Before the social contract, people are in a state that Hobbes calls “a war of all against all.” These words are very often interpreted as if Hobbes were a simple evolutionist. Once upon a time, they say, there was a time when people fought and fought, got tired of fighting and began to unite. And when they united so as not to fight anymore, a state appeared. Hobbes supposedly argues this way.

Hobbes never reasoned like that. In his writings one can find direct indications that such reasoning would be absolutely wrong. Rather, everything looks completely different. It is not the war of all against all that is at the beginning of everything, but the social condition, the state of the people, is constantly fraught with war.

People, in principle, according to Hobbes, are quite hostile towards each other. Even in a peaceful, solidary state, when there is no war, when there is a state, people are such that they have to fear a neighbor, fear another person, rather than count on him being their friend. During war, as Hobbes says, “man is a wolf to man,” but in a state of peace man must be God to man. This, unfortunately, does not happen. We are afraid of another person, we lock the doors, we take weapons when leaving the house. When going on a trip, we stock up on security and so on. This wouldn't happen if we trusted another person.

Leviathan as a guarantor

leviathan philosophical hobbes scholasticism

This means that no normal life between people is possible as long as the contracts that they conclude among themselves are simply contracts based on trust, in the expectation that the other party will simply comply with the contract.

What is needed? Hobbes believes that we need a contract that cannot be broken. It is impossible to violate only such an agreement that has a guarantor. None of the parties to the agreement can be the guarantor of this agreement, because they are all the same, they are equally strong and equally weak. And since none of the participants can be a guarantor of the agreement, it means that this guarantor must appear from somewhere outside. But where will he get the strength, where will he get the rights to guarantee all other participants? How can it be? Only one way. They must agree that they give him a certain kind of rights during the contract and after that they cannot do anything to him.

Because he receives from them those rights that they no longer have, namely the right death penalty for breach of contract.

And he combines in himself those powers that they are deprived of, combines in himself those rights that they alienate in his favor, and he becomes the one who says pacta sunt servanda, “treaties must be respected.” And from here everything else comes, all the other laws. This is how the sovereign appears.

And only the sovereign can make any law, only he can interpret any law, punish for breaking the law, appoint judges, appoint any executive branch, all ministers, all officials, all controllers, absolutely everyone. Only the sovereign can determine which opinions are harmful in the state and which are useful. Only he can, with an authoritative decision, put an end to disputes that could end, say, in a civil war.

Through this, peace, quiet and security are established - the old formula of a police state. And although Hobbes does not talk about the police, he leads the conversation in that direction. He is a supporter of ensuring that peace, tranquility and order are established through a certain limitation of rights, freedoms and everything else. As for the rest, which does not threaten the existence of the state, people are absolutely free. They can engage in any type of activity, they can acquire property, they can enter into contracts among themselves, they can even profess any beliefs, but with one limitation: so that this does not harm the state.

Recently I managed to escape from the Moscow cold and darkness for two weeks to the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, to a Spanish countryside. The place is not pretentious, from the “economy” category. Spain itself is also not swimming in chocolate - unemployment reaches 25%. Somewhere it’s a bit dirty, somewhere it’s unclear why large areas are fenced off, in place of a park there’s a nondescript wasteland, it’s generally impossible to figure out how the buses run, sometimes there’s no staff in the store. That is, it’s not like some particularly prosperous and well-fed West with washed with soap sidewalks and perfect service. In my opinion, the standard of living is approximately comparable to the Russian regional center. Well, it was comparable before the ruble fell.

But one evening, sitting on a bench near the shopping center and watching visitors walking back and forth, I suddenly realized that in two weeks here I had not seen a single act of aggression in communication between people. On the streets, in cafes, shops - nowhere. There were different situations, misunderstandings arose, our cards were faulty, and we didn’t have cash with us, we went to the wrong place and paid for the wrong thing - but not once did this lead to even a hint of conflict. All around people were shopping, discussing something, their children were running around the rows of stores, hiding behind hanging clothes and lying in the aisles - but there were no shouts, much less spanking. Not once in any store or cafe have we heard employees or waiters quarreling among themselves, although dishes were dropped in front of us, and goods could not be found, and someone confused something and someone disturbed someone. Walking past the construction site, we heard the workers shouting to each other - I don’t know, maybe it was Spanish obscenities, of course, but it sounded cheerful and good-natured.

At some point, I was overcome by the realization that this was precisely why you were relaxing here. The sea, the sun, the orange trees are wonderful, but the nerves rest primarily from the absence of aggression in the air. Spanish, English, German, Chinese, Moroccan families were walking around, some were quite loud, but there was no aggression in their voices or gestures. And the Russians, by the way, also walked, and also did not swear.

Returning to my homeland, I went to buy groceries at our nearby Pyaterochka. She stayed there for about 15 minutes. During this time, some guy yelled at the cashier because she didn’t have any change money. A married couple of about 30, choosing sausage, exchanged remarks like: “Are you stupid? I told you that you shouldn’t take this rubbish! “You’re already fed up, take what you want!” The female employees who were arranging the goods loudly discussed their complaints against an absent colleague who had become “insolent.” The grandmother barked at her grandson, who was reaching for a chocolate bar, and when he did not listen, she hit him on the hand.

None of them looked like someone who was particularly out of their temper or going through a serious conflict. No, this exchange of acts of communication was ordinary, routine. They were just talking. And only I, with my hypersensitive perception of other people’s emotions and intonations due to my profession, and even after Spain, then felt sick for half an hour after a simple trip to the store.

Our norm

I have already written and spoken about the widespread aggression characteristic of Russian society, and what is most striking about it for me remains precisely its “normativity,” its commonplace nature for the majority of fellow citizens. My temperamental neighbor from above often shouts to her husband during family communication, easily penetrating with a shrill voice through the concrete floors of our Moscow high-rise building: “I seem to be talking to you calmly!” He responds with a long and unprintable bass voice. They have been living together for many years and, I think, do not consider their marriage to be particularly unsuccessful.

