home

Fire safety

The natural state of people is war against. Against everyone (Hobbes)

This model is close to the model proposed by Hobbes. In his opinion, the source of the negative is nature (non-political social), and the carriers of the positive are institutions (political or civil society). For Hobbes, a person is a victim of passions that can be qualified as social to the extent that they are related to the relationships of people, although at the same time these passions are opposite to sociality, since people in their “natural state” are drawn into destructive super-conflict by passions. The state of nature is characterized primarily by the equality that reigns in it: all people are equal, because everyone, even the weakest, has enough strength to kill the strongest (by resorting to cunning or teaming up with others). But the equality of men in the state of nature also consists in the fact that they all, through experience, acquire caution and practical wisdom. This creates equality in skill and ability, as well as in the hope of achieving one's own goals.

From this follow three causes of war in human nature: rivalry, mistrust and love of glory; three types of aggressiveness associated with the desire for profit, security and fame.

Rivalry arises because people who want the same thing become enemies. In fact, if the aggressor has nothing to fear except the strength of other people, if some plant, sow, build, live in a convenient place, it is likely that others, having united their forces, will try in every possible way not only to deprive them of their property and the fruits of their labor, but and take away their life and freedom. Such an aggressor himself will become a likely victim of another aggression.

This is how the universal is born mistrust, for prudence requires proactive action to subjugate a sufficient number of people so that hostile forces are no longer in danger. However, in this way it is impossible to achieve a state of balance, since there are people who, in pursuit of power, will be ready to cross the threshold own safety, and then others, in order to preserve themselves, must also increase their strength.

Finally, love of fame(pride) arises because in the conditions of social life everyone wants others to respect him as much as he

PART I. Institute of Politics

respects himself; at the same time, in an effort to achieve recognition of his own importance, he may not stop before harming others.

Therefore, as long as people are not subject to a common power, they are naturally endowed with rights, but their natural rights come into many contradictions and because of this completely lose their effectiveness: everyone can appropriate to themselves what they want, but no one's property is guaranteed. In the absence of institutions that keep people in obedience, they are in a state of war of all against all (bellum omnium contra omnes), which impedes the development of technology, art, knowledge, and moreover, they find themselves in a position comparable to the position of American savages. And then “a person’s life is lonely, poor, hopeless, stupid and short-lived” (“Leviathan”, Chapter XIII). With the creation of civil society, commonwealth(single market), republic, state, people enter into a “contract” among themselves, according to which each and every person transfers part of their rights in different areas to a sovereign ruler (sovereign or assembly). Having limited themselves only to the necessary freedom, they renounce those of their rights that interfere with mutual peace, and then social life becomes politicized and, as a result, pacified. Institutionalized sovereignty (sovereignty not in the sense of a monarchy, but in the sense of the possession of supreme power) creates a political community: by mutual agreement it receives from the people the right to use the power and resources of all in the interests of peace and collective defense. A political “subject” emerges as a reasonable and rational person who uses these qualities to escape the quasi-animal state and come to a full human life.

So, in contrast to Aristotle, Hobbes does not believe that man is a political animal, but believes that politics transforms an animal into a man: Rousseau asserts the same thing, believing, however, that the transition from a state of nature to a political state is negative phenomenon, although this is inevitable and irreversible.

Social contract theory. Hobbes about the state of nature as a war of all against all. 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.

Share your work on social networks

If this work does not suit you, at the bottom of the page there is a list of similar works. You can also use the search button

Course work

Subject:

Introduction

17th century

2 Hobbes on the state of nature as a "war of all against all"

Conclusion

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 came out of natural state 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 Thomas Hobbes the greatest English philosopher 17th century

1.1 Socio-political and ethical views of the scientist

Thomas Hobbes the greatest English philosopher XVII c., 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 engage in teaching work and opened the way 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 and become personally acquainted with it. the most prominent representatives(primarily with Galileo during his trip to Italy in 1646), and take an active part in discussing 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 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 was recognized XIX - XX centuries. This is probably the global significance for philosophy, political science, and culture.

The socio-political and ethical views of the scientist were as follows: 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 “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. To the “natural” block human nature philosophers XVII V. 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 the deepest 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 prescription or found by reason general rule, according to which a person is prohibited from doing what is detrimental to his life or that deprives him of the means to preserve it, and from missing out on what he considers the best way to save life." 1

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 labor activity was considered an eternal way for a person to spend energy, then the possession of any 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 ability arises equality of hope for achieving our goals. That is why, if two people desire the same thing, which, however, they cannot possess together, they become enemies." 2 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 authority 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 the 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 original 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,” wrote Hobbes, “leads to strife, hostility and war, for one competitor achieves his desire by killing, subjugating, displacing or repelling the other.” 3

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 harmful 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. From this law follows directly the second law: Everyone must be willing to renounce his right to everything when others also desire it, since he considers this renunciation necessary for peace and self-defense. 4 . 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 would not have done to you.” According to Hobbes, natural laws, being the rules of our reason, are eternal. The name "law" is not quite suitable for them, but since they are considered as the command of God, they are "laws" 5 .

