Erik Kooy For example the assertion that Hobbes was an atheist. This has never been proven or even supported over history but here they are saying that it is fact.
@@holdenfunk7411 I'm not familiar enough with Hobbes' private life to know whether it's true or not, but that's besides the point. How does this one example show that 'liberals' love altering history? What does that even mean?
David Gonzalez so read the scholarly work about Hobbes as I did and the makers of this channel obviously not. They grab most their info from wikipedia.
While Hobbes advocation of an Absolute Sovereign is somewhat questionable, his understanding of human nature is far more realistic than Locke or Rousseau. Taken as a whole, human beings are extremely short-sighted, self-centered and irrational to the point of being self-destructive. In the absence of law or any form of social order, we would happily trample over the bodies of our friends and neighbors if it meant our continued survival.
That short-sightedness, self-centredness and irrationality is today perfectly reflected in the reluctance of governments to act on climate change. Deliver us oh Lord Thanos!
I prefer the words of Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
***** Franklin also wrote "Learn hence, ye who blindly seek more liberty, That apparent restraint may be real protection, Yielding peace and plenty with security." ----- Benjamin Franklin, (from the poem 'An Epitaph for Mungo, the Skugg')
I agree. The government nowadays keeps pushing for security, all while stripping our individual rights away, a piece at a time. We don't need security. This country (the US) was founded not on security, but on liberty, on freedom, and on justice. We are to create our own security, be our own censors, and live life by our own terms, not theirs. How I long for the day when the government stops overstepping their bounds and that which they stay out of our personal lives.
I have a feeling anarchists and libertarians are gonna invade the comments of this video. Because you know, if someone makes an argument against something, that means they're right. I encourage everyone to remember this quote:"There are no solutions. Only trade offs."
***** the sad thing is, neither side arguing is going to change the minds of people who's minds are already made up. If they don't like what side you're on, they'll find an excuse to disagree. I don't really have a dog in this fight. I'm a musician before anything else.
Hobbes was a scared fool, willing to give up his own power so that another power would rule over him. He is no more different than a Monarchist in which he openly rejects.
Hobbes was absolutely right about the natural state of war, and Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, and later Marx were absolutely wrong about a natural state of equality and liberty. Both the classical liberals and socialists were deeply warped by the idea of tabula rasa, or related ideas about a primitive state of liberty (which Marx would amend to a primitive state of communism), even if they came to different conclusions on this and other theories thereafter. The idea of the liberals and also the "utopian socialists" was that humans in their natural state are peaceful and free. The idea of Marx and his materialist socialism is that humans have a natural state of peace and equality and that the establishment of property alienated humans from this nature and created class conflict and led from this base to a superstructure of ideology being plonked into the empty heads of humanity, and that this conflict created by authority over production must progress dialectically through different systems of property, until we can finally come back around to a high tech version of primitive society without property where we can all live in peace and freedom and the state apparatus can wither away. The idea of Hobbes is that great conflict existed in primitive society, and the original state was one of war not of peace. Anthropology has proven Hobbes right, if hyperbolic, on that point, and the liberals (note: both American conservatives and American liberals are "liberals" in this broad sense; they both carry the mark of Locke and Rousseau's dumb ideas just expressed in different ways) and socialists wrong. And yet, Hobbes is one of the least represented viewpoints in modern political philosophy. Of course, Hobbes was also absolutely wrong that this meant that any order is automatically better than chaos, since some orders promote more violence and suffering than alternative orders. Hobbes strikes me as someone who learned a dark fact about human nature but then didn't know how to deal with it. Hobbes' theory is also malformed because the ability for the sovereign to have power in the first place depends on the obedience of the populace, and so arguing that people should obey the power of the sovereign is kind of circular, which works for a while, but is demonstrably not stable. In many ways, there is no choice about things like the Arab Spring. If a government loses popular support it can survive by maintaining the support of the strongest sections like the security forces and army, but it must engage in increasing levels of oppression which makes the rulers position even more precarious, and deepens the potentially chaos that will be unleashed when he totters over. Democratic republics are generally an answer to this problem by replacing civil war with a kind of peaceful war where both sides agree to step aside if they lose, and so a pressure valve is available to avoid the kind of outcome Hobbes feared, whereas if we followed Hobbes completely we are ''more'' likely to end up in a state of war, not less.
Locke was too optimistic about human nature like Rousseau, but his view of how society and government should be did turn out the best, as it would've evolved human nature to become more good but still free.
His POV is the least represented because he failed to understand not everyone is a pacifist like him. People go to war and die for freedom since ancient times, a lot of people would rather risk chaos, violence even death than to obey an authority they hate. In short, he overestimated people's fear of the state of nature.
It used to be stepping aside. Nowadays when the left loses whatever election or referendum they burn cities to the ground and molest everyone who they think beliefs something other than they do..
Conservatism sees religion as an important social glue with the Church of England being an institution that upholds tradition and maintains social relationships therefore his works reflected a value of religion irrespective of his own personal beliefs.
I’m Italian and I’m studying him in high school right now. My teacher said that he did not believe in a specific god but he believed that we were created by someone that we call God. He simply doesn’t give a specific name to his god for what I know
Imagine thousands of people came here willingly in order to learn. I'm glad your teacher pointed out this channel for you, there's plenty to learn with it.
Learning is fun. My ancient prof makes his masters students do all that. They even remind him of his point when he blanks mid-sentence. Granted- He was present at most of the history he’s teaching
i HAVE TO because we are reading "Politics" by David Runciman and we have to write a 1200-word review on that book, which discusses every political philosophy ever. Damn how I hated politics.
Bounsingonbongos1 Why would Hobbes' version be more realistic than Rousseau's? Many Biologists and Zoologists, I would think, would believe that Rousseau's theory on Social Contract would be more realistic. I think this because observing the animal kingdom, especially primates such as chimpanzees, yes there is a "pecking order", but for the most part all members of the tribe and most tribes would avoid one another unless there is a conflict of interest (such as resources or mating grounds(maybe)), but these animal in the end are more akin Rousseau's where they're solitary tribes living peacefully and happily away from conflict.
Okay, I can understand that. But if that were truly the case how were the Native Americans able to live life, by our standards today, very peacefully. When ever they wage war, it was little to no blood shed (from what I understand) they lived very well with nature, and their "government" was just a wise/strong leader who considers every member of his tribe. If there was violence, in the northern american tribes, it was very minimum from what I understand from history.
tsuich00i tsuich00i Propaganda... information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are broadcast, published, or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions. Propaganda... Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view: And Finally... Propaganda is the spreading of information in support of a cause. It’s not so important whether the information is true or false or if the cause is just or not - it’s all propaganda.
It's not my logic. I googled it. They were the top 3 finds. Dictionary definitions of the very word. I always check my logic. Clearly it was you who hasn't or you would of realised they were direct copies.
I want to work for these guys so badly. It would be wonderful to get paid to provide knowledge and philosophy to a modern generation as well as explore historical topics in a new light.
I think I have this from Fukuyama (I could look again if you want), but there is this theory that fundamental political change without revolution is impossible, because political systems have some sort of inertia - they will never change by themselves until a very bad crisis (and therefore, revolution).
Incorrect. The German Social Democrats thought this, and split with Lenin over our obedience to the State and the necessity of revolution. The GDS then suppressed spontaneous uprisings in Germany, with the help of the Freikorps. This destroyed the progressive forces in Germany, and led to the rise of the Nazis. It also stalled revolutionary movements in the rest of Europe, which has been abandoning the social democratic contract with labor out of the necessity to keep capitalism functioning. In the meantime, imperialism has killed by invasion and deprivation several times as many people as the worst estimates of the deaths attributed to revolutionary socialism. despite universal suffrage, the biggest indicator of policy isn’t voting, but campaign finance and corporate interests. The historical lessons are clear: the swift trauma of revolution and rapid industrialization is far less severe than the chronic trauma of the prolonged existence of modern capitalism, aka state-monopoly imperialism. The point of the Red Scare and anticommunism was never to save lives and preserve freedom. Like the cynical deployment of “humanitarian intervention” against oil-rich countries today, the rhetoric around the alleged horrors of communism were used to neutralize dissent, not protect people, and have cost us greater freedom and more innocent lives than they saved. And like Iraqi WMDs, most of these alleged crimes of communism either didn’t happen. And the significant problems they did have were shared by all societies undergoing either rapid development or a series of wars, or were instigated by powerful enemies Workers need a revolutionary party, and we need to organize for a revolutionary seizure of power, explicitly to seize control of major industries to forestall the worst of climate change and global social instability
It's why Judas had such a difficult time with Jesus' message of personal transformation. He wanted earthly change right then and there. The zealots ultimately just brought the heavy hand of the Roman state down on them 30 years later. On the other hand, Jesus did more to change Rome in the long run.
From my reading of Leviathan I never got the impression that Hobbes was an atheist. He was certainly unorthodox and maybe even heretical but he seems to have believed in a providential supreme Deity.
