Let's see what the peculiarity of the next (after substantiating the equality) step of reasoning is. “From this equality of abilities arises an equality of hopes for achieving our ends. Therefore, if two people desire the same thing, which, however, they cannot both possess, they become enemies,” writes Hobbes. Consequently, thinkers of the 17th century. in fact, they were already leading the way, conditioned by the logic of the problems they were considering (problems of law, the relationship of people to each other, equality and freedom, human conflicts) social research, in which socio-philosophical, socio-psychological and axiological considerations were actually intertwined. Although the philosophers of the 17th century, of course, did not have these terms, the methods of such research themselves already existed in embryo. It is no coincidence that the aspects of the doctrine of human nature under consideration were most carefully developed when they were included as an integral part in the philosophy of state and law. Creating a doctrine of the state and presenting it in the form of Leviathan, “artificial man,” Hobbes considered it necessary from the very beginning to consider “the material from which it is made, and its master, that is, man.” So, from the affirmation of natural equality, Hobbes moves on to the idea of ​​​​the ineradicability of the war of all against all. The harshness and, one might say, ruthlessness with which Hobbes formulated this thought repelled his contemporaries. But in fact, their agreement with Hobbes was profound: after all, all the major philosophers also believed that people “by nature” are more concerned about themselves than about the common good, they are more likely to enter into struggle than to refrain from conflict, and that orientation towards the good of other people it is necessary to specially educate the individual, resorting to the arguments of reason, to various government measures, etc.

For Hobbes, a state of peace and mutual assistance is unthinkable without a strong state. Locke, on the other hand, considers it permissible to conceive of a non-state and non-legal state of complete freedom and equality, nevertheless compatible with peace, good will, and mutual assistance of people. Hobbes's logic is determined by the reality of the history of society known to him, Locke's logic is determined by the desire for integrity and completeness of the ideal. Hobbes did not consider himself entitled to simply document the gap between the ideals of equality and freedom, supposedly corresponding to the “true” nature of man, and real life of people. He explored the problem more deeply, sharply, more radically than Locke. He understood the deviation of the ideal from reality as a fundamental and constant possibility arising from the very human nature. And in relation to the societies known to him, he did not sin against historical truth when he showed that people’s concern only for themselves was confirmed by their struggle with each other, the war of all against all.

Hobbes wanted to unambiguously connect the image of the war of all against all not so much with the past as with actual manifestations social life and the behavior of individuals in his era. “Perhaps someone will think that such a time and such a war as those depicted by me have never existed; and I don’t think that they ever existed as general rule all over the world, but there are many places where people live like this even now,” writes Hobbes and refers, for example, to the life of some tribes in America. But the rapprochement of the natural state and, consequently, the properties of human nature with the behavior of people in during the civil war and with the “continuous envy” in which “kings and persons vested with supreme power” are in relation to each other.

Hobbes uses the hyperbolic “state of nature” for a kind of humanistic-moral warning; he seems to be saying to people: think about the consequences that would be inevitable if the only rule were for the individual to follow his own impulses, if he did not take into account the welfare and interests of other people at all, if there were no social order, norms, restrictions in general didn't exist. As a result, it turns out that this is a kind of “proof by contradiction” of the thesis about the need for a social association, a social contract, primarily for the individual, for his good. At the same time, Hobbes drew attention to another fact: despite the constant desire for the redistribution of property and power, people are forced to live in the same state, one way or another subject to state order and a variety of social relativity. Hobbes was interested in the natural causal logic of such a social world, albeit temporary and relative.

Man's desire for peace, i.e. to a harmonious, orderly life with other people, requires from him serious sacrifices and restrictions, which at times may seem overwhelming and impracticable. But the essence of the matter for Hobbes is the proclamation of the principle according to which the individual must renounce unlimited claims, because this makes a coordinated life of people impossible. From here he derives a law, a prescription of reason: Hobbes considers it necessary and reasonable, in the name of peace, to renounce even the primordial rights of human nature - from unconditional and absolute equality, from unlimited freedom. The main pathos of Hobbes's concept lies in the proclamation of the necessity of peace (i.e., the coordinated life of people together), rooted in human nature, both in his passions and in the prescriptions of his reason. The hypothetical and at the same time realistic image of the war of all against all also partly serves this purpose. Hobbes was often reproached for being a supporter of too harsh and decisive government power. But we must not forget that he defended only the strong power of the state, based on law and reason.

"War of all against all" (“Bellum omnium contra omnes”). Used in moral philosophy since the times of the ancient sophists, the idea of ​​a state of society in which there is general permanent enmity and incessant mutual violence. In a softened form, the idea of ​​V.V.P.V. includes an uncontrolled increase in aggressiveness in society, leading to constant interhuman conflicts. At its core, V.V.P.V. is an ideal model of destructiveness and selfishness taken to the extreme, which, when projected onto reality, serves as the basis for historical interpretations, forecasts, moralistic reasoning and warnings. Its significance for ethical thought is determined by the purposes for which the impressive and very visual picture of the universal conflict is used.

The first paradigm of its use can be characterized as an attempt to deduce from the insoluble internal contradictions of the state of general war the origin, content and binding nature of moral (or moral-legal) norms. A similar attempt is made both in some theories of the social contract (including the concepts of an unspoken but instantaneous convention) and in evolutionary-genetic theories of the origin of morality. At the same time, theories that derive morality from any variant of V.V.P.V. can be divided into concepts that assume that such a state is the original state, and concepts for which V.V.P.V. is a negative result of development that requires compensation through the emergence of a moral and legal (or traditional moral) system.

