Aristotle

1- Introduction
2- Understanding the concept of state
Qualitative: no. of people
Quantitative: objective
Classification

Cycle of state

Aristotle changed the approach to understanding philosophy from mere inferences to a systematic way.
Therefore Steven B. Smith of Yale university calls him the First Systematizer in history. The Aristotelian
method of study, which is used till date, made it possible for the people to effectively comprehend the
complex concepts of the universe and politics, which were once presented by likes of Heraclitus,
Parmenides and Plato in an esoteric way.
 Thomas Hobbes (5 April 1588 – 4 Dec 1679)

Outline:
Michael Sugrue, Quentin Skinner, Sabine, Jeffery R. Collins

“The whole rhetorical fulcrum of the book “Leviathan” is either you have leviathan or you have war.”
(Quentin Skinner)

Introduction (product of English civil war + painting at National Portrait Gallery + Thucydides’ Melian
dialogue translation + First ever legal

Background (English Civil war + intellectuals of his time

Chapter 13 of Leviathan (human nature, state of nature, laws of nature)

View on human nature (Brutish, poor, solitary, nasty and short) (influence of Machiavelli in Hobbes'
portrayal of human nature)
Human condition is binary: there are two alternatives. There is bad which is having a government because
it is oppressive and there is worse which is not having a government.

View on state of nature (All men are equal and resources are scarce)

View on laws of nature (“Bellum omnium Contra Omnis” war of all against all)
(He borrowed Grotius' concept of the law of nature and equated natural laws with "dictates of reason)

“Heaven and earth shall pass but not one title of the law of nature shall pass, for it is the eternal law of
god.”
(Thomas Hobbes)

Hobbes does not have summum bonum, instead he has summum malum (the greatest evil) which is being
dead.
“if your political theory or activity result in you being dead that is called a failure politics.”
And the sovereign’s main duty is to protect all from killing each other.

Theory of social contract (surrendering rights) (Iqbal’s concept of community Fard e Qaim rabt e millat
se hai tanha kuch nahi, mouj hai darya me beron e darya kuch nahi)
Bottom-up approach against the traditional Great chain of being approach
borrowed Plato's and Hooker's ideas about the social contract, inspired by Bodin's concept of sovereignty
Three types of persons (natural, artificial, fictive)
Natural person = Public
Artificial person = Sovereign
Fictive person = Leviathan
Artificial person representing Leviathan (Latin > representaire + alienam personam meaning to play
someone else’s role) but needs authorization of the natural persons.
(Iqbal’s concept of community Fard e Qaim rabt e millat se hai tanha kuch nahi, mouj hai darya me
beron e darya kuch nahi)
Machiavelli vs Hobbes
(Heroic savior vs plebian survivalist mentality)

“Samuel von Pufendorf was the man who made Hobbes victorious.”
Carl Schmitt
Statue and translation of Melian dialogue
Human nature
Poor, solitary, brutish and short.
Human condition is binary: there are two alternatives. There is bad which is having a government and
there is worse which is not having a government.
Therefore, if there is a government then stick with it and if not, create one.
Hobbes doesn’t have summum bonum. Instead he has summum malum that is being dead.
“If your political activities and political theories result in you being dead is a failure politics.”

He has a plebian survivalist mentality. Unlike Machiavelli, he does not have a heroic savior for his
country. He has an anti-heroic politics, where survival of man in day-to-day affairs is success.
It must be observed that due to being the product of English civil war and an irrelevant man during all
these, Thomas Hobbes’ writing recurrently portray the survivalist mentality.