School of Life here are some political Theorists that i think you should make a video about: -Vladimir Lenin -Leon Trotsky - Hannah Arendt On the social Contract dont forget John locke, Espinosa and Jean Jacques Rousseau point of views. - Montesquieu -Jean Bodin - Sir Francis Bacon -Adam Smith -Noberto Bobbio -Augustine of Hippo -Thomas Aquinas -Vilfredo Paredo -Hugo Grotius -Auguste Comte -Kant -Robert Keohane -Joseph Nye -Immanuel Wallerstein -Antonio Gramsci - oh and dont forget a general aproach on the socialism, anarquism, neo-capitalism, totalitarism, National socialism, sionism, islamic and catholic fundamentalism,apartheid The skys the limit basically :)
***** yes i was aware of that :) but i think you should make a clip focus on the contactualism, i think is really an important subject. you guys are doing an amazing job :)
I can't even fathom how from the entire video, that was very enlightening I must say persons were only able to highlight when you said that Hobbes was privately an atheist. Cmon people
Please do videos about sociologists: Comte, Spencer, Spengler, Pareto, Sorel...Also, it would be interesting to start exploring in more depth the main ideas of those philosophers already tackled, one video each : the Ubermensch, alienation, the Logos, the Theory of Ideas, and many more!
I think N.Machiavelli also said that,in his work "The Prince", if you revolt against your ruler, things will get worse and worse. BTW Great video as always.
Could The School of Life make a video about John Locke? I believe he is very important to the Political Theory playlist. I love you channel, thank you!
I love Hobbes' theory. At first glance it seems outmoded, even outrageous... yet every time I can't help but see eye to eye with him in some respects. And this is coming from someone who is quite passionately anti-hierarchical. I guess I just have an ancestral fear of primordial brawls and unruliness which I can't get rid of. On a side note, I've been reading about the Russian Revolution lately and let me tell you, even under the rule of a divine autocrat people can be nasty and brutish. Peasants under Tsar Nicolas II could be truly savage. Thanks for the video!
The Manifold Curiosity You say you have: "an ancestral fear of primordial brawls and unruliness which I can't get rid of." - implying - at least to me - that you think the top of the hierarchy (the King) is the most peaceful person in the hierarchy. Of course this is not true - history shows us that the top of the hierarchy is usually the most violent psychopath at the time... Go read about Edward Longshanks for one example but really you don't need to read about any rulers to know that most find power by being mass murders - note I said most not all - 7 more big examples: Genghis Kahn, Ceaser, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Napoleon & Alexander - The orders of those 7 saw the deaths of 100,000,000 humans approx. maybe 150,000,000 I would contend that the reality is that those at the bottom of the hierarchy - the peasants - are the most peaceful - note I said the most peaceful as opposed to peaceful. That is simply because there are "primordial brawls and unruliness " at every level of the hierarchy but relatively speaking there is far far far more at the top than the bottom... Also it is far far far more likely that the top will engage in pre-meditated cold blooded calculated genocide - whereas your Russian peasants will fight usually in the heat of argument fuelled by vodka. It should be noted that the most severe crime in the western world - and perhaps the whole world - is cold blooded pre-planned murder - not murder committed during anger. (I'm not saying murder committed during anger is ok - just pointing out that of the 2 pre-planned killing is deemed worse in Law.)
Yes, that's precisely it. I agree that we all feel in this way to some extent - it's an instinctive wish to hide behind the father-figure as he shields you from the wolves.
Of course, once there is a revolution, it's already far too late, the system has already failed. A state that is well run would easily be able to quell a mere insurrection before it got too bad. More than that, a well run state would keep the populace satisfied with their lot at least enough to not have popular insurrections in the first place.
dangerouslytalented You bring up an interesting point. Hobbes, an empiricist, believed that the government system was modeled after the human body. He equated the sovereign to the soul, the magistrates to the joints, reward and punishment to nerves, and revolution- to death. So (although this was probably not his intention), we could interpret his work to mean that a ruler should not do whatever he pleased, but rather rule with caution so as not to cause "death", just like our souls (or minds) should be vigilant to prevent an untimely death of our bodies. And if a regime becomes too corrupt, revolution often becomes inevitable. So Hobbes could be understood as saying that a ruler ought to look after his people.
+dangerouslytalented however a lot of revolutions received funding from political enemies of the respective state, so that a fairly small amount of people could take over. A system has however not necessarily failed if a small amount of people are against it, since that is the case in all systems at any given point.
dangerouslytalented I'm not only talking about the cia backed ones. Russian revolution was financed by the german empire, france played a huge part in the american revolutionary war and we see stuff like that nowadays in syria or ukraine. The image of a revolution being carried out or even just supported by the majority of people is pretty wrong in most cases when we look at history. Saying a state has failed if it breaks down due to revolution would thus be almost equal to a state having failed by losing a war (which I wouldn't say could ever be true).
Could The School of Life make a video on Rudolf Rocker, Kropotkin or some other anarchist theorist? It would be interesting to see an informative video on some of the great men and women behind this most influential movement, which caused an uprise of anarchist societies especially in Europe in the early 1900s, and that has had a great role in the democratization of modern societies.
Hobbes wasn't "privately an atheist". He was called an atheist by his enemies as a way to get people not to listen to him. Hobbes stated many times in his private diary about him attending church.
Thank you very much for this lesson, I knew nothing about Hobbes really... So then I thought that may be it is no coincidence that Martin Luther King's favourite philosopher was not Hobbes but Hegel. This is what Dr. King says in Stride Toward Freedom: ".....The third way open to oppressed people in their quest for freedom is the way of nonviolent resistance. Like the synthesis in Hegelian philosophy, the principle of nonviolent resistance seeks to reconcile the truths of two opposites-acquiescence and violence-while avoiding the extremes and immoralities of both." Take the example of Rosa Parks: "On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery Alabama Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake's order to give up her seat in the coloured section to a white passenger, after the white section was filled." That's why she is the mother of civil rights movement! Where would black community be today, if they obeyed the rule of segregation ever since? Take suffragette Emily Davison. The woman who threw herself under the king's horse in 1913, fighting for women's rights.. The women got the right to vote 5 years after that! She and many other suffragettes who refused to accept the injustice made it possible. ( If your heart can take it you can watch the video of her heroic act. She never gained consciousness again and died four days after the incident.) But of course, Hobbes is right in the sense that social changes never happen through a bloody revolution and from one day to the other. Progress needs a lot of time... Just to look at Irak and Syria would be enough to see it unfortunately. But still, in my humble opinion we should not therefore underestimate "the value of disobedience" . Because that slow process begins and proceeds thanks to individuals with incredible courage and dignity, with " a tough mind and a tender heart" who did dare to go against the establishment . I think we should remember every day that we owe all the rights we have today to the sacrifices of those people ...
Well spoken. The world is not black-and-white, and Hobbes was a product of his time so my guess is he didn't consider the possibility of nonviolent resistance/disobedience. I disagree with unconditional obedience but I believe that a Leviathan that restricts some rights can help achieve the best possible equality of/and freedom, if balanced correctly. Hobbes is kinda pleading on a false dichotomy between bloody violent chaos as the state of nature, and unquestioning obedience as the only alternative. He was also not an Anthropologist, so the base argument he builds on, the state of nature, makes his further argumentations fall apart when challenged. Summarizing, I think his philosophy has some valuable ideas, so I wouldn't throw the entire product out, but I also would not subscribe to the whole thing. It bitterly lacks nuance.
@@Trashgriffin Hello there! Thank you so much for taking the time to write such a detailed response. It makes a lot of sense not to throw out the entire philosophy, but to still value what seems reasonable. Recently I have heard from a shrink I admire a lot, Lori Gottlieb, that one of the most important character traits in a person is " flexibility". When we think in black and white and without any nuance, we aren't mentally in a healthy space either. By the way she writes a wonderful column for The Atlantic and also she has a podcast with another shrink, Guy Winch, that is called " Dear Therapists". It is incredibly moving and enriching and on every episode they give a brilliant example of " nuanced thinking". I was especially moved by the episode " Jason's alcoholic father": Much love to you and yours and thanks again!
I think Syria tells the opposite story. The worst crimes perpetrated against he Syrian people have been committed by Bashar al-Assad's government forces and the Russian military.
The problem with social contracts is that they aren't contracts at all. Under contract law, BOTH parties are required to uphold their end of the contract or face a legal penalty. With a gov't however, the citizens are required to do their part, while the gov't gets away with lying, cheating and stealing and no one can do anything about it short of open rebellion. The justice system that presumably would settle contract disputes is a part of the gov't, and is either unwilling or unable to enforce gov't obligations. You end up with a mess like Social Security (raided and stolen from to the point it is running out of money), the VA (promised to veterans and then welched on as often as they can get away with it), etc. The very premise of a social contract is a lie, and it falls apart every single time. Gov't should be kept as small as possible, because every time you delegate authority to them, they diminish your rights, and fail to deliver on the promises they make to coerce you into doing so. Its a con, and you'd think humans would be awake to it by now but nope, we're actively clamoring to have them take over more aspects of our lives.
