Thomas Hobbes concludes his great political treatise, Leviathan, by saying that he composed the work "without partiality, without application and with no other design than to place before the eyes of men the mutual relation between protection and obedience, the condition of which of human nature and divine laws… demand inviolable observation. (Conclusion, 17) By viewing Leviathan from the perspective of Hobbes's stated mission, we can better understand why Hobbes takes certain positions, argues certain definitions, and paints such a pessimistic portrait of human nature. By asserting that humanity is naturally apolitical and that the state of nature is not a theoretical educational framework but rather a condition in which man's nature continually places him in danger of falling, Hobbes is able to assert that sovereignty is an artificial construction of authors and authors. actors who simultaneously satisfy man's inclination towards peace without restricting his freedom. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original Essay Hobbes argues that human nature is not conducive to political life and that humans only become political through means artificial. In describing man's motivations for creating republics, Hobbes describes humanity as naturally loving liberty and dominion over others. (XVII, 1) Since conventional conceptions of the Commonwealth involve curtailing certain freedoms of nature, and even Hobbes's very unconventional conception of the Commonwealth involves being under the dominion of another, Hobbes seems to suggest that the natural inclinations of humanity are contrary to the necessities of a republic. To support this point, Hobbes invokes Aristotle's notion of a political animal, which is naturally social and cooperative. He agrees with Aristotle in counting bees and ants among political animals (XVII, 6), but affirms that humans' love for freedom and power prevents them from cooperating without artificial aid: the alliance. Hobbes writes: "A republic is said to be established when a multitude of men agree and undertake, each with each, that any man or any assembly of men shall be granted by the major party the right to present the person of all. (XVIII, 1) Although humanity lives politically, just like bees and ants, “the agreement of these creatures [political animals] is natural; that of men is done only by marriage, which is artificial. (XVII, 12) Because he describes the nature of humanity as contrary to political life, Hobbes must introduce something new to explain why alliances and republics exist. This missing link is the “clairvoyance of their own preservation” (XVII, 1), their ability to recognize that an exit from the state of nature would be beneficial to them. Hobbes argues that his "state of nature", in addition to being a useful lens for examining the benefits of political life, is a manifest condition that exists and has existed in various human societies. Because Hobbes views humans as naturally apolitical, it easily follows that he believes the state of nature is more than just a framework for understanding political society. He reinforces this idea with both scriptural and anthropological evidence. First, he asserts that speech is essential to the Commonwealth, writing: "The noblest and most profitable invention of all others was that of the WORD...without which, there had been among men no Commonwealth , neither society, nor contract, nor peace. .” (IV, 1) Useof the word “invention” is crucial here, because it allows Hobbes to base his argument both on Scripture and on the layman. Although he writes that God was the original author of the word he gave to Adam, Hobbes notes that Genesis only says that God gave Adam the names of the creatures of Eden, not the complicated language necessary to create an alliance. (IV, 1) However, even though God had given Adam enough communication skills to establish a commonwealth, He withdrew them to punish man for his rebellion at Babel, as Hobbes notes in IV, 2. A Reading The layman's term "invention" also implies a period without the language necessary to establish community. a Commonwealth, because it suggests that language did not develop at the same time as humans, but was invented by them. It is unclear whether Hobbes believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible, but regardless of this ambiguity, Hobbes seems to be saying that there have been times in human history when the state of nature must exist, because the language to escape it had not been found. developed. However, Hobbes does not suggest that the development of language excludes the state of nature. Indeed, he refers both to the story of Cain and Abel (F, OL, XIII, 11) and to the savages of America (XIII, 11) to note that linguistic societies can easily be in a state of of nature. Hobbes clearly does not see the state of nature as a thought experiment, but rather as a legitimate threat to civil society. The apolitical nature of humanity places human society at constant risk of deterioration and falling into the state of nature. Hobbes defines “INJUSTICE” as “nothing other than the non-performance of a commitment”. (XV, 2) Hobbes uses this definition to assert that in the state of nature there is no injustice, because there are no pacts. (XIII, 13) Justice is therefore a concept foreign to humanity because it