 Welcome to our first lecture on Hobbes. We're having another one next week. So you get two Hobbes, like you got two Play-Dohs, and two weeks Of Hobbes, like you got two weeks of Play-Doh. And thank you for coming at an unusual time and in an unusual Place. So we do want to make sure that you get enough background Information on the books to really get them before you write Their essays. So that's why we sometimes do these makeup lectures. So i'm calling this lecture the monster in the machine. And you'll see it a little while why. I'm going to talk about monsters. I'm going to talk about machines. And then I'm going to try to put them together, which is it's Going to be a little forced, but it's kind of cool, maybe. And then the seeing and knowing part of it is going to come Towards the very end. So the first part, there isn't going to be that much about Our theme, but in the next part, there'll be a bit. So towards the end, you'll get some more about that. But the first thing I want to look at is, oh, sorry, I forgot about this. Sometimes I do this. I forget what I've actually put on there. So I would like to suggest, although I won't have the chance In this lecture to do so well, I would like to suggest by the Time you're done reading Hobbes, maybe his state doesn't look Quite so monstrous. And when I did Hobbes last year, I did the second lecture. And by that point, we had enough understanding of the State that I could actually make that case. And by the end of this lecture, we won't yet have Enough understanding of the state for me to make that Case well. So I'm just going to suggest it. I'm just going to have you think about it. And I'll throw that out at the very end as well. So that's why I've got a question mark there. So here's the basic overall structure of the lecture. We've got, it's hard to see, I know, reason and science. And then we're going to talk about monsters, machines, And then the monster and the machine. So that's the plan for the lecture. I'm going to start with Hobbes' view of reason and Science. Because I think that's going to help us get a better Understanding of the organization of the book. Why does he write the book the way he does? I mean, in some senses, you know, you get the sense That this is a book about a political state. And in many respects, it might sound somewhat similar To Plato in that regard. But then you start reading it, and he begins with How does sensation work? And how do our voluntary motions work? And all these lists and lists of words that he just goes Through. And it might be very puzzling to you why he's doing all That stuff. So I want to start off by talking about his method, About what he thinks the method of doing science is, Because he thinks he's doing a political science, As opposed to, say, a physical science. So the first thing you might think when you're Opening up Hobbes, and you start reading, and You're into a chapter, I don't know, three or four Or five, is something like one of his own quotes. What is the meaning of these words? When men write whole volumes of such stuff, are they not mad Or intend to make others so? Which you might think about Hobbes himself, right? What is the meaning of these words? Now, of course, he's actually talking about, I didn't bring the right version of the book, So I have a different page number, but he's talking About people who write about science in ways that he Completely disagrees with. And he quotes this sentence that I couldn't possibly Parse myself. He says, this is on page 46. He says, what is the meaning of these words? The first cause does not necessarily inflow anything Into the second by force of the essential subordination Of the second causes by which it may help it to work. When men write whole volumes of such stuff, Are they not mad or intend to make others so? So he's saying that there's lots of people who are writing About science in ways that he disagrees with. And I'll give you just some very basic aspects of Hobbes' view of the universe. And that's when he says, are they not mad or intent To make others so? But sometimes I think you might feel that way About Hobbes himself, which is why I want to start Off by trying to talk about what the heck he's doing In the first, oh, I don't know, 10, 12 chapters. Because starting with chapter 13 is when he really starts To go into what might look more like political science. What might look more like the development of a state. But then there's all that stuff beforehand. So part of what I'm doing today is trying to make sense of that. So Hobbes claims, or a biographer of Hobbes claims, I can't remember if it was Hobbes himself or one of his Biographers that said a certain point in his life He started becoming enamored of geometry. And specifically of Euclid. And the Euclidean system of geometry, the idea there is That it's an axiomatic system. That if you were to read Euclid's elements, and this is, You know, back from ancient Greece, he's got a certain set Of axioms that he just takes to be true. And from those axioms, and there's good reason to Believe they're true, they make sense. You can sort of understand why they would be the case. From those axioms, he builds up through logical proofs To all the conclusions of geometry. So he starts off with very basic truths and builds up Using just those to the conclusions that he uses in geometry. Well, Hobbes apparently became very enamored of this method. And I think that it would be really hard to follow it all The way through the book. At least to some degree, we can start to see how Hobbes is doing that. Hobbes is taking some very basic starting points, putting them together And building up his whole argument from there. So this is a nice quote from page 19. In geometry, which is the only science that it hath Pleased God hitherto to bestow on mankind. That's how strongly he loves geometry. Men begin at settling the significations of their words. So there's whole chapters in here where he just lists words. There's whole sections where he's defining passions. Where he's defining what memory is, what imagination is, what reason is. And there's just lots and lots of definitions. And at some points, you're just like, I am so bored by all of these lists of definitions. But what he's trying to do is he's trying to start off by defining things Like euclid has axioms. And then from those axioms, you can then build up and build up And then finally you get something that's more interesting in a way. That's what he thinks you have to do. And if you don't do that, you're going to be lined. This is one of my favorite lines in the text. I've got to find the right page number in this version. If you don't do that, you're going to be like a bird in Lime twigs. Let me read you the quote. This is section 12 of chapter 4. Seeing then that truth consisteth in the right ordering of names In our affirmations, a man that seeketh precise truth had need to Remember what every name he uses stands for. And to place it accordingly. So it's very important to remember what every term, What every name you use stand for. Or else he will find himself entangled in words as a bird in Lime twigs. The more he struggles, the more be lined. I just love this image. It's a horrible thing to do with a bird. Does anybody know what lime twigs are? Does anyone know what bird lime is? No, I had to look it up. Oh, yeah. It's a way to hunt birds. And I think it's illegal in a lot of places in the world. Because it's just really cruel. So it's a very, very sticky substance that birds get caught in twigs. And the more they struggle, the more they get covered with it And then they're stuck. Now that's a horrible image for the birds. It's an interesting image to me for what he means about Not having clear definitions to start with. If you're not clear on what the words mean that you begin With, then you're just going to get all wrapped up in your Argument and maybe meaning one thing by this word at one Point and another thing by that word. Another point and a different thing over here until you're Just mixed up. You're just stuck. And you're not really getting anywhere. And I think that's an interesting image for why Hobbes Starts with all these definitions. But he's got another bird image, which is also on the same page. And it's in the next section. So section 13. He says here he's talking about how if you read other Texts, if you read, if you believe in other people's words And you don't pay attention to whether the definitions they Give or any good, then you're going to be like a bird that's Stuck and trying to fly out of a window. Okay. So in section 13, this is somewhat long. For the errors of definitions multiply themselves according As the reckoning proceeds and lead men into absurdities Which at last they see but cannot avoid without reckoning New from the beginning which lies the foundations of their Errors. From whence it happens that they which trust to books as do They that cast up many sums into a greater without considering Whether those little sums were rightly cast up or not, etc. If you don't pay attention to how the definitions are Used in a book and whether those are good ones, then You will spend time in fluttering over their books as Birds that entering by the chimney and finding themselves Enclosed in a chamber flutter at the false light of a glass Window for wants of which to consider which way they came in. So the definitions are so important to Hobbes that if You're reading somebody else's book, even if you're reading His book, and they haven't carefully set out what their Definitions of terms are and use them consistently. And if the definitions they're using don't make sense and You haven't paid attention to that, you'll find yourself Stuck in all kinds of errors and you don't know how to get Out. It's like a bird who's come in through the