Well-acquaintance with intellectual figures of his time

Secretary of Francis Beacon
Criticized Descartes’ dualism
Visited Galelio

He borrowed Plato's and

Hooker's
ideas about the social
contract. The influence of
Machiavelli can be seen in
Hobbes'
portrayal of human nature.
He borrowed Grotius'
concept of the law of nature
and
equated natural laws with
"dictates of reason." He was
inspired by Bodin's concept
of
sovereignty. Hobbes
borrowed Galileo's concept
of the mechanical nature
of the
world, which served as the
foundation for his
philosophy. Desecrates
influenced him
in his materialistic theory and
scientific methods. Euclid's
influence can be seen in his
fondness for geometry, which
he liberally applied to the
study of politics.
He borrowed Plato's and
Hooker's
ideas about the social
contract. The influence of
Machiavelli can be seen in
Hobbes'
portrayal of human nature.
He borrowed Grotius'
concept of the law of nature
and
equated natural laws with
"dictates of reason." He was
inspired by Bodin's concept
of
sovereignty. Hobbes
borrowed Galileo's concept
of the mechanical nature
of the
world, which served as the
foundation for his
philosophy. Desecrates
influenced him
in his materialistic theory and
scientific methods. Euclid's
influence can be seen in his
fondness for geometry, which
he liberally applied to the
study of politics.
He borrowed Plato's and
Hooker's
ideas about the social
contract. The influence of
Machiavelli can be seen in
Hobbes'
portrayal of human nature.
He borrowed Grotius'
concept of the law of nature
and
equated natural laws with
"dictates of reason." He was
inspired by Bodin's concept
of
sovereignty. Hobbes
borrowed Galileo's concept
of the mechanical nature
of the
world, which served as the
foundation for his
philosophy. Desecrates
influenced him
in his materialistic theory and
scientific methods. Euclid's
influence can be seen in his
fondness for geometry, which
he liberally applied to the
study of politics.
He borrowed Plato's and Hooker's ideas about the social contract. The influence of Machiavelli can be
seen in Hobbes' portrayal of human nature. He borrowed Grotius' concept of the law of nature and
equated natural laws with "dictates of reason." He was inspired by Bodin's concept of sovereignty.
Hobbes borrowed Galileo's concept of the mechanical nature of the world, which served as the
foundation for his philosophy. Desecrates influenced him in his materialistic theory and scientific
methods. Euclid's influence can be seen in his fondness for geometry, which he liberally applied to the
study of politics.

He has a decidedly bleak view of human nature.

“Without government, society breaks down into individual animals and it is war of all against all.”

THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF HOBBES

Hobbes' Leviathan, which Professor F.W Coker believes is "the first comprehensive work in political
philosophy from the hands of an Englishman," "put him immediately in the front rank of political
thinkers, and his theory became the center of animated controversy and enormous influence throughout
Western Europe from the moment of its appearance." The following are some of his ideas:

Views on Human Nature

Hobbes uses individuals as a springboard for his ideas. Individuals are treated as embodiments of
passions, emotions, and desires, rather than rational creatures. In other words, Hobbes believes that
man is primarily concerned with himself. According to Hobbes, men are born equal. Some have
superior mental abilities, while others are physically strong; however, their desire for the same things
causes them to clash. Competition, glory, and differences, he believes, make people brutish and
quarrelsome. He goes on to say that everyone has a constant and restless desire for power after power,
which only ends with death. Because all men are roughly equal and want similar things, the possibility of
a "war of every man against every man" exists. In short, man is fundamentally selfish, fractious,
quarrelsome, cruel, wicked, non-altruistic, irrational, impulsive, and self-centered. In this regard, his
views are very similar to Machiavelli's. The only difference is that while Machiavelli did not assign any
reasons for man's bad nature, Hobbes attempts to explain it scientifically. Hobbes' views on human nature,
on the other hand, have been heavily criticized because he portrays humans as antisocial, self-centered,
and egoistic. It's difficult to comprehend how such people became social and took the lead in the
evolution of civil society, or how they were suddenly assigned the reason that compelled them to establish
the state.

Views on the state of nature

The concept of the state of nature is at the heart of Hobbes' social contract theory. That is, human beings
are equal, and the state of nature denotes a situation in which there is no government. It is a human
condition that existed before the formation of civil society. Each person is governed by a set of laws, and
each person has the natural right to protect and preserve himself or herself, to judge, to claim, and to seek
power. Hobbes believes that everyone has the same physical and mental capabilities. The condition of
mere nature is defined as a state of private judgement in which each individual is capable of defending
himself against threats from other individuals in order to preserve and protect himself. Hobbes based his
theory of the state of nature on empirical and normative assumptions in order to prove that no one is
invulnerable or immune to others' dominance.
Because some people are more concerned with preserving their own lives than others, this equality of
ability leads to each individual acquiring good things for himself. All people struggle to accumulate
goods, or in other words, the nature of self-preservation of desires, objects, and goods in order to survive.
Because resources are limited, individuals are more likely to compete or be partial, resulting in an
atmosphere of distrust and conflict of interest. Competition for material goods or the acquisition of things
thus becomes a power struggle, leading to individuals attempting to dominate and control others.
Because without power, it is impossible to acquire goods or objects, as well as to keep what has
been acquired. Hobbes opined in the Leviathan that in the state of nature, a sense of insecurity or fear
develops as a result of this struggle for power, and individuals enter a state of war. Competition, distrust,
and the desire for glory, according to Hobbes, are the main causes of quarrels in the natural world. The
first makes the person an invader for financial gain, while the second and third are for safety and
reputation, respectively.

