DOCSLIB.ORG

A Thesis Entitled Leftist Leviathan by Samuel E. Gold Submitted to the Graduate Faculty As Partial Fulfillment of the Requiremen

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Thesis Entitled Leftist Leviathan by Samuel E. Gold Submitted to the Graduate Faculty As Partial Fulfillment of the Requiremen A Thesis entitled Leftist Leviathan by Samuel E. Gold Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Philosophy Degree in Master of Arts in Philosophy ________________________________________ Dr. Benjamin Grazzini, Committee Chair ________________________________________ Dr. Ammon Allred, Committee Member ________________________________________ Dr. Roberto Padilla, Committee Member ________________________________________ Dr. Amanda Bryant-Friedrich, Dean College of Graduate Studies The University of Toledo May 2018 Copyright 2018, Samuel Emory Gold This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author. An Abstract of Leftist Leviathan by Samuel E. Gold Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Philosophy Degree in Master of Arts in Philosophy The University of Toledo May 2018 This paper is a five-chapter exploration into the relationship between a Hobbesian notion of sovereignty, and the implementation of Marxism in the Soviet Union. The political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes has been most often interpreted through a particular reading of the German Carl Schmitt, which. as a result, has rendered Hobbesian philosophy synonymous with a strict, authoritarian nationalism like the Nazi party in Germany. However, simplifying the role of sovereign authority Nazism misses the strong parallels present between the relationship of the sovereign and the commonwealth, and the implementation of Marxism under Josef Stalin’s rule in the Soviet Union. This model, wherein the Soviet citizens have been removed from the political realm forms an analogous relationship to what is present under the Hobbesian social contract. This is not to say that Marxism can be read back to Hobbes, but, rather, that Stalin’s leadership implemented a version of the social contract which inadvertently drew upon Hobbesian influence. Through an assembling of primary and secondary sources, this thesis aims to show that a left-leaning reading of Hobbes is not only possible, but has a real-world example to draw upon. iii I would like to dedicate this thesis to my family who have been supportive of my time spent studying philosophy. I would not be the person I am now without your guidance, love, and sacrifice. Thank you. Acknowledgements As my six years in philosophy at the University of Toledo come to an end, I would like to take this page to thank the members of my committee for all their help. From the first mention of my desire to write a thesis on Thomas Hobbes and socialism, you all demonstrated an enthusiasm for and desire to see me succeed which inspired me to pursue this even more. This thesis could not have evolved into a coherent work without your collective guidance and for that I will be forever thankful. v Table of Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................v Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... vi 1 A Leftist Leviathan? ................................................................................................1 1.1 Hobbes and Socialism ...........................................................................8 1.2 Intended Methodology .........................................................................13 1.3 Structure ...............................................................................................16 2 Thomas Hobbes: How Liberalism Becomes Socialism .........................................21 2.1 Establishing a Hobbesian Framework .................................................21 2.2 Hobbes’ Historical Context..................................................................24 2.3 Understanding Leviathan and the Social Contract...............................29 2.4 A Hobbesian Account of the State and Citizen ...................................34 3 Marxist Theory: Connecting the Dots....................................................................52 3.1 On Marx ...............................................................................................52 3.2 Parallels in Historiography, Materialism, and Determinism ...............59 3.3 Engels and the State, Bridging Theory with Practice ..........................61 3.4 How Does Marxism Parallel the Hobbesian State? .............................64 4 The Leviathan Incarnate? Josef Stalin and the USSR ...........................................68 4.1 Leninism’s Influence on Stalin’s Approach to Communism ...............72 vi 4.2 Stalin’s Adaptation of the Hobbesian Sovereign .................................75 4.3 The Five-Year Plan: An Ideological Synthesis ....................................77 4.4 The Sovereign-Subject Relationship in Stalinism ...............................83 5 What We Have Learned .........................................................................................91 References ..........................................................................................................................96 vii Chapter 1 A Leftist Leviathan? As with any thesis, the aim of writing mine is to help cement my own ideas in a relatively small and unimportant archive of fellow graduate student work. In all likelihood, this work will be relegated to an obscure corner of leftist academia, and nothing more. In our modern geopolitical climate, a politically conservative individual would likely look at any work with the word “Leftist” in the title and immediately furrow their brow. An individual with these beliefs would either outright reject my writing without careful consideration, or they will read it only with the intention of finding points of disagreement. In all likelihood, I will not sway many opinions of those who think differently than I do, however, I ask that those who continue reading this do so with an open mind, and a willingness to reevaluate previous notions of power, sovereignty, and leftist ideology. At an individual level, humans tend to jump to quick conclusions on a cornucopia of topics. As impulsive creatures, we make up our minds on ideological grounds that lack significant substance, and will often be hesitant to change them even when provided with 1 substantial evidence that must call into question what we hold to be true.1 This is something which occurs daily; we read news headlines or overhear discussions of current events and quickly formulate opinions determined by our own confirmation bias. While this kind of behavior is acceptable within an individualistic sphere, on a large scale, this sort of attitude inevitably leads to dogmatic groupthink amongst likeminded individuals. As we begin to unravel the themes of this thesis, and better understand the nature of power structures, and the necessity of sovereign power, we can better understand, end empathize with the political philosophy of a controversial individual like Thomas Hobbes. If this particular thesis can teach anything, then, regardless of political perspective, is that we must be very willing to evaluate any preconceived notions Perhaps to put this idea of revision in a better context, let us take, for example, this particular passage on a public execution: On 2 March 1757 Damiens the regicide was condemned ‘to make the amende honorable before the main door of the Church of Paris’, where he was to be ‘taken and conveyed in a cart, wearing nothing but a shirt, holding a torch of burning wax weighing two pounds’; then, ‘in said cart, to the Place de Greve, where, on a scaffold that will be erected there, the flesh will be torn from his breasts, arms, thighs and calves with red-hot pincers, his right hanve, holding the knife with which he committed the said parricide, burnt with sulphur, and on those places where the flesh will be torn away, poured molten lead, boiling oil, burning resin, wax and sulphur melted together and then his body drawn and quartered by four horses.2 Set before us is a portion of the opening passage of Michel Foucault’s book, Discipline and Punish. Here, the French philosopher describes a scene of a man, Robert-Francois 1 If no better example comes to mind, think of the current debate on climate change. Despite a near unanimous belief amongst scientists in regards to the impact of human beings on climate change, there still exist those who believe climate change is not real, or that our impact is utterly insignificant. 2 Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish, pg. 3. 2 Damiens, convicted of regicide, being drawn and quartered—a punishment where the offender is pulled apart by their limbs. Foucault describes an utterly brutal scene in which Damiens suffered greatly because he could not be drawn and quartered properly. Foucault tells us that, “they were forced, in order to cut off the wretch’s thighs, to sever the sinews and hack at the joints…”3 This is, of course, utterly barbaric and unimaginable by modern standards. In the contemporary justice system, we pride ourselves on administering human punishments—with a supposed focus on rehabilitation of the convicted criminal.4 Even the most heinous of criminals that are given the death penalty receive it in a private location, with only a handful of spectators, a vastly different scenario
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lenin and the Russian Civil War
