Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

[-Tab]

What exactly is he trying to say in this book?

I'm actually doing a lot better than I thought I would at comprehending it, but there are still a lot of blank areas.
And I can see some similarities in our government and in his book, but again, there are still some areas that make little to no sense to me.

I understand that no two people will interpret this book in the same way, so I'm a little curious as to what you guys think.

[SpecialBlend2786]

Well from what I understand each book details a seperate part of the philosophy, with the first book outlining the basic framework for the entire text.

That being said, I've only read the first book, outlining the theory of the state of nature (or man's natural state) which is full of fear. This leads to violence, and then to man waging war against man. Because everything sucks when in this state, humans end up naturally seeking out peace and Hobbes says the best way to do this is through social contract, with a commonwealth being ruled by sovereign power.

The Leviathan is the commonwealth. The people/citizens make up the body while the sovereign is it's head. Hobbes says that the Leviathan is the best way to keep teh peace and prevent civil war within the commonwealth.

[slade]

Well from what I understand each book details a seperate part of the philosophy, with the first book outlining the basic framework for the entire text.

That being said, I've only read the first book, outlining the theory of the state of nature (or man's natural state) which is full of fear. This leads to violence, and then to man waging war against man. Because everything sucks when in this state, humans end up naturally seeking out peace and Hobbes says the best way to do this is through social contract, with a commonwealth being ruled by sovereign power.

The Leviathan is the commonwealth. The people/citizens make up the body while the sovereign is it's head. Hobbes says that the Leviathan is the best way to keep teh peace and prevent civil war within the commonwealth.

i thought that the leviathan, "the great leviathan", was the ruler? from what i remember, it was essentially a justification for a king - that the only way to keep peace among men is to have them bound by a common set of rules, a social contract, and to have the ruler exempt from the contract. hobbes has a general distaste for men. later philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau supported the idea of democracy. (not our "democracy", Rousseau would hate America)

correct me if im wrong. i read Locke and Rousseau, but have only heard talk of Hobbes' general ideas.

[SpecialBlend2786]

i thought that the leviathan, "the great leviathan", was the ruler? from what i remember, it was essentially a justification for a king - that the only way to keep peace among men is to have them bound by a common set of rules, a social contract, and to have the ruler exempt from the contract. hobbes has a general distaste for men. later philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau supported the idea of democracy. (not our "democracy", Rousseau would hate America)

correct me if im wrong. i read Locke and Rousseau, but have only heard talk of Hobbes' general ideas.

Kind of yeah. You're right where it justifies the king. The system wont work without a king just like the creature can't live or function without it's head. Yet the head is allowed to move freely when compared to the body. At least that's what I got from it. I could be wrong though, it's been awhile.

Rousseau actually seems to support an idealogy of man's natural state that is similar to Hobbes in some ways, but more refined, including themes such as sympathy and whatnot.

And yeah, our democracy is completely different then the system that they supported.

More people need to post in this thread lol.

[slade]

Kind of yeah. You're right where it justifies the king. The system wont work without a king just like the creature can't live or function without it's head. Yet the head is allowed to move freely when compared to the body. At least that's what I got from it. I could be wrong though, it's been awhile.

Rousseau actually seems to support an idealogy of man's natural state that is similar to Hobbes in some ways, but more refined, including themes such as sympathy and whatnot.

And yeah, our democracy is completely different then the system that they supported.

More people need to post in this thread lol.

no one cares about philosophy