One day, returning from some business trip to high speed train, I looked at the monitor screen on which the cult film “Love and Doves” was playing. About people's life as it is, at least in the minds of the authors. The film was shown without sound, only a picture. I looked and realized that I was seeing a deeply pathological relationship with a huge number of acts of aggression per unit of time. On the screen, all the time someone fell into hysterics, yelled at someone, threatened someone, tried to hit someone, defiantly throw something on the floor, the facial expressions of the characters expressed the whole palette of aggressive emotions, from anger to contempt. At the same time, it was meant that this is kind of like a family and everyone loves each other and is afraid of losing each other. And the people themselves are kind and sincere. They just live like that. They talk calmly.

In any group in any city on any topic, if you let the process take its course for a while, after 15 minutes you find a group scolding children, teachers, “bad” parents, bosses, authorities, America. Scolding someone is generally a universal way to start and maintain a conversation - in a train car, in a queue.

In the media space in general, turn off the lights. Absolutely any news causes a flurry of aggression, from any end of the political and ideological spectrum. It’s just that some people are branding the old woman who didn’t pay for the oil, others are demanding severe punishment for the guards who detained her, others are cursing the owner of the network and all the “snickers” along with him, others are blaming Obama for the sanctions, and others are blaming Putin for the economic crisis. The communicative purpose of four out of five utterances is aggression. Name the culprit. Call him something offensive. Make a threat. Offer punishment.

It’s better not to hear TV even out of the corner of your ear. There, on talk shows, opponents yell at each other or everyone yells in unison at some frightened people, in family series wives blow their husbands’ brains out with bitchy voices, and in “boys’ series” the heroes find out who doesn’t respect whom enough, and even if on TV they start making jokes... This is all in the intervals between promises to cover the world with nuclear ash and burn Kyiv with napalm. Everything and everyone is being brought down and tamed non-stop; accusation, humiliation, threat - three communicative pillars on which almost any monologue or dialogue shown on TV is built. The weather forecast is almost the only exception.

We have been living in this for years, constantly, and therefore we no longer notice, do not understand, do not hear how toxic this environment is, how it creates a constant background level of stress, insecurity, and eternal irritation. In spring and summer it’s a little better, of course – still sunshine and grass. IN New Year a little easier - still a Christmas tree and a holiday. November and February are the peak months.

Geopolitical escalation

In recent years it seemed like things were getting better. People calmed down a little, became kinder, began to get used to beautiful, comfortable, pleasant things, and began to smile at each other. But just then the money began to run out, and people were urgently forced to go to war, which turned out, as usually happens, not so small and not that victorious.

On this moment society is pumped up with aggression like nothing else. More than a year disturbing music, tense voices and charred bodies from the TV. More than a year of pumping up hatred towards everyone who thinks differently. More than a year of promoting paranoia about “there are enemies all around, they want to destroy us.” Yes, all this is largely superficial and artificial, just look, for example, at the photos of anti-Maidan gatherings in cities where they did not use administrative resources for collection - a dozen and a half city crazy people with experience proudly stand in the February wind, so as not to forget and forgive. But, alas, you can’t blame everything on imitation alone.

There is now every reason for widespread aggression. The euphoria of getting up from my knees is over, there is no new dose yet, well, Debaltsev will last for three days. And most importantly, everyone understands that the future will not get better. Maybe someday it will be, but at first it will definitely be much worse. An unpleasant shadow looms ahead, alas, too familiar to our genetic – and even ordinary – memory. The shadow of the Time of Troubles, collapse, devastation, the shadow of a “war of all against all” in conditions of collapse public life and dwindling resources. After all, we have all seen in real time how quickly and simply it is possible to transform a poor, but peaceful and normal life an entire region in the Wild Field, under the rule of people with weapons, with mined roads, torture cellars, lynchings, robberies and other delights of a “hybrid war”. And the whole world will calmly chew its morning sandwich, looking at photos with puddles of blood on your street. Perhaps your blood.

And it’s not very clear what will keep us from this. The war of all against all described by Hobbes can be countered either by a strong legitimate state, or a strong society with a powerful social fabric, with horizontal connections and the ability to self-organize, or by deep faith or morality. With this, and with the other, and with the third, we have a problem.

Our state now knows how to somehow fulfill its functions only in the conditions of free flows of petrodollars, as before it could exist only by wasting huge human resource. In a situation of worsening crisis, it will most likely increasingly demonstrate helplessness and incompetence, and most importantly, deep contempt for the population as ballast for some unknown reason.

Civil society is no better. All sorts of forms of independent social activity, horizontal connections that have just begun to emerge and develop in the well-fed years, beyond last period“tightening the screws” is practically crushed. The “patriotic unity” that accompanied the entire story with Crimea and Novorossiya is pseudo-unity; it did not create any new social capital, on the contrary. Firstly, it was very strongly inspired and controlled from above, that is, there was and is much more vertical in it than horizontal. And secondly, joint crimes unite only for a short time, then common guilt and common lies destroy trust and intimacy between the “accomplices”; they don’t want to see each other, let alone build something together.

Morality and spirituality? Don't make our Iskanders laugh. It is impossible to love your neighbor and at the same time incite hatred and war, or threaten the world with destruction. Religion, church? Is anyone else expecting anything from this side other than calls to imprison/flog the next “those who have insulted sacred objects”?

Maybe at least cohesion in the face of a common enemy? Alas, hatred of America imposed on society as obligatory has nothing to do with real healthy aggression against a real common enemy. She is powerless and irresponsible, since America is far away, not represented in any obvious form, and one can hate it without undertaking anything and without making any serious choices, simply idlely driving aggression in a circle and radiating it into the surrounding space. At the same time, the minority just as powerlessly and fruitlessly hates Putin, but they also can’t do anything, and they also don’t ozone the public atmosphere. All the real and fictitious acts of the enemies, like all the leaden abominations of the regime, evoke in the souls of most Russians not a healthy anger, but a diffuse, melancholy irritation with a tinge of despair, which spills out, excuse me, on whomever it turns up - on a cashier in a store, on a child, at everyone oncoming.

Frustration

There are two ways out of any frustration: mobilization and breakthrough, or resignation to defeat and rethinking the experience. To win you need resources. There are none - the ceiling of the possibilities of the “new great Russia” is beyond Last year, it seems to me, everyone realized it, except those who were completely sick in the head. And the more talk about “NATO’s insidious plans”, the greater the feeling of one’s own vulnerability. The rise of aggression to the top, in claims to the authorities, is quite firmly blocked by repressive laws and the horror story of “Maidan ruining life in the country.”

