Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Is there an Hobbesian tradition in international thought Kersch, T. J. 1990

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A8 K47.pdf [ 3.16MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098484.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098484-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098484-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098484-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098484-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098484-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098484-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098484-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098484.ris

Full Text

IS THERE AN HOBBESIAN TRADITION IN  INTERNATIONAL THOUGHT? By  B.A. ( H o n s ) ,  T. J . KERSCH  The U n i v e r s i t y  o-f B r i t i s h  Columbia,  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in  THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  D e p a r t m e n t o-f P o l i t i c a l We a c c e p t  this  t h e s i s as  to the required  THE  Science con-forming  standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September ©  1990  T . J . Kersch  1989  In  presenting  degree  at the  this  thesis  in  partial  University of  fulfilment  of  of  department  this thesis for or  by  his  requirements  British Columbia, I agree that the  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  the  her  representatives.  an advanced  Library shall make it  agree that permission for extensive  scholarly purposes may be  or  for  It  is  granted  by the  understood  that  head of copying  my or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of  Political  Science  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date  DE-6 (2/88)  19  ^  mo  ABSTRACT Hobbes' argument response  i n Leviathan  t o t h e q u e s t i o n o-f why r a t i o n a l  choose t o o r g a n i z e themselves words, t h e argument, the  c a n be v i e w e d  'causes " -  o-f a  into  i s t h a t human b e i n g s  i n t o a. s t a t e ;  r a t h e r , they  i n t o a p l u r a l i t y o-f s t a t e s .  o-f a p l u r a l i t y  why do r a t i o n a l separate  —  again  human b e i n g s  states?  Since plurality  i n order  international o-f s t a t e s ,  provided  at least  'causes'  o-f s u c h  theory  t o me t h a t Hobbes'  i s concerned  a plurality.  a tradition  t o s u p p o s e t h a t an  thought  would  have  In o t h e r words, an  in international  thought  must h a v e a t  i t i s that several Leviathans  the current conception i t was s i m p l y  with t h e  i n t o t h e q u e s t i o n o-f t h e  emerge -from t h e s t a t e o-f n a t u r e .  appropriated.  themselves  to provide a satisfactory  in international  some i n s i g h t  c o n s i d e r e d why  label;  words,  t o me t h a t Hobbes'  i t seems r e a s o n a b l e  'Hobbesian' t r a d i t i o n  that  the  question.  'Hobbesian' t r a d i t i o n  least  In o t h e r  choose t o o r g a n i z e  I t i s not c l e a r  a r g u m e n t s c a n be e x t e n d e d  then  i n Hobbes' words —  o-f 'commonwealths'.  do  organize  The q u e s t i o n  answered t h i s q u e s t i o n ; n o r i s i t c l e a r  answer t o t h i s  to establish  'commonwealth'.  becomes one o-f d e t e r m i n i n g 'causes'  should  In Hobbes'  i n l a r g e p a r t , attempts  organize themselves  themselves  human b e i n g s  into a state.  However, t h e -fact o-f t h e m a t t e r not  as a  However, h a v i n g  would examined  o-f t h e ' H o b b e s i a n ' t r a d i t i o n ,  the ' r e a l i s t '  tradition  I -found  under a d i f f e r e n t  t o w h i c h Hobbes' name had been  Furthermore,  I found  that the appropriation  iii  of Hobbes-" name was 13 a n a l o g y w h i c h theoretical  justified  compared—  the analogy, being n e i t h e r h a s no t h e o r e t i c a l  Hobbesian  in a limited  among s o v e r e i g n s . a definition  relationship  —  his  that  inference,  w i t h Hobbes•' main  argument;  genuine  tradition. established  i s n o t a g e n u i n e one, a least  that  the current  I propose that  Hobbesian  a genuine  tradition  tradition  r e n d e r an a c c o u n t o f t h e emergence of  L e v a i t h a n s f r o m t h e s t a t e o f n a t u r e and c a n n o t be done w i t h o u t c o m p r o m i s i n g state.  way  I argue  n o r an  c a s e i t cannot form t h e b a s i s of a  Having  should  albeit  i n f e r e n c e of t h e s t a t e o f n a t u r e w i t h h i s  o b s e r v a t i o n s of r e l a t i o n s  i n which  on t h e b a s i s o f h i s c h a p t e r  conclude that  Hobbes  -1  several this  a c c o u n t of t h e  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Abstract. Acknowledgements  i i v  Introduction Chapter  one  :  1 The P r o b l e m w i t h t h e C u r r e n t Hobbesian T r a d i t i o n ( 1 ) The L e g a c y o f Hobbes- A n a l o g y Wight Vincent Navari ( 2 ) The A n a l o g y — R h e t o r i c o r Theory? The A n a l o g y a s an A p p a r e n t Proof The A n a l o g y and Hobbes-' P h i l o s o p h y of S c i e n c e 1  C h a p t e r two-  Toward a G e n u i n e H o b b e s i a n Tradition <1) The P r o b l e m (2) O b j e c t i o n s D e f e n c e a g a i n s t a Common Enemy Murray F o r s y t h  6 6 9 10 13 14 17 28 42 44 46 46 51  Conclusion  59  Notes Bibliography  61 65  V  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS T h i s e s s a y would have been v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o c o m p l e t e s u c c e s s f u l l y without P r o f e s s o r Robert Jackson's continuous s u p p o r t and e n c o u r a g e m e n t . In a d d i t i o n t o making me f e e l t h a t my c o n t r i b u t i o n was i m p o r t a n t , h i s manner g a v e me t h e c o n f i d e n c e t o p u r s u e my q u e s t i o n s more o r l e s s my own way. P r o f e s s o r Sam L a S e l v a i n t r o d u c e d me t o a n a l y t i c a l p o l i t i c a l t h e o r y and he was a l w a y s — w i t h o u t n o t i c e — p r e p a r e d t o d i s c u s s my i d e a s , d i f f i c u l t i e s , and c o n c e r n s t h r o u g h o u t t h i s project. I a d m i r e t h e s e two s c h o l a r s and o f f e r my s i n c e r e thanks. My two good f r i e n d s M i c h a e l and Kim Meade volunteered f o r t h e p a i n s t a k i n g task of p r o o f - r e a d i n g t h i s e s s a y and c o n s e q u e n t l y p r e v e n t e d me f r o m d o i n g t o o much damage t o t h e e n g l i s h l a n g u a g e . M i c h a e l was my i n i t i a l and o n l y c o n t a c t w i t h p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e d u r i n g my two y e a r s a t M a l a s p i n a C o l l e g e ; and a l t h o u g h o u r p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t s w i t h i n t h e d i s c i p l i n e may h a v e d i v e r g e d , M i c h a e l — i n p e r h a p s many more ways t h a n he c a n i m a g i n e — i s s t i l l my t e a c h e r . And f i n a l l y , t o my d e a r e s t f r i e n d K i r s t e n S i g e r s o n — w h o s e i n f i n i t e p a t i e n c e o f t e n had t o c o n t e n d w i t h t h e s h a r p end of my f r u s t r a t i o n s d u r i n g t h i s p r o j e c t — t h a n k y o u f o r c o n t i n u i n g t o be my f r i e n d .  1  INTRODUCTION Perhaps the concerning  the  best  question  Hobbesian t r a d i t i o n it  more o r  way of  whether o r  less directly. e x i s t s ; at  argument  in Leviathan.  however,  I must  answer, r a t h e r  No,  could  larger  help  than being  and  me  I had  men  political  c o m m u n i t i e s out  matter,  1  I assume t h a t s t a t e , nor  to organize rather  participants  This,  the  one  of  s t a t e nor i s not  I think  my  the  of  that  the  there  that  such  stated The  there  of  why  my  reply,  t o n e of  could  be  my is  i s nothing  a  of  for  Intuitively,  i t s existence.  into concrete  natural  that choose  u n l i k e many  the  I accept given.  plurality  I suspect My  separate  communities  s t a t e s as  I think  that  the  inherently  academic d i s c o u r s e ,  piuralitv  f i n d i n g the  of  human b e i n g s s h o u l d  that  so  nature.  community  short,  one  abstract  a plurality  s t a t e of  In  a  his  closer to s e t t l i n g  political  t o say  intuition  answering  self-satisfaction,  step  polity.  exist.  good r e a s o n s f o r  i s by  into separate p o l i t i c a l  global  is a  i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l thought  i n contemporary  however,  translating  on  hoped t h a t  a s t o why  themselves  s t a t e s ought not are  any  curious  t h a n one  neither  based  would c h o o s e t o c r e a t e  I am  there  think  qualify i t .  t o move one  'natural'  about the  not  more d i s t u r b i n g q u e s t i o n  Since  not  Having c l e a r l y  genuine Hobbesian t r a d i t i o n it  I do  l e a s t not  immediately  disappointment.  discussion  i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l thought  tradition  of  to begin t h i s  that  of  there  p r o b l e m , however, reasons.  reasons—or  c a u s e s a s .Hobbes  is  2  m i g h t have p u t  it —-for  much more t h a n  simple  reasons,  p e r h a p s we  questions o r we  m i g h t -feel  prepared  with  concerns  f  any  theoretical  separate  plurality  do  Due  not  t o my  concern  with  i t i s not  Hobbes and  h i s argument  course,  answers. addresses  political The  term  within  artifact  a s t o why  come t o be namely' t h e  of  powers,  organized  we  the  must  above first  t h e human  artifact  In o t h e r  r a t h e r , they  i s to determine  t h e human c a u s e s of  surprising  in Leviathan  Leviathan, the  that  question  i t will  words, create  a  the  I should  be  argued  in  due  particular  commonwealth. appeal  a c o u r t w h i c h embraces what  the  words, L e v i a t h a n  and  c o u r t of f i n a l  known a s t h e t h r e e b r a n c h e s of judiciary,  t u r n t o Thomas  for insight  known t o Hobbes a s t h e  commonwealth;  political  a b o u t c a u s e s of a  •'Leviathan-' r e f e r s t o t h e  the  In o t h e r  confidence,  problem  better  a creation.  artifacts,  possible  division  t o address  c r e a t e the s t a t e , The  of  political  communities e x i s t s .  of s t a t e s .  c a u s e s of s u c h  in order  other;  questions  might even be  in federally  reasons  political  human b e i n g s  we  centralization),  d e g r e e of  satis-fy  handle  d e a l i n g with  q u e s t i o n s of  I think that  with  establish D -  <or  Finally,  p e r h a p s even s e c e s s i o n ,  societies.  b e t t e r armed t o  s t a t e s ought t o r e l a t e t o e a c h  justice.  t o deal  o-f s t a t e s would  Having e s t a b l i s h e d those  more c o m f o r t a b l e  decentralization and  curiosity.  would be  a b o u t how  international  the p l u r a l i t y  E  legislature,  has  government,  and  the  executive.  i s t h e human m a n i f e s t a t i o n  and  3  s o u r c e o f - " r i g h t reason-"  i n t h e community  the  -"purse " and t h e -"sword ".  the  Leviathan  -  a r e human a r t i f a c t s ;  social  life  It is  rather  should  Leviathan  clear  that  during  be n o t e d  a plurality  he g i v e s  Leviathan,  t o assume t h a t  this quite puzzling  beginning  with  plurality  of s o c i a l  social  us t o expect  of l e v i a t h a n s  contracts  would d e f e a t  My hope o f f i n d i n g a r e a d y  Hobbes  expects  have emerged. that,  t h e purpose of  made s o l u t i o n t o t h i s about t h e  i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l thought.  f r o m t h e name o f t h i s t r a d i t i o n  international  two o f  place.  was r a i s e d when I happened t o r e a d -  one  o f man, t h e emergence of a  i n the f i r s t  •"Hobbesian " t r a d i t i o n  only  of p a r t  b e c a u s e i t seems t o me  a consideration  contract  lead  s t a r t i n g point  c l e a r t o me t h a t  a plurality  emerge  words, Hobbes b e g i n s h i s  However, a t t h e o u t s e t  i t i s reasonably  u s h a r d l y any  o f man and n o t t h i s o r t h a t  o f h i s argument would t o emerge.  Leviathan  o f L e v i a t h a n s would  In o t h e r  a consideration  argument  i t i s reasonably  g r o u p o f men, and b e c a u s e o f t h i s  Leviathan  inferred  -  Although  t h e course of h i s d i s c u s s i o n ,  logic  puzzle  o f Hobbes "  Hobbes d i d n o t r e f e r t o one g l o b a l  particular  the  the t i t l e  and n o t L e v i a t h a n s . .  argument w i t h  find  They a r e t h e n e c e s s a r y  human b e i n g s make t o l i v e a  that  from t h e s t a t e of n a t u r e .  us  a r e p r o d u c t s of  t h a n an a n t i - s o c i a l one.  reason t o suppose t h a t  the  they  and a c t i o n s .  consequences of t h e c h o i c e  controls  F o r Hobbes, b o t h t h e s t a t e and  -  c o n s c i o u s human d e s i g n  who a l s o  that  I had  these  t h e o r i s t s had managed t o b r i d g e t h e  I  t  4  Hobbesian  gap between t h e c a u s e s o-f t h e s t a t e and  t h e c a u s e s o-f t h e p l u r a l i t v t o u n d e r s t a n d what t h e term  tradition,  tradition',  However, when I came  t h e o r i s t s meant by u s i n g and when  basis f o r the ascription  I -further  inspired  I was  t o t r y t o b r i d g e t h e gap m y s e l f .  I have undertaken  Is t h e r e r e a l l y  learned  o f h i s name t o t h i s  I was, n e e d l e s s t o s a y , d i s a p p o i n t e d .  nevertheless Thus,  international  'Hobbesian  the textual  o-f s t a t e s .  t o attempt  an H o b b e s i a n  t o answer t h e q u e s t i o n s  tradition  in international  thought? In c h a p t e r one o f t h i s e s s a y f i n d i n g s about international I believe,  the current thought  -"Hobbesian  and I s h a l l  should cast  doubt  used  a r g u e that, t h e t e x t u a l to justify  tradition theory  and v i r t u a l l y  approach  little  first  of a s c r i b i n g Essentially,  I  from L e v i a t h a n t h a t a r e  b e a r i n g on Hobbes'  political  no b e a r i n g on h i s p a r t i c u l a r  scientific  t o understanding the world.  b a s i s f o r an H o b b e s i a n  thought.  tradition.  which,  of h i s name t o t h e R e a l i s t  In c h a p t e r two I u n d e r t a k e firmer  tradition' in  employ an argument  remarks  the ascription  have v e r y  p r e s e n t my  on t h e p r a c t i c e  Hobbes' name t o t h i s p a r t i c u l a r shall  I shall  I speculate that  t o s e a r c h f o r a new and  tradition  such a b a s i s might  posing a very s p e c i f i c  i t w i t h arguments from L e v i a t h a n .  asking  Hobbes-  What c a u s e s t h e p l u r a l i t y reply  be f o u n d by  q u e s t i o n and t h e n by t r y i n g t o  answer  A l t h o u g h Hobbes d o e s  in international  In s h o r t ,  I am  of s t a t e s ?  t o the question with  "defence  5  against  a common enemy",  creates  a new  could the  puzzle.  not s o l v e ,  I •find t h a t  The new  problem,  i s t o d e t e r m i n e how  simply  a problem  which  i t comes t o p a s s  p r e d i c a m e n t of mankind becomes t r a n s f o r m e d f r o m  condition  o f d e f e n c e of a l l a g a i n s t  d e f e n c e of group  against  group.  i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Hobbes-  theory.  F o r t h e meantime, however,  problem  a t hand; t h e p r o b l e m  Hobbesian  tradition  1  I  that  a  a l l t o a c o n d i t i o n of  T h i s new  a l s o has  the  h i s answer  domestic  puzzle,  I believe,  political  l e t us t u r n  to the  of t h e e x i s t i n g c o n c e p t i o n  i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l thought.  first of  6  CHAPTER The  ONE  Problem with Hobbesian  the Current  Tradition  O-f a l l t h e c o n s t r a i n t s upon t h e p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h e r ' s -freedom t o s p e c u l a t e , none h a s been so powerful as t h e t r a d i t i o n of p o l i t i c a l philosophy i t s e l f . In t h e a c t o f p h i l o s o p h i z i n g , t h e t h e o r i s t e n t e r s i n t o a d e b a t e t h e t e r m s of which h a v e been l a r g e l y s e t b e f o r e h a n d . 3  It simply  appears t h a t the label another  international  name f o r t h e ' R e a l i s t thought.  In o t h e r  ' H o b b e s i a n ' and ' R e a l i s t ' , represent  Thus, an o t h e r w i s e  innocent  undergraduate—could  well  tradition  and i r o n  entrenched  thought. an  n o t be blamed f o r r e a s o n a b l y  t h a t Hobbes was a r e a l i s t  'blood  interchangeably t o  observer—perhaps  alongside figures  I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g ,  Hobbes i s v i e w e d o f t e n u n q u e s t i o n a b l y  Wight's the  words, t h e two e x p r e s s i o n s ,  in international  a s M a c h i a v e l l i and M o r g e n t h a u . that  i s but  tradition' in  have been u s e d  t h e same t r a d i t i o n  concluding  'Hobbesian t r a d i t i o n '  and i m m o r a l i t y  then,  a s one o f M a r t i n  men.'  p r a c t i c e of l a b e l l i n g  such  I t seems t h a t  the Realist  a s ' H o b b e s i a n ' may c o n t r i b u t e t o a f o r m o f  academic p r e j u d i c e which,  I b e l i e v e , adds l i t t l e  advancement o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l (1) The L e g a c y  to the  thought. o f Hobbes'  Analogy  T h e r e must be some b a s i s , however, f o r t h e p r a c t i c e o f labelling  Realism  s t a t u r e of M a r t i n not  with  Hobbes' name.  