Chapter 57 Chapter 8 Hobbes' Leviathan

Hobbes (Hobbes, 1588-1679) is a philosopher who is not easy to classify.He is also an empiricist like Locke, Berkeley, and Hume; but Hobbes is different from them. He is a person who appreciates mathematical methods, not only in pure mathematics, but also in mathematical applications.His general opinion was rather formed under the influence of Galileo than under the influence of Bacon.From Descartes to Kant, Continental philosophy has many concepts about the nature of human cognition derived from mathematics; but Continental philosophy regards mathematics as knowledge without involving experience.Therefore, continental philosophy, like Platonist philosophy, belittles the status of perception and overemphasizes the role of pure thinking.British empiricism, on the other hand, was little influenced by mathematics and often had an incorrect understanding of the scientific method.

Hobbes had none of these two shortcomings.It is not until modern times that other philosophers appear who, while empiricists, nevertheless put an appropriate emphasis on mathematics.In this respect Hobbes' strengths are great.But he also has serious flaws, so it is impossible to really rank him in the first class.He is impatient to do subtle and delicate things, and he is too inclined to cut messes quickly.His solution to the problem was logical, but obtained by deleting the facts that got in the way.He is bold, but rough.He is better at wielding a giant axe, but not good at wielding a rapier.Nevertheless, his theory of the state still deserves careful study; because it is more modern than any previous theory, even Machiavelli's, it is more worthy of careful consideration.

Hobbes' father was a vicar, ill-tempered and ignorant; he lost his job for quarreling with a vicar of a neighboring parish at the church door.After that, Hobbes was brought up by his uncle.He was familiar with the classics, and at the age of fourteen translated Euripides' Medea into Latin iambic. (In later years, he boasted that although he never quoted the classical poets or rhetoricians, it was not due to lack of familiarity with their works, which is justified.) At the age of fifteen, he entered Oxford University, and Oxford taught him scholasticism. Logic and Aristotelian philosophy.These two things became such monsters in his later years that he abhorred them, and he asserted that his years at the university had done him little good; indeed, universities in general were constantly attacked in his writings. In 1610, when he was twenty-two, he became tutor to Lord Hardwick (later 2nd Earl of Devonshire), accompanying him on his "Great Tour".It was at this time that he began to know the achievements of Galileo and Kepler, which had a profound impact on him.His pupils became his patrons until his death in 1628.Through him Hobbes met Ben Jonson, Bacon, Lord Herbertoe Cherbury, and many other important figures.The earl of Delfonshire died leaving a young son; after the earl's death Hobbes lived for some time in Paris, where he began to study geometry; and thereafter he became governess to the son of his former pupil.Hobbes traveled with him to Italy, visited Galileo in Italy in 1636, and returned to England in 1637.

The political views expressed in Leviathan are extreme royalist views, which Hobbes had long held.When Congress in 1628 drafted the Petition of Rights, he published an English translation of Thucydides with the explicit intention of showing the evils of democracy. When the Long Parliament was in session in 1640, and Laud and Straffer were thrown into the Tower of London, Hobbes, terrified, fled to France.His book De Cive, written in 1641 but not published until 1647, expounds essentially the same theory as in Leviathan.The source of these opinions of his was not the actual civil war itself, but the anticipated prospect of it; but the realization of his apprehensions naturally strengthened his convictions.

In Paris he was welcomed by many leading mathematicians and scientists.He was one of those who read Descartes's (Meditations) before it was published; he wrote objections to it, which Descartes printed with his own defense.He soon made friends with a large number of exiles from the British royal party and communicated with them.Between 1646 and 1648 he taught mathematics to the future Charles II.But when he published Leviathan in 1651, no one liked it.The rationalism in the book annoyed most of the exiles, and the French government was angered by its violent attacks on the Old Church.Hobbes then quietly fled back to London, surrendered to Cromwell, and avoided all political activities.