And humility requires truth. Admitting defeat means admitting guilt. Conscience, which, when it breaks through the radiation of the TV tower, quietly but persistently hints that we have all done a very great meanness. At the same time, the truth is almost equated with high treason, so it’s better not to sharpen things.

The Russians were trapped. They were surrounded by America and Putin, their mistakes and fear of the future. If frustration does not find an outlet either in struggle or in sadness, it turns into sterile, cyclical aggression. This, to put it simply, is the mechanism of occurrence of post-stress disorder (familiar to Russians in the form of the Afghan and Chechen syndromes). It was precisely because it became the subject of close study in its time that a person in this state creates many problems for himself and those around him with constant irritability, anger, and eternal dissatisfaction with everyone and everything around him. When an entire society experiences something like this, life is very difficult. Such an atmosphere exhausts the psyche and nerves, impoverishes interactions, and devalues ​​any goals and endeavors.

There is an exit

She's hard to resist. But it is absolutely necessary and, more importantly, possible.

First of all, you need to be aware of the toxicity of the environment so as not to think that it is the child’s fault, that he is completely spoiled, or that you yourself are a crazy person, or that everyone around you is completely assholes. We are objectively experiencing serious frustration, although different people because of different things: who are helpless in the face of the impending economic crisis, who are sorry that Novorossiya did not take place, and who are in despair that they cannot prevent aggression against Ukraine. Moreover, we are constantly being deliberately influenced in order to worsen our condition, reduce our criticality, paralyze our will, and drive our thoughts and feelings into a running circle of “enemies are everywhere, everyone doesn’t like us.” Even if you yourself avoid propaganda, it affects the people around you, and they affect you.

Of course, the smartest thing you can do if you find yourself in a toxic environment is to minimize your exposure to it. If possible, do not participate in meaningless discussions “about enemies.” Now there is no point in arguing, everyone knows and understands everything, and if they have chosen a position, it means they have a reason for it. Leave everyone to their conscience - it will sort it out. If it does happen, set yourself a clear limit: I will spend 10 minutes on this argument and not a minute more, and then just don’t read your opponent’s next comment and go back to your business.

Friends, family, work - these areas need to be protected from spilled aggression by everyone possible ways. Change the topic of conversation with family and friends if it smells like another five minutes of hatred. If you come home “excited” by the external environment, if you’ve read a lot of “nonsense” on the Internet, take a break, take a shower, drink tea before communicating with your family, especially with children. And never turn on the TV in front of your children.

Next, if something angers or scares you, ask yourself – what can I do? Sign a demand for release, transfer money to help refugees, go to a rally or buy dollars and buckwheat - whatever you consider useful and correct. Do it and mentally give yourself a tick for the result, for the piece of territory conquered from chaos. If you are angry at something or afraid of something, but nothing can be done about it in principle, then try to get rid of anger and fear, they make no sense. Use any opportunity to relax: walking, meditation, breathing exercises, playing with children, reading books, doing your favorite hobby.

Antidotes

The third thing you can try to do with a toxic environment. – make it less toxic by, if possible, producing and distributing an antidote around it. Antidotes, as we remember, are resources, truth and warmth. Let's look at it in order:

Heat. It's simple. If you feel that your interlocutor is irritated and tense, try to express sympathy, support and defuse the situation. Make it a rule: at least three positive acts of communication with strangers every day. A smile, a joke, a small concern - holding the door, simple words like “Good afternoon!” and “Thank you very much!”

If possible, do not be fooled by the logic of war, do not start dividing everyone into friends and enemies. There is a war, and there are enemies, it is irresponsible and stupid to deny this, but our task is to keep it within the narrowest possible boundaries, not to give up any extra territory of our lives to the war.

Is it true. Stopping arguing does not mean falling silent. Calling a spade a spade is useful and correct. There is no need to convince anyone, but there is also no need to participate in lies. If you at least sometimes manage to tell the truth with warmth, plus five hundred points to your karma. It's difficult, but sometimes it works. For example, it seems to me that the very correct tone was chosen for campaigning for the Anti-Crisis March: warm, with images of spring, indicating the seriousness of the problems, but without whipping up hysteria.

Resource. It is very important. It is very important to have a sphere of implementation, an activity that makes sense and that works. When it seems that everything around is rushing into the abyss and degrading, it is especially important to create and improve – at least something, at least in something. If there useful work– work not just hard, but very hard. For example, I understand that I would probably fall into depression if it weren’t for my work. Productive work, with a clear result, with normal relationships with people in the process, is also a conquered territory of normality. If there is no work, invent it, create it again. Make plans, think about new projects - even if it’s impossible to start them yet.

Don't be afraid to have values ​​and talk about them, don't play along with cynicism. When there is nothing around to rely on, it is especially important to have a support point within.

Be sure to look for opportunities to help people, even in a small way. Relatives, neighbors, acquaintances and strangers. Think about what you can do. There are many simple technologies helping those who find it difficult, and they are actively used even in very rich and prosperous countries. Why not study them, for example, on the Internet, and try to implement them? For example, simple idea: a platform for meeting those who need help and those who are ready to help - “We are together.” Look what a nice, non-bloodthirsty double-headed eagle it turned out to be.

The war of all against all cannot simply be abolished; you cannot escape from it by closing your eyes. It can only be blocked, neutralized from the inside, then creating pockets of “peace during war.” Every act of help, understanding, simple sympathy is a thread in the social fabric that can only keep us all from falling into hell. Or maybe the whole world is with us.

More details: http://spektr.delfi.lv/novosti/vojna-vseh-protiv-vseh.d?id=45622470

This model is close to the model proposed by Hobbes. In his opinion, the source of the negative is nature (non-political social), and the carriers of the positive are institutions (political or civil society). For Hobbes, a person is a victim of passions that can be qualified as social to the extent that they are related to the relationships of people, although at the same time these passions are opposite to sociality, since people in their “natural state” are drawn into destructive super-conflict by passions. The state of nature is characterized primarily by the equality that reigns in it: all people are equal, because everyone, even the weakest, has enough strength to kill the strongest (by resorting to cunning or teaming up with others). But the equality of people in the state of nature also consists in the fact that they all, thanks to experience, acquire caution and practical wisdom. This creates equality in skill and ability, as well as in the hope of achieving one's own goals.