Academics of t h e  Wight and John V i n c e n t ,  p o s s i b l y make t h e c o n n e c t i o n  s o m e t h i n g t h a t one o f t h e i r  f o r example,  could  p u r e l y on t h e b a s i s of  t e a c h e r s had s a i d  during  their  7  undergraduate years. something t h a t surely  one  basis  Hobbes h i m s e l f  would s e r v e  d o u b t , as  The  of  had  to convict  the  of  the  written  him,  villains  p r a c t i c e must —  l i e in  something  beyond a shadow of  in the  h i s t o r y of  that a  political  thought. The seems, 13  of  textual  i s an  b a s i s of  analogy  Leviathan.  he  The  Hobbes' s e l f  presented  analogy  incrimination, i t  to h i s audience  in  chapter  reads'  But t h o u g h t h e r e had n e v e r been any t i m e , w h e r e i n p a r t i c u l a r men were i n a c o n d i t i o n of w a r r e one against another; yet in a l l times, kings, and P e r s o n s of S o v e r a i g n e a u t h o r i t y , b e c a u s e of t h e i r I n d e p e n d e n c y , a r e i n c o n t i n u a l I j e a l o u s i e s , and i n t h e s t a t e and p o s t u r e of G l a d i a t o r s ; h a v i n g t h e i r weapons p o i n t i n g , and t h e i r e y e s f i x e d on one a n o t h e r ; t h a t i s , t h e i r F o r t s , G a r r i s o n s , and Guns upon t h e F r o n t i e r s of t h e i r Kingdomes; and c o n t i n u a l I S p y e s upon t h e i r n e i g h b o u r s ; w h i c h i s a p o s t u r e of War. But b e c a u s e t h e y u p h o l d t h e r e b y , t h e I n d u s t r y of t h e i r S u b j e c t s ; t h e r e d o e s not f o l l o w f r o m i t , t h a t m i s e r y , which a c c o m p a n i e s t h e L i b e r t y of p a r t i c u l a r men. 4  Martin  Wight w i l l  examine i n t h e little the  following  doubt t h a t  core  of  either as  that  Following the  myself,  the  I  shall  T h e r e seems t o  1 3  Hobbes' a n a l o g y  not  be  lies  It i s also clear  Hobbes u n d e r t h e  or used  t h e o r i s t that  discussion.  i n a l l f a i r n e s s , I am  a synonym f o r  like  first  i n t e r n a t i o n a l theory.  coined  consider  the  Wight f e l t  Wight c a t e g o r i z e d However,  be  that  r u b r i c of  'realist"'.  convinced  that  expression  'Hobbesian  at  Wight  tradition'  Realism.  the  discussion  of  Wight,  a r g u m e n t s a d v a n c e d by i s concerned  about the  I shall  John V i n c e n t .  briefly s  Vincent,  'Realist' prison  into  8  w h i c h Hobbes had been  locked.  v i e w Hobbes a s o c c u p y i n g Wightian  categories  He would p r e f e r  t o have us  t h e ' m a r c h l a n d s ' between t h e  of ' r e a l i s m '  seems t o me, however, t h a t  and ' r a t i o n a l i s m ' .  Vincent  falls  short  It  of f r e e i n g  Hobbes e n t i r e l y f r o m t h e r e a l i s t , y o k e b e c a u s e Hobbes' a n a l o g y r e m a i n s v e r y much i n h i s f i e l d Next,  I shall  present  Cornelia  of v i s i o n .  Navari's  view. ' 7  Although N a v a r i ' s paper has given  me a g r e a t  because of our shared  I am n o t s u r e t h a t  succeeded  intentions,  in distancing  tradition.  Rather,  Hobbes' t h e o r y  i t seems t h a t  her d e c i s i o n  logical  category  construct  a s i g n i f i c a n t part realism.  unto  itself,  rather  i n t h e c o u r s e of a l a r g e r  so she has adopted  interpretation The  o f Hobbes'  following  the  than  as a  by  in the last  to establish the  part  t h e purpose of t h i s c h a p t e r  of t h i s c h a p t e r .  To  i s t o cast, d o u b t on  Hobbes' name w i t h t h e r e a l i s t ,  i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l thought. examining  This  by f i r s t  justification  f o r t h i s p r a c t i c e , namely  and s e c o n d l y  In s h o r t ,  o f t h e v i e w s a d v a n c e d by  best, a c h i e v e d  analogy;  logical  analogy.  p r a c t i c e of a s s o c i a t i n g  tradition  Briefly  argument, h a s  serve primarily  agenda f o r rny argument reiterate,  of her  an e s s e n t i a l l y r e a l i s t  discussion  these t h e o r i s t s w i l l  she has  t o t r e a t t h e s t a t e of n a t u r e as a  c o n s e q u e n c e s s h e may n o t h a v e been aware o f . doing  of comfort  from t h e r e a l i s t  argument s e r v e s t o e n t r e n c h Hobbes w i t h i n stated,  deal  end, I b e l i e v e , i s  the textual  by d e t e r m i n i n g  grounds used a s  Hobbes' c h a p t e r  the precise  13  9  relationship shall  that  argue t h a t  Consequently, the do  analogy  t h e a n a l o g y h a s w i t h Hobbesthere  I  i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e two.  any t h e o r e t i c a l t r a d i t i o n  as c o n s t i t u t i n g i t s b a s i s  s o , b u t i t may n o t be e n t i r e l y  •" H o b b e s i an •" .  theory.  1  In s h o r t ,  I shall  which  lays claim t o  i s certainly free to  justified  in calling  argue that  simply  one o f Hobbes' r h e t o r i c a l d e v i c e s ,  little  t h e o r e t i c a l value  t h e analogy  and a s s u c h  itself was  i t has  i n t e r m s o f Hobbes-' own p r o j e c t .  MARTIN MIGHT 'International  theory",  tradition  of s p e c u l a t i o n  tradition  imagined  according  0  a s t h e twin of s p e c u l a t i o n  Given t h i s  that. Wight s p e n d s a g r e a t searching  f o rthe roots  f e e l s that the "the  t h e bulk  classical  definition,  deal  In o t h e r  and  that  established  Wight  h a s been b o r n e by he a r g u e s t h a t  lies  with  i t is the pre-  at the heart  words, Hobbes-" a n a l o g y  of i n t e r n a t i o n a l  theory—an  9  energy  Although  of i n t e r n a t i o n a l p o l i t i c s  tradition.  Having  is  of i n t e l l e c t u a l  of t h e t r a d i t i o n  s t a t e of n a t u r e "  about t h e  i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g  of t h i s t r a d i t i o n .  contractual  core  theory"  i n t e r n a t i o n a l lawyers,  identification  i s "a  a b o u t r e l a t i o n s between s t a t e s , a  s t a t e t o w h i c h t h e name ' p o l i t i c a l appropriated."  t o Wight,  of t h e  constitutes the  theory. the 'core'  " . . . identification  of i n t e r n a t i o n a l  first  made by Hobbes  . . . c a r r i e d f r o m him i n t o t h e law D f n a t i o n s by  P u f e n d o r f " — W i g h t , g o e s on t o d i s c u s s 'ambiguity"  at that  core.  an ' i n c o n s i s t e n c y "  Wight c o n c l u d e s t h a t  Hobbes-"  or  10  analogy  i s "empirically true.  Wight c o n c l u d e s t h i s b e c a u s e nature  . . . leads  states,  i t d o e s no  continues, theory." At  t o the  I would  did  state  of  sovereign  'ambiguity',  Wight  in international  empirical  t e r m s of  no  great  no  oddity'  key  i s by  statement;  virtually  international  an  theory,  he  argument  the  l e t us  the  isolating  theory.  Hobbes'  Thus,  what  i t as  a  the  concern  i f Hobbes i n t o the  However, t h i s  last  of  of  i s to In  Vincent's  in i n t e r n a t i o n a l thought.  JOHN VINCENT Vincent tradition' the  current  begins h i s treatment  by  explicitly  i m p o r t a n c e of  s e l f - c o n s c i o u s about the  of  the  'Hobbesian  s t a t i n g that h i s concern the way  of of  t h i s chapter.  to a consideration  'Hobbesian t r a d i t i o n '  core  i s p e r h a p s one  devices. part  a  Hobbes  such,  i s not  ambiguity  d i d so w i t h  in the  turn  or  As  this  shall  acknowledging  Wight n o t i c e d  rhetorical  a n t i c i p a t e my meantime,  to  I  a statement t o which  inconsistency  h i s more i n g e n i o u s  I must a g r e e w i t h  t h e o r e t i c a l value. that  i s e m p i r i c a l 1v  discomfort.  simply  Hobbes' p o l i t i c a l  introduce  t o draw p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n  Although  course that the  from h i s theory  v i e w s on  For  Hobbes' a n a l o g y  odd.  i t c a u s e s me  'theoretical in  contract. This  like  that  t h e o r e t i c a l 1v  a r g u e i n due  ascribed  social  odd."  1 0  conclusion,  purely  " f o r i n d i v i d u a l s , the  such t h i n g . "  t o Wight's c o n c l u s i o n  analogy  theoretically  "becomes a p e r s i s t e n t f e a t u r e  t h i s time,  t r u e but  . . . But  tradition.  He  i n w h i c h we  now  is  with  wants " t o think  be  about  11  international which  relations  i t i s s h a p e d by  Cin o r d e r ] t o d i s c o v e r the  the  legacy  tradition,  he  adds,  "can  be  center the  problem,  grim  and  of  s t a t e s in the  is clear  tradition, important  but  he  t o my  international Although  often  Machiavelli, argue t h a t display  and  t o be  place for  a realist  of  t o belong  'blood  one,  indeed  of r e a l i s m , "  thought  to Vincent, " i s  t o c o n s t i t u t e with 1 3  he  g o e s on  to  a M o r g e n t h a u and K i s s i n g e r -  "how  keep y o u r word men' and  f a r can  iron  t o the Hobbesian essence  remain w i t h i n the  and  this  work.  In  other  in addition to  immorality  men.'  of  the  Vincent  [ r a t i o n a l i s t ] concern  be  said  tradition?" ** 1  of V i n c e n t ' s r e s p o n s e tradition  More  the  t h e o r i s t s seem t o f i t i n t o W i g h t ' s c a t e g o r y and  It  1 5 2  place, according  ' Hobbesians' such  order  asks,  The  starting  1 1  realist  argues t h a t  "a s t a r t i n g  politics."  coexistence  name t o d e s c r i b e i t .  a ' Rat i o n a l i s t ' i n f l u e n c e i n t h e i r  category then  provides  1  about t h e 1  at i t s  government."  however, V i n c e n t  the d e f i n i t i o n  words, t h e s e 'law  this  thought  i s speaking  analysis,  of t h e  international  i s u s i n g Hobbes-  'Hobbesian t r a d i t i o n about  insoluble,  to  That  c h a r a c t e r i z e d as h a v i n g  a b s e n c e of  that Vincent  of Hobbes."  extent  i s t h a t they  b e c a u s e Hobbes was  rationalist.  In t e r m s of t h e W i g h t i a n  'rationalist'  categories, Vincent  that  occupied  t h e m a r c h l a n d s between t h e s e  two,  kept  one  a s a c h e c k on  the  of t h e  Academic  international  relations  enthusiasm  also a  'realist'  concludes  . . . has,  and  do  and "Hobbes  constantly  other. in t h i s  regard,  12  •flattered in  Hobbes by  t h i s chapter,  Vincent's claim  imitating  however, t h e most  argument  t h a t Hobbes was  also a  Hobbes' q u a l i f i c a t i o n  is,  classified  of t h e  analogy  because  i t upholds the more b e a r a b l e  human b e i n g s ,  has  p r o d u c t i v e one,  "Hobbes f i r s t  had  distinction," logic  1 7  *  than  the  t o make t h e  5  sovereigns) scientific nature). t h e two  and  starting  p l a c e , and  Against  Vincent's  distinction,  lest  experience  recognized  of  claim that  he  be  f o r c e d by  his  compelled  to  among  (his observations  knowledge a s he  by  did  reasoning.  have been u n a c c e p t a b l e  very  important  about  h i s conception  <his i n f e r e n c e about t h e  scientific  a  Hobbes c a r e f u l l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d  Hobbes would be t h e f i r s t f o r m s of  anarchy  individual  about the n a t u r e  knowledge g a i n e d  reasoning  unacceptable may  by  used  According  international  a r g u e t h a t Hobbes was  into h i s theory.  knowledge g a i n e d  he  the  as t h e t e x t u a l b a s i s  i n c o r p o r a t e h i s o b s e r v a t i o n s about r e l a t i o n s sovereigns  the  as a r e a l i s t ,  wit t o n o t i c e the  I shall  for  to support  a n a r c h y among  of much t h o u g h t  politics."**  used  i n d u s t r y of t h e s u b j e c t s of  been t h e  international  concern  p a r t o-f  also a rationalist.  "Hobbes' remark t h a t t h e  sovereigns,  own  interesting  Hobbes' a n a l o g y  h i s c l a i m t h a t Hobbes was Vincent,  In t e r m s o-f my  rationalist.  employed  c l a i m t h a t Hobbes c o u l d be  to  1 , 3  i s t h e t e x t u a l b a s i s he  Whereas V i n c e n t  for  him."  of  s t a t e of  to recognize that i n h i s analogy Although  t o h i m s e l f , he  t h a t much of h i s a u d i e n c e — i n  this  mixing  was reasoning  nevertheless particular,  those  13  ascribing probably  t o A r i s t o t e l e a n or S c h o l a s t i c accept h i s analogy  doctrine—would  as c o n s t i t u t i n g a v a l i d  his earlier  inference  Regardless,  by q u a l i f y i n g h i s a n a l o g y — i . e .  stating  that  about t h e s t a t e  the state  of n a t u r e . by  explicitly  o f n a t u r e and r e l a t i o n s among  sovereigns are not the same—he e f f e c t i v e l y freed to s t a t e t h e analogy  without having  relationship  existed  observations  a b o u t r e l a t i o n s among  chapter CORNELIA  following  theoretical  between h i s e a r l i e r  further  inference  sovereigns.  in the last  the discussion  part  of N a v a r i ' s  of t h i s  argument.  NAVARI  differ  t o mine. using  somewhat, t h e i n t e n t o f h e r p r o j e c t It i s clear that  international  i s identical  t o t h e p r a c t i c e of  the r e a l i s t  which c o n t r a s t s  achieves a considerable  i t quite  argument  tradition in  thought.  discussion  philosophy find  she o b j e c t s  Hobbes-* name t o d e s c r i b e  Her  and h i s  I shall  A l t h o u g h t h e f o r m and s u b s t a n c e o f N a v a r i ' s may  himself  t o employ h i s r i g o r o u s  method t o c h e c k and s e e i f an a c t u a l  develop t h i s reasoning  proof of  convincing.  with her d e c i s i o n  realism  Nevertheless,  in light  I am  uncomfortable  of n a t u r e a s a  of h e r c o n v i c t i o n  logical  that  a  genuine Hobbesian t r a d i t i o n i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l thought employ t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s . •"natural  condition  i  e  I do n o t deny t h a t  o f mankind-' i s a l o g i c a l  Hobbes p u t i t , an " i n f e r e n c e ,  1  d e g r e e o f d e p t h and I  t o treat the state  category.! e s p e c i a l l y  and Hobbes-  made f r o m t h e  would  Hobbes ' -  construct passions;  or, as  14  but  I do h a v e d i f f i c u l t y  logical Navari  category  s i m i l a r - t o some o f t h e o t h e r  mentions, such  which, N a v a r i  surprised logical  argues,  appear."  8 2 0  of N a v a r i ' s paper,  because  how t h e r e a l i s t s  consider  i t when t h e y  In c o n t r a s t w i t h  contention,  they  descriptive  way.  rather- t h a n  as a d e s c r i p t i v e p a r a l l e l ,  do n o t seem t o be e m p l o y i n g  government."®  international  s t a t e of n a t u r e , t h e o t h e r hand, s t a t e of n a t u r e .  are able t o  a s t h e "problem,  For the r e a l i s t s ,  1  r e l a t i o n s does not appear  i t is. t h e s t a t e of n a t u r e . international  g r i m and  l i k e the  F o r Hobbes, on  appeared  l i k e the  I n s h o r t , by c h o o s i n g  to treat  the state  as a l o g i c a l  category,  i t appears  t h a t s h e may of c a l l i n g  tradition.  <2) Hobbes' A n a l o g y primary  i n other  relations  r e a l i s m t h e Hobbesian  establish  category  realists  have i n a d v e r t e n t l y s a n c t i o n e d t h e p r a c t i c e  The  i t i n any  o f t h e c o e x i s t e n c e of s t a t e s i n t h e a b s e n c e o f  international  nature  project  apply i t  Navari's  By a p p l y i n g i t a s a l o g i c a l  t h e c o r e of t h e i r  insoluble,  as a  i t seems t o me t h a t t h i s i s  t o t h e r e l a t i o n s of s t a t e s .  of  I was  t h a t s h e would c o n s i d e r - t h e s t a t e o f n a t u r e  precisely  words,  Categories  c a n "be a p p l i e d t o any p o l i t i c a l  of t h e i n t e n t  category  conceive  concepts  a s s o v e r e i g n t y and j u s t i c e .  phenomena w h e r e v e r t h e y In l i g h t  conceiving t h i s c o n s t r u c t as a  —  R h e t o r i c or Theory?  a i m o f t h e f o e r g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n was t o  t h a t Hobbes' a n a l o g y  b a s i s of t h e r e a l i s t , t r a d i t i o n  in fact  does c o n s t i t u t e t h e  in international  thought.  