Leviathan - Book Summary

Unveiling the magic of Hobbes's grand theory of governance

Imagine a time when every man was for himself — when pillaging and plundering were ordinary and expected, where hardship reigned supreme and peaceful existence was but a distant dream. This was the chaotic tableau of Thomas Hobbes's seventeenth-century world that he was bent on reforming.

Gazing at his tumultuous surroundings, the English philosopher sculpted a solution in the shape of his magnum opus, "Leviathan". His vision: a potent, centralized power backed by people's trust, capable of carving out a landscape where serenity and security reigned supreme.

Hobbes's propositions laid the bedrock of political philosophy, remaining astonishingly pertinent in modern times — we continue to grapple with the question of the ideal governing body that can effectively steer societies away from the bleak abyss of endless conflict.

Our journey through this captivating narrative will unveil:

— The paradoxical association of liberty and relinquishment of rights

— The necessity for laws to be rooted in tangible and experiential facts

— The driving force behind human actions: fear, not virtue.

Decoding the world around us: a symbiosis of senses and words

Imagine bathing in the golden glow of a sunny day, the warmth of the sun playfully dancing on your skin. If asked to narrate this scenario to a friend, how would you do so? Would you express it through dance? Most likely not. Rather, you would pick words as your vehicles of depiction.

Language, with its boundless potential to recreate vivid images, is our key to decode the cosmos. But the question remains — how does language accomplish this feat?

The answer begins with comprehending the functioning of our senses. With our senses of touch, hearing, and sight, we absorb our surroundings, triggered by a 'pressure' exerted on our nerve endings. These triggers are set in motion only by entities with a physical 'body' — an object one can touch, a melody one can hear, or a light one can see.

Following the stimulation of senses, we are imprinted with a mental snapshot of an object which then allows us to expound our understanding of the object and the context it exists in. For instance, when you observe the hands of a clock, you assimilate the information to comprehend that these hands form an integral part of a time-telling instrument.

Assigning appropriate words to an experience is fundamental to reasoning. Without the right language, it becomes near impossible to accurately articulate objects or ideas. Picture this: your vocabulary only includes the number "one". How would you react when a clock strikes twice?

However, merely possessing the right words is half the battle won. The other half is conquered by arranging these words logically.

Why does sequence matter, you may ask? The order of words enables us to draw patterns of reason, helping us discern the regular consequences of specific actions. In simpler terms, reasoning allows us to establish connections between entities.

Knowing an egg will shatter when dropped, this logical word sequence suggests a universal truth — all eggs will break when dropped. Therefore, when you spy an egg tottering on the edge of a table, you can predict the forthcoming event.

Deriving information from such connections, you can control your actions to produce desired outcomes and predict others' actions more accurately — a fundamental asset in this dynamic world.

The ceaseless quest for power in an ever-looming shadow of violence

Language, aiding us to label what our senses perceive and organize these labels in a logical sequence, provides us a gateway to comprehend the mechanics of cause and effect.

At first glance, this may seem rather fundamental, but dig a little deeper and you'll uncover a profound implication. Our capacity to grasp cause and effect begets the conception of potentialities, and in turn, gives rise to desire.

Underneath all human endeavors, a common thread runs — a yearning driven by a primal necessity for power. Whether it's the chase for reputation, glory, or wealth, everything converges to the greatest craving: the quest for power.

But, what exactly is 'power'?

Power can be perceived as an individual's capacity to attain what they yearn for. This ability can be innate, like a resilient body or a sharp mind. Alternatively, it can be instrumental, like money, prestige, or a network of influence, serving as catalysts to secure or amplify power.

This pursuit for power, however, can breed rivalry and, consequently, conflict — a situation that stirs up fear, the most overwhelming of which is the fear of death.

Why do our desires sow seeds of violence?

When two people covet the same thing but cannot both possess it, a clash is inevitable. All humans are fundamentally equal and either party can emerge victorious, making the fear of defeat equally intense for both sides.