chimney and is Stuck in a room and is trying to flutter at the window but you Don't really know what it is that got you in there in the First place so that you won't be able to fly back out. That's how important it is to settle your definitions for Hobbes. And i'm not sure what to make of the fact that he uses Birds as images because there's these two bird images But i just i think it's interesting. Okay that's why he's got all these lists of definitions but It's not only that of course because you can't get that far With just definitions. Definitions help us to reason and from reason we build up To a science. So reason is one definition and then two parts to it. And by reckoning he means doing sums, like adding and Subtracting, like doing mathematics. So he's still very enamored of something like geometry, things Like mathematics that are very precise sciences. So reasoning is like adding and subtracting things to come Up with new answers. So what is reckoning? That is adding and subtracting of the consequences of general Names. Okay by that quote i think he means adding and Subtracting words, definitions of words and what is true if Those are true. The consequences of names means the implications. If this is the definition of justice let's say. What are the consequences of that? What falls out of that? The next two bullet points i think are kind of interesting And they fit with the picture that i got over there on the Right. So what you do first is you define your terms. That's the definitions part. And then the first bullet point. You add together names into statements. You add together those words into statements. And if you look on page 18 i won't read it right now. But what he says is you can add together words like human and Animal. Humans are animals. And you can put them together into statements. Or humans are mortal. Various statements you can create by taking words that you Precisely defined. You add them together. You create a statement. Now that statement can be true or false. Now the next step is the second bullet point. Adding together statements into syllogisms. Now does anybody know what a syllogism is? It's not a common term anymore. It used to be big in ancient Greece and Hobbes' day. Yeah. Yeah. It's usually three lines. It's two premises and a conclusion. So it's a form of an argument. And it can take, it can be, the structure is the same but It can have several different kinds of things set in it. So one way of thinking about it, and this is a very common example. All humans are mortal. Let's write it down because it's easier. Socrates is human. Oops. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. It's a very typical kind of syllogism. And with this one, it's all true. The first two statements are the premises. The second one is the conclusion. What Hobbes is talking about is first you define your terms, Humans, mortal. What is a Socrates? Then you put them together into statements. Then you can put those statements together into syllogisms. And from these two, you get something new. That falls out of those two. And you can do that with various kinds of things, right? Now that's what this picture on the right is supposed to be about. The things on the very right are like the terms, the words. You put those together into statements. And you put those statements together into syllogisms. And it leads you to a new thing. That's the idea. Now science, then, once you've done all that, is a consequence Of all of the syllogisms that might be possible. Or all of the kinds of arguments that might be possible In a given topic. And this is his definition of it. It's not that helpful, I think, in his words. But he says, a knowledge of all the consequences of names Appertaining to the subject at hand. I think, by that, he means. You take all the definitions of words. You put them together into statements that are true. You put those together into arguments to come up with new conclusions. All of that together. And this is kind of a picture of that, is a science. So whatever the science is about, that's all those things. And you have to build it up point by point. So if Hobbes thinks he's creating a political science, Then what he's doing is he's starting off with definitions. He's putting those together into statements. Then developing arguments. Enough to cover the whole field of political science. That's the hope. Now, interestingly, Hobbes also says that if we all reason, We can do it the same way and come up with the same answers. So this is on page 25. I don't have it on the slide, but it's on the same page. And here is page 64. That is not the right page. Okay. That is section 17 of chapter 5. I guess it is. There we go. Never mind. I don't think I have the right section. There we go. No, section 16. Sorry. So page 25, section 16 of chapter 5. All men by nature reason alike and well when they have good principles. So the hope is if you're doing this correctly, You have to find your terms. You put them together into statements. You put those statements together into syllogisms. The conclusions follow naturally, logically. Everyone's going to be able to come to the same answer. Now that's important because for Hobbes, The hope is you start off with how he begins. You agree to that. Then he builds up a little bit. You agree to that. Then he builds up a little bit. You agree to that because we're all reasonable. We all reason the same way. You're going to end up agreeing to his state. That's the idea. Okay. That's I think the overarching like why he structures it the way he does. But i'm going to give you another outline kind of of the actual content of the argument. So that's going to be in a little bit. But any questions or comments so far? Okay. So this is the monster in the machine. So I'm going to start with the monster. And I think there's two monsters. So one is the leviathan, which is the title of the text. And you might even think that the sovereign itself is a leviathan is a monster. So sovereign is as a leviathan. But for Hobbes, the real monster is civil war. And I think the historical background, the context of when he's writing, is very important for understanding what he's saying. Because I think that, I don't know, he would say he would feel the same way about the state even if he wasn't living during a civil war. But I think there's probably no denying that what he's really most interested in and what he's most focused on is very much colored by his personal experience. So the civil war is a monster. I tried to find a picture of a two-headed monster that was free because I'm going to post this on YouTube and I can't post things that were copyrighted. I can't believe how hard it is to find a picture of a two-headed monster that isn't like some cute little dinosaur or something. It had to be something kind of scary, which this is not. So I did my best. But the idea is it should, when he's thinking about a civil war, he's thinking about a state with two heads. And this is important when we look at, and I'll show it to you later, the frontest piece to the text, which is, the state is a person with one head and that's really critical. If you've got two heads, you're going in different directions, you're going to end up splitting. And that's what ended up happening in England. So I'm going to go through some of that fairly briefly of what actually happened in England during the time and where Hobbes was while that was happening. And why then this picture of something with two heads becomes something with one head for Hobbes? And that's absolutely critical. So the divine right of monarchs. I'm mentioning this because it has to do with kind of the background of the civil war. So up here we've got James I on the left, who was the king of England during Shakespeare's time. We already talked about him a little bit last week. And on the right we have Charles I, who was his son. Who ruled, when did he rule? Sixteen, I do not remember. I do not remember, sorry, thought I had that, but I don't. I know he died in 1649 because that's when they executed him. But they both believed in the divine right of kings. Does this sound familiar to anybody? The divine right of kings. Hobbes defines it later in the book. Then the whole state dissolves. So he talks a lot about the succession later on in the text about what happens if a king dies or a queen dies and they haven't named their successor. Who does it go to? Well, it goes to the close relative or it goes to the first born son or something like that. And if there's no successor, the whole state disappears. So that's important to Hobbes because he doesn't want the state to disappear. So that's another plan for the succession. The divine right of monarchs, specifically, the idea was a little bit different. The idea was that kings rule through the authority of God. That God, or excuse me, kings and queens are the spokesperson, the lieutenants of God on earth. And in fact are anointed in some sense by God. Which means their authority comes through God, they are accountable to God and not the people. And by going against the monarch, you are going against God. It is very, very, it's almost as bad as being a heretic, right, to go against the monarch. This was the idea behind the sense that the king was the actual minister or the lieutenant or the governor of God on earth. Here's a couple of quotes from a French bishop named Jacques Benin Boussé. Jacques Benin Boussé from the 17th century. He was a court preacher to Louis XIV in France. And he had this really nice writing on the divine right of kings that I think helps to explain it. He said, it is God who establishes kings. He caused Saul and David to be anointed by Samuel. He invested royalty in the house of David and ordered him to cause Solomon his son to reign in his place. Princes thus act as ministers of God