Leviathan (Dover Philosophical Classics) [ペーパーバック]

I won't repeat the details of Hobbes' biography. In addition to the foregoing, a deep familiarity with this book is invaluable if you intend on studying political science in any serious manner-- either if you are an undergraduate poli-sci major and you intend on being noticed favorably by your professors, or-- needless to say-- you intend to do any post-graduate work in political science. I wasn't a philosophy major; but, if reading this book fails to improve your life, I'll double your money back.

I'm only half-kidding about that (well, more than half on the money part-- you aren't sending me any).

Personally, I was fascinated by Hobbes and I've always enjoyed reading; so... that's my disclaimer. I concede that it takes a little getting used to reading the archaic style; but, the truth of his statements and the way that they fell into place seemed to me just about as mathematical as such a subject could be. In the end, just the fact that I could demonstrate legitimate, intimate understanding of this book ultimately impressed the Hell out of no end of professors, etc.

Political science majors all ultimately meet the same folks: Descartes, Rousseau, Adam Smith, Plato, Socrates, Locke, Machiavelli, etc., and the more familiar you can be with them, the better. But, in my opinion, the one who had reality figured out was Hobbes. If you find a rabid Rousseau fan writing a similar review on "The Social Contract," I'm not going to slam the competitor's product-- but, if you only have time to wade into one tough read, I suggest that you make it this one.

*BUT* One bright, shining ray of hope for the over-burdened scholar is that I only recommend exerting yourself on Part I ("Of MAN"), which only constitutes 1/3 of the book. My personal (very) simplified synopsis is that Hobbes spends the first part of his book doing an excellent job describing the nature of essentially the broad spectrum of reality, most importantly Man and Power in its multitudinous forms and how that motivates Man in his selfish desire to garner it unto himself. Then, after essentially describing what a despicable creature man is after absolute power has corrupted absolutely, his recommendation is, incredibly, to hand over absolute power to one of those absolutely selfish creatures and toss a crown on his head. After Part I, I release you from your bondage. Feel free to read on-- in fact, I recommend it. But, if the style of prose is overwhelming to you, you are really prepared for whatever may come with a thorough understanding of "Of MAN."

Hobbes uses "Of MAN" as the pigments with which he attempts to paint a portrait of what society should be. If you have a real understanding of the materials with which he was working, you have what you need to understand his scheme, or to engineer a better one. I perceive the rest of Leviathan mostly as a basis for critiquing Hobbes-- which is of questionable practical value except as an academic. My first impression upon reading "Of MAN" was that I seemed to be reading the equivalent of an enormous geometry proof. I later found out that that was no coincidence. Hobbes had become fascinated with geometry, and sought to create a philosophy that began with inarguable facts and built to a model for society. I think he does brilliantly until he reaches the point at which his "Soveraign," which embodies society as agreed upon by its founding subjects, is made a single monarch, as he recommends, or a self-perpetuating assembly. In the case of a lone monarch, he depends too much upon the "Soveraign" on the throne not not being a Man on the throne. He expects him to do good because it is his role in society-- the Soveraign appears as a deus ex machina to solve the problems of managing his society, which may have been the best idea that could occur to him, but, given the hindsight from the 21st Century, the idea's weaknesses are obvious to us. Even in the case of an assembly, he allows for no means of course correction should the will of the "Soveraign" begin deviating from its original trajectory and cease to represent the will of the people. Considering that he was surrounded by nothing but monarchies in the 17th Century, I have to excuse the guy for not imagining a bi-cameral legislature, separate executive and legislative branches, etc. The United States didn't even establish the supremacy of its Supreme Court until Marbury v. Madison.

Personally, I believe that Hobbes is better than anyone else at explaining the nature of man and the nature of power. After that, budding social architects are cautioned AGAINST attaching the included "Commonwealth" pack. Obtain social architecture separately. Recommended:The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America