11. The standard dream of all members of the CH is that the CH is first in all major cities, and then in all the rest. I will give an interview with the leader of the Moscow CH, Mikhail Rakovschik, which was given to them by the underground journal of the CH, a few years ago. Fleming was no longer

Thomas Hobbes is a classic of social sciences. He lived during the civil war in England, was a political dissident. But the main thing that he left behind is his political treatise Leviathan, which in Russia, unfortunately, is almost not read by any of the specialists in international relations. This text is the source of all the problems of the theory of international relations, even the notorious conspiracy theory.

What does Hobbes begin with, how is it useful for international relations. To do this, it is necessary to answer a number of questions. What is the war of all against all and how does it manifest itself in international relations? Is justice possible in a war of all against all? Why can the subjects of the war of all against all be considered equal?

To answer the question of the war of all against all, one must deal with the nature of man at Hobbes. The first thing that Hobbes argues in chapter 13 is the equality of people. “People are equal by nature. Nature created people equal in a relationship   physical and mental abilities, because although we sometimes observe that one person is physically stronger or smarter than another, however, if we consider everything together, it turns out that the difference between them is not so great that one person, based on it, could pretend to some something good for himself, and the other could not claim it with the same right. In fact, with regard to physical strength, the weaker one has enough power to kill the stronger one through secret fraud or union with others who are in the same danger. ”

Physical and mental differences do not negate the fact that people can claim the same thing with equal rights. This is the optics of the New Time, denying the privileges of the Middle Ages. Equality of mind from life experience, which is inherent in all. And here zeal is of fundamental importance. Stupidity - lack of experience and lack of diligence grow wiser. Stupidity is regularly manifested in the war of all against all. It is worth noting that at the same time Hobbes ignores the topic of abilities.

With regard to international relations from Hobbes, we can conclude that states are equal, like people, can claim the same thing. No country can be self-sufficient in resources. Mental equality for the state is also characteristic of the state. It can manifest itself as exclusivity (love for oneself and one's own characteristics), recognition, and the possibility of concluding unions. Understanding the principle of equality makes it possible to evaluate one's own strengths, and only then is it possible to transfer to rational active actions.

Claim is equality. From this equality the equality of hopes for achieving goals arises. For example, the issue of water. All states want access to clean drinking water. And people want to live in the same way.

Factors leading to war, inherent in human nature. 1) rivalry 2) distrust or self-doubt and 3) thirst for glory.

Distrust is driven by the search for one's own security, the desire to defend oneself and maintain what one has acquired.

The thirst for fame is the desire to get symbolic capital. Or in the words of Hobbes himself: “every person seeks to have his comrade appreciate him as he appreciates himself, and with any manifestation of contempt or neglect, naturally,  trying, because he has the courage (and where there is no common power that can make people live in peace, this courage comes to the point that they are ready to destroy each other), to force his detractors to have greater self-respect: for some, as punishment, while others have an example, this phrase has the most capacious expression of anarchy. Since there is no norm, a person in this desire, a person tries to go to extremes.

The state of war of all against all will be before a person limits his claims. A happy person in a war of all against all cannot be. Winning today may cause defeat tomorrow. The works of the peasant can be taken away by any robber. And he was killed by the unions of small merchants, who in turn were “pumped up” by the latifundist with his brigade. In a state of war of all against all, there is no room for industriousness, since the fruits of his labor are not guaranteed to anyone, and therefore there is no agriculture, shipping, maritime trade, convenient buildings, there are no means of movement and movement of things that require great power, there is no knowledge of the earth’s surface, calculus time, craft, literature, there is no society, and, worst of all, there is eternal fear and constant danger of violent death, and a person’s life is lonely, poor, hopeless, dull and short-lived. ”

War time. War is not only military operations, but also the very expectation, preparation of military operations. As an example of the war of all against all, Hobbes gives an example - the presence of an army, forts, spies. Preparedness for war is war. The state of readiness is the state of war. Everything else is the world

The state of war of all against all exists as long as there is no common power creating a common order. In this state there is no justice and injustice. Where there is no common power, there is no law, there is no injustice.

This state is not observed within states, but it is obvious in the international arena. Hence the concept of international anarchy, which has firmly become the basic concept of the theory of international relations. “Each state has sovereignty, and there is no state that could unite everyone in this world. Consequently, the world exists in conditions of international anarchy, where states compete with each other, defending their own interests on the basis of their strength. This principle, originally formulated by realists after Hobbes, is also recognized by the English school.

An important question which, in connection with this, is Hobbes, and which becomes the main question in the theory of international relations, is the question of peace. There are passions - the fear of death and the desire for things necessary for a good life - that can ensure peace, writes Hobbes in just one line at the end of chapter 13. And this is why Kant will grab hold of it, and in the wake of it followers of a liberal approach to the theory of international relations. Justice and Equality. Reason suggests a condition of peace - these conditions are natural laws that will lead to the conclusion of a treaty.

Other issues at the center of the MO theory and examined by Hobbes are - containment policy and security dilemma.  Due to mutual distrust, there is no more reasonable way for a person to provide for his life than taking precautionary measures, that is, by force or cunning to keep in check everyone he can, until he is convinced that there is no other force, quite impressive, to be dangerous to him.