    Lenin and the Russian Civil War In the months and years after the fall of Tsar Nicholas II’s government, Russia went through incredible, often violent changes. The society was transformed from a peasant society run by an absolute monarchy into a worker’s state run by an all- powerful group that came to be known as the Communist Party. A key to this transformation is Vladimir Lenin. Who Was Lenin? • Born into a wealthy middle-class family background. • Witnessed (when he was 17) the hanging of his brother Aleksandr for revolutionary activity. • Kicked out his university for participating in anti- Tsarist protests. • Took and passed his law exams and served in various law firms in St. Petersburg and elsewhere. • Arrested and sent to Siberia for 3 years for transporting and distributing revolutionary literature. • When WWI started, argued that it should become a revolution of the workers throughout Europe. • Released and lived mostly in exile (Switzerland) until 1917. • Adopted the name “Lenin” (he was born Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov) in exile to hide his activities from the Tsar’s secret police. Lenin and the French Revolution Lenin admired the revolutionaries in France 100 years before his time, though he believed they didn’t go far enough – too much wealth was left in middle class hands. His Bolsheviks used the chaotic and incomplete nature of the French Revolution as a guide - they believed that in order for a communist revolution to succeed, it would need firm leadership from a small group of party leaders – a very different vision from Karl Marx. So, in some ways, Lenin was like Robin Hood – taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Ideas and Movements That Created the Modern World
    harri+b.cov 27/5/03 4:15 pm Page 1 UNDERSTANDINGPOLITICS Understanding RITTEN with the A2 component of the GCE WGovernment and Politics A level in mind, this book is a comprehensive introduction to the political ideas and movements that created the modern world. Underpinned by the work of major thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, Marx, Mill, Weber and others, the first half of the book looks at core political concepts including the British and European political issues state and sovereignty, the nation, democracy, representation and legitimacy, freedom, equality and rights, obligation and citizenship. The role of ideology in modern politics and society is also discussed. The second half of the book addresses established ideologies such as Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Marxism and Nationalism, before moving on to more recent movements such as Environmentalism and Ecologism, Fascism, and Feminism. The subject is covered in a clear, accessible style, including Understanding a number of student-friendly features, such as chapter summaries, key points to consider, definitions and tips for further sources of information. There is a definite need for a text of this kind. It will be invaluable for students of Government and Politics on introductory courses, whether they be A level candidates or undergraduates. political ideas KEVIN HARRISON IS A LECTURER IN POLITICS AND HISTORY AT MANCHESTER COLLEGE OF ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY. HE IS ALSO AN ASSOCIATE McNAUGHTON LECTURER IN SOCIAL SCIENCES WITH THE OPEN UNIVERSITY. HE HAS WRITTEN ARTICLES ON POLITICS AND HISTORY AND IS JOINT AUTHOR, WITH TONY BOYD, OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION: EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION? and TONY BOYD WAS FORMERLY HEAD OF GENERAL STUDIES AT XAVERIAN VI FORM COLLEGE, MANCHESTER, WHERE HE TAUGHT POLITICS AND HISTORY.
    [Show full text]
  • Friedrich Engels in the Age of Digital Capitalism. Introduction
    tripleC 19 (1): 1-14, 2021 http://www.triple-c.at Engels@200: Friedrich Engels in the Age of Digital Capitalism. Introduction. Christian Fuchs University of Westminster, [email protected], http://fuchs.uti.at, @fuchschristian Abstract: This piece is the introduction to the special issue “Engels@200: Friedrich Engels in the Age of Digital Capitalism” that the journal tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique published on the occasion of Friedrich Engels’s 200th birthday on 28 November 2020. The introduction introduces Engels’s life and works and gives an overview of the special issue’s contributions. Keywords: Friedrich Engels, 200th birthday, anniversary, digital capitalism, Karl Marx Date of Publication: 28 November 2020 CC-BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons License, 2021. 2 Christian Fuchs 1. Friedrich Engels’s Life Friedrich Engels was born on 28 November 1820 in Barmen, a city in North Rhine- Westphalia, Germany, that has since 1929 formed a district of the city Wuppertal. In the early 19th century, Barmen was one of the most important manufacturing centres in the German-speaking world. He was the child of Elisabeth Franziska Mauritia Engels (1797-1873) and Friedrich Engels senior (1796-1860). The Engels family was part of the capitalist class and operated a business in the cotton manufacturing industry, which was one of the most important industries. In 1837, Engels senior created a business partnership with Peter Ermen called Ermen & Engels. The company operated cotton mills in Manchester (Great Britain) and Engelskirchen (Germany). Other than Marx, Engels did not attend university because his father wanted him to join the family business so that Engels junior already at the age of 16 started an ap- prenticeship in commerce.
