Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes - Essay Example

English Literature ic and Modern), Essay Topic: Leviathan Introduction The of nature isuseful in understanding the behavior and mutual disposition of the states at the international level. Thomas Hobbes categorically asserts that the state of nature as a state of war. He emphasizes about a state of anarchy and makes the case for a strong central authority to control disorder and to secure peace. By war Hobbes does not mean actual fighting but he insists that the cloud of war is ever present and this leads to harmful conditions for the functioning of a society and societal relationships. The definition of war by Hobbes assumes that every individual is fearful that another will kill him. This is the extension of his process of thinking that groups or sovereigns assume the will of enemy to fight. Hobbes is a great philosopher and thinker, but philosophers like him stop at the barrier of the mind. They wish to reason out everything, and want the evidenced conclusions if someone challenges their versions. He must know that for every mind-level argument, there is a counter-argument from another mind, whose perception is different. Hobbes’ stand is like the die-hard stand of a staunch trade unionist, the one with the leftist leanings. Such a leader believes that the management is the permanent enemy and the working class should be at always at war with the group of managements and final solution to the problems is like chasing the mirage. This is part of the ideology of communism. Such ideologies thrive for a short duration; find support from the concerned followers in the first flush of enthusiasm. Since they do not possess intrinsic worth, are anti-dote to human values and truth, their fall is also abrupt and total. The fall of communist governments in Yugoslavia and Soviet Russia and the total reversal of Communist political and trade policies in China are to be noted in this context. The worst sins are committed, and the pages of history of such countries are daubed in bloodshed, but Hobbes seems to support their plight, obviously because he is absent during the course of such developments! I would also like to give another example to refute the stand of Hobbes and his justification about the state of war. I would say that it is his hallucination. Suppose Hobbes is standing on the shores of an ocean and suddenly he thinks that Tsunami is the nature of the ocean and he beats the hasty retreat from that place, being afraid of the impending calamity. Tsunami is not the permanent nature of the ocean, such situations may occur, not due to the intrinsic nature of the ocean, but due to extraneous factors and the ocean becomes the medium to carry out the will of Nature. Alternatively, Hobbes standing in the shore assumes that he will take bath in the sea, when there are no waves. He is afraid of the waves and he thinks that their waters will engulf him. This is also a bottomless argument. Waves are very nature of the ocean; only the one who takes the plunge needs to know how to swim. So, to think that the individual in front you is your potential killer, is absolutely incorrect. An individual need not be fearful of the other or the nations need not remain in the state of permanent hostility to each other. By nature, man does not feel the compulsion to violate the rights of others to preserve and protect self-interest. So, the state of nature is not state of war. The state of nature theory is useful in application to international relations and the study of political situations in the world today, but the policies of response cannot be implemented on the basis of imagined fears. Acting thus, would mean inviting conflicts to challenge peace. Two states can ‘walk together,’ even if they are not agreed on many issues. Turn the pages of history, the intervals of peace are longer than the durations of the war. Does Hobbes think about the horrors of the English civil war, to conclude that the state of nature is completely intolerable? One incident or even a series of such incidents cannot be the basis for drafting a law about the state of nature. The problems with Hobbes and thinkers like him are they view the world by positioning at a particular height of the mountain. For example, let us assume that the height of Mount Everest is 30,000 ft. Hobbes has stationed himself at a height of 15,000 ft. He can view the scenic beauty of Nature as would be seen only from that height and not from 30,000 ft. Partial knowledge cannot be used to justify conclusions that are of the domain of total knowledge. Going by the arguments of Hobbes, attaining world peace is impossibility, and even to make efforts to achieve that goal is a futile exercise as state of nature is conflict-oriented, and not peace-oriented. No state leader is a leader in the true sense of the term, if his conviction lies in the negative aspects of the power of the state. If state of war and pre-emptive actions are the guiding principles of state administration, it amounts to total rejection of principles of morality. Going by the Hobbesian theory, every state will have justifications for actions against another state and the aggrieved state will have justification for stalling that action by an offensive action. Where is the solution then? As per the theory of competition and self-preservation intentions of America in Iraq is a strategy to protect its interest in Middle East. But many countries know the hidden agenda of America to secure control over crude oil production. The presence of double standards is mostly there in individual relations and the international relations amongst the states. But that does not mean that warfare and mutual hostility should be the way of life in individual relations or international levels. Hobbes makes his confusion clear in the introduction to his book, “Leviathan.” He argues, “For seeing life is but a motion of Limbs, the beginning whereof is in some principle part within.”(vii)Life is not a motion of limbs nor is its beginning in some principle part within. The beginning is elsewhere, and only an individual who has experienced (not only read spiritual texts) spiritual truths, can know what life is! You need space and liberty in this world, in the proportion of which you are willing to give it to others! The best means of self-preservation is co-operation with nature and not confronting it. Hobbes asserts that men are fundamentally competitive and selfish. Absolutely no! The ideal individual is competitive in the positive sense of the term and works without the motivated desires, which is a divine quality. Hobbes creates the picture of an arrogant individual, who proclaims, ‘whatever I say is correct.’ I am talking about that individual who says, ‘whatever correct is there in the world belongs to me!’ Hobbes stand to grant sovereign powers of censorship, including stalling religious discussions is absurd. He equates a man seeking to preach a new religion should be treated as a criminal. If that is the case, we already have a criminal with us in Hobbes! Those who are ignorant about the basics of religion and spirituality can afford to make such statements! Conclusion Morality is not grounded in politics alone. Hobbes gives more importance to politics, than what it deserves. How can Hobbes argue that outside of a government institution, man is always in a state of war? The ground realities are, even within the government institution, some men are at war. Hobbes views about man’s condition are totally pessimistic. Human beings are not essentially selfish, they are essentially divine and their basic nature is benevolence. Works Cited Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; 2011, Print Read More