15  Although  I h a v e no o b j e c t i o n  appropriation bearing  this  tradition core  i s t o e s t a b l i s h that  rather  of t h a t  tradition  that  Hobbes "  tradition  My a s s u m p t i o n  cannot p r o p e r l y here  i s that  than simply  I believe that  this objection  b e c a u s e i t seems t h a t application  adopting  ultimately  serves  example, an u n d e r g r a d u a t e attempting  t o grapple  constantly  encountered  t h i s perspective,  Hobbesian theoretical  on h i s t h e o r y .  i s an i m p o r t a n t one  to limit  rather  inquiry.  theorists than  If,  for  i n international r e l a t i o n s , while  with  the r e a l i s t  t h e •" H o b b e s i a n '  perspective, label  as s i g n i f y i n g  t h i s p e r s o n m i g h t n e v e r be i n c l i n e d t o  Hobbes b e c a u s e he o r s h e a p p a r e n t l y  i s that  itself  p o r t i o n s of  o f l a b e l s , e s p e c i a l l y when c l a s s i c a l  involved,  label  call  a l e s s t h a n c a r e f u l s e l e c t i o n and  expand t h e s p e c t r u m o f i n t e l l e c t u a l  it  as c o n s t i t u t i n g  a genuine  bearing  i sa  Thus, any  would a t l e a s t e s t a b l i s h a s u b s t a n t i v e  w i t h Hobbes, r a t h e r  read  analogy  -  uses t h e analogy  H o b b e s ' t e x t w h i c h may have l i t t l e  are  t h e key t o my argument i n  than a t h e o r e t i c a l device.  of thought  Hobbesian.  link  theory.  I have mentioned e a r l i e r ,  chapter  tothe  h a s no  -  -  rhetorical  the  o f Hobbes " name b e c a u s e t h e a n a l o g y  on Hobbes "  As  t o s u c h u s e , I do o b j e c t  he had t o s a y .  already  knows what  B u t , whether o r n o t t h e H o b b e s i a n  i s correctly applied  d e p e n d s on t h e f o l l o w i n g  argument. Let  rne s u g g e s t  that  Hobbes ' name i s a s c r i b e d -  t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t to the r e a l i s t  r e a s o n why  tradition i s  16  because of t h e apparent o b s e r v a t i o n s about i n f e r e n c e about that, t h e key is  theoretical  relations  to distancing  o b s e r v a t i o n s and  theoretical  Hobbes employed  place  in fact  important question play  role by  a vital  played  simply  the analogy  demonstrating influential  this,  no we  a rhetorical  In device,  that role  role  d o e s seem t o p l a y  order to i d e n t i f y I proceed  i n two  important  a theoretical  Hobbes-  analogy  1  stages.  second analogy  role  c o u l d n o t h o l d any  summary, my  an this  theory.  Having  the analogy  was  device. as a  rhetorical stage, I  that  the analogy  has  why  the analogy  played  i n h i s argument.  s t a g e o f t h e argument,  theoretical  did, i f fact,  In t h e f i r s t  value while explaining  influential  first  i n h i s argument, b u t i t  hold constant the a s s e r t i o n  theoretical  address  the analogy  raise  in the  substantial  in his political  not  tradition  however, would  I shall  me  between h i s  can t h u s c o n c l u d e t h a t and  i t seems t o  the analogy  have any  i n h i s argument.  virtually  established  shall  all,  link  This,  t h e q u e s t i o n of why  After  Thus,  his  Hobbes -from t h e r e a l i s t  h i s inference.  i f i t d i d not  between h i s  among s o v e r e i g n s and  t h e s t a t e o-f n a t u r e .  t o sever the apparent  value.  link  I shall  theoretical  During  demonstrate  no  the  why  the  v a l u e f o r Hobbes.  argument can be c o n c e i v e d as  an  In  follows'  <1> If. t h e a n a l o g y p l a y s an i m p o r t a n t i n f l u e n t i a l r o l e i n t e r m s of Hobbes- argument; and <2) If. t h e a n a l o g y h a s no v a l u e i n t e r m s of Hobbes- t h e o r y ; t h e n <3) t h e a n a l o g y must s i m p l y be a r h e t o r i c a l device. And ( 4 ) s i n c e t h e a n a l o g y i s a r h e t o r i c a l d e v i c e , i t c a n n o t t h e r e f o r e f o r m t h e b a s i s of a genuine Hobbesian t r a d i t i o n i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l thought. 1  1  17  The  •first  stage  establish  t h a t the  the  second  did  not  THE  ANALOGY AS  stage  following discussion will  analogy  will  h a v e any  In o r d e r played  in the  did play  attempt  an  to establish  to establish  this,  question  t h a t h i s argument was  technique  I am  of  used t o h e l p to  speak.  however,  and  the reader cannot  to find  One  i s to f i r s t  essentially  'question  "You  and  analogy  value.  i t i s p e r h a p s a good  establishing  this,  that the  t h e r o l e Hobbes' a n a l o g y  d e t e r m i n e what Hobbes' argument was.  doing  role  to  ' APPARENT' PROOF  i n h i s argument,  was  important  substantial theoretical  AN  attempt  idea to  way  first  d e t e r m i n e what  the  meant a s a r e p l y t o .  i n t o the  which  author's  what a man  By  C o l 1ingwood's  answer'; a t e c h n i q u e  out  have  of  c o n f o r m i n g t o R.G.  'get  may  is  mind',  means,"  so  argues  Col I i n g w o o d , by s i m p l y s t u d y i n g h i s s p o k e n or w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t s even t h o u g h he has s p o k e n o r w r i t t e n w i t h p e r f e c t command of l a n g u a g e and p e r f e c t l y truthful intention. In o r d e r t o f i n d o u t h i s meaning you must a l s o know what t h e q u e s t i o n was (a q u e s t i o n i n h i s own mind, and presumed by him t o be i n y o u r s ) t o w h i c h t h e t h i n g he h a s s a i d D r w r i t t e n was meant a s an a n s w e r . 2 5 3  In t e r m s of Hobbes, t h i s t a s k d i f f i c u l t , f o r me  than  hesitating  reading  asking to  after  myself  answer w i t h  particularly question  i t sounds.  much more  It v i r t u a l l y  question  this proposition?  difficult  t o be  meant  e a c h of Hobbes' p r o p o s i t i o n s  What i s t h e  1  proved  In t h e c a s e  passage, the  f o r Hobbes' answer  t h a t Hobbes' of  and  i s trying a  p r o b l e m of p r o v i d i n g a  involved a considerable  degree  18  of  trial  and e r r o r .  W i t h r e s p e c t t o Hobbes-* d e f i n i t i o n s , was much e a s i e r b e c a u s e t h e q u e s t i o n example, simply  reading  in this  'fit',  case  seemed o b v i o u s .  Hobbes-' d e f i n i t i o n  posited the question-  enough, to  after  what  i s the w i l l ?  to suspect  were r e p e a t e d  quite right; wrong w i t h  although  them.  I could not begin  l e d roe  t h a t were n o t  t o i m a g i n e what was  On t h e one hand, Hobbes' d i s c o u r s e seemed  t o have a c o n t i n u o u s whereas, on t h e o t h e r  and m o t i o n - l i k e q u a l i t y  about i t  hand, my q u e s t i o n s b e g i n n i n g  •'what i s ' d i d n o t seem t o be c a p a b l e  of g r a s p i n g  with  that  i n h i s work.  My d i s c o m f o r t captured  seemed  These  occurrences,  t h a t p e r h a p s i t were my q u e s t i o n s  I  Oddly  and many o t h e r s , Hobbes' answer  because they  For  of t h e ' w i l l ' ,  b u t i t d i d n o t seem t o f i t q u i t e r i g h t .  occurrences,  quality  however, t h e j o b  continued  my a t t e n t i o n w h i l e  Reason and S c i e n c e " .  until  t h e word  'consequence'  I was r e - r e a d i n g c h a p t e r  "Science,"  Hobbes a r g u e s ,  5, "Of  " i s the  knowledge o f c o n s e q u e n c e s ,  and t h e d e p e n d e n c e o f one f a c t  upon t h e o t h e r . "  occurred  5 2 3  I t then  Hobbes was e m p l o y i n g discussion.  rather,  this scientific  I f t h i s were t h e c a s e ,  •'consequence'  t o me t h a t  method t h r o u g h o u t h i s I concluded  i s not a r e p l y t o t h e question  i t i s a reply t o the question  For  example, Hobbes a d v a n c e d  the  i d e a of  perhaps  that a  'what  i_s X?'  'what c a u s e s X?'.  t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o p o s i t i o n on  'will'*  In d e l i b e r a t i o n , t h e l a s t a p p e t i t e , o r a v e r s i o n , immediately adhaering t o t h e a c t i o n , or t o t h e  19  o m i s s i o n t h e r e o f , i s t h a t we c a l l t h e w i l l ; a c t ( n o t t h e f a c u l t y ) of w i l l i n g . * *  the  5 2  If  t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n was  •'what _ s t h e w i l l ? ' ,  there  -  supposed  question  substituting  meant a s a r e p l y t o t h e  and  the  i s a reasonable given  the a c t i v e verb  answer.  "causes ' -  question  f i t between  However,  by  f o r ' i s " , we  find  -  the  meaning of Hobbes " r e p l y i s c o n s i d e r a b l y e n h a n c e d .  can  now  envision a continuous and  active  in a larger  stage  as a l i f e l e s s lies  at the  end  question  The  suited  the  s i n c e the  or  in  p a r t one  other  question  logical  I shall  of L e v i a t h a n  i s Hobbes " r e s p o n s e -  P a r t two  hand, a p p e a r s t o be 'What i s t h e  proof  Rather, the  i s an  of  answer more  commonwealth?'  apparent  c o n s t r u c t , of  an  to  proof  of  his  t h e s t a t e of n a t u r e ,  i s i n c l u d e d i n P a r t one  and  of  examine t h i s c o n s t r u c t , i n a d d i t i o n he  offers  in support  of  i t , i n the  which s e e k s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e  In o t h e r  immediate  of  than  processes.  the  I s u p p o s e t o be  rather  c h a i n of  e x a m i n i n g Hobbes' a n a l o g y  theorists.  process  of t h i s c o n t i n u o u s  of t h e q u e s t i o n  of  continuous  an  commonwealth  t h e commomwealth.  m i g h t be  a p p e a r s t o be  that the  P a r t one  the apparent  context  now  I t t u r n s out  s t a t e of n a t u r e  Leviathan,  will  and  S i n c e Hobbes' a n a l o g y  of  We  between  -  on  inference,  connection  •'what c a u s e s t h e commonwealth? "  Leviathan, the  will.  thing.  Perhaps, then,  to  that  -  deliberation  the  the  i n t e r m s of  interest  I will  words,  be  I will any  or concern examining  not  which  international  i t i n t e r m s of  q u e s t i o n t h a t Hobbes s e t o u t  Leviathan.  be  questions to  causes  to  what  answer  20  Hobbes-' c o n s t r u c t , it,  of t h e n a t u r a l  the  chain  of  condition  can  o f mankind  it  In o t h e r  by t h e p a s s i o n s  words, man  and a b i l i t y  equipped  man, a c c o r d i n g fact  i s that  in solipsistic  social  that  harmony  i s designed  social  on t h e p a r t  seems t o me t h a t  there  1  creature.  only  man  that  order  to appreciate  must  you can't  alone, the  i s no  Rather,  an a c t i v e and  o f i n d i v i d u a l human b e i n g s . at l e a s t a kernel  It  of t r u t h  i s not n a t u r a l l y a s o c i a l  reflect  on what i s p e r h a p s a and c h i l d — ' y o u y o u r own  element of t r u t h .  l e a r n how t o be s o c i a l  Although  I t i s because of t h i s  requires  have e v e r y t h i n g that  himself;  F o r Hobbes, t h e r e  common admonishment between p a r e n t learn  with the  who a r e  harmony among men.  i s indeed  position that We need  t o each  enough by  to live  alone.  i s something t h a t  conscious e f f o r t  i n Hobbes-  well  with others  problems a r i s e .  as natural  i n proximity  problems begin t o a r i s e .  he d o e s n o t l i v e  man, t h e  i s t h e immediate  t o get along  t o Hobbes,  predicament that such t h i n g  human  preservation  i s n a t u r a l l y equipped  i s when he comes i n t o c o n t a c t  similarly  creation  of p r o c e s s e s  t h e means o f s e l f  of t h e s t a t e of n a t u r e  inclination  i n t h e human  Whereas t h e i n h e r e n t  c o n s e q u e n c e when t h e s e men a r e p l a c e d other.  link in  a s t h e end o r c o n s e q u e n c e o f a c h a i n o f  processes generated condition  of man.  towards a c q u i r i n g  be v i e w e d  i s a vital  Hobbes b e g i n s t h i s c h a i n  a consideration  inclination  a s he p r e f e r s t o c a l l  1  of p r o c e s s e s which c u l m i n a t e  t h e commonwealth.  with  o r ' in-ference-  creatures.  very  must  way! '—in -  In s h o r t ,  we  Even a f t e r we have  21  supposedly  l e a r n e d t o be s o c i a l ,  we c a n p e r h a p s  s i t u a t i o n s where i t t a k e s a c o n s i d e r a b l e e f f o r t i n t h e -form o f s e l f - r e s t r a i n t bility.  i n order  b e c a u s e o f t h i s a w a r e n e s s he was u n a b l e  precept that  precept  e v e r y w h e r e men  enough t o i m a g i n e  live  founded  to honestly  was n o t enough t o m a i n t a i n  creature; a  Hobbes was a l s o  i n w h i c h even  a social  accept  on t h e o b s e r v a t i o n  in societies.  situations  our s o c i a -  aware o f t h i s and  t h a t man was a s o c i a l  w h i c h was u n d o u b t e d l y  on o u r p a r t  t o maintain  I t h i n k t h a t Hobbes was k e e n l y  the A r i s t o t e l e a n  imagine  keen  self-restraint  c o n d i t i o n among  men.  Sometimes p a r t i c u l a r  men might h a v e t o be subdued by f o r c e  in  a social  order  t o maintain  among men a t l a r g e . individual condition  persons  Thus, s e l f - r e s t r a i n t i s a necessary  f o r the establishment  b e c a u s e we c a n i m a g i n e themselves  c o n d i t i o n between them o r on b e h a l f o f  but i n s u f f i c i e n t  and m a i n t e n a n c e o f s o c i e t y  s i t u a t i o n s where two p e o p l e  t o be e x e r c i s i n g  extreme s e l f - r e s t r a i n t  n e v e r t h e l e s s p e r c e i v i n g t h e o t h e r t o be e x e r c i s i n g none.  Man  reason  constituted  deficiency  i s , a c c o r d i n g t o Hobbes, by n a t u r e " ,  pre-  perceive while virtually  " f o r want o f r i g h t  and b e c a u s e o f t h i s n a t u r a l  o f man, when t h e r e i s a c o n t r o v e r s y i n an a c c o u n t , t h e p a r t i e s must by t h e i r own a c c o r d , s e t up f o r r i g h t Reason, t h e Reason o f some A r b i t r a t o r , o r J u d g e , t o whose s e n t e n c e t h e y w i l l b o t h s t a n d , o r t h e i r c o n t r o v e r s i e must e i t h e r come t o b l o w e s , o r be u n d e c i d e d . . . . And when men t h a t t h i n k t h e m s e l v e s w i s e r t h a n a l l o t h e r s , c l a m o r and demand r i g h t Reason f o r j u d g e ; y e t seek no more, b u t t h a t t h i n g s s h o u l d be d e t e r m i n e d , by no o t h e r mens r e a s o n b u t t h e i r own, i t i s a s i n t o l e r a b l e i n t h e s o c i e t y o f men, a s i t i s i n p l a y a f t e r trump  22  i s turned, that suite Society,  then,  a r e met.  t o u s e -for trump on e v e r y o c c a s i o n , whereof t h e y have most i n t h e i r h a n d .  c a n be s a i d  The - f i r s t  to exist  condition  restraint  of o t h e r s .  have e v e r y t h i n g t h e y must  establish  want.  judgements.  human  with t h e s e l f -  i s a possibility  when t h e i r  perceived v i t a l t h e judge  learn  reason  that  that  they  condition  i n that  t o submit  cannot  i s that  they  must  to his  "Of t h e d i f f e r e n c e  men, t h e r e  in  must  and must a g r e e  But because  Consequently,  consistent  The s e c o n d  ' s e t up' f o r r i g h t a judge  individual  In o t h e r words, b e c a u s e men e x i s t i n  t h e company o f o t h e r men, t h e y  they  when two p r e - c o n d i t i o n s  i s that  beings e x e r c i s e sel-f-restraint  5 2 3  o f Manners" * o f 52  some men w i l l  3  not submit  i n t e r e s t s are at stake.  must be armed w i t h  o r d e r t o e n f o r c e h i s o r her judgements.  sufficient  power  I t i s o n l y when  t h e s e two c o n d i t i o n s a r e met, a c c o r d i n g t o Hobbes, t h a t a society  c a n be s a i d  Conversely, there of  such  among p a r t i c u l a r  i s an a t t e m p t  a predicament  predicament  i s a t odds with  self-preservation conducive  state  in the abstract  what  However, s u c h a  preservation.  i n the f i r s t  when man  men and Hobbes'  one o f t h e f u n d a m e n t a l  i t i s t h e p a s s i o n of s e l f  into t h i s condition  placed  at inferring  would be l i k e .  p a s s i o n s namely, s e l f Hobbes,  among men.  when n e i t h e r o f t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t ,  i s no s o c i e t y  nature  to exist  But, a c c o r d i n g t o  preservation that place.  i s alone  human  puts  men  The p a s s i o n o f  i n t h e world i s  t o h i s own p r e s e v a t i o n , however, o n c e p e r s o n s a r e  i n p r o x i m i t y w i t h each  other, that  same p a s s i o n  leads  23  ultimately  to  presumably  for  predicament, events that Man  i s not  use  i s to  lost,  r e a s o n he  the  two  conditions  creation  and  to  of  society  the  fundamental  the  "Law  Nature";  which  reason.  his  society;  establishing  above, namely,  the  selfawe.  h e r e b e c a u s e Hobbes legal  In t h i s t r a n s l a t i o n  self-preservation  i s , for  to  between  creating  involves  law.  of  Through  i n t o e t h i c a l and  natural of  in addition  inevitable link  end  foregoing  human p a s s i o n  chain  keep them a l l i n  however, d o e s n o t  l a n g u a g e of  the  of  simply  the  self-destruction.  