- but, if you only have time to wade into one tough read, I suggest that you make it this one.

*BUT* One bright, shining ray of hope for the over-burdened scholar is that I only recommend exerting yourself on Part I ("Of MAN"), which only constitutes 1/3 of the book. My personal (very) simplified synopsis is that Hobbes spends the first part of his book doing an excellent job describing the nature of essentially the broad spectrum of reality, most importantly Man and Power in its multitudinous forms and how that motivates Man in his selfish desire to garner it unto himself. Then, after essentially describing what a despicable creature man is after absolute power has corrupted absolutely, his recommendation is, incredibly, to hand over absolute power to one of those absolutely selfish creatures and toss a crown on his head. After Part I, I release you from your bondage. Feel free to read on-- in fact, I recommend it. But, if the style of prose is overwhelming to you, you are really prepared for whatever may come with a thorough understanding of "Of MAN."

Hobbes uses "Of MAN" as the pigments with which he attempts to paint a portrait of what society should be. If you have a real understanding of the materials with which he was working, you have what you need to understand his scheme, or to engineer a better one. I perceive the rest of Leviathan mostly as a basis for critiquing Hobbes-- which is of questionable practical value except as an academic. My first impression upon reading "Of MAN" was that I seemed to be reading the equivalent of an enormous geometry proof. I later found out that that was no coincidence. Hobbes had become fascinated with geometry, and sought to create a philosophy that began with inarguable facts and built to a model for society. I think he does brilliantly until he reaches the point at which his "Soveraign," which embodies society as agreed upon by its founding subjects, is made a single monarch, as he recommends, or a self-perpetuating assembly. In the case of a lone monarch, he depends too much upon the "Soveraign" on the throne not not being a Man on the throne. He expects him to do good because it is his role in society-- the Soveraign appears as a deus ex machina to solve the problems of managing his society, which may have been the best idea that could occur to him, but, given the hindsight from the 21st Century, the idea's weaknesses are obvious to us. Even in the case of an assembly, he allows for no means of course correction should the will of the "Soveraign" begin deviating from its original trajectory and cease to represent the will of the people. Considering that he was surrounded by nothing but monarchies in the 17th Century, I have to excuse the guy for not imagining a bi-cameral legislature, separate executive and legislative branches, etc. The United States didn't even establish the supremacy of its Supreme Court until Marbury v. Madison.

Personally, I believe that Hobbes is better than anyone else at explaining the nature of man and the nature of power. After that, budding social architects are cautioned AGAINST attaching the included "Commonwealth" pack. Obtain social architecture separately. Recommended: Declaration Of Independence, Constitution Of The United States Of America, Bill Of Rights And Constitutional Amendments

This huge work is the foundation of classical liberalism; it is the basis for Locke, for Smith, and all economic neo-liberalists all the way up to the current period. Written during the English Reformation, Hobbes was confronted with the problem of absolute individualism; he begins this work of political theory with a demolishment of objective truth swift enough to impress any post-modernist. He then proceeds to demonstrate the logical conclusion of man in a state of nature, and compels the modern world to enter into his social contract, or Leviathan out of necessity and fear. It is tempting to write off Hobbes as a cynic, but who can deny that much of what motivates individuals in the modern world is simply a fear to maintain survival and acceptance. It is the driving force of modern societies in terms of economic competition, and inter-national conflicts. Hobbes was a thinker of true depth and insight, though his ideas are so commonly ingrained in modern society that it is difficult to see why they were revolutionary when they were composed.

Hobbes's Leviathan was written to provide a theory of government, drawn from first principles, which would prevent the catastrophic civil wars which devastated England in Hobbes's time. As such, it seems like it might be an appropriate text for a Western world which seems riven with competing factions.

Unfortunately, Hobbes theory of government is built out of a theory of human nature that is so simplistic and shortsighted that the book offers little real wisdom. Moreover, the book is written in such a dry style that it is difficult to make it through all seven hundred some pages, particularly the last two books.

Hobbes thinks that, in a state of nature, all human beings desire as much power as possible and so all are at war with one another. He then argues that a sovereign government can prevent this state of war by being granted total power so that obedience to the government is the only true morality.