From this follow three causes of war in human nature: rivalry, mistrust and love of glory; three types of aggressiveness associated with the desire for profit, security and fame.

Rivalry arises because people who want the same thing become enemies. In fact, if the aggressor has nothing to fear except the strength of other people, if some plant, sow, build, live in a convenient place, it is likely that others, having united their forces, will try in every possible way not only to deprive them of their property and the fruits of their labor, but and take away their life and freedom. Such an aggressor himself will become a likely victim of another aggression.

This is how the universal is born mistrust, for prudence requires proactive action to subjugate a sufficient number of people so that hostile forces are no longer in danger. However, in this way it is impossible to achieve a state of balance, since there are people who, in the pursuit of power, will be ready to cross the threshold of their own safety, and then others, in order to preserve themselves, must also increase their strength.

Finally, love of fame(pride) arises because in the conditions of social life everyone wants others to respect him as much as he

PART I. Institute of Politics

respects himself; at the same time, in an effort to achieve recognition of his own importance, he may not stop before harming others.

Therefore, as long as people are not subject to a common power, they are naturally endowed with rights, but their natural rights come into many contradictions and because of this completely lose their effectiveness: everyone can appropriate to themselves what they want, but no one's property is guaranteed. In the absence of institutions that keep people in obedience, they are in a state of war of all against all (bellum omnium contra omnes), which impedes the development of technology, art, knowledge, and they find themselves in a position comparable to the position of American savages. And then “a person’s life is lonely, poor, hopeless, stupid and short-lived” (“Leviathan”, Chapter XIII). With the creation of civil society, commonwealth(single market), republic, state, people enter into a “contract” among themselves, according to which each and every person transfers part of their rights in different areas to a sovereign ruler (sovereign or assembly). Having limited themselves only to the necessary freedom, they renounce those of their rights that interfere with mutual peace, and then social life becomes politicized and, as a result, pacified. Institutionalized sovereignty (sovereignty not in the sense of a monarchy, but in the sense of the possession of supreme power) creates a political community: by mutual agreement it receives from the people the right to use the power and resources of all in the interests of peace and collective defense. A political “subject” emerges as a reasonable and rational person who uses these qualities to avoid a quasi-animal state and come to a full-fledged human life.

So, in contrast to Aristotle, Hobbes does not believe that man is a political animal, but believes that politics transforms an animal into a man: Rousseau asserts the same thing, believing, however, that the transition from a state of nature to a political state is a negative phenomenon, although it is inevitable and irreversible.

Social contract theory. Hobbes about the state of nature as a war of all against all. In the constellation of their names, the first place belongs to the name of the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes 1588-1679. Hobbes is a philosopher who is difficult to classify as belonging to any movement.

If this work does not suit you, at the bottom of the page there is a list of similar works. You can also use the search button

Course work

Subject:

Introduction

17th century

2 Hobbes on the state of nature as a "war of all against all"

Conclusion

Introduction

Historians of philosophy and natural sciences call the 17th century the century of geniuses. At the same time, they mean the many brilliant thinkers who then worked in the field of science, laid the foundation of modern natural science and, in comparison with previous centuries, far advanced the natural sciences, especially philosophy. In the constellation of their names, the first place belongs to the name of the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679).

Hobbes is a philosopher who is difficult to classify as belonging to any movement. He was an empiricist, like Locke, Berkeley and Hume, but unlike them he was a supporter of the mathematical method, not only in pure mathematics, but also in its applications to other branches of knowledge. Galileo had a greater influence on his general view than Bacon. Continental philosophy, from Descartes to Kant, took many of its concepts about the Nature of human knowledge from mathematics, but it believed that mathematics can be known independently of experience. This, therefore, led, as in Platonism, to a diminishment of the role played by thought. On the other hand, English empiricism had little influence from mathematics and was prone to a false conception of the scientific method. Hobbes had none of these shortcomings. Up to our time, it is impossible to find a single philosopher who, being an empiricist, would still give credit to mathematics. In this respect, Hobbes' merits are enormous. However, he also had serious shortcomings, which do not make it possible to rightfully classify him as one of the most outstanding thinkers. He is impatient with subtleties and too prone to cutting the Gordian knot. His solutions to problems are logical, but are accompanied by a deliberate omission of inconvenient facts. He is energetic but rude; he is better with a halberd than with a rapier. Despite this, his theory of the state deserves careful consideration, especially since it is more modern than any previous theory, even Machiavelli's.

The starting point for all of Thomas Hobbes's reasoning in his writings was the doctrine of society, the state, and civil human rights. This thinker could not imagine the existence of people without a single, strong state. Hobbes was convinced that before men emerged from the state of nature and united into a society with a single will, there was a “war of all against all.” The transition to civil society followed the conclusion of a social contract on which the relationship between citizens and government is based. At the same time, Hobbes emphasized the principle of individual freedom, the inalienability of his civil rights, the idea of ​​​​the intrinsic value of the individual, respect for him and his property. The formation of civil society occurred in parallel with the formation of a new type of state - a bourgeois state.

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

1 Thomas Hobbes the greatest English philosopher 17th century

1.1 Socio-political and ethical views of the scientist

Thomas Hobbes the greatest English philosopher XVII c., although today he is better known for his political philosophy, presented in the treatise Leviathan.

As Hobbes' biographers say, he lived to the ripe old age of 91, maintaining clarity of mind until the end of his days.

Thomas Hobbes was born on April 5, 1588 in Westport, near Malmesbury in southern England. His mother was of peasant origin, his father was a village priest, and his relatives were engaged in the glove trade. Hobbes initially received his education at a church school, which he began attending at the age of four. Since the boy showed ability and a great inclination to study, he was sent to a city school, where he successfully continued his education. By the age of fourteen, Hobbes already mastered ancient languages ​​so much that he translated Euripides' "Medea" in verse into Latin.

At the age of fifteen, he entered Oxford University and upon graduation received a university diploma, which gave him the right to engage in teaching work and opened the way to an academic career. But like most of the leading philosophical and scientific minds of that century - Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Newton and others - Hobbes was not subsequently associated with universities. After graduating from university, he becomes a teacher for the children of one of the noble aristocratic families. At this time, he developed connections among the ruling circles, including among the court circles of England.

