第1章
The Sovereign Beast: Hobbes' Vision of Man and State
Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" emerged in 1651 amid the tumult of the English Civil War, becoming one of political philosophy's most influential works. The book's stark portrayal of human nature and bold defense of absolute sovereignty continues to shape our understanding of political authority. Hobbes' masterpiece has influenced thinkers from John Locke to John Rawls, and remains required reading in political science departments worldwide. Even pop culture references it regularly-the television series "Lost" featured characters discussing its themes, and Hobbes' famous description of life without government as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" has become a widely recognized phrase. Beyond academia, "Leviathan" provides the philosophical foundation for social contract theory that underpins modern democratic governance, making its insights relevant to anyone seeking to understand the delicate balance between liberty and authority.
第2章
The State of Nature: Man's Inherent Equality and Conflict
Hobbes begins with a radical premise: all men are fundamentally equal. This equality exists not in virtue or intelligence but in our basic capabilities-even the weakest person can kill the strongest through cunning or alliance with others. From this natural equality springs three causes of conflict that define our pre-political condition. First, competition drives men to invade one another for gain. Second, diffidence (insecurity) compels them to attack preemptively for safety. Third, glory motivates them to fight for reputation. Without a common power to restrain them, humans exist in a perpetual "war of every man against every man."
This state of nature represents not merely occasional violence but a constant readiness for conflict. In such conditions, Hobbes famously declares life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Industry becomes impossible, as its fruits would immediately be stolen. Agriculture, navigation, construction, arts, letters, and society itself cannot develop. Most significantly, there exists "no right and wrong, no justice and injustice," for moral concepts require common authority to enforce them.
Hobbes' vision of natural human equality was revolutionary for his time. Unlike Aristotle, who claimed some were naturally suited to rule while others to be ruled, Hobbes saw all humans as fundamentally similar in their physical and mental capacities. This equality, however, leads not to harmony but to conflict, as similar abilities produce similar hopes for obtaining desired objects. When two men desire what only one can possess, they become enemies.
The state of nature is not merely theoretical-Hobbes points to evidence in the behavior of people who lock their doors and travel armed even in civilized society. He observes how rulers, though living in civil society with one another, maintain the posture of gladiators, with weapons pointed and eyes fixed on each other. This constant readiness for war characterizes international relations, where no common power exists above sovereign states.
Crucially, Hobbes does not claim humans are inherently evil or irrational. Rather, they act reasonably within the constraints of a situation where trust is impossible. Without security, rational self-interest dictates preemptive aggression. The fundamental problem is not human nature itself but the absence of common authority that makes cooperation sustainable. This insight forms the foundation for Hobbes' solution: the creation of an artificial person-the Leviathan-to establish peace through overwhelming power.
第3章
The Laws of Nature: Rational Pathways to Peace
Despite the bleak picture of the state of nature, Hobbes identifies rational principles that can guide humans toward peace. These "Laws of Nature" are not commands from a superior but precepts discovered by reason that promote self-preservation. The fundamental law directs men to "seek peace and follow it" when possible, while reserving the right to self-defense when peace cannot be obtained. From this principle, Hobbes derives a system of nineteen laws that would enable peaceful coexistence.
The second law of nature requires that men be willing to lay down their right to all things, accepting the same liberty against others as they allow against themselves. This reciprocal renunciation of rights forms the basis of contracts, which become the building blocks of civil society. However, Hobbes recognizes that mere agreements cannot secure peace without enforcement. In the state of nature, "covenants without the sword are but words," providing no security. This leads to his third law: that men perform their covenants, which establishes the concept of justice.
Additional laws follow logically: gratitude for voluntary kindness; mutual accommodation or complaisance; pardon for those who repent; punishment aimed at correction rather than revenge; avoiding direct or indirect signs of hatred or contempt; acknowledging others as natural equals; recognizing that no man can reserve rights to himself that he denies to others; impartial judgment in controversies; and several rules governing arbitration, witnesses, and contracts.