The concept of T. Hobbes, who for the first time in the history of philosophical thought used the very formulation “V.V.P.V.” (analogue – “everyone’s war against their neighbors”), proceeds from the fact that this state is original (i.e. natural) for a person. This conclusion is made on the basis of a theoretical analysis of the passions and an empirical study of the shortcomings of the civil state. The formal condition of war is the equality of abilities of individuals and natural law (“the right of all to everything”), and the driving forces are: rivalry in attacks for profit, distrust in preventive attacks, thirst for glory in attacks for reasons of honor. V.V.F.W., according to Hobbes, is not a constant battle, but a series of episodes of struggle, interspersed with painful anticipation of blows from neighbors. Along with the strictly atomized picture of V.V.F.V. (the most ahistorical), Hobbes contains a description of the war of small families or hierarchically built alliances for mutual assistance. This somewhat changes the idea of ​​the enemy: he is not just everyone, but everyone whom I do not obey or whom I do not command. The theoretical significance of the concept of V.V.P.V. is that it is precisely its inconveniences that make a contractual decision on the creation of a Sovereign inevitable, and therefore the emergence of morality (or rather, a moral-legal system). After all, without fear-inspiring state power, morality, according to Hobbes, cannot exist at the normative level, and morality cannot exist in the form of some reality.

A similar model for using the image of V.V.F.V. exists in the Freudian concept of “moral progress” during the transition from the patriarchal horde to the fraternal clan, although only male, sexually mature individuals are participants in the war, and the subject of contention is limited to the area of ​​sexuality. Already in the horde the offensive of the local V.V.F.V. barely restrained by the strength of the leader and it inevitably arises in the event of his weakening or death. However, the greatest theoretical significance for interpreting the emergence of morality, according to Freud, is the situation after collective ancestral murder, when “in the struggle of all against all” a “new (fraternal) organization could perish.” The system of initial moral prohibitions (on incest and on the murder of a brother), based on some semblance of a social contract, becomes the only way to avoid mutual destruction.

The contractual model of the emergence of morality, which arises as a way of returning the fundamental features of the life system that preceded V.V.P.V., is present in J. J. Rousseau. A state of general war, which threatens the destruction of the human race, is important point in the contradictory process of replacing “instinct with justice.” V.V.P.V. For Rousseau, it is not a consequence of an absolutely separated state of individuals; on the contrary, it occurs with the emergence of a general need for a common social life. Its cause is not natural equality, but the development of a system of social (property) stratification. The leading force of the “most terrible war” and the obstacle to the creation of defensive associations is envy of other people’s wealth, drowning out “natural (instinctive) compassion and the still weak voice of justice.”

Some modern evolutionary genetic concepts structurally reproduce the Rousseauian model. This applies to those theories that interpret morality as a mechanism for compensating for the weakening of biological (instinctive) levers for regulating mutual relations in groups (or within species) during the transition from animals to humans. Thus, K. Lorenz describes the initial position of man as a creature devoid of a mechanism for inhibiting intraspecific aggression, excitable, with uncontrollable outbursts of rage, but suddenly receiving powerful tools attacks (weapons). In such a situation, intraspecific selection automatically turns into a softened expression of V.V.P.V., which is subsequently somewhat limited to the most simple forms"responsible morality". In a similar way, in the concept of Yu.M. Borodai, an “anthropogenetic impasse” is understood, generated by the aggravation of “tension of intra-herd relations” (up to the danger of mutual extermination of males) and resolved in the refusal of the direct implementation of egocentric instincts through the identification of oneself with another. A different reproduction of the same structure is present in concepts where morality in its universal and absolute form is the result of compensation for the isolation that arises during the collapse of tribal unity and leads to “the trampling of the norms of communication developed in an archaic society” (R.G. Apresyan) - a direct, albeit extremely relaxed parallel to V.V.P.V.

In the second paradigm, the idea of ​​V.V.P.V. are part of a morally oriented argument against revolutionary political movements that require a holistic rational restructuring of the system of social institutions based on considerations of justice. The state of general war here becomes an inevitable moral correlate of radical socio-political transformations. Already Hobbes notes that any major uprising against the authorities automatically turns the people into a mass (multitudo), which leads to “chaos and V.V.P.V.” Therefore, the greatest excesses of oppression are “barely sensitive in comparison ... with the unbridled state of anarchy.” European conservatives con. XVIII century sharpen Hobbes's thought, believing that any violation of the organic, traditional social order leads to manifestations of V.V.P.V.: “asocial and anti-civil chaos”, the transition “to the antagonistic world of madness, vice, discord and senseless grief” (E. Burke) and even “a bloody mess” (J. de Maistre). In later philosophical criticism of revolutions the same approach is retained.

The third paradigm for using the painting V.V.F.V. built into the general logic of criticism of the social order, focused on the embodiment of moral values. In this case, war, based on hedonistic or perfectionistic considerations, is understood as a more acceptable state for the individual than a moral restriction. Thus, in “Philosophy in the Boudoir” A.D.F. de Sade's state V.V.P.V. appears as one of the most desirable consequences of the desire for political freedom from a hedonistic point of view. The future of the French Republic, as described by de Sade, is similar to Hobbes's society, which finally realized the destructiveness of Leviathan and, enriched by the knowledge of the illusory nature of its promises associated with the fulfillment of the moral law, returned to the state of nature with its dangers and pleasures. F. Nietzsche, in contrast to de Sade, has a perfectionist perspective in mind when he characterizes the desire for universal peace, that is, a time “when there is nothing more to fear,” as an imperative of “herd cowardice” and a sign of the extreme degree of “fall and decay” . Therefore, the call to war from “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” (section “On War and Warriors”) pursues a two-sided goal: it is both the overthrow of “present-day man” and the creation of that crucible in which a renewed man will be born (“across a thousand bridges and paths they strive towards the future and let there be more war and inequality between them: this is what my great love makes me say"). General war, the search for the enemy and hatred of him acquire the status of self-sufficient values ​​for Nietzsche (“the good of war sanctifies every goal”).

A.V.Prokofiev

Literature:

• Burke E. Reflections on the revolution in France. M.: Rudomino, 1993.
• Borodai Yu.M. Erotica - death - taboo: the tragedy of human consciousness. M.: Gnosis. 1996 (second essay).
• Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and power of the church and civil state // Ibid. T. 2.
• Hobbes T. About the citizen // Hobbes T. Op. in 2 volumes. M.: Mysl, 1991. T. 1.
• Lorenz K. Aggression (so-called evil). M.: Progress. 1994.
• Marquis de Sade. Philosophy in the boudoir. M.: MP Prominformo, 1992.
• Nietzsche F. On the other side of good and evil // Nietzsche F. Works in 2 volumes. M.: Thought. T. 1.
• Nietzsche F. Thus spoke Zarathustra // Ibid.
• Prokofiev A.V.“War of all against all // Ethics: Encyclopedic Dictionary. M.: Gardariki, 2001.
• Rousseau J.J. On the Social Contract, or Principles of Political Law //

Name the theory of the origin of the state, the foundations of which are expressed by the author of the text. Write out the author’s phrase from the text that argues for your answer.

