Scan barcode
A review by carise
Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes
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 His political ideas derive from vapid and outdated assumptions.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.