Comparing Hobbes Leviathan And Plato's Republic
Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan and Plato’s Republic are two of the most significant works discussing the nature of rule and justice. They both introduce a necessary notion of an absolute monarch that presides over a commonwealth. Plato’s philosopher king is appointed to reign over his imaginary Kallipolis, while a Leviathan comes to the rescue of the forlorn people in a State of Nature. And while their rights to rule are similar, and they both are vital parts of own commonwealths, the two monarchs live in different worlds: one lives in Socrates’ imagination, in his perfect city; the other – in Hobbes’ dispirited and realistic analysis of his reality.
Both thinkers attribute peace and development to a centralized power. Plato thinks that law “contrives …show more content…
Plato considers the people to have “unleashed [their] unnecessary and useless pleasures” and desires. (Plato, 561a) And this imbalance, lack of moderation in their souls removes them from justice and knowledge. Meanwhile, Hobbes embraces this fact that people desire wealth and power. He thinks that this is the only way of “assuring of a contented life,” and that moderation, while not harmful, is unnatural. (Hobbes, xi 1) One “cannot assure the power and means to live well, which he hath present, without the acquisition of more.” (Hobbes, xi 2) So Hobbes would try to instate an atmosphere of progress, “industry…navigation…commodious buildings…instruments of moving and removing…knowledge of the face of the earth.” (Hobbes, xiii 9) In the Leviathan, reason is not divorced from desires. While desires signify progress and industry, “reason [is] attained by industry…in apt imposing of names…assertions made by connexion of one of them to another… till we come to a knowledge…that men call science.” (Hobbes, v 17) Plato, on the other hand, thinks that reason must rule over the desires. So he introduces his values that bring people closer to knowledge, one of them being moderation: “being obedient to the rulers, and being themselves rules of the pleasures.” (Plato,
Both thinkers attribute peace and development to a centralized power. Plato thinks that law “contrives …show more content…
Plato considers the people to have “unleashed [their] unnecessary and useless pleasures” and desires. (Plato, 561a) And this imbalance, lack of moderation in their souls removes them from justice and knowledge. Meanwhile, Hobbes embraces this fact that people desire wealth and power. He thinks that this is the only way of “assuring of a contented life,” and that moderation, while not harmful, is unnatural. (Hobbes, xi 1) One “cannot assure the power and means to live well, which he hath present, without the acquisition of more.” (Hobbes, xi 2) So Hobbes would try to instate an atmosphere of progress, “industry…navigation…commodious buildings…instruments of moving and removing…knowledge of the face of the earth.” (Hobbes, xiii 9) In the Leviathan, reason is not divorced from desires. While desires signify progress and industry, “reason [is] attained by industry…in apt imposing of names…assertions made by connexion of one of them to another… till we come to a knowledge…that men call science.” (Hobbes, v 17) Plato, on the other hand, thinks that reason must rule over the desires. So he introduces his values that bring people closer to knowledge, one of them being moderation: “being obedient to the rulers, and being themselves rules of the pleasures.” (Plato,