A Beautiful Imagination : Leviathan By Thomas Hobbes

Born during a period of medieval philosophy, Thomas Hobbes developed a new way of thinking. He perfected his moral and political theories in his controversial book Leviathan, written in 1651. In his introduction, Hobbes describes the state of nature as an organism analogous to a large person (p.42). He advises that people should look into themselves to see the nature of humanity. In his quote, “ The passions that incline men to peace, are fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them,” Hobbes view of the motivations for moral behavior becomes valid because of his use of examples to support his theories, which in turn, apply to Pojman’s five purposes for morality.

The most highly organized social network is called a commonwealth, a web of contracts between members of a community, which according to Hobbes is synonymous to the formation of an entirely new person of which each individual is but a working part (Leviathan 2, 17). Hence the title of Hobbes’ most famous work, Leviathan, which is a sea monster that lives off of the “sea of individuals.” And who is to rule this commonwealth?

English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes’, leviathan consists of three parts. The second part, titled “Of Commonwealth”, describes a government Hobbes refers to as the “leviathan”; which is simply defined as “something that is very large and powerful”. Biblically, “leviathan” is defined negatively, as a devilish sea monster. On the contrary, Hobbes uses the term to portray his version of the ideal government.

In this essay I will prove that Hobbes’ makes a good argument in his book Leviathan in paragraph eight on page eighty-four when he states that, “during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of everyman, against everyman. For war consisteth not in battle only or the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the will to content by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather” (p. 84). I will prove this by identifying his main argument, his main premises and his final conclusion. I will then prove that his argument is logically strong and that it ties

In ‘Leviathan’ (1996), Hobbes describes the State of Nature as a place where society has broken down and life would be “nasty, brutish, and short” because of human nature. According to him, we are fundamentally equal, and have a tendency to self-preservation. In this essay, I will discuss whether his view is based on a false assumption of human nature. I will first show why the existence of society poses a problem to the claim about equality, before moving on to discuss obstacles to his second claim. Then, I will explain why, even if Hobbes’ assumptions are correct, it does not follow that the State of Nature would be so bad. Indeed, society breaking down is not a sufficient condition for Hobbes’ State of Nature to become real.

Consent is the single most important factor in all of Hobbes’s theories along with the creation of the Leviathan, and is the basis for creating covenants, also known as the “social contract.” Despite the extreme power, the covenant is nothing more than an agreement, but it is the foundation of the great Leviathan he attempts to create. Such covenants begin in man’s most primitive state, the state of nature. The state of nature is the worst state as it is governed by chaos and despair. Hobbes uses phrases to describe state of nature like, “nature in that place which is most proper for them; ascribing appetite, and knowledge of what is good for their conservation (which is more than man has), to things inanimate, absurdly.” To escape this wretched state of life, man makes covenants, but the covenants in the state of nature still have problems such as: if three men are on a small island and divide the land, each will eventually want more land.

Hobbes’ Leviathan is a sustained argument for why individuals ought to prefer a sovereign—any sovereign—over the state of nature. How does Hobbes understand both the state of nature and sovereignty, and what are his reasons for preferring the latter to the former?

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was a British philosopher and political theorist. Leviathan (1651), was Hobbes’s significant work of political thought. He regarded human beings as cruel and selfish and had imagined a state with unlimited power as he claimed that this was the only way people could be sheltered from each other. Leviathan thoroughly debates that civil harmony and

Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race

Thomas Hobbes was a divisive figure in his day and remains so up to today. Hobbes’s masterpiece, Leviathan, offended his contemporary thinkers with the implications of his view of human nature and his theology. From this pessimistic view of the natural state of man, Hobbes derives a social contract in order to avoid civil war and violence among men. Hobbes views his work as laying out the moral framework for a stable state. In reality, Hobbes was misconstruing a social contract that greatly benefited the state based on a misunderstanding of civil society and the nature and morality of man.

For almost every word, all philosophers have their own notion towards it’s meaning. This is especially true for the term “justice”. The philosophers Hobbes and Plato both exhibit their own beliefs towards its interpretation through their respective stories, the Leviathan and the Republic. Instead of simply stating his view, Plato takes it to another level. He brings up a multitude of possibilities for the meaning of justice, arguing with himself and shooting down his own theories. The purpose of his Republic is to find the best and most logical definition of justice through discussion. Hobbes discusses various topics in his piece on top of justice; he addresses sense, imagination, dreams, speech, names, understanding and reason. Using these other subjects, he cultivates his own definition of justice. Similar to Plato, Hobbes creates counter arguments to many of the ideas that he presents and supports. Hobbes views justice mostly as a societal norm, while Plato has his own set of perspectives. Among their views on justice there are a surprising amount of similarities, yet still many differences.

In Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes, he talks about nature, man, liberty, and other topics. Mr. Hobbes says that “nature hath made men so equal,” but how can we determine how they are equal? We can say everyone is equal before they come into the world, except when they are actually in the world, no one is the same. Everyone is different in some way, whether it be with respect, money, or just social gains. One man can claim any benefit to his satisfaction, but is it only satisfying to himself or others? What makes this satisfying? Something’s can be satisfying while others find them horrifying. For example, in the real world there are psychopaths that murder people and do other totally absurd things. The “normal” people find this disturbing, and might find football satisfying to them, but then again, who defines what is “normal” about a person.

Thomas Hobbes and Niccolò Machiavelli are known to be philosophers whom have helped to develop the views of political power and human nature. Both men had very different views from one another, yet at the same time they did indeed have many similarities. From having opposite views on Political Power, to having alike views on Human Nature, Hobbes and Machiavelli are men whom have shaped political philosophy throughout our time. Through the works of Machiavelli’s, The Prince and Hobbes’ Leviathan their views are clearly portrayed and explained with great depth. These works have helped change the way we see our modern day society.

According to the view Thomas Hobbes presents within the selected passaged in the Leviathan, we live in a narcissistic society where man’s condition is primarily driven by ego and where the achievement of personal goals is deemed paramount. Within the State of Nature that is, outside of civil society we have a right to all things ‘even to one another’s body’, and there would be no agreed authority to ensure the moral grounds of our decisions. Therefore since there are no restrictions and no shared authority; man is naturally un-guarded and prone to conflict and each individual is deemed a potential threat to our resources.

In Hobbes book Leviathan, he makes the natural man out to be a self obsessed monster who is only interested in his own self preservation. This would intern leave the state of nature to be consumed with war, “...because the condition of man is conditions of war of everyone against everyone”. With out the constrain of government Hobbes states “So that in the state of nature man will find three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory” (Leviathan, 76). These principles would then leave men in the state of nature, with a life that Hobbes describes as “solitary, poor nasty, brutish, and short” (Leviathan, 76). Over all Hobbes view on the state of nature is a materialistic world where without an “absolute sovereign” the life of man would be nothing more then the “state of war”.