In the absence of a civil state, there is always a war of all against all. From this it is obvious that as long as people live without a common power that keeps everyone in fear, they are in that state called war, namely in a state of war of all against all. For war is not only a battle, or military action, but a period of time during which the will to fight through battle is clearly evident.

The state of war of all against all is also characterized by the fact that in it nothing can be unfair. The concepts of right and wrong, fair and unfair have no place here. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where there is no law, there is no justice. Strength and cunning are the two cardinal virtues in war.<...>This state is also characterized by the absence of property, possession, and the absence of a precise distinction between mine and yours. Each person considers his own only what he can get, and only as long as he is able to keep it.

<...>The purpose of the state is mainly to ensure security. The ultimate reason, purpose and intention of men (some by nature love freedom and dominion over others) in placing upon themselves the bonds (by which they are bound,<...>living in a state) is a concern for self-preservation and at the same time for a more favorable life. In other words, in establishing a state, people are guided by the desire to get rid of the disastrous state of war, which is the necessary consequence of the natural passions of people where there is no appearance of authority, keeping them in fear and under the threat of punishment, forcing them to fulfill agreements and observe natural laws.

<...>Such a general power as would be capable of protecting the people from the invasion of foreigners and from injustices inflicted on each other, and<...>to provide them with that security in which they could feed themselves from the labors of their hands and from the fruits of the earth and live in contentment, can only be achieved in one way, namely, by concentrating all power and strength in one person or in an assembly of people, which, by a majority vote, could would bring all the wills of citizens into a single will. In this person or collection of persons lies the essence of the state, which needs following definition: the state is a single person, responsible for whose actions a huge number of people have made themselves responsible for their actions through a mutual agreement among themselves, so that this person can use the power and means of all of them as he deems necessary for their peace and common defense.

Explanation.

The correct answer should indicate:

Theory of social or mutual contract (author T. Hobbes may be indicated)

Quote from the text: “In this person or collection of persons lies the essence of the state, which needs the following definition: the state is a single person, responsible for whose actions a huge number of people have made themselves responsible through a mutual agreement among themselves, so that this person can use force and means of all of them as he deems necessary for their peace and common defense."

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Plan

• Introduction
• 2.T. Hobbes on the "war of all against all"
• 2.1 Thomas Hobbes - the greatest English philosopherXVIIcentury
• Conclusion
• Bibliography

Introduction

Historians of philosophy and natural sciences call the 17th century the century of geniuses. At the same time, they mean the many brilliant thinkers who then worked in the field of science, laid the foundation of modern natural science and, in comparison with previous centuries, far advanced the natural sciences, especially philosophy. In the constellation of their names, the first place belongs to the name of the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679).

Hobbes is a philosopher who is difficult to classify as belonging to any movement. He was an empiricist, like Locke, Berkeley and Hume, but unlike them he was a supporter of the mathematical method, not only in pure mathematics, but also in its applications to other branches of knowledge. Galileo had a greater influence on his general view than Bacon. Continental philosophy, from Descartes to Kant, took many of its concepts about the Nature of human knowledge from mathematics, but it believed that mathematics can be known independently of experience. This, therefore, led, as in Platonism, to a diminishment of the role played by thought. On the other hand, English empiricism was little influenced by mathematics and tended towards a false concept scientific method. Hobbes had none of these shortcomings. Up to our time, it is impossible to find a single philosopher who, being an empiricist, would still give credit to mathematics. In this respect, Hobbes' merits are enormous. However, he also had serious shortcomings, which do not make it possible to rightfully classify him as one of the most outstanding thinkers. He is impatient with subtleties and too prone to cutting the Gordian knot. His solutions to problems are logical, but are accompanied by a deliberate omission of inconvenient facts. He is energetic but rude; he is better with a halberd than with a rapier. Despite this, his theory of the state deserves careful consideration, especially since it is more modern than any previous theory, even Machiavelli's.

The starting point of all Thomas Hobbes's reasoning in his writings was the doctrine of society, state, civil rights ah man. This thinker could not imagine the existence of people without a single, strong state. Hobbes was convinced that before people emerged from the state of nature and united into a society with a single will, there was a “war of all against all.” The transition to civil society followed the conclusion of a social contract on which the relationship between citizens and government is based. At the same time, Hobbes emphasized the principle of individual freedom, the inalienability of his civil rights, the idea of ​​​​the intrinsic value of the individual, respect for him and his property. The formation of civil society occurred in parallel with the formation of a new type of state - a bourgeois state.

Since the formation of a civil society and the rule of law is now more relevant than ever for many countries of the world, and especially for Russia, the study of the teachings of the classics of philosophical thought on this topic is timely and conceptual.

1. "War of all against all." Background

“War of all against all” (“Bellum omnium contra omnes”) is a concept used in moral philosophy since the time of the ancient sophists to represent a state of society in which there is general permanent hostility and incessant mutual violence. In a softened form, the idea of ​​a war of all against all includes an uncontrolled increase in aggressiveness in society, leading to constant interhuman conflicts. At its core, the war of all against all is an ideal model of destructiveness and selfishness taken to the extreme, which, when projected onto reality, serves as the basis for historical interpretations, forecasts, moralistic reasoning and warnings. Its significance for ethical thought is determined by the purposes for which the impressive and very visual picture of the universal conflict is used.

The first paradigm of its use can be characterized as an attempt to deduce from the insoluble internal contradictions of the state of general war the origin, content and binding nature of moral (or moral-legal) norms. A similar attempt is made both in some theories of the social contract (including the concepts of an unspoken but instantaneous convention) and in evolutionary-genetic theories of the origin of morality.

