Perfect timing, I just finished Leviathan yesterday! I hadn't read it for at least a decade and a lot of thoughts I had from my last reading didn't square with what is usually said about it eg when something is referred to as Hobbesian. Anyway, I'm part of the 1% of the country that is a strong monarchist, so I naturally find his argument compelling. I mean that part where he argues about the superiority of monarchy over other forms of government. I think that's self evident (most people don't) so I don't get much out of that. But the first part, where he argues about why everyone should want to form a commonwealth and give up their independence in the state of nature, is really interesting. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I can see why he believes that people under a sovereign (monarch or democracy, doesn't matter) actually have more liberty than those who are not.
And when you were talking about the weirdest takeaways from the book, my favorite is when he argues that personal property that can't be physically divided should be awarded to people in a lottery. He goes from big picture thoughts on government to micromanaging in a flash!
Yes I find myself arguing with the state of nature concept. To me it seems obvious that the natural human organization is a small band or tribe. You'd never have a situation of all-versus-all. Even in relatively anarchic times (9th-century Norway, for instance), you'd have small groups ruled by personal charisma. Human beings would always be subject to some form of society, in other words. There is no humanity without society. That's at the core of Strauss's critique of Hobbes, which is that you cannot separate man from society, and it's absurd to argue about man voluntarily entering into or forming a society when the truth is that without a society, man cannot exist at all.
Agreed. I think Hobbes models his state of nature on eg tigers, which hunt alone and avoid packs, as an example of early man. But we evolved from apes, which are quite social. So to posit a solitary and antagonistic phase between social apes and social man is a stretch. Most of the great economic texts and many of the philosophical texts such as John Rawls are also based on an unrealistic view of human behavior. It allows authors to make fascinating broad brush conclusions but it does call them into question if you look at the foundations too closely.
Great piece, really enjoyed it. There was maybe one little sliver I disagreed with: “The essence of a belief is that you think it should govern the world and govern how people live.” I don’t disagree that this is indeed how many people think about their beliefs, I’ve just never understood why this isn’t questioned more. I often say that believing in things is fine as long as the believer knows they are believing (ie, they know they don’t know for sure, otherwise it would be knowledge, not belief). What I love about liberalism is that it allows people to keep their private beliefs while drawing a hard line between belief and fact.
In any case, thanks for writing about interesting stuff!
Sure, I just worry that “not coercing is itself a type of coercion” is getting dangerously close to “not collecting stamps is also a hobby.” I think people who say such things are often being sincere, they just haven’t thought through the implications.
You're making an argument similar to what Hobbes makes, which is that there is a natural law that flows from human beings' desire to live at peace, and part of this natural law is seeking not to do unto others that you wouldn't have them do unto you. And it's breaches of natural law that should be punished by violence, but otherwise people should live and let live.
The fashion amongst the theocrats nowadays are for Christian natural law arguments, though, where they argue that the natural law is that which allows for "human flourishing". They say "living at peace" is too low of a standard, too low of a baseline, and that it's ultimately null and empty. Instead, there are certain conditions under which human beings can naturally flourish and others under which they don't flourish, and that the state should create the conditions for flourishing. This is how they avoid the simple "might makes right" argument--they don't simply want to gain power and impose their own views--what they want is to bring human society into accord with its telos, with its ultimate aim and purpose, etc.
Very different visions, both of them quite convincing. Yes, to me, "not coercing is a type of coercion" seems absurd, but it doesn't seem that way to the theocrats. They have a very coherent and powerful worldview that explains why they are right.
I do think the theocrats believe in the power of persuasion, they don't ONLY want to impose their vision by coercion, but coercion is certainly a much bigger part of the mix for them than it is for liberals, and imposing their vision requires much more pain, death, destruction, and sorrow than does imposing the liberal vision. If that's all you care about, then liberalism is obviously the less harmful governing system (something I don't even think the theocrats would deny). But the theocrats don't even believe in the idea, necessarily, of minimizing suffering or maximising freedom--they reject the entire liberal value system.
Ultimately it will come down to might makes right--I believe the liberal vision is more capacious, more stable, more peaceful and, because of those reasons, more conducive to human flourishing. It's striking, for instance, that democracies have generally won their freedom on the battlefield: the democratic idea allows the state to leverage more resources with less coercion. This isn't infallibly true, but it's generally so.
