The Straussian interpretation is something like, he doesn't think his entire system hinges on HIS particular "naturalistic" (materialistic, reductive, and crucially non-teleological) anthropology being 100% correct, rather he is showing the general plausibility of such a post-Aristotelian, i.e. essentially nihilistic anthropology, anthropology in the modern "naturalist" sense, as a subset of psychology which is a subset of biology which is a subset of physics etc.
His physics-to-politics pipeline doesn't have to be the exact correct one, rather, the general plausibility of a physics-to-politics pipeline, treating humans as essentially animals, is what is important.
This is why he had such a large impact, as often indirectly as directly, on Locke and on 18th century thought, like Mandeville's Fable of the Bees and the Scottish Enlightenment, and indirectly through Locke on the French materialists and sensualists: they all differed in their particular naturalistic-reductive models, but they all believed that such a model was the correct approach to studying man, as opposed to a "medieval" (or Renaissance-Platonic) model with real metaphysical and moral teleology, what we might call an ought-based model.
In essence, Hobbes shows the possibility of cleaving the "oughts" out of the study of man at every level of his being (from psychology to politics) and proceeding entirely from a description of how man "is." What we, actual individual men then do is a matter of unaccountable preference: do YOU want to live in a bellum omnium contra omnes or not? If not, given such and such account of anthropology/psychology and thus politics, you have such and such choices (authoritarianism for Hobbes, some form of negative liberty for Lockeans, etc.).
Did he personally BELIEVE in his particular views? There's no reason to believe not, although they are pretty vulgar materialist ones. The revolution is in the form, not the content.
Positive liberty is romantic nihilism, negative liberty is grounded nihilism (soon to be clown word nihilism, if not already). Check out Strauss’s essay on German nihilism.
actually a good take, I read Strauss's work on Hobbes after studying him and mostly agree.
What do you mean by vulgar materialists though? Hobbes' materialism (and even Locke) completely blows any esoteric or spiritualist meme author out of the water.
Depends. There's a degree of truth that human history is driven by conflict and from his point of view life was much more chaotic in the earlier times, compare ECW which was a very mild affair for civilians and War of the Roses which certainly wasn't. Go back even further and you see much more chaos. So what Hobbes did was he extrapolated what he knew into hypothetical state of nature... And here the problems of his position become clear.
Robert Filmer was arguing among others against him and in general his iteration of natural law theorists. Filmer is wrongly considered as this Bible thumping loudmouth, in reality he shows some qualities you won't see in political philosophy until de Maistre and later Schmitt. On the anthropological note Filmer's objections are as follows:
1. Humans were never the chaotically driven bowling balls wandering from place to place, even in obscurity they were social creatures and where's society there's politics(in aristotlean sense). Obviously I don't have to explain you that this is what we know about earlier homonids this is certainly the case, he derives it differently, but both him and Hobbes couldn't possibly have known nothing about this and yet Filmer's guess was correct, giving credit to his prior assumptions about the way society is running.
2. The consensualism of the human contract is completely at odds with everything we know about history. Where in history can you find record of such contract? He rhetorically asked people he criticised "when was this contract signed and by who?", and again as a result of having good basic understanding of how society works he points out to something else - force, material or immaterial, either Grug crushed brain of those who opposed him or God said Grug should rule.
Hobbes never really talks about our incessant desire to COOM, gorge, acquire, etc., right? there's not much contemplation about a post-scarcity and what that would entail for humanity.
>the guy isn't serious right? He's just making stuff up to justify his opinion right? The book is just made up stuff right? He can't be sincere right? He just wants to own the libs right?
I swear to god half the posts on this board are like this
Hobbes = Humans naturally act in their self-interest and it is only by "signing" a social contract that humans would act towards a collective interest
Locke = Humans are born as blank slates "tabula rasa" and their environment determines their morality
Rousseau = Humans naturally act in their self-interest but with a disposition towards being good ; however, it is only with a social contract that humans would understand goodness
Hobbes - reality and it is the bitter truth but somewhat built upon a house of cards -- oh that one didn't work but I'm sure it will work the next time we try it!
Locke - understandable since you see blacks who grow up and live outside of ghettos act like a person, this makes the most sense i think.
Rosseau - ideal but this is rather some wishful thinking utopian idea
Locke believed that humans both have and don't have nature. He's a 4th rate philosopher only lifted to the position he is in because he's politically convenient
Hobbes is full of shit. Simple as that. That "leviathan" was picked apart by constant rebellions and the second it showed weakness it died. Ruling with an iron fist fails when the fist inevitably rusts.
Read St. Agustine, Luther and Machiavelli
His anthropology is not some random bullshit to justify le ebil totalitarian state
>Read St. Agustine, Luther and Machiavelli
>Not some random bullshit
the latter. anthropological data points much closer to rousseau's idea of human nature
The Straussian interpretation is something like, he doesn't think his entire system hinges on HIS particular "naturalistic" (materialistic, reductive, and crucially non-teleological) anthropology being 100% correct, rather he is showing the general plausibility of such a post-Aristotelian, i.e. essentially nihilistic anthropology, anthropology in the modern "naturalist" sense, as a subset of psychology which is a subset of biology which is a subset of physics etc.
