Explaining the origin of the Leviathan
The Leviathan, was a work written by Hobbes and was considered as that line of rupture with the Middle Ages, since, its descriptions of the reality of the time were impressive. During the seventeenth century his gaze focused more on politics and the exercise of power, therefore, was one of the most respected theorists of monarchical absolutism, a political regime that lived and ended in the mid -18th century, because of the revolutionFrench.
The work of the Leviathan established the foundation of most of Western political philosophy. The title refers to the Leviathan biblical monster, which has a huge and unimaginable power, in addition the work is markedly materialistic and can be understood as a justification of the absolute state, while as the theoretical proposition of the social contract, and establishes a doctrine ofmodern law as the basis of societies and legitimate governments.
The work was made up of four books and each served for Hobbes to expose his idea about the nature of man, his behavior in society, the need for an absolute state and a social contract by which man’s lives are governed,In peace and harmony, as far as possible. In summary, the work of Leviathan is a manual about human nature and the organization of society and also has been a great inspiration in political science and the evolution of social law.
The idea of the social contract was that, in order to build a society, it is necessary, that each individual renounces a part of their wishes and reaches an unwavering mutual agreement and respect with others. It is about establishing a "social contract", that man transfers his rights over all things, in favor of a sovereign endowed with unlimited rights. This sovereign with absolute power, whose sovereignty is not born from divine law but also lies in transferred rights, would be the only one with enough power and means to enforce the social contract and guarantee, order and peace, infringing violence, which, whichIt would disappear in this way of the relationship between individuals.
In his time Hobbes was an extremely criticized thinker and who had to go through endless questions to his positions, especially because he remained in a neutral position in regard to the political division that was lived in his time: monarchists versus parliamentary. The former argued that the king’s power came directly from God, while the latter, closer to a democratic idea, considered that power should be shared between the monarch and his people. But, Hobbes was not in favor of any, he argued that the king’s power did not have a divine origin.
Hobbes also had two great enemies during his life, against which he maintained strong tensions, these were the Church of England and the University of Oxford, who attack him openly because of his statements about the absence of the soul. This publication caused great disputes with the bishop of Derry, John Bramhall. Who wrote several treaties, in which three of them were against Hobbes postulates in the Leviathan.
Two intellectual influences
Two influences are extremely marked in Hobbes’s work. The first is a reaction against religious authority as it was known, and especially against scholastic philosophy that accepted and defended this authority. The second is a deep admiration for and participation in the emerging scientific method, along with an admiration for a much older discipline, geometry. Both influences affected how Hobbes expressed their moral and political ideas. In some areas it is also clear that they significantly affected the ideas themselves. First, he makes very strong statements about the proper relationship between religion and politics. It was not an atheist, but it was very serious when insisting that theological disputes should be kept out of politics. Second, this reaction against scholasticism shapes the presentation of Hobbes’s own ideas. He insists that the terms are clearly defined and related to real concrete experiences, which is part of their empiricism.
Ethics and human nature
Hobbes’s moral thinking is difficult to separate from their policy. In his opinion, what we must do depends largely on the situation in which we are. Where the political authority is lacking (as in its famous natural condition of humanity), our fundamental right seems to be saving our lives, by any means that we create convenient. Where there is political authority, our duty seems to be quite simple: to obey those in power. But we can use the ethics of politics usefully if we follow Hobbes’s own division. For him, ethics has to do with human nature, while political philosophy is about what happens when human beings interact.
The poverty of human judgment and our need for science
There are two main aspects in the image of Hobbes of human nature. Hobbes has several reasons to think that human judgment is not reliable and needs to be guided by science. Our judgments tend to be distorted by their own interest or by the pleasures and pains of the moment. We can share the same basic passions, but the various things in the world affect us all in a very different way;And we are inclined to use our feelings as measures for others. We form beliefs about supernatural entities, fairies and spirits, and so on, and fear continues where belief has gone, even more distorting our judgment. For Hobbes, it is only science, ‘the knowledge of the consequences’, which offers a reliable knowledge of the future and overcomes the weaknesses of human judgment. However, this does not mean that Hobbes has been able to reach a level of ‘scientific’ certainty in his judgments.
Motivation
The most important aspect of Hobbes’s explanation about human nature focuses on his ideas on human motivation, and this issue is, therefore, the center of many debates about how to understand Hobbes philosophy. Many interpreters have presented the Hobbesian agent as an interested and rationally calculating actor. In fact, many of the problems that occur to human beings, according to Hobbes, are the result that they care too little about their own interest. Too often, think, we care too much about what others think of us, or for religious doctrine, or by the words of others. This weakness regarding our own interest has even led some to think that Hobbes is advocating a theory known as ethical selfishness. This is to affirm that Hobbes bases morality on self-interest, claiming that we must do what we are most interested in.
Leave feedback