does not exist in the natural state of man. Once again, Hobbes bases his claim on man's incompetence in matters of justice (assuming that he regards justice as something "good", which is a reasonable assumption) in the Jewish myth- Christian. He writes: “After which, having both eaten, [Adam and Eve] actually took upon themselves the office of God, which is the righteousness of good and evil; but has acquired no new ability to distinguish them correctly. (XX, 17) For Hobbes, the consequence of the fall of humanity is that humanity is forced to take responsibility for adjudicating morality, although it has little aptitude for moral thought. He therefore sees the possibility of men committing injustice by violating covenants in republics as likely as Adam and Eve's breaking their covenant with God. He even claims that the most successful ruler will teach his subjects the origin and necessity of his absolute and indivisible power in order to mitigate this risk. (XXX, 3) Hobbes goes to such lengths to demonstrate that political society is not only inhuman, but so inhuman that its perpetuation is tenuous and dependent on the success of the sovereign, to assert that political society is something entirely artificial: a composition of authors and actors. Having given a vision of humanity that excludes natural cooperation, Hobbes uses the author-actor construct to establish the Commonwealth not as a collection of people who must cooperate contrary to their nature, but as a single artificial person called "LEVIATHAN ". He writes: “This great LEVIATHAN called COMMONWEALTH, or STATE (in Latin CIVITAS), is only an artificial man… in which sovereignty is an artificial soul, giving life and movement to the whole body. » (Introduction, 1) The conception of the Commonwealth asperson is permitted by Hobbes' definition of personhood. He explains: “A person is one whose words or actions are regarded either as his own, or as representing the words or actions of another man, or of any other thing to which they are attributed. » (XVI, 1) It is this conception of personality which allows the author-actor conception of the Commonwealth. On an individual scale, citizens of the Commonwealth states still experience some of the residual paranoia of the state of nature, which Hobbes observes in locking doors at night or carrying weapons for protection, and this is inevitable. (XIII, 10) As a society, however, people enter into a civil state by entering into an alliance in which they authorize a sovereign to act on their behalf, (XVI, 4) and this is the author-actor distinction . The perpetrators are the citizens of the Commonwealth, and the actor representing their actions is the Commonwealth itself, which is controlled by the sovereign. It is important to note that this arrangement never involves the sovereign entering into an alliance himself, but rather involves the subjects collectively authorizing him to act as an actor. (XVIII, 4) The author-actor vision of society is so crucial to Hobbes's mission because it allows him to assert that society, although it is built on the mutual transfer of rights (XIV, 7 ), does not restrict human freedom. Defending the author-actor composition of society requires not only that Hobbes refute claims that humans could coexist naturally, but also that he redefine personhood altogether. However, his motivation for doing so is so compelling that Hobbes comfortably makes the necessary philosophical leaps. Hobbes's conception of freedom is mechanistic and not specific to humans. (XXI, 1) In his discussion of liberty and liberty (terms he uses interchangeably (XXI, 1)), he gives a definition of liberty as applied to man. He writes: “A FREE MAN is one who, in the things which he is able to do by his strength and his mind, is not prevented from doing what he has the will to do. » (XXI, 2) There are two important cases in considering the manner in which a citizen of a Commonwealth might exercise his liberty: the case where the law is silent and the case where it is not. First, and more intuitively, Hobbes argues that in areas where the sovereign has not proscribed any rules, the subject has absolute freedom to do as he pleases. (XXI, 18) Where there is no law, or any ability to enforce it, the subjects are in a quasi-state of nature and have as much freedom as those in nature, it is why they close their doors and carry weapons. In cases where the law is not silent, Hobbes uses the author-actor construction to argue that the subject's freedom is still not restricted. Explaining why a subject cannot legitimately punish the sovereign, Hobbes writes: “Whatever [the sovereign] does, it cannot harm any of his subjects… because it is impossible to harm himself… For every subject is the author of the actions of his sovereign, he punishes another for the actions committed by himself. (XVIII, 6-7) Hobbes emphasizes several important points here. Because he views humans as freedom-loving, Hobbes believes that humans would view a restriction of freedom as harmful. Because Hobbes also believes that humans cannot harm each other, they cannot restrict their own freedom, nor can their sovereign, because "each subject is the author of the actions of his sovereign." The end of this quote particularly highlights why the author-actor construction is so beneficial to Hobbes's mission. That..