Thomas Hobbes and Materialism

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

Comrades, I am reading Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes and is quite an interesting text. Its a requirement for my social and political philosophy class. What do you guys think about this work? Please, I would like to hear many perspectives concerning Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan.

[Dermezel]

He had some fine statements on the matter of equality. Materialist arguments for equality are important, though he seems to tie it down with a "Natural State" type banter.

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

He had some fine statements on the matter of equality. Materialist arguments for equality are important, though he seems to tie it down with a "Natural State" type banter.

Absolutely, I agree, he goes on to talk about a "natural state" a bit to much. He was as I consider him a mechanical materialist, which was the materialism before Marx revolutionized it.

[Meridian]

I would enjoy some points of view on Hobbes Leviathan as well, seeing as how I, too, am supposed to write an essay on it... :rolleyes: Specifically on the "social contract", or "contract theory".

[Hit The North]

The MIA entry is a good starting point

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/h/o.htm#hobbes-thomas

Although the statement
He defended the social contract theory of Rousseau should be disregarded as Rousseau wasn't born until 33 years after Hobbes' death. So whatever theory he was defending it could not have been Rousseau's.

[bricolage]

His conception of the state of nature has been one of the defining arguments used in favour of the state and against free association. I have little time for him.

[whore]

contract theory is one of the most absurd things to have ever come from liberalism.

there was no hypothetical society where people agreed to form a state. any such hypothetical society would much more likely be peaceful, and thus no need to form a state.
even if all members of a community at one time volunteered to form a state to rule over them, there is no reason why future generations should be held to that contract. (this also applies to constitutions).

the argument that, 'if you dont like it, leave it', is shit. i dont have enuogh money. there is no where that will accept me anyway, and there is no place with out a state anyway.

so, implicit consent fails, because there are no alternatives.

of course, the time he was in influenced his writing. he was writing during and after the english civil war.


reminicing now: i had a class where two groups presented different alternatives based on rousseau and other peoples ideas. my group then had to choose which idea we preffered. we didnt like any of them, and state in a state of anarchy :D