Hobbes's Leviathan
Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English philosopher whose classification is difficult to classify. He was an empiricist, but he admired the mathematical method. Continental philosophy generally devalues the role of perception and places too much emphasis on pure thinking. In contrast, British empiricism was almost unaffected by mathematics, and there were often misconceptions about the scientific method. Hobbes did not have these shortcomings, he was a rare philosopher who paid attention to both experience and mathematics. Hobbes, however, also had a glaring flaw, namely that he was very impatient and meticulous; that his approach to problem-solving, while logical, often ignored difficult facts; and that his arguments, while powerful, were too simple and crude.
Leviathan is Hobbes's most famous book. The political views expressed in this book are extreme monarchism. Published in 1651, Leviathan did not please everyone at the time. The rationalism in the book angered most of the exiles; the attack on Catholicism in the book angered the French government.
Hobbes opens his book Leviathan by explicitly declaring himself a thorough materialist. He said that life is nothing more than the movement of limbs. He called the nation Leviathan (an evil sea monster described in the Bible) and believed that the state was created by artificial humans. Specifically, the sovereignty of the state is its soul; the agreements, covenants, etc. reached in the creation of the nation are equivalent to the Divine will that God issued when he said, "Let us create man."
Leviathan is divided into four parts.
The first part discusses the individual man and expounds Hobbes's general philosophy. Hobbes believed that the nature of the object of object that corresponds to our senses is movement. Imagination is a feeling in decline, and like feeling, imagination is movement. Man's successive thoughts are not arbitrary, they are governed by various laws. Sometimes these laws are laws of association, sometimes laws based on a purpose in our minds.
Hobbes was also a thorough nominalist. He thinks that there is nothing universal except names; without words that refer to things, we cannot imagine any general ideas.
Hobbes's claim to reason is the opposite of Plato's, who argues that reason is not innate, but developed through acquired effort.
In terms of various passions, Hobbes argues that "endeavour" can be defined as a tiny beginning of motivation. Desire is toward something, and abandonment is leaving something. "Good" refers to some kind of object that is desired; "bad" refers to some kind of object that is disliked. Much of the book's definition of passion is based on a competitive notion of life.
The will is nothing but a desire or aversion left behind after careful consideration.
Unlike most people who defended authoritarian government, Hobbes advocated that all men are created equal. In the state of nature, both desires and desires are governed by the impulse to protect oneself.
The second part of the book states that in order to avoid the ills mentioned in the first part of the book, people can be united into several social organizations that obey authority. Hobbes imagined that people would voluntarily submit by forming a social contract, choosing a ruler or group to exercise power over them, thus ending the scuffle between them. This power must be given to one or a group of people, otherwise it cannot be exercised effectively, as the so-called "contract without force is a dead letter". Once a government has been chosen, citizens lose all their rights except those that the government deems to be permissible as expedient. The masses united like this are called nations, and this "Leviathan" is the God who exists in the mortal world.
Hobbes favored monarchies. He could tolerate Parliament, but he could not tolerate a system that shared government power between the King and Parliament. This view is exactly the opposite of the views of Locke and Montesquieu. In Hobbes's system, the power of the sovereign is not limited in any way. He also acknowledged that the sovereign may be authoritarian, but that no matter how authoritarian it is, it is better than anarchy.
Throughout Leviathan, Hobbes never considered the possibility of suppressing the tendency of members of Parliament to sacrifice the public interest for personal gain. The parliament he was referring to was supposed to be a group similar to the British upper house. In the system designed by Hobbes, the role of the people was also completely ended.
Hobbes gave a precise and admirable definition of freedom as freedom: freedom is movement without outside hindrance. In this sense, freedom and necessity are consistent, just as water flows downwards. As for the freedom of the subjects, it should be free as long as the law does not interfere. (May be done without prohibition by law)
Hobbes acknowledged that there were limits to the obligation to obey the monarch. He believed that the right to self-preservation was unconditional, and that subjects had the right to defend themselves, even against the king in order to defend their rights. Because Hobbes regarded self-preservation as a premise and motivation for forming a government, such a statement is logically valid. However, this egoistic ethic also leads to the strange conclusion that rebellion against the monarch is justified only in defending oneself, and that resistance to protect others is reprehensible. There is also a logical exception, namely that people are not obliged to protect their monarchs who are incapable of protecting themselves. Hobbes also believed that there should be no political factions and organizations of the kind we now call trade unions.
The third part is "On the Christian State", in which Hobbes explains a universal church because it must depend on the national government. In the state, the king must be the leader of the church, and the pope's transcendent sovereignty and infallibility cannot be recognized.
The fourth part is "On the Kingdom of Darkness," which is primarily critical of the Church of Rome. Hobbes hated the Church of Rome because it placed its power above secular power. In addition, he attacks in this section the hollow philosophy represented by Aristotle.
How to evaluate Hobbes's Leviathan is not an easy task, because its advantages and disadvantages are closely intertwined.
Hobbes believed that the monarchy was the best model of government, based mainly on the consideration that he believed that the various powers of the state should be absolute and unconditional. Combined with the characteristics of the British conditions of Hobbes's time, he was both sad and afraid of anarchy. It is therefore not difficult for Hobbes to understand such a thought. Every society faces both authoritarian and anarchic dangers. The Puritans' fear of authoritarian government was also unforgettable to death. Overall, Hobbes's support for a national government alternative to anarchy is legitimate. However, every government seems to have a tyrannical tendency, and only certain constraints or restraints can curb this tendency. Therefore, it is necessary to consider both the risks of anarchy and the risks of injustice and rigidity posed by almighty government.
Hobbes's advantage was that he was completely free from the influence of superstition. He thinks clearly and logically. His ethics does not use ambiguous concepts. His inadequacy is oversimplification.
Hobbes's theory also has two weaknesses.
First, he always regards the interests of the state as a whole, and it goes without saying that the interests of the overwhelming majority of all citizens are identical. Hobbes did not understand the importance of the clash of different classes among citizens, and Marx understood this very deeply, believing that this was the main cause of social change.
Second, Hobbes's doctrine is too narrow on the question of relations between different countries. According to him, war arises because there is no international government, because nations are in a state of nature. In this view, if there are no effective means to prevent war, then improving the war capabilities of individual countries will lead to a path to destruction.