Let's talk about Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes is an English philosopher writing in the 17th century and the work that he's by far most famous for, which we'll be discussing today, is Leviathan. The full title, which I have written down because it's too long to remember ever, is Leviathan or the Matter, Form, and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil. Enlightenment book titles are the best and you have seen nothing. Wait till we get to John Locke.
But he writes this in 1651. Like I said, by far his most famous work. This is broken up into four different parts. For the purposes of our course, Learning About States, we'll only talk about two main parts.
In one, he discusses human nature. And in the second, he basically talks about what men I use that term intentionally because since he's writing in the Enlightenment, all of his verbiage is discussing men. Women don't make an appearance anywhere.
What men do about the state of nature that Hobbes describes, which I'll get to in a second. And basically he's talking about governments. He commonly uses the term commonwealth. For our purposes in our course, commonwealth will equate to state. We'll talk about what he means by that in a few minutes.
So let's talk about Thomas Hobbes'version of human nature. So I have some quotes here that I'll read from Leviathan that will sort of give us an idea of what Hobbes thinks about man in the quote-unquote state of nature. He actually uses the term the natural condition of mankind instead of state of nature. This is actually a famous sort of like philosophical thought experiment and like a thing to use to talk about men that existed before civilization, although even that word is problematic. I don't want to use the term uncivilized, even though that's commonly used.
because that itself is subjective. But men before, men as they were sort of animalistic before they had organized governments and economic structures and so on, right? This is, I'm using this tongue-in-cheek.
This is all the way that philosophers of this era and even some to this day talk about men and how they existed. So let's talk about Hobbes and what he has to say. He says, interestingly, that human beings are actually equal in the state of nature.
machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself. So men in the state of nature are actually equal, whether it's through strength or mind, when all basically is considered, they're fairly equal. So that's how he starts. He says, it is from this equality that conflict actually arises, which is sort of counter to the way that we normally think of inequality.
So let's hear what he has to say. He says, from this equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in attaining of our ends. And therefore, if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies. And in the way to their end, which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only, endeavor to destroy or subdue one another.
So he says, because men in this state of nature are so equal, that actually that is where conflict arises. Because when two men want the same thing, they're so equal, basically, right, all else considered, that they have no choice but to fight about it. If one was considerably stronger and one was considerably weaker, there would be essentially no fight.
The stronger one would win every time, and the weaker one probably would not even engage in the conflict. But because they are so equal, that's where the conflict arises. So very interesting and very, I think, different than we sort of think about conflict and the origins of inequality among human beings. Now this is where he gets to, what does this mean for the state of nature?
What does this mean for existing in this state? He says, Hereby I... It is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them in awe. They are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man.
For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend 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. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in the inclination thereto of many days together. So the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.
He says the state of nature is war, not because there's constant conflict, but due to the knowledge that there could be conflict at any time, and that every other human is equally matched as you, all else things considered. So that's interesting. That we're not at war because we're fighting all the time, we're at war because we know that we could be fighting all the time.
It's sort of like this sort of low-grade anxiety that everyone feels all the time in this situation as a result of this inevitable conflict. So that's interesting, this conflict that's sort of threatening all of the time. There's always this threat of having to fight for what we need to survive. Very interesting. He says, man lives in a state of continual fear and danger of violent death.
The life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. I had that last sentence bold. I'll read it again.
The life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. I kind of have that bolded, even though I don't want to get to critiques of Hobbes quite yet. Because if we look at anthropological and archaeological evidence, that's basically not true. But we'll get to that in a second.
But Hobbes is famous. His state of man in the state of nature is warfare. brutish, short, violent fear. That's important for us to understand why the state comes about for Thomas Hobbes. So that's sort of the state of nature for Thomas Hobbes.
So what do they do about this? Well, for Hobbes, they enter into what he calls the Commonwealth. We'll get to what that means specifically in a second, but first he answers this question, which is kind of interesting, of well, why don't other animals exist in this relationship, which he calls the Commonwealth? He goes through a list of reasons why not.