Thought Criminal There's a limit to everything-- is the fact that Nazi officers at Auschwitz were "obeying the state," justify their actions? I think not.
+tsuich00i your argument posits that people truly have freedom of choice, they don't. The political spectrum in both the U.S. And UK is very narrow. Also there are factors that go into restricting people's free choice. For example every presidential election in the U.S. Has been won by the party that spent the most money. People aren't really choosing so much as they are being coerced and convinced by advertising and the media. So I'd agree with you if politicians only laid out their aims and didn't become cults of personality or have billions spent of advertising to convince people or if the political spectrum truly gave people a broad amount of option from the far left to the right but it doesn't. Politics is bogged down in the centre right and that is people's only choice so you can't blame them for voting for the only shitty options they have.
tsuich00i Listen, I hear what you're saying and I don't completely disagree. However, those political parties are ran by a group of people that aren't "us" - the average public. They are ran by multi-millionaires and whilst still human beings the same as you or I, they have totally different aims and goals in politics than the avg. person.
+tsuich00i "Specialists need to be backed by authority in order to prove effective in their field. " What do you mean by "authority"? I acknowledge that a doctor is an authority on medical matters. But r u saying that they have to be backed up by actual physical force to be good doctors?
I like Hobbes philosophy up to a point, there is always a battle between order and chaos but too much order stifles the individual and the state of nature causes too much chaos, so there is always a fine line to tread.
I think it's really fascinating that Hobbes and Rousseau had the exact opposite views on what a State of Nature would be like, yet had the same views on the necessity for Totalitarianism.
So a guy who shouts at people that he will burn them if they don't obey the law of his Father and who beats random People and who is a little bit racist?
That'd be cool but there is no historical evidence of Jesus being an actual historical figure. It's a rather socking fact that he probably was a mythical figure created after the fact of the creation of Christianity by other figures as Paul.
Cecilia Beiter You refer to Tacitus. Not until generations after the alleged incident did Tacitus write about Jesus. There is absolutely no proof of Jesus in his lifetime. None.
Is Voltaire a big enough topic to cover? I find him interesting because of his disagreement with Rousseau and how they both had influence, to an extent, over the various factions during the French Revolution.
Wow. That was fantastic. I am one third of the way through Leviathan right now and am amazed at finding it very hard to argue against him. I wish he was wrong, but I very much fear he is right... in his diagnosis of human nature if not in the monarchical "cure".
You should watch the videos on Plato, John Locke and Henry David Thoreau (David Thoreau is my favorite philosopher). They have opposing point of views from Hobbes and Plato envisioned a much different state of nature.
smith2354 I'll get right on it! I've had Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy on audiobook for a few years and have listened to it several times, it's fantastic. He doesn't discuss Thoreau though. I'll put it on the list, thanks
I read his main book and came away thinking it was a collection of baseless ideas born of fear. Fear seemed to dominate all aspects of this thinking. If you like to history I don’t think his ideas check out very well. If anyone wants to read a fantastic rebuttal(not directly but in spirit) there are several places to look to but Randolph Bourne is my favorite by far.
Dear School of Life, Why do you say that Hobbes was an atheist? The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy says otherwise. So does the I E P: "He was not (as many have charged) an atheist…" Does that mean that the editors at Stanford and the I E P are wrong?
Hobbes Before Hobbes: Leaders justified their rule by saying they had a divine right. This means a leader was given his right to rule by God, and if you don't believe in the leader you will go to hell. To what extent should we patiently obey rulers? To what extent should we start revolutions in search of a new world? We must obey governments to avoid chaos, even the bad ones. In the state of nature, where there is no government life would be painful and short (due to fighting), so having a bad one isn't so bad. A government is created by seeding your power (e.g. by voting, or omission), so if you have a a bad one, it's your fault. You get the government you deserve.
Fun fact: when his mother was pregnant with him, the Spanish Armada seized the British shores, upon hearing the news his mother gave birth to him out of fear. He embraced the fact when he remarked "fear and I were born twins"
The problem with Hobbes wasn't that he was wrong about people; he's right to say that, without government, "bad" people have an enormous advantage over "good" people. Where he went wrong was believing that absolute autocracy was the solution. Really, all that does is institutionalize that "bad" people play in the state of nature. In the state of nature, anyone can break your legs and take your house, but Hobbes seems to think that letting one person do that to everyone is an improvement. Thank god we had progress on that front.
This man provides a 7 minute video on Hobbes' political outlook and the comments only care about whether he's atheist or not. Reason #1000 for why I can't stand organized religion
Steven Pinker made an excellent case for Hobbes' Leviathan in his book, The Better Angels of Our Nature. Absolutely necessary to read it if you have a genuine interest in the Hobbes vs. Rousseau debate!
Amazing ! I have been searching for such theory for so long ! What i find painfully ironic here is how America-Uk went against Hobbes's ideas and imposed a change of goverment on other countries they are not related to like Iraq and forced their goverments that the ppl accepted even if they did not agree with because they feared the bigger chaos and blood shed so they went along with Saddam ! But USA-UK ignored the ppl and HObbes and went for a change by leading awar against Iraq with no plans whatsoever for how it gonna lead the country afterward forcing democracy on Iraqis while the ppl and no one around the world could really define democracy accurately !!! And HOBBES WAS RIGHT the brutal change of regimes leaded the country to atormoil and blood shed ! And a storm of un wise revolutions supported by the west all over middle east and so the current chaos was not a supprise ! Who did we went along with all that ! This is pure madness .... The west simply did not apply what it preached when it came to the well beings of other countries for its selfish gains ... Shame on all of us for not educating ourselves enough .... hobbes is my torch now ... Thank you school of life ....
From hobbes perspective, it's beneficial if drug dealers conform to laws against drug dealing. At the end of the day, you'll prolong your time spent being free, opposed to constantly getting locked up for making money that you temporarily enjoy due to the inevitability of your arrest and conviction. Makes sense in legal terms.
He was actually the (indirect) philosophical basis of constitutional monarchy, where all of the honor, mystery and power is invested in someone who, in theory, is all-powerful but has no power in reality - but acts as a check on those really in power.
Just a quick note: it is far from clear that Hobbes was an atheist in the modern sense of the word. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Hobbes's views about religion have been disputed at great length, and a wide range of positions have been attributed to him, from atheism to orthodox Christianity." To summarize his religious views with the sentence "He himself was, privately, an atheist" is misleading; it overlooks the vast array of differing opinions as to his true religious affiliation.
+Grant Stevens If you look at this channel's other videos on religion, or their video on Soren Kierkegaard, it is very clear that this channel has, at the very least, a visible bias against religious faith.
The fear of violent overthrow of authority has always seemed to me to be the equivalent of being scared of Jaws at the movies. You know the shark is there, and you must protect yourself. But it turns out to be harmless, and it makes you wonder how foolish it is to be afraid of a shark.
@@cheriepeden6384 Of course they are. Top down control vs bottom up control. It really depends what is true and for whom, traditions vs change etc. It makes sense why the people would be afraid of the leaders too, you just have to look at Putin's war of aggression. It doesn't matter if you think it's justifiable or not. Starting an invasion against your people(but but they are not mine, exactly proves my point), killing innocent children in the name of? etc. tells us something about certain nations and their systems. What is a nation exactly? Why are there different nations, empires etc.? If we are the same species and humans. Because tribal nature of humans, primitive brain and brainwashed by centuries old ideas, and geography. Established vs progressive. Nothing new here. Then there is the argument of what was right and what is wrong, black and white thinking.
If you're serious about the implementation of a reform agenda, you won't be wee-weeing your way home. Apart from making fools out of yourselves by trying to overthrow the government that you voted for, none of you have the spine to do anything but do as you're told. So what are you whining about, you seem pretty good at that.
Hobbes may or may not have been an atheist but his political theory is profoundly inflected with Christian thought. What is his 'state of nature' other than 'original sin' and 'fallenness'? Christ said: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars. And render unto God the things that are God's". It was the Enlightenment _philosophes_ who thought that man is essentially good, which is so evidently false.
In his work with John Locke, I realize their opposite views; Hobbes and Locke both were British philosophers. "Governments are born not because God ordains them, but because life without government is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" in Hobbes's words and "inconvenient" in Locke's."
I understand what Hobbes is getting at when speaking of an imperfect ruler vs a chaotic and bloody revolution, but I find that it is that nature of man to strive for something greater, to progress society however they can for themselves and others, and dictators, while ideally effective in the short term, do not necessarily allow for much progress in how we treat other people and how we are governed. I believe that a good solution that would accomplish as much as any revolution but without all the bloodshed would be to take a small group of perhaps one thousand individuals and, with careful and thoughtful monitoring of the progress, form a small, experimental nation to test certain political theories.