But in his long life, neither at this time nor at any other time, he has never been idle.He debated Bishop Branhall on the question of free will; he himself was a strict determinist.He fancied that he had discovered how to "square the circle" because he overestimated his personal abilities in geometry; He was so stupid on this issue that he debated with Varys, professor of geometry at Oxford University.Of course the professor finally manages to make him look ridiculous. During the Restoration, Hobbes was promoted by the less enthusiastic members of the king's party, and favored by the king himself; the king not only hung Hobbes's portrait on the wall of his house, but also awarded him a hundred dollars a year. A stipend of pounds—but His Majesty the King forgot to pay it.Lord Chancellor Clayton resented, and Parliament found it unjustifiable, the conferment of such favors on a man suspected of being an atheist.After the "Plague" and the "Great Fire of London," which aroused the superstitious horrors of the people, the House of Commons at this time appointed a committee to examine atheistic writings, with special reference to those of Hobbes.Henceforth, nothing he wrote on the subject of controversy was permitted to be printed in England.Even his book titled "Behemoth"

The long history of Congress, though in the most orthodox terms, had to be printed abroad (1668). The 1688 edition of Hobbes's works was published in Amsterdam.In his old age his prestige abroad far surpassed that of England.To occupy his spare time, he wrote an autobiography in Latin rhyme at eighty-four, and an English translation of Homer at eighty-seven.I have not been able to discover any major books he wrote after the age of eighty-seven. We now come to the doctrine contained in the Leviathan, on which Hobbes' reputation rests chiefly. At the very beginning of the book, he declares his radical materialism.He said that life is nothing but the movement of limbs, so robots have artificial life.nation--

He called it a "Leviathan"—a thing created by artificial artifice, in fact a molded human being.This remark is not only intended as a metaphor, but he also developed it in considerable detail.Sovereignty is the soul of artificial simulation.The agreement and covenant with which Leviathan was originally created replaced God's command when God said, "We will make man." The first part of the book deals with the individual man, and with philosophy in general as Hobbes thought necessary.Sensation is caused by the pressure of the object; colors, sounds, etc. are not in the object.The quality in objects that corresponds to our senses is motion.He stated the first law of motion, then immediately applied it to psychology: the imagination is the sense in decay, and both are motion.The imagination in sleep is dreaming; the pagan religions arose out of the indiscrimination between dream and waking life. (A reckless reader might want to apply the same argument to Christianity, but Hobbes was careful not to do so himself.) To believe that dreams foretell the future is self-deception; to believe in witchcraft and ghosts is nothing.

The early successors of our individual thoughts are not formed arbitrarily, but are governed by laws—sometimes laws of association, sometimes laws related to the purpose in our thinking. (This is the application of determinism in psychology, which is of great significance.) As might be expected, Hobbes was a thoroughly nominalist.There is nothing universal, he says, but names, and we cannot conceive any general concept without words.Without language, there can be neither truth nor falsehood, since both "true" and "false" are properties of speech. He considered geometry to be the only true science ever created.Inferences are computational in nature and should start from definitions.But definitions must avoid self-contradictory concepts, which is often not done in philosophy.For example, "incorporeal entities" is bullshit.If you propose that God is an "invisible entity" as an objection, then Hobbes has two answers: first, God is not an object of philosophy; second, many philosophers have always believed that God has a body.All errors in general propositions, he says, arise from paradoxes (i.e., self-contradictions); According to Catholic doctrine, the accidental nature of bread belongs to non-bread entities.)

In this passage, Hobbes exudes an old-fashioned rationalism.Kepler came up with a general statement: "The planets revolve around the sun in ellipses"; but other opinions, such as those of Ptolemy, are not logically paradoxical.Although Hobbes admired Kepler and Galileo, he never had a correct understanding of the use of induction to obtain universal laws. Hobbes, contrary to Plato, argued that reason is not innate but developed through diligence. He then proceeded to discuss the various passions. "Intention" can be defined as a tiny root of a thought; if it tends to something, it is desire; if it tends to avoid something, it is disgust.

