Scan barcode
luvterature's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
2.25
My mind is in shambles. It's like being thrown into the deep end of the philosophical ocean when you dive into Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes takes us on a wild ride through the chaos of human nature, the necessity of government, and why we all need a "Leviathan" to keep society from breaking up.
The language can feel a little like riding through molasses, at first glance. Hobbes' 17th century prose is dense and can be a real workout for the brain. But stick with it, because once you get to the flow of things, watching him construct his arguments is fascinating. In essence, his painting of human beings is very bleak. Life is "solitary, poor, ugly, brutish and short" in the famous state of nature. We're all just one step away from chaos and war without a strong leader, argues Hobbes.
His concept of the social contract—the idea that people give up some freedoms to a sovereign in exchange for security—is a cornerstone of modern legal systems. It's as if he lays down a plan for why we've got laws and governments in the first place.
But it's important to note that Hobbes isn't exactly a simple read. In order to comprehend his point, you're going to need to take it slow, perhaps even reread certain sections. These ideas are profound and they can provoke a deep reflection on the meaning of life in society. And don't be surprised when you're both agreeing and disagreeing with Hobbes as you go. His vision of humanity is so cynical, it feels as if he means we're all little civilized animals that are controlled by the fear of being punished.
The fact that Leviathan still feels relevant is one of the coolest things about it. Although Hobbes wrote it more than 350 years ago, its questions about power, authority and the role of state remain very relevant today. This book is a must read for anyone who loves political science, law or just wants to understand why there are governments.
The cornerstone of political philosophy is undoubtedly Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, but it's not without its flaws. The Hobbesian view of human nature is utterly cruel, almost to the point where we feel like being in a single dimension. He paints a picture of humanity that is so grim and selfserving that it is hard not to feel that he has overlooked the more sympathetic and cooperative aspects of our nature. In addition, the dense, archaic text can be a real slog, which makes it hard to keep up with it. While his arguments are powerful, they can sometimes feel more rooted in fear than a balanced understanding of what it means to be human. Personally, I find myself agreeing more with Rosseau's view on the more compassionate nature of human beings.
So, you're supposed to read Leviathan, yes, but you're supposed to be in the right frame of mind. It's not a casual read, it's a mental marathon. But if you stick with it, you will be able to get a better understanding of the forces that shape our world.
The language can feel a little like riding through molasses, at first glance. Hobbes' 17th century prose is dense and can be a real workout for the brain. But stick with it, because once you get to the flow of things, watching him construct his arguments is fascinating. In essence, his painting of human beings is very bleak. Life is "solitary, poor, ugly, brutish and short" in the famous state of nature. We're all just one step away from chaos and war without a strong leader, argues Hobbes.
His concept of the social contract—the idea that people give up some freedoms to a sovereign in exchange for security—is a cornerstone of modern legal systems. It's as if he lays down a plan for why we've got laws and governments in the first place.
But it's important to note that Hobbes isn't exactly a simple read. In order to comprehend his point, you're going to need to take it slow, perhaps even reread certain sections. These ideas are profound and they can provoke a deep reflection on the meaning of life in society. And don't be surprised when you're both agreeing and disagreeing with Hobbes as you go. His vision of humanity is so cynical, it feels as if he means we're all little civilized animals that are controlled by the fear of being punished.
The fact that Leviathan still feels relevant is one of the coolest things about it. Although Hobbes wrote it more than 350 years ago, its questions about power, authority and the role of state remain very relevant today. This book is a must read for anyone who loves political science, law or just wants to understand why there are governments.
The cornerstone of political philosophy is undoubtedly Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, but it's not without its flaws. The Hobbesian view of human nature is utterly cruel, almost to the point where we feel like being in a single dimension. He paints a picture of humanity that is so grim and selfserving that it is hard not to feel that he has overlooked the more sympathetic and cooperative aspects of our nature. In addition, the dense, archaic text can be a real slog, which makes it hard to keep up with it. While his arguments are powerful, they can sometimes feel more rooted in fear than a balanced understanding of what it means to be human. Personally, I find myself agreeing more with Rosseau's view on the more compassionate nature of human beings.
So, you're supposed to read Leviathan, yes, but you're supposed to be in the right frame of mind. It's not a casual read, it's a mental marathon. But if you stick with it, you will be able to get a better understanding of the forces that shape our world.
balyeska's review against another edition
well…i’m reading my lecturer’s second book for my finals so
carise's review against another edition
1.0
I didn’t consider this rating lightly; this is the worst review I’ve given to a classic philosophical work. There are a number of reasons for this: two stars would be a book I largely disagreed with or found dull, but can still appreciate its influence. This book didn’t even deliver that. It’s riddled with contentious and blatantly wrong assertions, with either little or flawed argumentation.
Despite its reputation and influence, there was nothing radical about Christian theocracy in the 1600’s. Where Hobbes is correct, he is just parroting Plato, Aristotle, or Aquinas. Where he is wrong, he isn’t proposing anything new. A view that I disagreed with, but could entertain, would be Hobbes’ appeals to Human Nature, which were shared with other philosophers of his time who I favour more, but like most classic bourgeois philosophers, Hobbes mistakes ‘human nature’ for struggles borne of contemporary material conditions.
On the other hand, there are arguments that border on disingenuous. For example, a “prime mover”, taken for granted straight from centuries of Christian tradition. Hobbes’ discomfort with an infinite regress of causes leads him not only to conclude that there must be a first cause, but that such a cause must be ‘god’ and contain, conveniently, all the qualities of the Christian god. He provides no argument and no demonstration of necessity for this. His political ideas derive from vapid and outdated assumptions. But it is also unsurprising that his theological views would inform his political views; at the end of the day, this reasoning has led the majority of the Western canon to accept theories of authority, wealth inequality, and carcerality that have only ever proven disastrous for society.
There may be certain details in this work that were ‘new’ for its time, but ultimately, I’m more interested in whether arguments are made well than whether they were impressive to people at the time, or Western liberals today – neither of which are high standards for radical political thought.
Despite its reputation and influence, there was nothing radical about Christian theocracy in the 1600’s. Where Hobbes is correct, he is just parroting Plato, Aristotle, or Aquinas. Where he is wrong, he isn’t proposing anything new. A view that I disagreed with, but could entertain, would be Hobbes’ appeals to Human Nature, which were shared with other philosophers of his time who I favour more, but like most classic bourgeois philosophers, Hobbes mistakes ‘human nature’ for struggles borne of contemporary material conditions.
On the other hand, there are arguments that border on disingenuous. For example, a “prime mover”, taken for granted straight from centuries of Christian tradition. Hobbes’ discomfort with an infinite regress of causes leads him not only to conclude that there must be a first cause, but that such a cause must be ‘god’ and contain, conveniently, all the qualities of the Christian god. He provides no argument and no demonstration of necessity for this. His political ideas derive from vapid and outdated assumptions. But it is also unsurprising that his theological views would inform his political views; at the end of the day, this reasoning has led the majority of the Western canon to accept theories of authority, wealth inequality, and carcerality that have only ever proven disastrous for society.
There may be certain details in this work that were ‘new’ for its time, but ultimately, I’m more interested in whether arguments are made well than whether they were impressive to people at the time, or Western liberals today – neither of which are high standards for radical political thought.
witchtash's review against another edition
3.0
At first, I didn't like this. I was practically falling asleep while reading. But by the end, I got it, and even enjoyed some chapters.
antonio213's review against another edition
challenging
dark
funny
informative
reflective
slow-paced
5.0