The concept of T. Hobbes, who for the first time in the history of philosophical thought used the very formulation “War of all against all” (analogous to “war of each against his neighbors”), proceeds from the fact that this state is original (i.e. natural) for man.

A similar model of using the image “War of all against all” exists in the Freudian concept of “moral progress” during the transition from the patriarchal horde to the fraternal clan, although the participants in the war are only male, sexually mature individuals, and the subject of contention is limited to the area of ​​sexuality.

The contractual model of the emergence of morality, which arises as a way of returning the fundamental features of the life system that preceded the “War of all against all,” is present in J.J. Rousseau. The state of general war, which threatens the destruction of the human race, is an important moment in the contradictory process of replacing “instinct with justice.” Rousseau’s “war of all against all” is not a consequence of an absolutely disunited state of individuals; on the contrary, it occurs with the emergence of a universal need for a common social life. Its cause is not natural equality, but the development of a system of social (property) stratification. The leading force of the “most terrible war” and the obstacle to the creation of defensive associations is envy of other people’s wealth, drowning out “natural (instinctive) compassion and the still weak voice of justice.”

Some modern evolutionary genetic concepts structurally reproduce Rousseau's model. This applies to those theories that interpret morality as a mechanism for compensating for the weakening of biological (instinctive) levers for regulating mutual relations in groups (or within species) during the transition from animals to humans.

Similarly, in the concept of Yu.M. Beard understands an “anthropogenetic dead end”, generated by the aggravation of “tension of intra-herd relations” (up to the danger of mutual extermination of males) and resolved in the refusal of the direct implementation of egocentric instincts through the identification of oneself with another. A different reproduction of the same structure is present in concepts where morality in its universal and absolute form is the result of compensation for the isolation that arises during the collapse of clan unity and leads to “the trampling of the norms of communication developed in an archaic society” (R.G. Apresyan) - a direct, albeit extremely softened, parallel to the “War of all against all.” Prokofiev A.V. "War of all against all // Ethics: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki, 2001. - p. 89

In the second paradigm, ideas about the “War of all against all” are part of a morally oriented argument against revolutionary political movements that require a holistic rational restructuring of the system of social institutions, based on considerations of justice. The state of general war here becomes an inevitable moral correlate of radical socio-political transformations. Hobbes already notes that any major uprising against the authorities automatically turns the people into a mass (multitudo), which leads to “chaos and war of all against all.” Therefore, the greatest excesses of oppression are “barely sensitive in comparison... with the unbridled state of anarchy.” European conservatives con. XVIII century sharpen Hobbes's thought, believing that any violation of the organic, traditional social order leads to manifestations of the war of all against all: “asocial and anti-civil chaos”, the transition “to an antagonistic world of madness, vice, discord and senseless grief” (E. Burke) and even - “a bloody mess” (J. de Maistre). In later philosophical criticism of revolutions the same approach is retained.

The third paradigm for using the painting “Wars of all against all” is built into the general logic of criticism of the social order, focused on the embodiment of moral values. In this case, war, based on hedonistic or perfectionistic considerations, is understood as a more acceptable state for the individual than a moral restriction. Thus, in “Philosophy in the Boudoir” by A. D. F. de Sade, the state of war of all against all “appears as one of the most desirable consequences of the desire for political freedom from a hedonistic point of view. The future of the French Republic, as described by de Sade, is similar to Hobbes's society, which finally realized the destructiveness of Leviathan and, enriched by the knowledge of the illusory nature of its promises associated with the fulfillment of the moral law, returned to the state of nature with its dangers and pleasures.F. Nietzsche, unlike de Sade, has a perfectionist perspective in mind when he characterizes the desire for universal peace, that is, a time “when there will be nothing more to fear,” as an imperative of “herd cowardice” and a sign of the extreme degree of “fall and decay.” Therefore, the call to war from “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” (section “On War and Warriors”) pursues a two-sided goal: it is both the overthrow of “present-day man” and the creation of that crucible in which a renewed man will be born (“across a thousand bridges and paths they strive towards the future and let there be more war and inequality between them: this is what my great love makes me say"). General war, the search for the enemy and hatred of him acquire the status of self-sufficient values ​​for Nietzsche (“the good of war sanctifies every goal”). Prokofiev A.V. "War of all against all // Ethics: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki, 2001. - p. 90

hobbes philosopher war society

2. T. Hobbes on the “war of all against all”

2.1 Thomas Hobbes - the greatest English philosopher of the 17th century

Thomas Hobbes is the greatest English philosopher of the 17th century, although today he is better known for his political philosophy, presented in the treatise Leviathan.

As Hobbes' biographers say, he lived to the ripe old age of 91, maintaining clarity of mind until the end of his days.

Thomas Hobbes was born on April 5, 1588 in Westport, near Malmesbury in southern England. His mother was of peasant origin, his father was a village priest, and his relatives were engaged in the glove trade. Hobbes initially received his education at a church school, which he began attending at the age of four. Since the boy showed ability and a great inclination to study, he was sent to a city school, where he successfully continued his education. By the age of fourteen, Hobbes already mastered ancient languages ​​so much that he translated Euripides' "Medea" in verse into Latin.

At the age of fifteen he entered Oxford University and upon graduation received a university diploma, which gave him the right to study pedagogical work and opened the door to an academic career. But like most of the leading philosophical and scientific minds of that century - Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Newton and others - Hobbes was not subsequently associated with universities. After graduating from university, he becomes a teacher for the children of one of the noble aristocratic families. At this time, he developed connections among the ruling circles, including among the court circles of England.

Trips to the European continent gave the English thinker the opportunity to deeply study philosophy, personally meet its most prominent representatives (primarily Galileo during his trip to Italy in 1646), and take an active part in the discussion of the most important philosophical problems that time. Gradually, Hobbes developed the principles of his own teaching. The first outline of Hobbes's philosophical system was his 1640 essay Human Nature. The further comprehensive development of Hobbes' philosophical system was influenced by events related to the conflict associated with the English parliament and the king, and then by the events of the English Revolution.

