Wednesday, February 4, 2009

An Extract from The Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes


Chapter XIII

OF THE NATURAL CONDITION OF MANKIND AS CONCERNING THEIR FELICITY AND MISERY

Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself.

And as to the faculties of the mind, setting aside the arts grounded upon words, and especially that skill of proceeding upon general and infallible rules, called science, which very few have and but in few things, as being not a native faculty born with us, nor attained, as prudence, while we look after some what else, I find yet a greater equality amongst men than that of strength. For prudence is but experience, which equal time equally bestows on all men in those things they equally apply themselves unto. That which may perhaps make such equality incredible is but a vain conceit of one’s own wisdom, which almost all men think they have in a greater degree than the vulgar; that is, than all men but themselves, and a few others, whom by fame, or for concurring with themselves, they approve. For such is the nature of men that how so ever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent or more learned, yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves; for they see their own wit at hand, and other men’s at a distance. But this proveth rather that men are in that point equal, than unequal. For there is not ordinarily a greater sign of the equal distribution of any thing than that every man is contented with his share.

From this equality of ability arise the 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) endeavour to destroy or subdue one another. And from hence it comes to pass that where an invader hath no more to fear than another man’s single power, if one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united to dispossess and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labour, but also of his life or liberty. And the invader again is in the like danger of another.

And from this diffidence of one another, there is no way for any man to secure himself so reasonable as anticipation; that is, by force, or wiles, to master the persons of all men he can so long till he see no other power great enough to endanger him: and this is no more than his own conservation requireth, and is generally allowed. Also, because there be some that, taking pleasure in contemplating their own power in the acts of conquest, which they pursue farther than their security requires, if others, that otherwise would be glad to be at ease within modest bounds, should not by invasion increase their power, they would not be able, long time, by standing only on their defence, to subsist. And by consequence, such augmentation of dominion over men being necessary to a man’s conservation, it ought to be allowed him.

Again, men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all. 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 endeavours, 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.

So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.

The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of the other men’s persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name.

Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same is consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thinking It Over:

In Hobbes’ opinion, what are the 3 primary causes of quarrel between Man?

Taking It Further:

1) Do you agree with Hobbes that Man is in a constant state of war? Why?

2) How would such a mindset affect the way contemporary societies are organised? Is this broadly beneficial or harmful to mankind?

Online: http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/leviathan/

7 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

In Hobbes’ opinion, what are the 3 primary causes of quarrel between Man?

The first cause is that of competition, to obtain some sort of gain over others. The second is that of diffidence, to keep oneself safe. The third is that of glory, to earn a reputation for oneself.

Do you agree with Hobbes that Man is in a constant state of war? Why?

No. Human civilization has developed and progressed to the extent that we are beyond this seemingly barbaric stage where "every man is against every man". Values like love for others, fraternity, etc. have been promoted by Man and passed down from generations. And as time passed, it is evident that while the moral standards of Man is currently nowhere near perfect, it has definitely improved when compared to the past. For instance, slavery used to be rampant in the past but is now internationally condemned and prohibited. However, Hobbes is not completely wrong. Despite the progress of human civilization, deviants in society still exist. For one, crime hasn't been completely eradicated. The presence of these black sheeps indicate that some (but not all) men are still "in a constant state of war".

How would such a mindset affect the way contemporary societies are organised? Is this broadly beneficial or harmful to mankind?

Having the mindset that Man is in "a constant state of war" encourages society to be organized to maximize peace and security. And to achieve this, Hobbes advocates monarchy - the rule of one over all.

A monarchy is beneficial to Man because it provides a stable leadership. There is absolutely no chance of infighting at the top because the ruling body is composed of one and only one man. As such, society can enjoy political stability. However, a monarchy can also lead to tyranny as the solitary ruler can easily promote his self interest over that of the public. Thus, society will suffer should the monarch not act in the collective interest.

Eugene - 09S07A

chickentail said...

