A Not so Monstrous Leviathan

Caverly |1 A Not-So Monstrous Leviathan Paper submitted to COCIGS1101_059_3, Contemporary Western Civilization I, fall 2020, Columbia University, by Matthew M. Caverly  Caverly |2 A Not-So Monstrous Leviathan In this essay, I will examine Thomas Hobbes’ view on human nature. Looking within the Leviathan, I will ascertain as to whether or not Hobbes view was consistent with the principles of optimism or pessimism? The dominant view of Hobbes is that he was pessimistic in his attitudes toward the potential of the human condition (The School of Life, “Thomas Hobbes”). This general picture of Hobbes is one that is painted with a rather wide brush. Such efforts, obscure more than they shine light upon the nuances of this complex political philosopher’s importance. In this work, I will challenge the above perceived wisdom that ascribes a persistent pessimism to Hobbes’ views. In particular, I will present the thesis that, Hobbes was an optimist regarding human nature. To many, Hobbes was a perennial pessimist who saw little redeeming virtue within humanity. Under the aegis of this analysis, virtually all of the central aspects of Hobbes’ political theory can be summed up in the much overused phrase, “the state of nature.” This natural condition of mankind, before the ordering principles of civilization, is deemed by Hobbes to be a dystopian landscape. Such a place of absolute equality among men will devolve inevitably into an abyss wherein the human condition is reduced to being, “…worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, Leviathan, 84; 1.13.9). Furthermore, the fault for this outcome lies with us. The state of nature is claimed by Hobbes to be one of equality because it is antecedent to property and justice (c.f., Hobbes, 85; 1.13.13). In the lack of property and justice, there is an inevitable death spiral to chaos and war. In other words, we need Order to set ourselves on the right path, to avoid what Hobbes calls, “…a war, as is of every man, against every man” (Hobbes, 84; 1.13.8). This comes from an assumption that Hobbes views the nature of mankind pessimistically. And, that the  Caverly |3 intent of his political theory is to move us towards our better angels through a strict attention to order, as in the creation of the Leviathan. This absolutist state that will dominate us and ensure proper maintenance of civility. For as James Madison detailed in Federalist No. 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary” (Madison, Federalist Papers, 318). In contradistinction, what the Leviathan really does is to serve as a means to attaining a very particular and normative ends—human flourishing. The general line of my argument will look like this; first, I will challenge the notion of Hobbes as a human nature pessimist by re- examining the “state of nature.” Next, I present evidence articulating a more optimistic view of that same state of nature through an examination of Hobbes’ idea of the “state of war.” Then, I conclude with a turn to the role that virtues actually play in the Leviathan. This final assessment will bring Hobbes into an alternative more optimistic light that sees him complete the Aristotelian notion of human flourishing. An effort Hobbes accomplishes by providing an effective structural instrumentation—the Commonwealth. By the State of (Un)-Nature Again, the conventional view of Hobbes is one of pronounced and even unforgiving pessimism relative to the human condition. However, this proves on closer inspection to be shortsighted. The state of nature is actually a bit ambiguous to Hobbes. Many are tempted to jump immediately to the whole, “nasty, short, and brutish” line without contextualizing the entire stream of thought. Hobbes’ argument for something called, “a state of nature” might be more hyperbole than anything else. For as he discusses the indigenous within America he seems to accept that they are not in some brutishly short condition (Hobbes, Leviathan, 85; 1.13.11). In fact, his criticism of the American Indian amounts to a recognition that they exist in a non- civilized state, not a war-state. (85; 1.13.11). His idea that they, “live at this day in that brutish  Caverly |4 manner,” does not actually indicate that these peoples are in a perpetual state of war (85; 1.13.11). Being that, as Hobbes is careful to admit, they have the, “government of small families” (85; 1.13.11). What is important to recognize about this passage is what comes next. For Hobbes, the benefit of “concord” lies in its ability to allow for the flowering of civilization. This notion is captured in his phrasing, “Howsoever, it may be perceived what manner of life there would be…” (85; 1.13.11). Just after that, Hobbes comes close to admitting that the state of nature is more metaphysical than physical, in that, he asserts, “But though there had never been any time, wherein, particular men were in a condition of war one against another…” (85; 1.13.12). Even earlier, Hobbes contends that, “It may peradventure be thought there was never such