Events in the public life of England stimulated Hobbes's interest in socio-political issues and forced him to accelerate the development and publication of his essay On the Citizen, which he conceived as the third part of his philosophical system. Continuing to deepen and reflect on his socio-political ideas, Hobbes worked on his largest political and sociological publication, Leviathan, which was published in London in 1651.

Returning to England in 1651, Hobbes was respectfully received by Cromwell, who entrusted him with participation in the reorganization of university education. After the Stuart restoration, emigrants who returned to England reproached Hobbes for his reconciliation with the power of Cromwell and accused him of atheism. After Hobbes' death, Leviathan was publicly burned by decision of Oxford University. Long before that Catholic Church included Hobbes's works in the "List of Prohibited Books".

The range of problems of Hobbes's philosophical research is extremely wide and varied. It reflects those pressing problems of that time and even today, without which it is impossible further development philosophical thought and various philosophical systems. Contemporaries and followers of Hobbes' theory valued him extremely highly; D. Diderot, in his research, more than once praised the high clarity and certainty in Hobbes's works; he compared him with the then luminary of sensationalism, Locke, and even put Hobbes above him.

The high assessment of Hobbes is evidenced by the characterization of Marx, in which, although he emphasizes the physical and mechanistic limitations of Hobbes, at the same time Marx sees in him one of the founders of modern materialism. Marx also declares Hobbes one of the founders of the philosophy of analysis or the so-called logical positivism. It is worth noting that the philosophical system of Thomas Hobbes has the same shortcomings as the entire mechanical methodology as a whole, but like all methodology it played a very important role in the history of the development of social thought.

Hobbes's powerful mind and insight allowed Hobbes to build a system from which all thinkers, not only of the seventeenth, but also of the eighteenth and twentieth centuries, right up to the present day, drew, as from a rich source.

It should be noted that it is “Leviathan” that occupies a unique place in the history of world philosophy. In this work, Thomas Hobbes was ahead of his time in many areas, and his original judgments immediately after the publication of the treatise in 1651. aroused the hatred of churchmen of all religious views and leaders of all political parties. Hobbes fought alone against numerous opponents, showing his talent as a polemicist and scientist. During Hobbes's lifetime, almost all responses were sharply negative, but in subsequent centuries the influence of the work "Leviathan" on the views of Spinoza, Bentham, Leibniz, Rousseau and Diderot, on philosophers and economists of the 19th and 20th centuries, was recognized. This is probably the global significance for philosophy, political science, and culture.

2.2 Socio-political and ethical views

Man is a part of nature and cannot but obey its laws. Hobbes also considers this truth, which became an axiom for the philosophy of his century, fundamental and quite clear. Therefore, we must begin, the philosopher argues, with the affirmation of such properties of a person that belong to his body as a body of nature. And then smoothly make the transition from viewing man as a body of nature to human nature, i.e. its essential property. The human body, like any body of nature, has the ability to move, have a form, and occupy a place in space and time. Hobbes adds to this the “natural abilities and powers” ​​inherent in man as a living body - the ability to eat, reproduce and perform many other actions determined precisely by natural needs. Towards the “natural” block of human nature, philosophers of the 17th century. also included part of the “desires” and “affects” caused by natural needs. But the focus was still placed on the properties of rationality and equality with other people as deep properties of the human essence, which did not seem to thinkers to be anything contrary to the “natural” approach to man. The same applied to social philosophy, which is closely associated with the philosophy of man.

Hobbes' ethical views are based on "natural law." “Natural law (lex naturalis),” writes Hobbes, “is a precept or general rule found by reason, according to which a man is prohibited from doing what is harmful to his life or what deprives him of the means of preserving it, and from neglecting what he considers best.” a means of preserving life." Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 volumes - M.: Mysl, 1991.T. 2. - p. 99

Hobbes argues that differences in physical abilities do not predetermine anything in human life (for example, the weaker can kill the stronger), and therefore cannot in any way serve as an argument in favor of the thesis about the inequality of people from birth. Philosophers have tried to explain how and why the “natural” equality of people was replaced at some not entirely certain moment historical development inequality arose, i.e. property arose. To explain this, Hobbes and Locke developed the doctrine of the emergence of property as a result of labor. But since work activity was considered an eternal way for a person to spend energy, then the possession of some property and some benefits, i.e. any property (which, as Hobbes and Locke assumed, owes its origin to labor alone) was also declared a sign of human nature.

However, within these limits there is also no room for objective “good” (and “evil”), and, consequently, for “moral values”. For Hobbes, good is what is sought after and evil is what is avoided. But due to the fact that some people desire certain things and others do not, some avoid something and others do not, it turns out that good and evil are relative. Even about God himself it cannot be said that he is an unconditional good, for “God is good to all those who call on His name, but not to those who revile His name by blaspheming.” This means that good relates to a person, place, time, circumstances, as the sophists argued in ancient times.

But if good is relative and, therefore, absolute values ​​do not exist, how can one construct social life and create morality? How can people live together in one society? Two of Hobbes' masterpieces are devoted to the answers to these questions: "Leviathan" and "On the Citizen."

Thus, one of the main categories of Hobbes's socio-political system is the category of equality. “From this equality of abilities arises an equality of hope for the achievement of our ends. That is why, if two people desire the same thing, which, however, they cannot both possess, they become enemies,” Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and the power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 volumes - M.: Mysl, 1991.T. 2. - p. 112 - writes Hobbes. Therefore, the natural state of man is war. A war of all against all. To prevent constant wars, a person needs protection, which he can only find in the person of the state.

So, from the affirmation of natural equality, Hobbes moves on to the idea of ​​​​the ineradicability of the war of all against all.

The harshness and, one might say, ruthlessness with which Hobbes formulated this thought repelled his contemporaries. But in fact, their agreement with Hobbes was profound: after all, all the major philosophers also believed that people “by nature” are more concerned about themselves than about the common good, they are more likely to enter into struggle than to refrain from conflict, and that the focus on the good of other people it is necessary to specially educate the individual, resorting to the arguments of reason, to various government measures, etc.