These laws of nature are eternal and immutable, yet they bind only in conscience unless security exists to enforce them. Hobbes clarifies that they are not properly "laws" in the state of nature but become laws when a commonwealth is established to enforce them. They represent the means to peaceful, sociable living-the true moral philosophy that concerns good and evil in human society.
What distinguishes Hobbes from earlier moral philosophers is his grounding of ethics in rational self-interest rather than virtue or divine command. The laws of nature are not abstract moral ideals but practical principles for survival. They bind not because God commands them (though Hobbes acknowledges they are also God's laws) but because they promote self-preservation. This approach revolutionized ethics by deriving moral principles from reason rather than tradition or revelation.
Hobbes' laws of nature provide the rational foundation for his political theory. They demonstrate why rational beings would consent to absolute sovereignty-not from love of subjection but from recognition that only a common power can secure the conditions necessary for a worthwhile life. The Leviathan becomes not a tyrannical monster but the rational solution to humanity's fundamental problem of insecurity.
第4章
The Social Contract: Birth of the Commonwealth
How do humans escape the miserable state of nature? Hobbes' answer is the social contract-a mutual agreement to transfer natural rights to a sovereign power. This contract differs fundamentally from previous political theories. It occurs not between ruler and ruled but among future subjects themselves, who agree to authorize a common representative. The sovereign becomes an artificial person bearing the collective will of the multitude.
Hobbes describes this momentous act: "I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner." Through this mutual covenant, the multitude becomes "one person" called a Commonwealth, Republic, or State (in Latin, Civitas). This entity is the "Leviathan," the mortal god to whom citizens owe their peace and defense.
The creation of the commonwealth fundamentally transforms human relations. Before the contract, each person possessed unlimited natural right but enjoyed no security. After it, rights are limited but protected by sovereign power. This transformation creates something entirely new-civil society with its attendant concepts of justice, property, and law. What was previously impossible (secure cooperation) becomes the foundation of civilization.
The sovereign's power must be absolute and indivisible for the commonwealth to function. Hobbes systematically dismisses divided sovereignty or limited government as contradictions that would return society to the state of nature. The sovereign cannot breach covenant with subjects since the original agreement was among subjects themselves, not with the sovereign. Subjects cannot justly accuse the sovereign of injury since they have authorized all sovereign actions. They cannot punish the sovereign, change the form of government, or protest against sovereign power without contradicting their original authorization.
From these principles flow the sovereign's essential rights: to judge doctrines suitable for peace, to make laws of property, to adjudicate controversies, to make war and peace, to choose counselors and ministers, to reward and punish, and to establish honors and order. These rights are inseparable-dividing them would create competing powers and undermine the commonwealth's purpose.
Hobbes' social contract theory represents a radical departure from traditional justifications of political authority. Rather than appealing to divine right, natural hierarchy, or historical tradition, he grounds political obligation in rational consent. Government exists not because God ordained it or because humans are naturally social but because rational individuals recognize its necessity for self-preservation. This approach fundamentally reorients political philosophy toward human agency and rational choice, establishing the framework for modern liberal political thought despite Hobbes' own absolutist conclusions.
第5章
Sovereignty: The Indivisible Power
At the heart of Hobbes' political philosophy stands his theory of sovereignty-the absolute, indivisible power that maintains peace within the commonwealth. Unlike earlier theorists who advocated mixed government or checks and balances, Hobbes insists that sovereign power must be unified and unlimited to fulfill its purpose. Any division or limitation of sovereignty would create competing authorities, undermining the very peace the commonwealth was established to secure.
Hobbes identifies three possible forms of sovereignty: monarchy (rule by one person), aristocracy (rule by an assembly of some), and democracy (rule by an assembly of all). While acknowledging each form's legitimacy when properly instituted, he argues that monarchy possesses significant advantages. In monarchy, private and public interests align perfectly-a king's wealth, power, and honor derive directly from his subjects' prosperity. Monarchs receive better counsel with proper secrecy, maintain more consistent policies, and avoid internal disagreements that plague assemblies.
