As an ex historian I love how this famous 350yo work of political philosophy is just sitting at #7 on HN with absolutely no context on why it was submitted.
The great debate of political philosophy coming out of the 17th century was between Hobbes (anarchy is horrible, humans aren’t nice to each other, best to give up your freedoms to a strong sovereign/state for protection) and Locke (liberty is best, people are reasonable, limit government). I will say that like most of us I probably side more with Locke but as a pessimist about human nature I find Hobbes’s argument fascinating too.
While Hobbes is dark, he is giving an interesting explanation of how political power actually work, so that even when people are not nice, they can act in a civilized way.I only read a small parts of it and some summaries, from what I understand the crux of the argument doesn't necesserily force democracy or autocracy(although he seem skeptical of democracy) rather it explains the concept of sovereignity, even in a democracy.
I once quoted Leviathan in a course assignment to explain why Gandhi's method is effective :)
Niceness is the wrong lens to use for acting in a civilised way. Game theory generally recommends cooperation; in practical real-world situations most of the games we play are ones where the best situation comes from negotiation. The issue is more the truly enormous number of actors who either have remarkably short short time preferences, an unreasonable tolerance for risk or who are just unpredictable. That is one of the central themes of the whole liberal project, of course. How to minimise the amount of force required to contain irrational actors.
An easy example is that the scariest people to run in to in a dark ally are the drugged up types; because the problem is they don't have the ability to make decisions while considering the pros- and cons- over a couple of months and their normal behaviour isn't predictive of what they are about to do.
Someone who is truly horrible and comfortable with the idea of barbarism is actually pretty easy to get along with if they're happy to work with long term goals and are predictable in their deployment of violence. Their social place is probably in the military or police force. Or dentistry if they want more consensual torment.
I'd argue this is too expansive of a view. It's a debate specifically coming out of the English Civil War, and specifically focusing on the tension between Parliament and the Monarchy. If you read Clarendon it becomes extremely obvious. Hobbes (like Clarendon) took the royalist view defending the king, and Locke set for an argument for parliament.
Some of it doesn't translate super well into modern times. For example, Locke barely touches upon judiciary. The modern notion of separation of powers came (I believe) from Montesquieu.
I will say that Hobbes gives a far more comprehensive argument than Locke does. And some of Locke's details, including his anthropology of the origin of commonwealths, is demonstrably false.
Oh for sure, both thinkers were products of the English Civil War and its aftermath (and see my comment below about reading Quentin Skinner for all the context on Hobbes). I’d add that Locke (who was writing later than Hobbes) was all wrapped up in the 1688 “Glorious Revolution” too.
But some works transcend the specific details of their historical origins and authorship and contain ideas that echo down the centuries. Locke’s ideas were instrumental in founding the United States and feed into much of modern liberalism. And I can read Hobbes here today in the 21st century and still find the pessimistic core of his book powerful and relevant, even while ignoring much of the book because it’s full of the parochial concerns of 17th century England. That was really what I was getting at: not “this is the exact meaning of these works in the 17th century”, but “here is the tension of ideas these books bequeathed to us.”
Beautiful comment. Thanks for sharing. "Homo homini lupus" comes to mind, used by Locke in De Cive ("on the citizen") [1]. Cive, root Civis, is where the word civilization comes from.
This is just a very casual, even pop cultural characterization of how these two thinkers are commonly seen. I would expect people to have come across more substantive characterizations during an early high school history class, but perhaps I'm overgeneralizing my experience.
In any case, if you're looking for an approachable yet good book, I recommend reading Edward Feser's "Locke"[0]. The focus is obviously on Locke, but you can't really appreciate Locke without also getting into some Hobbes, which the books does.
Machiavelli. Not just the Prince but his other works. He reads remarkably modern. There are many "Machiavelli Readers" that will provide a curated selection.
Is there a middle ground argument? Something along the lines of humans are horrible to one another unless there is a social state that provides reasonable protection, at which point we can afford to be nice?
Economist magazine editor once said in an interview that Republican/conservative are open regulations for businesses and closed on people. Labour/democrats are tight on business and more welcoming to the people.
Economist editorial attempts to be open on both sides.
The question is not what state humans arein, but what state other humans would be when interacting with them. In other words, are other humans nice to me? I like it when they are nice to me. In return, I will also be nice to them.
Oh totally. I actually don’t like Locke’s position much either, he’s too libertarian for my taste (I would like the state to provide healthcare &c &c). But if I had to choose I’d choose Locke over Hobbes. Hobbes is… real dark.