    [Show full text]
  • Hobbes and Vattel in Crimea: a Natural Law Critique of the Russian Annexation Juan Martir Xavier University
    Xavier Journal of Undergraduate Research Volume 2 Article 6 2014 Hobbes and Vattel in Crimea: A Natural Law Critique of the Russian Annexation Juan Martir Xavier University Follow this and additional works at: https://www.exhibit.xavier.edu/xjur Recommended Citation Martir, Juan (2014) "Hobbes and Vattel in Crimea: A Natural Law Critique of the Russian Annexation," Xavier Journal of Undergraduate Research: Vol. 2 , Article 6. Available at: https://www.exhibit.xavier.edu/xjur/vol2/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Exhibit. It has been accepted for inclusion in Xavier Journal of Undergraduate Research by an authorized editor of Exhibit. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hobbes and Vattel in Crimea: A Natural Law Critique of the Russian Annexation Juan Martir In March 2014, the Russian government—upon learning the people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly by a referendum to secede from Ukraine—announced that it would annex the territory. The international community was shocked. United States Secretary of State John Kerry condemned the move as a revival of outmoded power politics: “You don’t just in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on a completely trumped-up pretext.”1 This paper argues that, even by earlier standards in international politics, this move by Russia would be considered illegitimate or imprudent. By looking at the incident through the natural law theories of Thomas Hobbes and Emer de Vattel, the annexation would be considered imprudent: by the former because it threatens domestic harmony and is completely illegitimate, and by the latter because it is a blatant violation of the rights of the Ukrainian polity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Russian Revolutions: the Impact and Limitations of Western Influence
    Dickinson College Dickinson Scholar Faculty and Staff Publications By Year Faculty and Staff Publications 2003 The Russian Revolutions: The Impact and Limitations of Western Influence Karl D. Qualls Dickinson College Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.dickinson.edu/faculty_publications Part of the European History Commons Recommended Citation Qualls, Karl D., "The Russian Revolutions: The Impact and Limitations of Western Influence" (2003). Dickinson College Faculty Publications. Paper 8. https://scholar.dickinson.edu/faculty_publications/8 This article is brought to you for free and open access by Dickinson Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Karl D. Qualls The Russian Revolutions: The Impact and Limitations of Western Influence After the collapse of the Soviet Union, historians have again turned their attention to the birth of the first Communist state in hopes of understanding the place of the Soviet period in the longer sweep of Russian history. Was the USSR an aberration from or a consequence of Russian culture? Did the Soviet Union represent a retreat from westernizing trends in Russian history, or was the Bolshevik revolution a product of westernization? These are vexing questions that generate a great deal of debate. Some have argued that in the late nineteenth century Russia was developing a middle class, representative institutions, and an industrial economy that, while although not as advanced as those in Western Europe, were indications of potential movement in the direction of more open government, rule of law, free market capitalism. Only the Bolsheviks, influenced by an ideology imported, paradoxically, from the West, interrupted this path of Russian political and economic westernization.
    [Show full text]
  • Lenin and the Debate on Chinese Socialism Among PRC Soviet-Watchers in Early 1980S China
    InternationalLenin Journal and the Debateof China on Chinese Studies Socialism among PRC Soviet-watchers 145 Vol. 11, No. 1, June 2020, pp. 145-171 Lenin and the Debate on Chinese Socialism among PRC Soviet-watchers in Early 1980s China Jie Li* The University of Edinburgh Abstract After the death of Chairman Mao Zedong, when China gradually initiated reform and open door policies, Soviet leaders’ political agendas were no less appealing to post-Mao China than were Western agendas. This paper will show that Chinese scholars made tactical use of the writings and programs of Vladimir Lenin; this was done to grasp the nettle of Chinese socialism in the early 1980s, after the disastrous Cultural Revolution. According to the secondary scholarship, Chinese Sovietology after 1991 has consistently emphasized the role of the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his policies, which (in the eyes of the Chinese communist regime) brought about the downfall of the Soviet empire. In reality, however, Chinese Soviet-watchers were researching various Soviet leaders throughout the 1980s and 1990s – and particularly Lenin, who featured prominently in Chinese writings and claimed equal importance to Gorbachev. In the early 1980s, Chinese scholars used the first Soviet leader, Lenin, and his writings to rebuild faith in socialism and to disperse scepticism of the Chinese communist regime after the disastrous Mao era. While some pieces of work resorted to using Lenin’s socialist humanism to attack Maoism and Chinese communist rule, most of the time Chinese scholars used Lenin to strengthen the weakening legitimacy of Chinese socialism without tarnishing the image of Mao, and to command support for new leader Deng Xiaoping’s open door policy and future reforms.