This equality is a synthesis of our natural and instrumental powers. A petite person could deceive a more physically robust individual or align with allies to defeat him. This awareness, that someone could end your life to claim what is yours, engenders a world steeped in distrust and dread.

This relentless scramble for power inadvertently paves the way to a perennial state of warfare. The question arises: how can we, as a society, avert such a destiny?

For a harmonious society, individual concessions are the cornerstone

If left unchecked, our society could dissolve into endless strife or even unrestrained warfare. So, how do we navigate through this predicament?

The answer lies in embracing a social contract — a pact to treat others exactly how we wish to be treated ourselves.

To ensure that our fears of harm or death don't manifest into reality, it's essential that we, as individuals, relinquish our right to cause harm or kill others.

Should everyone adhere to the rule of non-violence, we can sustain a peaceful society. It is, in fact, our fears that prompt us to forfeit certain rights to secure our own safety.

However, this can only take root if we trust in others to reciprocate. If the possibility of harm lingers, surrendering the right to protect oneself wouldn't appear to be a wise move!

Hence, preserving an agreement of mutual relinquishment of rights is the foundation of justice — any breach of this pact would be deemed unfair. If even a single individual fears that his neighbor might violate the contract, he himself is likely to break it, sparking a domino effect.

This could spiral into chaos, as society unravels like seams of a garment, leaving behind nothing but stray threads and ripped cloth.

To keep the fabric of society intact, it's crucial that every individual adheres to the social contract, mutually surrendering some rights.

Yet, how do we ensure the social contract stands unbroken?

The upkeep of a social contract becomes less strenuous if each individual endeavors to align with societal norms, as uniformity mitigates suspicion and fear. Imagine building a stone house — you'd likely discard the rough, uneven stones, using the smooth, symmetrical ones as your foundation.

Likewise, for a society to function equitably, every individual must seamlessly fit into the societal structure.

A sovereign power, or 'leviathan', is essential to uphold the social contract within a society

In order to cultivate a sense of safety among all societal members, each individual must mutually forego some rights. But the question arises: to whom do we surrender these rights?

Enter the mighty, sovereign entity: the leviathan.

However, the leviathan isn't necessarily a dictator wielding unchecked power. To truly capture the strength of a sovereign ruler, one should envision this ruler as a unified entity, a composite of every single citizen. It is the cumulative strength of every individual within the society that empowers the leviathan.

Essentially, any unjust act committed against the sovereign entity is also an offence against the entire society — the commonwealth — and even against the individual perpetrator.

If we picture the commonwealth morphed into a human form, the leviathan is its head, with each citizen comprising the rest of the body, playing a unique role.

As the head symbolizes the sovereign ruler, his ministers stand as his limbs, and the militia as the robust muscles within these limbs. Consequently, the power of the leviathan cannot be fractioned.

And akin to the organs in a human body, the commonwealth carries out crucial functions that require sustenance.

Thus, the actions taken by the commonwealth are vital to keep the leviathan functional. The lifeblood of the commonwealth is its commerce and trade; its sustenance comes from the goods and services engendered by the society.

Crucially, surrendering one's rights is a monumental decision and individuals will only forfeit their freedom to a sturdy, reliable authority. A leviathan, fortified with the combined strength of its constituents, can aptly fulfill this role.

Similar to the biblical Leviathan, the sea beast that engulfed Jonah, the leviathan overseeing society is capable of devouring the power of each individual to harness collective strength for the greater good.

Among the three basic types of government, monarchy reigns supreme due to its inherent consistency

Which kind of government is best suited for a commonwealth under the supervision of a sovereign ruler?

There are fundamentally three forms of government: aristocracy, democracy, and monarchy.

An aristocracy is characterized by governance by a chosen few. A democracy, in contrast, is governance by the populace. A monarchy, on the other hand, is run by a single individual.