and his lieutenants on earth. It is through them that he rules God. This is why we have seen that the royal throne is not the throne of a man but the throne of God himself. It appears from this that the person of kings is sacred and to move against them is sacrilege. They are sacred in their office as being the representatives of divine majesty. Thus God is placed in princes something divine. I have said ye are gods and all of you are children of the most high as in Psalms. Now James the first, the father of Charles the first, said this in one of his speeches to Parliament. So similar idea. The state of monarchy is the supremacist thing upon earth. For kings are not only gods, lieutenants upon earth and sit upon God's throne but even by God himself they are called gods. And that's referring to this idea in Psalms. Kings are justly called gods for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power on the earth. I didn't have room to put it all on here but he goes on and says look this is how kings are like gods. God has the power to create or destroy, to make war or un-make it his pleasure, to give life or send death to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none. Black power have kings. They make and un-make their subjects. They have power of raising and casting down of life and death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only. Now this might, if you've read through the Leviathan all of chapters one to 21 that we asked you to read, this might start to sound a little bit like Hobbes because to some extent he agrees the sovereign is accountable to God only. The sovereign cannot be judged to be unjust by any of his or her or their subjects. So in that sense he believes in this idea of the sovereign as a kind of God, accountable only to God. But one main difference with Hobbes in this divine right of kings or queens is that for Hobbes the sovereign's authority comes from the people. And we get this in chapters 13, 14, 15, 16 starting around in there where he starts to say look, without a government our lives would be so awful living in the state of nature it would just be a war of everyone against everyone that we should and would agree to form a state with a powerful sovereign. And when we do so the authority of that sovereign comes from the people, it comes from us. It comes from us agreeing to follow that sovereign. It doesn't come from God. In a sense he's actually brought the divine nature of the sovereign down to earth and said we have invested the sovereign with that much power. And that's very different from the idea of the divine right of monarchs. This idea of the divine right of monarchs was playing into James' rule then playing into his son Charles the first rule. James really would get upset with parliament when parliament would want to say that they have to share some of his power, that they have to agree to some things he's doing and he would just finally dissolve them as they forget it. I'm not calling parliament. I am the ruler. I am the only one who should be in charge. Charles did the same thing. This time though it got him into trouble. Lots of things happen in the English Civil Wars. You don't have to remember much of this. I just want to give you a feel of what led to the war and therefore what Hobbes thinks ought not to happen because Hobbes is arguing that we need to do whatever we can to create a strong state so that we stay together so that we don't fight each other. So a little bit of the preamble to the Civil War. So parliament versus Charles the first in 1626 to 1641. There's all kinds of things that go on with he and parliament fighting. So the House of Lords and the House of Commons together not going along with what the king wants and the king not seeming to care about what parliament wants. Trying to share power and doing it very badly. So one of the first things that happens and I think he starts ruling in 1625. I'm pretty sure that's what it is. So it's like right away when he gets into power. He has to go to parliament to get money. He has to go to parliament to get approval to raise taxes, to raise money through taxes. But they don't want to give him the money. So in 1626 instead of getting the approval of parliament he actually just puts through on his own a forced loan from the people. Forced meaning you don't really have a choice. You have to give your money to the crown. And a loan supposedly meaning you'll get it back but the sense was that that probably wasn't going to happen. So that really angered quite a number of people including parliament because they hadn't approved it. Plus they were running out of money and this happened a lot in the monarchy. They often didn't have as much money as you might think. So they couldn't afford to house troops in inns like they used to. So they started housing troops in people's homes and forcing people to take in troops in their own homes. And that really angered a lot of people too in addition to parliament. 1628's parliament is called, well actually I think he just dissolves parliament in 1626. He's like fine you're not going to do what I want I'm just going to dissolve you. 1628 he has to call them back because he needs more money. And instead of voting for the kinds of taxes that he wants they put through what's called the petition of rights. Which is basically a statement saying here are the things that we want you to stop doing. And then we might actually vote through your taxes. And the petition of right included no taxation without the approval of parliament which was already the law. But he's like they said you better actually do this now. No forced loans. No imprisonment of people by the king outside the laws and court system which he had been doing. And no billeting of soldiers without people's consent without the consent of parliament. So just basically complaining about what he had done. And then they went through it and he agreed to it. But he didn't really follow it. So in 1629 they complain again and he just dissolves them. It's like fine. If you're going to you want me to do all this stuff I'm not really going to do it. I'm the king I should be in charge. So he dissolves parliament and he rules by himself until 1640. So quite a long time he just doesn't call parliament at all. But of course then there's another war and he needs more money. 1641 parliament passes the I can't remember what it was called some law some rule that says we have to be called every three years we're tired of you just ignoring us. They also give him a list of over 200 complaints about what has been going on called the grand remonstrance. Which is the kind of nasty thing to do to a king I suppose. Like here's 200 things that we think you've been doing that are wrong. And he's really unhappy about this and he's not going to back down. Eventually in 1642 he goes in with 500 soldiers into parliament to try to arrest five people. And this isn't how bad things are getting 500 soldiers into parliament to arrest five people who have been tipped off and so they're not there. But eventually things start coming to a head it gets very bad and we get war. Charles raises an army parliament has an army and they actually engage in fighting starting in 1642. I'm not going to talk about the war. It's a war. There are lots of battles. It's terrible. Obviously many people die. It ends. This is a picture of Charles right before a painting of Charles that was done I think in the 19th century right before one of the first battles of the war. It ends in 1646 because he surrenders. He loses. Parliament's army wins. He is captured when he's surrendered but he escapes and is gone for two years and finally recaptured in 1648. 1649 he is put on trial and executed. So this is a really big deal in England and probably in a lot of places that have monarchies. If you not only put your king on trial but you execute him. That is a very major step and it's something that Hobbs thought was incredibly wrong. It should never have happened. They put him on trial for creating war against the people. There's charges included. He was supposed to use the power committed to him for the good and benefit of the people for the preservation of their rights and liberties. Yet out of a wicked design to erect and upholding himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will. He hath traitorously. I think I have this here. Yes. You might not be able to see it. Charles Stuart hath traitorously and maliciously levied war against the present parliament and the people therein represented. They're calling him a traitor. He hath traitorously and maliciously levied war against the people. By which cruel and unnatural wars by him he continued and renewed much innocent blood of the free people of this nation hath been spilt. Many families undone. The public treasure wasted and exhausted, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. They end by calling him a, quote, tyrant, traitor, murderer, and public enemy to the Commonwealth of England and they executed him in 1649. Cut his head off. Well, you may know that what happens after that is a bit of a mishmash of stuff. Cromwell rules. I think I had that on the next slide. Cromwell rules for a number of years as Lord Protector of the realm, but eventually the monarchy is reinstated and that's where Hobbes comes in. Hobbes comes in a little bit before that, too. But where is he when all this is happening? He's born in 1588, so he's alive when all of this stuff is happening and he doesn't die until 1679, so quite a while later. He actually lived a very long life for someone at the time. In 1640, now this is, you know, the war starts in 1642. In 1640 he had written a pamphlet that he hadn't really published widely, but it seemed to have promoted the royalist side over the parliamentarians. And so a large degree that is