f a c u l t y of  were m e n t i o n e d  translate  to  s e l f - d e s t r u c t i o n by  a common power t o  terms v i a the  interrupting  break the  and  in t h i s  however, b e c a u s e  can  and  that  story,  p r o b l e m f o r Hobbes,  m i g h t be  of  i s endowed w i t h t h e  and  g o e s on  a way  The  from s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n  self-preservation  The  find  totally  of  restraint  destruction.  i n d i v i d u a l s that  lead  p a s s i o n s he the  self  becomes  Hobbes,  a P r e c e p t , o r g e n e r a l 1 R u l e , f o u n d out by Reason, by w h i c h a man i s f o r b i d d e n t o do, t h a t , w h i c h is d e s t r u c t i v e of h i s l i f e , o r t a k e t h away t h e means of p r e s e r v i n g t h e same; and t o o m i t , t h a t , by which he t h i n k e t h i t may be b e s t p r e s e r v e d . * S S 7  In o t h e r  words, t h e  law  endeavour t o p r e s e r v e The  r i g h t , of  •"right of. s e l f the  means of  Hobbes'  of  n a t u r e commands t h a t  himself.  nature,  on  preservation',  self  man  the  o t h e r hand,  rather,  preservation.  "The  i s not  i t i s the Right  of  the  right  to  Nature,"  in  terms, i s t h e L i b e r t y e a c h man h a t h , t o use h i s own power, a s he w i l l h i m s e l f e , f o r t h e preservation of h i s own N a t u r e ; t h a t i s t o s a y , of h i s own  24  L i f e ; and c o n s e q u e n t l y , o-f d o i n g any t h i n g , i n h i s own Judgement, and Reason, he s h a l l c o n c e i v e t o be t h e a p t e s t means t h e r e u n t o .  which  5 2 6 3  Thus,  in the state  o-f n a t u r e ,  men a r e commanded  t h e m s e l v e s and t h e y  also  w h a t e v e r means t h e y  deem n e c e s s a r y  Having r e c o g n i z e d commanded  have t h e l i b e r t y  to acquire  they a r e  by t h e law o-f n a t u r e t o do s o m e t h i n g a b o u t i t o-f a - f f a i r s  own p r e s e r v a t i o n .  right  ( a f o r m o f s e l f - r e s t r a i n t ) by c o n c u r r e n t l y  t o a common power.  miserable condition create  they  society  In s h o r t ,  only By  l a y down t h e i r  society.  They a r e o b l i g e d  b e c a u s e t h e law o f n a t u r e commands that  and t h e i r r e a s o n t e l l s  t r a n s l a t i n g h i s otherwise of t h e s t a t e  of n a t u r e  Hobbes s u c c e e d s  in giving  s o u r c e o f moral  legitimacy.  that  i s conducive t o t h e i r them t h a t  society i s  society  social-psychological into ethical-Iegal  terms,  and t h e L e v i a t h a n  a dual  On t h e one hand, s o c i e t y i s  good b e c a u s e t h e i n d i v i d u a l c a n l e a d within  it.  preservation,  n a t u r e commands, society;  restraint  a better  Because i t c o n t r i b u t e s  i t s continued  d e g r e e of moral  into  transfering  solution.  construct  life  natural  t h e way o u t o f an o t h e r w i s e  i s to create  do n o t o m i t t o do a n y t h i n g  preservation, the  Thus, t h e y  i s not conducive t o  their  to  and u s e  -for t h e i r s u r v i v a l .  t h e i r miserable condition,  because t h e e x i s t i n g s t a t e  it  t o preserve  force.  existence  On t h e o t h e r  in addition  society,  longer-  to self-  c a r r i e s with  i ta  hand, t h e law o f  a l b e i t i n d i r e c t l y , that  and s i n c e  and  individuals  by d e f i n i t i o n , means  t o the i n s t i t u t i o n  enter self  of t h e s o v e r e i g n ,  25  acts  against  violations state  of  the  against  nature  natural  sovereign,  law,  natural  into  legal  again law.  However, by  the  Hobbes d e n i e s h i m s e l f  as  we  other. prefer  Reflecting Hobbes-  on  argument  1  the  state  for  at  of  of  without the  in part  one  reasons.  state  of  would be  like  one.  state  The state that  create  second,  of  moral  and  certainly  and  not  other  nature  the  to  essence  his  that  theory the  what  words, t h e  e x i s t , why  of  existence  establish  a  state  answer t o would men  p e r h a p s more i m p o r t a n t  of  the be  the  f o r the  the  of  concept In  theory creation  of  man  into of  as  I law  summary, t h e  of  is  can  natural  because,  the  theory  language  it difficult,  social setting. -1  -1  i n w h i c h he  condition  employing  introduce  basis  r e a s o n why  i s c r u c i a l t o Hobbes  i s c r u c i a l t o Hobbes  to providing  state  i t appears  p r o v i d e an  Hobbes p e r h a p s f o u n d  into a pre-existing  the  a c c o u n t of  social-psychological  would, t o  or  it?  e t h i c a l t e r m s by  law.  making  a l l , i n t e r m s of  i t provides a suitable scenario  natural  of  did  nature construct  t r a n s l a t e the  t o be  in order  In  question  to  of  i t p r o v i d e s an  might s u i t a b l y  inclined  of  polity,  commonwealth,  Leviathan,  First  nature construct If the  of  hand, and  i s a c r u c i a l component of  causes,  language  possibility one  the  i t , is. s o c i e t y .  motive f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g  1  the  what I u n d e r s t a n d  nature  l e a s t two  question  on  the  Thus, f o r Hobbes, t h e to c a l l  translating  e t h i c a l terms v i a the  a d i s t i n c t i o n between s o c i e t y , on  indirectly, constitute  in  society,  state  addition it  26  provided  the basis f o r the particular  wanted t o c r e a t e . remain e i t h e r  Thus, t h e r e s t  meaningless  i s not s u r p r i s i n g ,  usual  then,  method and employ  readers t o accept Immediately  nasty,  brutish,  from h i s  e x t r a o r d i n a r y means t o c o n v i n c e h i s  in this  as a v a l i d  construct.  i s p e r h a p s Hobbes' most-  the l i f e  and s h o r t " — h e  proof  would  t o anyone who  t h a t Hobbes would d e p a r t  f o l l o w i n g what  statement—"and  he  h i s s t a t e of nature c o n s t r u c t .  t h e s t a t e of n a t u r e  quoted  analogical  o f Hobbes' t h e o r y  or unconvincing  would n o t , o r c o u l d n o t , a c c e p t It  kind of s o c i e t y  o f man, s o l i t a r y ,  poore,  i n t r o d u c e s h i s apparent  way-  I t may seem s t r a n g e t o some man, t h a t h a s n o t w e l l weighed t h e s e t h i n g s ; t h a t n a t u r e s h o u l d t h u s d i s s o c i a t e , and r e n d e r men a p t t o i n v a d e , and d e s t r o y one a n o t h e r - and he may t h e r e f o r e , n o t t r u s t i n g t o t h i s i n f e r e n c e , made f r o m t h e p a s s i o n s , d e s i r e p e r h a p s t o have t h e same c o n f i r m e d by e x p e r i e n c e . " s s  H e r e Hobbes a p p e a r s  t o be s p e a k i n g  g r o u p o f r e a d e r s who were p r o b a b l y Aristotelean with  that society  right.  which  with comfortable  animal'  i s natural  and t h e i n i t s own  He a l s o may have been aware t h a t t h i s same g r o u p o f  readers placed a great deal validity  rather  i s a 'political  i s an e n t i t y  to a particular  sympathetic  d o c t r i n e ; a g r o u p who f e l t  t h e n o t i o n t h a t man  belief  directly  of t h e i r  o f w e i g h t on t h e s c i e n t i f i c  experience  t o t h e n a t u r a l and e t h i c a l  and o b s e r v a t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t .  worlds.  that, n o t o n l y would h i s d e p i c t i o n of  mankind  find  of  establishing  S i n c e Hobbes  anticipated  of t h e n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n  o b j e c t i o n s among t h e s e r e a d e r s , h i s method t h e causes  of such  a c o n d i t i o n would  appear  27  entirely that  he  - f o r e i g n t o them.  o f f e r e d them s o m e t h i n g t h a t  comfortably they  might  r e l a t e to  as  moment and  l e t us  consider  words I would  'experience-'.  developed  be  'proof'  a l s o be t y p e of  recorded  in the  few  last  describes  some of  political  world  is constructing claims other  is  His  of  analogy  noted  analogy  perception  describing theory.  a fact  "The  t o Hobbes,  —  inference  " i s called  had  and  the will  a fact Df  of  construct. the  one  world  Thus  on  state  he  my  Knowledge of and  Fact",  of  claim  about  reporting  i s unrelated  to  his  according  Hobbes draws a  he  the  claimed  inference  i s simply  he  in that  I, Thomas Hobbes, and  the  hand, what  and,  about t h e  world;  which  History";  he  a d e s c r i p t i v e one  i s what  In s h o r t ,  that  observations  political  political  Register  Hobbes  following  13—is  between, on  this  nature.  and  knowledge t h a t  i s s i m i l a r i n ' a p p a r e n c e ' t o my  s t a t e of  a  within i t .  t h i s paragraph;  t y p e of  for  ' inference'  knowledge t h a t  chapter  is clearly  about t h e  theory.  'inference' that  his logical  about the  in essence saying:  to perceive  the  part  hand, h i s s c i e n t i f i c  nature.  perhaps  passages which f o l l o w i t .  i n t e r m s of  to perceive  his  words c o n t a i n e d  h i s e x p e r i e n c e s and  an  more  above q u o t a t i o n  What Hobbes e s s e n t i a l l y d o e s i n t h e paragraphs—the  supposed  inference,  e l e m e n t of  passages preceding  'experience' r e f e r s to the  have  could  his  t o emphasize are  It should  in the  of  to the  important  like  they  crucial  return  two  appears t o r e f e r t o the  word  a  j u s t accept that  Regardless,  The  However, Hobbes may  and  he  28  clear  distinction  analogy,  then,  between h i s t o r y  c a n o n l y have h i s t o r i c a l  twentieth  century  relations  among s o v e r e i g n s  similar,  the s t a t e of n a t u r e .  that  similar,  apparent  -  us i s t h a t  appeared  fact,  t o be  on t h e o t h e r  rn h i s t i m e  importance  he hoped  would draw a d i f f e r e n t  by t a k i n g i t upon t h e m s e l v e s  i t s 'empirical '  in the  t o h i s i n f e r e n c e about  I speculate that  theoretical  Hobbes'  3 0  about h i s i n f e r e n c e .  many o f h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s  conclusion  of  in. h i s t i m e  This historical  us n o t h i n g  Nevertheless,  value  b e c a u s e a l l he h a s t o l d  but not e n t i r e l y  hand, t e l l s  and s c i e n c e .  to inflate the  of h i s analogy  pretensions.  because  Perhaps h i s contemporaries  would draw t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Hobbes h i m s e l f c o u l d n o t possibly  draw w i t h o u t  Perhaps they  compromising  would s i m p l y  validity  of h i s t h e o r y ' s  nature.  Thus,  the causes  burden of proof  still  t h e analogy  of s c i e n c e .  of t h e  namely, t h e s t a t e o f  a s an a p p a r e n t  was a r h e t o r i c a l  proof  f o r an  a j u n c t u r e which  o f t h e commonwealth. r e s t s with  view of h i s p h i l o s o p h y rejected  linchpin,  juncture i n h i s theory;  toestablish  i t as ' p r o o f  i t seems t h a t Hobbes' a n a l o g y  d e v i c e w h i c h he o f f e r e d important  accept  h i s philosophy  attempts  However, t h e  me t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t , i n  o f s c i e n c e , Hobbes would h a v e  as c o n s t i t u t i n g  a valid  proof  of h i s  inference. THE  ANALOGY  AND HOBBES' PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE  Although apparent  proof  t h e analogy  seems t o be i n t e n d e d  of h i s s t a t e of n a t u r e  surely  a s an  construct, the  29  question  now,  however,  would have a c c e p t e d accept the  the  proof,  i n order  s t a t e of n a t u r e that  i t as such.  i t as a v a l i d  analogy  to  he  can  nevertheless  a rhetorical  his conclude  r a t h e r than  i t is difficult  a ' Hobbesian  tradition  -1  not  employed  perhaps s a f e l y  Consequently  t h e p r a c t i c e of b a s i n g  would  i n f l u e n c e others to accept  i s simply  device.  Hobbes h i m s e l f  I f he h i m s e l f  but  c o n s t r u c t , we  analogy  theoretical  i s whether o r n o t  a  to  justify  upon  the  analogy. The valid of  argument t h a t t h e  proof  the  i n Hobbes  analogy  view very  -1  does not  much r e s t s on  distinction  he  makes between, on  knowledge o b t a i n e d  by  experience  the  other  the  c o n s e q u e n c e s of  the  f o r c e of t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n  will  be  necessary  philosophy such  of  both  Hobbes  f o r m s of  way  way  direction  conclude  What  can  around.  but  Essentially,  Once we  argument, i t  Hobbes  no  he  made  however,  rather  the between  t o Hobbes, and  have r e f l e c t e d  is virtually  -1  i t i s inferences that  according  we  Since  3 1  d e t e r m i n e why  itself,  of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p ,  t h e one  t o my of  on  ( k n o w l e d g e of  method a t t e m p t s t o e s t a b l i s h  -1  strength  hand,  i s even more i m p o r t a n t ,  distinction  knowledge.  that there  between, on  reason  is crucial  are used t o prove o b s e r v a t i o n s , the other  one  affirmation to another).  s c i e n c e s o t h a t we  s o much t h e  relationship  by  t o examine i t i n l i g h t  a distinction.  i s not  the  the  ( k n o w l e d g e of f a c t ) and,  hand, knowledge o b t a i n e d one  constitute a  should  upon t h e be  theoretical  hand, h i s o b s e r v a t i o n s  about  able link  not one  to  30  r e l a t i o n s h i p s among s o v e r e i g n s  and, on t h e o t h e r  i n f e r e n c e a b o u t t h e s t a t e o-f n a t u r e . theoretical  link  F o r t h e r e t o be a  between h i s t h e o r y  and h i s o b s e r v a t i o n s ,  Hobbes would have t o c o n s t r u c t a new  i n f e r e n c e which  serve t o confirm the v a l i d i t y  of h i s o b s e r v a t i o n s  sovereigns.  i n chapter  As I s h a l l  t o be done b e f o r e  such  argue  remarks,  from chapter  I believe, capture  philosophy  of s c i e n c e .  would  about  two, t h e r e  i s much  an i n f e r e n c e c a n be made.  In t h e meantime, however, remarks taken  hand, h i s  l e t us c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g  five  of L e v i a t h a n .  the essence  "Reason", Hobbes  These  o f Hobbes-" argues,  i s n o t a s S e n s e , and Memory, b o r n e w i t h u s ; n o r g o t t e n by E x p e r i e n c e o n e l y ; a s P r u d e n c e i s ; b u t a t t a y n e d by I n d u s t r y ; f i r s t , i n a p t i m p o s i n g o f Names; and s e c o n d l y by g e t t i n g a good and o r d e r l y Method i n p r o c e e d i n g f r o m t h e E l e m e n t s , w h i c h a r e Names, t o A s s e r t i o n s made by C o n n e x i o n o f one o f them t o a n o t h e r ; and s o t o S y l l o g i s m e s , w h i c h a r e t h e C o n n e x i o n s o f one A s s e r t i o n t o a n o t h e r , till we come t o a knowledge o f a l l t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f names a p p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e s u b j e c t , i n hand; and t h a t i s i t , men c a l l S c i e n c e . And whereas S e n s e and Memory a r e b u t knowledge o f F a c t , w h i c h i s a t h i n g p a s t , and i r r e v o c a b l e ; S c i e n c e i s t h e knowledge o f c o n s e q u e n c e s , and d e p e n d a n c e o f one f a c t upon a n o t h e r : by w h i c h , o u t o f t h a t we c a n p r e s e n t l y do, we know how t o do s o m e t h i n g e l s e when we w i l l , o r t h e l i k e , a n o t h e r time- B e c a u s e when we s e e how any t h i n g comes a b o u t , upon what c a u s e s , and by what manner; when t h e l i k e c a u s e s come i n t o o u r power, we s e e how t o make itproduce t h e l i k e e f f e c t s . 3 5 2  Although  these  insignificant, because they that  they  r e m a r k s might a t f i r s t nevertheless deserve  describe the particular  Hobbes a d o p t s  i n Leviathan.  make s e n s e o f L e v i a t h a n  without  seem  some  reflection  a p p r o a c h t o knowledge  I think that trying to t h i s approach  i n mind c a n  31  lead  t o — a r i d p e r h a p s has  a b o u t what  i t i s that  of  was  science  not  he  led t o — g r a v e had  t o say.  a trivial  concern  misunderstandings In a d d i t i o n ,  f o r Hobbes.  seems t o h a v e i n f o r m e d h i s e n t i r e a p p r o a c h t o the  natural  and  suggest, t h a t Bacon, and par  political  i n t e r m s of  Descartes,  exel1ence.  However,  3 3  without  and  There  understanding  i s a l s o reason  a philosopher  I think  that  the  thus h i s d i s t i n c t i o n  'observation'—cannot  a discussion  Rather, i t  h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s such  Hobbes was  Hobbes' a p p r o a c h — a n d 'inference'  worlds.  