Thomas Hobbes was a philosophical titan who dared to peer into the abyss of human nature and, rather than recoil in horror, constructed a grand edifice of political thought to protect us from its depths. His masterpiece, Leviathan, is a blueprint for a state forged from the raw materials of fear and self-preservation. Hobbes painted a stark portrait of humanity in its natural state: a war of all against all, a realm of solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short lives. To escape this terrifying condition, we surrender our individual freedoms to a powerful sovereign, creating a leviathan capable of enforcing peace and order. While his absolutist leanings might raise eyebrows today, Hobbes’ core insights remain relevant. His emphasis on the social contract as the foundation of political legitimacy and his exploration of the psychological underpinnings of power continue to shape our understanding of governance. In essence, Hobbes was a realist who offered a sobering yet pragmatic vision of human society. His work serves as a constant reminder that without strong institutions, we risk descending back into the chaos from which civilization emerged. Hobbes: The man who looked into the abyss and built a state to protect us from it
***** Well I don't think Machiavelli would be cruel without it being necessary to produce a specific result. And even if he were, Hobbes wouldn't have the balls to stop him.
I don't think Machiavelli strongly believed in a dictatorship. You must consider the circumstances he wrote The Prince under. France was invading and the Italian states were weak on their own. I think he advocated for a temporary alliance to expel invaders like France and then go back to being individual states. The Discourses clearly state that he favored a more republican system but historical events certainly impact our worldview. Much like they did Hobbes
Thank you so much, school of life! I'm using your videos to understand these difficult topics in order to prepare for my final exam from social sciences. Thanks a lot! :)
But guys, not again! He wasn't a "confirmed" atheist. It's debated whether he was maybe atheist, but it's far from sure, and half of "Leviathan" is based on it's compatibility with the Bible.. Not very atheist either. Please stop forming everyone into your opinion. Otherwise, these videos are great.
Hobbes shared the same idea with Confucius that people should obey authority; obedience to authority creates harmony. Both English civil war and China's warring states period were chaotic.
Hi guys, first let me tell you I admire all your work of bringing philosophy to the lives of people. Every time I see one of your videos I think that enjoying life is the biggest goal to achieve for every human and your stuff teaches that in a way. Anyway, I'm from Colombia and it would mean the world to me if you could do a video about our only real philosopher: Fernando Gonzalez. I bet he is not that well known outside of Latin America and I think he would be a great addition, in contrast with all the European philosophers you guys show us. It is said that Sartre was impressed by his work and once told a group of Latin American students in Paris: "You have the only existentialist writer in America [the continent]"
Resistance to Civil Government (Civil Disobedience) is an essay by American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849. In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice.
Have you guys been contacted by schools that use your videos to teach this stuff? And I don't mean Universities by the way, I'm talking about elementary to high school type schools. I would have certainly loved to watch a video like this when I was still in school, it seems like my classmates didn't really find a special enough interest in these subjects, but quick videos like these really do give anyone a good piece of thought.
This kind of theory may seem harsh to western sensibilities, but to many countries like Arab countries and Asian countries, this is exactly what we need.
***** hi, i'm a philosophy student from Mexico, i'm really interested in helping to translate your videos to Spanish. Mainly those on your curriculum section, about philosophy, art, sociology, history and eastern philosophy. I would love to know a way in which i could have the opportunity of doing so. Really love the way the tackle these subjects, and really looking forward to share them with no English-speakers. A salute from Mexico, keep up with the good job :)
I am a little surprised that the statement, "... was privately an atheist," made it into this. This key point is not overtly reflected in his works. If he was privately atheist, it was so private that nobody knew making this statement wildly speculative in an otherwise solid summary.
Have you done a video on Edward Bernays? He featured in a brilliant documentary series called "Century of the Self" and I'd love to hear your take on him.
***** true but it's arguably some of the most relevant and useful information to the School of Life audience. Would love to see a Bernays or Century of the Self type video if only a tribute to Adam Curtis's work :)
dangerouslytalented Check it out - It's linked on this mind blowing documentary list I wrote a while back: livelearnevolve.com/10-mind-blowing-documentaries/
Thomas Hobbes write his best works after 60 and died at 91, during one of the most turbulent times in english history. Man was damn lucky or damn good health conscious.
Hobbes was also an early materialist. His view of human nature as selfish greedy and bad formed his political theories. He presupposed the existence of private property and his view of human nature was based on his observation of man(sic) struggling in a propertied society.
Kinda disapointed .. thought that this would go further more in dept about theory and how Hobbes defended it, but yeah .. That's probably why the comments are like this ..
Everyone says that Leviathan is named after the absolute ruler. I am not so sure. You must remember that Hobbes was writing in a very Biblically literate culture. Leviathan is mentioned in the Bible - Psalm 74 being an example. In ancient Hebrew thought Leviathan represented the forces of chaos, put in their palce by God's creative work. Chaos was Hobbes' chief concern. I think that this is the inspiration for the title of his book.
After the age of 60? You hear that Mom? I'm not a failure at 23!
Gives me hope bahahaha
lol, nice.
Funny! You wiil make your first million before 100.
we all are failures, especially you stephen!
absolutely
“Hobbes is an atheist”
Hobbes: I’m not an atheist.
School of Life: Hobbes was privately an atheist.
Liberals love bending history and facts
@@erikkooy2804 but it is true
@@holdenfunk7411 Care to elaborate?
Erik Kooy For example the assertion that Hobbes was an atheist. This has never been proven or even supported over history but here they are saying that it is fact.
@@holdenfunk7411 I'm not familiar enough with Hobbes' private life to know whether it's true or not, but that's besides the point. How does this one example show that 'liberals' love altering history? What does that even mean?
I love the narrator's English. It's wonderful. Absolutely listenable.
1:39 The Devine Righ of Kings
2:17 The Social Contract
3:23 Leviathan (Hobbes' book)
3:39 The State Of Nature
4:18 Governments
4:41 The Leviathan
Thank you
thank youuu
Thanks pal! Still helping someone even after 2y😂
Actually, Hobbes himself said that life in the State of Nature was "nasty, BRITISH, and short."
***** It was only a pun.
+The School of Life I always thought that the British left to there natural state were nasty and short.
+Secular Liberty there were no British is his day so he couldn't of said that.
He didn't said "British", he said brutish
😂 😂
No one knows if Hobbes was an athiest, it's just speculated that he might have been.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes/#5
well done
Who knows more this channel or you? I am going to go with the scholarly work of this channel
David Gonzalez so read the scholarly work about Hobbes as I did and the makers of this channel obviously not. They grab most their info from wikipedia.
Your an utter pillock.
Old English spelling is... certainly something...
DigestiveDunker The writing disturbed me so much I could not pay attention to the meaning at first. ^^
Early Modern English, that is
Middle English you mean
If you can read it: Modern or Early Modern English
If you can’t read it: Middle or Old English
"Warre" always throws me off when I read Leviathan.
I love that Thomas Hobbes is blinking naturally. The attention to detail is superb!
While Hobbes advocation of an Absolute Sovereign is somewhat questionable, his understanding of human nature is far more realistic than Locke or Rousseau. Taken as a whole, human beings are extremely short-sighted, self-centered and irrational to the point of being self-destructive. In the absence of law or any form of social order, we would happily trample over the bodies of our friends and neighbors if it meant our continued survival.
@@skair5425 Locke was the one that believed children are blank slates, not Rousseau.
@Aether
You're right, I got the names mixed up. Thanks!
That short-sightedness, self-centredness and irrationality is today perfectly reflected in the reluctance of governments to act on climate change. Deliver us oh Lord Thanos!
Not all the time.
@Dallas Lastname Very good point.
I prefer the words of Benjamin Franklin:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
***** Franklin also wrote
"Learn hence, ye who blindly seek more liberty,
That apparent restraint may be real protection,
Yielding peace and plenty with security."
----- Benjamin Franklin, (from the poem 'An Epitaph for Mungo, the Skugg')
cravenjooooooooooooo
Did you?
cravenjooooooooooooo
Did you pass him some toilet paper? Did you have a square to spare?
I agree. The government nowadays keeps pushing for security, all while stripping our individual rights away, a piece at a time. We don't need security. This country (the US) was founded not on security, but on liberty, on freedom, and on justice. We are to create our own security, be our own censors, and live life by our own terms, not theirs. How I long for the day when the government stops overstepping their bounds and that which they stay out of our personal lives.
***** Murica!
I have a feeling anarchists and libertarians are gonna invade the comments of this video. Because you know, if someone makes an argument against something, that means they're right. I encourage everyone to remember this quote:"There are no solutions. Only trade offs."
***** I don't remember, honestly
***** the sad thing is, neither side arguing is going to change the minds of people who's minds are already made up. If they don't like what side you're on, they'll find an excuse to disagree. I don't really have a dog in this fight. I'm a musician before anything else.
Hobbes was a scared fool, willing to give up his own power so that another power would rule over him. He is no more different than a Monarchist in which he openly rejects.
Saved my ass! The Leviathan is harsh read and having someone portray a structured overview of Hobbes helped organize my own thoughts! Thank you!