Love and lust are one thing, hatred and loathing are one.When a thing is an object of desire, it is said to be "good"; it is an object of disgust, and it is said to be "bad". (It can be noted that these two definitions do not add objectivity to "good" and "bad"; If people's desires differ, there is no theoretical way to reconcile the differences. ) and various definitions of passion, most of which are based on the competitive view of life; for example, laughing is a sudden triumph.Fear of invisible forces, if publicly recognized, is called religion; not recognized, is superstition.It is therefore up to the legislator to decide what is religion and what is superstition.Well-being cannot be separated from progress; it consists in success, not success; there is no such thing as static happiness—except, of course, the bliss of heaven, which is beyond our comprehension. Will is nothing but the last remnant of desire or aversion in deliberation.That is to say, the will is not something different from desire and aversion, but simply the strongest desire or aversion in a conflicting situation.This statement is clearly connected with Hobbes' denial of free will. Unlike most adherents of despotism, Hobbes believed that all men are created equal.In a state of nature in which no politics exists yet, everyone desires to retain his personal liberty, but at the same time desires to gain power over others.Both desires are driven by the self-preservation impulse.As a result of their conflict, a war of all against all ensues, making life "sinister, cruel, and short."In the state of nature, there is no property, no justice or injustice; there is only war, in which "force and fraud are the two cardinal virtues." The second part deals with how human beings were freed from these evils by uniting into several societies, each subject to a central authority.This is said to have occurred through a social contract.It is envisioned that a multitude of persons would come together and agree to choose a sovereign or sovereign group over whom power would be exercised and the general melee would end.I do not think that this "covenant" (as Hobbes usually called it) was conceived of as a definite historical event; nor indeed is it relevant to current discourse to treat it as such.This is a mythical explanation of why human beings accept, and should accept, the limitations on personal liberty that are bound to be brought about by submission to power.Hobbes says that human beings impose restraints on themselves for the purpose of self-preservation from the general melee that arises from our love of individual liberty and our love of domination over others. Hobbes investigates why humans cannot cooperate like ants and bees.He said that the bees in the hive do not compete; they have no lust for glory; and they do not use their reason to criticize the government.Their harmony is a natural harmony, but the harmony of human beings can only be an artificial harmony based on a covenant.Such a covenant must commit power to a man or a parliament, for otherwise it cannot be enforced. "The covenant without force is just empty words" (President Wilson unfortunately forgot this.) This covenant is not the covenant between the citizens and the ruling power, as Locke and Rousseau said later, but for obeying the rule chosen by the majority A covenant between those in power and citizens.When citizens make their choice, their political power ends.The minority is bound as much as the majority, for the covenant says to submit to the government chosen by the majority.When a government has been chosen, the citizens lose all rights except such as the government thinks fit to grant.There is no right to rebel, since the ruler is not bound by any contract, but the subjects are. A mass thus united is called a state.This "Leviathan" is a mortal god. Hobbes loved monarchy, but all his abstractions apply equally to any regime in which there exists a supreme power, independent of the rights of other bodies.He could tolerate a parliament alone, but he could not tolerate a system in which king and parliament divided the sovereign powers.This is exactly the opposite of Locke's and Montesquieu's views.Hobbes said that the English Civil War happened precisely because of the distribution of power between the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. This supreme power, either a man or a council, is called the Sovereign. In the Hobbesian system, the power of the sovereign has no limits.He has the right to censor all expressions of opinion.The main concern of the Sovereign, supposedly, is the maintenance of domestic peace; so he does not exercise censorship to suppress the truth, for arguments that are contrary to peace can never be true (what a very pragmatic opinion!).The laws of property should be entirely at the whim of the sovereign; as property does not exist in the state of nature, property is created by the government, which it can control as it pleases. It is admitted that the sovereign may be despotism, but even the worst despotism is better than anarchy.Moreover, the interests of the sovereign are in many places the same as those of the subjects.The richer his subjects are, the richer he is; the safer he is if his subjects obey the law; etc.Rebellion is wrong, partly because rebellion usually fails, and partly because if it succeeds, it leaves a bad example to teach others how to rebel.He denies Aristotle's distinction between tyranny and monarchy; according to Hobbes, what is called "tyranny" is nothing but a kind of monarchy which the man who speaks of it happens to dislike. The book gives various reasons why a monarchy is preferable to a parliamentary government.He concedes that the monarch is usually obedient to his private interests when they conflict with the public interest, but that so does Parliament.A prince may have favourites, but each member of a parliament must also have concubines; and therefore the total number of favourites is likely to be less in a monarchy.The monarch can hear anyone in private; the parliament can only hear the opinions of its members, and it does so in public.Occasional absences of certain members of parliament can give other parties a majority and thus a change in policy.Not only that, but if the parliament is divided, the result may be civil war.For all these reasons, Hobbes concluded, monarchies are the most