I'm not going to go through the entire list, but he says this at the end, and this is interesting, and this gives us an idea of what he means by commonwealth and why midwinter into it. He says, It is true that certain living creatures, as bees and ants, live sociably one with another, which are therefore by Aristotle numbered amongst political creatures. Then he goes to the list.
Then he says, Lastly, the agreement of these creatures is natural. That of men is by covenant only, which is artificial. And therefore it is no wonder if there be somewhat else required besides covenant to make their agreement constant and lasting. So he says the agreement between animals with one another is natural. But the agreement between men requires something additional because it is artificial.
So it requires something else other than this natural covenant. It is a common power to keep them in awe and to direct their actions to the common benefit. The only way to erect such a common power as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners and the injuries of one another.
I'm going to pause right there because that gives us a little brief glimpse into what Hobbes means by the commonwealth or the state. I'll read that section again. He says, it is a power that is able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners and the injuries of one another and thereby secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly is to confer all their power and strength upon one man or upon one assembly of men that may reduce all their wills by plurality of voices plurality of voices unto one will which is as much as to say to appoint one man or assembly of men to bear their person and every one to own and acknowledge himself to be author of whatsoever he that so beareth their person shall act or cause to be acted in those things which concern the common peace and safety, and therein to submit their wills, everyone to his will, and their judgment to his judgment. So they must enter into this, he uses the term covenant, where every man agrees to give up his will to another man or to an assembly of men, to one representative or to an assembly of representatives. We're starting to use modern language now, things that we should be used to, right?
In such a manner as if every man should say to every man, I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner. So I will do this if everyone else also does this. This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a commonwealth.
In Latin, civitas. This is the generation of that great Leviathan. Or rather, to speak more reverently of that mortal God to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defense.
I have that last sentence underlined. We'll come back to that in a second. This leads us to the question, okay, what is a commonwealth?
He gives us a little more specifics later on. In fact, the whole second part of Leviathan describes specifically the commonwealth. I won't go through the entire thing. I just have one quote that explains this a little bit more in detail.
This is the first paragraph of section 28 of the Rights of Sovereigns by Institution. He says, A commonwealth is said to be instituted when a multitude of men do agree and covenant everyone with everyone, that to whatsoever man or assembly of men shall be given the major part the right to present the person of them all. That is to say, to be their representative, everyone, as well he that voted for it as he that voted against it, shall authorize all the actions and judgments of that man or assembly of men in the same manner as if they were his own to the end to live peaceably amongst themselves and be protected against other men.
So he repeats himself a little bit in that last sentence. I'm not sure if you caught that with what I emphasized earlier. He's giving us more insight into his definition of commonwealth or for our purposes, the state.
I'll read that last part again. The commonwealth exists to the end that men may live. peaceably amongst themselves and be protected against other men. So there's two main characteristics that he continues to repeat.
The commonwealth functions so that men may live peaceably among themselves and that they may be protected from the invasion of other men. So there's really two parts here. The state functions to protect its citizens from invasion by outsiders and to protect its citizens from one another.
That's Hobbes'commonwealth. Sort of in a nutshell. So how does this come into being, according to Hobbes?
Let's talk about that. He says, quote, The other is when men agree amongst themselves to submit to some man or assembly of men voluntarily on confidence to be protected by him against all others. This latter may be called political commonwealth or commonwealth by institution and the former a commonwealth by acquisition. So you can either be forced into a commonwealth or you can enter into it voluntarily. If you are forced, Hobbes calls this the commonwealth by acquisition.
If you enter into it voluntarily, This he calls a commonwealth by institution. So there's two different types of commonwealth. So for Hobbes, men can either be coerced to submit to a government or can do so voluntarily.
This is where he's anticipating the future social contract theories, which we'll get to in a second. He never actually uses that term social contract, but he has extensive parts of this work where he discusses contract. So Hobbes is sort of the first person to ever sort of outline this idea of the social contract.