Conservatives love to invoke Carl Schmitt, the Nazi philosopher who said that politics is essentially "what are you willing to die for?" He thought that nobody would die for liberal democracy--he was very, very incorrect in that assumption. And in Ukraine and, eventually, Taiwan, we will see that liberal democracy has a lot of juice left.
Thanks for your thoughts on the Leviathan. I've only read excerpts. These deep dives are so useful, because the uniqueness or weirdness of the enlightenment philosophers tends to get airbrushed away over the generations.
Your comments about right-wing versus left-wing conscience arguments brings to mind yet another example from Proust--in this case, his writing on the Dreyfus Affair. He made sharp observations of those on both sides of the divide, and did not shy away from detailing the follies and irrationality of Dreyfusards and anti-Dreyfusards.
He writes that we tend to think that the people on our side of a political argument all come to their views through sound reasoning and an honest, seeking heart, and we think that the people on the other side are over-influenced by their family or tradition or have just never thought clearly enough about the issues to come to a thorough conclusion. But in truth, the people who do that are on both sides, not just one.
I think about that a lot, to the point where I created my own rather cynical aphorism based on his observations: Some people are democrats, some people are republicans, but most people are idiots.
Also, in the end, his character was a Dreyfusard and fought several duels about it. In life, Proust the writer did not fight any duels, but was an outspoken Dreyfusard and lost many of his dear aristocratic friends because of it.
That's a good example! I've noticed this with artistic tastes too. It's very easy when you meet an MFA-writer type who loves, say, George Saunders and Ray Carver and Flannery O'Connor, to think, "This person gets it, they have good taste." But then you look at the contemporary fiction they love, and it's all horrible, overwritten, lacking in nuance. And you realize, oh, while they might believe they sincerely love these other authors, they clearly don't understand what's really great about them. In areas where their opinion has been shaped, it's been shaped well, but it hasn't really touched their core, so in areas where they are free to generate their own opinions, they do so poorly.
I think this is why Straussians, in particular, throw up their hands at the idea of freedom. They're like, there aren't enough genuinely wise people to rule, so we should instead shape a class of aristocrats who, while not being wise themselves, at least have wise opinions
Perfect timing, I just finished Leviathan yesterday! I hadn't read it for at least a decade and a lot of thoughts I had from my last reading didn't square with what is usually said about it eg when something is referred to as Hobbesian. Anyway, I'm part of the 1% of the country that is a strong monarchist, so I naturally find his argument compelling. I mean that part where he argues about the superiority of monarchy over other forms of government. I think that's self evident (most people don't) so I don't get much out of that. But the first part, where he argues about why everyone should want to form a commonwealth and give up their independence in the state of nature, is really interesting. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I can see why he believes that people under a sovereign (monarch or democracy, doesn't matter) actually have more liberty than those who are not.
And when you were talking about the weirdest takeaways from the book, my favorite is when he argues that personal property that can't be physically divided should be awarded to people in a lottery. He goes from big picture thoughts on government to micromanaging in a flash!
Yes I find myself arguing with the state of nature concept. To me it seems obvious that the natural human organization is a small band or tribe. You'd never have a situation of all-versus-all. Even in relatively anarchic times (9th-century Norway, for instance), you'd have small groups ruled by personal charisma. Human beings would always be subject to some form of society, in other words. There is no humanity without society. That's at the core of Strauss's critique of Hobbes, which is that you cannot separate man from society, and it's absurd to argue about man voluntarily entering into or forming a society when the truth is that without a society, man cannot exist at all.
Agreed. I think Hobbes models his state of nature on eg tigers, which hunt alone and avoid packs, as an example of early man. But we evolved from apes, which are quite social. So to posit a solitary and antagonistic phase between social apes and social man is a stretch. Most of the great economic texts and many of the philosophical texts such as John Rawls are also based on an unrealistic view of human behavior. It allows authors to make fascinating broad brush conclusions but it does call them into question if you look at the foundations too closely.
Great piece, really enjoyed it. There was maybe one little sliver I disagreed with: “The essence of a belief is that you think it should govern the world and govern how people live.” I don’t disagree that this is indeed how many people think about their beliefs, I’ve just never understood why this isn’t questioned more. I often say that believing in things is fine as long as the believer knows they are believing (ie, they know they don’t know for sure, otherwise it would be knowledge, not belief). What I love about liberalism is that it allows people to keep their private beliefs while drawing a hard line between belief and fact.
In any case, thanks for writing about interesting stuff!