Trips to the European continent gave the English thinker the opportunity to deeply study philosophy, personally meet its most prominent representatives (primarily Galileo during his trip to Italy in 1646), and accept the most Active participation in discussing the most important philosophical problems of that time. Gradually, Hobbes developed the principles of his own teaching. The first outline of Hobbes's philosophical system was his 1640 essay Human Nature. The further comprehensive development of Hobbes' philosophical system was influenced by events related to the conflict associated with the English parliament and the king, and then by the events of the English Revolution.

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

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

The range of problems of Hobbes's philosophical research is extremely wide and varied. It reflects those pressing problems of that time and even today, without which it is impossible further development philosophical thought and various philosophical systems. Contemporaries and followers of Hobbes' theory valued him extremely highly, as D. Diderot more than once praised in his research high definition and certainty in the works of Hobbes, he compared him with the then luminary of sensationalism, Locke, and even put Hobbes above him.

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

Hobbes's powerful mind and insight allowed Hobbes to build a system from which all thinkers, not only of the seventeenth, but also of the eighteenth and twentieth centuries, right up to the present day, drew, as from a rich source.

It should be noted that it is “Leviathan” that occupies a unique place in the history of world philosophy. In this work, Thomas Hobbes was ahead of his time in many areas, and his original judgments immediately after the publication of the treatise in 1651. aroused the hatred of all churchmen religious views and figures from all political parties. Hobbes fought alone against numerous opponents, showing his talent as a polemicist and scientist. During Hobbes's lifetime, almost all responses were sharply negative, but in subsequent centuries the influence of the work "Leviathan" on the views of Spinoza, Bentham, Leibniz, Rousseau and Diderot, on philosophers and economists was recognized XIX - XX centuries. This is probably what it is global significance for philosophy, political science, culture.

The socio-political and ethical views of the scientist were as follows: man is a part of nature and cannot but obey its laws. Hobbes also considers this truth, which became an axiom for the philosophy of his century, fundamental and quite clear. Therefore, we must begin, the philosopher argues, with the affirmation of such properties of a person that belong to his body as a body of nature. And then smoothly make the transition from viewing man as a body of nature to human nature, i.e. its essential property. The human body, like any body of nature, has the ability to move, have a form, and occupy a place in space and time. Hobbes adds to this “natural abilities and powers” ​​inherent in man as a living body, the ability to eat, reproduce and perform many other actions determined precisely by natural needs. Towards the “natural” block of human nature, philosophers XVII V. also included part of the “desires” and “affects” caused by natural needs. But the focus was still placed on the properties of rationality and equality with other people as the deepest properties of the human essence, which did not seem to thinkers to be anything contrary to the “natural” approach to man. The same applied to social philosophy, closely associated with the philosophy of man.

Ethical views Hobbes is based on “natural law”. "Natural Law ( lex naturalis ), writes Hobbes, is a prescription or found by reason general rule, according to which a person is prohibited from doing what is detrimental to his life or that deprives him of the means to preserve it, and from missing out on what he considers the best way to save life." 1

Hobbes argues that differences in physical abilities do not predetermine anything in human life (for example, the weaker can kill the stronger), and therefore cannot in any way serve as an argument in favor of the thesis about the inequality of people from birth. Philosophers have tried to explain how and why the “natural” equality of people was replaced at some not entirely certain moment historical development inequality arose, i.e. property arose. To explain this, Hobbes and Locke built a doctrine of the emergence of property as a result of labor. But since work activity was considered an eternal way for a person to spend energy, then the possession of some property and some benefits, i.e. any property (which, as Hobbes and Locke assumed, owes its origin to labor alone) was also declared a sign of human nature.

However, within these limits there is also no room for objective “good” (and “evil”), and, consequently, for “moral values”. For Hobbes, good is what is sought after, and evil is what is avoided. But due to the fact that some people desire certain things and others do not, some avoid something and others do not, it turns out that good and evil are relative. Even about God himself it cannot be said that he is an unconditional good, for “God is good to all those who call on His name, but not to those who revile His name by blaspheming.” This means that good relates to a person, place, time, circumstances, as the sophists argued in ancient times.

But if good is relative and, therefore, absolute values ​​do not exist, how can we build social life and create morality? How can people live together in one society? Two of Hobbes' masterpieces are devoted to the answers to these questions: “Leviathan” and “On the Citizen.”

Thus, one of the main categories of Hobbes's socio-political system is the category of equality. “From this equality of ability arises equality of hope for achieving our goals. That is why, if two people desire the same thing, which, however, they cannot possess together, they become enemies." 2 writes Hobbes. Therefore, the natural state of man is war. A war of all against all. To prevent constant wars, a person needs protection, which he can only find in the person of the state.

So, from the affirmation of natural equality, Hobbes moves on to the idea of ​​​​the ineradicability of the war of all against all.

The harshness and, one might say, ruthlessness with which Hobbes formulated this thought repelled his contemporaries. But in fact, their agreement with Hobbes was profound: after all, all the major philosophers also believed that people “by nature” are more concerned about themselves than about the common good, they are more likely to enter into struggle than to refrain from conflict, and that the focus on the good of other people it is necessary to specially educate the individual, resorting to the arguments of reason, to various government measures, etc.

Hobbes based his teaching on the study of human nature and passions. Hobbes's opinion about these passions and nature is extremely pessimistic: people are characterized by competition (the desire for profit), mistrust (the desire for security), and a love of glory (ambition). These passions make people enemies: “Man is a wolf to man” ( homo homini lupus est ). Therefore, in the state of nature, where there is no authority to keep people in fear, they are in a “state of war of all against all.”

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

Thus, in analyzing human nature, Hobbes moved from the assertion of the equality of human abilities and claims to the idea of ​​​​the existence of a war of all against all. Thus, the philosopher wanted to show the harmfulness and unbearability of a situation in which people are forced to constantly fight. As a result, he came to the conclusion that passions that incline towards peace can and should be stronger than passions that push towards war, if they are supported by laws, rules, and regulations of reason.

