British Empiricism III: Thomas. Hobbes 2
2. The ideology and achievements of Leviathan
Hobbes died a long time ago and wrote a lot of books, but he did not have many masterpieces. His major works, including On Human Nature, On Objects, On Citizens, and Leviathan, were published without exception in the 1640s and 1650s. This period can be called the golden age of Hobbes's theoretical creation. Among these works, the most systematic, complete, representative and influential is undoubtedly Leviathan.
The Leviathan has an odd name, and it is the name of a monster of infinite power in the Bible. Hobbes borrowed it as the title of the book, and its intention can be described as deep and graphic. In layman's terms, Leviathan is synonymous with the state in Hobbes's mind.
Leviathan is a complete tome, divided into four major parts and 47 chapters. The first part is "On Mankind", the second part is "On the State", the third part is "On the State of the Christian System", and the fourth part is "On the Kingdom of Darkness". Of these four parts, the first part is about the origin of the state, which can be regarded as the principle part; the second part is the main body of the book, which is roughly summarized in all kinds of ideas, regulations, and comments on the ontology of the state; the third part is the core of the discussion of the interrelationship between the church and the state; and the fourth part is devoted to exposing and criticizing the darkness and irrationality of the church regime. The whole book is clear in thought and interlocking, although the content is voluminous, but the theme is prominent. Hobbes's philosophical conception of citizenship, the origin of the state, and his systematic understanding of the doctrine of the state are all included.
Leviathan is a complete political doctrine, and its chapters are inextricably linked. Hobbes's use of the study of human nature as the logical starting point for this book is undoubtedly a very clever way of arguing. But he did not talk about human nature before the method, and talked about the feeling before the method, which is the essence of empiricist philosophy.
His philosophy is in his chest, logic is in his hands, and he does not feel that he has a good mind, and his hands and eyes are in the sky, so that his work has theoretical attainments and broad horizons that are difficult for ordinary political works to possess. Here are a few of the most basic points.
(1) Human nature is selfish
Hobbes believed that man was a product of nature, and that "nature created man to be extremely equal in the functioning of the human body and mind." Since man is the product of nature, there is not much difference between him and animals, and really animals are also products of nature. Both humans and animals have a physiological movement that is not on their own, such as blood circulation, breathing, digestion and excretion. It's just that people are more imaginative than ordinary animals. This kind of imagination makes people more capable of seeking good and avoiding evil. But the good and evil he writes about are different from the understanding of ordinary people.
He said, "But any object whom anyone lusts or desires is called good from his own word, and whatever he hates and despises is called evil." The unfortunate man always likes happiness, pleasure, enjoyment and comfort, and man's pursuits are endless, so, by his nature, man is an egoistic animal—self-interest is man's nature; and in terms of interpersonal relations—the relationship between man is a wolf.
The idea that human relations are wolves has had such an impact in modern China that few of the generation of intellectual youth who grew up in the 1980s were unaware of it— though they may not have known that the person who first coined it was Mr. Hobbes.
Hobbes's theory that human nature is selfish and that relationships are in a wolf-like state is one of the basic arguments that form his Leviathan doctrine. In fact, this identification of human nature, that is, selfishness, is also an inevitable product of the capitalist era. On the necessity of the state, on man, on the necessity of man.
On the one hand, this is the inevitable result of humanistic theory, and on the other hand, it is the logical reason for the new development of humanistic thought. They have banned The special status of God by taking man as the starting point and the point of destination, and correspondingly, since they have abolished the special status of God, they must express their opinions on the question of human nature. In real life, the competition between people, under the conditions of a complete market economy, is indeed more intense, more complex, and more thrilling than the competition between wolves. At least wolves don't have such a developed intellect, no one has such a rich culture, and there are not so many murderous weapons and intrigues invented by humans and used by humans themselves. Once human nature is malignantly inflated, how terrible it can be. It's just that Hobbes talks about human nature being selfish, not for human nature, but for another reason.
(2) Origin of the state - the state of nature
Hobbes not only believed that human nature is selfish, but also that when this selfishness is in a state of complete freedom, there will be conflict and killing between each other. Because you are also selfish, I am also selfish, everyone is selfish and enjoys the freedom of selfishness, you have to eat and eat, you want to sing and sing, you want to scold people, you want to kill people, you want to kill, and the result will inevitably affect my self-interest with your self-interest. And this disorderly state of freedom is the state of nature that preceded Hobbes's belief in the emergence of this social form of the state. Obviously, this state of nature is certainly not a state in which everyone feels good, but a state in which everyone is at risk. Mankind then proceeds from its own practical needs and demands a transition from this state of nature to a state of contract. And this contractual relationship, which Hobbes called the transfer relationship, merely expressed in his characteristic philosophical way.
He said: "For the human condition is a situation in which every man is at war with every man; in this case, every man is ruled by his own reason. Anything he could use would help him save his life against the enemy. So, in this case, everyone has a right to everything, even to each other's bodies. So, as long as this natural right of every human being to everything continues, no one (no matter how strong or clever) can fully live the time that nature normally permits people to live. In short, as long as everyone is free to possess, it is possible that everyone will suffer death.
So what to do?