  - (Latin: Bellum omnium contra omnes) the concept of Thomas Hobbes's social theory, describing the natural state of society before the conclusion of a “social contract” and the formation of the state. First introduced in the treatise "Leviathan". There is ... ... Wikipedia

Book Shuttle. About an unfriendly team, a society torn by squabbles and strife. ShZF 2001, 41. / i\u003e Tracing paper with lat. bellum omnium contra omnes. BMS 1998, 93 ... Great Dictionary of Russian Sayings

The Kosovo War ... Wikipedia

NATO military operations in Yugoslavia (1999) Kosovo war Bombing of Yugoslavia Date March 24 - June 10, 1999 ... Wikipedia

NATO military operations in Yugoslavia (1999) Kosovo war Bombing of Yugoslavia Date March 24 - June 10, 1999 ... Wikipedia

NATO military operations in Yugoslavia (1999) Kosovo war Bombing of Yugoslavia Date March 24 - June 10, 1999 ... Wikipedia

NATO military operations in Yugoslavia (1999) Kosovo war Bombing of Yugoslavia Date March 24 - June 10, 1999 ... Wikipedia

Organized Arms the struggle between states (groups of states), classes or nations (peoples). Genesis V. goes deep into the pre-class history of mankind (see K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., Vol. 46, part 1, p. 480). However, only ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

The War in the Air ... Wikipedia

Books

• Against all! Despite death, Parshikov M. .. He did not go to either Hell or Paradise; he ended up on the field of the Eternal Battle, where there is an endless war of all against all. It will not be easy for him, because here everyone strives to hit in the back, pick up ...
• Against all! Contrary to death, Maxim Parshikov. He did not go to either Hell or Paradise; he ended up on the field of the Eternal Battle, where there is an endless war of all against all. It will not be easy for him, because here everyone strives to hit in the back, pick up ...

“The war of all against all” ("Bellum omnium contra omnes"). Used in moral philosophy from the time of the ancient sophists, the idea of \u200b\u200ba state of society in which there is universal permanent hostility and ongoing mutual violence. In a relaxed form, the idea of \u200b\u200bV.V.P.V. includes an uncontrolled increase in aggressiveness in society, leading to constant inter-human conflicts. At its core, V.V.P.V. It is an ideal model brought to an extreme degree of destructiveness and selfishness, which, being projected onto reality, serves as the basis for historical interpretations, forecasts, moralistic reasoning and warnings. Its significance for ethical thought is determined by the purpose for which the impressive and very clear picture of universal conflict is used.

The first paradigm of its use can be described as an attempt to deduce from the insoluble internal contradictions of the state of general war the origin, content and bindingness of moral (or moral-legal) norms. A similar attempt is made both in some theories of the social contract (including in the concepts of the unspoken, but simultaneous convention), and in the evolutionary-genetic theories of the origin of morality. At the same time, theories that derive morality from a variant of V.V.P.V. can be subdivided into concepts suggesting that such a state is initial, and concepts for which V.V.P.V. there is a negative development result requiring compensation through the emergence of a moral (or traditionally moral) system.

The concept of T. Hobbes, who for the first time in the history of philosophical thought used the very formulation "V.V.P.V." (the analogue is “everyone’s war against their neighbors”), it proceeds from the fact that this state is primary (ie natural) for a person. This conclusion is made on the basis of a theoretical analysis of passions and an empirical study of the shortcomings of civil status. The formal condition of the war is the equal ability of individuals and natural law (“the right of everyone to all”), and the driving forces are: rivalry in attacks for profit, distrust in preventive attacks, thirst for glory in attacks for reasons of honor. V.V.P.V., according to Hobbes, is not a constant battle, but a series of episodes of the struggle, interspersed with the painful expectation of blows from the neighbors. Along with a strictly atomized picture, V.V.P.V. (the most unhistorical), Hobbes has a description of the war of small families or hierarchically constructed alliances for mutual assistance. This slightly changes the idea of \u200b\u200bthe enemy: he is not just everyone, but everyone whom I disobey or whom I do not command. The theoretical value of the idea of \u200b\u200bV.V.P.V. lies in the fact that it is precisely its inconvenience that makes the contractual decision on the creation of the Sovereign inevitable, and, therefore, the appearance of morality (or rather, a moral and legal system). Indeed, without the awesome state power, morality, according to Hobbes, cannot exist at the normative level, and morality - in the form of some reality.

A similar model for using the image of V.V.P.V. exists in the Freudian concept of "moral progress" in the transition from a patriarchal horde to a fraternal clan, although only male, sexually mature individuals are participants in the war, and the subject of contention is limited to the field of sexuality. Already in the horde the onslaught of the local V.V.P.V. hardly restrained by the strength of the leader and it inevitably arises in the event of its weakening or death. However, the greatest theoretical significance for interpreting the emergence of morality, according to Freud, is the situation after collective suicide, when "in the struggle of all against all" the "new (fraternal) organization" could die. The system of initial moral prohibitions (on incest and on the murder of a brother), based on a semblance of a social contract, becomes the only way to escape from mutual destruction.

A contractual model of the emergence of morality, emerging as a way of returning the fundamental features of the life system that preceded V.V.P.V., is present in J.Zh. Russo. The state of general war, which threatens the death of the human race, is an important point in the controversial process of replacing the "instinct with justice." V.V.P.V. Rousseau does not have a consequence of an absolutely fragmented state of individuals; on the contrary, it occurs with the advent of a general need for a joint social life. Its cause is not natural equality, but the development of a system of social (property) stratification. The leading force of the “most terrible war” and the obstacle to the creation of defensive associations is the envy of other people's wealth, drowning out “natural (instinctive) compassion and the still weak voice of justice”.

Some modern evolutionary-genetic concepts structurally reproduce the Russoist model. This applies to those theories that interpret morality as a mechanism for compensating for the weakening of biological (instinctive) levers for regulating mutual relations in groups (or within species) during the transition from animal to human. So, K. Lorenz describes the initial position of a person as a creature devoid of the mechanism of inhibition of intraspecific aggression, excitable, with uncontrolled outbursts of rage, but suddenly received powerful means of attack (weapons). In such a situation, intraspecific selection automatically turns into a softened expression of VVPV, which is subsequently somewhat limited to the simplest forms of “responsible morality”. Similarly, in the concept of Yu.M. Borodaya, an “anthropogenetic impasse” is understood, generated by the exacerbation of “tension of intra-mortal relations” (up to the danger of mutual extermination of males) and resolved in the refusal to directly implement egocentric instincts through identifying oneself with another. A different reproduction of the same structure is present in concepts where morality in its universal and absolute form is the result of compensation for the isolation that arises during the collapse of clan unity and leads to "violation of the norms of communication developed in an archaic society" (R.G. Apresyan) - a direct, albeit extremely softened parallel to V.V.P.V.