The sovereign's primary duty is procuring the people's safety-not mere preservation but "all other contentments of life" that may be acquired through lawful industry. This requires not only protection from foreign enemies but also domestic peace through good laws and proper instruction. The sovereign must teach subjects the grounds of sovereign rights, preventing seditious doctrines that might dissolve the commonwealth. Subjects must learn not to desire governmental changes, not to adhere to popular leaders against the sovereign, and not to dispute sovereign power.
Hobbes' insistence on absolute sovereignty stems not from love of tyranny but from fear of civil war-the worst fate that can befall a commonwealth. Having witnessed the English Civil War's devastation, he concludes that even a flawed sovereign is preferable to the anarchy that results from challenging authority. When subjects reject established sovereignty, they return to the state of nature where life becomes "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Yet Hobbes' sovereign is not entirely unconstrained. The sovereign remains bound by natural law and ultimately accountable to God. More practically, the sovereign's self-interest dictates good governance, as power depends on subjects' strength and willingness to obey. A wise sovereign governs moderately, imposes only necessary taxes, establishes clear laws, and applies punishments for correction rather than revenge. These constraints arise not from constitutional limitations but from the practical requirements of maintaining power.
Hobbes' theory of sovereignty challenges both traditional and modern political assumptions. Against medieval theorists, he rejects divided authority between church and state, insisting that religious and civil power must unite in the sovereign. Against proto-liberal thinkers, he denies that individual rights can limit sovereign authority, arguing that rights exist only through sovereign protection. His uncompromising vision of absolute sovereignty continues to provoke debate about the proper scope and limits of political power.
第6章
The Rights and Duties of Subjects
While Hobbes' sovereign possesses absolute authority, subjects retain certain rights and face specific obligations within the commonwealth. Understanding this relationship clarifies how Hobbes balances order with individual liberty-a balance often misunderstood by those who view him as a mere apologist for tyranny.
The subject's primary duty is obedience to the sovereign in all matters not contrary to natural law. This obligation stems directly from the social contract-having authorized the sovereign to act on their behalf, subjects cannot consistently disobey without contradicting their own will. Obedience extends to all civil laws, which are simply the sovereign's commands for distinguishing right from wrong. Even laws subjects consider unreasonable must be obeyed, as the purpose of establishing sovereignty was precisely to create a common standard of judgment.
Yet Hobbes recognizes important limitations to this duty of obedience. Subjects retain the inalienable right to self-preservation, which cannot be transferred through any covenant. If a sovereign commands a subject to kill, wound, or imprison himself, the subject may legitimately refuse. Similarly, no one is obliged to confess to crimes without assurance of pardon, as self-accusation contradicts self-preservation. Most importantly, the obligation of subjects lasts only as long as the sovereign can protect them-when protection ceases, so does the duty of obedience.
Hobbes defines liberty as "the absence of external impediments to motion," applying this concept to both physical bodies and human actions. Within the commonwealth, liberty exists in the silence of the law-subjects remain free in matters the sovereign has not regulated. This includes buying and selling property, choosing a residence or occupation, educating children, and other personal decisions the sovereign leaves unregulated. Far from advocating total control over subjects' lives, Hobbes recognizes extensive domains where individual choice should prevail.
Property rights exist within the commonwealth but derive from sovereign authority rather than natural right. Before the commonwealth, each person had right to everything but secure possession of nothing. The sovereign establishes property by determining what belongs to whom and protecting these distributions through law. Subjects have exclusive rights against other subjects but not against the sovereign, who retains ultimate authority over all property for the commonwealth's preservation.
Hobbes' account of rights and duties reveals a more nuanced position than often attributed to him. While insisting on the necessity of absolute sovereignty, he carves out significant space for individual liberty within the framework of civil order. His approach differs from later liberal theorists not in denying individual rights entirely but in deriving them from sovereign protection rather than natural entitlement. This perspective offers an important counterpoint to theories that treat rights as pre-political constraints on governmental authority.