where his sympathies lay. Though he certainly didn't agree with everything that Charles was doing. He was more of a royalist than somebody on the parliament side. And he was worried because things were starting to go more towards parliament than the king. He was worried that he would start to get persecuted, that he might get in trouble for being on the royalist side. So he actually leaves England for France in 1640. And in fact a number of people were starting to leave England for France and elsewhere. A lot of royalists at the time were going away because they saw the writing on the wall. They saw what was starting to happen with the king and how unpopular he was. So there actually ended up being a kind of court of royals in Paris and Hobbes hung out there for a long time. While he's there, he's a mathematics tutor to Charles, the second who later becomes king. So he's got a personal relationship to the new king. 1651, so 11 years later, that's when Leviathan is published. And at that point he returns to England. Now the war ended around 1646, kind of. But Charles I was not put on trial and executed until 1649. So by 1651, you know, the monarchy's over. Things are still kind of up in the air. Cromwell I think doesn't come in until 1653. There's just kind of a bit of a mess for a couple of years. And then Oliver Cromwell comes in and rules as Lord Protector for a while, then his son comes in. But it's pretty clear by that point, by 1659 or 1660, that most people want the monarchy back. That this experiment in something else wasn't really working out. So in 1660, the parliament that was sitting dissolved itself and held elections. And it was pretty clear that if you were voting for a certain group of people, you were voting for a monarchy. If you were voting for another group of people, you were voting against the monarchy. Well, the monarchists won. 1660, the monarchy is reinstated. The new parliament votes to reinstate the monarchy. Charles II comes in from the Netherlands, which is where he had been. And we're now in a new rule with Charles' son, actually. Now, there's an interesting little bit about Hobbes' Leviathan, which is that it was under scrutiny for heresy. And this is mostly because of a lot of the stuff in the second part of the book that we're not reading. So books, tetras three and four, those long, you know, parts three and four. There's all kinds of really interesting scriptural interpretation. I find it very interesting. Scriptural interpretation by Hobbes in there. And some of what I'm going to say in a little bit will probably get you to see some of why he might have been considered possibly heretical. In 1666, there was a bill that was introduced in parliament that said we should start really investigating some books that are heretical, including, and they named this book. And it kept going like that. He was continually, you know, suspicious, or people were suspicious of him possibly being a heretic. Even in 1683, the Leviathan is burned, along with one of his other books, at Oxford. So he's not universally loved, even though, really, you could read this text as a very strong kind of support of monarchy. His religious views got him into a bit of trouble. But he never officially got punished or charged or anything. So he just died of natural causes in 1679. But with all this, with this, you know, one side is the king and the other side is parliament and the two-headed being that is a civil war and the splitting that occurred, Hobbes thinks he's trying to steer between extremes. And there's this nice quote in the very beginning, the dedication, where he says to the person he's dedicating it to, I know not how the world will receive it, this book, Leviathan. And again, this is in 1651. So this is right after the war has ended and Charles has been executed. For in a way, the set with those that contend on one side for too great liberty and on the other side for too much authority, it is hard to pass between the points of both unwounded. He thinks he's in the middle. You know, there's this two-headed beast. There's the ones who are very extreme and wanting liberty and there's the ones who are very extreme and wanting a lot of authority. And he thinks he's in between, or at least he's trying to be in between. It's hard to pass between the points of both unwounded, but that's what I think he's trying to do. Now, does this make any sense to you? Do you think it seems to chart a middle course in some way between too much liberty and too much authority? And it might be a little early to ask this question because we haven't gone through his whole state, but I'm just curious if anybody has any thoughts on that. Yeah, it's hard to see it that way. I actually think that by the time we're done with Hobbes, if we pay careful attention to what he says in I think it's chapter 19 about the kinds of governments that can exist. There's monarchy, there's aristocracy, oligarchy I think he calls it, sorry, and democracy. There's three kinds of governments, but they all have, should have the same powers in the sovereign. I think if we look really carefully at that, if we look at the powers that those who are in charge of the democracy at any given time have, I think they're actually kind of similar to the sort of thing that Hobbes is describing, which is why I wonder how monstrous this is. The difference is, of course, that in democracy you can vote people out, and then you can vote new people in. Whereas with Hobbes, he prefers a monarchy where the successor is chosen by the monarch. But yeah, I think it's hard to see this from our perspective, that it is sort of a middle course. Is there any other thoughts on that? Yes, Elis? Well, I think it's one of the ways in which he's quite different. That the reason why the sovereign has authority to do what he or she or they can do is because we agree. And we agree whether we write down an agreement, yes, you can do this, or whether we tacitly agree by staying in a state. And that's where the authority, the legitimacy of the authority comes from. So I think that's a big part of it. But I think also, if you look at the powers of the sovereign, I'm not going to read through all these, and the liberty of subjects. So on the left there, that's kind of like, this is what all the stuff, the sovereign power should be able to do. And on the right is, these are the things that the subjects nevertheless should have freedom to do. There's actually kind of an interesting balance. And in fact, this book, from its political perspective, didn't really please either the royalists or those who wanted more liberty. It really was kind of an in-between. Because you get a little bit of this in some of the footnotes. On the one hand, and I know this is kind of small, so again, I'll send this to you, and you can be able to read it better. But on the one hand, the powers of the sovereign include things like, and this isn't everything, but some of the stuff that the sovereign can do, they can decide what can be said and published. So powers over the media. Laws, legislation, they're the ones that make laws. They're in charge of the judiciary. They choose their successor. They choose all the ministers, and they're in charge of taxation. Now that's just some of the powers. That's a lot of them, but it's perhaps not all of them if I remember correctly. So that's a lot. That looks like a lot of authority vested in one power. But then the thing that didn't make a lot of people happy, who are more on the authority side, was all the liberties that Hobbes gives to the subjects. In fact, there's one footnote in chapter 21, I think it is, where the editor of the text says, Bramall, who was somebody that Hobbes had conversations with and correspondents with, thought that the Leviathan was a catechism for rebels because it allows some of this stuff. So it allows you can resist threats of death and injury by the sovereign. And as we go through, especially perhaps with next week's lecture, you'll see exactly why, because there are certain rights you can never give up, even to a strong sovereign. And one of those rights is the right to defend yourself. That is not possible to give up, because it doesn't make sense to give it up. So you have the right to resist threats of death and injury by the sovereign. Now the sovereign has the right to put you to death. The sovereign has the right to take you to the scaffold and charge you and put you to death. But you have the right to try to resist. You don't have to go quietly. You can fight your way and probably fail. But you retain that right for Hobbes. You have a right to refuse to confess to a crime or to accuse those close to you. Similar thing. This is all coming from the idea that the whole purpose of the state is to protect us, because living without a state is a much worse scenario in the state of nature. It's horrible. If our purpose of the state is to protect us and to make our lives better and easier and in fact possible, we have to retain the right to make those lives still continue to exist. We can't be forced to testify against ourselves, to kill ourselves, to let ourselves be killed, because the whole point of the state is to protect us. So we can refuse to kill ourselves or others. You can refuse to serve in war. This is a very interesting part of the text. You should look at it in chapter 21. He does say if the state requires that people fight, you can only refuse to serve if you find somebody else, but you can refuse to serve. Which is very interesting. And when you no longer have to obey, also in chapter 21, is when the sovereign can't protect you anymore. So also something to look at very closely. Let me double check that that's in chapter 21. Sorry, can't find it. I believe that's in chapter 21. Thank you. So if it comes to the point where the sovereign can no