Thomas Hobbes is the greatest of English political philosophers, and the most exciting. To read Leviathan is exhilaraiting. For so large a teatise it is wonderfully concise; it is also well constrcted. It is all of piece, and every part of it constructed. It is all of a piece, and every part of it contributes to the whole. It is powerful and quick, robust, colourful and witty. Its author comes resolutely to extreme conclusions, and lacks the moderation of Locke and other writers who have seemed more tipically English. He is the heir of Occam and the ancestor of Hume. He belongs to an English tradition established in century after Aquinas in Paris and in Oxford, a centre of philosophy and therefore a home of causes which are never lost and never won.
Among the political masterpieces of modern age, only Hegel's Philosophy of Right has the breadth, the conciseness, and the firmness of design of Leviathan. From the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli, it is possible to extract a coherent philosophy of Machiavelli, it is possible to extract a coherent philosophy of man and society, and larger and more subtle one than might be gathered from some of his admirers, who seem bent on taking as narrow a view of him as his detractors have done. But that philosophy was never put together by him. Of his two important political works, one, The Prince (Il Principe), is a short essay on a limited theme, and the other, The Discourses (I Discorsi), though rich in content, is a commentary an another book. Bodin's Republic (La République), original and suggestive though it is, is remarkably ill-planned; and as much can be said of Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws (De l'Esprit des Lois), for al its brilliance. Burke never attempted a systematic treatise. Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Bentham, Kant, Marx and Mill never put into any one work on politics nearly as much as Hobbes contrived to do; they wrote what may fairly be called, when compared with Leviathan, fragments on governments: as, for example, Rousseau, none of whose essays and discourses is an enlarged version of another as Leviathan is of De Cive. Noverthless, among the greatest books on politics of the modern age, Leviathan and The Philosophy of Right (Rechtsphilosophie) are in a class apart. They are systematic treatises are the works of academic persons who, vigorous, lucid elegant, scrupulous and even imaginative though they sometimes are, are men of order rather than inspiration, consolidation rather than pioneers. And pioneers, because they make their way through unmapped territory, often come after them along well-trodden paths. Hobbes and Hegel are remarkable among the innovators in political theory for having unusually clear ideas about what they wanted to do. Their masterpieces are well matured and elaborated; they are tightly pcked, though not with facts but ideas and arguments. Hegel requires an heroic effort of his readers; he requires that they become familiar that they becomes familiar with the peculiar concepts which he uses. He claims for these concepts that they alone are adequate to a full understanding of the world, and that only by using them can be transcend the limitation and contradictions implicit in ordinary or scientific language, in ideas which may be good enough for everyday use or give the sort of explanations at which the natural sciences aim but are incapable of conveying the essence of reality. Hobbes makes much more modest demands on his readers; though he requires their close attention, he aims at simplicity and clarity. We get into difficulties, as we follow his arguments, not because he requires us to learn to use unfamiliar and elusive ideas, are too few and definitions too simple for tasks he has has set himself. The concepts needed to explain what men do when they reason and make choices, or how they feel and behave towards one another and themselves, or how their social and political institutions function, are more numerous and more complex than those offered to us by Hobbes. His explanations do not go to go the hilt; they fall short of the truth and leave too much out of account.
Casalino Pierluigi, on May 2nd 2014
Among the political masterpieces of modern age, only Hegel's Philosophy of Right has the breadth, the conciseness, and the firmness of design of Leviathan. From the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli, it is possible to extract a coherent philosophy of Machiavelli, it is possible to extract a coherent philosophy of man and society, and larger and more subtle one than might be gathered from some of his admirers, who seem bent on taking as narrow a view of him as his detractors have done. But that philosophy was never put together by him. Of his two important political works, one, The Prince (Il Principe), is a short essay on a limited theme, and the other, The Discourses (I Discorsi), though rich in content, is a commentary an another book. Bodin's Republic (La République), original and suggestive though it is, is remarkably ill-planned; and as much can be said of Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws (De l'Esprit des Lois), for al its brilliance. Burke never attempted a systematic treatise. Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Bentham, Kant, Marx and Mill never put into any one work on politics nearly as much as Hobbes contrived to do; they wrote what may fairly be called, when compared with Leviathan, fragments on governments: as, for example, Rousseau, none of whose essays and discourses is an enlarged version of another as Leviathan is of De Cive. Noverthless, among the greatest books on politics of the modern age, Leviathan and The Philosophy of Right (Rechtsphilosophie) are in a class apart. They are systematic treatises are the works of academic persons who, vigorous, lucid elegant, scrupulous and even imaginative though they sometimes are, are men of order rather than inspiration, consolidation rather than pioneers. And pioneers, because they make their way through unmapped territory, often come after them along well-trodden paths. Hobbes and Hegel are remarkable among the innovators in political theory for having unusually clear ideas about what they wanted to do. Their masterpieces are well matured and elaborated; they are tightly pcked, though not with facts but ideas and arguments. Hegel requires an heroic effort of his readers; he requires that they become familiar that they becomes familiar with the peculiar concepts which he uses. He claims for these concepts that they alone are adequate to a full understanding of the world, and that only by using them can be transcend the limitation and contradictions implicit in ordinary or scientific language, in ideas which may be good enough for everyday use or give the sort of explanations at which the natural sciences aim but are incapable of conveying the essence of reality. Hobbes makes much more modest demands on his readers; though he requires their close attention, he aims at simplicity and clarity. We get into difficulties, as we follow his arguments, not because he requires us to learn to use unfamiliar and elusive ideas, are too few and definitions too simple for tasks he has has set himself. The concepts needed to explain what men do when they reason and make choices, or how they feel and behave towards one another and themselves, or how their social and political institutions function, are more numerous and more complex than those offered to us by Hobbes. His explanations do not go to go the hilt; they fall short of the truth and leave too much out of account.
Casalino Pierluigi, on May 2nd 2014