According to Hobbes, each person in the natural world has the right to self-preservation, which includes
the right to do whatever is necessary for self-preservation based on one's own judgement. Individuals'
disagreements about how to exercise power over others will grow as a result of this. Hobbes
imagines a state of nature in which there is no common authority to resolve individual disagreements or
disputes; this is referred to as a war of all against all, or a state of war, by Hobbes. Every individual
becomes the enemy of the other in this context, and a lack of cooperation places the individual in a
miserable situation that Hobbes describes as solitary, nasty, brutish, poor, and brief.
Hobbes' state of nature is based on the desire to preserve goods for one's own life against the threat of
violence from others. Some scholars argue that Hobbes' primary idea of the state of nature deals with
clashes of ideas, beliefs, and ideologies because conflict and quarrel are inherent in human nature, but the
Hobbesian state of nature relates to differences among individuals on desirable and undesirable; good and
evil. As a result, there can be no justice or morality in this situation, only a natural right of everyone to
everything. The concept of natural right is central to Hobbesian state of nature. Hobbes is credited with
making the most significant contribution to Western political thought.

Views on laws of nature

According to Hobbes, nature is a war of all against all; in other words, it is a miserable state in which
human goals are not realised. Hobbes has discussed a variety of strategies for avoiding or
escaping the situation. The first is to seek peace in order to avoid war or violence, and then to make the
necessary efforts to achieve or maintain it. Beyond the state of nature, everyone agrees that peace is good,
and that the path or means to peace is also good. A rational approach to goods preservation is
more effective and leads to peace, safety, and security for all people. Individuals can easily avoid war,
conflict, or violence with other individuals in this manner. These practical theorems of peace are referred
to as Laws of Nature by Hobbes.

Hobbes argues that the

natural laws are the
foundation and origin of the
state or civil
society. This mode l is used
by a number of political
philosophers who agree with
Hobbes' concept of natural
laws. The state of nature vs.
civil society dichotomy is
used to conceptualise natural
laws. The following are the
main characteristics:
The origin and foundation of
civil society is the state of
nature
Hobbes argues that the natural laws are the foundation and origin of the state or civil society. This mode l
is used by a number of political philosophers who agree with Hobbes' concept of natural laws. The state
of nature vs. civil society dichotomy is used to conceptualize natural laws. The following are the main
characteristics: The origin and foundation of civil society is the state of nature.
Civil society and the state of nature are diametrically opposed because the state of nature deals with
individuals who do not live in society but are sociable. It is entirely voluntary to move from a state of
nature to a civilized society. Individuals from the state of nature who choose to leave the state of nature
form civil society through conventions.

The individual's consent is the principle of legitimation. While Hobbes proposed nineteen natural laws,
some scholars believe that the first three are the most important and crucial, namely: (a) seek peace and
follow it; (b)surrender the natural right to all things; and (c) individuals must honour their
contracts.
While these characteristics will be considered, it will be discovered that natural laws are based on
hypothetical presumptions and that they exist only if certain conditions are met.

Views on Social Contract and Sovereign

Hobbes claims that leaving the state of nature to achieve peace requires a collective effort in which
everyone agrees to give up all their rights. He coined the term" social contract" to describe this collective
effort of individuals. In other words, the social contract, as a pact or agreement between all individuals, is
the foundation of an authentic body. It denotes a method of self-preservation and secure acquisition of
goods. The social contract is a pact between individuals to establish rule, rather than an agreement or
contract between the “ruled” and the “ruler”. The social contract is linked to the concept of equality,
which means that everyone has the same amount of freedom.
Hobbes defines the social contract in terms of natural laws, and it is a means of escaping the state of
nature. His interpretation of nature's laws is not based on his conception of the state of nature, as seeking
peace or acquiring goods peacefully in nature is destructive. Nothing is naturally just or unjust for
Hobbes. Only for the sake of convenience do justice and peace exist. While some critics and scholars
interchange the terms contract and convention, Hobbes makes a clear distinction between the two.
Contract, according to Hobbes, refers to the mutual transfer of rights, whereas covenant refers
to the delivery of goods as agreed upon on one's part and the trust and promise of future performance on
the other's part.

