As an ex historian I love how this famous 350yo work of political philosophy is just sitting at #7 on HN with absolutely no context on why it was submitted.
The great debate of political philosophy coming out of the 17th century was between Hobbes (anarchy is horrible, humans aren’t nice to each other, best to give up your freedoms to a strong sovereign/state for protection) and Locke (liberty is best, people are reasonable, limit government). I will say that like most of us I probably side more with Locke but as a pessimist about human nature I find Hobbes’s argument fascinating too.
While Hobbes is dark, he is giving an interesting explanation of how political power actually work, so that even when people are not nice, they can act in a civilized way.I only read a small parts of it and some summaries, from what I understand the crux of the argument doesn't necesserily force democracy or autocracy(although he seem skeptical of democracy) rather it explains the concept of sovereignity, even in a democracy.
I once quoted Leviathan in a course assignment to explain why Gandhi's method is effective :)
Is there a middle ground argument? Something along the lines of humans are horrible to one another unless there is a social state that provides reasonable protection, at which point we can afford to be nice?
The question is not what state humans arein, but what state other humans would be when interacting with them. In other words, are other humans nice to me? I like it when they are nice to me. In return, I will also be nice to them.
Oh totally. I actually don’t like Locke’s position much either, he’s too libertarian for my taste (I would like the state to provide healthcare &c &c). But if I had to choose I’d choose Locke over Hobbes. Hobbes is… real dark.
It's one of the fundamental texts on societal organization from a few centuries ago. It's been a few decades since I finished school, so I may misremember but IIRC:
The author believes that mankind would naturally live in a brutal state of conflict (homo homini lupus est, men are wolves to each other).
But mankind can give up their self interest and give their authority to a government/sovereign (the titular leviathan, a giant monster made of multiple people) that can rule with absolute power and guarantee an environment in which we are all better.
I cannot for the life of me imagine how this ended up on the HN front page, but it's cool.
The great debate of political philosophy coming out of the 17th century was between Hobbes (anarchy is horrible, humans aren’t nice to each other, best to give up your freedoms to a strong sovereign/state for protection) and Locke (liberty is best, people are reasonable, limit government). I will say that like most of us I probably side more with Locke but as a pessimist about human nature I find Hobbes’s argument fascinating too.
Using "&" literally in 2026 smells of wonder, well done, thanks!
Do you do it sometimes in regular English words too or just in &c? Please give more examples (if you have any).
This will be a great day, starting of like this: a written play with words; i like it!
- the OP has not put even 2 lines explaining what, where, why, how, when etc
- Anyone mind explaining what this book is about?
The author believes that mankind would naturally live in a brutal state of conflict (homo homini lupus est, men are wolves to each other).
But mankind can give up their self interest and give their authority to a government/sovereign (the titular leviathan, a giant monster made of multiple people) that can rule with absolute power and guarantee an environment in which we are all better.
I cannot for the life of me imagine how this ended up on the HN front page, but it's cool.
But then again you're riffraff how could you imagine that :)