This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"He thus denied any right of rebellion toward the social contract, which would be later amended by John Locke and conserved by Jean-Jacques Rousseau."
This is wrong, wrong, wrong so I am deleting it. Hobbes thought you could rebel if the state failed to fulfil that reason for which you founded it: your self-preservation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.123.192 (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I disagree indeed. I came to this page interested in the book and greatly appreciated these quotes, which give judicious access to the flavor of the language and the thinking of Hobbes. Ten pages of quotes might be too much, but a page or two is not, given the luxury of space in Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.89.142 (talk)
I wouldn't want to undermine the original creator, but I think this would be more useful as a source of information if it relied less heavily on quotations from the text. Any disagreement? J.T.
(William M. Connolley 21:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Filling out the Leviathan page was a project of mine that has fallen by the wayside, sadly. I've now added something to part II - but it by no means covers it all. The problem I find is that Hobbes language is so wonderful I hate to replace it with boring paraphrase. However the section is too long (and there is much more to fit in). Its also almost entirely descriptive, rather than judgemental: perhaps that is a good thing. So what I have written needs to be cut and expanded. One day I will: but in the meantime feel free.
(William M. Connolley 08:23, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)) OK, I've done III and IV now too, rather better I hope. II needs finishing and tidying a lot. Rev+Conc needs doing. There is quite a bit on Lev on the TH page too - not sure if it should be merged in here.
I notice that Pepys says the book escalated in price because the Bishops would not allow it to be reprinted. That raises for me the absence of social context and impact of the book. I'd love to know more 203.219.121.148 (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to add a sentence to the introduction that summarizes the modern sense of the word leviathan, as derived from Hobbes. Tobacman 19:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article uses way too much original text. It should be paraphrased so people will be able to understand exactly what Hobbes is saying versus illustrating how he is saying it.
Hi there! Just to let you know that theres a mistake under "Diverse" it says "A quote from that book dfd;lskfjd;lsfjd;lskfj;salkf jd;lsaf j at one time used in the wikipedia logo."
Just thought i'd let you know, Neil B
I removed:
Some of this duplicates what is already there (the SoN bit). man's condition is defined as misery is wrong (or at least defined is wrong). But the quote above has already done that.
But the real mistake is the Sovereign bit - none of that is in part 1. Its in part 2. As the existing article already says :-) William M. Connolley 21:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC).
KP "fixed" a couple of spellings [1]. Of those, Naturall should definitely stay "ll" cos its the text. "Civill" is a bit harder: in the frontispiece its Civil; in the subtitle on the title page its Civill. I prefer the ll; and "leave original spelling" hopefully applies William M. Connolley 22:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this myself when I picked up a copy of the book a couple days ago, and then went back to revert it but noticed someone beat me to it. From now on while reading articles on books written in archaic english, I'll try to control my sudden impulses to grammarize and spellify everything I see. Sorry about that. user:knowledgepirate 18:56, 2 March 2006
Its often stated that leviathan is relevant to modern politics
Is the frontispiece for Leviathan really an etching? I can't find any other sources that say so, and I've found a few that say that it's an engraving.
[2], Thomas Hobbes and the Title-Page of "Leviathan", Keith Brown, Philosophy, Vol. 55, No. 213 (Jul., 1980), pp. 410-411
Bosse was an etcher, but he also did engravings (or at least etching/engraving hybrids). Are we sure that this is an etching? I'm taking that out until someone proves otherwise. superlusertc 2007 September 27, 05:38 (UTC)
Re [3]. I think its two titles; after the "or" is a subtitle. Hence the edit should be reverted William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
RJC edited Hobbes for summary style; I've dumped the excess text into the intro here. Perhaps it should be pared down somewhat, I'm not sure William M. Connolley (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Needs more headings, especially the intro. -- TimNelson (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with capitalising scripture. MOS says The names of major revered works of scripture like the Bible, the Qur'an, the Talmud, and the Vedas should be capitalized. That doesn't seem to be relevant to the issue William M. Connolley (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Could someone clarify who or what Hobbes's "Leviathan" refers to, perhaps with a quoted passage from the book? Does the Leviathan refer to a state or a ruler, and is it used in an appreciative or pejorative sense? If it refers to a ruler, how does Hobbes's "Leviathan" differ from, say, Machiavelli's "Prince"? Hah, I realize that the preceding sounds like an essay prompt for a high school literature exam. I assure respondents I am well out of school and not seeking homework help. :-) Robert K S (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, just made a little correction that people often miss, and I wanted to explain myself more clearly here so it doesn't get erased.