第7章
Religion and the Commonwealth
Religion posed a central challenge to political authority in Hobbes' time, with competing religious factions claiming divine sanction for resistance to civil powers. Hobbes confronts this challenge directly, developing a comprehensive account of religion's proper place within the commonwealth that subordinates ecclesiastical to civil authority.
Hobbes traces religion's origins to human nature itself. Unlike animals, humans anxiously inquire into causes, seeking to understand events that affect their fortunes. When true causes remain invisible, people suppose causes according to their own imaginations or trust authorities. This natural curiosity, combined with ignorance of natural causes, leads to belief in invisible powers-the seed of religion. Wise rulers throughout history harnessed these religious inclinations to promote obedience, establishing ceremonies and doctrines that supported civil peace.
Christianity presents a special case for Hobbes. As a professed Christian, he acknowledges divine revelation through Scripture but insists this revelation must be interpreted by sovereign authority. The sovereign alone determines which books constitute Scripture, what doctrines may be taught, and how religious ceremonies should be conducted. This authority extends to appointing pastors, regulating church property, and resolving religious controversies. Religious and civil power must unite in one sovereign to prevent the destructive conflict that arises from competing authorities.
Hobbes systematically dismantles claims of independent ecclesiastical power. He argues that Christ's kingdom is not of this present world but will come only after the resurrection. During the current age, Christians must obey their civil sovereigns in all matters, including religion. The Church is not a separate entity with its own jurisdiction but simply the commonwealth of Christians under their lawful sovereign. Pastors possess no coercive authority but merely the power to teach and persuade.
The only article of faith absolutely necessary for salvation, Hobbes maintains, is that "Jesus is the Christ"-the promised Messiah who will establish God's kingdom upon his return. Beyond this fundamental belief, Christians must obey civil laws and await Christ's second coming. This minimalist theology strips away complex doctrines that religious authorities had used to challenge civil power, returning Christianity to what Hobbes considers its original simplicity.
Hobbes' treatment of religion reflects his overriding concern with civil peace. Religious division had fueled the English Civil War, convincing him that competing religious authorities inevitably lead to conflict. By subordinating religion to sovereign authority, he seeks not to destroy faith but to neutralize its potential for political disruption. This approach anticipates modern secular states' separation of religious belief (left to individual conscience) from political authority (exercised by civil government).
第8章
The Kingdom of Darkness: Sources of Political Disorder
Hobbes concludes his treatise by identifying the intellectual and spiritual "darkness" that threatens commonwealth stability. This "Kingdom of Darkness" represents not merely error but a systematic misrepresentation of reality that undermines political authority and returns humans to the chaotic state of nature. By exposing these sources of darkness, Hobbes aims to illuminate the path toward stable government.
The first source of darkness is misinterpretation of Scripture, particularly the claim that God's kingdom is already present in the Church rather than awaiting Christ's return. This error leads ecclesiastical authorities to claim jurisdiction independent from and superior to civil power. When the Pope or clergy assert authority over kings in spiritual matters, they create divided sovereignty that inevitably produces conflict. Subjects caught between competing commands from church and state face an impossible dilemma, undermining the commonwealth's essential unity.
The second source is demonology and superstition inherited from pagan religion. By teaching that invisible spirits intervene in human affairs, religious authorities claim special power to interpret and control these supernatural forces. Exorcisms, conjurations, and consecrations become tools for manipulating popular fear, establishing priestly authority independent from civil government. Hobbes attacks these practices as mere "conjuration or enchantment" lacking scriptural foundation, designed to elevate clergy above their proper role as teachers.