a time nor condition of war as this and I believe it was never generally so…” (85; 1.13.11). So then, what role does the “state of nature” actually play in Hobbes’ philosophical thought? It is, in fact, a metaphor to compare against in his repeated calls for bringing order out of chaos. The metaphor’s basis is in Hobbes’ lived-experience of the English Civil War, wherein he witnessed the breakdown of civil society and its knock-on consequences for the body-politic (The School of Life, “Thomas Hobbes). But, even within the theoretical structure—the state of nature—there is a very real politics. And, it is a politics of underlying virtue captured in the, then, uniquely Hobbesian interpretations of liberality and freedom. The state of nature is a state of absolute physical and psychological equality (c.f., Hobbes, Leviathan, 82; 1.13.1-2). While this condition will bring about conflict it is also the basis for human flourishing. Human flourishing, living the best most virtuous life, promoting Individual Happiness and a Collective Good, is a profound goal of ethics. It is one that was particularly promoted within Aristotle’s, Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle had claimed that ethics amounted to a pursuit of a certain end— the Good (Aristotle, Niccomachean Ethics, I. 1).  Caverly |5 Returning to Hobbes, his larger philosophy and science suggests that restrictions placed on one being able to do, “as they will” is the real limitation on freedom (Hobbes Leviathan 86; 14.2). This has to do with Hobbes’ “medicalization” of politics as a result of his larger notions about the role that “motion” plays in determining conditions of being for sentients and other animals. Thus, the state of nature is actually wrapped up in a larger view of the political as an “Artificial Man” (7; introduction. 1). The problems or “impediments” as Hobbes details them to the promise of human nature arise out of the self-interested pursuit of power in an unregulated fashion. But, Hobbes views power as, “his present means, to obtain some future apparent good” (58, 1.10.1). It is the lack of order, not human frailty, which makes the natural state, an otherwise positive place, a state of nature with all of its Hobbesian dystopia. And, the most profound “appearance” of such is in what Hobbes coins, “the state of war” (84; 1.13.8). The War to Start All Wars In the Leviathan, the “state of war,” under the conventional interpretation arises naturally out of the previously alluded to pursuit of power (Hobbes, Leviathan 83; 1.13.3-4). Under this view, we as individuals attempt to perfect ourselves. And in that effort, conflict (i.e., diffidence in Hobbes’ terminology) produces the inevitable war, “…of every man, against every man” (84; 1.13.8). Furthermore, the war so produced is one of perpetual threat emplacing an ongoing security dilemma on the body politic. This is proclaimed by Hobbes, “For war, consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time, is to be considered in the nature of war…” (84; 1.13.8).1 1 The word time is italicized in the original in order to showcase its ongoing, longterm nature. I have kept that italicization in order to ensure that the reader gets the full meaning of Hobbes’ notion of an eternal struggle within the state of war.  Caverly |6 In the previous paragraph, I re-mentioned the idea of a body politic (in that case, regarding the security dilemma). But, the body-politic is more than just a metaphor for Hobbes, it is a political state of being. This fits his larger views on the role of a materialist conception of the human condition. A condition he details with his marrying of metaphysics and epistemology in the first several chapters of the text (c.f., Gaskin, xviii and Hobbes, Leviathan 56-57; 1.9.3, table). In the editorial introduction, Gaskin argues, “In short, it was to be an account of ‘body natural’ leading to an account of what in The Elements he calls ‘body politics’ or, more famously to an account of the ‘artificial man’ which is Leviathan” (xviii).2 Much is made of war and the threat of war as the immediate cause of the need for establishing government. However, this is not the real focus of the Leviathan. The state of war is presented as a disease against the body politics, it is an impediment to liberality and freedom. And, it is a prevention from attaining greater human social, economic, cultural, and political development. Hobbes summarizes this view with idea that the war is, incommodious to the furthering of human potential (Hobbes, Leviathan, 84, 1.13.9). He claims that it restricts commerce, deadens invention, weakens intellectuality, and prevents sociality (84; 1.13.9). Thus, the disease must be cured and its tendencies towards enfeebling the human conditioned checked. Therefore, the instrument, the prescription given by this doctor-philosopher, is the State. More specifically, the State or what Hobbes more routinely refers to as “the Commonwealth” is imbued with the power to hold our lesser demons in check. Which will allow for the rise of our greater angels. This conception of power is actually a combination of natural and instrumental elements. For as Hobbes exclaims, “The greatest of human powers, is that which is compounded of the powers of most men, united by consent, in one person, natural, or 2 The “he” referred to in this quote is Thomas Hobbes. The italicized is, is found in the original text where it is used for emphasis and hence is kept within my essay to underscore its importance.  