Thomas Hobbes, not John Locke, actually originated the concept of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (or at least, he's the earliest thinker that I know to have iterated it explicitly). Check Chapter XIV pg. 93 in the Revised Student Edition, Ed. Richard Tuck:
And therefore there be some Rights, which no man can be understood by any words, or other signes, to have abandoned, or transferred [Inalienable Rights]. As first a man cannot lay down the right of resisiting them, that assault him by force, to take away his life; because he canot be understood to ayme thereby, at any Good to himself [Life]. The same may be sayd of Wounds, and Chayns, and Imprisonment; both because there is not benefit consequent to such patience; as there is to the patience of suffering another to be wounded, or imprisoned: as also because a man cannot tell, when he seeth men proceed against him by violence, whether they intend his death or not [Liberty]. And lastly the motive, and end for which this renouncing and transferring of Right is introduced, is nothing else but the security of a mans person, in his life, and in the means of so preserving life, as not to be weary of it [Pursuit of Happiness].
If you have any questions, please direct them to me.
Tethros (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this [4] refers to. Hobbes certainly states that you can't give up your right to resist force, or imprisonment; but he certainly doesn't mean by this that you have a "right" not to be imprisonned William M. Connolley (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is absolutely correct. Of course, neither does Locke deny that imprisonment is a sometimes necessary evil for violations of the social contract. The point of the passage is to clarify the epistemological heritage of the concept of an inalienable right, which while often attributed to Locke, can actually be traced back even further, to Hobbes. It refers to the passage that I included in my previous post.
Tethros (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
what happened to twelve rights of nature, self defense and determination, the golden rule, ect....the page is missing most of the main pionts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.62.9 (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I see problems in the text bellow:
At the end of this comes an interesting section (darkness is suppressing true knowledge as well as introducing falsehoods), which would appear to bear on the discoveries of Galileo Galilei. "Our own navigations make manifest, and all men learned in human sciences now acknowledge, there are antipodes" (i.e., the Earth is round) "…Nevertheless, men… have been punished for it by authority ecclesiastical. But what reason is there for it? Is it because such opinions are contrary to true religion? That cannot be, if they be true."
Since knowledge about the round shape of the Earth was uncontroversial among ecclesiastical authorities, it seems far more likely that Hobbes is using the second meaning in his alleged case of persecution. --Leinad-Z (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The sentence "So we end up back at the first-born son, in practice" sounds like a conclusion that should be sourced. Patrilineality or Patrilineal_descent_of_Elizabeth_II seem relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.64.89.205 (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hobbes wasn't happy for truth being suppressed, I believe it was just another instance to criticize the church. Civil authority means the people's faith, and Hobbes argues that only civil authority can "regulate the truth" opposing the power that the church had at the time, and which it used to abuse people's rights.
"Nevertheless, men… have been punished for it by authority ecclesiastical. But what reason is there for it? Is it because such opinions are contrary to true religion? That cannot be, if they be true." However, Hobbes is quite happy for the truth to be suppressed if necessary: if "they tend to disorder in government, as countenancing rebellion or sedition? Then let them be silenced, and the teachers punished" — but only by the civil authority."
The first is by extinguishing the light of scripture through misinterpretation. Hobbes sees the main abuse as teaching that the kingdom of God can be found in the church, thus undermining the authority of the civil sovereign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.104.2 (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
What's up with the weird rant in the Commonwealth section? Definitely seems like it doesn't belong there. Not only is it screwing up the formatting of the page, but it seems to be some sort of semi-conspiracy theory babble about modern day society?...
