Comparing Hobbes's Leviathan And The Grand Inquisitor

The thought of nature and its basic laws are the foundation of our modern society. Without our laws of nature we would have no need for the institution of laws to govern our interactions. These basic laws are explained by Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan where he explains the state of nature and his ideas of the commonwealth. Thomas Hobbes defines the need for a commonwealth to take us out of the state of nature which he describes a perpetual state of war. Accepting these view of nature we would also be accepting his view on politics of law by default.

Born during a period of medieval philosophy, Thomas Hobbes developed a new way of thinking. He perfected his moral and political theories in his controversial book Leviathan, written in 1651. In his introduction, Hobbes describes the state of nature as an organism analogous to a large person (p.42). He advises that people should look into themselves to see the nature of humanity. In his quote, “ The passions that incline men to peace, are fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them,” Hobbes view of the motivations for moral behavior becomes valid because of his use of examples to support his theories, which in turn, apply to Pojman’s five purposes for morality.

Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher published his masterwork, the Leviathan, in 1651. This book influenced western philosophy with its view on the Social Contract theory. A social contract

Thomas Hobbes was a divisive figure in his day and remains so up to today. Hobbes’s masterpiece, Leviathan, offended his contemporary thinkers with the implications of his view of human nature and his theology. From this pessimistic view of the natural state of man, Hobbes derives a social contract in order to avoid civil war and violence among men. Hobbes views his work as laying out the moral framework for a stable state. In reality, Hobbes was misconstruing a social contract that greatly benefited the state based on a misunderstanding of civil society and the nature and morality of man.

A state of nature is a hypothetical state of being within a society that defines such a way that particular community behaves within itself. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes proclaimed that, “A state of nature is a state of war.” By this, Hobbes means that every human being, given the absence of government or a contract between other members of a society, would act in a war-like state in which each man would be motivated by desires derived solely with the intention of maximizing his own utility.

In “The Leviathan” the author Thomas Hobbes argues the point that all men are created equal. Hobbes believes that nature has created every man equally in a sense that even though everyone has different interests and abilities it does not mean that one is better than the other. One man can be a lot more physically strong than another, but when u compare a two men one might be stronger but the other might be smarter (Hobbes, 82). And there is no way to differentiate which is better because the stronger man might be able to accomplish a task through brut force but the smarter man can accomplish the same task buy using the tools around them to succeed. Suppose the stronger

Thomas Hobbes and Niccolò Machiavelli are known to be philosophers whom have helped to develop the views of political power and human nature. Both men had very different views from one another, yet at the same time they did indeed have many similarities. From having opposite views on Political Power, to having alike views on Human Nature, Hobbes and Machiavelli are men whom have shaped political philosophy throughout our time. Through the works of Machiavelli’s, The Prince and Hobbes’ Leviathan their views are clearly portrayed and explained with great depth. These works have helped change the way we see our modern day society.

Having a weak government is the start to a country’s inability to be competitive on the global stage. This can range from issues of trade to matters concerning war. For this reason, I would rather have a government that is too strong as appose to a weak one. In some ways, this may result in a trade of liberty in exchange for safety. While I am not comfortable with that trade off, I would not want to be the worlds target. The other factor that I concern in assessing the two options presented in the question is inner stability. If a government is too weak, their own people will not respect the nations laws. Hobbes speaks to this issue in The Leviathan. He states “where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.”

Hobbes, the author of Leviathan argues that social unity and civil peace are the most important factors for a state and that they will be best achieved by a social contract created by a commonwealth. The ideas presented in Leviathan provide strong arguments about human nature and they seek to answer the epistemological questions of political science. Thomas Hobbes describes the state of nature as being a state of war, and this drives his judgment that an authoritarian government must be created to provide for its citizens the protection they need.

A King ruled with a contract between himself and the people, but once the King became King he could not be overthrown and had absolute power over his kingdom. Hobbes believed that a king without absolute power would not be able to rule his people effectively and the people needed him to have complete power over them. Otherwise they would fall back into their ‘natural state of chaos’. According to his own philosophy, Hobbes believed there was no moral structure or difference to human actions, even against one another. That a man could kill another person, or let them live, two vastly different outcomes, yet doing on over the other would not affect his morals in any way. His thinking was in this way due to his belief in the chaos humans would wreak if left to their own devices. He staunchly believed that humans could and would do anything if there were no laws or structures in place to force them into line. In this respect Hobbes believed government with a strong and absolute leader was paramount to a civilized and fully functioning

This ordering he called the Leviathan. This Leviathan was the social compact necessary to create peace and gain order, comprised of societies of free men who were willing to submit themselves to such an arrangement. This arrangement of free men submitting themselves to the will of the state demanded an absolute. That absolute was the sovereign authority of the ruler.be a power of authority that would enforce the laws to protect individuals from the human nature of others. Failure to comply would result in consequences. The sovereign would control the law, giving onto people what is moral. Hobbes believes that everyone will agree to authority with the fear of the opposite and because it is in their best interest. Therefore, human beings

In Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, Hobbes explores aspects of reason and science and how definitions are a very important aspects to society. He makes some interesting points in regards to how reason can be interpreted differently between every person which can lead to deception. While also illustrating how having a certain elites has the power to make decision for the entirety can be ideal. I think some of Hobbes’s writings ideas would not fit into modern society with our divergent governments and societal structures. Not only this but I do not think that he anticipated how powerful a state could become with an all powerful “judge” that makes all decisions for the state like Hitler did in Germany.

Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes was written in 1651 to publish the political thoughts of Hobbes and promote his negative view to human nature. The story is interesting, because of the fact that even though it was written four hundred years ago, it can still be applied to society today. Leviathan consists of many sections promoting Hobbes’ beliefs, but the section in Perry’s textbook is about the misinterpretation of equality of mankind. Hobbes wrote this to explain to the population the selfishness of humanity and to rid the world of power and corruption. However, Hobbes does not see much of a chance for humanity to actually treat each other equally. Instead, he splits the disagreements of mankind into three categories, “first, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory” (21).

He believed that all miracles in the universe can be explained in terms of motion and interaction. He opposed that the mind was separate from the body and he did not believe in the soul. He didnt see humans as humans, rather as machines, with their thought and emotions operating with physical laws and the chain of action and reaction. He states that humans pursue own self-interest, trying to avoid pain and trying to get pleasure. Hobbes also saw society as a machine, operating on motion and collision laws.

Hobbes believed that Christian doctrine don’t matter and don’t count for anything. He focuses on the ties to the religion of the state and how they can inhibit our decision making. Hobbes believed that it was best to go back to Judaic traditions. On the contrary Hobbes strongly believed that you should follow the religion of the ruler for the benefit of the state, even if they are non Christian.