Just because I prefer Locke to Hobbes if you forced me to choose doesn't mean I'm some sort of anti-regulation libertarian. Far from it. But if you actually read Hobbes you will see that:
* He thinks everyone should be compelled to worship in the state-sanctioned religion
* Censorship of publications, teaching, etc. is necessary because ideas can be dangerous.
* Separation of powers (e.g. between executive, legislature, judiciary) is bad; he wants a single unitary sovereign with unlimited power.
* The sovereign is above the law
* Resisting a tyrannical sovereign is bad
...and that's why I'd pick Locke over Hobbes. And I think most of us would too.
I grew up in Ireland, moved to the USA as an adult. European government is clearly Hobbes in model, the US Lockean.
In Europe the individual has almost no legal reason to use force, and force by individuals is considered illegitimate. The "Sovereign" has all the coercive power in European states. In the US, however, a certain amount of legitimate force explicitly remains with the individual i.e. the 2nd amendment. (I am not making a value judgement here).
Of course, Europe has government with the consent of the governed, so is Lockean in that sense. But the balance of force between the "Sovereign" and the people in Europe is all Hobbes. You only notice it when you move to the US and compare it to Europe.
Europe had centuries of religious and civil war. It's not surprising Hobbes won out.
It's one of the fundamental texts on societal organization from a few centuries ago. It's been a few decades since I finished school, so I may misremember but IIRC:
The author believes that mankind would naturally live in a brutal state of conflict (homo homini lupus est, men are wolves to each other).
But mankind can give up their self interest and give their authority to a government/sovereign (the titular leviathan, a giant monster made of multiple people) that can rule with absolute power and guarantee an environment in which we are all better.
I cannot for the life of me imagine how this ended up on the HN front page, but it's cool.
One might consider it the magnum opus of Thomas Hobbes, a pioneering political thinker who had a massive influence on both conservatism and liberalism. For conservatives his arguments on human nature that conclude that we are inherently brutish and violent and cannot be allowed to rule ourselves are very attractive. He proposed an early social contract theory as a solution, which liberalists have found very attractive.
Hobbes was an intellectual on the right, which is a rather uncommon subject here. He was rather well versed in the science and scholastic methods of his time, and took pains to try and think his views through and make good arguments. This is more than you could say about, say, Rand or Mises, thinkers under the same umbrella who loathed intellectuals.
Now the right is plaguing us with crypto- and outright fascists who don't actually know anything, don't want to know anything, and especially don't want us to know anything. E.g. this recent interview with Marc Andreessen, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBVe3M2g_SA&t=56s , who, with unbridled confidence, makes the claim that original sin was invented by Freud in the 1920s and that no "great men" of history wasted time on introspection and self reflection.
I might be an enemy of the right, but Hobbes I can respect and enjoy reading.
Watching that again reminds me that this guy is so poorly educated and not learned. Sure he was an engineering student at UIUC and wrote a neato browser, but wow he does not know history or philosophy well.
But he does the grifter trick of making coy observations like that 1920s bs. And he had so much time and wealth to improve those insights!
Or, he knows but this narrative makes him feel better about his behavior.
"For conservatives his arguments on human nature that conclude that we are inherently brutish and violent and cannot be allowed to rule ourselves are very attractive."
I really hope you are European. What you said is true of (most) European Conservatives. If you are an American, that is the most incorrect thing I have read all week. American Conservatives are the exact opposite of what you describe.
The core of the American right wing is to reject the idea in your quote in all ways. The individual is the highest ideal in libertarian ideology. This is why the US Republicans never, ever align themselves with political parties in other countries. They have a completely different set of beliefs. And for some weird reason Europeans completely ignore this and will even react violently when it is explained to them. Its just weird...
"In the Talmud, Rav Yehuda says that there are twelve hours in a day. God spends three of them studying Torah, three judging the world, three answering prayers, and three playing with Leviathan."
Chapter 5: Never Seek To Tell Thy Love, unsongbook.com
As an ex historian I love how this famous 350yo work of political philosophy is just sitting at #7 on HN with absolutely no context on why it was submitted.
The great debate of political philosophy coming out of the 17th century was between Hobbes (anarchy is horrible, humans aren’t nice to each other, best to give up your freedoms to a strong sovereign/state for protection) and Locke (liberty is best, people are reasonable, limit government). I will say that like most of us I probably side more with Locke but as a pessimist about human nature I find Hobbes’s argument fascinating too.