perfect. Throughout the Leviathan, Hobbes does not consider at all the possible clamping effect of periodic elections on the tendency of parliament to sacrifice the public interest to the private interest of its members.In fact, it seems he was not thinking of a democratically elected parliament, but of a body like the Great Council of Venice or the House of Lords.He understood democracy in the ancient fashion as necessitating the direct participation of all citizens in legislation and administration; at least, that seems to be his opinion. In the Hobbesian system, the sovereign first chooses, and the people last.The succession of the Sovereign, as was customary in the Roman Empire when there were no rebellions, was to be decided by the Sovereign.He admits that the Sovereign usually chooses one of his own children, or, if he has no children, a near relative, but he does not think that any law should restrain him from choosing others. There is a chapter on the liberty of subjects in the book, which begins with this brilliant and admirable definition: the absence of external obstacles to movement is liberty.In this sense, freedom coincides with necessity; water, for example, must flow down a hill when there is no hindrance to its motion, and therefore when it is free by definition.Man is free to do what he wills, but he must do what God wills.All our acts of will have a cause, and in this sense are all necessary.As to the liberty of the subjects, they are free so long as the law does not interfere; this is by no means a limitation of the sovereign, for the law could have interfered had the sovereign decided to interfere.Except for the rights voluntarily surrendered by the sovereign, the subjects have no right to confront the sovereign.David caused Uriah to be killed because Uriah was his subject, and he did not offend Uriah at that time; but David offended God because he was God's subject and did not obey God's law. According to Hobbes, the writers of antiquity sang the praises of liberty, and as a result encouraged people to approve of riots and commotions.He maintains that these writers meant, correctly interpreted, that the liberty they sang was that of the sovereign, that is, freedom from foreign domination.Domestic rebellion against the Sovereign, even when it seemed most justified, he condemned.For example, he held that St. Ambrose had no right to excommunicate the emperor Theodosius after the Thessalonian massacre.He also strongly criticized Pope Zachary for helping him abolish the last king of the Merovingian dynasty. But he recognizes a limit to the duty of obedience to the sovereign.The right of self-preservation seemed to him an absolute right, so subjects had the right of self-defense even against the sovereign.This is logical, since he sees self-preservation as a motive for organizing the government. On this basis, he held (with some limitations) that a man had the right not to fight when called to battle by his government.This is a right that is not tolerated by any modern government. A curious conclusion of his egoistic ethics is that rebellion against the sovereign is justified only in self-defense; rebellion for the protection of others is always sinful. There is another quite logical exception: man has no obligation to a sovereign who is incapable of giving him protection.From this point of view, it is justified that Hobbes surrendered to Cromwell during the exile of Charles II. Of course political parties or what we now call trade unions are not allowed to exist. All teachers are to be servants of the sovereign, teaching only what the sovereign thinks useful.Property rights are only valid for subjects against other subjects, not for the sovereign. The sovereign holds the right to regulate foreign trade.He is not subject to civil law.The right to punish in the hands of the sovereign does not come from any concept of justice, but because he retains the freedom that everyone holds in the state of nature: in the state of nature, no one can blame him for harming others. The book lists various interesting reasons for the collapse of the country (except for foreign conquest).These reasons are: too little power given to the sovereign; private judgment allowed to the subjects; the doctrine that whatever is contrary to conscience is a crime; belief in inspiration; the theory that the sovereign is supposed to be bound by civil law; the recognition of absolute private property; the division of sovereignty ; Imitation of the Greeks and Romans, the separation of secular and spiritual powers; denial of the sovereign right to tax; Powerful subjects win the hearts of men; and freedom to dispute with the Sovereign.All these reasons are richly exemplified in the recent history of England and France. Hobbes believed that it should not be very difficult to teach the people to believe in the various jurisdictions of the sovereign, because haven't the people been taught to believe in Christianity, and even to believe in the "incarnation theory" that goes against reason?Days should be set aside for learning the duty of obedience.The discipline of the people depends on the correct teaching of the universities, and therefore the universities must be carefully supervised.The worship of God must be uniform, and religion is the religion promulgated by the sovereign. At the end of the second book, he expresses the hope that some sovereign will read this book and establish himself as an absolute monarch.The wish was not at all so utopian as Plato's wish that some king would become a philosopher.Hobbes assures monarchs that the book is easy and entertaining. The third part, "On Christendom", explains that there is no unified church, because the church must depend on the secular government.In every country, the king should be the head of the church; the pope's "great monarchy" and the pope's innocence cannot be recognized.It is conceivable that Christian subjects under the rule of non-Christian sovereigns in this chapter should be obedient in appearance, because didn’t Naaman bow down helplessly in the temple of Linmen? The fourth book, "On the Kingdom of Darkness," deals chiefly with criticism of the Roman Church, which Hobbes abhors, for placing spiritual power above temporal power.The rest of this part is an attack on "empty philosophy," by which he usually means Aristotelian philosophy. Let us now decide