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.”

1.2 Social contract theory

The concept of “Social Contract” (literal translation of the term “social contract”) first appeared in the works of philosophers Thomas Hobbes (17th century) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau ( XVIII V). It was after Rousseau’s book “On the Social Contract” (1762) that this concept became popular in European politics and social science. These ancient authors, speaking about the social contract, had the following in mind. People by nature have inalienable natural rights: to freedom, to property, to achieve their personal goals, etc. But the unlimited use of these rights leads either to a “war of all against all,” that is, to social chaos; or to the establishment of a social order in which some cruelly and unjustly oppress others, which, in turn, gives rise to a social explosion and, again, chaos. Therefore, it is necessary that all citizens voluntarily renounce some of their natural rights and transfer them to the state, which under the control of the people will guarantee law, order and justice.

A person loses his natural freedom (“I do whatever I want”), but gains civil freedom (freedom of speech, the right to vote in elections, the ability to unite in unions). A person loses the natural right to obtain property for himself (to grab everything that is bad, to take it from the weak), but acquires the right of ownership. This is the “Social Contract” in the old sense. Currently, only its core remains of this concept, namely: to achieve a social order that suits everyone, or at least the majority, we need effective mechanisms for coordinating the interests of individuals and public institutions. The social contract is a negotiation process.

Social contract is not a document to be signed, it is a negotiation R ny process. To understand the content of Social Contract theories and their place in the development of views on the origins of society and the state, it is necessary to briefly list some of the well-known concepts that address these issues. Among the many theories and concepts, the following should be mentioned first:

According to Plato, society and the state did not differ significantly from each other. The state was a form of joint settlement of people that ensured the protection of common interests, territory, maintenance of order, development of production, and satisfaction of everyday needs.

IN medieval Europe The opinion was firmly established that the state is the result of the creation of God, a kind of agreement between God and man. This view of the origin of the state is called theological.

Hobbes was, perhaps, the first to present the theory of the social contract in a definite, clear and rationalistic (that is, based on the arguments of reason) form. According to Hobbes, the emergence of the state is preceded by the so-called state of nature, a state of absolute, unlimited freedom of people equal in their rights and abilities. People are equal in their desire to dominate and have the same rights. Therefore, the state of nature for Hobbes is in the full sense “a state of war of all against all.” Absolute freedom of man the desire for anarchy, chaos, continuous struggle, in which the killing of man by man is justified.

In this situation, the natural and necessary way out is to limit, curb the absolute freedom of everyone in the name of the good and order of all. People must mutually limit their freedom in order to exist in a state of social peace. They agree among themselves about this limitation. This mutual self-restraint is called a social contract.

By limiting their natural freedom, people at the same time transfer the authority to maintain order and oversee compliance with the contract to one or another group or individual. This is how a state arises, whose power is sovereign, that is, independent of any external or internal forces. The power of the state, according to Hobbes, must be absolute; the state has the right, in the interests of society as a whole, to take any coercive measures against its citizens. Therefore, the ideal of the state for Hobbes was an absolute monarchy, unlimited power in relation to society.

2 Hobbes on the state of nature as a "war of all against all"

2.1 "War of all against all." Background

“War of all against all” (“ Bellum omnium contra omnes ”) a concept used in moral philosophy since the time of the ancient sophists, the idea of 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” (analogue of “war of everyone against their neighbors”), proceeds from the fact that this state is original (i.e. natural) for a person.

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 the “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.” 6

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 “scarcely sensitive in comparison with the unbridled state of anarchy.” European conservatives con. XVIII V. 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 “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” 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”). 7

2.2 Society and state in the war of all against all

By abandoning 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 through a mutual agreement among themselves, so that this a person may use the power and means of all of them as he shall think necessary for their peace and common defense.” 8

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.

State is the great Leviathan (biblical monster), artificial man or earthly god; supreme power soul of the state, judges and officials joints, advisers memory; laws - 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; welfare of citizens strength, security of the people occupation, civil peace health, unrest illness, civil war 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. ." 9 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.” 10 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 into subjection to 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 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 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 connect the image of a 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 warriors as those depicted by me have 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 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 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 carried out especially persistently.