While Hobbes is dark, he is giving an interesting explanation of how political power actually work, so that even when people are not nice, they can act in a civilized way.I only read a small parts of it and some summaries, from what I understand the crux of the argument doesn't necesserily force democracy or autocracy(although he seem skeptical of democracy) rather it explains the concept of sovereignity, even in a democracy. I once quoted Leviathan in a course assignment to explain why Gandhi's method is effective :)
Niceness is the wrong lens to use for acting in a civilised way. Game theory generally recommends cooperation; in practical real-world situations most of the games we play are ones where the best situation comes from negotiation. The issue is more the truly enormous number of actors who either have remarkably short short time preferences, an unreasonable tolerance for risk or who are just unpredictable. That is one of the central themes of the whole liberal project, of course. How to minimise the amount of force required to contain irrational actors.
An easy example is that the scariest people to run in to in a dark ally are the drugged up types; because the problem is they don't have the ability to make decisions while considering the pros- and cons- over a couple of months and their normal behaviour isn't predictive of what they are about to do.
Someone who is truly horrible and comfortable with the idea of barbarism is actually pretty easy to get along with if they're happy to work with long term goals and are predictable in their deployment of violence. Their social place is probably in the military or police force. Or dentistry if they want more consensual torment.
1 reply →
I'd argue this is too expansive of a view. It's a debate specifically coming out of the English Civil War, and specifically focusing on the tension between Parliament and the Monarchy. If you read Clarendon it becomes extremely obvious. Hobbes (like Clarendon) took the royalist view defending the king, and Locke set for an argument for parliament.
Some of it doesn't translate super well into modern times. For example, Locke barely touches upon judiciary. The modern notion of separation of powers came (I believe) from Montesquieu.
I will say that Hobbes gives a far more comprehensive argument than Locke does. And some of Locke's details, including his anthropology of the origin of commonwealths, is demonstrably false.
Either way, glad to see Leviathan here!
Oh for sure, both thinkers were products of the English Civil War and its aftermath (and see my comment below about reading Quentin Skinner for all the context on Hobbes). I’d add that Locke (who was writing later than Hobbes) was all wrapped up in the 1688 “Glorious Revolution” too.
But some works transcend the specific details of their historical origins and authorship and contain ideas that echo down the centuries. Locke’s ideas were instrumental in founding the United States and feed into much of modern liberalism. And I can read Hobbes here today in the 21st century and still find the pessimistic core of his book powerful and relevant, even while ignoring much of the book because it’s full of the parochial concerns of 17th century England. That was really what I was getting at: not “this is the exact meaning of these works in the 17th century”, but “here is the tension of ideas these books bequeathed to us.”
Beautiful comment. Thanks for sharing. "Homo homini lupus" comes to mind, used by Locke in De Cive ("on the citizen") [1]. Cive, root Civis, is where the word civilization comes from.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_homini_lupus
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Cive
While I always wanted to like Locke's arguments more, they always felt the weaker of the two, and frequently seemed to need to plug god into the gaps.
Found your comment mightily insightful, so may as well ask:
Can you recommend a handful of similar “historical” works that you’d consider a must-read (or simply just darn interesting).
Thanks!
This is just a very casual, even pop cultural characterization of how these two thinkers are commonly seen. I would expect people to have come across more substantive characterizations during an early high school history class, but perhaps I'm overgeneralizing my experience.
In any case, if you're looking for an approachable yet good book, I recommend reading Edward Feser's "Locke"[0]. The focus is obviously on Locke, but you can't really appreciate Locke without also getting into some Hobbes, which the books does.
[0] https://a.co/d/02c3fLFZ
2 replies →
Machiavelli. Not just the Prince but his other works. He reads remarkably modern. There are many "Machiavelli Readers" that will provide a curated selection.
Cicero and Plato.
Is there a middle ground argument? Something along the lines of humans are horrible to one another unless there is a social state that provides reasonable protection, at which point we can afford to be nice?
Economist magazine editor once said in an interview that Republican/conservative are open regulations for businesses and closed on people. Labour/democrats are tight on business and more welcoming to the people.
Economist editorial attempts to be open on both sides.
1 reply →
Read Graeber & Wengrow
The question is not what state humans arein, but what state other humans would be when interacting with them. In other words, are other humans nice to me? I like it when they are nice to me. In return, I will also be nice to them.
Oh totally. I actually don’t like Locke’s position much either, he’s too libertarian for my taste (I would like the state to provide healthcare &c &c). But if I had to choose I’d choose Locke over Hobbes. Hobbes is… real dark.
9 replies →
Like "most of us"? America is uniquely anti-regulation
The idea that the USA is anti regulation is profoundly ignorant.
1 reply →
Just because I prefer Locke to Hobbes if you forced me to choose doesn't mean I'm some sort of anti-regulation libertarian. Far from it. But if you actually read Hobbes you will see that:
* He thinks everyone should be compelled to worship in the state-sanctioned religion
* Censorship of publications, teaching, etc. is necessary because ideas can be dangerous.
