Thomas Hobbes concludes his great treatise on politics, Leviathan, by saying that he composed the work "without partiality, without application, and with no other object than to lay before the eyes of men the mutual relation of protection and obedience, of which the condition of human nature and the divine laws... require inviolable observation". (Conclusion, 17) By considering Leviathan in light of Hobbes's stated mission, one can better understand why Hobbes takes certain positions, advocates certain definitions, and paints such a pessimistic portrait of human nature. By arguing that humanity is naturally apolitical and that the state of nature is not a theoretical pedagogical framework but rather a condition in which man's nature continually places him at risk of decay, Hobbes is able to argue that sovereignty is a artificial construction of authors and authors. actors who at the same time satisfy man's inclination towards peace without limiting his freedom. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay Hobbes argues that human nature is not conducive to political life and that humans become political only through artificial means. In describing man's motivations for creating communities, Hobbes describes humanity as one that naturally loves freedom and dominion over others. (XVII, 1) Given that conventional conceptions of the commonwealth involve the limitation of some liberties of nature, and that even Hobbes's very unconventional conception of the commonwealth involves being under the dominion of another, Hobbes seems to suggest that the inclinations natural features of humanity are contrary to the need for community. To support this point, Hobbes invokes the Aristotelian notion of the political animal, which is naturally social and cooperative. He agrees with Aristotle in counting bees and ants among the political animals (XVII, 6), but maintains that the love of freedom and power prevents them from cooperating without artificial help: the alliance. Hobbes writes: “A state is said to be established when a multitude of men agree and make a covenant, each with each, that to any man, or assembly of men, shall be given by the majority the right of presenting the person of them all ”. (XVIII, 1) Although mankind lives politically, just as bees and ants do, “the agreement of these creatures [political animals] is natural; that of men occurs only through a pact, 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 covenants and communities exist. This missing link is the "providence of one's own preservation" (XVII, 1), the ability of men to recognize that leaving the state of nature could benefit 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. Since Hobbes sees human beings as naturally apolitical, it easily follows that he believes that the state of nature is more than just a framework for understanding political society. He reinforces this idea through both scriptural and anthropological evidence. First, he states that the word is essential for the state, writing: “The most noble and profitable invention of all the others was that of the WORD… without which, among men there would have been neither state nor society , no contract, no peace. .” (IV, 1) The use of the word “invention” is crucial here, as it allows Hobbes to simultaneously ground his argument on the planescriptural and secular. Although he writes that God was the initial author of the speech he gave to Adam, Hobbes notes that Genesis says only that God gave Adam the names of the creatures of Eden, not the complicated language needed to create a covenant. (IV, 1) However, even if God had given Adam sufficient communication skills to establish a community, He took them away to punish man for his rebellion at Babel, as Hobbes notes in IV, 2. A secular reading of the word " invention" also implies a period without the language needed to establish a commonwealth, as 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 despite this ambiguity, it appears that Hobbes is saying that there have been times in human history when the state of nature must have existed, because the language to escape it had not been available. developed. However, Hobbes does not suggest that the development of language precludes the state of nature. Indeed, he refers to both the story of Cain and Abel (F, OL, XIII, 11) and the savages of America (XIII, 11) to note that linguistic societies can easily find themselves in a state 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 in constant danger of deteriorating into the state of nature. Hobbes defines “INJUSTICE” as “nothing but the failure to fulfill a covenant.” (XV, 2) Hobbes uses this definition to argue that in the state of nature there is no injustice, because there are no agreements. (XIII, 13) Justice, therefore, is a concept foreign to humanity because it does not exist in the natural state of man. Once again, Hobbes bases his claim about man's incompetence in matters of justice (assuming he sees justice as something “good,” which is a reasonable assumption) on the Judeo-Christian myth. He writes: “After they had both eaten, [Adam and Eve] actually assumed the office of