Review of Leviathan

aenesidemus

Jun 03, 2025

A lot of shit has been given to Hobbes, somewhat unfairly. One person I know describes Leviathan as an argument for "Christian authoritarianism," which I find funny. It's a common thing that happens to conflate what an author thinks the actual world is with what the author thinks the best world is. I believe he wouldn't have argued for a monarchy if he thought there was a way to keep democracy stable. The early modern political philosophers are best thought of in terms of the basic principles of human interaction they assume, and those are usually derived from their study of history. Hobbes' favorite was Thucydides; and the latter's pessimism is seen often in the former. Comparing Machiavelli with Livy, Spinoza with Tacitus, Rousseau with Plutarch, Locke with Ezra, one begins to see how different readings of history so deeply penetrate into the political thought that arises from the study of them. To be honest, I do not have a grasp on the rational-animal era of political philosophy up to my normal standards of satisfaction.

One of the most interesting parts of the book is the beginning, which is essentially a proto-empiricist epistemology. This and his objection to Descartes were not things I expected to discover in my readings. His non-political philosophy is a bit overlooked, it seems.

Being a major part of the canon means most philosophers will have an acquaintance with this book. For some, I would say it is worth returning to in a greater depth. His arguments are very easy for one to reject, and that ease often ends up making a book harder to truly understand. I would recommend a solid understanding of classical and biblical history before reading this - by no means required, you can comprehend this book without it, but such an understanding is fundamental to putting all Enlightenment philosophy, and to an extent global culture in general, in the right context.

A M+1

1 comment

⌘ Enter to post

pharmakos9 months ago

Hobbes was another one of those lacunae in my eductation when I was in college. I think it was glossed over in my modern philosophy survey, and lost in the shuffle for an Age of Enlightenment history course. I pretty much only knew the "nasty, brutish, and short" jist. I started reading this earlier in the year and have yet to finish it, but I was surprised myself at the amount of empiricism in it.