I found the same with John Locke!
Hobbes was absolutely right about the natural state of war, and Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, and later Marx were absolutely wrong about a natural state of equality and liberty. Both the classical liberals and socialists were deeply warped by the idea of tabula rasa, or related ideas about a primitive state of liberty (which Marx would amend to a primitive state of communism), even if they came to different conclusions on this and other theories thereafter.
The idea of the liberals and also the "utopian socialists" was that humans in their natural state are peaceful and free. The idea of Marx and his materialist socialism is that humans have a natural state of peace and equality and that the establishment of property alienated humans from this nature and created class conflict and led from this base to a superstructure of ideology being plonked into the empty heads of humanity, and that this conflict created by authority over production must progress dialectically through different systems of property, until we can finally come back around to a high tech version of primitive society without property where we can all live in peace and freedom and the state apparatus can wither away.
The idea of Hobbes is that great conflict existed in primitive society, and the original state was one of war not of peace. Anthropology has proven Hobbes right, if hyperbolic, on that point, and the liberals (note: both American conservatives and American liberals are "liberals" in this broad sense; they both carry the mark of Locke and Rousseau's dumb ideas just expressed in different ways) and socialists wrong. And yet, Hobbes is one of the least represented viewpoints in modern political philosophy.
Of course, Hobbes was also absolutely wrong that this meant that any order is automatically better than chaos, since some orders promote more violence and suffering than alternative orders. Hobbes strikes me as someone who learned a dark fact about human nature but then didn't know how to deal with it. Hobbes' theory is also malformed because the ability for the sovereign to have power in the first place depends on the obedience of the populace, and so arguing that people should obey the power of the sovereign is kind of circular, which works for a while, but is demonstrably not stable. In many ways, there is no choice about things like the Arab Spring.
If a government loses popular support it can survive by maintaining the support of the strongest sections like the security forces and army, but it must engage in increasing levels of oppression which makes the rulers position even more precarious, and deepens the potentially chaos that will be unleashed when he totters over. Democratic republics are generally an answer to this problem by replacing civil war with a kind of peaceful war where both sides agree to step aside if they lose, and so a pressure valve is available to avoid the kind of outcome Hobbes feared, whereas if we followed Hobbes completely we are ''more'' likely to end up in a state of war, not less.
Locke was too optimistic about human nature like Rousseau, but his view of how society and government should be did turn out the best, as it would've evolved human nature to become more good but still free.
''absolutely right''
''absolutely wrong''
listen to yourself.
His POV is the least represented because he failed to understand not everyone is a pacifist like him. People go to war and die for freedom since ancient times, a lot of people would rather risk chaos, violence even death than to obey an authority they hate. In short, he overestimated people's fear of the state of nature.
democratic republics cannot be "Aware" of an issue more so than a Snake is aware of the owner's care that feeds him.
It used to be stepping aside. Nowadays when the left loses whatever election or referendum they burn cities to the ground and molest everyone who they think beliefs something other than they do..
Hobbes was an atheist? Weird, everything I've seen of his works and biography pegged him as a deist and/or unorthodox theist.
Conservatism sees religion as an important social glue with the Church of England being an institution that upholds tradition and maintains social relationships therefore his works reflected a value of religion irrespective of his own personal beliefs.
Writing for an audience, and playing on most people's deep-seated desire for mystical guidance, I think.
I’m Italian and I’m studying him in high school right now.
My teacher said that he did not believe in a specific god but he believed that we were created by someone that we call God. He simply doesn’t give a specific name to his god for what I know
He was christian ye
Imagine having to watch every video on this channel because your professor is a boomer who can’t figure out canvas
thats rough buddy
Imagine thousands of people came here willingly in order to learn. I'm glad your teacher pointed out this channel for you, there's plenty to learn with it.
Learning is fun. My ancient prof makes his masters students do all that. They even remind him of his point when he blanks mid-sentence. Granted- He was present at most of the history he’s teaching
Imagine you read a book
i HAVE TO because we are reading "Politics" by David Runciman and we have to write a 1200-word review on that book, which discusses every political philosophy ever. Damn how I hated politics.
Although I believe Hobbes's state of nature is more realistic than Rousseau's, they were both Hypothetical and probably both somewhat wrong
Bounsingonbongos1 Why would Hobbes' version be more realistic than Rousseau's? Many Biologists and Zoologists, I would think, would believe that Rousseau's theory on Social Contract would be more realistic. I think this because observing the animal kingdom, especially primates such as chimpanzees, yes there is a "pecking order", but for the most part all members of the tribe and most tribes would avoid one another unless there is a conflict of interest (such as resources or mating grounds(maybe)), but these animal in the end are more akin Rousseau's where they're solitary tribes living peacefully and happily away from conflict.
***** Do you mind sharing the source that you're referring too?
Okay, I can understand that. But if that were truly the case how were the Native Americans able to live life, by our standards today, very peacefully. When ever they wage war, it was little to no blood shed (from what I understand) they lived very well with nature, and their "government" was just a wise/strong leader who considers every member of his tribe. If there was violence, in the northern american tribes, it was very minimum from what I understand from history.
tsuich00i tsuich00i
Propaganda... information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are broadcast, published, or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions.
Propaganda... Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view:
And Finally...
Propaganda is the spreading of information in support of a cause. It’s not so important whether the information is true or false or if the cause is just or not - it’s all propaganda.
It's not my logic. I googled it. They were the top 3 finds. Dictionary definitions of the very word.
I always check my logic. Clearly it was you who hasn't or you would of realised they were direct copies.
I want to work for these guys so badly. It would be wonderful to get paid to provide knowledge and philosophy to a modern generation as well as explore historical topics in a new light.
Write your own philosophy and maybe you'll see yourself on here
Watch now
ruclips.net/p/PL1bqf4wM5S6tl33rwW1FBlXjfPKmZft-n
How did that end up working out ?
Just start your own channel.
Even if revolution sounds romantic, todays world shows us that gradual change may be wiser.
I think I have this from Fukuyama (I could look again if you want), but there is this theory that fundamental political change without revolution is impossible, because political systems have some sort of inertia - they will never change by themselves until a very bad crisis (and therefore, revolution).
Incorrect. The German Social Democrats thought this, and split with Lenin over our obedience to the State and the necessity of revolution.
The GDS then suppressed spontaneous uprisings in Germany, with the help of the Freikorps.
This destroyed the progressive forces in Germany, and led to the rise of the Nazis.
It also stalled revolutionary movements in the rest of Europe, which has been abandoning the social democratic contract with labor out of the necessity to keep capitalism functioning.
In the meantime, imperialism has killed by invasion and deprivation several times as many people as the worst estimates of the deaths attributed to revolutionary socialism.
despite universal suffrage, the biggest indicator of policy isn’t voting, but campaign finance and corporate interests.
The historical lessons are clear: the swift trauma of revolution and rapid industrialization is far less severe than the chronic trauma of the prolonged existence of modern capitalism, aka state-monopoly imperialism.
The point of the Red Scare and anticommunism was never to save lives and preserve freedom. Like the cynical deployment of “humanitarian intervention” against oil-rich countries today, the rhetoric around the alleged horrors of communism were used to neutralize dissent, not protect people, and have cost us greater freedom and more innocent lives than they saved.
And like Iraqi WMDs, most of these alleged crimes of communism either didn’t happen. And the significant problems they did have were shared by all societies undergoing either rapid development or a series of wars, or were instigated by powerful enemies
Workers need a revolutionary party, and we need to organize for a revolutionary seizure of power, explicitly to seize control of major industries to forestall the worst of climate change and global social instability
It's why Judas had such a difficult time with Jesus' message of personal transformation. He wanted earthly change right then and there. The zealots ultimately just brought the heavy hand of the Roman state down on them 30 years later. On the other hand, Jesus did more to change Rome in the long run.
Marxists take note.
Gradual change leads to extinction. Why is it you don't advocate gradual change when it comes to technology, only societal change?
From my reading of Leviathan I never got the impression that Hobbes was an atheist.
He was certainly unorthodox and maybe even heretical but he seems to have believed in a providential supreme Deity.
School of Life here are some political Theorists that i think you should make a video about:
-Vladimir Lenin
-Leon Trotsky
- Hannah Arendt
On the social Contract dont forget John locke, Espinosa and Jean Jacques Rousseau point of views.
- Montesquieu
-Jean Bodin
- Sir Francis Bacon
-Adam Smith
-Noberto Bobbio
-Augustine of Hippo
-Thomas Aquinas
-Vilfredo Paredo
-Hugo Grotius
-Auguste Comte
-Kant
-Robert Keohane
-Joseph Nye
-Immanuel Wallerstein
-Antonio Gramsci
- oh and dont forget a general aproach on the socialism, anarquism, neo-capitalism, totalitarism, National socialism, sionism, islamic and catholic fundamentalism,apartheid
The skys the limit basically :)
***** yes i was aware of that :) but i think you should make a clip focus on the contactualism, i think is really an important subject. you guys are doing an amazing job :)
I can't even fathom how from the entire video, that was very enlightening I must say persons were only able to highlight when you said that Hobbes was privately an atheist. Cmon people
Please do videos about sociologists: Comte, Spencer, Spengler, Pareto, Sorel...Also, it would be interesting to start exploring in more depth the main ideas of those philosophers already tackled, one video each : the Ubermensch, alienation, the Logos, the Theory of Ideas, and many more!
