Nickhil Singh
Title: Power
In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes explains the state of man in the absence of a commonwealth. However, his study not only consists of examining the virtues of a commonwealth, but the nature of man, as well. In doing so, he depicts a raw and crude portrait of us, and puts into question motives of our existence. In particular, Hobbes argues that without a commonwealth, man would degenerate into a state of nature pitting man against every man. Man’s fear for another motivates this fight for his life, resulting in a survival of the fittest. Only reason born out of fear for one’s life, expressed through the form of a social contract, allows man to leave this state of nature and partake in a commonwealth with a sovereign to control the actions of every man. In this commonwealth, a uniform philosophy is constructed for every man to follow, and social conventions, i.e. the truth, can be discerned. By explaining his first principles and the importance of first principles in forming a commonwealth, Hobbes shows that human existence would degenerate into “such a war as is of every man against every man”.
Hobbes’s first principles of sense, imagination and understanding help later explain man’s penchant for war in the state of nature. In describing sense, Hobbes says, “ The cause of sense is the external body or object, which presseth the organ proper to each sense, either immediately, as in the taste and touch, or mediately, as in seeing, hearing and smelling” (1.6). Specifically, Hobbes argues that our knowledge of the world comes from external matter pushing against our organs. According to Hobbes, objects constantly bump one another, and transfer from one material object to the next. Eventually, the eyes, ears, tongues, head, etc. get subjected to this feeling and pass a message on to the brain. Thus, sense consists of external bodies touching our body and sending a message to the brain.
To describe imagination, Hobbes argues that matter cannot move itself. As he says, “when a thing is in motion, it will eternally be in motion” (1.7). Hobbes uses this idea of matter constantly in motion to explain that motion turns sense into thoughts or imagination, for he argues that once an external body presses against the mind, it will continually press until it meets a impediment. Hobbes describes this impediment as imagination, where the sensory image has decayed (1.9). Imagination over time is memory, and from the outside world, men also have experiences, dreams and apparitions.
In Hobbes final description of the mind, he argues that from imagination man possesses understanding, derived from words or signs. Specifically, there are two trains of thought, the “unguided” train and the “regulated” train (3.12-13). Unguided thought consists of undirected thoughts, like dreams. In contrast, regulated thoughts are guided by some desire or passion. In describing these parts of the mind, Hobbes builds a foundation for human thinking. More importantly, this explanation of man’s conception of the world serves Hobbes well in his justification of the state of nature, for it will help show man’s rationale for joining the commonwealth.
Though Hobbes’s argument seems non-existent with different first principles, he explains how any commonly agreed upon first principles can work in the same manner. Hobbes argues that man created speech to put mental substance into verbal dialogue (4.16). In describing man’s use of speech, Hobbes starts to identify the importance of social conventions and the nature of a commonwealth-less world. Hobbes states that the truth consists of speaking in correct form and using proper names. He says, “And therefore in geometry (which is the only science that it hath please God hitherto to bestow on mankind) men begin at settling the significations of their words; which settling of significations they call definitions, and place them in the beginning of their reckoning” (4.19) Specifically, Hobbes believes geometry serves as the model for all languages because geometry gets its intrinsic strength on the fact that everyone agrees on it. From these definitions, people can build true conclusions. Hobbes argues that society needs this same sort of structure when determining truth. Therefore, specific first principles are not important. Instead, the importance of first principles lies in a common agreement on them, for the truth is relative to what society believes to be true.
For a persuasive argument, Hobbes must also address how a common agreement can be reached amongst people to determine the truth, since, according to his first principles, every man possesses his own unique perception of the truth (4.21). Hobbes argues that because truth is subjective to the individual person, men cannot commonly agree upon perceptions. Also, he says “And therefore, as when there is a controversy in an account, the parties must by their own accord set up for right reason the reason of some arbitrer or judge to whose sentence they will both stand, or their controversy must either come to blows or be undecided, for want of a right reason constituted by nature, so it is also in all debates of what kind soever” (5.23). In particular, Hobbes believes that social conventions cannot be agreed upon unilaterally or by a majority. Due to this result, transgressions and wars occur. Instead, one person, a judge, so to speak, will determine the correct definitions upon which all people in a society will agree. This way, no disputes between people will occur, and therefore, no fights or brawls will ensue. Thus, Hobbes argues that truth is a social construction. Additionally, once these conventions are agreed upon, society can then use reason, the ultimate science, to build a civil society free from disputes or troubles, for reason merely uses the truths of a society to make conclusions (5.22-23).