Sharp class clashes in the Civil War also had a certain influence on Hobbes's teaching. “Competition for wealth, honor, command or other power,” wrote Hobbes, “leads to strife, hostility and war, for one competitor achieves his desire by killing, subjugating, displacing or repelling the other.” 3

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

The first fundamental law of nature is: Every one must seek peace by every means at his command, and if he cannot obtain peace, he may seek and use all the means and advantages of war. From this law follows directly the second law: Everyone must be willing to renounce his right to everything when others also desire it, since he considers this renunciation necessary for peace and self-defense. 4 . In addition to the renunciation of one's rights, there may also be (as Hobbes believes) a transfer of these rights. When two or more people transfer these rights to each other, it is called a contract. The third natural law states that people must keep their own contracts. This law contains the function of justice. Only with the transfer of rights does community life and the functioning of property begin, and only then is injustice possible in the violation of contracts. It is extremely interesting that Hobbes derives from these fundamental laws the law of Christian morality: “Do not do to others what you would not have done to you.” According to Hobbes, natural laws, being the rules of our reason, are eternal. The name "law" is not quite suitable for them, but since they are considered as the command of God, they are "laws" 5 .

Thus, natural laws say that peace should be sought; for these purposes, the right to everything must be mutually renounced; “people must honor the agreements they make.”

1.2 Social contract theory

The concept of “Social Contract” (literal translation of the term “social contract”) first appeared in the works of philosophers Thomas Hobbes (17th century) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau ( XVIII V). It was after Rousseau’s book “On the Social Contract” (1762) that this concept became popular in European politics and social science. These ancient authors, speaking about the social contract, had the following in mind. People by nature have inalienable natural rights: to freedom, to property, to achieve their personal goals, etc. But the unlimited use of these rights leads either to a “war of all against all,” that is, to social chaos; or to the establishment of a social order in which some cruelly and unjustly oppress others, which, in turn, gives rise to a social explosion and, again, chaos. Therefore, it is necessary that all citizens voluntarily renounce some of their natural rights and transfer them to the state, which under the control of the people will guarantee law, order and justice.

A person loses his natural freedom (“I do whatever I want”), but gains civil freedom (freedom of speech, the right to vote in elections, the ability to unite in unions). A person loses the natural right to obtain property for himself (to grab everything that is bad, to take it from the weak), but acquires the right of ownership. This is the “Social Contract” in the old sense. At present, only its core remains of this concept, namely: in order to achieve a social order that suits everyone, or at least the majority, we need effective mechanisms for coordinating the interests of individual people and public institutions. The social contract is a negotiation process.

Social contract is not a document to be signed, it is a negotiation R ny process. To understand the content of Social Contract theories and their place in the development of views on the origins of society and the state, it is necessary to briefly list some of the well-known concepts that address these issues. Among the many theories and concepts, the following should be mentioned first:

According to Plato, society and the state did not differ significantly from each other. The state was a form of joint settlement of people that ensured the protection of common interests, territory, maintenance of order, development of production, and satisfaction of everyday needs.

IN medieval Europe The opinion was firmly established that the state is the result of the creation of God, a kind of agreement between God and man. This view of the origin of the state is called theological.

Hobbes was, perhaps, the first to present the theory of the social contract in a definite, clear and rationalistic (that is, based on the arguments of reason) form. According to Hobbes, the emergence of the state is preceded by the so-called state of nature, a state of absolute, unlimited freedom of people equal in their rights and abilities. People are equal in their desire to dominate and have the same rights. Therefore, the state of nature for Hobbes is in the full sense “a state of war of all against all.” Absolute freedom of man– the desire for anarchy, chaos, continuous struggle, in which the killing of man by man is justified.

In this situation, the natural and necessary way out is to limit, curb the absolute freedom of everyone in the name of the good and order of all. People must mutually limit their freedom in order to exist in a state of social peace. They agree among themselves about this limitation. This mutual self-restraint is called a social contract.

By limiting their natural freedom, people at the same time transfer the authority to maintain order and oversee compliance with the contract to one or another group or individual. This is how a state arises, whose power is sovereign, that is, independent of any external or internal forces. The power of the state, according to Hobbes, must be absolute; the state has the right, in the interests of society as a whole, to take any coercive measures against its citizens. Therefore, the ideal of the state for Hobbes was an absolute monarchy, unlimited power in relation to society.

2 Hobbes on the state of nature as a "war of all against all"

2.1 "War of all against all." Background

“War of all against all” (“ Bellum omnium contra omnes ”) a concept used in moral philosophy since the time of the ancient sophists, the idea of ​​a state of society in which there is general permanent hostility and incessant mutual violence. In a softened form, the idea of ​​a war of all against all includes an uncontrolled increase in aggressiveness in society, leading to constant interhuman conflicts. At its core, the war of all against all is an ideal model of destructiveness and selfishness taken to the extreme, which, when projected onto reality, serves as the basis for historical interpretations, forecasts, moralistic reasoning and warnings. Its significance for ethical thought is determined by the purposes for which the impressive and very visual picture of the universal conflict is used.

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

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

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

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

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

Similarly, in the concept of Yu.M. Beard understands the “anthropogenetic dead end”, generated by the aggravation of “tension of intra-herd relations” (up to the danger of mutual extermination of males) and resolved in the refusal of the direct implementation of egocentric instincts through the identification of oneself with another. A different reproduction of the same structure is present in concepts where morality in its universal and absolute form is the result of compensation for the isolation that arises during the collapse of clan unity and leads to “the trampling of the norms of communication developed in an archaic society” (R.G. Apresyan) a direct, albeit extremely softened, parallel to the “War of all against all.” 6

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

The third paradigm for using the painting “Wars of all against all” is built into the general logic of criticism of the social order, focused on the embodiment of moral values. In this case, war, based on hedonistic or perfectionistic considerations, is understood as a more acceptable state for the individual than a moral restriction. Thus, in “Philosophy in the Boudoir” A.D.F. de Sade, the state of war of all against all appears as one of the most desirable consequences of the desire for political freedom from a hedonistic point of view. The future of the French Republic, as described by de Sade, is similar to Hobbes's society, which finally realized the destructiveness of Leviathan and, enriched by the knowledge of the illusory nature of its promises associated with the fulfillment of the moral law, returned to the state of nature with its dangers and pleasures.F. Nietzsche, unlike de Sade, has a perfectionist perspective in mind when he characterizes the desire for universal peace, that is, a time “when there will be nothing more to fear,” as an imperative of “herd cowardice” and a sign of the extreme degree of “fall and decay.” Therefore, the call to war from “Thus Spake Zarathustra” (section “On War and Warriors”) has a two-sided goal: it is also the overthrow of “ current person”, and the creation of that crucible in which a renewed man will be born (“across a thousand bridges and paths they strive towards the future and let there be more war and inequality between them: this is what my great love"). General war, the search for the enemy and hatred of him acquire the status of self-sufficient values ​​for Nietzsche (“the good of war sanctifies every goal”). 7