In the second paradigm of perception of V.V.P.V. They are part of a morally oriented argument against revolutionary political movements that require a holistic rational restructuring of the system of social institutions, based on justice considerations. The state of general war here becomes the inevitable moral correlate of radical socio-political transformations. Hobbes already notes that any major opposition against the government automatically turns the people into a mass (multitudo), which leads to "chaos and V.V.P.V." Therefore, the greatest excesses of oppression are "barely sensitive compared to ... the unbridled state of anarchy." European Cons Cons. XVIII century Hobbes’s thought is sharpened, believing that any violation of the organic, traditional social order leads to the manifestations of VVPV: “asocial and anti-civil chaos”, transition “to the antagonistic world of madness, vice, discord and senseless grief” (E. Burke) and even to the "bloody mess" (J. de Mestre). Later philosophical criticisms of revolutions maintain the same approach.

The third paradigm for the use of paintings by V.V.P.V. embedded in the general logic of criticism of the social order, focused on the embodiment of moral values. In this case, war on the basis of hedonistic or perfectionist considerations is understood as a condition more acceptable to an individual than a moral restriction. So, in "Philosophy in the Boudoir" A.D.F. de Sada state V.V.P.V. appears as one of the most desirable from the hedonistic point of view consequences of the desire for political freedom. The future of the French Republic, as described by de Sade, is similar to the Hobbesian society, which finally realized the destructiveness of Leviathan and, enriched by knowledge of the illusory nature of his promises related to the fulfillment of moral law, returned to its natural state with its dangers and pleasures. F. Nietzsche, unlike de Sade, has in mind a perfectionist perspective when he characterizes the desire for universal peace, that is, the time “when there will be nothing more to fear”, as the imperative of “herd cowardice” and a sign of the extreme degree of “fall and decay” . Therefore, the call to war from “So Said Zarathustra” (section “On War and Warriors”) pursues a two-sided goal: this is the overthrow of the “present man” and the creation of the crucible in which the renewed man will be born (“they strive for a thousand bridges and paths towards the future and may there be more war and inequality between them: this is how my great love makes me speak. ") Universal war, the search for the enemy and hatred for him acquire for Nietzsche the status of self-sufficient values \u200b\u200b("the blessing of war sanctifies every goal").

A.V. Prokofiev

Literature:

• Burke E.  Reflections on the revolution in France. M .: Rudomino, 1993.
• Boroday Yu.M.  Erotica - death - taboo: the tragedy of human consciousness. M .: Gnosis. 1996 (second essay).
• Hobbes T.  Leviathan, or matter, form and power of a church and civil state // Ibid. T. 2.
• Hobbes T.  About the citizen // Hobbes T.  Op. in 2 vols. M.: Thought, 1991.Vol. 1.
• Lorenz K.Aggression (the so-called evil). M .: Progress. 1994.
• Marquis de Sade.  Philosophy in the boudoir. M .: MP Prominformo, 1992.
• Nietzsche F.On that side of good and evil // Nietzsche F. Works in 2 vols. M.: Thought. T. 1.
• Nietzsche F.So said Zarathustra // Ibid.
• Prokofiev A.V.  “The war of all against all // Ethics: Encyclopedic Dictionary. M .: Gardariki, 2001.
• Russo J.Zh.  On the social contract, or Principles of Political Law //

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Plan

• Introduction
• 2.T. Hobbes on the "war of all against all"
• 2.1 Thomas Hobbes - the largest English philosopherXVII  centuries
• Conclusion
• Bibliography

Introduction

The century of geniuses is called the 17th century by historians of philosophy and natural sciences. Moreover, they mean a lot of brilliant thinkers who worked then in the field of science, laid the foundation of modern natural science and, compared with previous centuries, advanced the natural sciences, especially philosophy. In the constellation of their names, paramount place belongs to the name of the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679).

Hobbes is a philosopher who is difficult to rank in any direction. He was an empiricist, like Locke, Berkeley and Hume, but unlike them, he was an adherent of the Mathematical method not only in pure mathematics, but also in its Applications to other branches of knowledge. Galileo had a greater influence on his general view than Bacon. Continental philosophy from Descartes to Kant took many of her concepts about the Nature of human knowledge from mathematics, but she believed that mathematics can be learned independently of experience. This, therefore, led, as in Platonism, to the diminution of the role that thought plays. On the other hand, mathematics had little influence on English empiricism, and he was prone to a false concept of the scientific method. Hobbes did not have any of these flaws. Up to our time, not a single philosopher can be found who, being an empiricist, would nevertheless pay tribute to mathematics. In this respect, the virtues of Hobbes are huge. However, he also had serious shortcomings that do not give the opportunity to rightfully classify him among the most prominent thinkers. He is impatient with subtleties and too inclined to cut the Gordian knot. His solutions to problems are logical, but are accompanied by a conscious omission of uncomfortable facts. He is energetic but rude; he owns a halberd rather than a rapier. Despite this, his theory of state deserves careful consideration, especially since it is more modern than any previous theory, even Machiavelli’s theory.

The starting point of all the arguments of Thomas Hobbes in his writings was the doctrine of society, the state, civil human rights. This thinker could not imagine the existence of people without a single, strong state. Hobbes was convinced that before people came out of their natural state and united into society with a single will, there was a "war of all against all." The transition to civil society followed after the conclusion of a social contract on which the relationship between citizens and authorities is based. At the same time, Hobbes emphasized the principle of individual freedom, the inalienability of his civil rights, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe individual person's worthiness, respect for him and his property. The formation of civil society took place in parallel with the formation of a new type of state - a bourgeois state.