I think N.Machiavelli also said that,in his work "The Prince", if you revolt against your ruler, things will get worse and worse. BTW Great video as always.
Mir namj I was talking about Chapter III.
States that are conquered by foreign power are usually brought in by discontent citizen hoping for a change.
Could The School of Life make a video about John Locke? I believe he is very important to the Political Theory playlist. I love you channel, thank you!
he did! Great call
@Soldier i believe that Locke gave much more freedom to people cause he perceived people as rational beings than Hobbes.
“It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep.”
idk man being a sheep sounds pretty fun you get to chill in a field
@@chobochobus until a lion comes to grab ya
@@kkech1 yeah but until then i might as well enjoy my 100 years
@@Markussiemens658 them are facts right there! 😂😂
@@Markussiemens658 What are you going to do with your 100 years as a sheep?
I love Hobbes' theory. At first glance it seems outmoded, even outrageous... yet every time I can't help but see eye to eye with him in some respects. And this is coming from someone who is quite passionately anti-hierarchical. I guess I just have an ancestral fear of primordial brawls and unruliness which I can't get rid of.
On a side note, I've been reading about the Russian Revolution lately and let me tell you, even under the rule of a divine autocrat people can be nasty and brutish. Peasants under Tsar Nicolas II could be truly savage. Thanks for the video!
I don't really think you're qualified to make that judgement.
The Manifold Curiosity You say you have: "an ancestral fear of primordial brawls and unruliness which I can't get rid of." - implying - at least to me - that you think the top of the hierarchy (the King) is the most peaceful person in the hierarchy.
Of course this is not true - history shows us that the top of the hierarchy is usually the most violent psychopath at the time...
Go read about Edward Longshanks for one example but really you don't need to read about any rulers to know that most find power by being mass murders - note I said most not all - 7 more big examples: Genghis Kahn, Ceaser, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Napoleon & Alexander - The orders of those 7 saw the deaths of 100,000,000 humans approx. maybe 150,000,000
I would contend that the reality is that those at the bottom of the hierarchy - the peasants - are the most peaceful - note I said the most peaceful as opposed to peaceful.
That is simply because there are "primordial brawls and unruliness " at every level of the hierarchy but relatively speaking there is far far far more at the top than the bottom...
Also it is far far far more likely that the top will engage in pre-meditated cold blooded calculated genocide - whereas your Russian peasants will fight usually in the heat of argument fuelled by vodka.
It should be noted that the most severe crime in the western world - and perhaps the whole world - is cold blooded pre-planned murder - not murder committed during anger. (I'm not saying murder committed during anger is ok - just pointing out that of the 2 pre-planned killing is deemed worse in Law.)
Yes, that's precisely it. I agree that we all feel in this way to some extent - it's an instinctive wish to hide behind the father-figure as he shields you from the wolves.
how can you agree with Hobbeshe said we should obey a ruler even if he violating our rights
Aaron James
you can elect a dictator
the minority is oppressed in that system
how can that be liberalism
just the opposite
He did his work after the age of 60! That is very inspiring.
Of course, once there is a revolution, it's already far too late, the system has already failed. A state that is well run would easily be able to quell a mere insurrection before it got too bad. More than that, a well run state would keep the populace satisfied with their lot at least enough to not have popular insurrections in the first place.
Sir George Severn
That's how the British did it. Simply adapted the old system.
dangerouslytalented You bring up an interesting point. Hobbes, an empiricist, believed that the government system was modeled after the human body. He equated the sovereign to the soul, the magistrates to the joints, reward and punishment to nerves, and revolution- to death. So (although this was probably not his intention), we could interpret his work to mean that a ruler should not do whatever he pleased, but rather rule with caution so as not to cause "death", just like our souls (or minds) should be vigilant to prevent an untimely death of our bodies. And if a regime becomes too corrupt, revolution often becomes inevitable. So Hobbes could be understood as saying that a ruler ought to look after his people.
+dangerouslytalented however a lot of revolutions received funding from political enemies of the respective state, so that a fairly small amount of people could take over. A system has however not necessarily failed if a small amount of people are against it, since that is the case in all systems at any given point.
DeliciousDishes They still require the state to break down. The classic CIA backed "revolutions", are mostly coups.
dangerouslytalented I'm not only talking about the cia backed ones. Russian revolution was financed by the german empire, france played a huge part in the american revolutionary war and we see stuff like that nowadays in syria or ukraine.
The image of a revolution being carried out or even just supported by the majority of people is pretty wrong in most cases when we look at history.
Saying a state has failed if it breaks down due to revolution would thus be almost equal to a state having failed by losing a war (which I wouldn't say could ever be true).
Could The School of Life make a video on Rudolf Rocker, Kropotkin or some other anarchist theorist? It would be interesting to see an informative video on some of the great men and women behind this most influential movement, which caused an uprise of anarchist societies especially in Europe in the early 1900s, and that has had a great role in the democratization of modern societies.
I'm having fun watching this the 2nd of June 2020.
Me to bud
Same
question?
20th oct 2024
Hobbes is one of the political philosophers I respect the most, even though I don't agree with his concept of natural rights.
And why is that so ? I’m doing an esssay and I would like to hear what you have to say for him && locke
Hobbes wasn't "privately an atheist". He was called an atheist by his enemies as a way to get people not to listen to him. Hobbes stated many times in his private diary about him attending church.
Thank you very much for this lesson, I knew nothing about Hobbes really... So then I thought that may be it is no coincidence that Martin Luther King's favourite philosopher was not Hobbes but Hegel. This is what Dr. King says in Stride Toward Freedom:
".....The third way open to oppressed people in their quest for freedom is the way of nonviolent resistance. Like the synthesis in Hegelian philosophy, the principle of nonviolent resistance seeks to reconcile the truths of two opposites-acquiescence and violence-while avoiding the extremes and immoralities of both."
Take the example of Rosa Parks:
"On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery Alabama Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake's order to give up her seat in the coloured section to a white passenger, after the white section was filled."
That's why she is the mother of civil rights movement! Where would black community be today, if they obeyed the rule of segregation ever since?
Take suffragette Emily Davison. The woman who threw herself under the king's horse in 1913, fighting for women's rights.. The women got the right to vote 5 years after that! She and many other suffragettes who refused to accept the injustice made it possible.
( If your heart can take it you can watch the video of her heroic act. She never gained consciousness again and died four days after the incident.)
But of course, Hobbes is right in the sense that social changes never happen through a bloody revolution and from one day to the other. Progress needs a lot of time... Just to look at Irak and Syria would be enough to see it unfortunately.
But still, in my humble opinion we should not therefore underestimate "the value of disobedience" . Because that slow process begins and proceeds thanks to individuals with incredible courage and dignity, with " a tough mind and a tender heart" who did dare to go against the establishment . I think we should remember every day that we owe all the rights we have today to the sacrifices of those people ...
Who is God?
Well spoken. The world is not black-and-white, and Hobbes was a product of his time so my guess is he didn't consider the possibility of nonviolent resistance/disobedience. I disagree with unconditional obedience but I believe that a Leviathan that restricts some rights can help achieve the best possible equality of/and freedom, if balanced correctly. Hobbes is kinda pleading on a false dichotomy between bloody violent chaos as the state of nature, and unquestioning obedience as the only alternative. He was also not an Anthropologist, so the base argument he builds on, the state of nature, makes his further argumentations fall apart when challenged. Summarizing, I think his philosophy has some valuable ideas, so I wouldn't throw the entire product out, but I also would not subscribe to the whole thing. It bitterly lacks nuance.
@@Trashgriffin Hello there! Thank you so much for taking the time to write such a detailed response. It makes a lot of sense not to throw out the entire philosophy, but to still value what seems reasonable. Recently I have heard from a shrink I admire a lot, Lori Gottlieb, that one of the most important character traits in a person is " flexibility". When we think in black and white and without any nuance, we aren't mentally in a healthy space either. By the way she writes a wonderful column for The Atlantic and also she has a podcast with another shrink, Guy Winch, that is called " Dear Therapists". It is incredibly moving and enriching and on every episode they give a brilliant example of " nuanced thinking". I was especially moved by the episode " Jason's alcoholic father":
Much love to you and yours and thanks again!
... Anyone immediately start thinking of Syria?
I think Syria tells the opposite story. The worst crimes perpetrated against he Syrian people have been committed by Bashar al-Assad's government forces and the Russian military.
Jeddak John i was thinking more of Saudi Arabia
Boinkers
does anyone know what video editor/animator do the school of life is using in this video? tks.