We have seen Hobbes's illustration of man’s mind, that first principles are subjective, and that a society needs a judge to mediate social conventions. But in order to fully understand Hobbes state of nature, we must learn what entices men to do specific actions that Hobbes already described. Hobbes uses first principles of motion within the body of man to argue that every action strives towards an “endeavor” (6.28). Further, he subdivides endeavor into two categories: appetites and aversions (6.28). Appetites consist of desire for something, while aversion consists of antipathy towards something else. But these appetites and aversions also rely on the basic principle of transferred motion between objects. Therefore, Hobbes concludes that human nature is the mechanical product of physical processes between matter and other matter.
Through this discussion of passions, Hobbes claims that all men strive for power that can never be satisfied. When describing the differences of natural wit amongst men, Hobbes says, “The passions that most of all cause the differences of wit are principally: the more or less desire of power, of riches, of knowledge, and of honor. All which maybe reduced to the first, that is, desire of power. For riches, knowledge, and honour are but several sorts of power” (8.41). Hobbes believes that all the passions of men are end directed towards a goal of power. Whether this power be riches, knowledge, or honor is futile because man will always want to satisfy his appetite for more desires. (Just as molecules in matter will always be in motion). Naturally, Man’s wants to appease his passions. However, man possesses endless passions to fulfill and aversions to avoid. Only power gives man the ability to satisfy these appetites. Therefore, man’s power consists of his capacity to constantly satisfy appetites relatively good to himself (10.50).
Yet there remains a problem with Hobbes explanation of power. If power consists of a never-ending quest to fulfill desires, then there seems to be no end for man, or purpose for living . To clarify this issue, Hobbes says, “To which the end we are to consider that the felicity of this life consisteth not in the repose of a mind satisfied. For there is no such Finis Ultimus (utmost aim) nor Summum Bonum (greatest good) as is spoken of in the books of the old moral philosophers. Nor can a man any more live, whose desires are at an end, than he who sense and imaginations are at a stand. Felicity is a continual progress of the desire, from one object to another, the attaining of the former being still but the way to the latter”(6.57). Specifically, Hobbes believes happiness, if it could be attained, would be the purpose for living. However, Hobbes believes happiness cannot be attained in a lifetime. As he argues, man constantly thinks and lusts for objects. Because this process can never end, man can never feel ultimate happily (i.e. he can never stop wanting something else). Accordingly, the best way to live life, or the happiest way, consists of fulfilling one’s desires. Man will naturally strive to live this way by gaining the power to satisfy his appetites and thwarts his aversions. Once a man ceases to want or lust for anything, he will be dead and will receive his rightful judgment.
Furthermore, if Hobbes believes in an ultimate power, it would seem he implicitly believes in an ultimate good, thereby, contradicting himself. To show the difference between the two, Hobbes says “The greatest of human powers is that which is compounded of the powers of most men, united by consent in one person, natural or civil, that has the use of all their powers depending on his will, such as is the power of the commonwealth” (10.50). Here, Hobbes argues that the ultimate human power belongs in the power of a commonwealth united. The ultimate human power, then, cannot be attained by one man, but most come from the combination of many men deferring their power. And although this might logically mean that the sovereign then possesses this ultimate power, we must remember that the commonwealth comes into creation by the uniform consent of many to give up their rights. They make the decision to choose the sovereign, so his power only comes from their believing in him. By these constrictions, the sovereign possesses certain limits to his power, meaning he does not possess any ultimate human power.
Hobbes’s conclusion that all men seek power explains his description of the state of nature. In this state of nature, Hobbes believes men are naturally equal, for differences in strength and intellect are balanced out by individual characteristics (13.74). More specifically, each man possesses equal hubris in his intellectual abilities (13.75). Due to this result, Hobbes says, “From this equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore, if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end, which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only, endeavor to destroy or subdue one another” (13.75). In Hobbes imaginary state of nature, he pits man against every other man, for equality in all characteristics, namely pride, compels man to feel capable of his abilities. This pride also compels man to desire more than what is necessary for his survival. Thus, each man must fear one another because they both desire the same objects (13.75). Moreover, both their desires, like the motions of matter, are never ending and must be satisfied. As a result, in a state of nature fear of self-preservation becomes so strong that only a proactive approach to safety can ensure survival. Consequently, a never-ending war occurs between two parties seeking the power to satisfy these desires . Only a higher power, namely a sovereign, decided upon by a majority of the people can bring peace and order to a community, for in a state of nature there is no injustice; no unifying social conventions consist to discern the truth.
For Hobbes to make a cogent argument, he must explain the origins of his imaginary state of nature, for even he argues that only experiences, not passions, can be accepted as reality. But, Hobbes gives three reasons for his idea of the state of nature. One, he argues that we implicitly believe this to be true when we lock our doors at night even though we have laws and police to enforce the law (13.77). Therefore, we already believe what he says to be true, namely, that men are vicious, but we just do not say it because of societal practice. Two, he uses the example of America, a colonial state at the time, as a place similar to the state of nature with loosely enforce laws, which force people to fight for their possessions and rights (13.77). Thirdly, and most appropriately, Hobbes uses an analogy of various kings across the world fighting and conspiring against each other to serve as macrocosm for the state of nature (Each state represents a man in the state of nature warring against another) (13.78). From these examples, we can see that Hobbes’s depiction of the state of nature is not an absurd notion because his rationale does not originate from any experiences with the state of nature, but from his experiences with humans nature itself.