it's here:
OLIGARCHY raises its head as a sea monster and its products have and can claim it is a form of commonwealth (synechdoche is of what's due to the English wording distributing encyclopedia information) the manufacture that is ostensibly shared freely enriching everyone equally though {this} noted by monopoly (software stimulation) and ownerships of products by consumers a wealth which becomes Sovereign according to Thomas Hobbes when he notes what is found Grant in the Leviathan the ownerships {scanned UCC] and solicitable there is the forcible entry by a monarch [that which] is not of democracy as Americans feared the writs of assistance and the bill of attainder and there are ex post facto laws defeating the self in monarchy though of the best chosen to govern an aristocracy need not hold in custody by the use of force in trespass those agreeable to know who and what becomes educated the best certainly not data entry internet of the convenience of aptitude as herein is noted offering to edit the words of a public domain publication enclopedic and verifiable ISBN 0-486-44794-4 numbers and deuteronomy to levitus and exodus of where the accretion parts waters in TRUST to the CONQUEST and the SUBMISSION the involvement daily not distracted adverstising submitting to rules and regulations in order to be comfortable as a commonwealth arraignement characterizes the Monarch and not the cunning Aristocrat both of large numbers a leviathan removing from what is at large criminal notable that each one self is found having been issued keys to the ignition the cognition is ancient and not modern to wit ... the steering of wheels is but metaphorical.
"I upholster the windshield" is not a form of government or commonwealth though the electronic display of the wording is identical to the manufacture what variance is why I herein apply the alternating current(often of coils wound around cores counting consoles) to do the keys of the computer typewriter projecting as were the papers inked bound and paginated wording onto the screen these sorts of statements wealthy as they are in common and I am not prevaricating to seventy Elders the airplane each then common as one's housing in wealth the wings only to trespass the houses with cockpits like a sea monster as there are tires treading below each fuselage and why govern nations of the jet engines an I noting the battery assaultive is not to have been accorded autonomy, Hobbes is quoting "Those Bodies made for the government of Men, or of Trafffique, (be) either perptuall ..." RE parking lots and airports ... terminals and plates to have been prescribed by writing ... and the commands to towns of Subjects and Deputies ... how are the People represented? There are not three forms of commonwealth ... the people to have assembled As SOVEREIGN is democracy without one REPRESENTATIVE SELF ... Aristocracy of numerous lives chosen the best capable
yeah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.94.33 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
M tagged:
Looking back, this was added by [7] so I don't much trust it. Re-reading the chapter, I think it might be referring to
though that doesn't fit the "implying" bit. I'd suggest the text stay out William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The content of the section "Part I: Of Man" is longwinded, undirected, and contains weasel words. Given the purpose of an encyclopedia article to introduce the subject at hand in a succinct and authoritative manner, this section should contain a focused statement about what Hobbes was doing in this first part of the book. The quoted passages are unnecessary and distracting (although they could be moved to footnotes, if deemed helpful by other editors), and the drawn out discussion of causes a bit tedious. Lastly, errors of syntax abound, e.g. "Hobbes attempts an analysis of society from first principles, beginning with Man and the Senses" (man and the senses is not an analysis of society). I propose the following:
If more is required about concepts of the self, as proposed by user:RJC ("view of man as matter in motion"), I suggest those be incorporated into my proposed edit as it is certainly not clear in the current version--nor do I see this as a particularly important aspect that needs highlighting in the article. Socialtheorynow (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Leviathan (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The citations and (in)'credible sources' completely misrepresent the essence of this text:
It is not calling for a strong, united sovereign. It's called for justice an equality above all. In several paragraphs, Hobbes makes evident the tendency of the King or the Aristocracy to pursue their own interests at the expense of the people and the Commonwealth. He's criticizing contemporary forms of government, and highlighting their excesses on purpose, in order to demonstrate what a sovereign ought NOT to be... I suppose the entire joke about 'The Beast is the King' eludes all these 'reliable sources' as well... Philosophy is in a sad state of affairs, being predominantly pro-Western and Aristocratic of late; the politics of power; how amusing.
Btw, I reverted my edit because I don't want to deal with this BS right now, but the quote is in reference to Revelation 13:4, which itself is a reference to Job 41, Isaiah 27 and Psalms 74,104: "Who is like the Beast? Who can fight against it?", because in Revelation 17:9-11, The Beast is the King... 69.158.177.108 (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Tnis article was tagged in February 2012 as requiring further citations. They have been substantially improved since then. Any objection to now removing the tag? Wikiain (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
The 1645 book by Downame doesn't contain any references to the word lavah and never cites any etyomologies for Leviathan:89.178.238.116 (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC) https://archive.org/details/annotationsupona00down/page/n17