The problem with social contracts is that they aren't contracts at all. Under contract law, BOTH parties are required to uphold their end of the contract or face a legal penalty. With a gov't however, the citizens are required to do their part, while the gov't gets away with lying, cheating and stealing and no one can do anything about it short of open rebellion. The justice system that presumably would settle contract disputes is a part of the gov't, and is either unwilling or unable to enforce gov't obligations. You end up with a mess like Social Security (raided and stolen from to the point it is running out of money), the VA (promised to veterans and then welched on as often as they can get away with it), etc.
The very premise of a social contract is a lie, and it falls apart every single time. Gov't should be kept as small as possible, because every time you delegate authority to them, they diminish your rights, and fail to deliver on the promises they make to coerce you into doing so. Its a con, and you'd think humans would be awake to it by now but nope, we're actively clamoring to have them take over more aspects of our lives.
Substitute corporations for governments and your argument is equally valid.
Can you make a video about Jean-Jacques Rousseau?
***** when is locke coming?
akiru bamiru +.+
***** When will we see Thomas Aquinas :P. Btw great video as always!
His theory connects to Machiavelli
1:30 "Obey the state because uncertainty!"
Yeah, no thanks.
Thought Criminal There's a limit to everything-- is the fact that Nazi officers at Auschwitz were "obeying the state," justify their actions? I think not.
tsuich00i School of Life did a video on this..."Who are you to say that?" is a bullshit non-argument.
+tsuich00i your argument posits that people truly have freedom of choice, they don't. The political spectrum in both the U.S. And UK is very narrow. Also there are factors that go into restricting people's free choice. For example every presidential election in the U.S. Has been won by the party that spent the most money. People aren't really choosing so much as they are being coerced and convinced by advertising and the media.
So I'd agree with you if politicians only laid out their aims and didn't become cults of personality or have billions spent of advertising to convince people or if the political spectrum truly gave people a broad amount of option from the far left to the right but it doesn't. Politics is bogged down in the centre right and that is people's only choice so you can't blame them for voting for the only shitty options they have.
tsuich00i Listen, I hear what you're saying and I don't completely disagree. However, those political parties are ran by a group of people that aren't "us" - the average public. They are ran by multi-millionaires and whilst still human beings the same as you or I, they have totally different aims and goals in politics than the avg. person.
+tsuich00i "Specialists need to be backed by authority in order to prove effective in their field. "
What do you mean by "authority"? I acknowledge that a doctor is an authority on medical matters. But r u saying that they have to be backed up by actual physical force to be good doctors?
I like Hobbes philosophy up to a point, there is always a battle between order and chaos but too much order stifles the individual and the state of nature causes too much chaos, so there is always a fine line to tread.
Then enter Locke
I just learned that i shared this theory interestingly before i had even heard his theory. It's logical and takes into account human nature.
I think it's really fascinating that Hobbes and Rousseau had the exact opposite views on what a State of Nature would be like, yet had the same views on the necessity for Totalitarianism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
I'd like to see a video on Jesus, not as a religious figure, but as a philosophical and political figure...
So a guy who shouts at people that he will burn them if they don't obey the law of his Father and who beats random People and who is a little bit racist?
Christophe Name he didn't say that he will, only God judges
Christophe Name how can you say he is racist even though a little bit?
That'd be cool but there is no historical evidence of Jesus being an actual historical figure. It's a rather socking fact that he probably was a mythical figure created after the fact of the creation of Christianity by other figures as Paul.
Cecilia Beiter You refer to Tacitus. Not until generations after the alleged incident did Tacitus write about Jesus. There is absolutely no proof of Jesus in his lifetime. None.
Is Voltaire a big enough topic to cover? I find him interesting because of his disagreement with Rousseau and how they both had influence, to an extent, over the various factions during the French Revolution.
Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserves neither and has none.
Hobbes may not have been exactly right but there are still things we can learn from him.
That was a heck of a lot more entertaining than reading 60 pages of Hobbes during the first quarter of college 😵 It was a torture hahaha
Wow. That was fantastic.
I am one third of the way through Leviathan right now and am amazed at finding it very hard to argue against him. I wish he was wrong, but I very much fear he is right... in his diagnosis of human nature if not in the monarchical "cure".
You should watch the videos on Plato, John Locke and Henry David Thoreau (David Thoreau is my favorite philosopher). They have opposing point of views from Hobbes and Plato envisioned a much different state of nature.
smith2354
I'll get right on it! I've had Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy on audiobook for a few years and have listened to it several times, it's fantastic. He doesn't discuss Thoreau though. I'll put it on the list, thanks
I have a vastly different friend and family situation where people actually care for each other, so it's easier for me.
I read his main book and came away thinking it was a collection of baseless ideas born of fear. Fear seemed to dominate all aspects of this thinking. If you like to history I don’t think his ideas check out very well. If anyone wants to read a fantastic rebuttal(not directly but in spirit) there are several places to look to but Randolph Bourne is my favorite by far.
can you please recommend some books?
Dear School of Life,
Why do you say that Hobbes was an atheist? The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy says otherwise. So does the I E P: "He was not (as many have charged) an atheist…" Does that mean that the editors at Stanford and the I E P are wrong?
Hobbes
Before Hobbes: Leaders justified their rule by saying they had a divine right. This means a leader was given his right to rule by God, and if you don't believe in the leader you will go to hell.
To what extent should we patiently obey rulers?
To what extent should we start revolutions in search of a new world?
We must obey governments to avoid chaos, even the bad ones. In the state of nature, where there is no government life would be painful and short (due to fighting), so having a bad one isn't so bad.
A government is created by seeding your power (e.g. by voting, or omission), so if you have a a bad one, it's your fault. You get the government you deserve.
the problem is a lot of people are born under gov rules. They can't consent. Hence, it's not a contract.
Fun fact: when his mother was pregnant with him, the Spanish Armada seized the British shores, upon hearing the news his mother gave birth to him out of fear. He embraced the fact when he remarked "fear and I were born twins"
Hobbes is the Plato of the modern world. His importance is sometimes underestimated
The problem with Hobbes wasn't that he was wrong about people; he's right to say that, without government, "bad" people have an enormous advantage over "good" people.
Where he went wrong was believing that absolute autocracy was the solution. Really, all that does is institutionalize that "bad" people play in the state of nature. In the state of nature, anyone can break your legs and take your house, but Hobbes seems to think that letting one person do that to everyone is an improvement. Thank god we had progress on that front.
I watched this 20mins my exams, then found a whoooole 20mks question about it. :-) ...nailed it
This man provides a 7 minute video on Hobbes' political outlook and the comments only care about whether he's atheist or not. Reason #1000 for why I can't stand organized religion
Steven Pinker made an excellent case for Hobbes' Leviathan in his book, The Better Angels of Our Nature. Absolutely necessary to read it if you have a genuine interest in the Hobbes vs. Rousseau debate!
Very clear and good
Amazing ! I have been searching for such theory for so long ! What i find painfully ironic here is how America-Uk went against Hobbes's ideas and imposed a change of goverment on other countries they are not related to like Iraq and forced their goverments that the ppl accepted even if they did not agree with because they feared the bigger chaos and blood shed so they went along with Saddam ! But USA-UK ignored the ppl and HObbes and went for a change by leading awar against Iraq with no plans whatsoever for how it gonna lead the country afterward forcing democracy on Iraqis while the ppl and no one around the world could really define democracy accurately !!! And HOBBES WAS RIGHT the brutal change of regimes leaded the country to atormoil and blood shed ! And a storm of un wise revolutions supported by the west all over middle east and so the current chaos was not a supprise ! Who did we went along with all that !
This is pure madness .... The west simply did not apply what it preached when it came to the well beings of other countries for its selfish gains ... Shame on all of us for not educating ourselves enough .... hobbes is my torch now ... Thank you school of life ....
Feels strange to have my teacher sending me RUclips videos that I be watching anyway to help educate us
From hobbes perspective, it's beneficial if drug dealers conform to laws against drug dealing. At the end of the day, you'll prolong your time spent being free, opposed to constantly getting locked up for making money that you temporarily enjoy due to the inevitability of your arrest and conviction. Makes sense in legal terms.
Thank you for the example.
He was actually the (indirect) philosophical basis of constitutional monarchy, where all of the honor, mystery and power is invested in someone who, in theory, is all-powerful but has no power in reality - but acts as a check on those really in power.
Thanks, I was just about to write a paper on Hobbes. This was like a revision. Like how you put a lipstick on Kim Jong Un
Excellent teachings.
Just a quick note: it is far from clear that Hobbes was an atheist in the modern sense of the word. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Hobbes's views about religion have been disputed at great length, and a wide range of positions have been attributed to him, from atheism to orthodox Christianity."
To summarize his religious views with the sentence "He himself was, privately, an atheist" is misleading; it overlooks the vast array of differing opinions as to his true religious affiliation.
+Grant Stevens
If you look at this channel's other videos on religion, or their video on Soren Kierkegaard, it is very clear that this channel has, at the very least, a visible bias against religious faith.