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,” and 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 defend 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 with weak government 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 is distinguished, not only by reason, but also by this specific passion, from all other animals, in which the desire for 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. 11

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.

List of used literature

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. Burke E. Reflections on the revolution in France. Journal of Sociological Research for 1991, No. 6, 7, 9, for 1992, No. 2 and for 1993, No. 4.

4. Nailed V.A. History of Western philosophical thought M, 1993.

5. Nailed V.A. Fundamentals of philosophy: stages of development and modern problems. History of Western philosophical thought M.: Infra, 2008. 67 p.

6. T. Hobbes, Selected Works, vol. 12, M., 1964.
7. 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.

8. T. Hobbes, Works in two volumes, M, 1991.

Krasnoyarsk 1958.

Zenkovsky V.V. History of Russian philosophy: In 2 vols. L., 1991, 294 p.

10. Zorkin V.D. Political and legal teachings of Thomas Hobbes // Soviet State and Law 1989 No. 6.

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

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

13. Kozyrev G.I. Fundamentals of sociology and political science: textbook. M.: Publishing House "FORUM": INFRA M, 2008. 240 p.

14. Locke J. Selected Philosophical Works, vols. 1-2, M, 1960.

15. Manheim K. Conservative thought. See in the book: Diagnosis of our time. M, 1994.

16. Meerovsky B.V. Hobbes M, 1975.

17. Mushnikov A.A. Basic concepts of morality, law and community life. St. Petersburg, 1994.

18. Narsky I.S. Western European philosophy XVII century M, 1974.

19.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.

20. Smelser N. Sociology. M, 1994.

21. Sokolov, V.V., European philosophy of the XV-XVII centuries, M., 1984, section. 2, ch. 4.

22. Russell B. History Western philosophy. In 3 books. Book 3. Part 1, Chapter 7. M.: “Academic Project”, 2006. 996 p.

23. Sociology. Short course. V.I. Dobrenkov, A.I. Kravchenko. M, 2003, 49-73 p.

24. Sociology. Textbook for universities. M, 2003, 20-57 p.

25. Rousseau J.-J. On the Social Contract, or Principles of Political Law. M, 1938.

26. Hutcheson F. A Study on the Origin of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue / General. ed. Meerovsky B.V. // Hutcheson F., Hume D., Smith A. Aesthetics. M, 1973. S. 41-269.

27. Cheskis, A.A., Thomas Hobbes, M, 1929.

1 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

2 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. 112

3 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

4 Gvozdoleny V.A., Fundamentals of philosophy: stages of development and modern problems. History of Western philosophical thought. M., 1993.S. 124

5 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

6 Prokofiev A.V. "War of all against all // Ethics: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki, 2001. - p. 89

7 Prokofiev A.V. "War of all against all // Ethics: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki, 2001. - p. 90

8 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

9 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

10 Ibid. - p. 164

11 Quote by Russell B. History of Western Philosophy. In 3 books. Book 3.H. 1, Ch. 7 - M.: "Academic Project", 2006 - p. 530