Hobbes's approach was to require everyone to follow two laws of nature. One: "Every man should strive for peace as long as he has the hope of peace; and in the absence of peace, he can seek and use all the help and benefits of war." His interpretation of this law is: first, "to seek peace and keep it"; and second, to "defend ourselves by all possible means". Second: "If others are willing to do the same, a man, in the context of peace and the defence of himself, thinks of the need to voluntarily renounce this right to all things; he should be content with having so much freedom relative to others, as much freedom as he is willing to give to others relative to himself." His interpretation of this law is: "Do not do to others what you do not want to do to yourself." He called the acts prescribed by these laws the transfer of power. The form of confirmation of this transfer of power is the contract, and it is the State that monitors and guarantees the realization of this contract.
Hobbes transitioned from the theory of the state of nature to his theory of the transfer of power, and from the theory of the transfer of power to the theory of the origin of his state. It can be said that in his time he reached the best theoretical state that history requires him to achieve. The realization of this situation and its realization are not the same thing. What is of greatest concern is what the State that guarantees the transfer of power should look like and what kind of power it should have.
(3) Absolute monarchy said
Hobbes believed that the best form of state should be the form of the state of absolute monarchy. His theory of the state proceeded from the doctrine of the self-interest of human nature, and after an analysis of the natural situation and the transfer of power, it was disappointing that he finally came to the conclusion of absolute monarchy. But in his time, there was a reason for it. Capitalist civilization originated in the city-state, and the development of this civilization requires the guarantee of a strong and unified state power. Therefore, at a certain historical stage, the hope for absolute monarchy has become a trend.
Hobbes traced back to the source, from the empirical way to the discovery of his state origins and the transfer of power, and then down the river, making the result of the monarchical theory. It is precisely these two characteristics that determine the historical fate of his political doctrine.
He believes that for the sake of a smooth transfer of power, everyone should hand over their rights unconditionally, because the transfer of power between individuals is impossible. It is possible only by handing over the rights of each individual to the State, which in turn distributes them to everyone. The so-called handing over of rights to the state is, in the final analysis, the handing over to the head of state. He said: "Each man gives all his power and power to a parliament or a council of men, and turns the will of all into one will, according to the majority. This is tantamount to appointing a person or a parliament of people to assume their personality. And "the man who bears this personality, called the 'Fuehrer', has sovereignty, and the others are his 'subjects.'" This is actually not a good way. Hobbes, like a shrewd doctor, prescribes a stupid prescription.
Everyone who surrenders all his rights is equivalent to having no rights, and the rightee alone enjoys the collective personality of everyone, which is equivalent to the common loss of personality. Thinking of the later Politics of Hitler, I feel that Hobbes's conclusion is unreasonable.
(4) The monarch conferred
The most valuable part of Hobbes's political doctrine lies not in his theory of human nature, not in his theory of the state of nature, still less in his theory of the personality of the state, but in his idea of monarchical empowerment.
Because capitalist civilization was born out of the Middle Ages, its first task was to draw a line with church culture. But this demarcation of historical boundaries is neither a limited social goal that can be accomplished in isolation, nor a historical task that can be accomplished overnight. Although Machiavelli's new political philosophy existed in the humanistic epoch, Mars' political philosophy did not really theoretically address the relationship between secular power and ecclesiastical power. Machiavelli's approach is similar to Bacon's approach to the division of science, in which he simply put papal power on hold. By the 17th century, the question of the relationship between clerical power and political power had reached a time when it was necessary to be theoretically clear, and Hobbes's monarchical doctrine came into being.
According to medieval tradition, only the right of kings is divinely granted, and no monarch is granted. Or to put it another way, there is only natural theocracy, not natural human rights. Man is created by God, and what rights do you have before God? Only in this way can the church qualify to be God's representative on earth.
According to leviathan doctrine, secular power has nothing to do with theocracy at all. Not only can theocracy be abandoned, but even God Himself is an illusion. The nature of secular power is determined by the nature of man, and it should and necessarily be superior to all theocracy.
Hobbes was indeed the first figure in modern Western history to "observe the state through the eyes of man," and by virtue of this, he can be deservedly called a great thinker in modern Western history.
Hobbes's conclusion of absolute monarchy, however, was clearly inconsistent with the direction of the English Revolution. Although it was in harmony with Cromwell's style and with the desires of Charles II, it was very different from the development of English history. He probably did not expect that 20 years after the publication of his Leviathan, England would usher in another Glorious Revolution. And the new generation of thinkers, whether Weinsteinley or Locke, who came to prominence before and after the Glorious Revolution, came to the fore and left him far behind. Locke, in particular, although Locke's political doctrine can also be said to be some kind of continuation of Hobbes's theory of the state, but from their conclusions, it seems to be a revolution in Hobbes's theory. Or figuratively speaking, the philosophical foundations of their political doctrines are common, but their respective developments are different from each other. Although their feet are on the cornerstone of empiricism, their heads are at different levels of history. Hobbes's theory of absolute monarchy was only a spring dream, but Locke's idea of decentralization has become the theoretical basis of modern Western political civilization.
【For more wonderful articles, please pay attention to the WeChat public account "History of World Nations and Civilizations"】
![Tilly: Thomas Hobbes' Goals and Methods[fig]]()