Hobbes brushes off criticisms that such a system will lead to tyranny with the argument that no one has previously described how such a government should work, nor derived it from first principles of human nature. By this argument all historical precedents are swept away. I, for one, do not find this argument very convincing.

The last two books, in which Hobbes contorts the Bible to fit his political theory, are particularly difficult to get through for the modern reader as important as they may have been at his time. Readers can safely read only books one and two to fully understand Hobbes's system.

There is, however, one good reason to read Hobbes. He provides an excellent window into early modern England and so if you want to know about this era, and its effects on modern life, Leviathan is useful. You will also find some parts which clearly inspired the founding fathers. Hobbes writes that if all men were angels no government would be necessary and that the government should prevent factions at all cost. Both statements were used almost verbatim by early American statesmen.

In a few words: Important for the history of ideas and the history of England, yes. Can be leveraged for insight into contemporary issues, no.

The Hobessian conception of the state is extensively discussed in this book. Moreover, the idea of state of nature is also repeatedly used in this text because of Hobbes' involvement in the formulation of the thought of the origin of society.

Hobbes Leviathan is an essential read. Firstly I admire Thomas Hobbes for his bravery during the 17th century when this book was written and secondly for his grim view of humanity. Atheism during the height of the Catholic Church was strictly taboo and he had to write this piece very cleverly. Leviathan is a must for those whom are interested in the philosophical ideology of who we are and what makes us strive for things that we do and generally what makes us as men tick.
This book is complex. The common "run-on" sentences used in philosophy and the Old English style makes the book difficult to understand at times. It almost seems to be pure thought with no organization which has been jotted down in 728 pages.
In all, I like to call Hobbes Leviathan the "Atheists Bible" (though perhaps Hobbes would not like this type of name for one of his works) and I truly believe that this work is just as essential and important to philosophy as Plato.

Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. Published by MobileReference (mobi)

Hobbes political writing influenced other philosophers like Spinoza, Hutcheson, Locke, and Hume. He is an excellent writer and his theories are easy to understand.

This book of Thomas Hobbes is surely a groundbreaking innovation in philosophy, especially political philosophy. It presents a comprehensive worldview based on mechanistic principles, and constructs a coherent theory on governance. Though I do not agree with his conclusion, the premises and arguments he uses is very useful and can give us tools and guidance for our own philosophical and political discourse. Only thing that prevents me from giving the book a higher rating is that Hobbes' language is extremely dry and boring, something characteristic of British philosophy. I found the same problem in reading John Locke and John Stuart Mill (who were both liberals and opposed to the ideas of Hobbes), the two philosophers of similar era to whom I have much admiration. It is hard to imagine that in a country that produced Shakespeare and Dickens must use such dreary language in philosophizing. My political science professor lectured that Hobbes' ideas were strongly influenced by Machiavelli, which I somewhat would agree. However, even Machiavelli was able to use more reader-friendly language.

Although I personally do not agree with the philsophies delivered within Leviathan, this is a must read for those interested in understanding modern-day political culture.

Other authors which should be studied alongside Hobbes for the same purpose as that which is stated above would be, Locke, Macchiavelli, and Adam Smith. Developing an understanding, however hard it will be to sift through this antiquated version of English, is essential to the blossoming citizen of the state.

Leviathan is one of the first books written after philosophy begun to detach itself from the Catholic inspired medieval thinking, also marking the beginning of the influence philosophy received from the scientific thinking, a point not suficiently y explored by Thomas Hobbes but which one we can get with the benefit of hindsight.
Leviathan is an old Fenician word for a mythical crocodile, quoted in some verses of the biblical Book of Job, an taken by Thomas Hobbes as meaning the representation of a powerfull governor totally devoted to do his most to the benefit of the Commonwealth. In Hobbes mind the most efficient form of government was monarchy, but he takes a lot of time to analyse also Democracy and Aristocracy. One has to keep in mind that the time the book was written was one of internal revolt, a civil intestine strife in England, and the objective of Hobbes was to lay the foundations for human actions conducive to an equilibrium within the state, ending war.
His book can be also be taken as one where many important aspects of Right and Laws are aprehended, from the perspective of a deeply religious anglican man, that tried his best to separate, in his words, the Kingdoms of men (where civil laws are imperative) from the Kingdom of God (Naturall Right). He does extensive analysis of God's Laws and its importance to the balance in the relationship between men.
The edition is a very good one, with a good introduction and is a copy of the text as written in the 17th century, exhibiting an archaic English sometimes difficult to understand. Also, some quotations in Greek and in Latin are not translated, despite all the effort the author makes to turn them inteligible to the reader.
The book could be understood as antipodal to Machiavellian's The Prince, because power is not taken here as something good in itself, but only as a means of carrying the security and hapinnes the kingdom subjects deserve.