    [Show full text]
  • Socialism in Europe and the Russian Revolution India and the Contemporary World Society Ofthefuture
    Socialism in Europe and II the Russian Revolution Chapter 1 The Age of Social Change In the previous chapter you read about the powerful ideas of freedom and equality that circulated in Europe after the French Revolution. The French Revolution opened up the possibility of creating a dramatic change in the way in which society was structured. As you have read, before the eighteenth century society was broadly divided into estates and orders and it was the aristocracy and church which controlled economic and social power. Suddenly, after the revolution, it seemed possible to change this. In many parts of the world including Europe and Asia, new ideas about individual rights and who olution controlled social power began to be discussed. In India, Raja v Rammohan Roy and Derozio talked of the significance of the French Revolution, and many others debated the ideas of post-revolutionary Europe. The developments in the colonies, in turn, reshaped these ideas of societal change. ian Re ss Not everyone in Europe, however, wanted a complete transformation of society. Responses varied from those who accepted that some change was necessary but wished for a gradual shift, to those who wanted to restructure society radically. Some were ‘conservatives’, others were ‘liberals’ or ‘radicals’. What did these terms really mean in the context of the time? What separated these strands of politics and what linked them together? We must remember that these terms do not mean the same thing in all contexts or at all times. We will look briefly at some of the important political traditions of the nineteenth century, and see how they influenced change.
    [Show full text]
  • Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Friedrich Engels
    Internationalist Group League for the Fourth International " Socialism: Utopian and Scientific By Friedrich Engels Friedrich Engels, 1877 Internationalist Group Class Readings May 2010 $1 .50 ® ~ ~ 11 62-M Friedrich Engels Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (January-March 1880) Source: Marx/Engels Selected Works, Volume 3 Publisher: Progress Publishers, 1970 First Published: March, April, and May issues of Revue Socialiste in 1880 Translated: from the French by Edward Aveling in 1892 (authorized by Engels) Introduction: General Introduction and the History of Materialism ............................................................. 3 History of the English middle-class ....................................................................................... 8 Contents: Part I: Utopian Socialism .......................................................................................................... 14 Part II: Dialectics ...................................................................................................................... 21 Part Ill: Historical Materialism ................................................................................................... 25 2 Friedrich Engels Socialism: Utopian and Scientific 1892 English Edition Introduction 1 The present little book is, originally, part of a larger whole. About 1875, Dr. E. Diihring , a Privatdozent [university lecturer who formerly received fees from his students rather than a wage] at Berlin University, suddenly and rather clamorously announced his conversion to Socialism,
    [Show full text]
  • Karl Marx's Thoughts on Functional Income Distribution - a Critical Analysis
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Herr, Hansjörg Working Paper Karl Marx's thoughts on functional income distribution - a critical analysis Working Paper, No. 101/2018 Provided in Cooperation with: Berlin Institute for International Political Economy (IPE) Suggested Citation: Herr, Hansjörg (2018) : Karl Marx's thoughts on functional income distribution - a critical analysis, Working Paper, No. 101/2018, Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Recht Berlin, Institute for International Political Economy (IPE), Berlin This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/175885 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Institute for International Political Economy Berlin Karl Marx’s thoughts on functional income distribution – a critical analysis Author: Hansjörg Herr Working Paper, No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reception of Hobbes's Leviathan