An issue of contention could also lie in Hobbes claim that all men are equal. However, when discussing man’s pride for his own prudence, Hobbes says, “But this proveth rather that man are in that point equal, than unequal. For there is not ordinarily a greater sign of the equal distribution of anything than that every man is contented with his share” (13.75). Aptly, Hobbes uses the common definition for equality in a state to argue that men are equal. In a state, the generally accepted definition of equality consists in the belief that every person seems happy with what they possess. Using the same logic, Hobbes believes that every man, satisfied with his wisdom, would be considered equal. Although this equality, like equality in a state, is relative to the person who perceives it, this definition fits just fine with Hobbes first principle’s that support the notion that every person possesses a unique perception of the world. Because there is no scientific way of proving one man’s worth over another, we can only use a relative definition.
Additionally, Hobbes must also answer how the commonwealth gets rid of all the deficiencies of the state of nature and unites man in peace. His answer lies in every man, by the Law of Nature, giving up his rights, except for self-defense, to a sovereign ruler (14.80). The sovereign, Hobbes says, “is one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defence” (17.109). Specifically, fear of death in the state of nature motivates all men to give up their rights, and motivates each man to make a contract with another to secure his safety in the power of one man, the sovereign. Because every man is equal in the state of nature, the majority of the people must decide on one man to lead them. This man, the sovereign becomes expressly entrusted with the power to care and protect the people who invested him with the collective power of many, and he maintains this power as long as he provides more security to the people than they would otherwise receive in the state of nature. (This is man’s reason for entering into the contract in the first place, for by man’s Right of nature everyone has the right to self-preservation). With a mitigating force to protect the people and determine social conventions, man possesses a greater ability to attain his desires. Moreover, everyone gains a sense and direction that would not exist within the state of nature.
For any of what Hobbes claims to be true, he must identify how, by his own admission, a group incapable of agreeing upon social conventions can still agree upon a contract for a sovereign leader who, no less, takes most of their rights. In describing the grief of living in the state of nature, Hobbes explains, “For every man looketh that his companion should value him at the same rate he sets upon himself, and upon all signs of contempt, or undervaluing, naturally endeavors, as far as he dares (which amongst them that have no common power to keep them in quiet, is far enough to make them destroy each other), to extort a greater value from his contemners, by damage, and from others, by the example” (13.76). Hobbes argues a subtle point that man can only be happy with himself if he values himself above others. In the state of nature, there is no standard upon which to judge one’s worth or power in comparison to others. Even with a set of social conventions, no one person can tell someone what they are doing is right. In a state of nature this praise or honor can only be intrinsic. However, in the commonwealth, a higher power exists to enforce these social conventions. This way, man can live a much easier life with rules and laws to help him make easy decisions. More importantly, a tangible good exists for man, so that he may feel justified in his lifestyle.
In addition to the former argument, Hobbes must also show how such a contract could come to fruition when there are no laws to govern justice in the state of nature, for this law itself could prevent the formation of the commonwealth. Hobbes argues that anyone who made a contract and broke it would be ostracized in the state of nature and would subsequently meet his demise (15.91-92). This makes sense for fear governs men’s actions in the state of nature. If a man knew another man to possess an inclination to deceive, he would not think twice of taking a proactive approach to dealing with him. In reality, it is in the best interest of a man to fulfill his contracts and even better for them to make a contract to join the commonwealth, so that he does not need to enforce contracts himself. This way, the possibility of death in enforcing a contract ceases to be.
In conclusion, we must also raise one more point of uncertainty. If man can never satisfy his desires, life has no purpose. Yet, Hobbes places importance on mans’ right to self-preservation whether in the commonwealth or in nature. But if man can never fulfill his desires and be completely happy, why would he care so much about his life? Perhaps, self-preservation, like so many other things, is another desire of man. The alternative, death, would be a fearsome concept to man, for no one, except possibly god, knows what happens after death. For this same reason, Hobbes, with the use of first principles, successfully shows that man leaves the state of nature for the commonwealth. Man makes this transition from the state of nature to the commonwealth because uncertainty and fear, like the possibility of death, become replaced by order and stability, like in life. More importantly, the mandates of the sovereign provide the order and clear direction necessary for man to lead an easier and happier existence.
Want to reach me? E-mail me at nickhil@nickhil.com