2.2 Society and state in the war of all against all

By abandoning natural rights (i.e., the freedom to do everything for self-preservation), people transfer them to the state, the essence of which Hobbes defined as “a single person for whose actions a huge number of people have made themselves responsible through a mutual agreement among themselves, so that this a person could use the power and means of all of them as he thought necessary for their peace and general defense.” 8

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

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

The power of the sovereign is absolute: he has the right to issue laws, control their observance, establish taxes, appoint officials and judges; even the thoughts of the subjects are subject to the sovereign the ruler of the state determines which religion or sect is true and which is not.

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

The absence of any rights of subjects in relation to the sovereign is interpreted by Hobbes as the legal equality of persons in their mutual relations. Hobbes is by no means a supporter of the feudal-class division of society into the privileged and the unprivileged. In relations between subjects, the sovereign must ensure equal justice for everyone (“the principle of which states that one cannot take from anyone what belongs to him”), the inviolability of contracts, impartial protection for everyone in court, and determine equal taxes. One of the tasks of state power is to ensure that property “which people acquired through mutual agreements in exchange for the renunciation of universal rights.” Private property, according to Hobbes, is a condition for community life, “ necessary means to peace." Hobbes's views on the origins of private property also changed. IN early works he argued that in the state of nature property was common. Since the idea of ​​community of property was actively discussed during the ideological struggle of political groups (especially in connection with the speech of the Levellers and Diggers), Hobbes abandoned this idea: “in a state of war of all against all” there is “neither property, nor community of property, and there is only uncertainty "

Property, Hobbes remembers to add, is not guaranteed against encroachment on it by the sovereign, but this applies most of all to the establishment of taxes that should be levied on subjects without any exceptions or privileges.

In Hobbes's concept, the unlimited power and rights of the ruler of the state do not mean an apology for continental-style absolutism with its class inequality, universal guardianship and total regulation. Hobbes called on the sovereign to encourage all kinds of crafts and all industries, but the methods he proposed were far from the policy of protectionism.

The purpose of laws is not to prevent people from doing anything, but to give them the right direction. Laws are like fences along the edges of the road, so extra laws are harmful and unnecessary. Everything that is not prohibited or prescribed by law is left to the discretion of the subjects: such are “the freedom to buy and sell and otherwise enter into contracts with each other, to choose their abode, their food, their way of life, to instruct their children as they please, etc. ." 9 Discussing the relations of subjects among themselves, Hobbes substantiated a number of specific requirements in the field of law: equal trial by jury for all, guarantees of the right to defense, proportionality of punishment.

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

It is important to note that, according to Hobbes, the goal of the state (the security of individuals) is achievable not only under an absolute monarchy. “Where a certain form of government has already been established,” he wrote, “there is no need to argue about which of the three forms of government is the best, but one should always prefer, support and consider the existing one to be the best.” 10 It is no coincidence that the evolution of Hobbes's views ended with the recognition of a new government (Cromwell's protectorate), established in England as a result of the overthrow of the monarchy. If the state collapses, Hobbes declared, the rights of the deposed monarch remain, but the duties of the subjects are destroyed; they have the right to look for any defender. Hobbes formulated this provision in the form of one of the natural laws and addressed it to the soldiers of the army of the deposed king: “A soldier can seek his protection where he most hopes to receive it, and can legally give himself into subjection to a new master.”

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

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

Conclusion

Hobbes's judgment that, due to human nature, a “war of all against all” arises in society has been sufficiently studied in critical works. However, some clarification needs to be added. This thesis is presented and proven in the second part of the treatise, entitled “On the State,” and it was this part that led to the fact that “Leviathan,” this biblical monster, is perceived as a symbol of strong state power. Numerous opponents of Hobbes accused him of distorting human nature.

Meanwhile, this thesis does not have absolute meaning for Hobbes. He repeatedly says that the state of “war of all against all” arises in those periods when there is no state power, where order is disrupted, for example, in eras of revolutions and civil wars: then everyone is forced to protect their interests on our own, because he is deprived of protection from the authorities. The conclusion about the struggle of interests does not appear as a recognition of the initial depravity of nature, but is a natural result of the state of society at moments of social catastrophe. And Hobbes does not see this as a crime; cruelty in defending one’s interests may be a sin, but only breaking the law makes it a crime. Meanwhile, there are periods when there are no laws or they are not implemented with weak government power; the concepts of “justice” and “right” disappear.

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

Like most other progressive thinkers of this era, Hobbes was objectively a spokesman for the interests of developing capitalism, which achieved significant success in England and some other European countries. Subjectively, he considered himself an unselfish seeker of truth, necessary for the entire human race. “The desire to know why and how,” Hobbes wrote, is called curiosity. This desire is not inherent in any living creature except man, so that man is distinguished, not only by reason, but also by this specific passion, from all other animals, in which the desire for food and other pleasures of sensation, due to its dominance, suppresses the concern for knowledge of causes, which is mental. pleasure. This latter, preserved in the continuous and tireless emergence of knowledge, surpasses the short-term power of any other carnal pleasure. 11

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

List of used literature

1. Alekseev P.V. History of philosophy M.: Prospekt, 2009. 240 p.

2. Blinnikov L.V. Great philosophers: Educational dictionary-reference book. 2nd ed. M.: “Logos”, 1999. 432 p.

3. Burke E. Reflections on the revolution in France. Journal of Sociological Research for 1991, No. 6, 7, 9, for 1992, No. 2 and for 1993, No. 4.

4. Nailed V.A. History of Western philosophical thought M, 1993.

5. Nailed V.A. Fundamentals of philosophy: stages of development and modern problems. History of Western philosophical thought M.: Infra, 2008. 67 p.