longer, no longer has the power to protect you, runs out of money or the military isn't working or something is breaking down, you no longer have to obey. So all of those things are pretty interesting liberties that make it look like perhaps it's not completely, I don't know what you want to call it, a totalitarian, despotic, something. And one of the reasons why people were not all that happy with Hobbes on the royalist and the authoritarian side versus the more liberty side. Okay, I want to say a couple things about the Leviathan and then we'll take a break. So I think Hobbes thought the monster was a civil war. That's, or civil war or war of people or lack of security. All that is what he's really trying to fight against. But he thinks to fight against that, you need something really strong to make sure that that doesn't happen. To make sure not just that we don't engage in a civil war, but that we don't actually fight each other within a state like steal from each other and kill each other even when we're not an official civil war. So what we need is a very strong, scary power like Leviathan. So I didn't really know very much about Leviathan when I first started reading Hobbes and I still don't feel like I have a good sense of what Leviathan is. There's a lot of interpretations. Here are some quotes from chapter 41 of the book of Job. My sense in this chapter and reading a little bit before and afterwards. In the book of Job, God is telling Job how puny he is, how small he is, how he shouldn't be angry with the powers of the universe with God because he is just one very small, tiny human. And part of the ways that God shows him that is through a behemoth, which is a land monster. And then in chapter 41, the Leviathan, which is a sea monster. So this picture is from 19th century engraving of Leviathan. And it's like a dragon kind of thing. It's got scales, it's got smoke going out of its nostrils, his breath kindlet coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth. When he raises himself up, the mighty are afraid. The thought is, this is how strong the sovereign power needs to be to make sure that we in a state can be safe from each other and from outside powers. And we get this in the frontispiece to the Leviathan, which is in your book, and it's not at the very beginning, it's kind of like right before the dedication. It's kind of in the middle, it's not easy to find. You just have to flip through after the introduction stuff and the autobiography stuff. Before the dedication, I think there's this picture in the frontispiece, and it's extremely famous. And I think, but I won't get to this till after the break, I think that in a way the whole argument of the book is in this picture, which is part of the reason why I think it fits seeing and knowing. But for now, I just want to point to the very top thing, which I've highlighted here, which says in Latin, I will not try to pronounce that. Does anybody know Latin? I'm so terrified, really. I'll pronounce it sort of half French, half Spanish, and I'll do something terrible to it. But then it quote, this is what it means in English. At least this is what, you know, I got off the internet as the translation, there is none on earth that can be compared to him. Now that is not from Job 41, chapter 24, which is what it looks like on the top of the frontispiece, because there's that quote in Latin, and then it says Job 41, 24. Job 41, 24 says it's describing the monster, and it says in the King James version anyway, which I thought might be similar to what Hobbes was reading. His heart is as firm as a stone, yay as hard as a piece of the nether millstone. So in this section, God is describing the sea monster. God is talking about the smoke coming out of his nostrils, the fire coming out, out of his mouth go burning lamps, in his neck remain a strength, and then we've got his heart is as firm as a stone. That's what 41, 24 says. And I'm not sure why that's there. I'll just throw that out there. But there is none on earth that can be compared to him is in the Bible referring to the sea monster. For Hobbes, that should refer to the power of the sovereign in the state. There should be none on earth, meaning no subjects that have as much power as that sovereign. Now in each state, each sovereign is going to be like a little God, a little monster, but there's no power on earth beyond the sovereign. There is one above earth, or outside of earth, or whatever you want to call it, the sovereign is answerable to God. So the sovereign is not God, but other than that, there is no other power that's as strong. So I tried to find a picture of like a sovereign that is, you know, very strong and looks sort of scary. And again, most of the pictures of kings that are free on the web that you can reuse are just sort of nice, or they're in their regal, you know, robes. They don't look all that scary. This is kind of, this one is actually, who is it? King Alfred the Great in Winchester in England. So in section 13 of chapter 17, he says, this is the generation of that great Leviathan, or rather to speak more reverently of that mortal God to which we owe under the immortal God our peace and defense. For by his authority, given him by every particular man in the Commonwealth, he hath use of so much power and strength conferred on him that by terror thereof, he is enabled to conform the wills of them all to peace at home and mutual aid against their enemies abroad. The sovereign power is a mortal God to which we owe under the immortal God our peace and defense. His authority is given to him by every particular man in the Commonwealth. And he has so much strength that by terror thereof, he makes us follow rules to keep peace at home and mutual aid against enemies abroad. So he definitely clearly ties the scary monster to the sovereign power, but says it has to be that way. Now this I didn't assign. This is chapter 28 on page 210. And that one, I don't have a quote. I have to look in my version. So this is the end of chapter 28. He says, talking about the great power of the governor of the state, whom I compared to Leviathan, taking that comparison out of the last two verses of the 1 and 40th of Joe where God, having set forth the great power of Leviathan, calleth him king of the proud. There is nothing sayeth he on earth to be compared with him. He is made so as not to be afraid. He seeth every high thing below him and is king of all the children of pride. That's supposed to be our sovereign. I'm not going to read these, but these two places are quotes where Hobbes tries to make clear why the sovereign has to be scary. And in both of these places, he says, look, when we come together to form a state because nature without a state is so awful and we will just fight each other, we can tell each other. We will agree to abide by certain rules. We can say, yeah, I won't steal from you. I won't kill you. I won't do this or that. But words without the sword mean nothing. There's nothing easier to break than a man's word, according to Hobbes. If we actually want people to follow rules, we have to be threatened by terror, by punishment, by power. Otherwise, people are just going to break rules for their own gains. So that's why it has to be scary. All right. I think that is, yep, I'm next going to go to the machine, which is after the break. So let's take a break for 10 minutes. We talked about the monster. Now it's time for the machine. And then we'll do them both together. OK, let's come back together. Got a fair bit to talk about before we finish. So going back a bit to the first parts of the text, what is he doing in the first parts of the text? So I mean, first he's setting out the definitions of his terms and then he's creating statements of syllogism. But what is he actually saying? That's what I want to get to next. And I'm calling this part the machine, because a lot of what he talks about is humans as machines. And he even says in page three in his introduction, he compares human beings to automata. So robots. And this is a picture of one from a Brown 1610. So it's semi-contemporary. Chariot clock. I think that's Diana on there. And when it is going, what are they? Animals of some kind are moving. And the monkey is raising an apple to its mouth. And I think her eyes might be moving. But he compares people to automata in the introduction, page three. He says, nature is by the art of man, as in many other things, so also in this imitated, that it can make an artificial animal. So art, human creation can imitate nature in that it can make an artificial animal. For seeing life is but a motion of lens. The beginning where of is in some principle part within. Why may we not say that all automata have an artificial life? This is interesting. Life is nothing but motion. Life is nothing but a motion of the limbs, which is started by, beginning where of, is in some principle part within, started within. So this actually will really lead up to his view of materialism and mechanism, which I have on the next slide. Life is nothing but motion of limbs, and it starts within. Now, if that's the case, it could be that you could create a robot or an automaton that has life. Because life is nothing but the motion of limbs that begins from within. And it could run on its own from some spring inside. He goes on, for what else is the heart but a spring, and the nerves but so many strings, and the joints but so many wheels, giving motion to the whole body, such as was intended by the artificer? God creates us. Our life is just motion that starts from within. We can create animals, automata that are alive in some sense. Why, why we not call them alive? This image to me really brings up Hobbes' what I'm going to call mechanism in the next slide. He thinks of the universe operating like a mechanical entity. And people