Caverly |7 civil, that has the use of all their powers depending on his will, such as is the power of a commonwealth…” (Hobbes, Leviathan, 58; 1.10.3). In sum, the state of war is a result of inaction by humanity. The adoption of social and collective responsibility, in the form of the Commonwealth, is the way for us to reach our very perfectible conditions. It is something to be overcome by utilizing our individual and collective power. More than that, the human flourishing thus enabled by clearing the obstacle of the state of war is the actual intent of the Leviathan. All of this shows Hobbes’ fundamental concern with self-ennobling, as a necessary effort to attain the virtuous outcome. Rather, than being a pessimist on the question of human nature; Hobbes is an unrestrained optimist. To Virtue and Beyond Taking from the above, Hobbes finds human fulfillment within the virtues. His work is teleological in this respect. For, he claims; “Of all discourse, governed by desire of knowledge, there is at least an end, either by attaining, or by giving over. And in the chain of discourse, wheresoever it be interrupted, there is an end for that time” (Hobbes, Leviathan, 42; 1.7.1).3 Further, Hobbes contextualizes the discourse for knowledge as resulting in, among other things, belief. For he states, “But by believing in… is meant, not trust in the person; but confession and acknowledgement of the doctrine” (44; 1.7.6).4 Secularly, Hobbes is applying this to the role that the virtues play in unifying mankind to the pursuit of better ends. Hobbes, spends a great deal of time discussing virtues as opposed to vices. He does this to present the case that man is a being capable of judgement as to what is right and wrong. This is the result of reaching the ends of knowledge. For instance, Hobbes clearly states his view on this matter in the following statement, “…, the judgement must be eminent; because the goodness consisteth, in the method, 3 Discourse is italicized for emphasis in the original text. I have maintained that in this essay. 4 The phrase, believing in, is italicized for emphasis in the original text. I have maintained that in this essay.  Caverly |8 in the truth, and in the choice of the actions that are most profitable to be known” (46; 1.8.5). In other words, to produce the “commodious environment” for societal improvement; one must first have the potential to produce the good and virtuous man. A man capable of discerning the ultimate positive ends of the human condition—a man of judgement. But, to have men of judgement; you must accept that the perfectible is possible. You must have a view of human nature that is optimistic. This is why the so-called “Leviathan” is usually referred to as a “Commonwealth.” The Commonwealth exists, not merely for “bringing order out of chaos;” rather, it is an instrument for the positive employment of power. One in which, power had purpose—that purpose being the perfectibility of the human condition (c.f., Hobbes, Leviathan, 86; 1.13.14). For Hobbes states, “The passions that incline men to peace, are fear of deaths; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them” (86; 1.13.14). The above statement can be interpreted as a means to an end. The resolution of the security dilemma is the means by which human flourishing can be enacted. To Conclude This essay has argued that Hobbes was, in fact, an optimist relative to the potential of the human condition. The State of Nature is better seen as a place of equality which breeds the potential for human perfectibility. The State of War is an impedimentary obstacle that must be overcome with a not-so monstrous leviathan; better thought of as a commonwealth. And, once done, the potential for virtuous thought and action is opened, maintained, and expanded upon through “commodious living.” In closing, I ask the reader to reflect upon this interpretation of the Leviathan. As such, it will cause some rehabilitation in our thoughts about Hobbes’ politics.  Caverly |9 And, provide us an avenue for rethinking the concept of the State as an instrument for virtue in our daily lives.  C a v e r l y | 10 Works Cited Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Tr. Ross, D & Ed. Brown, L., Oxford World Classics, Oxford, UK: OUP, 2009. Hobbes, T. Leviathan, Ed. & Introduction, Gaskin, J.C.A., Oxford World Classics. Oxford, UK: OUP, 1996. Madison, J. “Federalist No. 51,” The Federalist Papers, New York: Cosimo Classics. The School of Life, “Thomas Hobbes,” YouTube video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i4jb5XBX5s, accessed on 24 November 2020.