    This is a repository copy of The reception of Hobbes's Leviathan. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/71534/ Version: Published Version Book Section: Parkin, Jon (2007) The reception of Hobbes's Leviathan. In: Springborg, Patricia, (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes's Leviathan. The Cambridge Companions to Philosophy, Religion and Culture . Cambridge University Press , Cambridge , pp. 441-459. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521836670.020 Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ jon parkin 19 The Reception of Hobbes’s Leviathan The traditional story about the reception of Leviathan was that it was a book that was rejected rather than read seriously.1 Leviathan’s perverse amalgamation of controversial doctrine, so the story goes, earned it universal condemnation. Hobbes was outed as an athe- ist and discredited almost as soon as the work appeared. Subsequent criticism was seen to be the idle pursuit of a discredited text, an exer- cise upon which young militant churchmen could cut their teeth, as William Warburton observed in the eighteenth century.2 We need to be aware, however, that this was a story that was largely the cre- ation of Hobbes’s intellectual opponents, writers with an interest in sidelining Leviathan from the mainstream of the history of ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • A Letter to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
    A Letter to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Karl Marx 946 Communist Way London , United Kingdom W11 2BQ Dear Comrade Karl and Comrade Friedrich: I write to you in appreciation and admiration. I have just read your Manifesto of the Communist Party and I have found it to be an outstanding analysis of industrial society. However, times have changed. And while I found your manifesto to be an incredibly well-written, scathing critique of capitalism, a primer on communism, a new way of looking at history and an incisive sociological study, the manifesto needs to be updated and given a facelift for modern times. Nevertheless, your work today is just as pertinent as it was in 1848. The collapse of the United States’ real estate market and the ensuing global recession of 2008 have engendered renewed interests in your ideas. Communism has a seat at the table of ideas in the modern world if it can to be adapted to the modern problems of capitalism by becoming more democratic, respecting the individual, adapting to a market based economy and readdressing the problems of wealth inequality and quality of life. I have found the most startling aspect of your manifesto to be its complete disregard for democracy. Your manifesto is a vitriolic attack on the iniquities of capitalism and offers communism as the sole alternative. Yet, the modern era, with its emphasis on human rights, has obviated the totalitarian nature that your essay suggests. The horrors of starvation and genocide in the Soviet Union, Cambodia , Red China and North Korea have made people wary of anything that reeks of communism.
    [Show full text]
  • Hobbes' Leviathan. the Irresistible Power of a Mortal
    Gabriel L. Negretto * Hobbes’ Leviathan. The Irresistible Power of a Mortal God No one on earth is his equal a creature without fear. He looks down on the highest. He is king over all proud beasts. Job. 41, 24 0. Introduction In different and complex ways, the philosophy and science of the XVII cen- tury moved away from the recognition of a divine authority in the interpretation of human events to an exclusively naturalistic account of this world. Hobbes has been widely regarded as the most representative figure of this process. At a time where religious beliefs were considered to be the prime motive of human behav- ior, Hobbes’ mature work, the Leviathan, depicted men as egoistic calculators whose overriding concern was the pursuit of private advantage. Following this premise, Hobbes rejected the idea that politics is subordinated to the attainment of the ultimate good in spiritual life and proposed that the supreme authority in this world is a secular state whose sole end is the protection of physical life. In this vein, traditional interpreters have maintained that although half of the Levia- than is devoted to theological arguments, theology is either irrelevant or plays a secondary role for its central naturalistic arguments. I will argue, against the traditional interpretation, that theological arguments are crucial to understand Hobbes’ views on the foundations of political obligation and state authority. While rejecting the idea that Hobbes was essentially a moral- ist or a thinker deeply influenced by religion, I wish to propose that he used the scriptures and religion as part of a strategy of persuasion aimed at creating a sta- ble political authority in a world were religious beliefs were still important com- ponents of human action.
    [Show full text]