Hobbes, first reading assignment

Chapter Six

We begin our Hobbes reading with chapter six. I'm sure you've all been told at some point or another to be sure to define your terms in your own writing. I'm also pretty sure you've never taken that advice and ran with it quite as thoroughly as T.H. does here. One clue about Hobbes' general approach to political theory can be found in the very first paragraph here, where he discusses the two sorts of motion that can be found in animals. Philosophers have often spent a great deal of time and thought on the questions of how, and how much, and in what ways, humans are different from animals. Here, Hobbes starts with animals and is discussing "men" in no time. The transition is easy for him. What do you think this tells us about Hobbes' approach to political theory?

How does Hobbes define "Love" and "Hate" in this chapter? Are these definitions counterintuitive? What would be another alternative approach?

Read through the rest of Hobbes' definitions with an open mind, trying to see how they all fit together to form the beginnings of a "worldview." What can we say about the way Hobbes approaches the world from his definitions?

Chapter 13

"Nature hath made men equal," Hobbes tells us. But not literally so. What, precisely, does Hobbes mean by the assertion of natural equality?

"Natural equality" might sound, at first, like a recipe for peace, love and understanding, but Hobbes suggests it is, in fact, precisely the opposite. Why?

Hobbes in this chapter introduces the concept of the "state of nature." What is the state of nature?

Hobbes' pessimistic account of life in the state of nature is perhaps the most famous part of his political theory. It is summarized eloquently in the first full-length paragraph on page 171. This has lead many commenters, including many former students of mine, to hold the view that Hobbes thinks human nature is "evil." I find this to be a fundamental misunderstanding of Hobbes' theory. So if it's not that we're evil, why is life in the state of nature such so "nasty, brutish and short"?

In this war of every man against every man, Hobbes tells us, "nothing can be unjust." Why not?

Terms to know:

Equality of hope
Causes of Quarrel (competition, diffidence, and glory)
State of Nature
State of war

Chapter 14 and 15

Here Hobbes introduces us to the "laws of nature." Since there is no legal authority in a state of nature, what does Hobbes mean by "laws of nature"?

What is a contract, according to Hobbes? Why are contracts so difficult in the state of nature?

What are the first and second laws of nature (chapter 14)?

The third law of nature, Hobbes tells us, is justice (ch. 15, pg. 178). Earlier, he suggested that in the state of nature, no action is unjust. Has Hobbes contradicted himself? How can we reconcile these two views?

A character called "the fool" is introduced at the beginning of chapter 15. What does the fool believe? Why is the fool a fool?

Read through the rest of the laws of nature discussed in chapter 15. They are summarized, Hobbes tells us, with the following maxim (pg. 183): Do not that to another, which though wouldest not have done to thyself. Does this sound familiar? But how can all these nice laws be squared with what we've learned about the state of nature? (Hobbes begins to address this issue in the following paragraph. Read it, and indeed, all of the final six paragraphs of chapter 15, closely. He hints at how we'll answer this question, and also connects his theory back to his definitions from chapter six)

Chapter 16.

This is a short chapter, and a very difficult one. If you've made it this far and feel you're able to follow Hobbes' argument, good job. Prepare to be confused. Chapter 16 will appear to be a non-sequitor until we read the next reading assignment. Just try to keep clear the concepts of natural vs. artifical persons, actors, authors, authority, and "personated." The signifigance of all this will hopefully become clearer in the subsequent chapters.