Since the formation of civil society and the rule of law is now more relevant than ever for many countries of the world, and especially for Russia, the study of the teachings of the classics of philosophical thought on this topic is timely and conceptual.

1. "The war of all against all." Background

The “war of all against all” (“Bellum omnium contra omnes”) is a concept used in moral philosophy from the time of the ancient Sophists to represent a state of society in which there is universal permanent enmity and ongoing mutual violence. In a relaxed form, the idea of \u200b\u200ba war of all against all includes an uncontrolled increase in aggressiveness in society, leading to constant interhuman conflicts. At its core, the war of all against all is an ideal model brought to the extreme degree of destructiveness and selfishness, which, being projected onto reality, serves as the basis for historical interpretations, forecasts, moralistic reasoning and warnings. Its significance for ethical thought is determined by the purpose for which the impressive and very clear picture of universal conflict is used.

The first paradigm of its use can be described as an attempt to deduce from the insoluble internal contradictions of the state of general war the origin, content and bindingness of moral (or moral-legal) norms. A similar attempt is made both in some theories of the social contract (including in the concepts of the unspoken, but simultaneous convention), and in the evolutionary-genetic theories of the origin of morality.

The concept of T. Hobbes, who for the first time in the history of philosophical thought used the very formulation “The war of all against all” (the analogue is “the war of everyone against their neighbors”), proceeds from the fact that this state is primordial (i.e. natural) for a person.

A similar model for using the image “War of all against all” exists in the Freudian concept of “moral progress” in the transition from the patriarchal horde to the fraternal clan, although only male, sexually mature individuals are involved in the war, and the subject of contention is limited to the field of sexuality.

A contractual model of the emergence of morality, which arises as a way of returning the fundamental features of the life system that preceded the "War of all against all," is present in J. Zh. Russo. The state of general war, which threatens the death of the human race, is an important point in the controversial process of replacing the "instinct with justice." Rousseau’s “war of all against all” is not the result of an absolutely fragmented state of individuals; on the contrary, it begins with the emergence of a general need for a joint public life. Its cause is not natural equality, but the development of a system of social (property) stratification. The leading force of the “most terrible war” and the obstacle to the creation of defensive associations is the envy of other people's wealth, drowning out the “natural (instinctive) compassion and the still weak voice of justice”.

Some modern evolutionary-genetic concepts structurally reproduce the Russo model. This applies to those theories that interpret morality as a mechanism for compensating for the weakening of biological (instinctive) levers for regulating mutual relations in groups (or within species) during the transition from animal to human.

Similarly in the concept of Yu.M. The beard is understood as an “anthropogenetic impasse”, generated by the exacerbation of “tension of intra-male relations” (up to the danger of mutual extermination of males) and permitted in the refusal to directly implement egocentric instincts through identifying oneself with another. A different reproduction of the same structure is present in concepts where morality in its universal and absolute form is the result of compensation for the isolation that arises during the collapse of clan unity and leads to “violation of the norms of communication developed in an archaic society” (R.G. Apresyan) - a direct, albeit extremely softened parallel to the "War of all against all." Prokofiev A.V. "The war of all against all // Ethics: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki, 2001. - p. 89

In the second paradigm, the concept of the “War of all against all” is part of a morally oriented argument against revolutionary political movements that require a holistic rational restructuring of the system of social institutions, based on justice considerations. The state of general war here becomes the inevitable moral correlate of radical socio-political transformations. Hobbes already notes that any major uprising against power automatically turns the people into a mass (multitudo), which leads to "chaos and the war of all against all." Therefore, the greatest excesses of oppression "are hardly sensitive in comparison with the unbridled state of anarchy." European Cons Cons. XVIII century Hobbes’s thought is sharpened, believing that any violation of the organic, traditional social order leads to the manifestations of a war of all against all: “asocial and anti-civil chaos”, transition “to the antagonistic world of madness, vice, discord and senseless grief” (E. Burke) and even - the "bloody mess" (J. de Mestre). Later philosophical criticisms of revolutions maintain the same approach.

The third paradigm of using the picture “Wars of all against all” is embedded in the general logic of criticism of the social order, focused on the embodiment of moral values. In this case, war on the basis of hedonistic or perfectionist considerations is understood as a condition more acceptable to an individual than a moral restriction. Thus, in the “Philosophy in the Boudoir” by A. DF de Sade, the state of war of all against all appears as one of the most desirable from the hedonistic point of view consequences of the desire for political freedom. The future of the French Republic, as described by de Sade, is similar to the Hobbesian society, which finally realized the destructiveness of Leviathan and, enriched by knowledge of the illusory nature of his promises related to the fulfillment of moral law, returned to its natural state with its dangers and pleasures. F. Nietzsche, unlike de Sade, has in mind a perfectionist perspective when he characterizes the desire for universal peace, that is, the time “when there will be nothing more to fear”, as the imperative of “herd cowardice” and a sign of the extreme degree of “fall and decay”. Therefore, the call to war from “So Said Zarathustra” (section “On War and Warriors”) pursues a two-sided goal: this is the overthrow of the “present man” and the creation of the crucible in which the renewed man will be born (“they strive for a thousand bridges and paths towards the future and may there be more war and inequality between them: this is how my great love makes me speak. ") Universal war, the search for the enemy and hatred for him acquire for Nietzsche the status of self-sufficient values \u200b\u200b("the blessing of war sanctifies every goal"). Prokofiev A.V. "The war of all against all // Ethics: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki, 2001. - p. 90

hobbes philosopher war society

2. T. Hobbes on the "war of all against all"

2.1 Thomas Hobbes - the greatest English philosopher of the XVII century

Thomas Hobbes is the greatest English philosopher of the 17th century, although today he is better known for his political philosophy, presented in the treatise Leviathan.

According to Hobbes biographers, he lived to an advanced age of 91 years, maintaining clarity of mind until the end of his days.