Yes but your belief that people should not impose their beliefs on others is itself a belief you think other people should follow :)
I mean I agree with it, but it's still perceived by the theocrats as being a coercive belief. Altho who knows whether they mean that seriously or not
Sure, I just worry that “not coercing is itself a type of coercion” is getting dangerously close to “not collecting stamps is also a hobby.” I think people who say such things are often being sincere, they just haven’t thought through the implications.
You're making an argument similar to what Hobbes makes, which is that there is a natural law that flows from human beings' desire to live at peace, and part of this natural law is seeking not to do unto others that you wouldn't have them do unto you. And it's breaches of natural law that should be punished by violence, but otherwise people should live and let live.
The fashion amongst the theocrats nowadays are for Christian natural law arguments, though, where they argue that the natural law is that which allows for "human flourishing". They say "living at peace" is too low of a standard, too low of a baseline, and that it's ultimately null and empty. Instead, there are certain conditions under which human beings can naturally flourish and others under which they don't flourish, and that the state should create the conditions for flourishing. This is how they avoid the simple "might makes right" argument--they don't simply want to gain power and impose their own views--what they want is to bring human society into accord with its telos, with its ultimate aim and purpose, etc.
Very different visions, both of them quite convincing. Yes, to me, "not coercing is a type of coercion" seems absurd, but it doesn't seem that way to the theocrats. They have a very coherent and powerful worldview that explains why they are right.
I do think the theocrats believe in the power of persuasion, they don't ONLY want to impose their vision by coercion, but coercion is certainly a much bigger part of the mix for them than it is for liberals, and imposing their vision requires much more pain, death, destruction, and sorrow than does imposing the liberal vision. If that's all you care about, then liberalism is obviously the less harmful governing system (something I don't even think the theocrats would deny). But the theocrats don't even believe in the idea, necessarily, of minimizing suffering or maximising freedom--they reject the entire liberal value system.
Ultimately it will come down to might makes right--I believe the liberal vision is more capacious, more stable, more peaceful and, because of those reasons, more conducive to human flourishing. It's striking, for instance, that democracies have generally won their freedom on the battlefield: the democratic idea allows the state to leverage more resources with less coercion. This isn't infallibly true, but it's generally so.
Conservatives love to invoke Carl Schmitt, the Nazi philosopher who said that politics is essentially "what are you willing to die for?" He thought that nobody would die for liberal democracy--he was very, very incorrect in that assumption. And in Ukraine and, eventually, Taiwan, we will see that liberal democracy has a lot of juice left.
Thanks for your thoughts on the Leviathan. I've only read excerpts. These deep dives are so useful, because the uniqueness or weirdness of the enlightenment philosophers tends to get airbrushed away over the generations.
Your comments about right-wing versus left-wing conscience arguments brings to mind yet another example from Proust--in this case, his writing on the Dreyfus Affair. He made sharp observations of those on both sides of the divide, and did not shy away from detailing the follies and irrationality of Dreyfusards and anti-Dreyfusards.
He writes that we tend to think that the people on our side of a political argument all come to their views through sound reasoning and an honest, seeking heart, and we think that the people on the other side are over-influenced by their family or tradition or have just never thought clearly enough about the issues to come to a thorough conclusion. But in truth, the people who do that are on both sides, not just one.
I think about that a lot, to the point where I created my own rather cynical aphorism based on his observations: Some people are democrats, some people are republicans, but most people are idiots.
Also, in the end, his character was a Dreyfusard and fought several duels about it. In life, Proust the writer did not fight any duels, but was an outspoken Dreyfusard and lost many of his dear aristocratic friends because of it.
I think about that a lot, too.
That's a good example! I've noticed this with artistic tastes too. It's very easy when you meet an MFA-writer type who loves, say, George Saunders and Ray Carver and Flannery O'Connor, to think, "This person gets it, they have good taste." But then you look at the contemporary fiction they love, and it's all horrible, overwritten, lacking in nuance. And you realize, oh, while they might believe they sincerely love these other authors, they clearly don't understand what's really great about them. In areas where their opinion has been shaped, it's been shaped well, but it hasn't really touched their core, so in areas where they are free to generate their own opinions, they do so poorly.
I think this is why Straussians, in particular, throw up their hands at the idea of freedom. They're like, there aren't enough genuinely wise people to rule, so we should instead shape a class of aristocrats who, while not being wise themselves, at least have wise opinions