The third source is mixing Scripture with Aristotelian philosophy, particularly metaphysical doctrines about incorporeal substances, abstract essences, and separated forms. These obscure concepts create an artificial fog around clear thinking, enabling learned men to confuse rather than enlighten their listeners. When applied to theology, they transform simple biblical teachings into complex doctrines that only specialized interpreters can understand, further enhancing ecclesiastical power at civil authority's expense.
The fourth source is false traditions and fabricated histories that support ecclesiastical claims. Miracle stories, accounts of purgatory, and tales of saints' interventions create a parallel authority structure challenging civil power. These narratives, accepted without critical examination, shape popular imagination and establish alternative loyalties that undermine political obligation.
Hobbes' analysis of these sources reveals his fundamental insight: political stability requires intellectual clarity. False doctrines about sovereignty's nature and limits create the conditions for civil conflict by justifying resistance to legitimate authority. The remedy lies not merely in sovereign power but in proper education that teaches subjects the true grounds of political obligation. Universities bear special responsibility in this regard, as they form the minds that will either strengthen or undermine the commonwealth.
This critique of intellectual darkness represents Hobbes' most radical contribution. By treating political disorder as primarily an intellectual problem requiring philosophical solution, he establishes political theory as essential to practical governance. The sovereign must concern himself not only with external threats but with the ideas circulating within the commonwealth, recognizing that false doctrines can destroy from within what armies cannot conquer from without.
第9章
Leviathan's Legacy: The Modern State and Human Nature
Hobbes' "Leviathan" fundamentally transformed political philosophy, establishing a framework for understanding government that continues to shape modern political thought. His vision of the state as an artificial person created by human agreement broke decisively with traditional theories grounding political authority in divine right or natural hierarchy. By deriving political obligation from rational consent rather than tradition or revelation, Hobbes initiated the contractarian approach that would later develop through Locke, Rousseau, and contemporary theorists like Rawls.
The modern state, with its monopoly on legitimate force and clear territorial sovereignty, embodies Hobbes' central insight that political authority must be supreme within its domain to maintain order. International relations, where sovereign states interact without common authority, continues to display the competitive dynamics Hobbes attributed to the state of nature. Even liberal democracies that reject Hobbes' absolutism maintain his core principle that some final decision-making authority must exist to resolve disputes and coordinate collective action.
Perhaps Hobbes' most enduring contribution is his unflinching analysis of human nature and its political implications. By grounding politics in human psychology rather than abstract ideals, he established a realist tradition that continues to counterbalance utopian political thinking. His insight that effective political institutions must account for human self-interest rather than assuming natural virtue anticipates modern economic and rational choice approaches to institutional design.
Yet Hobbes' legacy remains contested. Critics argue his pessimistic anthropology undervalues human capacity for cooperation and moral development. His absolute sovereignty seems incompatible with constitutional government and individual rights. His insistence on unified authority appears outdated in an age of pluralism and divided powers.
These criticisms, however, often miss Hobbes' deeper purpose. His absolutism aimed not at tyranny but at preventing the greater evil of civil war. His commonwealth existed to secure not merely survival but conditions for "commodious living" where industry, knowledge, arts, and society could flourish. His sovereign was absolute not to oppress subjects but to protect them from each other and external threats.
Modern readers might reject Hobbes' specific institutional recommendations while embracing his fundamental insight: political authority exists to transform destructive competition into productive cooperation. Without common power to enforce agreements, human interaction remains precarious and limited. The challenge of creating and maintaining this authority-making it strong enough to secure peace yet constrained enough to respect liberty-remains the central problem of political design.
Hobbes' "Leviathan" thus continues to speak to our political condition. In a world still plagued by civil wars, failed states, and international conflicts, his analysis of the human need for security and the institutional requirements for providing it remains urgently relevant. His clear-eyed assessment of human nature's darker potentials serves as a necessary corrective to political idealism disconnected from psychological reality. The artificial person he envisioned-the great Leviathan "to which we owe our peace and defense"-remains our most powerful tool for transforming the war of all against all into a civil society where human flourishing becomes possible.
