Page 97 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Unit 6: Thomas Hobbes

nature”. Then he recombined these elements into a new body politic, the Leviathan. Hobbes Notes
compared his method to taking apart a watch or a small engine in order to know its constituent
parts.
Hobbes contended that the aim of all philosophy was to give a mechanical theory of the universe.
This was seen as a problem in geometry. Atoms had no properties of their own, except when seen
as a part of certain laws of motion. Matter was in a state of perpetual motion. The problem was
how it moved from one state of motion to another. The human being was also an automaton, for
all his actions could be explained by the laws of motion. All motions originated, and were with
reference to, the human body. It would function harmoniously with minimum friction, like a wrist
watch, if arranged properly. If not, then the parts would destroy one another.
Hobbes’s mechanical materialism differed from Marx’s dialectical materialism. A mechanical
materialist perceived matter to be passive, with change stimulated from the external environment.
A dialectical materialist regarded matter as being active, changing from within without much help
from the environment. The mechanistic conception implied that the whole was no more than a
sum total of the parts that comprised it. The whole was not more important or greater than the
constituent parts. Applying the analogy to the state, Hobbes viewed the state as an aggregate and
not a compound of individuals.
Thus, the ultimate aim of Hobbes, as of Galileo, was to use the mathematical framework to describe
a physical and political phenomenon, as mathematics provided unity, certainty and precision.
Following Galileo, he opposed the Aristotelian idea of things moving towards some goal, and
then coming to rest. On the contrary, things in motion tended to stay that way. Philosophy, for
Hobbes, was strictly utilitarian and practical— a knowledge of the effects which could be produced
by a given set of causes, or conversely, of causes that resulted in a set of effects. Like Bacon and
Hamilton, he regarded power as the end of knowledge and an instrument to harness the forces of
nature. All individuals were equal, but differences arose due to their differing capacity for
knowledge. All knew that war and civil strife were the worst possible calamities, but few understood
their causes and the ways to avoid them. Very few could comprehend the means by which peace
could be maintained.
Hobbes insisted that if science had to gain ascendancy, it would have to receive support from
certain sections in society. He emphasized that philosophy and science could only flourish in an
affluent society, and cited the examples of Athens and Rome. He cautioned against the pursuit of
wealth as an overwhelming goal, for if that happened, it would subordinate knowledge, increase
corruption, imperil peace and safety in civil society. England of the seventeenth century was
similar to Athens. In both societies, philosophy was no longer pursued for the knowledge and the
truth it bestowed, but was seen as a means to earning a living. The political message that he
conveyed was that it would be fatal to rely on the advice of those who were more dextrous with
making money rather than knowledge.

6.3 Hobbes’ Political Philosophy
Hobbes stress was on fear and self-interest as the two fundamental human motivations which
needed to be tempered and controlled by an omnipotent sovereign power. The presence of a
sovereign separated a state of nature from a political society. Using the device of the social contract,
Hobbes explained the nature of sovereignty, its location, the relationship with the individual, the
essential functions of a government, and the origins of a state. Hobbes defended a case for absolute
legal sovereignty, since sovereign power was the result of a zero-sum game. Absolute power
ensured complete order. Conversely, its absence meant chaos.
In view of the fact that the English Parliament succeeded in extracting a Petition of Rights from
Charles I, Hobbes warned his readers through his translation of Thucydides (1628) against any

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 91