In Hobbes’ opinion, what are the 3 primary causes of quarrel between Man?

1. Competition
Men quarrel with one another so that they can enslave other people for their personal gains and self-interest.

2. Diffidence
Out of fear, men argue with others so that they can defend themselves from various harmful attacks.

3. Glory
Men seek reputation and dignity by undervaluing others and gaining respect from their peers.

Do you agree with Hobbes that Man is in a constant state of war? Why?

The definition of war can be extended beyond the physical state of using force to achieve one's means. Throughout the world today, we see many countries being at loggerheads with one another over economic issues, national sovereignty and land disputes. The recent Israel-Palestine war is an example whereby military actions between countries are vey much alive today.

Since the beginning of civilisation, men have never stopped battling one another over the most minute of issues. Even as we enjoy the relative peacefulness in Singapore, numerous countries are fighting for competition, diffidence and glory. Even Singapore was engaged in War of Words with neighbouring countries over national sovereignty and land disputes.

As such, even if men realise the importance of building a world without wars, the truth remains that Man is in a constant state of war.

How would such a mindset affect the way contemporary societies are organised? Is this broadly beneficial or harmful to mankind?

There is a Chinese proverb "before it rains, bind around with silk", which means that Man must be prepared for rainy days. Therefore, by having a mindset that "Man is in a constant state of war" ensures that the society is prepared for crisis. Everyone is equal to the extent that everyone is evil in nature. Man can never trust His peers who might one day backstab Him. While this will eventually be a society without love, it would also be a society with maximum law and order.

In terms of how this system affects humankind, personally our group feels that it would be beneficial to the stability of the country, provided that the ruler or the monarch is focused on ruling the state. Looking back at the Chinese history, most dynasties which have corrupted monarchs do not last more than a few decades, whereas those dynasties which have incorruptible leaders are more than capable of leading the country. For dynasties such as the Tang Dynasty, the monarchs are in control for over 300 years, longer than all other political systems in place right now. As such, such a mindset may well be beneficial to the contemporary society which lacks a strong leader who can make decisions without being criticised by the people.

chickentail said...

This previous post is by
Serena
Mel
Xiao Xiao
Jiwei
09SO6J

zhefei7A said...

Thinking It Over:

In Hobbes’ opinion, what are the 3 primary causes of quarrel between Man?

1) Competition
Man quarrels which each other because of the need to establish supremacy over the other, such as in the case where two men are fighting for the same end, and only one can achieve it.

2) Diffidence
Man quarrels with each other because of the anticipation of the above reason - competition. As a result of this anticipation that people will compete so as to hold some sort of benefit that you are holding, people will take steps to protect and defend themselves from the competition of others.

3) Glory
Man quarrels with each other so that they are able to establish their own point, and gain respect for that. By undervaluing any opposing points, this is the trigger for disagreement between Man, and a quarrel ensues.

Taking It Further:

1) Do you agree with Hobbes that Man is in a constant state of war? Why?

I agree with Hobbes that Man is in a constant state of war.
Firstly, if we were to look at the definition of war that Hobbes mentioned, which could be the result of Man's quarrels due to competition, diffidence, or glory, we can see that Man has been constantly "at war" with each other.
In comparison to the past, our world now definitely seems more stable and filled with less conflict due to the diplomatic efforts of the various countries to establish positive ties with other countries. However, it is inevitable that conflicts arise even in our current state of peace among the nations, for reasons such as natural resource sales (Singapore-Malaysia water dispute), or land disputes (China-Japan dispute).
Man constantly challenges each other in order to establish their supremacy, be it through competition or for the glory of proving their point. By extending the definition of war, which can be not-so-literal in meaning, even the most minute of quarrels in everyday life can be shown to be a dispute which proves that Man is constantly in a state of war, due to the need to triumph over the other party in proving their point.
Even if today's society realises the importance of establishing peace and stability among all nations, as seen by the increased diplomatic efforts and improved bilateral relations between countries, Man, in the most minute of ways, is still in a constant state of war.