what we think of Leviathan.This question is not easy to discuss, because the advantages and disadvantages of the book are very closely intertwined. In politics, there are two distinct questions, one about the best form of the state, and one about state power.According to Hobbes, the best form of state is monarchy, but this is not an important part of the doctrine he advocates.The important part is the argument that state power should be absolute. This doctrine, or something like it, grew up in Western Europe during the Renaissance and Reformation.First, the feudal aristocracy was overwhelmed by Louis XI, Edward IV, Ferdinand and Isabella, and subsequent monarchs.Then, in Protestant countries, the Reformation enabled lay governments to gain the upper hand over the Church.Henry VIII had in his hands a power never enjoyed by any English king before him.In France, however, the Reformation had at first the opposite effect; sandwiched between the Guise and the Yuguenots, the kings had practically no real power.Shortly before Hobbes wrote, Henry IV and Richelieu laid the foundations of an absolute monarchy that would last in France until the age of the Revolution.In Spain, Charles V thwarted Parliament, and Philip II, in addition to his ties to the Church, was an absolute monarch.In England, however, the Puritans again wrote off the cause of Henry VIII; their activity aroused in Hobbes the idea that anarchy must be born of rebellion against the sovereign. All societies face the twin dangers of anarchy and despotism.The Puritans, especially the Independents, were well aware of the dangers of despotism; Hobbes, on the other hand, had experienced various struggles against fanaticism, so he let the fear of anarchy haunt him.The liberal philosophers who arose after the Restoration and came to power after 1688 were aware of both dangers; they loathed both Stiver and the Anabaptists.So Locke has the theory of separation of powers and functions and the theory of "restriction and balance".In England, when the King was still powerful, there was a real separation of powers; then Parliament became sovereign, and finally the power passed to the Cabinet. In the United States, there are still checks and balances to the extent that Congress and the Supreme Court can resist the current government.In Germany, Italy, Russia, and Japan, governments have acquired more power than Hobbes considered modest.So in general, the world has gone the way Hobbes wanted it to be when it comes to state power; there was a long period of liberalism before that, and the world was going in the opposite direction, at least on the surface of.Notwithstanding the outcome of this great war, it seems clear that the powers of the state must continue to expand, and that confrontation with the state must become more difficult and more difficult. Hobbes' argument in favor of the state, that the state is the only alternative to anarchy, is on the whole a sound argument.But countries can also be so bad as France in 1789 and Russia in 1917 that it feels better to be in a state of temporary anarchy than to continue in that state.Moreover, if the government has no fear of rebellion, the tendency of all governments to tyranny cannot be checked.Had the attitude of submission and submission of which Hobbes spoke had been generally adopted by the common people, the government would have been worse than it is now.This is true in the political sphere: if possible, the government will try to make its personal position unshakable; Every new discovery or doctrine seemed to threaten the power of the government.This is why we think not only of the dangers of anarchy, but also of the dangers of injustice and rigidity which go hand in hand with the omnipotence of government. Comparing Hobbes with previous political theorists, his brilliance is clearly revealed.He was entirely free from superstition; he did not base his arguments on what happened to Adam and Eve when they fell.His arguments were clear and logical; his ethics, right or wrong, were always perfectly intelligible, using no ambiguous concepts in them.Apart from Machiavelli, who was far more limited than he, he was the first truly modern writer on political theory.If he was wrong, it was because of oversimplification, not because his thinking was based on unrealistic, fanciful ideas.For this reason, he still deserves a refutation. Apart from criticizing Hobbes' metaphysics or ethics, two points are his weaknesses.The first is that he always regards the interests of the nation as a whole, and it is self-evident that he assumes that the great interests of all citizens are the same.Hobbes did not appreciate the importance of conflicts between different classes that Marx spoke of as the main cause of social change.A related assumption is that the interests of the sovereign and those of the subjects are about the same.In time of war, especially if the fighting is fierce, the interests of all parties are aligned; But in time of peace the conflict between the interests of one class and that of another may be great.In this state of affairs, it is by no means quite true that the best policy to avoid anarchy is to promote the absolute power of the monarch.Some kind of compromise on the sharing of power may be the only way to prevent civil war.Given the recent history of Britain at the time, Hobbes should have recognized this long ago. On another point, the doctrine advocated by Hobbes is also too narrow, which involves the relationship between different countries.In Leviathan nothing is said about any relationship between nations, except that they speak of wars and conquests between nations, with intervals from time to time.This, according to his theory, arose from the absence of an international government; for the relations among nations remained in their natural state, that of war of all against all.As long as international anarchy persists, the improvement of the efficiency of various countries is by no means beneficial to mankind, because it will also increase the ferocity and destructiveness of war.If all the reasons given by Hobbes in favor of government are sound, so are international governments.As long as nation-states exist and are at war with each other, only inefficiency will save humanity.Improving the fighting qualities of nations without any means of preventing war is a road to global destruction.