Work #36

Leviathan

Leviathan, or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common-wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil

Thomas Hobbes · 1651 · English (with a Latin edition 1668) · Political-philosophical treatise in four parts

Tradition: Early modern political philosophy / materialist naturalism

The state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short; the social contract erects the Leviathan to keep us out of it

Leviathan is the most influential work of early modern political philosophy. Hobbes argues that natural human beings, equally vulnerable and motivated by self-preservation, in the absence of a common power, exist in a state of war of all against all. Rational self-interest dictates the creation of a sovereign — the artificial Leviathan — to whom subjects transfer their natural right to use force, in exchange for the peace such a sovereign secures. Beneath the political argument lies a thoroughgoing materialist metaphysics (Part I) and an unflinching account of language, passion, and motivation. The work has shaped every subsequent debate in political theory, from Locke and Rousseau through Carl Schmitt and contemporary social-contract theory.

Author

Editions cited

  • Leviathan (Edwin Curley, Hackett, 1994 — based on 1651 head text)
  • Leviathan (Noel Malcolm, Clarendon, 3 vols, 2012 — critical edition)
  • Leviathan (Richard Tuck, Cambridge, revised 1996)

School Embodiments

Naturalism · 30%
Realism · 15%
Determinism · 15%
Pragmatic Realism · 10%
Analytic Metaphysics / Logical Atomism · 10%
Liberal Theology · 10%
Constructivism · 10%
Mechanism · 6%
Social Contract Theory · 6%

Hobbes's materialism — only bodies exist, mental phenomena are bodily motions, even God (if real) is corporeal — is one of the cleanest early statements of philosophical naturalism in the Western tradition.

"The Universe, that is, the whole mass of all things that are, is corporeal, that is to say, body." (Leviathan IV.46)
Realism 15%

A robust mind-independent realism about bodies, motions, and the political order. Hobbes is not a sceptic about the external world; he is a sceptic about whether human nature without political authority can produce peace.

"The Passions that incline men to Peace, are Feare of Death; Desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living." (Leviathan I.13)

Hobbes is one of the most rigorous early modern compatibilist determinists: human will is the last appetite in deliberation, fully caused by prior states; freedom is the absence of external constraint, not absence of causation.

"Liberty, and Necessity are consistent: as in the water, that hath not only liberty, but a necessity of descending by the Channel." (Leviathan II.21)

Hobbes's political reasoning is pragmatic in the precise sense: institutions are justified by what they produce (peace, security, the preservation of life), not by appeal to natural justice anterior to them.

"During the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre... and the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short." (Leviathan I.13)

Hobbes's deductive method — define terms precisely, reason rigorously from them — anticipates the analytic temper. His logical analysis of language in Part I has been read by Quine, Sellars, and others as a major precursor.

"Truth consisteth in the right ordering of names in our affirmations." (Leviathan I.4)

Books III and IV of Leviathan offer an unusually heterodox biblical theology — anti-clerical, anti-Roman, anti-spiritualist — that has been read in the genealogy of modern liberal theology and Enlightenment biblical criticism.

"The Kingdom of God is a real, not metaphorical kingdom." (Leviathan III.35)

The sovereign is an artificial person — political authority is constructed by covenant, not given by nature. Hobbes is one of the earliest constructivists about political and moral order.

"For by Art is created that great Leviathan called a Common-wealth, or State... which is but an Artificiall Man." (Leviathan, Introduction)

Mechanist tradition.

Social-contract tradition.

Internal Tensions

Hobbes's materialism and his Christianity are notoriously difficult to reconcile, and his contemporaries (Bramhall, Boyle, the Royal Society) accused him of atheism barely concealed. The political doctrine's sharpness — absolute sovereignty as the price of peace — is in tension with the concession that subjects retain the right to preserve their own lives even against the sovereign (chapter 21). Locke's Second Treatise (1689) is in part an attempt to rescue political philosophy from what Locke saw as Hobbes's authoritarian conclusion.

I. Time

Hobbes treats time as a real continuum in which bodies move and political institutions endure. Causation is deterministic — chapter 21's treatment of liberty and necessity is one of the clearest seventeenth-century compatibilist statements. Time is substantival, linear, unidirectional.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Deterministic Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One

II. Space

Substantival, infinite, three-dimensional, locally interactive. Hobbes is a thoroughgoing post-Galilean mechanist; space is the field in which bodies move and collide.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

III. Matter

The most thoroughgoing materialism of the seventeenth century. Only bodies exist; mental life consists of motions in the body; even God, on Hobbes's heterodox reading, must be a (subtle) body if real. Matter is infinite, substantival, conserved.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