a b o u t how  philosophy  to  as G a l i l e o ,  of  science  s i g n i f i c a n c e of between  fully  be  appreciated  Hobbes came t o d e v e l o p  his  phi Iosophy. Let  us  philosophy  first, through  'schools'  of  simply  Against  discussion  of  the  were p r e v a l e n t  p u r p o s e of us  groundwork  among Hobbes'  a better  discussion  p u r c h a s e on  prevailed  skepticism,  and  Each o r i e n t a t i o n c o u l d p a r t i c u l a r v i e w on  constituted  valid  o r i e n t a t i o n s which  e a c h o r i e n t a t i o n had  science  i t s own  of  of  of  a  better  distinguished  knowledge,  knowledge. distinct  Aristotleanism,  (for lack  p e r h a p s be  what k i n d  scientific  should  3  Hobbes' t i m e were t h a t modern n a t u r a l  day.  significant." **  dominant p h i l o s o p h i c a l  during  the  p r o b l e m s f a c i n g Hobbes i n h i s  much more c l e a r and  three  his  various  this historical  in gaining  for  t h i s background h i s arguments i n L e v i a t h a n  The  their  that  philosophical  become t h a t  term).  The  to assist  particular  historical  a brief  thought  contemporaries. is  lay the  In o t h e r  answer t o  if  by  any,  words, questions  32  about, what  i t i s t h a t human b e i n g s  about t h e world  external  to acquire  knowledge.  For  that  c a n p o s s i b l y come t o know  t o the s e l f ,  and how t h e y  example, t h e t h i n k e r s whD c a l l e d  A r i s t o t l e a n s tended  themselves  t-D a r g u e t h a t p e r c e p t i o n s  the  human s e n s e s were more o r l e s s a c c u r a t e  the  reality,  external  and t h e n a t u r e  to the self.  w h i t e t o an o r d i n a r y  healthy  a c q u i r e d by  -for  of t h a t r e a l i t y ,  For A r i s t o t l e ,  c a n come  determining  of t h e world  / ' i f something  looks  observer,  then  i t _s_ w h i t e . "  Thus, t h e A r i s t o t e l e a n s were c o n f i d e n t  that  a more o r l e s s  c o m p l e t e body o f knowledge a b o u t t h e e x t e r n a l compiled; acquired  and t h a t  the  self  senses.  s u c h a body o f knowledge c o u l d  t h r o u g h human o b s e r v a t i o n .  Aristoteleans,  truths could  This confidence  in the existence  the of  in that  "Aristotle  universality  a middle c l a s s Athenian  A r i s t o t e l e a n s of t h e l a t e  accurately  perceive  a l l that  beliefs  were f a c e d  nature  of t h e s e n s e s t o  of t h e e x t e r n a l  world.  v a n t a g e p o i n t we do n o t f i n d  unreasonable.  with  T h i s new o r i e n t a t i o n  t h e l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e a b i l i t y  assertion  moral  3  s i x t e e n t h century  emphasized  century  confidence i n  i n h i s t i m e and t h e  a serious skeptical challenge.  From a t w e n t i e t h  through t h e  the conventional 3  the real  words, f o r t h e  of o b j e c t i v e  great  of h i s day." *  However, b o t h A r i s t o t l e  be  view of t h e e t h i c a l  had e x p r e s s e d  of ( r o u g h l y )  c o u l d be  and e x t e r n a l t o  be p e r c e i v e d  t r u t h s a l s o seemed t o p e r v a d e t h e i r world  In o t h e r  o b j e c t i v e t r u t h s l a y beyond  and t h o s e  world  5 3 0  We  this  l e a r n i n elementary  33  school, is the  despite  appearances t o t h e contrary,  a c t u a l l y round. contrary,  through  that  the earth  with o p t i c a l  illusions  Considering  argument seems t o go l i k e clearly  that, t h e y  wrong  this'  are  in fact  determining  illusion  compiling  world, they and  that  their  any v a l i d still  political alike,  virtue  P e r h a p s when we  then, i s  and s i n c e t h e o n l y  know a n y t h i n g  means we  about t h e w o r l d .  body o f knowledge a b o u t t h e e x t e r n a l that  independent  also carried itself  a world  existed  i n t o t h e e t h i c a l and and n o n - s k e p t i c s  by p r a c t i c e s o f d e c e i t ,  and i n t i m i d a t i o n , r a t h e r This  such  of t h e s e l f .  which, f o r t h e s k e p t i c s  and h o n o u r .  skeptical  them t o be wrong, and  pessimism about t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of  was c h a r a c t e r i z e d  manipulation,  those  ( t h e senses) are not accurate,  i t had a n a t u r e  world  Perhaps  awake, and when we a r e awake we  firmly believed  T h i s pessimism  how do we know -for s u r e  instances?  from r e a l i t y ;  cannot p o s s i b l y  However, d e s p i t e  perceptions  The p r o b l e m f o r t h e s k e p t i c ,  we h a v e o f d o i n g t h i s therefore  the skeptical  I f our sense  them t o be c o r r e c t .  d r e a m i n g we a r e i n f a c t  'real'  when we awaken s t a r t l e d and  s e n s e s a r e c o r r e c t when we c o n s i d e r  are  to  quite  and t h e a p p a r e n t l y  these experiences,  a r e correct, i n other  dreaming.  our s e n s a t i o n  We a r e a l s o  i n some i n s t a n c e s ,  wrong when we c o n s i d e r  the earth  r o t a t e s on i t s a x i s and h u r t l e s  o-f dreams on t h o s e n i g h t s  disoriented.  are  learn, despite  space a t a tremendous speed.  •familiar impact  We a l s o  that  provided  t h a n by t h o s e o f  more f u e l  a s s a u l t , on A r i s t o t e l e a n i s m .  f o r the  Paradoxically, the  34  doctrines  b o r n by  relativism through  and  reason  observation  inconsistencies unnoticed  by  orientation The optical  of  namely, t h e  and  that  the  all?  any  Richard  in t h i s  the  like  and  and  third  The go  philosophical  scientists.  one,  concluded,  e x p e r i e n c e on  E s s e n t i a l l y , i f the  their  could  imagine t h a t  flaw  they  own  in  could  the  asserted  possibly  outside  such a  t h i s new  the  knowledge.  skeptics  actually existed  simply  like  scientific  perhaps f a t a l ,  Tuck e x p r e s s e d  way  acquired  s c i e n t i s t s were a l s o f a m i l i a r w i t h  reality  P e r h a p s we  exists. doubt  t o the  s e n s e s were u n r e l i a b l e , how  conclude that at  held  basis for valid  argument.  moral  practices.  modern n a t u r a l  However, t h e y r e c o g n i z e d skeptical  and  i n s k e p t i c a l arguments d i d not  observation  c o n s t i t u t e the  cultural  3 7  t h e o r i s t s who  that  as  s t a t e " were t h e m s e l v e s  inherent  illusions  such  o-f •"real-" p o l i t i c a l  modern n a t u r a l  skeptics, not  skepticism  the  self  reality  ' s u p e r - s k e p t i c a l •*  :  I f we can i m a g i n e a l a n g u a g e w h i c h i s c o m p l e t e i n i t s e l f b u t w h i c h d o e s n o t r e f e r t o any r e a l o b j e c t s ( l i k e the language which T o l k e i n invented t o accompany L o r d of t h e R i n g s ) , so why can we n o t i m a g i n e an o r d e r l y and s y s t e m a t i c s e q u e n c e of images w h i c h do n o t r e f e r t o a n y t h i n g ? 3 0  In s h o r t ,  the  s k e p t i c s by shared respect  demonstrating  assertion that to perceiving  scientists, mind.  modern n a t u r a l  c o m p l e t e body of  the  full  i m p l i c a t i o n s of  human s e n s e s a r e reality.  however, had  They b e l i e v e d  s c i e n t i s t s responded  that  an  The  entirely  modern  and  possible;  the  their with  natural  d i f f e r e n t agenda  a systematic  knowledge was  unreliable  to  more or  a body of  in  less knowledge  35  that At  included  the  both the  outset  they  were n o t  prepared  external  world.  w o r l d had be  reason  and  were e n t i r e l y t o simply  argued  and  not  that  the  and  alike,  only in  world  colours  which they Having  us  our  perceptions  that,  there  colours  that  we  world,  the  on."**  In o t h e r  0  external  Thus we Sum  <I  therefore  to  on first  Aristoteleans " i s no in the  matter,  "perhaps  material  not  objects  to  argue  at  t o some m i n i m a l  least that two may  be  i s more or  of  reality.  nothing have  The outside,  Descartes-  knowledge of  The  what g o e s on 1  we  s o u n d s and the  less speculative,  knowledge of  that  direct  colours,  our  and  Descartes  arguments.  f o r we  world  I am).  real  must e x i s t  inside,  have e s t a b l i s h e d think  had  perceive  words, a l t h o u g h  compelling  a  3 S >  n a t u r e of  interior  to ourselves  absolutely  that  . . .  a l s o the  "though t h e r e  the  o-f s u c h  there  but  first,  i s something  an  o-f t h e  the  that  with b a s i c a l l y  e x p e r i e n c e of  o-f  grounded  one  For  performs t h i s task  know t h e r e  they  h i s d o u b t , D e s c a r t e s g o e s on  that  must r e f l e c t  asserts that  t o be  against  are  inhere. "  world of  a world  realms.  explanation.  non-existent,  external  reality  D e s c a r t e s argued t h a t  presented  the  the  had  in that  existence  D e s c a r t e s was  s u c h an  seem t o  why  extent,  that  a t a l I . . . ."  are  the  explanation  reason t o suppose t h a t external  consistent  into existence;  Tuck t e l l s  skeptics  ethical-political  accept  senses.  t h e o r i s t s t o attempt Richard  and  They b e l i e v e d  t o be  explained  natural  we  inside  so  world have us.  famous maxim-- C o g i t o puzzle,  however,  is  erg  36  whether o r the  external  second the  not  this  internal  world.  At  this  of  concludes that creation,  man.  therefore  be  about  point  Descartes deploys  his  solution  " s u c h a God What we  more o r  t o the  particular  satisfaction,  a b e n e v o l e n t God.  genuinely  less  puzzle  From t h i s  would n o t  what  Hobbes, among o t h e r s ,  argument was  characteristic  puzzle  think  recognized  rested  for  rather  on  the  think  therefore he  I am)  and,  favoured  is effectively has  1  Descartes ' -  and  his  Hobbes  felt  Hobbes t h u s s e t confidence"  to  out solve  Descartes' forcefully  a s s e r t s t h a t human p e r c e p t i o n s  mind, and  must  there.'"*  p e r h a p s more  "man  us  out  accepting  Accordingly,  tells  his  he  52  of v e r s i m i I i t u d e t o t h e  outside  argument  c o g e n c y of  self  relationship  h i s own  establishes  perceive  that  shaky.  intellectual  himself.**  than Descartes,  of  we  i s actually  Hobbes b e g i n s h i s argument by maxim <I  mislead  argument f o r God's e x i s t e n c e ,  that, t h i s  the  re-flects anything  argument w h i c h , t o h i s own  existence  "with  world  no  h i s prison walls."**  a prisoner  i d e a what 3  external  no  world.  within  in r e a l i t y  In E l e m e n t s of  bear  the  cell  lies  Law,  Hobbes  that W h a t s o e v e r a c c i d e n t s o r q u a l i t i e s our s e n s e s make us t h i n k t h e r e be i n t h e w o r l d , t h e y a r e n o t t h e r e , b u t s e e m i n g s and a p p a r i t i o n s o n l y . . . . And t h i s i s t h e g r e a t d e c e p t i o n of s e n s e , which a l s o i s by s e n s e c o r r e c t e d . For as sense t e l l e t h rne, when I s e e d i r e c t l y , t h a t t h e c o l o u r seemeth t o be i n t h e o b j e c t ; so a l s o s e n s e t e l l e t h me, when I s e e by r e f l e c t i o n , t h a t c o l o u r i s n o t i n t h e o b j e c t . ****  Tuck  interprets this  to mean—and  I have no  reason  to  37  s u p p o s e a d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n — t h a t "we reflect  on  the  i m p l i c a t i o n s of  image t o r e a l i z e give  us  r e a l 1y  any  At  no  whether or  not  anything  seem t o be  detect It was  the  assumption  simply  seen, t h i s  the  the  us.  The  other  focussed.  of  hyperbolical skeptical b e c a u s e of  is  properties  exists outside  Descartes-'  that  a real  making t h e  argument.  was  who  could  problem t h a t  words, he before  external  existence  one  the  the  self.  than Descartes-  as  .  i t s e l e g a n c e and  can  to  we  does e x i s t .  solve  have  possibly  Hobbes s e t s out  already  seemed t o s e e  first  existence  wish for  more f u n d a m e n t a l  can  and  more  to  such a world.  clearly  clearly  reverting  between to  clearly In t h i s was  Hobbes-* s o l u t i o n , simplicity,  to  himself,  e s t a b l i s h a I ink  had  of  still  e s t a b l i s h i n g the not  we  between i n t e r n a l  Hobbes i n t r o d u c e d 1  Because  world  out  worlds—without  of  doubt t h a t  and,  made by  we  external  connection  world;  speculations—one  the  seen  closer to a solution to  hand, seems t o be  i n t e r n a l and  establish  of  creator  In o t h e r  theological  the  itself  f u r t h e r away f r o m a s o l u t i o n t h a n  external  than D e s c a r t e s t h a t the  o r has  problem Descartes set  connection  a benevolent  deceive on  the  that  and  thing  Descartes poses h i s question,  seems t h a t  reality  of  beginning  that  the  in  B  are  we  a reflected  does not  that  i t a p p e a r s t o be  we  were a t t h e way  something  as  to  i t h a s . ""*  t h i s point  In f a c t ,  the  place  think  p r o b l e m of  seeing  grounds f o r supposing  in the  w h i c h we  that  such t h i n g s  have o n l y  even  sense, more  perhaps  i s quite  the  38  •fascinating. In a d d i t i o n t o e s t a b l i s h i n g what more f u n d a m e n t a l the  self  Whereas D e s c a r t e s  an  "from  observer  train  anything self  diverges  depicted  witnesses  the self  would t h i n k  sense  from our i n a b i l i t y  and w i t n e s s i n g  t o conceive  these  like  o f him o r h e r s e l f " j u s t  the thinking  i s imaginary,  was  him", Hobbes  b e c a u s e he c o u l d  ( s o t o speak) doing  construct.  a s a mind w h i c h  the events outside  of p e r c e p t i o n s ,  in this  f r o m Descartes-"  i t s own p e r c e p t i o n s  i n s i s t s that the self the  t o be a  p r o b l e m , Hobbes a l s o c o n s t r u c t s an image o f  which c l e a r l y  separate  I consider  simply  as  not p e r c e i v e . . . .  The  a construct  of t h i n k i n g without  arising a thinker  t o do i t . In a d d i t i o n t o Hobbes-' c o n s t r u c t his greatest hand—that world—is  these  a r e moving  changing  images.  what  The f i r s t  nothing  The q u e s t i o n  then  becomes t o have  7  in i t .  p r o p o s i t i o n s i n order-  o f what c a u s e s moving  reason'—that  c a n move  metaphysical  p r o p o s i t i o n i s based  t o be some new f e a t u r e alteration  t h a t t h e images  images."* *  t o answer t h e q u e s t i o n  sufficient  o f an e x t e r n a l  i t i s that causes t h e s e l f  Hobbes e m p l o y s t h r e e  self.  the existence  t h a t Hobbes e m p h a s i z e s t h e f a c t  of d e t e r m i n i n g  perhaps  i n t e r m s o f t h e immediate p r o b l e m a t  i s , determining  we p e r c e i v e one  innovation  of t h e s e l f ,  on t h e ' p r i n c i p l e o f  i s , the p r i n c i p l e in a situation  that t h e r e has  t o e x p l a i n some new  The p r o p o s i t i o n s i m p l y  itself.  images i n t h e  asserts that  The s e c o n d p r o p o s i t i o n i s t h a t  39  nothing  c o u l d be moved e x c e p t  i s that only bodies Based self  concludes  and t h e t h i r d  bodies. "* 1  0  t h r e e p r o p o s i t i o n s and t h e i d e a t h a t t h e  change i n h i s or h e r p e r c e p t i o n s ,  t h a t t h e r e must be "some m a t e r i a l o b j e c t  himsel-f w h i c h was c a u s i n g he  i n space,  c o u l d move other-  on t h e s e  experiences  bodies  Hobbes outside  him t o h a v e t h e p e r c e p t i o n s  which  had. -»» ,,  Although very  limited  Richard  Hobbes ' s o l u t i o n -  nature  Tuck t e l l s  i s elegant  o-f h i s s o l u t i o n  and s i m p l e , t h e  must be e m p h a s i z e d .  us t h a t  T h i s i s a c t u a l l y a s -far a s Hobbes e v e r went, o r i n t e n d e d t o go. . . . E v e r y t h i n g e l s e — t h a t i s , t h e a c t u a l c h a r a c t e r o f t h e e x t e r n a l w o r l d and o f our r e l a t i o n s h i p t o i t — must r e m a i n c o n j e c t u r a l o r h y p o t h e t i c a l , t h o u g h some h y p o t h e s e s a r e b e t t e r than o t h e r s . s o  In o t h e r ability nature  words, t h e e x t e r n a l w o r l d t o reason  that  i s concerned,  i t does e x i s t ;  a hypothesis  others.  Leviathan  embodies  a b o u t t h e commonwealth and i t s c a u s e s ;  w h e r e a s t h e c a u s e s a r e human p a s s i o n s the  and a s f a r a s i t s  t h e most t h a t we c a n a s s e r t i s that-  some h y p o t h e s e s a r e b e t t e r t h a n such  e x i s t s only through our  combined  with  reason,  effect, i s s o c i e t y . Since  scientific  knowledge, f o r Hobbes,  about, c a u s e s and t h e i r remain c o n d i t i o n a l . improvement  effects,  such  Thus, n o t o n l y  i s knowledge  knowledge c a n o n l y d o e s he l e a v e room f o r  i n t e r m s o f h i s own h y p o t h e s i s - a b o u t  actually  invites  it.  however,  i s t h e method t h r o u g h  society,  he  What he d o e s n o t seem t o compromise, which such  an h y p o t h e s i s i s  40  t o be e s t a b l i s h e d b e c a u s e h i s method o-f e s t a b l i s h i n g  such  knowledge i s g r o u n d e d  A  philosophy  i n h i s philosophy  w h i c h c a n p e r h a p s be summed  o-f s c i e n c e .  