God, which is the judgment of good and evil; but I have not gained any new ability to distinguish them correctly. (XX, 17) For Hobbes, the consequence of humanity's fall is that humanity is forced to take on the responsibility of arbitrating morality, despite having little aptitude for moral thought. He therefore sees the possibility of men committing injustices by violating covenants in states as likely as Adam and Eve breaking their covenant with God. He even states that the most successful ruler will teach his subjects the origin and necessity of his absolute and indivisible power to mitigate this risk. (XXX, 3) Hobbes goes to great lengths to demonstrate that political society is not only inhuman, but is so inhuman that its perpetuation is tenuous and dependent on the success of the sovereign, in order to argue that political society is something entirely artificial : a composition of authors and actors. Having provided a description of humanity that precludes natural cooperation, Hobbes uses the author-actor construction to establish the community not as a collection of people who must cooperate contrary to their nature, but as a single artificial person called “the LEVIATHAN.” . He writes, “That great LEVIATHAN called COMMONWEALTH, or STATE (Latin CIVITAS), is but an artificial man… wherein the sovereignty is an artificial soul, for it gives life and motion to the whole body.” (Introduction, 1) The conception of the community as a person is permitted by Hobbes's definition of personality. He explains: "A person is one whose words or actions are regarded as his own, or as representing the words or actions of another man, or of any otherthing to which they are attributed." (XVI, 1) It is this conception of personality that allows for the author-actor conception of community. On an individual scale, citizens of states still experience some of the residual paranoia of the state of nature, which Hobbes observes in closing 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 a pact in which they authorize a sovereign to act on their behalf, (XVI). , 4) and this is the author-actor distinction. The authors are the people of the community, and the actor representing their actions is the community itself, which is controlled by the sovereign the sovereign enters into a pact himself, but instead involves the subjects who collectively authorize him to act as their actor (XVIII, 4) The vision of the author-actor society is so crucial to Hobbes's mission because it allows him to argue that the society, although it is built on the mutual transfer of rights (XIV, 7), does not limit man's freedom. Defending the composition of society between author and actor not only requires that Hobbes refute the claim that human beings could coexist naturally, but also requires that he totally redefine personhood. However, his motivation for doing so is so compelling that Hobbes calmly takes the necessary philosophical steps. Hobbes's conception of freedom is mechanistic and not specific to humans. (XXI, 1) In his discussion of liberty and freedom (terms he uses interchangeably (XXI, 1)), he provides a definition of freedom as applied to man. He writes: "A FREE MAN is he who in those things that with his strength and his ingenuity is unable to do what he wants to do." (XXI, 2) There are two important cases for considering how a citizen of a state might exercise his freedom: the case in which the law is silent and the case in which it is not. First, and most intuitively, Hobbes argues that in areas where the sovereign has not proscribed any rules, the subject has absolute freedom to do as he wishes. (XXI, 18) Where there is no law, nor ability to enforce it, subjects are in a quasi-state of nature and have the same freedom as those in nature, which is why they lock 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 not yet limited. Explaining why a subject cannot legitimately punish the sovereign, Hobbes writes: “Whatever [the sovereign] does, it can be no harm to any of his subjects…for to do harm to oneself is impossible…For to see every subject is the author of the actions of his sovereign, punishes another for the actions committed by himself (XVIII, 6-7) Hobbes emphasizes multiple important points here. Since he sees human beings as lovers of freedom, Hobbes believes that humans would consider a restriction of freedom harmful. Since Hobbes also believes that humans cannot hurt themselves, they cannot limit their own freedom, nor can their sovereign, since “every subject is the author of the actions of his sovereign.” The end of this quote, in particular, highlights why the author-actor construction is so advantageous to Hobbes' mission. This allows Hobbes to assert that the freedom of a subject is similar to that of the sovereign, whose freedom is nearly infinite. , for he is not bound by any covenant. If, for example, the sovereign issued a law requiring the wearing of hats, Hobbes would say that those subject to this law would still be “free men,” because they impose this restriction on themselves. If a particular individual ever changed their mind about hats, they could still choose not to wear one, because.