We'll talk about Locke and Rousseau in the future. Rousseau takes it, I mean his work is on social contract. That's literally what it's called. So he's obviously hugely influential in this.
According to Hobbes, there are two laws of human nature that lead them to enter into a commonwealth, that lead men to do this. One of the laws of nature, according to Hobbes, is that humans naturally seek peace. Here meaning, The absence of natural war.
So we talked about earlier how Hobbes'state of nature for men is war. Even if they're not at war, there's always this lingering threat of conflict. He says that men naturally seek peace.
So they naturally seek sort of the abolition of this state. That's the first law of nature for Hobbes. The second law is that men are willing to forego their natural rights to all things in the name of peace and personal defense, as long as other men are willing to do the same.
So men are willing to give up their rights to all, basically, all nature, all, etc., as long as other men are willing to do the same. And as a result of this, they are willing to enter into this agreement and form this commonwealth. So, I don't know if you picked up on it, but Hobbes creates his idea of human nature and these two laws of nature imply that the commonwealth is natural.
that human beings enter, that is a part of human nature, that we just instinctually enter into this agreement and create the state. That's very, very important, because remember, like we talked about in the video on Machiavelli, they're writing in an era when they are attempting to sort of challenge the right, the natural right of kings, the divine right and the hereditary right, the bloodlines, right? So for Hobbes, none of that is necessary. He says it's actually instinctual that we enter into these agreements. And that's a key part in understanding why men in this state of nature, according to Hobbes, would enter into this agreement with one another.
Why might they do it voluntarily? It's very clear if they are coerced and forced into doing it. But why might they be motivated to do this voluntarily?
Well, according to Hobbes, it's just human nature. And that the commonwealth, the sovereign power that men agree to act on their behalf, it's natural. that men enter into these agreements.
So it's very interesting to understand. Okay, so that in a nutshell, very, very short and simplified, is enough for us to understand Hobbes's version of the state or the commonwealth and why people would enter into it. Let's talk about some critiques of Hobbes. The first is that his explanation of man in the state of nature, it's basically hypothetical.
Hobbes did no real anthropological work or like archaeological. There's no evidence of that of any kind. at the time for Hobbes to go off of archaeology and anthropology and sociology and all etc.
The social sciences that exist today definitely did not exist in the 1650s when this is published. So Hobbes had none of that to go on. I say that for two reasons.
A, his idea of man in the state of nature is completely backed by zero evidence. So you can take that for what it's worth. B, he kind of gets a pass because it's not as if all of the evidence existed and he chose to ignore it. He basically was trying to write this blindly.
He had no idea what men in a state of nature, thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, possibly would have, their life would have been like. It was just impossible for him. But the fact that people today, I think, read Hobbes and take it for like absolute truth, that's complete nonsense. He had no idea what he was talking about.
It's basically a thought experiment where he said, it's possible that men live like this. So we can't take that as truth by any means. So that's... the first one.
Like I said, that he kind of gets a pass. And this is evidenced by the fact that he talks about men being solitary, brutish, and violent. We now know, as a result of all of these other social sciences, that men never lived in a state, a solitary state.
That was never a thing, that human beings are incredibly social. In fact, they cannot survive, at least as a group, if they are solitary. Yes, of course, some one person can live as a hermit for their entire life or whatever. But human beings cannot survive like that, and they certainly couldn't have survived hundreds of thousands of years as solitary people.
So this is one example of how Hobbes was incredibly wrong, which probably should lead us to question his theories on the state and the commonwealth as well, by extension. But he definitely, his man and state of nature is a thought experiment at best. It's purely hypothetical.
All right, so that's Thomas Hobbes, his idea of human nature and the commonwealth, or like I've said, for our purposes, the state, the government. How does it come into being and why and what does it mean? How does he define it? Hobbes is one of the most influential, definitely 17th century Enlightenment era philosophers, specifically for this work, Leviathan.