are just mechanical entities. And as we'll see, we just operate by cause and effect in a deterministic fashion that starts off with the pronouncements of God with the creation of the universe. But I want to connect that to what I think is the overall argument in the text. So the sort of the content of the overall argument. And this is a very general picture of what he's doing. And I think it connects to this idea of people as automata. So first, what are humans naturally like? That's like sections one through, I don't know, 11 or so. And then he talks about religion in 12. And then he starts talking about what it would be like in the state of nature in chapter 13. What are humans naturally like? And then since life is but a set of motions, what makes us move? And there he starts talking about our passions, our emotions. He goes through and lists a bunch of those. Our appetites are versions. I'm going to talk about those. That's kind of like these sort of mechanical movements. We move towards something. We move away from something. And we'll get to that in more detail in a minute. So I think that's the first part of the text. What are humans naturally like? What are our appetites? What are our passions? Now, given that, what would it be like if we had no sovereign power? What would life be like if we were not living in a state? And if you agree with him on what humans are naturally like, you're supposed to then, remember we all reasoned similarly and well, blah, blah, blah, you're supposed to then see that if we didn't have a common power to keep us all in awe, we would be at a state of war with each other. Now, in chapter 13, he's not just talking about a civil war as an official civil war like England just went through, though that is one example of a war. He's also talking about people simply attacking each other, stealing from each other, killing each other, because there's no overarching power to stop them from doing it. Now, if you go with him with that, then alerts a lot of steps in between. The idea is, what's this? Oh, I haven't seen the Purge, the movie The Purge. Okay. How is it Hobbesian? Can you explain it briefly? Yes. Okay, good. So if it were the case that was one night a year where there was no police force, no nothing, you can do anything you want, that would be a Hobbesian state of nature, right? Yeah, and we can probably think of examples even in our own time, like even in some people have mentioned Hurricane Katrina in the States back in the early 2000s. The possibly, I think I've even heard people mention the hockey riots a couple years ago in Vancouver. There were police there, but they weren't in control, and so, you know, things just got out of hand. Those are bad, not quite as bad as it would be if there was no police whatsoever, but that's the idea. Yeah. Now, if you go with him on that, then, you know, within a few steps in between, before the third point, the idea is that we should then agree to live under a very powerful sovereign because we need that powerful sovereign to avoid a situation where we are just fighting each other and just dealing from each other and killing each other. That's the overarching argument of the text, as I understand it, the very general structure. Now, I think that this idea of humans being automata or humans being just sort of mechanical beings who just kind of go once they're wound up relates to that because we can't really do anything about our natural passions or appetites or our versions. We are just, this is going to happen just because of what we're like. There's really no choice. It would be a state of war if we didn't have a strong state. Okay. So, that's how I think it relates to the overall argument, but let's get more deeply into his idea of mechanism and materialism. So, mechanism, by that word, I just mean that everything in the universe, including human beings, works sort of like a clock, like gears, like cause and effect that simply move from one thing to the other without any chance of getting outside of that causal chain. And as we'll see, he's a determinist, meaning there is no way that you could have been different now given what has happened to you in the past. There is no way, given what has happened in the past, that the future can't be what it is going to be. So it is just the sort of mechanical movement. And by materialism, I mean for Hobbes, there is nothing in the universe but physical matter. And he's quite serious about that because even the soul, if it were to exist at all, that would have to be something physical. I won't read through these sections, but he says in section 21 of chapter 4, it is an absurd speech to say there is such a thing as incorporeal substance. Now, those words are a little weird perhaps to modern ears. Incorporal means not, excuse me, without a body. And body for Hobbes means something physical. There is no such thing as a substance or any entity that exists, which is incorporeal, which does not have a body. That goes also for the soul. And this one I will read, because it's interesting, I think, page one, not your page 111, your page 65. He says in section 7, and for the matter or substance of the invisible agents, so fancied they could not by natural cogitation fall upon any other concept, but that it was the same with that of the soul of man. Here's the important part. The soul of man was of the same substance with that which appeared in a dream to one that sleepeth, or in a looking glass to one that is awake, which men not knowing that such apparitions are nothing else but creatures of the fancy, creatures of the imagination, think to be real and external substances and therefore call them ghosts. So there is no immaterial soul that sort of goes on after death and kind of lives somewhere. That doesn't exist for Hobbes. God is corporeal. Now this is mostly in the Latin appendix, which we didn't ask you to read, but in case you're interested, you can go to page 540 and page 541. It's also in, again, in case you're interested, you don't have to look at this. Chapter 34. In case you want to look at how God is a body. Hobbes talks about how nothing in the scriptures talks about God as being incorporeal. And he moves physical things. How can a non-physical thing move something that's physical? Maybe you start to get a sense of how Hobbes' view of religion is kind of different from the number of other people at the time. He's also against the platonic forms, even though he doesn't name them in this section. In this section of the text in chapter 4, he is talking about names of universal things. But I think, even though he doesn't mention it specifically, this certainly applies to the forms. So this is section 6 of chapter 4. He's talking about names, some are proper names, such as Peter John, some are common to many things, such as man, horse, tree. Every one of which though, but one name, is nevertheless names of diverse particular things, in respect of which altogether it is called universal. There being nothing in the world universal but names. Nothing in the world universal but names. That isn't obvious that he's talking about something like a platonic form, but it counts. Because a platonic form would mean man, horse, dog, tree. Those things are actually entities. There is a form that actually exists and it is non-physical. For Hobbes, there are no such things. Those names are universal, but there's no entity that they refer to. There is nothing universal but names. So he would be against platonic forms because platonic forms are incorporeal. And I also think he directly criticizes them there. His description of sensation is interesting for its mechanism, I think, and the sense that humans are kind of like, kind of like a tomatok. Sensations are motions. Life is but motion. Sensations are motions. And if you read this section carefully, he says, do the motions of the object presseth the organ proper to each sense? But you can even see this yourself. So the idea is, somehow what we are seeing is a motion that's coming from the object that is striking our eyes and leading to another motion in our brain that leads to the imagination of seeing. It leads to a sense that you're seeing something. This makes sense to us with sound. Here's what really is a motion in the air. But Hobbes kind of took that idea and made it also for smells and for our sight. Now with touch, he even called that a motion. The motion presseth our organs directly with touch as opposed to indirectly with sight. But he says, you can even see this yourself because if you press against your eyes, you get to see lights. And if you press against your ears, you hear sounds. And that's the same thing. That is how sensation works. You're pressing. It's a physical motion against your senses. Which to me is really clearly like this sense of mechanism. Like there's the string that goes, there's motion in the air and the string that goes from your eyes to your brain that then creates something in your brain that makes you think you're seeing. Now this is slightly an aside, but it also applies to Plato. There's no conception. He's an empiricist, Hobbes. Which means there's nothing that we can think of, nothing that we can know which has not at first come through our senses. So there's no ideas we can possibly have that we didn't first get through our eyes, our ears, our nose, whatever, whatever. And he even says that, for example, this is section 12 of chapter 3, we can't have any conception of infinity. So chapter 3, section 12, we can't have any conception of infinity. Why? Because we don't see it, smell it, taste it, touch it, hear it. It is not in the physical world. So we can't possibly know infinity. We can use the word. We can say God is infinite, but by that we simply mean we don't understand God. Because we can't possibly have that idea. That's