On the one hand, this type of social covenant entails the surrender of rights, while on the other, it entails
the authorization of sovereign power. Individuals require some assurance that everyone who is a part of
the contract will be obedient and perform their part by keeping their words when there is no sanction for
justice. Individuals, according to Hobbes, require a visible power to remind them of the contract's purpose
and to compel them to keep their promises through fear of punishment. As part of a social contract, all
individuals expect the sovereign to treat them equally in matters of justice. Justice, according to Hobbes,
is defined as equality in treatment and equality in rights. All powers would be bestowed on the sovereign
power once it was established. The contract establishes civil society and political authority in and of itself,
as all individuals voluntarily relinquish their rights or limit their sovereignty in order to establish a civil
society. According to Hobbes, the sovereign power has the responsibility to enact legitimate laws as
deemed appropriate.

Though Hobbes preferred monarchy to other forms of government, his main concern was that the
sovereign's powers and authority be defined as clearly as possible, arguing that an effective
government requires absolute authority. Hobbes calls the Leviathan, or king of the proud, the power to
transform a desire for a contract into a commonwealth sovereign. The sovereign is established as a result
of an agreement between individuals. The sovereign is not a party to the agreement. In other words, he is
a contract beneficiary but not a party to it. Every person makes a deal with every other person.
Although some scholars argue that the Leviathan is a king, Hobbes believes that sovereign power
can be one or many, and the Leviathan can be used to describe monarchies, aristocracies, or
democracies. Because individuals have given up their rights, the sovereign has absolute power. The
sovereign's powers are neither divided nor restricted. Because Hobbes believed that family, religion,
kinship, and other social institutions were not necessary for civil society or individual sociability, he
declared that law was derived from the sovereign's command rather than from the social
institutions of individuals.

I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man or to this assembly on this condition that
you give your rights to him and authorize all his action in like manner.
Authorizing representative = Artificial person
By authorizing representative to the artificial person, the community has made itself one person.

Fictive man (man by fiction)

The multitude so united in one person is called commonwealth or state.

“State is a mortal god. We owe to this mortal god our peace under the immortal god. Just as the immortal
god is three persons so is the mortal god (the state). “
Natural person (public)
Artificial person (sovereign)
Fictive person (the state)

Who does the sovereign represent?

The fictive person or the state or the unified singular person
“The state is one person of whose act a great multitude by mutual covenants have made everyone
themselves the author. While the sovereign is the man or the assembly that bears or carries person of the
state.” Leviathan

So, Hobbes gives state the name of his own what he calls Leviathan. He’s very interested in how this
person (fictive) can live a healthy life.
Sovereigns with multitude may come and go but the person of the state is immortal. And it endures and it
must endure beyond the life of any imaginable subjects.
Here immortal does not mean that a state does not have an end but what Thomas Hobbes thinks is:
“To make it live as long as mankind, establishing a system of perpetual security that can be between by us
to our remote prosperity and to create an artificial eternity of life.” (Leviathan)

It is the commonwealth or state which prescribes or command the observation of those rules which we
call laws. So the name of the person in command is persona of the person of the state.
State is a fiction and a sovereign power? How can a fictive person declare a war?
How can fiction acquire any power?

Is this a problem? Hobbes states that if you think that is a problem, then you have a problem.

What is representation according to Hobbes? Re-Presentation (Quentin Skinner)

Re-presentaire (Latin)
Representation of something absent as if it were present.
Classic text on it = = = Pilinius the Elder (Book 34-35) treatise on painting and sculpture
An anecdote of Zeuxis the painter had painted a pair of curtains. Judges said to him that could you part
the curtains pleases to let’s see what have you painted? This way he won the competition.
Zeuxis represented a pair of curtain so perfect that they appeared not to be an illusion. So the essence of
representation in this analysis is providing the best possible likeness