On Locke Book

Since some reviewers here seem to rate this work unfairly low because of their disagreements, ignoring both the importance of Leviathan and the basic power of the argument Hobbes forwards in it, I'll refer a couple of good, measured reviews with history and backdrop also found here-






Originally I planned to adapt an essay I wrote at university on Hobbes and Leviathan (with comparisons against Locke, Rousseau and others) to serve as a review, but it's rather unwieldy and a few of its less esoteric and elaborate points have been made very well and succinctly in some of the accounts above.

Hobbes is the most influential figure in political thinking when it comes to what might broadly be called 'pessimistic philosophy' (contra Leibniz), and in this sense he makes an excellent, more formal and treatise-like accompaniment to the works of Voltaire (whose 'philosophical tales' especially are, beyond the characteristic wit on display, also immensely enjoyable; Kafka, and to certain more personal extent Beckett, are also commendable reads). He doesn't so much set out a modus operandi for a ruler as the Arthshastra or The Prince attempt to do, but tries to justify the power to be accorded a ruler, basically obliterating some of the more open concerns a statesman might have to tactically contend with in Machiavelli. But it may be that of all of Leviathan's contributions, the eponymous Leviathan in the sense of an absolute monarch is the superfluous part.
Given its age, the language of Leviathan is remarkably clear and precise, emphatic as necessary and quite accessible. Hobbes sets out his arguments with almost mathematical proof-like care however, and the book may require patience. I had lecture notes to guide me through when I first read important selections, and perhaps something of that nature will be helpful.

I more recently found it a fascinating exercise to study the thought of this 'school' (roughly speaking) in the context of modern evolutionary thinking as found in very accessible but also rigorous accounts like The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.
Of course, just as science with its empirical concerns does not prescribe but might inform efficient and effective methods for achieving an aim, the pessimists are not prescriptive- they simply caution in the way dystopia in fiction doesn't provide constructive commentary as utopia does, but serve (when done right, in the manner of Orwell for instance) as elaborate warning tales. It is wrong to think of them, especially Hobbes, as social Darwinists. There is willful misinterpretation on nearly every side of modern politics when it comes to philosophers like Hobbes so that arguments which come from the pedestrian self-help-esque philosophy of the likes of Ayn Rand or readings that miss the outré humour of de Sade can be cloaked in the appearance of erudition and thus made less incendiary when shamelessly carted out. This propensity is far from lessened by the argument in Leviathan for monarchy and the easy clamour citing this gains from those blinded and made to follow complacently by the very term 'democracy', whether true in fact or not.

It is perfectly fair to say that Hobbes, with interests very relevant to him personally in his day, fails to give due consideration to other forms of governance than the one he advocates, but this shortcoming does not invalidate or at all detract from the conundrum he poses about trust within his 'state of nature', or the dangers of it. The situation is akin to the Prisoner's Dilemma from game theory and there is the question of what's rational for the society on the whole against what is rational for the individual at each decision. The implications from biology of trust-favouring behaviours and the evolutionarily stable equilibria which may come about through such strategies further elucidate our notions on the human condition when considered alongside the basic problem.