His physics-to-politics pipeline doesn't have to be the exact correct one, rather, the general plausibility of a physics-to-politics pipeline, treating humans as essentially animals, is what is important.
This is why he had such a large impact, as often indirectly as directly, on Locke and on 18th century thought, like Mandeville's Fable of the Bees and the Scottish Enlightenment, and indirectly through Locke on the French materialists and sensualists: they all differed in their particular naturalistic-reductive models, but they all believed that such a model was the correct approach to studying man, as opposed to a "medieval" (or Renaissance-Platonic) model with real metaphysical and moral teleology, what we might call an ought-based model.
In essence, Hobbes shows the possibility of cleaving the "oughts" out of the study of man at every level of his being (from psychology to politics) and proceeding entirely from a description of how man "is." What we, actual individual men then do is a matter of unaccountable preference: do YOU want to live in a bellum omnium contra omnes or not? If not, given such and such account of anthropology/psychology and thus politics, you have such and such choices (authoritarianism for Hobbes, some form of negative liberty for Lockeans, etc.).
Did he personally BELIEVE in his particular views? There's no reason to believe not, although they are pretty vulgar materialist ones. The revolution is in the form, not the content.
What do you think of Isaiah Berlin's stuff about positive/negative liberty?
Positive liberty is romantic nihilism, negative liberty is grounded nihilism (soon to be clown word nihilism, if not already). Check out Strauss’s essay on German nihilism.
I oppose negative liberty, personally
actually a good take, I read Strauss's work on Hobbes after studying him and mostly agree.
What do you mean by vulgar materialists though? Hobbes' materialism (and even Locke) completely blows any esoteric or spiritualist meme author out of the water.
You like globohomo? If you don't, Hobbes is not for you.
The latter
>is he just making shit up to prove his point
That's called philosophy, anon.
You fell for the meme.
Depends. There's a degree of truth that human history is driven by conflict and from his point of view life was much more chaotic in the earlier times, compare ECW which was a very mild affair for civilians and War of the Roses which certainly wasn't. Go back even further and you see much more chaos. So what Hobbes did was he extrapolated what he knew into hypothetical state of nature... And here the problems of his position become clear.
Robert Filmer was arguing among others against him and in general his iteration of natural law theorists. Filmer is wrongly considered as this Bible thumping loudmouth, in reality he shows some qualities you won't see in political philosophy until de Maistre and later Schmitt. On the anthropological note Filmer's objections are as follows:
1. Humans were never the chaotically driven bowling balls wandering from place to place, even in obscurity they were social creatures and where's society there's politics(in aristotlean sense). Obviously I don't have to explain you that this is what we know about earlier homonids this is certainly the case, he derives it differently, but both him and Hobbes couldn't possibly have known nothing about this and yet Filmer's guess was correct, giving credit to his prior assumptions about the way society is running.
2. The consensualism of the human contract is completely at odds with everything we know about history. Where in history can you find record of such contract? He rhetorically asked people he criticised "when was this contract signed and by who?", and again as a result of having good basic understanding of how society works he points out to something else - force, material or immaterial, either Grug crushed brain of those who opposed him or God said Grug should rule.
Anthropologically he is wrong, but it was never supposed to be an anthropological thesis
Why don't you read the book and find out
I did, just wanted to hear what others thought
There is always this moron who don’t want to argue about anything.
Hobbes never really talks about our incessant desire to COOM, gorge, acquire, etc., right? there's not much contemplation about a post-scarcity and what that would entail for humanity.
>is Hobbes right about human nature
No
>is Hobbes right about human nature
Yes
>the guy isn't serious right? He's just making stuff up to justify his opinion right? The book is just made up stuff right? He can't be sincere right? He just wants to own the libs right?
I swear to god half the posts on this board are like this
Hobbes was a lib
Hobbes = Humans naturally act in their self-interest and it is only by "signing" a social contract that humans would act towards a collective interest
Locke = Humans are born as blank slates "tabula rasa" and their environment determines their morality
Rousseau = Humans naturally act in their self-interest but with a disposition towards being good ; however, it is only with a social contract that humans would understand goodness
is that correct?
Hobbes - reality and it is the bitter truth but somewhat built upon a house of cards -- oh that one didn't work but I'm sure it will work the next time we try it!
Locke - understandable since you see blacks who grow up and live outside of ghettos act like a person, this makes the most sense i think.
Rosseau - ideal but this is rather some wishful thinking utopian idea
Locke believed that humans both have and don't have nature. He's a 4th rate philosopher only lifted to the position he is in because he's politically convenient
Hobbes is full of shit. Simple as that. That "leviathan" was picked apart by constant rebellions and the second it showed weakness it died. Ruling with an iron fist fails when the fist inevitably rusts.
He's making up shit to prove his point, but so is everyone