2) How would such a mindset affect the way contemporary societies are organised? Is this broadly beneficial or harmful to mankind?

A mindset that Man is in a constant state of war would encourage states to take steps in strengthening the peace and stability of the society so as to minimise conflict and the ensuing harm as a result of a conflict.
However, this mindset also encourages Man to accept the constant state of war as a way of life, and use this method to further society and its aims. For example, technological and scientific advancement could be due to scientists constantly engaging in intellectual arguments, in which they are considered to be in a "state of war," and this encourages Man to turn the negative connotation of "war" to turn into that of a positive one.
As such, because of the prioritisation of minimising conflict, democracy is the most acceptable to Man as the majority opinion decides who is to lead the country. In the case of a monarchy, dissenting people who want to take over the position would attempt to overthrow the monarchy, creating conflict, which would be largely harmful to mankind if this takes place repeatedly because of the lack of stability. However, in the case of democracy, the majority's opinion is taken into account, and because of Hobbes' point of diffidence where the ruling party would anticipate competition and take steps to protect themselves from it, the ruling party would act in the interests of the people so as to protect their position in the country as its "rulers." Therefore, because the majority's opinions are regarded, and the government would work in the interests of the people, peace and stability can be achieved, which would then minimise conflict within the society, becoming broadly beneficial to mankind.

Ivan
Justin
Zhefei
09S07A

nickyoon said...

1) I agree, as Man by nature constantly seeks to pit himself against others in a bid for superiority. In nature, males fight for dominance over herds and rights to mate with females. This is also seen in Man and his inherent need to expand his own territorial boundaries. In this day and age, whilst the exact form and nature of this "state of war" may not have been as apparent in the feudal ages or the time of the crusades, it is still apparent nonetheless. Corporations resort to cut-throat pricing techniques to push their rivals out of the market. Implicit conflicts over land, assets, as well as custody over others are now fought in legal arenas, with arguments and theses in the place of swords and spears.

2) Such a mindset, whilst sounding unnaturally grim and dystopic, may in fact be for the benefit of mankind. The economic theory of "healthy competition" seems to suggest this as well. Without a threat to one's superiority, or a looming figure over one's shoulder, it is not uncommon to see man slump into inactivity and adiposity. On the other hand, being too concerned with beating down the opposing party may in fact misguide or even distort one's original aims. An example of this would be the Jewish holocaust, which started as a social revolt against poverty and quickly escalated into genocide and a global war. As such, one can only conclude that with great power comes with great responsibility, and that the inherent warlike nature of man may in fact serve a dual purpose, much like a double-edged sword.

Nig Yun
TiMoMo
SammyTang

09s07a

TG said...

Qn: In Hobbes’ opinion, what are the 3 primary causes of quarrel between Man?

the 3 principle causes of quarrel between Man are competition, diffidence, and glory. competition causes Man to fight for gain, diffidence for security, and glory for trifles.

Qn: Do you agree with Hobbes that Man is in a constant state of war? Why?

I agree. humans are born with instincts to survive (i.e. to crave food, security etc) and it is inevitable that at times our interests conflict those of others, and we, by one way or another, fight in our own selfish interest. Without the law to govern us, such conflicts will be even more frequent.

However, one may also argue that by our morals, we may sometimes choose not to act in our own selfish interest, but instead that of others. Thus, in a society where everyone is moral, we may exist in a state of peace.

Qn: How would such a mindset affect the way contemporary societies are organised? Is this broadly beneficial or harmful to mankind?

it will be more totalitarian and there will be stricter laws concerning the people's day to day lives, with less "rights" and freedoms accorded to individuals. While the state might be more stable, progress is hindered since there is less expression of radical ideas. Thus, this might be somewhat harmful to mankind.

Tu Guang, Jasmine, Amanda
09S06H