These insights of Hobbes regarding human nature are but imperfect reflections of the Word of God.
Why do you claim ( 3:00 ) that Hobbes was an atheist?
@Meister Incognito But im Leviathan he call Jesus Christ as a savior. And he advocate the true god in some parts.
The fear of violent overthrow of authority has always seemed to me to be the equivalent of being scared of Jaws at the movies. You know the shark is there, and you must protect yourself. But it turns out to be harmless, and it makes you wonder how foolish it is to be afraid of a shark.
I don't understand your analogy, are you saying that we shouldn't be afraid of authorities that control our lifes?
@@criticalthought12 of course we should but they are really more scared of us.
@@cheriepeden6384 Of course they are. Top down control vs bottom up control. It really depends what is true and for whom, traditions vs change etc. It makes sense why the people would be afraid of the leaders too, you just have to look at Putin's war of aggression. It doesn't matter if you think it's justifiable or not. Starting an invasion against your people(but but they are not mine, exactly proves my point), killing innocent children in the name of? etc. tells us something about certain nations and their systems. What is a nation exactly? Why are there different nations, empires etc.? If we are the same species and humans. Because tribal nature of humans, primitive brain and brainwashed by centuries old ideas, and geography. Established vs progressive. Nothing new here. Then there is the argument of what was right and what is wrong, black and white thinking.
If you're serious about the implementation of a reform agenda, you won't be wee-weeing your way home. Apart from making fools out of yourselves by trying to overthrow the government that you voted for, none of you have the spine to do anything but do as you're told. So what are you whining about, you seem pretty good at that.
Always intriguing philosophical ideas. Thank you, School of Life.
Hobbes may or may not have been an atheist but his political theory is profoundly inflected with Christian thought. What is his 'state of nature' other than 'original sin' and 'fallenness'? Christ said: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars. And render unto God the things that are God's". It was the Enlightenment _philosophes_ who thought that man is essentially good, which is so evidently false.
That is why depose Gadafi and Hussein was a huge mistake. That countries are just caos these days
The US wanted to destabilize them because they would've been and economic threat
+Claus Valca Row While that is true for the cases you proposed, it doesn't necessarily mean it's universally true (cuba is one of the best examples)
Cheek Buster Economic threat !
Really
In his work with John Locke, I realize their opposite views; Hobbes and Locke both were British philosophers. "Governments are born not because God ordains them, but because life without government is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" in Hobbes's words and "inconvenient" in Locke's."
I understand what Hobbes is getting at when speaking of an imperfect ruler vs a chaotic and bloody revolution, but I find that it is that nature of man to strive for something greater, to progress society however they can for themselves and others, and dictators, while ideally effective in the short term, do not necessarily allow for much progress in how we treat other people and how we are governed.
I believe that a good solution that would accomplish as much as any revolution but without all the bloodshed would be to take a small group of perhaps one thousand individuals and, with careful and thoughtful monitoring of the progress, form a small, experimental nation to test certain political theories.
Thomas Hobbes was a philosophical titan who dared to peer into the abyss of human nature and, rather than recoil in horror, constructed a grand edifice of political thought to protect us from its depths.
His masterpiece, Leviathan, is a blueprint for a state forged from the raw materials of fear and self-preservation. Hobbes painted a stark portrait of humanity in its natural state: a war of all against all, a realm of solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short lives. To escape this terrifying condition, we surrender our individual freedoms to a powerful sovereign, creating a leviathan capable of enforcing peace and order.
While his absolutist leanings might raise eyebrows today, Hobbes’ core insights remain relevant. His emphasis on the social contract as the foundation of political legitimacy and his exploration of the psychological underpinnings of power continue to shape our understanding of governance.
In essence, Hobbes was a realist who offered a sobering yet pragmatic vision of human society. His work serves as a constant reminder that without strong institutions, we risk descending back into the chaos from which civilization emerged.
Hobbes: The man who looked into the abyss and built a state to protect us from it
Can you imagine Hobbes + Machiavelli ruling a country?
***** Well I don't think Machiavelli would be cruel without it being necessary to produce a specific result. And even if he were, Hobbes wouldn't have the balls to stop him.
That'd be a totalitarian wet dream
I don't think Machiavelli strongly believed in a dictatorship. You must consider the circumstances he wrote The Prince under. France was invading and the Italian states were weak on their own. I think he advocated for a temporary alliance to expel invaders like France and then go back to being individual states. The Discourses clearly state that he favored a more republican system but historical events certainly impact our worldview. Much like they did Hobbes
Thank you so much, school of life! I'm using your videos to understand these difficult topics in order to prepare for my final exam from social sciences. Thanks a lot! :)
But guys, not again! He wasn't a "confirmed" atheist. It's debated whether he was maybe atheist, but it's far from sure, and half of "Leviathan" is based on it's compatibility with the Bible.. Not very atheist either. Please stop forming everyone into your opinion. Otherwise, these videos are great.
Hobbes shared the same idea with Confucius that people should obey authority; obedience to authority creates harmony. Both English civil war and China's warring states period were chaotic.
Hi guys, first let me tell you I admire all your work of bringing philosophy to the lives of people. Every time I see one of your videos I think that enjoying life is the biggest goal to achieve for every human and your stuff teaches that in a way. Anyway, I'm from Colombia and it would mean the world to me if you could do a video about our only real philosopher: Fernando Gonzalez. I bet he is not that well known outside of Latin America and I think he would be a great addition, in contrast with all the European philosophers you guys show us. It is said that Sartre was impressed by his work and once told a group of Latin American students in Paris: "You have the only existentialist writer in America [the continent]"
Resistance to Civil Government (Civil Disobedience) is an essay by American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849. In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice.
Have you guys been contacted by schools that use your videos to teach this stuff?
And I don't mean Universities by the way, I'm talking about elementary to high school type schools.
I would have certainly loved to watch a video like this when I was still in school, it seems like my classmates didn't really find a special enough interest in these subjects, but quick videos like these really do give anyone a good piece of thought.
I am glad my professor referred me this channel.
This is extremely helpful! Thank you so much for being so clear and concise and informative :)
This kind of theory may seem harsh to western sensibilities, but to many countries like Arab countries and Asian countries, this is exactly what we need.
***** hi, i'm a philosophy student from Mexico, i'm really interested in helping to translate your videos to Spanish. Mainly those on your curriculum section, about philosophy, art, sociology, history and eastern philosophy. I would love to know a way in which i could have the opportunity of doing so. Really love the way the tackle these subjects, and really looking forward to share them with no English-speakers. A salute from Mexico, keep up with the good job :)
I am a little surprised that the statement, "... was privately an atheist," made it into this. This key point is not overtly reflected in his works. If he was privately atheist, it was so private that nobody knew making this statement wildly speculative in an otherwise solid summary.
What about Hannah Arendt? I wouldn't mind knowing a bit more about her theories as well as the image you have of her :)
I am fully supporting his idea
Machiavelli and Hobbes, my favourite political philosophers.
I am soon enrolling in political sciences uni and i am using this channel to gather primary knowledge as a foundation, super useful!
It’s not primary knowledge
Your voice is incredibly soothing
Thumbs up to show your love for the Supreme Comrade!
hell yeah
Have you done a video on Edward Bernays? He featured in a brilliant documentary series called "Century of the Self" and I'd love to hear your take on him.
***** I suppose you're right. Besides, the whole documentary's on RUclips.
***** is there a link to Adam Curtis?
***** true but it's arguably some of the most relevant and useful information to the School of Life audience. Would love to see a Bernays or Century of the Self type video if only a tribute to Adam Curtis's work :)
dangerouslytalented Check it out - It's linked on this mind blowing documentary list I wrote a while back: livelearnevolve.com/10-mind-blowing-documentaries/
Thomas Hobbes write his best works after 60 and died at 91, during one of the most turbulent times in english history. Man was damn lucky or damn good health conscious.
6:26 - backwards apostrophe.
lol
Hobbes was also an early materialist.
His view of human nature as selfish greedy and bad formed his political theories. He presupposed the existence of private property and his view of human nature was based on his observation of man(sic) struggling in a propertied society.
Kinda disapointed .. thought that this would go further more in dept about theory and how Hobbes defended it, but yeah ..
That's probably why the comments are like this ..
Everyone says that Leviathan is named after the absolute ruler. I am not so sure.
You must remember that Hobbes was writing in a very Biblically literate culture. Leviathan is mentioned in the Bible - Psalm 74 being an example. In ancient Hebrew thought Leviathan represented the forces of chaos, put in their palce by God's creative work. Chaos was Hobbes' chief concern. I think that this is the inspiration for the title of his book.
Nobody :
Political theorists : " *THE STATE OF NATURE* "
Watch this one
ruclips.net/p/PL1bqf4wM5S6tl33rwW1FBlXjfPKmZft-n
Thank you for celebrating me!
Hobbes must be taught in all schools and universities.
Elementary ! So should rousseau