up by t h e e x p r e s s i o n  •'things a r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t h e way t h e y Hobbes i s n o t p r e p a r e d o-f e s t a b l i s h i n g tell  us a n y t h i n g  will  only  -  t o assert that h i s s c i e n t i f i c  c a u s e s and e f f e c t s t h r o u g h  reasoning  a b o u t t h e way t h i n g s a c t u a l l y  Hobbes, we c a n n e v e r can  seem t o be '.  are.  know t h e way t h i n g s a c t u a l l y  But  method will For  a r e ; we  a d v a n c e h y p o t h e s e s a b o u t t h e way t h i n g s a r e and,  be r e c a l l e d ,  depending  some h y p o t h e s e s a r e b e t t e r t h a n  on t h e c o g e n c y o f t h e r e a s o n i n g .  whatsoever",  according  5  i t  others  "No d i s c o u r s e  t o Hobbes,  can End i n a b s o l u t e knowledge o f f a c t , p a s t , o r t o come. F o r a s t h e knowledge o f f a c t , i t i s o r i g i n a l l y , sense- and e v e r a f t e r , Memory. And f o r t h e knowledge o f C o n s e q u e n c e , which I h a v e s a i d before i s c a l l e d Science, i t i s not Absolute, but c o n d i t i o n a l . No man c a n know by d i s c o u r s e , that, t h i s , o r t h a t , i s , h a s been, o r w i l l bew h i c h i s t o know a b s o l u t e l y - b u t o n e l y , i f t h i s be [then3 t h a t is.; Cor3 i f t h i s h a s been Cthen3 t h a t has been; Cor3 i f t h i s s h a l l be [ t h e n 3 t h a t s h a l l be; w h i c h i s t o know Csomething3 c o n d i t i o n a l l y ; [and c o n d i t i o n a l knowledge d o e s n o t i n c l u d e ] t h e c o n s e q u e n c e o f one t h i n g t o a n o t h e r ; b u t C r a t h e r 3 of one name o f a t h i n g , t o a n o t h e r name o f t h e same t h i n g . And t h e r e f o r e , when t h e D i s c o u r s e i s p u t i n t o s p e e c h , and b e g i n s w i t h t h e d e f i n i t i o n s o f words, and p r o c e e d s by C o n n e x i o n o f t h e same i n t o g e n e r a l a f f i r m a t i o n s , and o r t h e s e a g a i n i n t o S y l l o g i s m e s ; t h e End o r l a s t summe i s c a l l e d t h e c o n c l u s i o n ; and t h e t h o u g h t o f t h e mind by i t s i g n i f i e d , i s t h a t c o n d i t i o n a l knowledge, o r t h e knowledge o f c o n s e q u e n c e s o f words, w h i c h i s commonly c a l l e d s c i e n c e . B u t i f t h e f i r s t g r o u n d of s u c h D i s c o u r s e , be n o t d e f i n i t i o n s ; o r i f t h e D e f i n i t i o n s be n o t r i g h t l y j o y n e d t o g e t h e r i n t o S y l l o g i s m e s , t h e n t h e End o r c o n c l u s i o n , i s a g a i n op i n i on . . . . 3  It  should  be n o t e d  1  t h a t Hobbes  -1  last  sentence  in this  41  p a s s a g e can is,  i f he  o r end,  be  intended  a s he  actual  said  men  it.  were more o r  their the  men.  'authors'  community.  about  'the  natural  sovereigns  they  Thus,  352  p e a c e and  i f he  method t h a t he  different  used  from the  and  shall  in the  satisfactorily the kind and  first of so  he  prefer  could  be  on  behalf  an  such  a s an  be  because  clear that  i t was  own  which p l a y e d  that  Hobbes  sovereigns  in  as  some  definitions  However, a l t h o u g h on  device  i t seems t o p l a y  nevetheless  I  a conclusion—in his  i t as a r h e t o r i c a l role  he  of  from b a s i c  opinion  an  own  Hobbes'  his part,  I  i n v i e w of  the  in his  'opinion',  influential  the  'the  In a d d i t i o n , a s  of  in  employing  a definition  i t i s not  of  inference  i n f e r e n c e would  inferred  at best.  argument; b u t criteria,  different  i f Hobbes meant h i s a n a l o g y  conceived  influential  their  to construct  for a plurality  which was  'opinion'  by  s t a t e of n a t u r e  chapter,  would c o n s i d e r  to conceive  important  next  were  commodious l i v i n g  ' n a t u r a l man'.  Thus,  conclusion on,  of  accounted  place.  w o r d s — a s an analogy  not  conclusion  by  acted  sovereigns'  would have begun h i s i n f e r e n c e w i t h 'sovereign'  of  were t o c o n s t r u c t  c o n d i t i o n of  analogy—that  i n h i s day  were n e v e r t h e l e s s  c o n d i t i o n of mankind', t h e  argue  some k i n d  They were ' a c t o r s ' who  natural  necessarily  to his  less unconstrained  to maintain  same m e t i c u l o u s  t o be  Although  respective populations, from n a t u r a l  specifically  h i s analogy  puts  who  to refer  by  role.  Hobbes'  42  CHAPTER  TWO  Toward a G e n u i n e H o b b e s i a n In c h a p t e r t o be  little  ascribing  of t h i s  justification  Hobbes  international practice,  one  essay  thought.  i t will  be  I argued  f o r the  name t o t h e  -1  The  realist  certainly  i s the  tested  by  Hobbes  s t a t e of  nature  with  the  f o r Hobbes,  science required that  reasoning.  The  established  by  proof the  of  by  inference.  In o r d e r we  the  Although analogy  as  constructing—through  of  i s not  i t s conclusions i t s proof  of t h e r e a s o n i n g  r e f l e c t , on  faulty  be  a rigorous process  used  to appreciate the v a l i d i t y  need o n l y  -1  observation  phenomena; r a t h e r ,  cogency  it is Hobbes  inference i t s e l f  d e g r e e t o which  t o observed the  any  i t s causes through  established  assertion,  which  have accepted  have b e c a u s e ,  inferring  correspond  analogy  t h e m s e l v e s which r e q u i r e p r o o f .  of  that  of h i s i n f e r e n c e , Hobbes h i m s e l f  would n o t  philosophy  may  seems  in  of r e l a t i o n s among s o v e r e i g n s .  proof  observations  tradition  c u r r e n t t e x t u a l b a s i s of  recalled,  many of h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s constituting  that there  c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e of  u s e d t o compare h i s i n f e r e n c e of t h e his observations  Tradition  in of  the p o s s i b i l i t y  reasoning—an  is the this of  inference  w h i c h e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t o n e ' s image i s rn a m i r r o r . Thus,  in order  to test  h i s own  r e l a t i o n s h i p s among s o v e r e i g n s , construct did  an  inference in the  to construct the  observations  of  Hobbes would have had  same m e t i c u l o u s  commonwealth  i n p a r t one.  to  f a s h i o n as The  he  problem,  43  then,  for international  theory—that  theory  w h i c h p u r p o r t s t o be  "•first  i n apt  good and  imposing  orderly  i s , any  Hobbesian—is  o-f names, and  method  international  to  begin  secondly  in proceeding  by  -from t h e  w h i c h a r e names, t o a s s e r t i o n s . . . t i l l  we  getting  a  elements  come t o a  knowledge o-f a l l t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o-f names a p p e r t a i n i n g t o the to  s u b j e c t i n hand.  If such  1 , 8 3 3  proceed  first  in this  century  f a s h i o n , we  a theoretical  approach  a t t h e t u r n of t h e  m i g h t h a v e t o be p r e p a r e d  were  twenty  to accept  that  the  resulting  i n f e r e n c e of r e l a t i o n s h i p s among s o v e r e i g n s t a t e s  might not  necessarily  century  identical  nor  surprised It  do  was  seems t o me  a theory  the  t h a t one  of t h e P l u r a l i t y i s made c o u l d we  relations  among s t a t e s .  me  t h a t he  inferred  -  from  we  Although  can  t o be  after  infer  made.  anything  I am  In  of L e v i a t h a n Leviathan  t h a t Hobbes' theory---as  clear  g i v e s me  no  emerge  i s that  in order f o r  i s in fact it  about  other  should  suggesting  If t h i s  an  t h a t Hobbes  of s t a t e s .  one  such  entirely  added t o Hobbes' argument  i n f e r e n c e t o be conclude  to  i t i s not  i n p a r t one  What  Only  i t i s clear  a plurality  t h e s t a t e of n a t u r e .  an  begin  t o s u p p o s e t h a t more t h a n  something has such  then  inferences that  which e s t a b l i s h e s  of s t a t e s .  of t h e s t a t e ,  words, Hobbes ' argument reason  of t h e f i r s t  would have t o make i s one  the causes  at a l l  case.  inference  inferred  seventeenth  sovereign  I t h i n k t h a t Hobbes would be  i f such  the causes  to  t o Hobbes-*  o b s e r v a t i o n s of r e l a t i o n s h i p s among  princesj  such  be  the  case,  stands—cannot  44  •form t h e b a s i s o f a g e n u i n e international I shall understand  b e g i n my argument by s t a t i n g  it.  In o t h e r words,  the problem, The  first  from  i t .  I shall  objection  t h e problem  present  my  I think that  o n l y one L e v i a t h a n c a n  following  my s t a t e m e n t  c o n s i d e r two o b j e c t i o n s t o my i s an a n t i c i p a t e d  i s an e x i s t i n g  objection  concerns  one.  of  thesis.  one and t h e s e c o n d  Whereas t h e a n t i c i p a t e d  Hobbes' n o t i o n o f ' d e f e n c e  common enemy', t h e a c t u a l  as I  dynamic o f t h e s t a t e o f  Immediately  objection  by  I will  o f Hobbes-" l o g i c a l  n a t u r e and i n d i c a t e why inferred  tradition in  thought.  understanding  be  Hobbesian  objection  against a  i s an argument  advanced  Murray F o r s y t h . <1 ) The P r o b l e m The  problem,  a plurality be  stated  man—an person  a s I s e e i t , i n making an i n f e r e n c e a b o u t  of s t a t e s emerging from  i n t h i s way.  abstract  Given  entity  that  conceived  t h e s t a t e of n a t u r e c a n the r e l a t i v e  a s an o t h e r w i s e  minus any a t t r i b u t e s o f s o c i a l o f war when he i s p l a c e d  similarly  c o n c e i v e d men, and g i v e n t h a t with the a b i l i t y  determine end  that  of s e l f  driven  such  preservation.  by t h e i r  basic  man  will  i s not conducive they  p a s s i o n t o use t h e i r In t i m e ,  reach the conclusion that  other  men a r e a l s o  each  Consequently  way o u t o f t h i s p r e d i c a m e n t . persons  i n proximity with  t o reason,  a condition  complete  learning—causes a  condition  equipped  n a t u r e of  will  reason  to their be to find  a l l reasonable  i n o r d e r t o s u r v i v e and  a  45  live  a commodious l i f e ,  such  an e n t i t y ,  must - f i r s t their  right  r u l e s o-f r e a s o n o-f  must do  to restrain  can  t o a l l t h i n g s and  anticipate controversial restraint,  maintaining for  other  laws of n a t u r e and  l a w s which may,  c o o r d i n a t e and  coexistence  they  from  maintain  insufficient  t o time,  an o r d e r l y  and  such  n a t u r e , why  do t h e y  societies?  Why  one  s h o u l d wish  do  s o by  they  not  do  only p a r t i a l l y  which they  decided to enter society  was  not  exacerbate  their  contracting  original  potential  of becoming  necessary  and  of  i f these  into  of  separate society  under-  separate  s o l v e the problem  in the f i r s t condition  p r e v i o u s l y small s c a l e unorganized  any  disadvantaged,  c o n t r a c t i n t o one  societies,  not  enforce  However,  establishing  By  they  to  to leave the s t a t e  Leviathan?  they  global  do  men  s o on.  and  issue,  as weights  goods, p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e  why  they  for  a common c u r r e n c y , r u l e s  mechanisms, and  they  peaceful  ownership,  are the reasons  and  become  laws,  dispute settling  condition  abortion  measures, t r a f f i c public  certain  create a Leviathan  in the community—laws  down  i n which r e a s o n  to establish  time  They  However, b e c a u s e  p e a c e among t h e m — t h e  Consequently,  to  r e l a t i v e natures,  are  create  laying  create a  situations  themselves,  social  example.  enforce the  by  To  things.  by  con-form  w h i c h would p r e d i c t a b l y  i n t i m a t e knowledge of t h e i r  self  certain  themselves  p e a c e f u l c o e x i s t e n c e among them.  have  to  must c r e a t e s o c i e t y .  however, t h e y  undertake  natural  they  for  place?  Do  b e c a u s e what  violence,  now  has  large scale organized violence?  the  46  B e c a u s e Hobbes d i d n o t unclear the  t o me  s t a t e o-f  how  address these concerns,  Hobbes i n f e r r e d a p l u r a l i t y  i t remains o-f s t a t e s -from  nature. <2)  Objections  DEFENCE AGAINST A COMMON ENEMY The entirely  notion  consistent  preservation. considered contract  as  two  with  an  commonwealth.  Hobbes d o e s n o t  o-f L e v i a t h a n .  i n order  summary and against of  the  the  though  passion  of  i t can  be  -for human b e i n g s  introduce  this  Hobbes b e g i n s p a r t in part  one.  idea  two  to  until  with  a  I must q u o t e him  similarity  i n a d d i t i o n t o showing t h a t  a common enemy' i s n o t  sel-f  It i s i n t e r e s t i n g ,  t o demonstrate the  mine,  a common enemy' i s  and  a d d i t i o n a l reason  summary o-f h i s argument length  reason  Thus i t a p p e a r s a s  i n t o the  however, t h a t part  o-f 'de-fence a g a i n s t  included  as  one  between  at his  'defence of  the  causes  commonwealth. The f i n a l l Cause, End, or D e s i g n e of men, <who n a t u r a l l y l o v e L i b e r t y , and D o m i n i o n o v e r o t h e r s , ) i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h a t r e s t r a i n t upon t h e m s e l v e s , ( i n w h i c h we s e e them l i v e i n Commonwealths, ) i s t h e f o r e s i g h t of t h e i r - own p r e s e r v a t i o n , and of a more c o n t e n t e d l i f e t h e r e b y ; t h a t i s t o s a y , of g e t t i n g t h e m s e l v e s out f r o m t h a t m i s e r a b l e c o n d i t i o n of Warre, w h i c h i s n e c e s s a r i l y c o n s e q u e n t ( a s h a t h been shewn) t o t h e n a t u r a l p a s s i o n s of men, when t h e r e i s no v i s i b l e Power t o keep them i n p e r f o r m a n c e of t h e i r C o v e n a n t s , and' o b s e r v a t i o n of t h o s e Lawes of N a t u r e s e t down i n t h e f o u r t e e n t h and f i f t e e n t h chapters. F o r t h e Lawes of N a t u r e ( a s J u s t i c e , E q u i t y , Modesty, Mercy, and ( i n summe) d o i n g t o o t h e r s , as we would be done t o , ) of t h e m s e l v e s , w i t h o u t t h e t e r r o u r of some power, t o c a u s e them t o be o b s e r v e d , a r e c o n t r a r y t o our n a t u r a l I P a s s i o n s , t h a t c a r r y us t o P a r t i a l i t y , P r i d e , Revenge, and  47  the l i k e . And C o v e n a n t s , w i t h o u t t h e Sword, a r e b u t words, and o f no s t r e n g t h t o s e c u r e a man a t all. There-fore n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e Lawes o-f N a t u r e , ( w h i c h e v e r y one h a t h t h e n k e p t , when he h a s t h e w i l l t o keep them, when he can do i t s a - f e l y , ) i-f t h e r e be no Power e r e c t e d , o r n o t g r e a t enough -for our s e c u r i t y J e v e r y man w i l l and may l a w f u l l y r e l y on h i s own s t r e n g t h and a r t , f o r c a u t i o n a g a i n s t a l l o t h e r men. "* 5  Here t h e phrase  I have emphasized  its  The  ambiguity.  interpreted from  words 'our  t o mean i n t e r n a l  criminal  activity),  security  meaning.  by  acquisition;  lawfully for  latter  caution against a l l other No  doubt  the reader  wearisome e x e g e s i s . that  Hobbes d e l i c a t e l y  during  ingeniously  of  two  i s changed t o e x t e r n a l short  paragraphs.  not  be  s t r e n g t h and a r t ,  impatient with  t h e meaning of  In s h o r t ,  Whereas i n p a r t  'security'  friendly  commonwealth  i t i s important  a l t e r s t h e meaning by  i t i s used.  part  one.  invade the  men".  t h e c o u r s e of t h e d i s c u s s i o n  h i s summary of p a r t  which  shifts  i f an  would c e r t a i n l y  i s becoming  However,  citizens  clearly  become a  on h i s own  be  immediate c o n t e x t  I t h i n k t h i s because  i n w h i c h c a s e men  of  (defence against  i t seems t o me,  would t h e n  permitted to "rely  can p e r h a p s  security  enemy commonwealth were t o s u c c e s s f u l l y commonwealth, t h e  because  (protecting  However, t h e  w h i c h he u s e s t h e s e words,  i m p l i e s t h e former  security'  external  a common enemy), o r b o t h . in  i s important  to point  out  'security*  immediately  following  Hobbes r a t h e r  altering one  means d o m e s t i c security  this  and  the context i n at the beginning  security,  through  the  meaning  t h e c o u r s e of a  This surreptitious shift  i n meaning  few  48  through  delicately  suspect  that  logical  problem  changing  t h e c o n t e x t o-f i t s u s e l e d me t o  Hobbes h i m s e l f may have been q u i t e aware o-f t h e o-f i n - f e r r i n g  s t a t e o-f n a t u r e .  a plurality  Essentially,  -from t h e  I am s u g g e s t i n g t h a t  established  a plurality  'apparence'  o-f an i n - f e r e n c e r a t h e r  Immediately  o-f s t a t e s  Hobbes  o-f s o v e r e i g n s t h r o u g h t h e  following  t h a n an a c t u a l  t h e passage  which  inference.  