different than Plato. Plato would say, we don't have a notion of infinity in this world, but we can understand absolute beauty or infinite truth or infinite justice through the forms and through reason. So here's just a small thing about seeing and knowing. For Plato, this is my last lecture, we know only what we can't see. Because remember for Plato, anything that comes through the senses that's in the visible world is only a matter for belief and opinion. You can't have true knowledge about it. True knowledge about it is the form. Whereas for Hobbes, we know only what we have seen or heard or smelled or touched or whatever. So those nice little ducks to position between Plato and Hobbes. The last thing on this slide I'm actually not going to talk about, but I find it another really interesting way to think about how Hobbes is a mechanist. How is it that memory, imagination and dreams work? Basically the idea is the motion that comes in through your eyes or your ears or your nose continues onward in your brain and in your nerves until it is obscured by some other motion coming in through your eyes and your ears and your nose. So imagination and memory is just that motion continuing. So whatever nerves were moving because of what you saw or heard continue to move. And therefore you have memory. And the same thing is dreams. It's just continued movement. I think that's very interesting. I kind of geek out on this stuff, but I know it's not all that exciting to everybody. So here's the last thing about his sense of people as machines. His sense of free will or liberty, Chapter 21. He is what I'm going to call a determinist, and this is a very typical philosophical term that is about free will. But first, to define Hobbes' view of freedom, liberty. All it means is that you are free to do what you will to do because you don't have an impediment. Nothing is stopping you from doing what you will to do. So I've got this picture of a door that says, it's actually graffiti in Baltimore apparently. It says, unlocked, turned knob, so that you're not, you're free. If you want to go in the door, there's no impediments to going into the door. But for Hobbes, that is actually consistent with determinism or what he calls necessity. So again, in Chapter 21, every event is fixed by previous causes. Necessity, determined. Couldn't have happened in any other way. And this is also true of human decisions. So on page 137, in Section 4 of Chapter 21, he says, liberty and necessity are consistent. As in, the water that hath not only liberty, but a necessity of descending by the channel. So likewise, liberty and necessity are consistent in the actions which men voluntarily do. Which, because they proceed from their will, proceed from liberty. And yet, because each act of man's will and every desire and inclination is from some cause and that from another cause, which causes in a continual chain whose first link is in the hand of God, proceed from necessity. So he's trying to combine the idea that whatever we do, and whatever happens in the universe, is like a clockwork from however things started, that chain of causes and effects that couldn't have been different. That's determinism. That's what he calls necessity. He's trying to combine that with liberty. He's trying to say, where we are free is nevertheless in what comes out of our will, in what I will to do. That will is necessitated by previous causes, but if I don't have an impediment to doing what I want to do, therefore I am free. So I do have some freedom. This is now called compatibilism in philosophy. I don't think that word was around in Hobbes' day, but I think he's a compatibilist. Many people are not pleased by this idea of free will, but many people think it's the only one that makes sense. That might be interesting to talk about, but anyway, compatibilism is free actions are those caused by our will, driven by our desires and choices, even if those desires and choices and will are determined by previous causes. So we are free in anything that we are not basically stopped and bound from doing when we want to do it. Everything else is free. So for Hobbes, we actually have a lot of freedom. You know, when he says, people clamor in the state for more freedom, if you define freedom this way, there's actually quite a bit of freedom. There's a lot of times when you are not stopped from doing what you want to do. Now there's times when you are, there's a lot of laws, right? Those are important for you to be able to actually live and survive, however, but still there's quite a lot of freedom. But this also to me indicates, again, this idea of mechanism, that all we are is just sort of the clockwork of the universe working itself out. You know, what I'm saying now could not have been any different because of the causes that happened earlier which led me to write this lecture the way it is. I have to say it. You have to do what you're going to do. If it is something that I want to do and I'm not stopped from doing it, then we can call it free. It's a bit of an aside for Hobbes, but nevertheless, I think kind of interesting. Okay. If that's our picture of human motion, we are machines. What does it mean to say we have voluntary motions? What does it mean to say we do things voluntarily? Well, really, it means to say that you have a will to do it and then you're able to do it. Nevertheless, all of that was associated beforehand. So our voluntary motions, and this is going to start to get us into the state eventually, are appetites and aversions. He talks about this in chapter 6. So because there's two kinds of motion in humans, there's voluntary and involuntary, and voluntary movements start by either desiring something or having an appetite or disliking something or wanting to move away from it or avoid it, which is an aversion. He says in chapter 6, what we desire is what we call good. This actually has implications for his view of morality. There is no such thing that is good except for that we desire it. And what we dislike is what we call bad. And those are the origins of every voluntary motion. It is either a for moving towards something or moving away from something. And in chapter 6, then he lists a whole bunch of different sorts of passions which are either moving forward or against something. What causes these desires and dislikes? What causes these appetites and aversions? Our past history, our genetics, how we were raised. So again, it's just a sort of mechanism that kind of works itself out. But how we're going to get to the state, how we're going to get to how that makes sense is that there are some appetites and aversions that are shared by all human beings. Because we all have different ones. I like chocolate. Some people don't like chocolate. I like philosophy. Some people hate philosophy. We all have different appetites and aversions, but there are some that are shared. And if we can agree on certain things because we all want the same things or want to avoid the same things, that's how we can get to a state. So those shared appetites and aversions include happiness. We have a desire for happiness. We have a desire for what he calls felicity. I'm calling it happiness because it's an easier word for, I think, modern years. He does define happiness or felicity simply as being able to continually fulfill your desires and avoid those things you don't want now and in the future. What's a happy life? What? What? I'm sorry. What did you say? Happy life. Happy life? What is a happy life? For Hobbes, it's just I have a desire. I mean, I'm able to fulfill it as much as possible. Okay. Maybe sometimes I can't do it because it's against the law. I have an aversion. I'm able to avoid it. That's a happy life. And we all have a desire for that. Perhaps more controversially, he says in section two of chapter 11, page 58, we all have, I put for a desire of all mankind, a restless and desire, a perpetual and, oh, I can't speak, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceaseth only in death. That is a shared appetite of human beings. Now, this makes more sense if you pay careful attention to how he defines power. So how he defines power is once present means to obtain some future good. Power is simply anything you can use to get something that you think of as good in the future. It can be money. It can be friends. It can be that you're a kind person. It can be that you're smart. All of that is power. Now, why do we have a desire for power? That's what helps us fulfill our desires in the future. That's what leads to happiness. So we all have a desire for power. We have an aversion to death, or a desire for self-preservation, similar things. And those are all the places where he talks about that. Now, my point here is if we put all these together, if we notice what our common desires and appetites and aversions are, we're then going to be able to see that people are, first of all, without a state, going to be killing each other and fighting and stealing from each other because they have a desire for power, because they have a desire to fulfill their desires, and they have an aversion to death, which means they're going to try to fight each other to avoid being attacked. So these shared appetites and aversions explain why if we had no state it would be awful, but then they also explain why we would want a state because it allows us then to avoid death. It allows us then to preserve ourselves. It allows us then to be able to have enough peace and security that we can actually pursue our desires, whatever the law still allows. So I think this idea of how humans work then leads into his main argument for politics, which then brings us to the monster in the machine. It might just barely finish. Okay, I'm thinking of the monster in the machine as the Commonwealth, as the Leviathan, the sovereign