6. T. Hobbes, Selected Works, vol. 12, M., 1964.
7. Hobbes T. Leviathan, or Matter, form and power of the church and civil state // Hobbes T. Works: In 2 volumes - Vol.2. - M.: Mysl, 1991. 731 p.

8. T. Hobbes, Works in two volumes, M, 1991.

Krasnoyarsk 1958.

Zenkovsky V.V. History of Russian philosophy: In 2 vols. L., 1991, 294 p.

10. Zorkin V.D. Political and legal teachings of Thomas Hobbes // Soviet State and Law 1989 No. 6.

11. History of political and legal doctrines. // Ed. Nersesyants V.S., 4th ed., revised. and additional M.: Norma, 2004. 944 p.

12. History of philosophy. / Ed. Vasilyeva V.V., Krotova A.A., Bugaya D.V. M.: Academic Project, 2005. 680 p.

13. Kozyrev G.I. Fundamentals of sociology and political science: textbook. M.: Publishing House "FORUM": INFRA M, 2008. 240 p.

14. Locke J. Selected Philosophical Works, vols. 1-2, M, 1960.

15. Manheim K. Conservative thought. See in the book: Diagnosis of our time. M, 1994.

16. Meerovsky B.V. Hobbes M, 1975.

17. Mushnikov A.A. Basic concepts of morality, law and community life. St. Petersburg, 1994.

18. Narsky I.S. Western European philosophy of the 17th century. M, 1974.

19.Prokofiev A.V. “War of all against all” // Ethics: encyclopedic Dictionary/ Guseinov A.A., Korzo M.A., Prokofiev A.V. M.: Gardariki, 2001. 672 p.

20. Smelser N. Sociology. M, 1994.

21. Sokolov, V.V., European philosophy of the XV-XVII centuries, M., 1984, section. 2, ch. 4.

22. Russell B. History of Western Philosophy. In 3 books. Book 3. Part 1, Chapter 7. M.: “Academic Project”, 2006. 996 p.

23. Sociology. Short course. V.I. Dobrenkov, A.I. Kravchenko. M, 2003, 49-73 p.

24. Sociology. Textbook for universities. M, 2003, 20-57 p.

25. Rousseau J.-J. On the Social Contract, or Principles of Political Law. M, 1938.

26. Hutcheson F. A Study on the Origin of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue / General. ed. Meerovsky B.V. // Hutcheson F., Hume D., Smith A. Aesthetics. M, 1973. S. 41-269.

27. Cheskis, A.A., Thomas Hobbes, M, 1929.

1 Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 volumes - M.: Mysl, 1991.T. 2. - p. 99

2 Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 volumes - M.: Mysl, 1991.T. 2. - p. 112

3 Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 volumes - M.: Mysl, 1991.T. 2. - p. 114

4 Gvozdoleny V.A., Fundamentals of philosophy: stages of development and modern problems. History of Western philosophical thought. M., 1993.S. 124

5 Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 volumes - M.: Mysl, 1991.T. 2.. - p. 99

6 Prokofiev A.V. "War of all against all // Ethics: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki, 2001. - p. 89

7 Prokofiev A.V. "War of all against all // Ethics: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki, 2001. - p. 90

8 Quote in: History of Philosophy: Textbook for Universities / Ed. V.V. Vasilyeva, A.A. Krotova and D.V. Bugaya. - M.: Academic Project: 2005. - P. 196

9 Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 volumes - M.: Mysl, 1991.T. 2. - S.S. 132

10 Ibid. - p. 164

11 Quote by Russell B. History of Western Philosophy. In 3 books. Book 3.H. 1, Ch. 7 - M.: "Academic Project", 2006 - p. 530

To the question what does Hobbes's expression “war of all against all” mean? given by the author Maigda the best answer is Considering man from an ethical and political point of view, Hobbes follows the same deductive mathematical method, as in physics. Ethics and politics are closely related, for all ethical concepts begin only with the transition of people from the state of nature to the state of the state. By nature, all people are equal to each other. From this natural state of equality of all men must arise a war of all against all (bellum omnium contra omnes). People are not sociable by nature, as Aristotle taught, but strive only for one to rule over others, which leads to war. But a state of war is a state of fear and danger from which it is necessary to emerge; Therefore, peace is the first requirement of natural law, which expresses the rule of abstinence for each individual person from what is harmful to him. To achieve peace, it is necessary for each person to renounce his unlimited right to everything. This refusal can be made either in the form of renunciation, or in the form of transferring the rights of one person to another. In the second way, that is, by transferring the rights of everyone to one or more persons, a state is created. All rights, without exception, are transferred to the state, which is unlimited. Submission to state power is unconditional, because disobedience to state power would again lead to a war of all against all. Having listed the rights of the state (protection of peace, censorship of teachings, establishment of laws, trial, declaration of war, establishment of administration, awards), Hobbes attributes them to the supreme power. There are three types of states: democracy, aristocracy and monarchy. Of these three forms of state, only monarchy achieves its goal - the security of citizens, and is, therefore, the best. The duty of the monarch is public good(salus publica suprema lex). To protect it, the supreme power has omnipotence, since it is accessible to man, and the individual citizen in relation to the supreme power is completely powerless and insignificant. The representative of the supreme power, as the source of laws, stands above them; it defines the concept of just and unjust, honest and dishonest, mine and yours. He is responsible only to God. Only when the supreme power is unable to protect the peace against internal or external enemies are citizens not obliged to obey it. The supreme power determines both religious dogmas and cult. Spiritual and secular power are united in one person, the church and the state form an inseparable whole.
IN YOUR OWN WORDS. People are initially born different (although at first glance they are all equal and the same), some have the makings of a leader and strive for power, others prefer to “keep a low profile” all their lives. People who strive for power by any means sometimes use any goals that are far from plausible, which causes hostility and envy, and very often the desire for power leads to wars. Peace is the first requirement of natural law. To achieve peace, it is necessary for each person to renounce his unlimited right to everything. Hobbes believes that such a refusal can be made either in the form of renunciation, or in the form of transferring the rights of one person to another (or several persons), i.e. to the state. All rights, without exception, must be transferred to the state, whose power must be unlimited. Submission to state authority must be unconditional, otherwise disobedience to state authority will again lead to a war of all against all.