Thomas Hobbes was born on April 5, 1588 in Westport, near Malmesbury in southern England. His mother was of peasant descent, his father was a village priest, and his relatives were engaged in glove craft. Hobbes initially received his education at a church school, which he began to attend from the age of four. Since the boy showed abilities and a great inclination to study, he was assigned to a city school, where he successfully continued his education. By the age of fourteen, Hobbes already possesses ancient languages \u200b\u200bso much that he translates Euripides's Medea in poetry into Latin.

Fifteen years he enters Oxford University and upon graduation receives a university diploma, which gave him the right to engage in pedagogical work and paved the way for an academic career. But like most of the leading philosophical and scientific minds of that century - Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Newton and others - Hobbes was not further associated with universities. After graduation, he becomes the educator of the children of one of the noble aristocratic families. At this time, he developed connections among the ruling circles, including among the court circles of England.

Trips to the European continent gave the English thinker the opportunity to deeply study philosophy, personally get acquainted with its most prominent representatives (especially Galileo while traveling to Italy in 1646), and take an active part in discussing the most important philosophical problems of that time. Hobbes gradually developed the principles of his own teaching. The first draft of the philosophical system of Hobbes was his work in 1640, "Human Nature". The further comprehensive development of Hobbes's philosophical system was influenced by the events related to the conflict associated with the English Parliament and the king, and then the events of the English Revolution.

Events in the public life of England stimulated Hobbes' interest in socio-political issues and forced him to accelerate the development and publication of his work "On the Citizen," conceived by him as the third part of his philosophical system. Continuing to deepen and ponder his socio-political ideas, Hobbes worked on his largest political and sociological publication, Leviathan, which was published in London in 1651.

Returning to England in 1651, Hobbes was respectfully received by Cromwell, who entrusted him with participation in the reorganization of university education. After the Stuart’s restoration, emigrants returning to England reproached Hobbes with his reconciliation with Cromwell’s authority and accused of atheism. After Hobbes' death, the Leviathan was publicly burned by decision of the University of Oxford. Long before this, the Catholic Church included Hobbes' works in the List of Prohibited Books.

The range of problems of philosophical research of Hobbes is extremely wide and diverse. It reflects those pressing problems of that time and even modernity, without which the further development of philosophical thought and various philosophical systems is impossible. Contemporaries and followers of Hobbes 'theory valued him extremely highly, since D. Didro in his research more than once praised the high clarity and certainty in Hobbes' writings, he compared him to the then luminaries of sensualism Locke and even put Hobbes above him.

Hobbes’s appreciation is evidenced by Marx’s characterization, in which although he emphasizes the physical and mechanistic limitations of Hobbes, Marx also sees in him one of the founders of materialism in modern times. Marx also declares Hobbes one of the founders of the philosophy of analysis or the so-called logical positivism. It is worth noting that the philosophical system of Thomas Hobbes has all the same shortcomings as the whole mechanical methodology as a whole, but like the whole methodology, it played a very important role in the history of the development of social thought.

The powerful mind of Hobbes, his insight allowed Hobbes to build a system from which all thinkers not only of the seventeenth, but also of the eighteenth and twentieth centuries, scooped up to the present, from a rich source.

It should be noted that it is Leviathan that occupies a unique place in the history of world philosophy. In this work, Thomas Hobbes was ahead of his time in many areas, and his original judgments immediately after the publication of the treatise in 1651. They aroused the hatred of churchmen of all religious views and leaders of all political parties. Hobbes alone fought with numerous opponents, showing the talent of the polemicist and scientist. During the life of Hobbes, almost all responses were sharply negative, but in subsequent centuries the influence of the work of Leviathan on the views of Spinoza, Bentham, Leibniz, Russo and Didro, on philosophers and economists of the XIX-XX centuries was recognized. Perhaps this is the world significance for philosophy, political science, culture.

2.2 Socio-political and ethical views

Man is a part of nature and cannot but obey its laws. This truth, which has become an axiom for the philosophy of his century, Hobbes also considers fundamental and quite clear. Therefore, we must begin, the philosopher argues, with the affirmation of such properties of man that belong to his body as the body of nature. And then smoothly make the transition from considering man as a body of nature to human nature, i.e. its essential property. The human body, like any body of nature, is inherent in: the ability to move, to have a form, to occupy a place in space and time. Hobbes attaches to this the "natural abilities and powers" that are characteristic of a person as a living body - the ability to eat, multiply and perform many other actions, caused precisely by natural needs. To the "natural" block of human nature, philosophers of the XVII century. attributed part of the "desires", "affects" due to natural needs. But the focus of attention was nevertheless placed on the properties of rationality and equality with other people as the deep properties of the human essence, which did not seem to thinkers to be something contrary to the "natural" approach to man. The same applies to social philosophy, which is closely connected with the philosophy of man.

Hobbes' ethical views are based on "natural law." “The natural law (lex naturalis),” writes Hobbes, “is a prescription or a general rule found by reason that a person is forbidden to do what is harmful to his life or which deprives him of the means to preserve it, and to miss what he considers the best a means to save life. " Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and power of the state of the church and civil // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 vols. - M.: Thought, 1991. 2. - p. 99

Hobbes argues that the difference in physical inclinations does not predetermine anything in human life (for example, a weaker one can kill a stronger one) and therefore can in no way serve as an argument in favor of the thesis of the inequality of people from birth. Philosophers tried to explain how and why, in place of the "natural" equality of people, inequality arose at some not quite definite moment of historical development, i.e. property arose. To explain this, Hobbes and Locke built the doctrine of the emergence of property as a result of labor. But since labor activity was considered to be an eternal way for a person to expend energy, the possession of some property and some benefits, i.e. any property (which, as Hobbes and Locke suggested, owes its origin to labor alone) was also declared a sign of human nature.