Hobbes based his teaching on the study of human nature and passions. Hobbes's opinion about these passions and nature is extremely pessimistic: people are characterized by competition (the desire for profit), mistrust (the desire for security), and a love of glory (ambition). These passions make people enemies: “Man is a wolf to man” (homo homini lupus est). Therefore, in the state of nature, where there is no power to keep people in fear, they are in a “state of war of all against all.”

Man, despite the fact that he is in a natural state, tends to strive for peace, which requires serious sacrifices and restrictions from him, which at times may seem difficult and overwhelming. But the essence of the matter for Hobbes is the proclamation of the principle according to which the individual must renounce unlimited claims, because this makes a coordinated life of people impossible. From here he derives a law, a prescription of reason: Hobbes considers it necessary and reasonable, in the name of peace, to renounce even the primordial rights of human nature - from unconditional and absolute equality, from unlimited freedom. The main pathos of Hobbes's concept lies in the proclamation of the necessity of peace (i.e., the coordinated life of people together), rooted in the nature of man, both in his passions and in the prescriptions of his reason. The hypothetical and at the same time realistic image of the war of all against all also partly serves this purpose. Hobbes was often reproached for being a supporter of too harsh and decisive government power. But we must not forget that he defended only the strong power of the state, based on law and reason.

Thus, in analyzing human nature, Hobbes moved from the assertion of the equality of human abilities and claims to the idea of ​​​​the existence of a war of all against all. Thus, the philosopher wanted to show the harmfulness and unbearability of a situation in which people are forced to constantly fight. As a result, he came to the conclusion that passions that incline towards peace can and should be stronger than passions that push towards war, if they are supported by laws, rules, and regulations of reason.

Sharp class clashes in the Civil War also had a certain influence on Hobbes's teaching. “Competition for wealth, honor, command or other power,” Hobbes wrote, “leads to strife, hostility and war, for one competitor achieves his desire by killing, subjugating, displacing or repelling the other.” Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 volumes - M.: Mysl, 1991.T. 2. - p. 114

The harmfulness of the “state of war of all against all” compels people to seek a way to end the state of nature; This path is indicated by natural laws, the prescriptions of reason (according to Hobbes, natural law is the freedom to do everything for self-preservation; natural law is the prohibition to do what is detrimental to life).

The first fundamental law of nature is: Every one must seek peace by every means at his disposal, and if he cannot obtain peace, he may seek and use all the means and advantages of war. The second law directly follows from this law: Everyone must be ready to renounce his right to everything when others also want this, since he considers this refusal necessary for peace and self-defense V.A. Nail, Fundamentals of Philosophy: Stages of Development and Contemporary Problems. History of Western philosophical thought. M., 1993.S. 124. In addition to the renunciation of one's rights, there may also be (as Hobbes believes) a transfer of these rights. When two or more people transfer these rights to each other, it is called a contract. The third natural law states that people must keep their own contracts. This law contains the function of justice. Only with the transfer of rights does community life and the functioning of property begin, and only then is injustice possible in the violation of contracts. It is extremely interesting that Hobbes derives from these fundamental laws the law of Christian morality: “Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.” According to Hobbes, natural laws, being the rules of our reason, are eternal. The name “law” is not entirely suitable for them, however, since they are considered as the command of God, they are “laws” Hobbes T. Leviathan, or the matter, form and power of the state, church and civil // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 volumes - M.: Mysl, 1991.T. 2.. - p. 99.

Thus, natural laws say that peace should be sought; for these purposes, the right to everything must be mutually renounced; "people must honor the agreements they make."

2.3 Society and state in the war of all against all

Refusing natural rights(i.e., the freedom to do everything for self-preservation), people transfer them to the state, the essence of which Hobbes defined as “a single person, for whose actions a huge number of people have made themselves responsible by mutual agreement among themselves, so that this person can use force and the means of all of them, as it shall deem necessary for their peace and common defense." Quote in: History of Philosophy: Textbook for Universities / Ed. V.V. Vasilyeva, A.A. Krotova and D.V. Bugaya. - M.: Academic Project: 2005. - P. 196

The changes in Hobbes's argumentation are indicative of the methodology of theoretical thinking of that time. At first, he considered the source of power to be an agreement between subjects and the ruler, which (the agreement) could not be terminated without the consent of both parties. However, the ideologists of the revolution cited many facts of violation by the king of his own obligations; therefore, obviously, Hobbes formulates a slightly different concept of a social contract (each with each), in which the ruler does not take part at all, and therefore cannot violate it.

The state is the great Leviathan (biblical monster), artificial man or earthly god; the supreme power is the soul of the state, judges and officials are joints, advisers are memory; laws are reason and will, artificial chains attached at one end to the lips of the sovereign, the other to the ears of the subjects; rewards and punishments - nerves; the welfare of citizens is strength, the security of the people is occupation, civil peace is health, unrest is illness, civil war is death.

The power of the sovereign is absolute: he has the right to issue laws, control their observance, establish taxes, appoint officials and judges; even the thoughts of the subjects are subject to the sovereign - the ruler of the state determines which religion or sect is true and which is not.

Hobbes, like Bodin, recognizes only three forms of state. He gives preference to an unlimited monarchy (the good of the monarch is identical to the good of the state, the right of inheritance gives the state an artificial eternity of life, etc.).

The absence of any rights of subjects in relation to the sovereign is interpreted by Hobbes as the legal equality of persons in their mutual relations. Hobbes is by no means a supporter of the feudal-class division of society into the privileged and the unprivileged. In relations between subjects, the sovereign must ensure equal justice for everyone (“the principle of which states that one cannot take from anyone what belongs to him”), the inviolability of contracts, impartial protection for everyone in court, and determine equal taxes. One of the tasks of state power is to ensure that property “which people acquired through mutual agreements in exchange for the renunciation of universal rights.” Private property, according to Hobbes, is a condition for community life, “a necessary means to peace.” Hobbes's views on the origins of private property also changed. In his early writings he argued that in the state of nature property was common. Since the idea of ​​community of property was actively discussed during the ideological struggle of political groups (especially in connection with the speech of the Levellers and Diggers), Hobbes abandoned this idea: “in a state of war of all against all” there is “neither property, nor community of property, and there is only uncertainty ".