* Separation of powers (e.g. between executive, legislature, judiciary) is bad; he wants a single unitary sovereign with unlimited power.
* The sovereign is above the law
* Resisting a tyrannical sovereign is bad
...and that's why I'd pick Locke over Hobbes. And I think most of us would too.
Wouldn't it make more sense to want less government and more freedom if one doesn't trust people?
If you don't trust individuals, you're going to need an institution (or private security) to protect you from them. Police, laws, etc.
1 reply →
No, because people exist outside of government.
4 replies →
Imagine you grow up in a pedo cult and one day black vans drive on the ranch with FBI agents.
Government bad is such an insufferable American take and I scream every time I hear it.
1 reply →
I grew up in Ireland, moved to the USA as an adult. European government is clearly Hobbes in model, the US Lockean.
In Europe the individual has almost no legal reason to use force, and force by individuals is considered illegitimate. The "Sovereign" has all the coercive power in European states. In the US, however, a certain amount of legitimate force explicitly remains with the individual i.e. the 2nd amendment. (I am not making a value judgement here).
Of course, Europe has government with the consent of the governed, so is Lockean in that sense. But the balance of force between the "Sovereign" and the people in Europe is all Hobbes. You only notice it when you move to the US and compare it to Europe.
Europe had centuries of religious and civil war. It's not surprising Hobbes won out.
Nature it selfe cannot erre: and as men abound in copiousnesse of language; so they become more wise, or more mad than ordinary
- I have no idea what I am supposed to take from this book or what this book is about
- the OP has not put even 2 lines explaining what, where, why, how, when etc
- Anyone mind explaining what this book is about?
It's one of the fundamental texts on societal organization from a few centuries ago. It's been a few decades since I finished school, so I may misremember but IIRC:
The author believes that mankind would naturally live in a brutal state of conflict (homo homini lupus est, men are wolves to each other).
But mankind can give up their self interest and give their authority to a government/sovereign (the titular leviathan, a giant monster made of multiple people) that can rule with absolute power and guarantee an environment in which we are all better.
I cannot for the life of me imagine how this ended up on the HN front page, but it's cool.
> I cannot for the life of me imagine how this ended up on the HN front page, but it's cool.
But then again you're riffraff how could you imagine that :)
"It's one of the fundamental texts on societal organization from a few centuries ago."
No Spoilers.
One might consider it the magnum opus of Thomas Hobbes, a pioneering political thinker who had a massive influence on both conservatism and liberalism. For conservatives his arguments on human nature that conclude that we are inherently brutish and violent and cannot be allowed to rule ourselves are very attractive. He proposed an early social contract theory as a solution, which liberalists have found very attractive.
Hobbes was an intellectual on the right, which is a rather uncommon subject here. He was rather well versed in the science and scholastic methods of his time, and took pains to try and think his views through and make good arguments. This is more than you could say about, say, Rand or Mises, thinkers under the same umbrella who loathed intellectuals.
Now the right is plaguing us with crypto- and outright fascists who don't actually know anything, don't want to know anything, and especially don't want us to know anything. E.g. this recent interview with Marc Andreessen, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBVe3M2g_SA&t=56s , who, with unbridled confidence, makes the claim that original sin was invented by Freud in the 1920s and that no "great men" of history wasted time on introspection and self reflection.
I might be an enemy of the right, but Hobbes I can respect and enjoy reading.
Watching that again reminds me that this guy is so poorly educated and not learned. Sure he was an engineering student at UIUC and wrote a neato browser, but wow he does not know history or philosophy well.
But he does the grifter trick of making coy observations like that 1920s bs. And he had so much time and wealth to improve those insights!
Or, he knows but this narrative makes him feel better about his behavior.
3 replies →
"For conservatives his arguments on human nature that conclude that we are inherently brutish and violent and cannot be allowed to rule ourselves are very attractive."
I really hope you are European. What you said is true of (most) European Conservatives. If you are an American, that is the most incorrect thing I have read all week. American Conservatives are the exact opposite of what you describe.
The core of the American right wing is to reject the idea in your quote in all ways. The individual is the highest ideal in libertarian ideology. This is why the US Republicans never, ever align themselves with political parties in other countries. They have a completely different set of beliefs. And for some weird reason Europeans completely ignore this and will even react violently when it is explained to them. Its just weird...
5 replies →
"In the Talmud, Rav Yehuda says that there are twelve hours in a day. God spends three of them studying Torah, three judging the world, three answering prayers, and three playing with Leviathan."
Chapter 5: Never Seek To Tell Thy Love, unsongbook.com
Seems to be important, that creature.