However, within these limits there is also no place for objective "good" (and "evil"), and, therefore, for "moral values." For Hobbes, good is what they strive for, and evil is what they avoid. But due to the fact that some people want some things, while others do not, some avoid something, while others do not, it turns out that good and evil are relative. One cannot even say about God himself that he is an unconditional good, for "God is good for all those who cry out for His name, but not for those who blaspheme His name, blaspheming." So, the good refers to a person, place, time, circumstances, as the sophists claimed in antiquity.

But if the good is relative and, therefore, absolute values \u200b\u200bdo not exist, how can one build a social life and create morality? How can people live together in the same society? The answers to these questions are devoted to two of Hobbes's masterpieces: Leviathan and On the Citizen.

Thus, one of the main categories of Hobbes socio-political system is the category of equality. "From this equality of ability, equality of hope for achieving our goals arises. That is why if two people desire the same thing, which, however, they cannot possess together, they become enemies," Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and the power of the state of the church and civil // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 vols. - M.: Thought, 1991. 2. - p. 112 - writes Hobbes. Therefore, the natural state of man is war. The war of all against all. To prevent constant wars, a person needs protection that he can only find in the person of the state.

So, from the statement of natural equality, Hobbes turns to the idea of \u200b\u200bthe ineradicability of the war of all against all.

The harshness and, one might say, ruthlessness with which Hobbes formulated this idea repelled his contemporaries. But in reality, their agreement with Hobbes was profound: after all, all the major philosophers also believed that people "by nature" rather take care of themselves than the common good, rather enter into the struggle than refrain from conflict, and that focus on the good of other people in the individual it is necessary to especially educate, resorting to the arguments of the mind, to various state measures, etc.

Hobbes built his teaching on the study of nature and human passions. Hobbes’s opinion about these passions and nature is extremely pessimistic: people are characterized by rivalry (the desire for profit), distrust (the desire for security), and love for fame (ambition). These passions make people enemies: "Man to man is a wolf" (homo homini lupus est). Therefore, in a natural state, where there is no power that kept people at bay, they are in a "state of war of all against all."

A man, despite the fact that he is in a natural state, is inclined to strive for peace, which requires serious sacrifices and restrictions, which at times may seem difficult and overwhelming. But the essence of the matter for Hobbes is the proclamation of the principle according to which the individual must abandon the unlimited claims, because this makes impossible a coordinated life of people. From here he derives the law, the precept of reason: Hobbes considers it necessary and reasonable in the name of peace to renounce even the primordial rights of human nature - from unconditional and absolute equality, from unlimited freedom. The main pathos of Hobbes's concept is the proclamation of the need for peace (i.e., a coordinated joint life of people), rooted in the nature of man, and equally in his passions and in the precepts of his mind. The hypothetical and at the same time realistic image of the war of all against all also partly serves this purpose. Hobbes was often reproached for being a supporter of too harsh and decisive state power. But we must not forget that he defended only the strong power of the state, based on law and reason.

Thus, analyzing human nature, Hobbes moved from the assertion of the equality of human capabilities and claims to the idea of \u200b\u200bthe existence of a war of all against all. Thus, the philosopher wanted to show the destructiveness and intolerance of such a situation in which people are forced to constantly fight. As a result of this, he came to the substantiation of the fact that passions inciting to peace can and should be stronger than passions inciting to war if they are supported by laws, rules, and regulations of the mind.

Sharp class clashes in the civil war also had a definite influence on Hobbes’s teachings. "The rivalry in obtaining wealth, honors, command, or other authority," wrote Hobbes, "leads to strife, enmity and war, for one competitor is to achieve his desire by killing, subjugation, crowding out or repelling another." Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and power of the state of the church and civil // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 vols. - M.: Thought, 1991. 2. - p. 114

The destructiveness of the “state of war of all against all” compels people to look for a way to end the natural state; this path is indicated by natural laws, prescriptions of the mind (according to Hobbes, natural law is the freedom to do everything for self-preservation; natural law is the prohibition to do what is harmful to life).

The first basic natural law states: Everyone must seek peace by all means at his disposal, and if he cannot obtain peace, he can seek and use all the means and advantages of war. The second law directly follows from this law: Everyone should be ready to give up their right to everything when others also want it, because he considers this refusal necessary for peace and self-defense V. Gvozdoleny, Fundamentals of philosophy: stages of development and modern problems. History of Western philosophical thought. M., 1993.S. 124. In addition to the waiver of their rights, there may also be (according to Hobbes) the transfer of these rights. When two or more people transfer these rights to each other, this is called a contract. The third natural law states that people must adhere to their own contracts. This law contains the function of justice. Only with the transfer of rights does the hostel and the functioning of property begin, and only then is it possible injustice to violate contracts. It is extremely interesting that Hobbes derives from these basic laws the law of Christian morality: "Do not do to the other what you do not want to be done to you." According to Hobbes, the natural laws, being the rules of our mind, are eternal. The name “law” is not entirely suitable for them, however, since they are considered as the command of God, they are the “laws” of Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and power of a church and civil state // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 vols. - M.: Thought, 1991. 2 .. - p. 99.

Thus, natural laws state that peace should be sought; for these purposes, the right to everything must be mutually renounced; "people must comply with their agreements."

2.3 Society and the state in the war of all against all

Renouncing natural rights (i.e. the freedom to do everything for self-preservation), people transfer them to a state, the essence of which Hobbes defined as "a single person, a huge number of people made themselves responsible for their actions by mutual agreement, so that it the person could use the force and means of all of them as he deemed necessary for their peace and general protection. " Cit. By: History of Philosophy: Textbook for Universities / Ed. V.V. Vasiliev, A.A. Krotova and D.V. Bull. - M.: Academic Project: 2005. - S. 196

For the methodology of theoretical thinking of that time, changes in Hobbes's argumentation are indicative. At first, he considered the source of power an agreement between subjects and the ruler, which (the agreement) cannot be terminated without the consent of both parties. However, the ideologists of the revolution cited many facts of a violation by the king of his own obligations; therefore, obviously, Hobbes formulates a slightly different concept of a social contract (each with each), in which the ruler does not take part at all, and, therefore, cannot violate it.