Property, Hobbes remembers to add, is not guaranteed against encroachment on it by the sovereign, but this applies most of all to the establishment of taxes that should be levied on subjects without any exceptions or privileges.

In Hobbes's concept, the unlimited power and rights of the ruler of the state do not mean an apology for continental-style absolutism with its class inequality, universal guardianship and total regulation. Hobbes called on the sovereign to encourage all kinds of crafts and all industries, but the methods he proposed were far from the policy of protectionism.

The purpose of laws is not to prevent people from doing anything, but to give them the right direction. Laws are like fences along the edges of the road, so extra laws are harmful and unnecessary. Everything that is not prohibited or prescribed by law is left to the discretion of the subjects: such are “the freedom to buy and sell and otherwise enter into contracts with each other, to choose their abode, their food, their way of life, to instruct their children as they please, etc. ". Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 volumes - M.: Mysl, 1991.T. 2. - S.S. 132 Discussing the relations of subjects among themselves, Hobbes substantiated a number of specific requirements in the field of law: equal trial by jury for all, guarantees of the right to defense, proportionality of punishment.

The peculiarity of Hobbes’s teaching is that he considered the unlimited power of the king to be a guarantee of law and order and he condemned the civil war, seeing in it a revival of the disastrous state of “war of all against all.” Since such a war, according to his theory, resulted from the general hostility of individuals, Hobbes advocated royal absolutism.

It is important to note that, according to Hobbes, the goal of the state (the security of individuals) is achievable not only under an absolute monarchy. “Where a certain form of government has already been established,” he wrote, “there is no need to argue about which of the three forms of government is the best, but one should always prefer, support and consider the existing one to be the best.” There - s. 164 It is no coincidence that the evolution of Hobbes’s views ended with the recognition of a new government (Cromwell’s protectorate), established in England as a result of the overthrow of the monarchy. If the state collapses, Hobbes declared, the rights of the deposed monarch remain, but the duties of the subjects are destroyed; they have the right to look for any defender. Hobbes formulated this provision in the form of one of the natural laws and addressed it to the soldiers of the army of the deposed king: “A soldier can seek his protection where he most hopes to receive it, and can legally give himself over to the subject of a new master.”

For Hobbes, a state of peace and mutual assistance is unthinkable without a strong state. Hobbes did not consider himself entitled to simply document the gap between the ideals of equality and freedom, supposedly corresponding to the “true” nature of man, and the real life of people. He understood the deviation of the ideal from reality as a fundamental and constant possibility arising from human nature itself. And in relation to the known to his societies, he did not sin against historical truth when he showed that people’s concern only for themselves was confirmed by their struggle with each other, the war of all against all.

Hobbes wanted to connect the image of the war of all against all not so much with the past, but with the actual manifestations of social life and the behavior of individuals in his era. "Perhaps someone will think that such a time and such warriors as those I have depicted never existed; and I do not think that they ever existed as a general rule throughout the world, but there are many places where people they live like this even now,” Hobbes writes and refers, for example, to the life of some tribes in America. But the rapprochement of the state of nature and, consequently, the properties of human nature with the behavior of people during the civil war and with the “continuous envy” in which “kings and persons vested with supreme power” are in relation to each other is especially persistent.

Conclusion

Hobbes's judgment that, due to human nature, a “war of all against all” arises in society has been sufficiently studied in critical works. However, some clarification needs to be added. This thesis is presented and proven in the second part of the treatise, entitled “On the State” - it was this part that led to the fact that “Leviathan,” this biblical monster, is perceived as a symbol of strong state power. Numerous opponents of Hobbes accused him of distorting human nature.

Meanwhile, this thesis does not have absolute meaning for Hobbes. He repeatedly says that the state of “war of all against all” arises in those periods when there is no state power, where order is disrupted, for example, in eras of revolutions and civil wars: then everyone is forced to protect their interests on our own, because he is deprived of protection from the authorities. The conclusion about the struggle of interests does not appear as a recognition of the initial depravity of nature, but is a natural result of the state of society at moments of social catastrophe. And Hobbes does not see this as a crime - cruelty in defending one’s interests may be a sin, but only breaking the law makes it a crime. Meanwhile, there are periods when there are no laws or they are not implemented under weak state power - the concepts of “justice” and “right” disappear.

Hobbes explains several times that in such periods, when a “war of all against all” begins, people follow the natural inalienable instinct of self-preservation: uncertainty in the future, fear for property and life, decline in the economy, agriculture, trade, navigation, science, art - life person - lonely, rude. Salvation is possible only in strong state power. Many critics perceived the treatise "Leviathan" as a defense of the monarchy. Meanwhile, Hobbes argued that under any form of government - monarchy, oligarchy or democracy - there can be a strong state power if the “agreement” between the government and the people is respected and the government promptly suppresses both religious and political activity if it weakens the state. Only a single, strong state power preserves the state, ensures the peace and security of its subjects - in this regard, Hobbes was a consistent opponent of the separation of powers and had many supporters in subsequent centuries.

Like most other progressive thinkers of this era, Hobbes was objectively a spokesman for the interests of developing capitalism, which achieved significant success in England and some other European countries. Subjectively, he considered himself an unselfish seeker of truth, necessary for the entire human race. “The desire to know why and how,” Hobbes wrote, “is called curiosity. This desire is not inherent in any living creature except man, so that man differs not only in reason, but also in this specific passion from all other animals in which desire food and other pleasures of sensation, due to its dominance, suppresses the concern for knowledge of causes, which is mental pleasure. This latter, preserved in the continuous and tireless emergence of knowledge, surpasses the short-term power of any other carnal pleasure. Quote by Russell B. History Western philosophy. In 3 books. Book 3.H. 1, Ch. 7 - M.: "Academic Project", 2006 - p. 530

Only Hobbes' selfless devotion to science and philosophy allowed him to achieve those significant results in the field of philosophy that make his works and works interesting and instructive to this day.

