Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leviathan (1651)

gutenberg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#21

Post by cess11 »

vivzkestrel wrote: post #7

- I have no idea what I am supposed to take from this book or what this book is about - the OP has not put even 2 lines explaining what, where, why, how, when etc - Anyone mind explaining what this book is about?

One might consider it the magnum opus of Thomas Hobbes, a pioneering political thinker who had a massive influence on both conservatism and liberalism. For conservatives his arguments on human nature that conclude that we are inherently brutish and violent and cannot be allowed to rule ourselves are very attractive. He proposed an early social contract theory as a solution, which liberalists have found very attractive.

Hobbes was an intellectual on the right, which is a rather uncommon subject here. He was rather well versed in the science and scholastic methods of his time, and took pains to try and think his views through and make good arguments. This is more than you could say about, say, Rand or Mises, thinkers under the same umbrella who loathed intellectuals.

Now the right is plaguing us with crypto- and outright fascists who don't actually know anything, don't want to know anything, and especially don't want us to know anything. E.g. this recent interview with Marc Andreessen, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBVe3M2g_SA&t=56s , who, with unbridled confidence, makes the claim that original sin was invented by Freud in the 1920s and that no "great men" of history wasted time on introspection and self reflection.

I might be an enemy of the right, but Hobbes I can respect and enjoy reading.

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#22

Post by pnut »

PowerElectronix wrote: post #19
libraryofbabel wrote: post #3

As an ex historian I love how this famous 350yo work of political philosophy is just sitting at #7 on HN with absolutely no context on why it was submitted. The great debate of political philosophy coming out of the 17th century was between Hobbes (anarchy is horrible, humans aren’t nice to each other, best to give up your freedoms to a strong sovereign/state for protection) and Locke (liberty is best, people are rea…

Wouldn't it make more sense to want less government and more freedom if one doesn't trust people?

If you don't trust individuals, you're going to need an institution (or private security) to protect you from them. Police, laws, etc.

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#23

Post by herodoturtle »

libraryofbabel wrote: post #3

As an ex historian I love how this famous 350yo work of political philosophy is just sitting at #7 on HN with absolutely no context on why it was submitted. The great debate of political philosophy coming out of the 17th century was between Hobbes (anarchy is horrible, humans aren’t nice to each other, best to give up your freedoms to a strong sovereign/state for protection) and Locke (liberty is best, people are rea…

Found your comment mightily insightful, so may as well ask:

Can you recommend a handful of similar “historical” works that you’d consider a must-read (or simply just darn interesting).

Thanks!

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#24

Post by neomantra »

cess11 wrote: post #21
vivzkestrel wrote: post #7

- I have no idea what I am supposed to take from this book or what this book is about - the OP has not put even 2 lines explaining what, where, why, how, when etc - Anyone mind explaining what this book is about?

One might consider it the magnum opus of Thomas Hobbes, a pioneering political thinker who had a massive influence on both conservatism and liberalism. For conservatives his arguments on human nature that conclude that we are inherently brutish and violent and cannot be allowed to rule ourselves are very attractive. He proposed an early social contract theory as a solution, which liberalists have found very attractiv…

Watching that again reminds me that this guy is so poorly educated and not learned. Sure he was an engineering student at UIUC and wrote a neato browser, but wow he does not know history or philosophy well.

But he does the grifter trick of making coy observations like that 1920s bs. And he had so much time and wealth to improve those insights!

Or, he knows but this narrative makes him feel better about his behavior.

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#25

Post by actionfromafar »

ben30 wrote: post #14
jemmyw wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a middle ground argument? Something along the lines of humans are horrible to one another unless there is a social state that provides reasonable protection, at which point we can afford to be nice?

Economist magazine editor once said in an interview that Republican/conservative are open regulations for businesses and closed on people. Labour/democrats are tight on business and more welcoming to the people. Economist editorial attempts to be open on both sides.

Ah, the old Economist joke!

1. Open regulations for businnesses

2. Open regulations for people

3. ?????

4. Profit!

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#26

Post by hunterpayne »

cess11 wrote: post #21
vivzkestrel wrote: post #7

- I have no idea what I am supposed to take from this book or what this book is about - the OP has not put even 2 lines explaining what, where, why, how, when etc - Anyone mind explaining what this book is about?

One might consider it the magnum opus of Thomas Hobbes, a pioneering political thinker who had a massive influence on both conservatism and liberalism. For conservatives his arguments on human nature that conclude that we are inherently brutish and violent and cannot be allowed to rule ourselves are very attractive. He proposed an early social contract theory as a solution, which liberalists have found very attractiv…

"For conservatives his arguments on human nature that conclude that we are inherently brutish and violent and cannot be allowed to rule ourselves are very attractive."

I really hope you are European. What you said is true of (most) European Conservatives. If you are an American, that is the most incorrect thing I have read all week. American Conservatives are the exact opposite of what you describe.

The core of the American right wing is to reject the idea in your quote in all ways. The individual is the highest ideal in libertarian ideology. This is why the US Republicans never, ever align themselves with political parties in other countries. They have a completely different set of beliefs. And for some weird reason Europeans completely ignore this and will even react violently when it is explained to them. Its just weird...

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#27

Post by urikaduri »

hunterpayne wrote: post #26
cess11 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One might consider it the magnum opus of Thomas Hobbes, a pioneering political thinker who had a massive influence on both conservatism and liberalism. For conservatives his arguments on human nature that conclude that we are inherently brutish and violent and cannot be allowed to rule ourselves are very attractive. He proposed an early social contract theory as a solution, which liberalists have found very attractiv…

"For conservatives his arguments on human nature that conclude that we are inherently brutish and violent and cannot be allowed to rule ourselves are very attractive." I really hope you are European. What you said is true of (most) European Conservatives. If you are an American, that is the most incorrect thing I have read all week. American Conservatives are the exact opposite of what you describe. The core of the A…

Conservatives draw towards authoritarian or "strong" leaders reflect this idea, while its at odds with the more individualistic philosophy. There is a cognitive dissonance there.

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#28

Post by krapp »

PowerElectronix wrote: post #19
libraryofbabel wrote: post #3

As an ex historian I love how this famous 350yo work of political philosophy is just sitting at #7 on HN with absolutely no context on why it was submitted. The great debate of political philosophy coming out of the 17th century was between Hobbes (anarchy is horrible, humans aren’t nice to each other, best to give up your freedoms to a strong sovereign/state for protection) and Locke (liberty is best, people are rea…

Wouldn't it make more sense to want less government and more freedom if one doesn't trust people?

No, because people exist outside of government.

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#29

Post by nandomrumber »

kruffalon wrote: post #12
libraryofbabel wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh totally. I actually don’t like Locke’s position much either, he’s too libertarian for my taste (I would like the state to provide healthcare &c &c). But if I had to choose I’d choose Locke over Hobbes. Hobbes is… real dark.

Such elegance, or snobbery or at least some kind of beauty... Using "&" literally in 2026 smells of wonder, well done, thanks! Do you do it sometimes in regular English words too or just in &c? Please give more examples (if you have any). This will be a great day, starting of like this: a written play with words; i like it!

[flagged]
Post reply on HN