The state is the great Leviathan (biblical monster), an artificial person, or an earthly god; supreme power - the soul of the state, judges and officials - joints, advisers - memory; laws - reason and will, artificial chains attached at one end to the lips of the sovereign, the other to the ears of subjects; rewards and punishments are nerves; the well-being of citizens - strength, the security of the people - occupation, civil peace - health, unrest - disease, civil war - death.

The power of the sovereign is absolute: it owns the right to issue laws, monitor their compliance, impose taxes, appoint officials and judges; even the thoughts of subjects are subordinate to the sovereign — the ruler of the state determines which religion or sect is true and which is not.

Hobbes, like Boden, recognizes only three forms of state. He prefers unlimited monarchy (the benefit of the monarch is identical to the good of the state, law, inheritance gives the state an artificial eternity of life, etc.).

The absence of any rights of citizens in relation to the sovereign is interpreted by Hobbes as the legal equality of persons in their mutual relations. Hobbes is by no means a supporter of the feudal-social division of society into privileged and unprivileged. In relations between subjects, the sovereign must ensure equal justice for all ("the principle of which states that it is impossible to take away from anyone that belongs to him"), the inviolability of agreements, impartial protection for everyone in court, determine uniform taxes. One of the tasks of state power is to ensure the ownership of property "which people have acquired through mutual agreements in return for renouncing universal law." Private property, according to Hobbes, is a condition of dormitory, "a necessary means of peace." Hobbes' views on the origin of private property have also changed. In earlier works, he argued that in the natural state property was common. Since the idea of \u200b\u200ba community of property was actively discussed in the process of the ideological struggle of political groups (especially in connection with the performance of the Levellers and Diggers), Hobbes rejected this idea: "in a state of war of all against all," there is no property or community of property, and there is only uncertainty "

The property, Hobbes does not forget to add, is not guaranteed from attacks on it by the sovereign, but this applies most of all to the establishment of taxes that should be levied on subjects without any exceptions and privileges.

The unlimited power and rights of the ruler of the state does not mean, in Hobbes's concept, the apology of continental absolutism with its class inequality, universal trusteeship and total regulation. Hobbes urged the sovereign to encourage all kinds of crafts and all industries, but the methods they proposed were far from protectionist policies.

The purpose of laws is not to restrain from any action, but to give them the right direction. Laws are like hedges along the edges of the road, so an extra law is harmful and not needed. Everything that is not prohibited and not prescribed by law is left to the discretion of subjects: such are “freedom to buy and sell and otherwise conclude contracts with each other, choose one’s place of residence, one’s food, one’s way of life, instruct one’s children at one’s discretion, etc. . ". Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and power of the state of the church and civil // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 vols. - M.: Thought, 1991. 2. - S.S. 132 In discussing the relations between the subjects among themselves, Hobbes substantiated a number of specific requirements in the field of law: an equal jury trial for all, guarantees of the right to defense, proportionality of punishment.

The peculiarity of Hobbes’s teaching is that he considered the king’s unlimited power to be a guarantee of law and order, he condemned the civil war with condemnation, seeing in it the revival of the disastrous state of the “war of all against all.” Since such a war, according to his theory, stemmed from the general hostility of individuals, Hobbes defended royal absolutism.

It is important to note that, according to Hobbes, the goal of the state (the security of individuals) is achievable not only with an absolute monarchy. “Where a certain form of government has already been established,” he wrote, “one does not have to speculate on which of the three forms of government is the best, and the existing one should always be preferred, supported, and considered the best.” In the same place - with. 164 It is no coincidence that the evolution of Hobbes views ended with the recognition of a new government (Cromwell's protectorate), established in England as a result of the overthrow of the monarchy. If the state broke up, Hobbes declared, the right of the ousted monarch remains, but the duties of subjects are destroyed; they have the right to seek any protector. Hobbes formulated this position in the form of one of the natural laws and addressed the soldiers of the army of the ousted king: “A soldier can seek his protection where he most hopes to get it, and he can legally give himself into allegiance to a new master.”

For Hobbes, a state of peace and mutual assistance is unthinkable without a strong state. Hobbes did not consider himself entitled to simply fix the gap between the ideals of equality and freedom, supposedly corresponding to the "true" nature of man, and the real life of people. He understood the deviation of the ideal from reality as a fundamental and constant possibility arising from human nature itself. he didn’t sin against societies of historical truth to him, when he showed that the care of people only for themselves was confirmed by their struggle with each other, the war of all against all.

Hobbes wanted to connect the image of the war of all against all not so much with the past as with the actual manifestations of social life and the behavior of individuals in his era. “Maybe someone will think that there has never been such a time and such warriors as those depicted by me; and I don’t think that they ever existed as a general rule around the world, but there are many places where people live like that now, "writes Hobbes and refers, for example, to the life of some tribes in America. But the rapprochement of the natural state and, consequently, the properties of human nature with the behavior of people during the civil war and with "continuous envy", in which "kings and persons vested with supreme authority" are in relation to each other, is especially persistently carried out.

Conclusion

In critical works, Hobbes’s judgment that, by virtue of human nature, a “war of all against all” arises in society is sufficiently studied. However, some clarification needs to be added. This thesis is cited and proved in the second part of the treatise entitled "On the State" - it was this part that led to the fact that the Leviathan, this biblical monster, is perceived as a symbol of strong state power. Numerous opponents of Hobbes accused him of distorting the nature of man.

