A Leviathan in the wild

I have a feeling that when Hobbes was a child he got beaten up by a radical anarchist and nobody dealt with it. In order to deal with that childhood trauma he has written a book that could essentially stand the attacks of anyone who doesn’t want to be ruled. To be honest there are simply so many ideas presented in this book that I spent the majority of the time ¬†retreating into myself and making ridiculous metaphors about leviathan crocodiles. I have a lot of questions that I felt like I could not come up with a sufficient answer for, so i’ll just write them here. Like The Prince,¬†I found myself disagreeing on some points of Hobbes argument on the “no…that couldn’t be” basis. Morals do matter to Hobbes, but he approaches them in a way that is just as systematic as any other Hobbesian machine. In the end I was glad he did this, because morals have always been some of the most difficult ¬†things to work an argument around. Strangely enough, seeing human emotions and ideas explained into a machine was actually quite comforting. In some senses, Hobbes is actually very similar to Plato. Everything must be governed strictly, and even if they don’t like it, it is for your own good. Where they differ is with the idea of the leader, and this is where my first question arose: Although Hobbes believes we need a ruler, good or bad, he also talks about universal rights. Is there really nothing we as society ought to do about a bad king, or one that presents us with acts of sudden and violent death that we apparently have a right to not experience? Really, it seems to me like Hobbes idea is not very different from any we have today at all. When people have a revolution, we are temporarily reducing ourselves to a state of nature, although if we are smart, we will have a new preferable leader ready, because we surely need a ruler no matter what. Today, all our electoral policies can, at their bare essentials, be seen as nothing more than an attempt to avoid a state of nature. BUT, if actions are not unjust or just by nature, than how can one tell what is a good leader? I understand that a “good” leader isn’t part of Hobbes argument, however, I still think it is important to understand how his system would work, or… is working today. I have no doubt Hobbes was an atheist. It is almost impossible to separate a genuine belief about how we were made with how we as men should act on earth. He did it though, and I thought he did it well. In short, I agree with what Hobbes is saying. It’s true. Do I like why it’s true? Not sure.

2 thoughts on “A Leviathan in the wild

  1. Sam, super cool blog man. Your intro really pulled me in. I like the part where Hobbes gets beat lol. But in all honestly I like the provocativeness of your first sentence.

    I agree these texts can be really contradictory especially with what we talked about in class. E.g. Can a ruler allow for the execution of his people, would the people have the right to overthrow him etc. But I think Hobbes doesn’t really have a hierarchy between his “natural laws & rights” and his civil laws and rights. Unlike other philosophers like Locke, Hobbes doesn’t believe in the right to rebel, he just believes that such actions would make it inevitable. He does think we’re predictable robots after all. I’m not even sure if this is true but it’s just my opinion. I’m just confused because he never address if one right supersedes anthers.
    Have a good Chritmas man!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *