Leviathan (1651)

libraryofbabel 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

herodoturtle 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

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!

▲

simonebrunozzi 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

▲

urikaduri 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 :)

	▲	roenxi 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

ycombinete 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

jemmyw 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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?

▲

ben30 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

z3phyr 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

libraryofbabel 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

	▲	kruffalon 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Such elegance, or snobbery or at least some kind of beauty... Using "&" literally in 2026 smells of wonder, well done, thanks! Do you do it sometimes in regular English words too or just in &c? Please give more examples (if you have any). This will be a great day, starting of like this: a written play with words; i like it!

▲

wahnfrieden 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Read Graeber & Wengrow

▲

PowerElectronix 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wouldn't it make more sense to want less government and more freedom if one doesn't trust people?

	▲	pnut 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		If you don't trust individuals, you're going to need an institution (or private security) to protect you from them. Police, laws, etc.

▲

awestroke 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Like "most of us"? America is uniquely anti-regulation

	▲	libraryofbabel 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

mrwh 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nature it selfe cannot erre: and as men abound in copiousnesse of language; so they become more wise, or more mad than ordinary

▲

vivzkestrel 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

- 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?

▲

riffraff 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

	▲	kruffalon 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> 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 :)

▲

cess11 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.