Although terms such as oligarchy or totalitarian regime are often used to classify governments, these are not distinct forms but merely alternative labels for the three basic government types. Moreover, governments that seem to be a blend of these three can actually be distilled into one solitary form.

For example, a government with an elected monarch, referred to as a president, is essentially a democracy. Likewise, a government where a governor is appointed by a monarch essentially functions as a monarchy.

However, out of these three government forms, a monarchy stands out as the superior.

What's the rationale behind this?

A monarch, having a single mind, can make decisions with ease and display a level of consistency far beyond that of a group. Consistency is crucial as it helps uphold the social contract by ensuring every individual knows what to anticipate in society. This predictability fosters a sense of security and further bolsters the social contract, thereby preventing conflict.

Moreover, a monarchy is considered superior because the monarch's interests align with those of his subjects.

Furthermore, succession is smoother in a monarchy, as only one person needs to nominate a successor, thus reducing the potential for disputes that could escalate into conflict or even warfare.

Let's delve deeper into the resources necessary for a monarch to secure a safe and stable commonwealth.

The leviathan holds exclusive control over force to maintain peace and safeguard the social contract

What method does a sovereign ruler use to maintain peace within the commonwealth under his control? The key lies in maintaining an exclusive right to dispense punishment.

But what’s the purpose of the monarch's monopoly over force?

This is due to the fact that agreements based purely on verbal pledges often fall short, and it’s the fear of punishment that deters individuals from violating the commonwealth's rules.

Given our inherent tendency to seek power, and with force being the most straightforward path to power, it’s paramount for a sovereign to protect the right to employ force. If every commonwealth member freely used force to their own ends, clashing with others for personal advantage, the social contract would inevitably disintegrate.

Ironically, it's the individual's fear of punishment that is most effective in preserving the integrity of the social contract.

However, it’s not imperative for the leviathan to personally mete out punishment to every offender. He can delegate this responsibility to others under his rule. A sovereign has the capacity to nominate individuals to judge others' actions and administer penalties.

Entities like the military, the police, and others granted the authority to bear arms under the leviathan's supervision are the mechanisms through which the monarch upholds the laws of the commonwealth.

However, there are boundaries to the leviathan’s punitive capabilities. For instance, an individual cannot be forced to harm himself, as it infringes upon the right to self-preservation, a right that the leviathan was conceived to protect. Hence, compelling a person to punish himself would breach the social contract.

While the sovereign should be the one to create laws and determine the penalties for breaking them, the execution of these laws should be the responsibility of judges, the military, and police – individuals who can sustain order and uphold the social contract on a day-to-day basis.

Under the governance of a leviathan, people are as free as they were before its establishment

With a powerful leviathan reigning over a commonwealth, one would assume that societal freedom would be restricted, right?

Quite surprisingly, the opposite holds true.

In our natural state, life is characterized by isolation, misery, and brevity, with individuals living in perpetual fear of harm or death. If we define liberty and freedom as the capacity to act unhindered and unafraid, our natural state of life is far from free!

Therefore, the presence of a sovereign ruler who prevents individuals from inflicting harm on others essentially ensures freedom.

Before the formation of the commonwealth of England in the late tenth century, people had to constantly fight just to maintain their rights over their lands. Evidently, their freedom was significantly constrained.

However, once the commonwealth was established, people experienced greater freedom. Instead of battling to defend their territories, they could peacefully cultivate their lands and enhance their life conditions.

While philosophers like Aristotle claimed that democracy is the only form of governance that truly ensures freedom, this notion is flawed. The conflict and chaos that tormented societies like Athens and the Roman Empire demonstrate that democracy can lead to injustice and violence.

But what was so unjust about these societies?

In Athens, an individual could be exiled if perceived as too powerful; in Rome, wars broke out between the Senate and the people under the regimes of Pompey and Caesar. Far from securing freedom, democratic systems in these empires bred chaos.