i s quoted  above, Hobbes c h a n g e s t h e n a t u r e o f h i s d i s c u s s i o n — without breaking paragraph—from analytical nature.  from of  a r g u m e n t s t o one which  I t i s through  discussion  one which  that  domestic  summarizes h i s  i s quasi-historical in  t h e c o u r s e of t h i s  quasi-historical  Hobbes c h a n g e s t h e meaning o f ' s e c u r i t y '  security  t h e same d i s c u s s i o n  to external  security.  In t h e c o u r s e  he t h e n r e i n t r o d u c e s t h e f o r m e r  meaning a l o n g s i d e t h e new meaning  i n t h i s way ••  And be t h e r e n e v e r s o g r e a t a m u l t i t u d e . . . t h e y c a n e x p e c t t h e r e b y no d e f e n c e , n o r p r o t e c t i o n , n e i t h e r a g a i n s t a common enemy, n o r a g a i n s t t h e i n j u r i e s o f one a n o t h e r . 1 3 , 3  Finally,  Hobbes s i m p l y d i s c o n t i n u e s u s i n g  domestic  sense.  exploited t o account  In s h o r t ,  the potential  such  a plurality.  that  accounted  i n order-  of s t a t e s ,  logical  rather  p r o b l e m of  By e n c o u n t e r i n g t h e n o t i o n o f  a common enemy', we a r e s i m p l y  a plurality  for.  insoluble  in the  Hobbes  d u a l meaning of ' s e c u r i t y '  the potentially  'defence a g a i n s t suppose  i t seems t o me t h a t  f o r t h e emergence o f a p l u r a l i t y  than overcoming inferring  'security'  led to  o f s t a t e s h a s a l r e a d y been  L e t u s now c o n s i d e r t h e l o g i c a l  I s u s p e c t Hobbes may have a t t e m p t e d  problem  that  t o c o v e r up w i t h what  49  seems t o be  another  one  I have a l r e a d y reason  o-f h i s i n g e n i o u s r h e t o r i c a l  a s s e r t e d t h a t Hobbes g i v e s us  t o s u p p o s e t h a t more t h a n  from the  s t a t e of n a t u r e .  than  sovereign  one  establishing i d e a of it  a sovereign  'defence  c o u l d be  plurality  would  one  In f a c t ,  sovereign  devices. no  should  t h e emergence of  more  seem t o u n d e r m i n e t h e r e a s o n s  for  i n the f i r s t  the  place.  However,  a g a i n s t a common enemy' a p p e a r s a s  a logical  emerge  though  d e v i c e which s e r v e s t o g e n e r a t e  of s o v e r e i g n s .  I shall  argue t h a t although  a the  i d e a of a 'common enemy' p r e s u p p o s e s t h e e x i s t e n c e of several fact,  sovereigns,  when t h e  nature,  i d e a i s used  be  recalled  a l l against a l I J  that  every  idea,  in the  man  i t will  passions  recalled,  I t seems, t h e n ,  i s every  man's common enemy.  desirable sufficient  do  the  other  t o be  accomplish  because they  n a t u r a l power. i s asleep  other  that  i f we  One  s t a t e of  is a  latter-  from t h e n a t u r a l a r e t o speak t h a t every  himself  a g a i n s t every man  cannot e f f e c t i v e l y  of man  be  other  man;  is trying subdue  l e s s e q u a l l y endowed  c a n n o t subdue a n o t h e r  or h i s back  idea  a b l e t o muster f o r h i m s e l f  a r e a l l more or One  This  war  I t would of c o u r s e  t h i s because every man  In  sovereign.  man.  c o n d i t i o n , i t must be  power t o d e f e n d  same t h i n g .  another with  f o r e a c h man  cannot  one  i s inferred  in t h i s  he  of t h e  s t a t e of n a t u r e  enemy of e v e r y  a l s o be  other  them.  a c o n d i t i o n t h a t f o l l o w s from the  i s the  of man.  that the  a common enemy  but  context  i t r e i n f o r c e s t h e emergence of o n l y  It w i l l of  i t cannot serve t o generate  i s turned.  unless  the  Transitory, single  to  50  purpose  c o n f e d e r a c i e s might a r i s e  iri order t o e x p l o i t t h e  g o o d s o-f a s i n g l e man, b u t t h e s e c o n - f e d e r a c i e s w i l l immediatly quarrel  c o l l a p s e a s t h e con-f ed e r a t e s  over  everyone  the distribution  i s afraid  themselves  o-f t h e s p o i l s .  t o sleep, turn their  Thus  backs,  or  accumulate  goods. It fear  i s because of t h i s s t a l e m a t e d  o f t h e imminent  their  reason  Leviathan  threat, of v i o l e n t  death  t o d e r i v e t h e laws of n a t u r e  t o e n f o r c e them.  because t h e c o n d i t i o n intolerable.  condition  Thus, t h e y  of l i f e  without  of p e r p e t u a l  that  men u s e  and e s t a b l i s h  create  society  society i s  The l a w s o f n a t u r e a r e u n i v e r s a l  precepts  w h i c h any r e a s o n a b l e man ought t o be a b l e t o i n f e r solution  t o the miserable condition  establishing all  reach  l a w s o f n a t u r e and t h a t them, o n c e t h e y  commonwealth t h e r e b y , among them. within  i s needed t o e n f o r c e  t h e L e v i a t h a n and c r e a t e a  t h e r e i s no f u r t h e r  Of c o u r s e ,  Consequently, i f  t h e same c o n c l u s i o n a b o u t t h e  a Leviathan  establish  as a  in addition to  a L e v i a t h a n t o e n f o r c e them.  reasonable persons  conflicts  will  grounds f o r enmity  a r i s e between men  t h e commonwealth b e c a u s e o f t h e i r  ' d i f f e r e n c e of  manners', b u t t h e L e v i a t h a n c a n h a n d l e  these c o n f l i c t s  or  social  less effectively However,  additional  a  without, d i s t u r b i n g  more  peace.  i f we i n t r o d u c e a 'common enemy' a s an  reason  why r e a s o n a b l e men would c o n s t i t u t e a  commonwealth, t h e o n l y p e o p l e would be u n r e a s o n a b l e  men.  c o u l d be t h e 'common  But t h e s e unreasonable  enemy' men,  51  presumably not—by the  an u n o r g a n i z e d  multitude  o-f b a r b a r i a n s ,  d e f i n i t i o n — c o n s t i t u t e a commonwealth.  could  Thus,  i n t r o d u c t i o n o-f a •'common enemy' a s an a d d i t i o n a l  •for men t o c r e a t e that, o n l y nature.  a commonwealth  one commonwealth If anything,  generates only In s h o r t ,  We s i m p l y  'common enemy' s e r v e s  of s o v e r e i g n s  the logical  introduced  Leaving  of t h e  unimaginable  Thus, a g a i n s t  for inferring  difficulty  and t h a t  my  c a n n o t be i n f e r r e d  the anticipated objection  as a b a s i s  of sovereigns  deliberately  Forsyth's  f o r whatever  d o e s n o t seem t o be a v i a b l e one.  Hobbes r e c o g n i z e d  cause.  have a s i t u a t i o n where t h e r e a r e  i n t h e s t a t e of n a t u r e .  a plurality  from t h e  namely t h o s e who a r e p a r t  from t h e s t a t e of n a t u r e ,  plurality  of s o v e r e i g n s  and t h o s e who c h o o s e ,  t o remain  plurality,  which  o f a 'common enemy' e x a c e r b a t e s t h e  a plurality  two c l a s s e s o f p e r s o n s ,  thesis that  would emerge f r o m t h e s t a t e o f  i treinforces the logic  the idea  s t a t e of n a t u r e .  reason,  d o e s n o t change t h e -fact  one commonwealth.  problem of i n f e r r i n g  commonwealth  reason  that a  such a I suspect  of i n f e r r i n g  that  a  i s why he c a r e f u l l y and  t h e 'common enemy' a s an a p p a r e n t  this objection  aside,  l e t u s now t u r n t o  objection.  MURRAY FORSYTH Since not  i t appears that  satisfactorily  difficult  inferred a plurality  t o conclude that  genuine t r a d i t i o n  Hobbes' t h e o r y ,  as i t stands, has  of s o v e r e i g n s ,  i t is  i t can form t h e b a s i s of a  i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l thought.  Murray  Forsyth,  52  however, s u g g e s t s plurality.  t h a t Hobbes d i d a c c o u n t  f o r such  a  F o r s y t h b a s e s h i s argument on t h e n o t i o n o f  d e f e n s i v e a s s o c i a t i o n s w h i c h somehow s p o n t a n e o u s l y the s t a t e of n a t u r e  i n order  common enemy w h i c h p r e s u m a b l y the  s t a t e of nature.  solution  to counteract  emerge i n  t h e t h r e a t of a  a l s o spontaneously  emerged i n  B u t i t seems t o me t h a t t h i s  t o t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e emergence o f a p l u r a l i t y o f  s t a t e s only  s e r v e s t o i n t r o d u c e a new p u z z l e ; namely,  d o e s i t come t o p a s s t h a t ,  i n t h e s t a t e of nature,  of  man t r a n s f o r m s  every  man a g a i n s t e v e r y  condition  of defence  Notwithstanding  of group a g a i n s t  i n greater  F o r s y t h ' s argument" " 3  the question  of i n f e r r i n g  also of  hisarticle  interested  group? l e t u s examine  a plurality  thought  of s o v e r e i g n s  from  I t i s because of t h i s t h a t I  in displacing  a n a l o g i e s and p a r a l l e l s  Forsyth  into a  detail.  t o be a v e r y  illuminate the central  how  defence  h a s s t i m u l a t e d much o f my  3  Hobbes' s t a t e o f n a t u r e . consider  itself  t h i s new p u z z l e , however,  F o r s y t h ' s argument  on  proposed  important  one.  Forsyth i s  t h e H o b b e s i a n d e b a t e f r o m one  t o one t h a t a t t e m p t s t o  c o r e of h i s t h e o r y .  "After  all",  notes, Hobbes . . . n e v e r b e g i n s h i s p o l i t i c a l t h e o r y w i t h t h i s o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r g r o u p of men, b u t a l w a y s w i t h a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f man. Why t h e n i s t h e p o l i t i c a l community t h a t emerges i n h i s t h e o r y a body d e s i g n e d f o r common d e f e n c e a g a i n s t foreigners? Why d o e s n o t L e v i a t h a n l o g i c a l l y embrace t h e whole o f m a n k i n d ? * 37  Although identical  i t may a p p e a r t h a t F o r s y t h ' s q u e s t i o n t o mine, t h e r e  i s virtually  i s n e v e r t h e l e s s one v e r y  important  S3  difference questions  i n the  are based.  assumption  begin  Whereas F o r s y t h b e g i n s  t h a t Hobbes-" t h e o r y  consequently so—my  a s s u m p t i o n s upon w h i c h e a c h of  he  inquiry with  the  takes  on  begins  i s . an  the task  with  and  add  s o m e t h i n g t o Hobbes' t h e o r y  the  plurality  the  i t cannot  resulting  Hobbesian. critical Forsyth  separate  so t h a t  theory  the  I can  sovereigns,  two  Although  argument, t h e y  second p a r t discussion his  i s based i s based  on on  of  I think that the  Although  way  t h a t he  for  state i  genuinely  that  is  Whereas the  i t does not  do  so.  independent p a r t s t o each p a r t r e p r e s e n t s  does  of s o v e r e i g n s .  Leviathan.  Leviathan.  a  us t o w a r d  the  satisfactorily The and  I shall  first De  p a r t of  C i v e , and  limit  my  i s based  0 3  t o F o r s y t h ' s argument  envisions the  Forsyth clearly  of t h e  does i n f e r  E l e m e n t s of Law  key  account  addition i s ,  t o F o r s y t h ' s s e c o n d argument w h i c h  interpretation  particular  i s therefore to  i t can  nevertheless direct  f o r the p l u r a l i t y  I  logically  s u s t a i n mine.  I conclude  —  it is  t h a t F o r s y t h ' s argument  -  argument.  argument  does  i s t o remain  same c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Hobbes' t h e o r y account  why  problem  t h a t Hobbes " t h e o r y  There are e s s e n t i a l l y Forsyth's  the  I t i s f o r t h i s reason  of  demonstrating  compromise Hobbes-* a c c o u n t  international  concludes  plurality  theory  Whatever t h i s new  t o whether o r n o t  the  international  assertion that Leviathan  of s t a t e s .  with  the o p p o s i t e assumption.  embrace t h e whole of mankind  however,  of  our  accepts that  s t a t e of  i s the  nature.  i t i s an a b s t r a c t  on  th  54  c o n s t r u c t , he seems t o view i t i n terms of an h i s t o r i c a l era.  That i s , he v i e w s i t as a c e r t a i n b l o c k o-f t i m e  encompassing  a sequence o-f e v e n t s .  Thus, -for F o r s y t h , t h e  s t a t e o-f n a t u r e was an imaginary t i m e when a l l men a s t a t e o-f war. men  As time passed d u r i n g t h i s imaginary e r a ,  began t o -form a s e r i e s o-f d e f e n s i v e u n i o n s .  t h e s e men  lived in  Although  were c a p a b l e o-f f o r m i n g a l l i a n c e s when t h e e r a  began, b e i n g equipped w i t h reason and t h e i r p a s s i o n f o r s e l f p r e s e r v a t i o n , they n e v e r t h e l e s s d i d not do so a t f i r s t . However, a f t e r a w h i l e t h e s e men instability  began t o r e c o g n i z e t h e -  of t h e s e d e f e n s i v e u n i o n s and they  e s t a b l i s h e d L e v i a t h a n s i n o r d e r t o m a i n t a i n peace and commodius l i v i n g w i t h i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r communities. t h e s e communities  Once  were * p e r f e c t e d •' by t h e i n s t i t u t i o n of  L e v i a t h a n s , t h e e r a of t h e s t a t e of n a t u r e came t o an  end.  Thus, f o r F o r s y t h , i t i s t h e t h r e a t of a common enemy which f i r s t molds men  i n t o groups, but i t i s t h e d e s i r e f o r peace  and commodious l i v i n g w i t h i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r groups l e a d s men  that  t o l a y down t h e i r r i g h t t o a l l , t o determine t h e  laws of n a t u r e , and f i n a l l y , t o e s t a b l i s h a L e v i a t h a n . I t seems t o me t h a t such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e sequence of e v e n t s i n t h e s t a t e of n a t u r e — t h a t i s , i f i t can be viewed as a k i n d of a b s t r a c t e r a — m u s t  presuppose  an i n h e r e n t human a t t r i b u t e of s o c i a l bonding, a t l e a s t i n the f i r s t  instance.  I t a l s o seems t h a t Hobbes would  surely  r e j e c t such a s u g g e s t i o n because s o c i e t y , i n t h a t c a s e , would be a n a t u r a l e n t i t y r a t h e r than a c r e a t i o n of reason  55  and  t h e p a s s i o n -for s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n .  s c i e n c e was  particularly  directed  Hobbes-" p h i l o s o p h y  a g a i n s t such  of  Aristotelean  notions. It  i s interesting  of  nature  in  addition  suggests steered  t h a t F o r s y t h would c o n c e i v e t h e  a s a k i n d of q u a s i - h i s t o r i c a l to adopting  t o me  amidst  of p a r t two  would s t i l l  This  h a v e been i n a d v e r t e n t l y  Hobbes-" smoke s c r e e n  of L e v i a t h a n .  Hobbes-" s t a t e of n a t u r e  events  'common enemy" d e v i c e .  t h a t F o r s y t h may  off course  beginning  Hobbes-'  s e q u e n c e of  state  c o u l d be  Regardless,  conceived  have d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h  at  the even i f  i n such  accepting  a way,  I  Forsyth's  argument. In think  t e r m s of c o n c e p t i o n s  that  i t i s important  t h e n a t u r a l s t a t e of man condition  on  on  t h e one  t h e o t h e r hand,  nature  can  be  conceived  of a s an  q u e s t i o n ' what would S i n c e no  one  each o t h e r .  i t be  has  attempt  like  ever  The  state by  hand,  were  of  Hobbes t o answer  i f t h e r e were men  experienced  'no  but  one.  The  would be  t o imagine  managed t o r e a c h contact  or s o c i a l  first  what man  biological learning.  c r e a t u r e would t h u s be man;  that  step  in imagining would be  maturity The  conceived  like  such i f he  without  description  any  had  somehow  social  of s u c h  of p a s s i o n s  an  a condition  as the n a t u r a l s t a t e  i s , a s i n g l e minded b u n d l e  no  society",  t h e answer t o t h e q u e s t i o n would o b v i o u s l y h a v e t o be imagined  I  the  w h i c h would e n s u e i f a l l t h e s e n a t u r a l men  i n proximity with  society?  to distinguish,  and,  placed  the  of Hobbes-' s t a t e of n a t u r e ,  a of  directed  56  s e l -f - p r e s e r v a t i o n i  exclusively  t o t h e end  anything  came i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h  he  t o h i s end  a s -far a s he  'what i t would be nature', other  simply  like  was  would  concerned.  without  imagines  society-  t h e s e men  1  simply  be  and  a means  The  i n f e r e n c e about  or,  ' t h e s t a t e o-f  placed  in proximity  with  men. In a d d i t i o n  without  to the question,  society?',  question, no  o-f h i s own  namely,  society?'.  that, t h e y  t o answer  another  do  t h i s q u e s t i o n he  would c r e a t e i t .  demonstrates a great deal a b o u t human n a t u r e . think  i t be  Hobbes a t t e m p t s 'what would men  To  'what would  about  simply  This reply,  o-f o p t i m i s m ,  i t i-f t h e r e were o-f-fers t h e  ;  Why  do  men  reply  i t seems, r a t h e r than  However, t h e q u e s t i o n t h a t  Hobbes a n s w e r s i s  like  create  pessimism,  I do  not  separate  societies? Forsyth, nature  on  t h e o t h e r hand, by  a s a k i n d o-f q u a s i - h i s t o r i c a l  d o e s answer t h e q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g societies.  