Bibliography

1. Alekseev P.V. History of philosophy - M.: Prospekt, 2009 - 240 p.

2. Blinnikov L.V. Great philosophers: Educational dictionary-reference book. 2nd ed. - M.: "Logos", 1999 - 432 p.

3. Nailed V.A. Fundamentals of philosophy: stages of development and modern problems. History of Western philosophical thought - M.: Infra, 2008 - 676 ​​p.

4. Hobbes T. Leviathan, or Matter, form and power of the church and civil state // Hobbes T. Works: In 2 volumes - Vol.2. - M.: Mysl, 1991. - 731 p.

5. History of political and legal doctrines. // Ed. Nersesyants V.S., 4th ed., revised. and additional - M.: Norma, 2004. - 944 p.

6. History of philosophy. / Ed. Vasilyeva V.V., Krotova A.A., Bugaya D.V. - M.: Academic Project, 2005. - 680 p.

7. Prokofiev A.V. “War of all against all // Ethics: Encyclopedic Dictionary / Guseinov A.A., Korzo M.A., Prokofiev A.V. - M.: Gardariki, 2001. - 672 p.

8. Russell B. History of Western Philosophy. In 3 books. Book 3. Part 1, Chapter 7 - M.: "Academic Project", 2006 - 996 p.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

The concept of worldview and its main components. What is myth, mythology, religion. Scientific-rationalist paradigm and the “war of all against all” (philosophy of the New Age). The essence of the empirical and rationalistic method of cognition. Laws of dialectics.

training manual, added 04/07/2012


Biography, creativity before "Leviathan". The main provisions of "Leviathan". About a human. About the state. About the church. Analysis of "Leviathan" by B. Russell. The basic interests of all citizens are the same. Relations between different states.

abstract, added 02/18/2003


T. Hobbes as the largest English materialist of the 17th century. Philosophical system of politics by T. Hobbes. Characteristics of the main ideas of Hobbes's political philosophy. The role, functions and specificity of philosophy. Hobbes's doctrine of method. The main features of the philosopher's politics.

test, added 09/28/2010


Basic facts of the biography of the philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Justification of the thesis about feeling as initial stage knowledge in the work "About the Body". Creation of the first complete system of mechanistic materialism, consistent with the nature and requirements of natural science.

presentation, added 09/26/2013


The study of European philosophy of the 17th century, conventionally called “modern philosophy,” its main ideological factors. Characteristics of the most outstanding representatives of philosophy of this period: Thomas Hobbes, Rene Descartes, Benedict Spinoza, John Locke, etc.

abstract, added 12/25/2010


Consideration of the category of society in philosophy of all times, its presentation in the form of a self-developing system. The most important subsystems of society: economic, social, political, spiritual, their characteristics. Values ​​of human existence.

abstract, added 07/23/2009


The essence and main content of social philosophy, directions and methods of its research, problems. The concept and structure of society, the main approaches to it in history. Concepts of the origin of society and their study by great thinkers of all times.

lecture, added 06/21/2011


Historical conditions and features of the development of modern philosophy, socio-economic changes. Materialism in England in the 17th century. and the problem of method. Philosophers of the era scientific revolution(XVII century) - F. Bacon, T. Hobbes, R. Descartes, B. Pascal, B. Spinoza.

test, added 03/14/2009


Reflections of philosophers of all times on the inevitability of death and immortality. Analysis of the stages of the process of transition from life to death. Concepts and types of immortality, development of the history of ideas about it. The essence of immortality from the point of view of religion and philosophy.

test, added 12/23/2010


The concept of philosophy, its main sections, the range of issues studied and differences from all other sciences. Mythology and religion as the origins of philosophy. Characteristics of the main functions of philosophy. The main specificity and features of philosophical knowledge.

War of all against all
From Latin: Bellum omnium contra omnes (bellum omnium contra om-nes).
From the essay “Elements of Natural and Civil Law” (1642) by the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). In this work (Part 1, Chapter 12) he writes: “There is no doubt that the war was natural state man, until society was formed, and, moreover, not just a war, but a war of all against all.” The philosopher would later repeat this same expression in his work “Leviathan” (1651), in part one (chap. 13-14).
Allegorically: about enmity and competition, about the lack of solidarity and rules binding on everyone, about the transformation of society into a mass of individuals warring among themselves.

• is a marine insurance term which, in legal terms, means "insured against all possible types risk"...

  Large economic dictionary

• - Unism. 1. With extreme force, very strong, intense. = With all my might. With verb. nesov. and owls type: scream, work, pull, shout, grab... how? . Dina pulls his shirt with her hands and laughs...

  Educational phraseological dictionary

• - From English: You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time. Words from the 16th US President Abraham Lincoln...

  Dictionary of popular words and expressions

• - Cm....
• - Disapproval of a person whose actions cause bewilderment, protest...

  Dictionary of folk phraseology

• - Wishing disasters on other people's heads...

  Dictionary of folk phraseology

• - ...

  Spelling dictionary of the Russian language

• - See MIND -...

  IN AND. Dahl. Proverbs of the Russian people

• - Matryona's head is scary for everyone, but covered with splint - for everyone...

  IN AND. Dahl. Proverbs of the Russian people

• - Cm....

  IN AND. Dahl. Proverbs of the Russian people

• - You can’t fight one against all...

  IN AND. Dahl. Proverbs of the Russian people

• - I ask not everyone by name, but everyone...

  IN AND. Dahl. Proverbs of the Russian people

• - Cm....

  IN AND. Dahl. Proverbs of the Russian people

• - Book Joking. About an unfriendly team, a society torn apart by squabbles and infighting. ShZF 2001, 41. /i> Tracing paper from Lat. bellum omnium contra omnes. BMS 1998, 93...
• - Zharg. they say Joking-iron. About an extremely stupid person. Maksimov, 67...

  Big dictionary Russian sayings

• - Zharg. magazine Virtual election candidate, symbol voting results in the “against all” column. MNNS, 60...

  Large dictionary of Russian sayings

"War of all against all" in books

Chapter 23 War of all against all (1613-1618)