IV. Observer

The Hobbesian observer is embodied, plural, active, driven by passions and reason in proportion. Knowledge is immediate (sensation) and built up through reckoning with names. Agency is active but compatibilist-deterministic. Moral authority is constructed: there is no natural justice prior to the political covenant. Metaphysical agency is None in the working sense — whatever God is doing, the political philosophy proceeds without him.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Immediate Knowledge Retainment: Total Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: None

V. Energy

Standard mechanical energetics of the seventeenth century — substantival motion, conservation of impetus, irreversible dissipation in collisions. Hobbes is in continuous dialogue with Galilean and Cartesian physics.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

Names and their right ordering are the substantival informational structure of human reasoning. Personal information is not conserved — Hobbes is famously reticent on personal immortality, and chapter 38 reads biblical resurrection in materialist terms: the body will be raised; there is no separable soul to preserve in the interim.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: Discrete

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

How Leviathan resolves each dilemma

51 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 9 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 6 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Do you really choose?
If the brain is a physical system and physical systems are governed by laws, then every choice is also a chain of causes — which raises the question of what was really left to choose.
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
On this view, the future is determined and you are genuinely choosing. Those aren't contradictory because the determination runs through you rather than around you: your reasoning, deliberation, and assent are the way the determined outcome gets settled. Choice is what it feels like from …
Roads not taken The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. (69%) · Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Addiction looks from one angle like the textbook case of agency failing — a person doing what they don't, in any meaningful sense, want to do. From another angle it looks like agency at work in hard conditions. Which it is depends on what agency is.
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
On this view, the addict is acting within a determined order but is genuinely acting — making decisions, endorsing or resisting urges, seeking or refusing help. Responsibility attaches not because some uncaused choice happened, but because the addict is the kind of agent through which …
Roads not taken The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. (69%) · The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
When an autonomous AI takes an action that harms someone, the question of who or what is responsible — the developer, the operator, the model itself — turns on whether the model is the kind of thing that can be a responsible agent.
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
On this view, what makes a being responsible is not indeterminism but the kind of process the being is. An AI that deliberates, considers consequences, can be given reasons, and modifies its behaviour on reflection is doing what responsible agency is, even if its underlying …
Roads not taken An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. (69%) · An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers. (10%) · Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one. (6%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
On this view, the cosmos has neither a temporal horizon nor a material exhaustion point. The framing of running out presupposes bounds that the cosmos doesn't have. Energy gradients perpetuate; new configurations emerge; the categories that make heat-death scary don't apply at the cosmic scale.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
On this view, matter and time are both unbounded at the largest scales. Terrestrial resource limits are real engineering and political constraints but not metaphysical ones; the cosmos can in principle support whatever expansion intelligence is capable of.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit. (12%)
4 mainstream positions
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (27/202)
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Pancomputationalism, Planck-scale quanta, simulation theory and Kabbalistic letter-mysticism all say yes — but for very different reasons. The rest of the atlas says no.
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
On this view, the world is at bottom discrete and law-governed, with no metaphysical agency above or behind the substrate. Reality reduces to bits or their physical analogues; the continuous appearance of fields and flows is coarse-graining over discrete underlying structure.
Roads not taken No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure. (44%) · No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. (37%) · Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism. (6%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (27/202)
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Whiteheadian actual occasions, Buddhist moments of mind, Kabbalistic letter-cognitions, IIT phi-units — or the unbroken Jamesian stream? The atomism of experience cuts across naturalism and theism alike.
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
On this view, experience comes in discrete units defined by the substrate: information-theoretic phi-units, computational frames, discrete neural events. There is no further metaphysical agency that knits them; the appearance of a stream is the way many discrete events present to introspection.
Roads not taken No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness. (44%) · No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. (37%) · Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions. (6%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (27/202)
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Engrams and traces — or continuous re-narration each time you remember? The cognitive-science debate has a theological cousin: divine memory holding each hair, or the ancestors' continuous remembering.
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
On this view, memory is the readout of discrete information stored in the substrate: engrams, synaptic weights, file-like records. Reconstruction at retrieval is real but secondary; without the stored bits there would be nothing to reconstruct from.
Roads not taken Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed. (44%) · Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams. (37%) · Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units. (6%)
28 mainstream positions
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally. 50% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. 49% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. 49% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 48% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 48% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 48% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems. 46% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical. 46% Does prayer change God's mind? If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next. 46% Are the dead morally present to the living? Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present. 44% What makes someone the same person over time? You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity. 36% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed. 36% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? Different body, different person — you died in the scanner. 36% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind. 32% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration. 32% What happens to "you" when you die? Death is genuinely the end. 30% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain. 30% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust the practice, not the practitioner. 14% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? 'Revelation' is a category communities construct for what counts as authoritative. 14% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? Whether an LLM 'knows' is the constructive question the practice has to answer. 14%
6 unaligned
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
← #35 Metaphysics All Works #37 An Essay Concerning Human Understanding →