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

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#31

Post by nandomrumber »

awestroke wrote: post #9
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…

Like "most of us"? America is uniquely anti-regulation

The idea that the USA is anti regulation is profoundly ignorant.

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#32

Post by otoolep »

I grew up in Ireland, moved to the USA as an adult. European government is clearly Hobbes in model, the US Lockean.

In Europe the individual has almost no legal reason to use force, and force by individuals is considered illegitimate. The "Sovereign" has all the coercive power in European states. In the US, however, a certain amount of legitimate force explicitly remains with the individual i.e. the 2nd amendment. (I am not making a value judgement here).

Of course, Europe has government with the consent of the governed, so is Lockean in that sense. But the balance of force between the "Sovereign" and the people in Europe is all Hobbes. You only notice it when you move to the US and compare it to Europe.

Europe had centuries of religious and civil war. It's not surprising Hobbes won out.

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#33

Post by krapp »

nandomrumber wrote: post #30
krapp wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because people exist outside of government.

No amount of government is going to help you there.

Some amount of government helps to some degree, otherwise government and anarchy should be indistinguishable, which is obviously not the case.

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#34

Post by lo_zamoyski »

herodoturtle wrote: post #23
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!

This is just a very casual, even pop cultural characterization of how these two thinkers are commonly seen. I would expect people to have come across more substantive characterizations during an early high school history class, but perhaps I'm overgeneralizing my experience.

In any case, if you're looking for an approachable yet good book, I recommend reading Edward Feser's "Locke"[0]. The focus is obviously on Locke, but you can't really appreciate Locke without also getting into some Hobbes, which the books does.

[0] https://a.co/d/02c3fLFZ

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#35

Post by libraryofbabel »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #34
herodoturtle wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

This is just a very casual, even pop cultural characterization of how these two thinkers are commonly seen. I would expect people to have come across more substantive characterizations during an early high school history class, but perhaps I'm overgeneralizing my experience. In any case, if you're looking for an approachable yet good book, I recommend reading Edward Feser's "Locke"[0]. The focus is obviously on Locke…

GP here, I agree with you, my characterizations were both pretty casual to the point of flippancy. I could write y’all a deeper essay on this stuff, but hey, I have LLMs to herd, the 17th century wasn’t my period anyway, and there is already a massive amount of insightful writing about these two thinkers to dive into.

I would say Hobbes in particular is a complex and difficult and frankly eccentric thinker; don’t make the mistake of believing you understand him; he is weird. If you really want to grok the guy in the context of his culture and historical moment, you should just read Quentin Skinner. That’s hardcore intellectual history though; for the basics I’d just go for the clear and brief and informative Oxford Hobbes: A Very Short Introduction.

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#36

Post by FrustratedMonky »

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!

I'm intrigued.

Is there something wrong with "&" in 2026?

Some kind of meta meaning?

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#37

Post by FrustratedMonky »

nandomrumber wrote: post #31
awestroke wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like "most of us"? America is uniquely anti-regulation

The idea that the USA is anti regulation is profoundly ignorant.

Well. Most people are against pouring mercury into the drinking water. Which humans were doing before regulation. So, seems like regulation is needed.

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#38

Post by FrustratedMonky »

riffraff wrote: post #8
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?

It's one of the fundamental texts on societal organization from a few centuries ago. It's been a few decades since I finished school, so I may misremember but IIRC: The author believes that mankind would naturally live in a brutal state of conflict (homo homini lupus est, men are wolves to each other). But mankind can give up their self interest and give their authority to a government/sovereign (the titular leviatha…

"It's one of the fundamental texts on societal organization from a few centuries ago."

No Spoilers.

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#39

Post by sebg »

libraryofbabel wrote: post #35
lo_zamoyski wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just a very casual, even pop cultural characterization of how these two thinkers are commonly seen. I would expect people to have come across more substantive characterizations during an early high school history class, but perhaps I'm overgeneralizing my experience. In any case, if you're looking for an approachable yet good book, I recommend reading Edward Feser's "Locke"[0]. The focus is obviously on Locke…

GP here, I agree with you, my characterizations were both pretty casual to the point of flippancy. I could write y’all a deeper essay on this stuff, but hey, I have LLMs to herd, the 17th century wasn’t my period anyway, and there is already a massive amount of insightful writing about these two thinkers to dive into. I would say Hobbes in particular is a complex and difficult and frankly eccentric thinker; don’t mak…

To continue this discussion and to tie it into the original link, worth looking at this YouTube Video where "Jon Pike interviews Quentin Skinner about Thomas Hobbes' masterpiece Leviathan"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PO3GB-RhA4

Re: Leviathan (1651)

#40

Post by johngossman »

herodoturtle wrote: post #23
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!

Machiavelli. Not just the Prince but his other works. He reads remarkably modern. There are many "Machiavelli Readers" that will provide a curated selection.

Cicero and Plato.

Post reply on HN