Hobbes' Portrayal of Men

 

Hobbes hakkında kaçıncı yazım bilmiyorum. Ne kadar onu incelersem inceleyim derinine hiç inemediğimi hissediyorum. Onun determinist ve pesimist bakış açısından ötesini göremiyorum. Yine de beni en derinden etkileyen fikirlerinden birini göreceksin bu yazımda. İnsanları orul orul orospu çocuğu olmakla suçladıktan hemen sonra pesimist bakış açısını meşrulaştırmak için siz de benimle bu fikri paylaşıyorsunuz diyor. Gece yatarken kapıyı kitliyor, tehlikeli yerlere giderken silahınızı yanınıza alıyor ve kalabalık sokaklarda çantanızı sıkı sıkı tutuyorsanız en az benim kadar insanların vahşi ve bencil doğasının farkındasınız diyor. Buna karşılık içimden demek istedim ki eğitim arttıkça, farkındalık yeşillenip dünya daha da bir anlam kazanınca insan bu kötücül doğasından kurtuluyor, kurtulmuyor mu? Tabii bu Hobbes'un zamanında oldukça idealist bir fikir olurdu zira çok insan eğitim alabiliyordu. Bu yüzden insanların erdemli olmalarını eğitimden beklemek pek gerçekçi gelmemiş olabilir Hobbes'a göre. Yine de düşünmeden edemiyorum, herkesin eğitimli ve farkında olduğundan emin olduğum bir dünyada evimin anahtarı olur muydu? Acaba Hobbes'un da iddia ettiği gibi içimizde inkar edilemez, bastırılmış bir kötülük var da bunun bilinçsiz farkındalığıyla mı hareket ediyoruz? Hiç yalan söylenmemiş biri kandırılmaktan korkabilir mi?  

the Nature of Men

Hobbes portrays men in nature as vicious and evil beings, whose innate nature is prone to causing conflict. Although men's passions are one of the primary reasons for conflict, Hobbes refrains from accusing men of harboring and acting on them. In the state of nature, where chaos and anarchy are present, these passions were paramount to the preservation of life. However, he suggests that virtues like justice and injustice only become relevant when men live in a civilization. This is the only time when men can judge their character because judging our characters in the state of nature yields no benefit.

Hobbes asserts that we cannot describe any action as either virtuous or sinful unless there is a power to establish and enforce the laws. He provides empirical evidence and points out the savage people in America who live in a brutish manner. This example holds utmost importance because it reveals why virtues like justice and injustice can only be discussed in civilization. Hobbes describes these remote communities as places where there is no common power to fear. It implies that for rules to exist and effectively play a role in life, they require a power stronger than individuals. Therefore, laws and moral codes only become relevant when there is a power enforcing these rules. According to Hobbes, virtues like justice and injustice only relate to men who are in society (188). By this, he seems to suggest that these virtues only become useful when they hold some importance. In solitude, they are useless to men and therefore insignificant. In the state of nature, we exist in a form of solitude where virtues are irrelevant and everyone is a potential threat to everyone else. In such a setting, virtues and moral rules become insignificant since there is no benefit in abiding by them. This unveils Hobbes' pragmatic viewpoint, which is also evident when he discusses making judgments about other people and ourselves.

 

Hobbes prompts us to consider all the precautions we take as individuals, even when we are in a civil society where there is a somewhat sovereign power protecting us (186). By taking measures such as locking our doors and carrying guns, we acknowledge the potential for evil actions by others. However, he also implies that we often exclude ourselves from these judgments. According to Hobbes, desires and passions are not sins as long as they are not acted upon. There has to be a power elected by the people to establish what is wrong and right. This does not suggest that people are unaware of what is evil and what is not. For instance, Hobbes describes how kings live in constant jealousy, acting as if they are at war with other kings and nations. These kings are undoubtedly aware of virtues, but they don't act accordingly. They judge others' actions but fail to judge themselves. This might be because there is no benefit in doing so, as no power is stronger than them to offer any advantage in judging themselves and acting accordingly. So, even though we might be aware of our actions, we do not judge ourselves in the state of nature because there is no pragmatic value in doing so. As there are no laws, there is no benefit in questioning whether we obey them or not. Some might argue that we, as intellectual beings, might be interested in domains that may not directly contribute to our lives. However, Hobbes suggests that we do not have the innate knowledge of justice and injustice (187). We develop these concepts when they are needed, just as we developed virtues like fraud and force in nature when we needed them.

In conclusion, the state of nature is a state of war where everyone lives in constant fear of one another. In that state, there is nothing but violence, death, and despair. Hobbes suggests that we judge others but refrain from judging ourselves, prompting us to consider all the measures we take even in a civilized community. While he doesn't provide an explicit answer to why we exclude ourselves in our judgments, his other arguments reveal that he espouses a pragmatic viewpoint, suggesting a potential pragmatic explanation for this phenomenon. By portraying men as empty figures that take shape according to their environment, he presents a very realistic and materialistic image of humanity.

 

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Ed. C. B. Macpherson. London: Penguin Books, 2017.