Self‐Knowledge and Knowledge of Mankind in Hobbes' Leviathan

Abstract

In the introduction to the Leviathan, Hobbes famously defends the anthropological point of departure of his theory of the state by invoking the Delphic injunction ‘Know thyself!’ of which he presents a peculiar reading thereafter. In this paper, I present a reading of the anthropology of the Leviathan that takes this move seriously. In appealing to Delphic injunction, Hobbes wanted to prompt a particular way of reading his anthropology for which it is crucial that the reader relate the presented anthropological views to his self‐conception. The anthropology of the Leviathan is thus a kind of manual for a certain kind of self‐reflection by which the reader's self‐knowledge is to be improved. Furthermore, I will argue that Hobbes' interpretation of the Delphic injunction illuminates several theoretical issues relevant to the epistemology of that kind of ‘self‐knowledge’ that was demanded by the Delphic injunction. While Hobbes does not solve all the epistemological problems related with the ideal appealed to by this inscription, he does provide some interesting insights into some general requirements that any epistemological account of Socratic self‐knowledge has to meet.

International Human Rights Protections Find Support in Hobbes’ Leviathan

“…Abizadeh's argument is interesting because it sheds light on the richness and complexities of Hobbes' Leviathan. This squares well with Ursula Renz' point that Leviathan is not analytical in spirit, but educational: "The goal is not to examine the human mind, but to teach the reader about the properties of her own mind" [7] (p. 5). She points out that the introduction to Leviathan is important with regard to understanding the message of the book: Nosce teipsum, Know thyself was meant to "teach us, that for the similitude of the thoughts, and Passions of one man, to the thoughts, and Passions of another, whosoever looketh into himself, and considereth what he doth, when he does think, opinie, reason, hope, feare, &c, and upon what grounds; he shall thereby read and know, what are the thoughts, and Passions of all other men, upon the like occasions" [4] (p. 10).…”

“…This has consequences for how Leviathan should be understood, as it makes clear that the purpose of the treatise is to convince the reader of the main message, namely that man is an agent who deliberately creates the state. That man is the creator of the state does not contradict Hobbes' overall naturalistic and mechanistic philosophy, as for Hobbes man is both the matter and the creator of the state: "It thus seems crucial for Hobbes' educational project that the reader see how man, notwithstanding his behavior being caused by mere matter and motion, can be understood as a cause in his own right, that is, as the more active and practically efficacious manner that seems implied in the notion of man as the artificier of the state" [7] (pp. [8][9].…”

“…Ursula Renz suggests that Leviathan does not challenge Hobbes' overall philosophical system, but because it is written with a different aim and a different audience than, for instance, Elementa, the interpretation of it should take this into account. Leviathan is educational in spirit, not analytical, and it is aimed at the reader who is interested in politics [7]. It is educational in the sense that it teaches the reader about themselves, and this knowledge is important for why one needs political authority, and the best ways to organize it.…”