While to many this book may seem strange and lacking optimism it is possibly a foundation for the more mob oriented governments, such as communism and democracy (in the sense that it provides equality for all save the ruler, who gets ultimate power). However, as with other books such as Plato's Republic, we are ultimately dealing with undercrediting human beings for their complexity. It seems that Hobbes is only able to see humans capable of being evil, brutish, and short, while not considering many, many, many other qualities a human can take on. I cannot blame Hobbes for being appaled at the sight of the war he fought, but this is only one face of human kind- a violent expression of the will to power if you will. Besides, if humans are so corrupt what guarantees that the people under the supreme ruler will not ultimately destroy the ruler with their brutishness? Above all, if all men are evil brutish and short how is it ever possible to find a ruler that may take over the people?
I cannot however discredit Hobbes for his influence on the more correct philosphers, such as Nietzsche (remember the Ubermensch?) and fortification against anarchists. We could have, however, done with out his obvious influence on nihilism, though it is not his fault forbeing misread.
A note on the edition: as always I was satisfied with the quality of Penguin Classics in introducing the text and the annotations. I give the edition 5 stars; but the content of Hobbes's philosphy deserved just 1.

While not written yesterday, this classical treatise on politics and society is still as relevant today as it has always been. Required reading on Political Science degree courses the World over, it is almost unthinkable that any serious (or even casual) student of the field would deprive themselves of its insights. Not always the easiest of reads, it, never the less, rewards the reader more than adequately with its insights and observations.

I was confused by complaints that the English in this version was not updated and difficult to read. Huh, what does this person do when dealing with such pieces of literature as "Huckleberry Finn, "Maggie, Girl of the Streets" or how about that guy, Shakespeare. Doth and hath are not that difficult to transcribe in one's mind if you really want to read such a piece of literature.

the essence of Hobbes critical thinking and evaluation is commendable except that the book is extremely difficult to read because it is in Old English. As a result I only read a couple of chapters that really interested me. I feel its effectiveness would be greatly increased if someone would render the text into modern English and republish.

Christian rigidity and stodginess and "the letter of the law must be obeyed" at its finest. An excellent exposition on the logical consequences of deeply distrusting human beings.
To be more specific: Hobbes' key assumption, that humans in a state of nature are uncontrolled brutes, is not only contradicted by all sorts of anthropological evidence; it's a projection that we Westerners like to place over aboriginal peoples in order to justify colonizing them.
Read Camus' THE PLAGUE instead, where Tarrou refers to a Hobbesian bureaucrat as "Public Enemy Number One."

This is an excellent book on political thought and if one is interested in the philosophy of government, it is a must read along with Rossaeu Social contract. However, as many people do not know, this book is written in the style of a dictionary of government, in which a word is used and defined. The next sentence is the definition of another word. There are no long passages and it can be a little disjointed to the modern reader. However, it still is useful as many people misquote from this book, and argue that the great thinker Hobbes supported beliefs which are diametrically opposed to his actual philosophy. If one does not know the "great authors", one is tricked into following demigoiges and false messaiahs.

My God! This book is impossible to read; Hobbes' style of writing is ridiculously long winded and very difficult to understand. While I understand and appreciate that this book is one of the fundamental books of modern society, I can't like it because it is so hard to read. Locke I understand, Machiavelli I understand, but Hobbes is tough. I'm no genius, but I'm no idiot either, and I don't think reading one book should consume months of my life. Unless you have to read this, do yourself a favor and avoid it. For sado-masochists only. Seriously.