Given that the foundation of the leviathan is a social contract, people haven't relinquished anything they genuinely wished to retain. While some may view the laws of a commonwealth as impediments to freedom, every individual in the commonwealth has consented to these laws.

As such, every individual is free as long as he abides by the social contract. Since all other choices, from residence to child-rearing methods, are left to the individual, freedom comes as a natural consequence.

To prevent conflicting societal norms, the leviathan must also exercise sovereignty over religion

Picture a family where each parent sets different rules for their child — it's a perfect recipe for family turmoil. This situation equally applies to the rules governing a commonwealth.

The existence of more than one governance system in a society heightens the risk of civil conflict.

Hence, everything within a commonwealth — including matters of faith and doctrine — should be under the sovereign's jurisdiction. Absence of centralized control is simply an open invitation to discord.

Consider, for instance, a monarch allowing another group within his territory to dictate the rules of religion. Inevitably, disagreements between the church's desires and those of the monarch would arise, leading to conflicts and possibly violence that disrupts societal peace.

Even the concept of "God", as defined by a church, should not pose a threat to a leviathan's power.

Because, within our worldly context, God does not exist. Bear in mind, all we know to exist are things we perceive through our senses due to pressure on our body's nerves. For something to be sensed, it needs to possess a physical form; hence, intangible entities such as spirits or angels cannot exist.

This, however, doesn't negate the existence of God's kingdom; it exists, but only after the termination of our earthly existence. As such, it doesn’t conflict with a sovereign's kingdom but sequentially follows it.

While God may have created the world, His existence is beyond it. Therefore, it's untenable to suggest that He interferes in the natural world in any form.

While God's kingdom might be real and powerful, this doesn't warrant a dual rule system within society. To ensure societal stability and preserve the social contract, God's rule should be incorporated under the rule of the leviathan.

Laws within a commonwealth should be grounded in tangible knowledge of the real world, not on religious beliefs

If religious ideologies shouldn't form the basis of commonwealth laws, what should serve as the foundation?

At the time Leviathan was penned, religion played a key role in shaping societal moral norms. Hobbes saw the need to delineate how civil laws should be formulated instead.

He posited that all laws should be derived from our sensory knowledge of the world. But what led Hobbes to this viewpoint?

Given that religion and philosophy are grounded in erroneous definitions of words, Hobbes argued, they shouldn't form the backbone of societal laws.

Historically, two types of laws prevailed: state law and canonical law, originating from the Christian church. Hobbes contended that adhering to canonical law was misguided — a sentiment not shared by the Pope — as such laws were based on superstition and beliefs, not on factual evidence.

Thus, Hobbes emphasized that the only credible philosophies were those rooted in the actual, physical machinations of the world. Given that we perceive and interpret the world through our senses, our perceptions should guide civil law.

Laws underpinned by notions of evil entities or a kingdom of darkness, as advocated by the church, are fundamentally flawed, since we cannot physically perceive such concepts. Ideas of spirits or supernatural entities are essentially products of our imagination!

For instance, you might feel a sudden shiver as a gust of wind violently shuts a window. But such a coincidence doesn't verify the existence of "ghosts"! Extending this idea, individuals shouldn't be prosecuted for alleged "witchcraft," but should be penalized for propagating the belief in witches.

In conclusion, an individual joins a commonwealth based on their rational understanding of cause and effect acquired through their physical experience of the world, as interpreted via their senses. As such, the laws governing the commonwealth should be based on this same comprehension.

In conclusion

The major takeaways from this book:

Our knowledge is anchored in our sensory perceptions and understanding of cause and effect. This reasoning propels individuals to aspire for more, often by taking from others, thus creating a natural state of war amongst mankind. It is only through a potent, sovereign authority that society can be shielded from such a scenario. This authority ought to establish rules based on observable phenomena and logical reasoning, not on religious dogmas.