Other similar works that may interest you.vshm>
13654.		Analysis of vegetable production in farms of all categories in all districts of the Samara region	177.55 KB
	The course work included a comprehensive statistical and economic analysis of vegetable production in farms of all categories in all regions Samara region: grouping of regions by vegetable yield was carried out; an analysis of the variation in vegetable yield was carried out; a correlation-regression analysis of the relationship between the volume of vegetable production and the cost of 1 centner was carried out; an analysis of the dynamics of vegetable production in the region as a whole for 2004-2010 was carried out. NATIONAL ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CURRENT STATE OF VEGETABLE PRODUCTION IN RUSSIA AND THE SAMARA REGION. VARIATION ANALYSIS...
3000.		Hobbes on the pre-state state. Laws and the social contract	8.23 KB
	Thomas Hobbes 1588-1679 one of the most prominent English thinkers. Hobbes is contained primarily in his works: The philosophical beginning of the doctrine of the citizen 1642 Leviathan or Matter, the form and power of the church and civil state 1651. Hobbes puts a certain idea about the nature of the individual. Hobbes calls the natural state of the human race.
15817.		Man is the measure of all things	113.62 KB
	Creativity is analyzed as a quality of personality E. Here not only the formation of personal creative qualities occurs, but also the formation mental functions such as perception, representation, imagination, thinking. Artistic painting of batik fabric, like no other type of folk art, can convey to us the most ancient and deep artistic images signs and symbols and motifs of Russian art. Therefore, it, like culture in general, has different areas Activities: artistic and production related to...
12589.		Bibliographic aids for all user groups	50.95 KB
	Today, key positions in reading motivation are occupied by utilitarian, pragmatic goals (turning to printed and other sources to obtain information for business, performing specific work) and evadeistic (escape from difficulties in everyday life into “beautiful,” fascinating fiction)
18879.			33.06 KB
	General provisions Coursework or graduate work is an independent educational and research educational and methodological or educational and practical project of a student. In accordance with this, it must meet the requirements for scientific research or methodological publication: contain a logically structured review-theoretical and correctly conducted empirical parts and be formatted in accordance with established standards, see High-quality dissertation or course work must indicate the student’s ability to:...
20197.		Development of logical thinking in students with mental retardation using Nikitin's cubes (“Cubes for everyone”)	60.33 KB
	Theoretical aspects study and development of logical thinking of primary schoolchildren with mental retardation. Features of the development of logical thinking in primary schoolchildren with mental retardation. Ways and means of developing logical thinking in primary school children with mental retardation.
16419.		A federal law has come into force according to which the Unified State Exam becomes a unified form of final certification for all of you.	15.92 KB
	The following data were used for the analysis: average score for the first year of study variable sredbll2 grades for entrance examinations foreign language variable in mathematics variable mt social studies variable ob and Russian language variable rus presence of a medal variable medl recommendations prize place at various Olympiads non-competitive admission, etc. variable recommend as well as the gender of the applicant variable sex. The values of t-statistics are given in the table: Variable t-statistic C 7. For analysis...
2960.		Hobbes on the Obligations of the Sovereign and the Liberty of Subjects	8.8 KB
	From this follow all the rights and obligations of the one or those to whom the supreme power and subjects are transferred by agreement of the people: Subjects cannot change the form of government; b Supreme power cannot be lost; c No one can, without prejudice to justice, protest against the establishment of a sovereign; d Subjects cannot condemn the actions of the sovereign. Each subject is responsible for the actions of his sovereign; therefore, by punishing a sovereign, he punishes another for the actions committed by himself; f Sovereign judge in matters that...
4845.		Composition of a crime committed in a state of passion	40.32 KB
	Murder in a state of passion and its legal and psychological characteristics. The social and psychological essence of murder in a state of passion. Composition of a crime committed in a state of passion. The object of a murder committed in a state of passion.
12556.		Criminal legal characteristics of crimes committed in a state of passion	34.11 KB
	Consider the social danger of forms of criminal attacks in a state of passion that are under criminal law prohibition, and characterize the social orientation of these acts; to distinguish between murder in a state of passion and infliction of grievous or moderate harm to health in a state of passion from criminal acts with similar objective and subjective characteristics;

The most important in the process of studying the political and legal teachings of T. Hobbes are his socio-political views, which are contained in the works “On the Citizen”, “Leviathan”. T. Hobbes bases his philosophical system on a certain idea of the nature of the individual. The starting point of his reasoning about the social order and the state is the “natural state of people.” This natural state is characterized by him “by the natural tendency of people to harm themselves mutually, which they derive from their passions, but most importantly, from the vanity of self-love, the right of everyone to everything.”

The philosopher believes that although initially all people are created equal in terms of physical and mental abilities, and each of them has the same “right to everything” as the others, but man is also a deeply selfish creature, overwhelmed by greed, fear and ambition. He is surrounded only by envious people, rivals, and enemies. "Man is a wolf to man."

Therefore, the philosopher believes that in the very nature of people there are reasons for rivalry, mistrust and fear, which lead to hostile clashes and violent actions aimed at destroying or conquering others. Added to this is the desire for fame and differences of opinion, which also force people to resort to violence. Hence the fatal inevitability in society of “... a war of all against all, when everyone is controlled by his own mind and there is nothing that he cannot use as a means of salvation from his enemies”

To have the “right to everything” in the conditions of such a war means “... to have the right to everything, even to the life of every other person.” In this war, according to Hobbes, there can be no winners; it expresses a situation in which everyone is threatened by everyone - “... while the right of everyone to everything remains, not a single person (no matter how strong or wise he may be) can be sure that that he can live all the time that nature usually provides for human life.” During such a war, people use sophisticated violence to subjugate others or in self-defense.

One way or another, but “... people are naturally susceptible to greed, fear, anger and other animal passions,” they seek “honor and benefits,” act “for the sake of benefit or glory, i.e. for the sake of love for oneself, and not for others,” therefore everyone is the enemy of everyone, relying in life only on their own strength and dexterity, resourcefulness and ingenuity. Thus, egoism is declared to be the main stimulus of human activity.

