Having gotten my head handed to me the last time we discussed Hobbes' introduction, I think I should play the back this time. With that said, I do want to highlight one comment from last week. I think it says a lot about Hobbes' approach, which he lays out in his Introduction:
Hobbes is trying to make an argument about statecraft, and is arguing (implicitly, at least) that you cannot learn from historical example. Instead of studying great leaders and great nations of the past or in the present - such as Machiavelli for instance constantly does - one should look inward, and try to deduct the nature of man from a reflection upon one's own nature. He is, one could say, an anti-historical thinker, and this is him articulating why he is so.And this is more or less what Hobbes does in Leviathan. Instead of studying former, stable states, he makes an argument about the nature of man, the nature of passions and the nature of language - and from that basis, he constructs an argument regarding the kind of political organization which is necessary to create a politically stable state.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.