in the group of people. It doesn't really work as the monster in the machine. It's just kind of a nice way to put the two together. But the idea is that the sovereign is the Leviathan, the machine is the people, and they're all sort of working together. So again from the introduction, by art has created that great Leviathan called a Commonwealth or state, which is but an artificial man, though of greater stature and strength in the natural for whose protection and defense it was intended. I think this picture, this frontispiece picture of the text really says a lot about the text and in fact that's one of the reasons why I think it's so important. This visual image of the book tells you a lot about what Hobbes wants. And part of what it tells you is that the Commonwealth is a single person. The Commonwealth is like when we are living in a state of war and we decide that's horrible and we decide to come together and create a state with a government and a sovereign power, what we're actually creating is a single person out of all of us. And he goes quite far in that image, which I'm going to show you in the next slide, that the sovereign is the soul and the money is the blood and he really takes this image quite far. But notice this sovereign has one head, right? This person has one head. They can only have one head. It cannot have two, it cannot have three. You can't split up the powers because then you're just going to break up the whole state. It has to be a single, unified person. And I really like how he develops this. And most of this is in the introduction in page three, but some of it is actually in later chapters and I'll point you to where that is in case you want to look at it. Hobbes distinguishes between a person, a regular person, and an artificial person, which is the Commonwealth. And he says, look, art can create an artificial person. In the person, you've got a soul, he says. Now what that exactly, that looks like because it is physical, I'm not sure. But that is the sovereign. Most of this is from page three in the introduction. You've got the will of the person. What is it that that person wants to do? That is the civil laws. So in a way, when the sovereign is creating laws, they are creating the decisions of the whole being. The whole thing should be unified and it has a will, and that is that the whole thing follows those laws. And the individuals follow those laws. Okay, well, he takes this further. The nerves of the person is what moves the individual parts. What moves the individual parts of the Commonwealth? Reward and punishment. That's what forces them to do what they're supposed to do. So you can kind of think of this like, look, the artificial person has a will to engage in peace so that the whole body can be in a good state, let's say. Now, if you want the parts of the body to fulfill that will, you have to somehow keep them in line. You have to somehow make them do that. So the parts, the individual people have to be made to follow the laws for the good of the whole. This is kind of like Plato in some sense. And you do that through reward and punishment. The strength of the person is when the members of the Commonwealth are wealthy. Interesting one. Strength is wealth. The health of the person is peace. Concord meaning like unity, agreement. Instead of disagreement or civil war. And the more I think about this, and again, this is mostly coming from page three, the more I start to think, wow, this is really like Plato. Because for Hobbes, just like Plato, he's making this connection between the person and the state. Plato says the state has three parts, rulers, soldiers, workers. And the soul has three parts, reason, spirit, and appetite. That's Plato. Well, Hobbes is doing the same kind of thing. I mean, possibly even more so by describing the Commonwealth as an artificial person. And really taking this image quite far. And for both, the health of the person. Plato says this, too, before the Republic. The health of the person is each part doing what it ought to do. Each part doing its own work. And not fighting amongst the different parts, reason, spirit, and appetite. Same thing for Hobbes. The health of the Commonwealth is when everybody is agreeing together and in peace. And death is civil war. Break up the state. That's your death of your Commonwealth. Now this goes on. I'm not going to actually do this. I will send these to you because there's more. My favorite one is blood is money. I don't really know what to make of that one. But anyway, I will send that to you. Because I want to make sure we finish on time. An extension of this idea that the Commonwealth is one person and the sovereign is the head and there is only one head is the idea of authors and actors. So section 16. It's on your page 101, but not mine. I have to find it in this version. Sections one to four. Okay, I'm not going to read all of that. But in this section, Hobbes is talking about persons versus artificial persons. Or natural persons versus artificial persons. A person, this is section one, chapter 16. A person is he whose words or actions are considered either as his own or as representing the words or actions of another man. And then going on in number two, when they are considered as his own, then is he called a natural person. So a person is when your words and actions are your own. When they are considered as representing the words and actions of another, then is he a feigned or artificial person. So when you've got a person whose words and actions are those of another or an actor, that is an artificial person. The commonwealth is an artificial person. The commonwealth is something where it has words, it has actions, and that's through the sovereign. But what that actually is, is the words and actions of the whole. That's actually the words and actions of the parts. So the sovereign is speaking our words and actions. His words are the words of another, as an artificial person. So that he is in some sense an actor. And the commonwealth is a multitude of men are made one person, later on in this chapter, when they are by one man or one person represented. And in that sense, the sovereign is an actor and the people are the authors. We don't have time, but it would be good to go back through and look at those chapters, chapters 16 and 17, to see what he's talking about. This explains why you cannot accuse the sovereign of injustice against you. Because the sovereign is simply the head of a person made up of all of us whose words and actions are ours. We are the authors of everything the sovereign does. That's why Hobbes says this weird thing, that no matter what the sovereign does to you, you can't accuse him of injustice. Because really, it's your own actions that he is doing. And I think one thing that would be a challenge to do in seminars is try to figure out why that makes sense. Why we should think of the sovereign is actually doing what we're doing, us as the authors of what the sovereign is doing. That's hard and we don't have time to get into it. I'm afraid. I have some ideas, but we don't have time to do it today. Last thing I want to look at in this picture is the left and right sides. Because I think you can get, like I said, I think you can get some really interesting stuff about the book just by looking at this picture. On the left, you can't really see that very well, can you? I've got this little arrow going from the sword down to the left. On that side, you've got the sword and symbols of political power. On the right, you've got a bishop's crozier and symbols of religious power. So on the left, you've got a castle, a crown, cannon, weapons of war, and a battlefield. So political power, military strength. On the right, you've got the bishop's crozier, which is a symbol of the bishop's office. You've got a church, bishop's miter, or a hat, the lightning of excommunication, according to one source, weapons of logic, and the course of inquisition is on the very bottom right. This is symbolizing. You've got the sovereign over everything. One hand, you've got the sword of political and military power. On the other hand, you've got the bishop's crozier of religious power. The thing that this symbolizes is, again, one head. You do not have one ruler who's in charge of politics and the military, and then a pope who's in charge of the church. Everything is in the sovereign. You can only have one head of both the military and the politics, political structure, and the church. Because if you don't, you have a state divided. And that comes from, for example, just one last quick quote. Chapter 18, section 16. A kingdom divided in itself cannot stand. Chapter 18, section 16, there he's actually talking about the king versus parliament. We can't have two heads, but in later chapters he's very clear that the king and the monarch must be in charge of the religion as well. So I think there's actually quite a lot going on in this one image. But my last thing to you is my challenge. By the time we're done with Plato, you don't have to write this down, might you see this sovereign power as not so monstrous? It's supposed to be us. The picture is actually democratic in a way. And the sovereign power can be a democracy. The sovereign is supposed to be the representative of everybody. So Hobbes doesn't think of it as this really monstrous thing. He thinks that it is doing what we would do if we could all get together and do it well, but we need somebody to guide us. So can you think of it as not so monstrous like Caliban is? For me, Caliban isn't that much of a monster. I interpret Caliban as not so monstrous. So that's how I want you to see if you can think about the Leviathan in Hobbes. Maybe it's not as bad as it seems. That's a challenge anyway. Thank you. Thank you for coming at a late time. And see you next week.