But Hobbes does not condemn people for their selfish tendencies, nor does he believe that they are evil by nature. After all, it is not the desires of people themselves that are evil, the philosopher points out, but only the results of actions arising from these desires. And even then only when these actions cause harm to other people. In addition, it must be taken into account that people “by nature are deprived of education and are not trained to obey reason.”

It is about the state of general war and confrontation that Hobbes writes as “the natural state of the human race” and interprets it as the absence of civil society, i.e. state organization, state legal regulation of people's lives. In a word, in a society where there is no state organization and management, arbitrariness and lawlessness reign, “and a person’s life is lonely, poor, hopeless, stupid and short-lived.”

However, in the nature of people, according to Hobbes, not only are the forces plunging individuals into the abyss of a “war of all against all,” people are eager to get out of this miserable state, they strive to create guarantees of peace and security. After all, man inherently has properties of a completely different plane; they are such as to induce individuals to find a way out of such a disastrous state of nature. First of all, it is the fear of death and the instinct of self-preservation, which dominates other passions “... the desire for things necessary for a good life, and the hope of acquiring them through hard work.” Together with them comes natural reason, or natural law, i.e. everyone's ability to reason sensibly about positive and negative consequences

of your actions. Natural law is a prescription of human reason. According to Hobbes, natural laws come from human nature itself and are divine only in the sense that reason is “given to every man by God as the standard of his actions,” and moral institutions Holy Scripture

Therefore, the first part of the basic natural law deduced by the philosopher says: one should seek peace and follow it. The second part is the content of natural law, which boils down to the right to defend oneself by all possible means. From the fundamental law, Hobbes deduces the remaining natural laws. The most important among them is the renunciation of everyone’s rights to the extent required by the interests of peace and self-defense (the second natural law), and the renunciation of the right to resist violence and attempts to deprive them of freedom. The renunciation of a right is accomplished according to Hobbes, either by simple renunciation of it, or by transferring it to another person. But not all human rights can be alienated - a person cannot give up the right to defend his life and resist those who attack him. You cannot demand to be sent to prison, etc. The mutual transfer of rights is carried out by people in the form of an agreement - “A contract is the action of two or many persons transferring their rights to each other.” When a contract is made regarding something that relates to the future, it is called an agreement. Agreements can be concluded by people, both under the influence of fear and voluntarily.

The third law follows from the second natural law: people are obliged to fulfill the agreements they make, otherwise the latter will have no meaning. The third natural law contains the source and beginning of justice.

In Leviathan, Hobbes, in addition to the three indicated, indicated 16 more natural (unchangeable and eternal) laws. Most of them are in the nature of requirements or prohibitions: to be fair, merciful, compliant, unforgiving, impartial and at the same time not to be cruel, vindictive, arrogant, treacherous, etc.

Thus, we can draw the following conclusion. T. Hobbes based his teaching on the study of nature and human passions. Hobbes's opinion about these passions and nature is extremely pessimistic: people are characterized by rivalry, mistrust (the desire for security), and a love of glory. These passions make people enemies. Therefore, in the state of nature, people are in a state of war of all against all. But this natural state can be overcome thanks to the presence of natural reason, a natural law that makes you think about the consequences of your actions and regulate your behavior. Hobbes reduces all natural laws to one general rule, later voiced in the categorical imperative of I. Kant, which consists in refusing to do to other people what you do not want them to do to you.

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

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 had little influence from mathematics and was prone to a false conception of the 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 for all of Thomas Hobbes's reasoning in his writings was the doctrine of society, the state, and civil human rights. 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 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.

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 about 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.

At the age of fifteen he entered Oxford University and upon graduation received a university diploma, which gave him the right to engage in teaching work and opened the way 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 of 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.

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 this, the Catholic Church included the works of Hobbes 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 the further development of philosophical thought and various philosophical systems is impossible. 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.

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 tried to explain how and why, instead of the “natural” equality of people, inequality arose at some not entirely certain moment in historical development, 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 labor activity was considered an eternal way for a person to spend energy, then the possession of any 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 we build 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.

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.

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 through a mutual agreement among themselves, so that this a person may use the power and means of all of them as he shall think 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 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.).

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.

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.

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 natural state 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 defend their interests on their own, since they are 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 crimes in this - cruelty in protecting 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 of 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

The natural state of people is war against. Against everyone (Hobbes)

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

Introduction

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

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.

2. T. Hobbes about 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.

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.

2.2 Socio-political and ethical views

But if good is relative and, therefore, absolute values ​​do not exist, how can we build 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."

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

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

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.).

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.

Conclusion

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

Similar documents

But if good is relative and, therefore, absolute values do not exist, how can we build 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."

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