Meanwhile, this thesis does not have absolute value for Hobbes. He repeatedly says that the state of the “war of all against all” arises in those periods when there is no state power, where order is violated, for example, in the era of revolutions and civil wars: then everyone is forced to defend their interests on their own, because he is deprived of protection by the authorities. The conclusion about the struggle of interests does not appear as a recognition of the initial depravity of nature, but is a natural result of the state of society at the time of social disasters. And Hobbes does not see this as a crime - cruelty in protecting his interests can be a sin, but only breaking the law makes it a crime. Meanwhile, there are periods when there are no laws or they are not implemented under weak state power - the concepts of "justice" and "law" disappear.

Hobbes explains several times that in such periods when the “war of all against all” begins, people follow the natural inalienable instinct of self-preservation: uncertainty about the future, fear for property and life, the decline of the economy, agriculture, trade, navigation, science, art - life person - lonely, rude. Salvation is possible only in strong state power. Many critics perceived the Leviathan treatise as a defense of the monarchy. Meanwhile, Hobbes argued that under any form of government - monarchy, oligarchy or democracy - there can be a strong state power if the "agreement" between the government and the people is respected and the government suppresses religious and political activity in time if it weakens the state. Only a single, solid state power preserves the state, ensures the peace and security of citizens - in this respect, Hobbes was a consistent opponent of the separation of powers and had many supporters in the following centuries.

Like most other progressive thinkers of this era, Hobbes was objectively an exponent of the interests of developing capitalism, which had achieved considerable success in England and some other European countries. Subjectively, he considered himself an unselfish seeker of the truth necessary for the entire human race. “The desire to know why and how,” wrote Hobbes, “is called curiosity. This desire is not inherent in any living being, except man, so that man is not only intellect, but also this specific passion from all other animals in which desire food and other pleasures of sensation, due to its dominance, suppresses the concern for knowing causes, which is mental enjoyment.This last, preserved in the continuous and relentless emergence of knowledge, surpasses the short-term strength of any other carnal enjoyment. " Cit. by Russell B. History of Western Philosophy. In 3 book Prince 3.H. 1, Ch. 7 - M .: "Academic Project", 2006 - p. 530

Only the inherent Hobbes selfless dedication to science and philosophy allowed him to achieve those significant results in the field of philosophy that make his works and works interesting and instructive to the present day.

Bibliography

1. Alekseev P.V. History of Philosophy - M .: Prospect, 2009 - 240p.

2. Blinnikov L.V. The Great Philosophers: A Teaching Dictionary, 2nd ed. - M .: "Logos", 1999 - 432s.

3. Nailing V.A. Fundamentals of philosophy: stages of development and modern problems. History of Western Philosophical Thought - M .: Infra, 2008 - 676s.

4. Hobbes T. Leviathan, or Matter, the form and power of the state of the church and civil // Hobbes T. Works: In 2 vols. - Vol. 2. - M.: Thought, 1991 .-- 731s.

5. History of political and legal doctrines. // Ed. Nersesyantsa V.S., 4th ed., Rev. and add. - M .: Norma, 2004 .-- 944 p.

6. History of philosophy. / Ed. Vasilieva V.V., Krotova A.A., Bugaya D.V. - M.: Academic Project, 2005. - 680s.

7. Prokofiev A.V. "The war of all against all // Ethics: Encyclopedic Dictionary / Huseynov A.A., Korzo M.A., Prokofiev A.V. - M .: Gardariki, 2001. - 672 p.

8. Russell B. History of Western Philosophy. In 3 book Book 3. Part 1, Ch. 7 - M .: "Academic project", 2006 - 996s.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

The concept of worldview and its main components. What is myth, mythology, religion. The scientific-rationalistic paradigm and the "war of all against all" (the philosophy of the New Age). The essence of the empirical and rationalistic method of cognition. The laws of dialectics.

training manual, added 04/07/2012


Biography, creativity before the "Leviathan". The main provisions of the Leviathan. About a human. About the state. About the church. Analysis of Leviathan by B. Russell. The basic interests of all citizens are the same. The relationship between different states.

abstract, added 02/18/2003


T. Hobbes as the largest English materialist of the XVII century. The philosophical system of politics T. Hobbes. Description of the main ideas of Hobbes political philosophy. The role, function and specificity of philosophy. The doctrine of the method by Hobbes. The main features of the policy of the philosopher.

test, added 09/28/2010


Basic facts of the biography of the philosopher Thomas Hobbes. The substantiation of the thesis of feeling as the initial stage of cognition in the work "On the Body". Creation of the first complete system of mechanistic materialism, corresponding to the nature and requirements of natural science.

presentation added 09/26/2013


The study of European philosophy of the XVII century, conventionally called the "philosophy of the New Age", its main ideological factors. Characteristics of the most prominent representatives of the philosophy of this period: Thomas Hobbes, Rene Descartes, Benedict Spinoza, John Locke, etc.

abstract, added 12.25.2010


Consideration of the category of society in philosophy of all times, its presentation in the form of a self-developing system. The most important subsystems of society: economic, social, political, spiritual, their characteristics. Values \u200b\u200bof human existence.

abstract, added July 23, 2009


The essence and main content of social philosophy, directions and methods of its research, problems. The concept and structure of society, the main approaches to it in history. The concepts of the origin of society and their study by great thinkers of all time.

lecture, added on 06/21/2011


Historical conditions and features of the development of the philosophy of the New time, socio-economic changes. Materialism in England in the 17th century and the problem of the method. Philosophers of the era of the scientific revolution (XVII century) - F. Bacon, T. Hobbes, R. Descartes, B. Pascal, B. Spinoza.

test, added 03/14/2009


Reflections of philosophers of all times about the inevitability of death and immortality. Analysis of the stages of the process of transition from life to death. Concepts and varieties of immortality, the development of the history of ideas about it. The essence of immortality in terms of religion and philosophy.

test work, added 12/23/2010


The concept of philosophy, its main sections, the range of issues studied and differences from all other sciences. Mythology and religion as the origins of the emergence of philosophy. Description of the basic functions of philosophy. The main specificity and features of philosophical knowledge.