Hobbes: Human Nature, Essay Example

One might argue that Hobbes adopts a pessimistic view of human nature.

The argument that Hobbes developed regarding human nature was predicated on his underlying view of reality, which can be understood in regards to the need to establish a coherent language or framework for discussion (Leviathan I 14). In this sense, his argument regarding human nature can only be understood in relation to his conception of reality, a materialist perspective that regarded the world as having causal relationships and mechanistic physical boundaries. Sensation, in this sense, is caused by physical objects, which create perceptions or ideas in the mind (Leviathan I 11). The argument that Hobbes made for human nature and the underlying motivation for action can be understood in a similar way.

There arise within the human body specific appetites, desires, or needs that can be fulfilled through the undertaking of specific actions. The actions that human beings take can, therefore, be understood in regards to the need to fulfill these underlying desires (Leviathan 16). The natural, biological, needs of the body are, therefore, an important starting point in understanding how Hobbes’ argument regarding human nature can be understood. The will is, therefore, fundamentally related to desire. This underlying nature of humanity presents a reality in which people are in a constant state of warlike competition, in which human lives will inevitably be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Leviathan I 113). This state of nature could be considered to be pessimistic.

Is this view justified?

This view does seem to be justified in regards to how Hobbes understood the natural state of humanity. He seemed to view it as fundamentally imperfect, which was demonstrated in the need for the social contract as a prerequisite for fulfillment of human potential. “Driven by selfish desires, self-interest, and the fear of death, the best that can be said of human beings is that we are able to reason sufficiently to see that it is our own self-interest to cooperate with a powerful political authority in order to preserve our own safety and to pursue our own self-interest” (Harris 12). By this argument, it is evident that the position that Hobbes had regarding the establishment of human nature was that it was in a state of imperfection, due to the underlying completion that was necessary. Through the social contract, this imperfect form of natural competition for resources between individuals became closer to perfection as people agreed to fulfill specific roles and share resources amongst themselves.

It might be argued that the establishment of the social doctrine leads the argument put forth by Hobbes to be less pessimistic. The underlying pessimism of the claim, however, can be further regarded as being established within the social doctrines of Hobbes as well. Despite the establishment of society, man still has this same base-nature, and it is given as the underlying reason for the need for laws, customs, and norms in society. In this sense, it seems that the argument put forth by Hobbes presents an underlying pessimism regarding human nature. “Things will get better only in the sense that the Leviathan is able to control the beast within human nature, but the beast remains, and it remains unchanged” (Harris 12). Due to the inability of man to overcome his nature, the establishment of society simply masks an underlying imperfection that can be construed as being pessimistic in principle.

What insights might remain, if any?

The establishment of society, the Hobbesian view is predicated on the underlying weaknesses or fear of humanity. The social contract itself arises out of the fear that the individual has that their needs might go unfulfilled. For this reason, they sacrifice potential desires in order to ensure that their basic needs will be met (Leviathan I 117). This, however, is the origin of the Leviathan, the entity that is created out of the need to fulfill these needs. Out of the need to assign a governing role in order to ensure that the social contract is met, power is granted to an arbitrary agent that can work to ensure stability (Leviathan II 118). This role, however, does not replace the desires of the individual, they are, rather, put in place to overcome them. This need could, in this light be construed in a pessimistic way.

While it seems that Hobbes viewed the underlying nature of humanity in a negative way, it seems that he viewed a prominence in the importance of the social contract. This agreement had the power to overcome the underlying nature of natural man and the realities of the world in the creation of civilization, the Leviathan, which has the power to overcome the beast of the natural world. In Hobbes’ view this allowed the individual to attain true freedom. This freedom was gained from the inability to ensure basic rights in regards to the actions that other people might potentially take (Leviathan II 21). According to Hobbes, it seems that the nature of humanity itself, despite having the freedom of nature, or of the natural world, serves to repress the exercising of liberty, while human society, under the social contract, allows for the basic rights of the individual to be guaranteed.

The underlying notions of human nature in regards to the arguments that are put forth by Hobbes, therefore, seem to express an underlying negativity. This pessimism can be understood in regards to how he views the natural state of humanity. This natural state, within his writings, seems to be superseded by the more perfect state of social cooperation that resulted from the agreement to fulfill needs before desires (Wensveen 31). In this way, it seems that Hobbes adopts a pessimistic view of human nature. This view is expressed in regards to his view of the state of man after the social contract as being more perfect that that of man before the contract was established, while man was still in his natural state.

Works Cited

Harris, James F. The Ascent of Man: A Philosophy of Human Nature. Transaction Publishers, 2012. Print.

Hobbes, Thomas, and J C. A. Gaskin. Leviathan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Internet resource.

Wensveen, Jonathan. (2013). Human Nature in Hobbes and Thucydides. Carleton University. 161. Print.