Forsyth's conception  is virtually naturally creating  identical  society,  but  he  the c r e a t i o n  o-f t h e  and  a s one  i s thus  i n which men enemy.  h i s enemies a r e — t h a t  d o e s t h i s n a t u r a l man  f r i e n d s are?  We  he  c o n c e i v e s man  man'  as  c a p a b l e o-f event  definition  use  maintains  o-f s e v e r a l  in his  -form d i s c r e e t ,  i s , al1  what c r i t e r i a  know how  By  t h a t Hobbes  ' n a t u r a l s t a t e o-f  conceives the -first  t h e b a s i s o-f - f r i e n d .and  knows who  era, argues  t o mine i n t h a t he  endowed w i t h r e a s o n  s e q u e n c e o-f e v e n t s on  c o n c e i v i n g t h e s t a t e o-f  other  man  already  men—but  t o determine this  groups  who  distinction  his  57  after the  t h e commonwealth  distinction,  are formed? c r e a t e s by be  no  way  l e t alone  This,  v i r t u e of h i s a p p a r e n t of  determining  Hobbes ' c o n c e p t i o n  while they  There  i s no  not  only  with  1iberty","  be  anything  exist  fruit  what t h e y  want  i n a s t a t e of  of h i s l a b o u r ,  this  they  who  In o t h e r  (which  (as they  have a n a t u r a l r i g h t  addition,  simply  t w e n t y men  of n a t u r a l man;  i s i n the  and  like  by  to do).  But  the  spoils;  him,  definition, act  happen t o have t h e  fruit  the  life,  exploitative  same  of men  of one  by  see  man's  i t f o r themselves Hobbes h i m s e l f  a c t of many would  over  deprive  words, a m u l t i t u d e  itself  that  d a n g e r of a n o t h e r .  exploitative  could hardly  and  cannot,  the  at  coming  a l s o of h i s  endeavor t o take  single  into a battle  t h i s small  just  h a p p e n s t o be  and  indicates that t h i s  mutual  nature.  but  "confederacy"  labour),  again  T h e r e seems t o  t h a t , d u r i n g h i s d i s c u s s i o n of  of p a s s e r s - b y  i n mind.  invader  Forsyth  i t comes t o p a s s t h a t  a purely situational  objective  degenerate  puzzle that  solution.  create  commonwealths  Hobbes makes r e f e r e n c e t o o t h e r s  but  but  a multitude  i t , before  forces united, to disposse,  of t h e  or  d o e s man  f r i e n d s w i t h i n t h e c o n s t r a i n t s of  question  s t a t e of n a t u r e , "prepared  how  how  of t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  -  not  maintain  I b e l i e v e , i s the  e n e m i e s become mutual  least  i s formed, but  i s , "the ,,<3  °  In  f o r c e of maybe t e n  or  f o r m t h e b a s i s of a commonwealth  as  Hobbes c o n c e i v e d i t . Thus, F o r s y t h ' s s o l u t i o n after  a l l and,  i f my  argument  does not  seem t o be  i s correct,  my  a  thesis  solution remains  59  intact.. the  But  Forsyth  s c o p e of  I suspect  the  to  t o do  infer  with  potential put of  foe.  And  man  as  a social  lead  him  passions  a plurality  in order  man  s t a t e s , i t must have  characteristic,  close,  i f not  c r e a t u r e by  within,  nature.  The  the  t r u t h i n such  similarity  a formulation,  between  ' altruism'  something  and  to appreciate need o n l y 'dying  from  resulting interesting passions altruistic  l e a d hirn t o c r e a t e  we  be  conception  whereas man's s e l f i s h  In o r d e r  be  I b e l i e v e , would  constitute a rather  e x i s t ) would  societies.  to  to d i s t i n g u i s h friend  t o c r e a t e a u n i v e r s a l s o c i e t y , h i s more  distinct  states.  of n a t u r a l  i t seems, would  < i f they  of  i s t h a t must  of  the passions';  in narrowing  characteristic  ability  this  Hobbes d a n g e r o u s l y  'paradox of  of  inherent  however,  inferring  conception  1  a plurality  an  formulation,  and  p r o b l e m of  t h a t whatever the  added t o Hobbesable  does succeed,  particular  the  reflect  f o r one's  kernel on  the  country'.  59  CONCLUSION I began t h i s d i s c u s s i o n or not t h e r e thought.  case.  i s an H o b b e s i a n  It will  question  rather  tradition  be r e c a l l e d  that  'Hobbesian  than a t h e o r e t i c a l  demonstrate understand plurality  that  i s based  device.  of s o v e r e i g n s ,  These  findings,  had  a genuine Hobbesian  than s a t i s f a c t i o n  thought might  question  themselves  into separate p o l i t i c a l  great  on my p a r t  because I  tradition in and a n s w e r s t o  o f why human b e i n g s c h o o s e t o o r g a n i z e  t h e answer t o t h i s q u e s t i o n  b a s i s f o r d i s c u s s i o n s about for  among them.  caused  provide insight  the larger  that  t h e causes of a  be r e c a l l e d ,  rather  international  on a r h e t o r i c a l  approach, as I  inferring  disappointment hoped t h a t  was t h e  that the  l e t alone r e l a t i o n s  i twill  to this  J  I then proceeded t o  a genuine Hobbesian  i t , has d i f f i c u l t y  'rio  I thought t h i s  t o my s a t i s f a c t i o n  tradition-'  o-f whether  in international  I answered  and p r o c e e d e d t o a r g u e why  Having e s t a b l i s h e d  current  with the question  communities.  might  I sensed  p r o v i d e some k i n d o f  inter-national  justice  and even  d i s c u s s i o n s about, d o m e s t i c c o n c e r n s s u c h a s t h e  a p p r o p r i a t e d i v i s i o n s o f power addition,  I felt  that  i f I had some i d e a ,  a s t o why human b e i n g s c h o o s e communities,  I might  distinct  societies.  In  i n the abstract,  political  be a b l e t o g e t a b e t t e r  c o n c e p t s s u c h a s -'self consequence  in federal  h a n d l e on  d e t e r m i n a t i o n ' and i t s u l t i m a t e  of ' s e c e s s i o n ' .  Although examining  L e v i a t h a n i n terms of i t s p o t e n t i a l  60  contribution with  to international  any c o n c l u s i v e a n s w e r s t o my c o n c e r n s ,  may have p r o v i d e d me w i t h right  q u e s t i o n s t o ask.  solution  •faculty  In one s e n s e  they  t h e -faculty can simply  Essentially, o-f r e a s o n  solution do s o ?  i n another  be t h e  Hobbes d o e s p r o v i d e a he e q u i p s  human  and b e c a u s e o-f t h i s  choose t o c r e a t e s e p a r a t e  o-f t h e s t a t e o-f n a t u r e . sense,  me  the exercise  some i d e a o-f what might  t o t h e problem.  beings with  out  theory has not p r o v i d e d  societies  He d o e s n o t , however, p r o v i d e a that  i s , why would t h e y  choose t o  61  NOTES On t h i s a s s u m p t i o n I am a l i g n e d w i t h Hobbes r a t h e r than A r i s t o t l e . A r i s t o t l e - f e l t t h a t human b e i n g s were p o l i t i c a l o r s o c i a l a n i m a l s whereas Hobbes i n s i s t e d t h a t s o c i a l o r a n t i - s o c i a l e x i s t e n c e was a m a t t e r o-f c h o i c e . He a r g u e d , however, t h a t s o c i a l e x i s t e n c e was much more c o n d u c i v e t o s e l f p r e s e r v a t i o n d e s p i t e t h e s a c r i f i c e of o n e ' s r i g h t t o whatever- means t h a t were deemed n e c e s s a r y f o r s e l f p r e s e r v a t i o n . Thus, t h e p o l i t i c a l community i s a p r o d u c t of human a r t i f i c e . I shall return to this point in due c o u r s e . 1  Of c o u r s e t h e r e a r e many 'common s e n s e ' r e a s o n s why one g l o b a l s t a t e would be i n c o n c e i v a b l e ; r e a s o n s s u c h a s l a n g u a g e , c u l t u r e , h i s t o r y , and p u r e g e o g r a p h i c a l limitations. The r e a s o n s I am l o o k i n g f o r , however, a r e t h o s e w h i c h would a p p l y i n d e p e n d e n t l y of t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d reasons. In o t h e r words, i f were t o assume l i n g u i s t i c , c u l t u r a l , and h i s t o r i c a l h o m o g e n e i t y , and i f we were t o t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e c a p a b i l i t i e s of modern t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and t e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s t e c h n o l o g y , i t s t i l l seems t h a t t h e r e m i g h t be r e a s o n s f o r human b e i n g s t o o r g a n i z e t h e m s e l v e s i n t o s e p a r a t e p o l i t i c a l communities. Hobbes a p p r o a c h , i t seems, i s p e r h a p s one way of d e t e r m i n i n g t h o s e non-common sense reasons. a  S h e l d o n W o l i n , c i t e d i n R. John V i n c e n t , "The Hobbesian T r a d i t i o n i n Twentieth Century I n t e r n a t i o n a l T h o u g h t " M i l l e n i u m V o l 10 No.2 (Summer 1981)= 91. 3  * Thomas Hobbes, L e v i a t h a n ed., ( M i d d l e s e x ' P e n g u i n Books L t d . , 1968)  C.B. M a c p h e r s o n 187 - 188.  M a r t i n Wight, "Why i s t h e r e no I n t e r n a t i o n a l T h e o r y ? " i n H. B u t t e r - f i e l d and M. Wight, e d s . , D i p l omat i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n s ( L o n d o n A l l e n and Unwin, 1966) 17. ra  5  V i n c e n t 91  s  -  101.  ^ C o r n e l i a N a v a r i , "Hobbes and t h e 'Hobbesian T r a d i t i o n ' i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l T h o u g h t " M i l l e n n i u m V o l 11, ( 1982) •• 203 - 223. a  Wight  *  Wight 30  1  0  Wight  17. -  31.  1 X  Vincent  91.  l s a  Vincent  93.  31.  No  3  62  Vincent.  93.  ** V i n c e n t  94.  1 B  Vincent  96.  1 S  Vincent  94.  17  " Vincent  94.  l  s  1  3  1  Navari  213.  Hobbes  196.  5 2 0  Navari  213.  3 5 1  Vincent  91.  R.G. C o l 1 ingwood, An U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1939) 31. 5232  5 2 3  5253  Hobbes  115.  Hobbes  129.  Hobbes 111  ~ " Hobbes  -  Autobiography  (London  5  Oxford  112.  189.  Hobbes 189. I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t R i c h a r d Tuck d o e s not. seem t o make a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e law of n a t u r e a s an o b i i g a t i o n t o p r e s e r v e o n e s e l f and t h e r i g h t of n a t u r e a s t h e r i g h t t o t h e means of s e l f p r e s e r v a t i o n . B e c a u s e he r e f e r s t o n a t u r a l r i g h t a s t h e ' r i g h t of s e l f p r e s e r v a t i o n ' r a t h e r t h a n a s t h e ' r i g h t t o t h e means of s e l f p r e s e r v a t i o n ' , he c o n c l u d e s r a t h e r awkwardly t h a t by ' r i g h t of n a t u r e ' Hobbes i m p l i e s t h a t i f we w i s h t o p r e s e r v e o u r s e l v e s , we must do s o m e t h i n g . However, t h i s e l e m e n t of o b l i g a t i o n t h a t Tuck p e r c e i v e s i n Hobbes ' r i g h t of n a t u r e ' m i g h t be b e t t e r c o n c e i v e d a s stemming f r o m Hobbes' law of nature. 52,3  5 2 3  Hobbes  186.  3  Hobbes  148.  0  31  See  3  Hobbes  E  in particular  chapters  3,  5,  and  9 of  Leviathan.  115.  R i c h a r d Tuck n o t e s t h a t " i n many ways Hobbes's p h i l o s o p h y i s c l o s e r t o t h e a s s u m p t i o n s on w h i c h modern s c i e n c e r e s t s t h a n any of t h e c o m p e t i n g p h i l o s o p h i e s on o f f e r in the seventeenth century. I t shared with 3  3  63  D e s c a r t e s ' s t h e s t r e s s on t h e need t o t h i n k o-f t h e r e a l w o r l d a s e s s e n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m how we e x p e r i e n c e i t , and t h i s s t r e s s h a s been c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e most important achievements of t h e p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e s — b e g i n n i n g w i t h G a l i l e o p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t t h e e x p e r i e n c e of someone on t h e e a r t h i t s e l f c o u l d n o t d e t e r m i n e whether t h e e a r t h was r o t a t i n g , and e n d i n g w i t h t h e u t t e r l y u n i m a g i n a b l e p o s t u l a t e s o f modern t h e o r e t i c a l p h y s i c s a b o u t t h e o b j e c t s w h i c h r e a l l y make up t h e m a t e r i a l u n i v e r s e . But, u n l i k e D e s c a r t e s , Hobbes was a b l e t o make s e n s e o f a m a t e r i a l w o r l d o u t s i d e o u r minds without, b r i n g i n g i n e l a b o r a t e t h e o l o g i c a l p o s t u l a t e s , w h i c h f i t s t h e s e c u l a r cast, o f mind o f many modern s c i e n t i s t s . I t s h o u l d be s a i d , however, t h a t Hobbes ( d e s p i t e h i s own p l e a s ) h a s r a r e l y been s e e n a s t h e key t h e o r e t i c i a n o f modern s c i e n c e . . . . S e v e n t e e n t h and eighteenth-century s c i e n t i s t s i n f a c t d i s o w n e d t h e one t r u l y s e c u l a r p h i l o s o p h y o f s c i e n c e on o f f e r t o them, p r e f e r r i n g i n s t e a d t h e e l a b o r a t e t h e o l o g i c a l s p e c u l a t i o n s i n which Newton i n d u l g e d . In t h i s r e s p e c t , Hobbes's t h e o r y o f s c i e n c e r e p r e s e n t e d an e x p l o r a t i o n o f i n t e l l e c t u a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s w h i c h were n o t t o be opened up a g a i n f o r a n o t h e r two h u n d r e d y e a r s . R i c h a r d Tuck, Hobbes ( O x f o r d ' O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1989) 50. '* The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n i s a b o i l e d down v e r s i o n o f R i c h a r d T u c k ' s . Tuck 6 - 10, 13 - 17. 3  3 = 5  Tuck 9.  3  S  Tuck 9.  3T  * Tuck 7.  3  0  3 S  " Tuck  Tuck 17. 16 - 17.  •*° Tuck 17. Tuck 17. ** Tuck 18. E  <* Tuck 40. 3  Hobbes, "  cited  i n Tuck 40 - 41.  Tuck 41.  s  ** Tuck 43. s  Tuck 44. Tuck 44 - 45.  Although these  p r o p o s i t i o n s may seem  64  e n t i r e l y p l a u s i b l e , t h e y a r e c u r r e n t l y b e i n g c h a l l e n g e d by t h e i n c r e d u l o u s - f i n d i n g s o-f quantum m e c h a n i c s . "What Quantum t h e o r y seems t o c h a l l e n g e i s n o t h i n g l e s s t h a n t h e whole c o n c e p t o-f c o n t i n u i t y i n n a t u r e . Words l i k e c a u s e and e f f e c t a p p e a r t o l o s e t h e i r meaning. One s p e a k s o-f m o t i o n but no l o n g e r d a r e s t o i m a g i n e a c o n t i n u o u s p a t h . The v e r y • f u n c t i o n i n g of r e a l i t y on i t s u l t i m a t e l e v e l seems r e d u c e d t o a c o s m i c d i c e game, e v e r y t h i n g i s s u b j e c t t o t h e whims of c h a n c e . " R o b e r t H. March, P h y s i c s f o r P o e t s 2nd ed. , (New Y o r k ' McGraw H i l l , 1978) 212 - 213. Although these new h y p o t h e s e s t e n d t o u n d e r m i n e Hobbes " b a s i c p r o p o s i t i o n s , t h e p o i n t i s that, n o t o n l y d i d Hobbes' p h i l o s o p h y of s c i e n c e i n v i t e s u c h new h y p o t h e s e s , but embodied a way of t h i n k i n g about, t h e w o r l d t h a t i s c r u c i a l f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of s u c h hypotheses. -  s o  ~  1  £53  Tuck  45.  Tuck  45.  Hobbes 131. Hobbes 217  -• 222.  Hobbes 115. 55  Hobbes 223  ESS  Hobbes 224.  -• 224. E m p h a s i s mine.  «3€»  Murray F o r s y t h , " Thomas Hobbes and R e l a t i o n s of S t a t e s " B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of I n t e r n a t i o n a l S t u d i e s 5 (1979)= 196 - 209. Forsyth  196.  I have adopted t h e perhaps p l a u s i b l e assumption t h a t L e v i a t h a n was Hobbes' most mature work. However, n o t h a v i n g s t u d i e d E l e m e n t s of Law or D e C i v e , I o b v i o u s l y c a n n o t be c e r t a i n of t h i s , nor can I c h a l l e n g e F o r s y t h ' s a r g u m e n t s i n t h e f i r s t , p a r t of h i s e s s a y . s  &  B  »  Hobbes  184.  1 3 0  Hobbes  184.  65  BIBLIOGRAPHY C o l 1 ingwood, R.G. , An A u t o b i o g r a p h y . U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1939.  London  5  Ox-ford  F o r s y t h , M u r r a y , "Thomas Hobbes and t h e E x t e r n a l Relations o-f S t a t e s " , B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o-f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Studies. 5< 1979) 169 - 209. 5  Hobbes, Thomas, L e v i a t h a n . Ed., P e n g u i n Books L t d . , 1968. March, Robert. K. , P h y s i c s McGraw H i l 1 , 1978.  C.B.  Macpherson.  -for P o e t s . 2nd  ed. , New  Middlesex  York  5  N a v a r i , C o r n e l i a , "Hobbes and t h e ' H o b b e s i a n T r a d i t i o n ' i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Thought" Mi 11 eniurn V o l 11, No 3 < 1982) 203 - 223. -  5  Tuck, R i c h a r d , 1989.  Hobbes. Ox-ford  !  Ox-ford U n i v e r s i t y  Press,  V i n c e n t , R. J o h n , "The H o b b e s i a n T r a d i t i o n i n T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y I n t e r n a t i o n a l Thought." Mi 11 enium V o l 10 No. <1981) 91 5  W i g h t , M a r t i n , "Why i s T h e r e No I n t e r n a t i o n a l T h e o r y ? " H. B u t t e r - f i e l d and M. Wight e d s . , D i p l o m a t i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n s . London A l l e n and Unwin, 1966. 5  in  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098484/manifest

Comment

Related Items