While I enjoyed the text itself very much, I cannot recommend this particular copy of it. I read parts of it for a class, and wanted to read more on my own, but I simply could not make it through 736 small pages of miniscule print without getting frustrated (as well as getting a headache). Further, the margins are practically nonexistent, making it a poor copy to buy for anyone who likes to take notes in the book. Additionally, the binding is quite weak.

I would encourage any interested parties to continue pursuing the 'Leviathan,' as it is a very rich text indeed, but I would recommend finding a different copy.

leviathan is a true gem. while siding with hume, i'll claim hobbes is more interesting and concise, and less repetitive. the conclusion is almost irrelevant. hasnt anyone noticed that all philosophy is ultimately debated and corrected.

Hobbes obviously did not know about Celtic Ireland which was anarcho-capitalist for 1000 years, or Viking Age Iceland which was anarcho-capitalist for 300 years. We have seen what leviathans have done -- 170 million people killed by governments in the 20th century in wars and genocide financed by taxes. Recommended reading: The Myth of National Defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, The Ethics of Liberty and For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard.

Ok..So you want to live without any god?Read this Book Plus Schopenhauer Plus Nietzsche.Your life will be much better !.This book is absolute Classic.Easy Read(not dificult as Kant which is good).10\10

Much of Hobbes' ideas are fundamentally flawed, including Leviathan. Perhaps this notion might be more illuminating if you heard it from Hobbes himself. Click on the link below (or copy and paste it) and advance to 58:32. You might find the rest of the information on this link very informative as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgCxU9wxaTE

As with most greatly intelligent writers, this is a dull read. A lot of the ideas presented are very interesting, but Hobbes is just too extremist, at least for my taste. There are a lot better philosophers to read before you deal with Hobbes.

It was akin to someone projectile vomiting every tidbit of thought or knowledge they'd accumulated during their entire life. To make matters worse, the entire work appears to fall under the logical fallacy of contraposition, that is he bases all of his arguments on the held axioms of religion therefore who cares what he then extrapolated as the foundation of the argument was false.

Review of "Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiastical and Civill (Leviathan)," by Thomas Hobbes (b. 1588- d. 1679). Hobbes was known for his views on how humans could thrive in harmony while avoiding the perils and fear of societal conflict. His experience during a time of upheaval in England influenced his thoughts and beliefs. "All of his works concern the structure of society and legitimate government, and Leviathan is regarded as one of the earliest and most influential examples of social contract theory when it was written during the English Civil War (1642-1651)." Hobbes believed that peace and effective rule could only be achieved through a strong central government. Leviathan argues for a social contract for the subjects through rule by an absolute sovereign. For example on page 164 in Chapter XXX Of the Office of the Soveraign Representative: "Such as are Necessary: For the use of Lawes, (which are but Rules Authorised) is not to bind the People from all Voluntary actions; but to direct and keep them in such as motion, as not to hurt themselves by their own impetuous desires, rashnesse, or indiscretion, as Hedges are set, not to stop Travellers, but to keep them in the way. And therefore a Law that is not Needful, having not the true End of a Law, is not Good. A Law may be conceived to be Good, when it is for the benefit of the Soveraign; though it be not Necessary for the People; but it is not so. For the good of the Soveraign and People, cannot be separated. It is a weak Soveraign, that has weak subjects; and a weak People, whose Soveraign wanteth Power to rule them at his will. Unnecessary Lawes are not good Lawes; but trapps for Mony; which where the right of Soveraign Power is acknowledged, are superfluous; and where it is not acknowledged, unsufficient to defend the People." It is easy to see how Hobbes has clearly stated his case for central government and strong laws to serve as a bulwark against behavior that could lead to more societal upheaval (among others). As other reviewers have stated this is somewhat difficult reading as it was composed and remains in Old English. The syntax and organization may be different than what the reader may be used to. In the final analysis Leviathan supports the view that a person's moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Five stars.

Hobbes' take on human nature is detailed in Leviathan, making it a staple of philosophical literature and one that I found to be particularly interesting. Hobbes views mankind as being inherent brutish, intolerable, and violent when left to its own devices minus some kind of governing authority to maintain a rule of law. Hence, the social contract concept which Hobbes develops in this text makes it a landmark text.