The leadership of Leviathan, or the "mortal god," is a central theme of Thomas Hobbes' theoretical masterpiece, The Leviathan. Literally, the word Leviathan comes from the Hebrew word livyathan, which etymologically means “to wind, turn, twist”[1]. In biblical tradition, it refers to the “dragon, serpent, enormous sea animal”[2] in the book of Job. Leviathan, a text written in the 17th century CE, offers a conceptual political structure designed to achieve an ideal authority that best fits human nature. Through his famous notion of the hypothetical human state of nature, Hobbes rationally constructs that the best government governs like a mortal god. Other political theorists, such as Aristotle (4th century BCE) and Machiavelli (15th and 16th centuries CE), developed their own conceptions of human nature and the ideal political domain appropriate for it. In particular, the views of Aristotle in Politics and Machiavelli in The Prince and The Discourses compare and contrast with the political project proposed by Hobbes. Although there are some commonalities in their understanding of human nature and political authority, the authorities proposed by Machiavelli and Aristotle primarily conflict with Hobbes's conceptual Leviathan, due to the different goals each theorist intends to achieve. through its respective sovereigns. This comparative analysis will explore the views of Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Aristotle on human nature, the powers of the ruling sovereign, the use of religion in politics, and the general goals each philosopher intends to achieve. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayIn order to hypothetically establish the hegemonic leadership of a ruler with unparalleled power, Hobbes first discusses the nature human in Leviathan. The goal of an all-powerful authority is to achieve "peace and common defense" (Leviathan, part 2, ch. 17), and this is only by understanding the desires and aggressions of man that the establishment of peace is possible. One aspect of human nature that is essential for Hobbes in establishing a Leviathan is equality – humans are, more or less, equally vulnerable and equally dangerous – as he explains: “Nature has made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind that, although there is sometimes one man manifestly physically stronger or more quick-witted than another... the weaker has enough strength to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederation with others who run the same danger as him” (Leviathan, part 1, chap. 13). Thus, humans are roughly equal in potential danger to each other, making characteristics such as age, gender, and race unimportant in Hobbes's state of nature. Later in Leviathan, Hobbes argues that because of this equality, all men in the hypothetical State of Nature must invariably submit to the terms of peace with each other, as he concludes: "If then the nature has made men equal, this equality must be recognized; or if nature has made men unequal, but because men who believe themselves equal will not enter into conditions of peace, but under equal conditions, such equality must be admitted… each man recognizes another as his equal by nature” (Leviathan, part 1, ch. 15). Only by entering into peaceful and equitable conditions can a community emerge from the relentless state of nature and progress toward the establishment of a Leviathan. Therefore, through thisreasoning, Hobbes believes that man's equality in nature is vital to establishing sovereignty. Aristotle, however, does not believe that humanity is equal by nature. Initially, it is important to understand that Aristotle views humans as political creatures destined for city life, but there is a status difference in the Aristotelian conception of society. Instead of deducing his argument from human vulnerabilities on a community level like Hobbes's State of Nature, Aristotle in Politics establishes a system of authority within the most fundamental societal unit: the household. . The household is a fundamental component of the polis, as Aristotle explains: “one must consider the management of the household; for every city is composed of houses” (Politics, Book 1, Part B, 1253b1). Without ensuring the proper management of animate and inanimate property, a man's active participation in political life is not possible, because a man's house must first be in relative order. Here, Aristotle creates the hierarchy of the complete household, which "consists of slaves and freemen" (Politics, Book 1, Part B, 1253b1), each of whom naturally inclines toward slavery or mastery . The policy maintains that nature selects one or the other to subject them to slavery: "Nature's intention is also to establish a physical difference between the bodies of free men and those of slaves, giving to the latter the strength to fulfill the subordinate duties of life, but rendering the former rights. by car and… useful for the various purposes of civic life” (Politics, Book 1, Part B, 1254b27). Therefore, Aristotle believes that nature impels slaves to perform physical tasks related to the maintenance of household goods, and that free-born masters are naturally inclined to lead political lives and manage their affairs in an emotional manner. Furthermore, he considers free-born men to be superior to free-born women, because he believes that "the relationship between man and woman is naturally that of superior to inferior, of ruler to ruled." This general principle must also apply to all human beings in general” (Politics, Book 1, Part B, 1254b13). His reasoning behind women's inferiority is their supposed natural lack of foresight and prudence, rendering them incapable of entering political life, despite their mental faculty of deliberation (Politics, Book 1, Part B, 1260a12). In this process, however, Aristotle sets up a freeborn female mistress in the house to rule over the children and slaves when the freeborn man is not present. Therefore, it is correct to say that Aristotle views humans in a hierarchy toward which nature intends and inclines humanity, and disagrees with Hobbes's simple equality for all humanity. Interestingly, Hobbes responds by disagreeing with Aristotle's separation of freeborn and slaves. He writes: “Aristotle, in the first book of his Politics, as the basis of his doctrine, makes men by nature, some worthy of commanding... others of serving... for master and servant were not introduced by consent of men, but by difference of the spirit, which is not only against reason, but also against experience. For there are very few so foolish who would not rather rule themselves than be ruled by others” (Leviathan, part 1, chapter 15). Here, Hobbes explains that although Aristotle argues that freeborn men and slaves are different by nature, the idea that slaves would submit to their masters of their own consent is "insane" and unrealistic. Leviathan argues that humans are interested and would therefore fightnaturally to serve themselves rather than succumb to other men. Machiavelli's views on human nature somewhat agree with those of Hobbes, but they still have unique differences. Machiavelli also argues in The Prince that humans are self-interested creatures, stating: "For this may generally be said of men: that they are ungrateful, fickle, malingering and deceitful, avoiding danger, greedy for gain... when it [ danger] approaches you, they turn away. (The Prince, ch. 17, p. 131) Here he explains that while it is ideal for a prince to be loved and feared by his subjects, men are ultimately selfish and self-serving, and will go to against the prince when he is in danger. However, Machiavelli views human civilizations as one that is constantly in a cycle, in which societies end up changing and evolving over time, both positively and negatively (The Discourses, ch. 2, pp. 179) – thus, human society is capable of progressing or degrading as the cycle continues, and is neither permanently frozen nor completely open. Additionally, a vital keystone in Machiavellian theory is the role of Fortune (sometimes translated as "Fortuna") in a person's political life. Fortune is a hypothetical goddess that Machiavelli introduces in the Prince who has the ability to bring about the rise and fall of rulers through her will. In the political domain, she favors the young and the more aggressive who take risks, because as the Prince explains, “she lets herself be taken in more often by impetuous men than by those who make cold advances; and then, being a woman, she is always the friend of young men, because they are less cautious, more aggressive” (The Prince, chapter 25, pp. 162). Consequently, Fortune gives power to those who interest her through hasty and daring courage. Her power over men is disproportionate, because she “is the arbiter of half of our actions” (The Prince, chapter 25, pp. 159); but her actions are not entirely random, for she allows men to subdue and command her boldly if she allows it (The Prince, chapter 25, pp. 162). A detailed example given by Machiavelli to demonstrate the power of Fortune is found in the life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca, who was guided to become a conqueror and achieve glory in a great military project. By chance (or Fortune), Castruccio's life was saved several times and his success grew, until Fortune chose to fail him at the end of his life. “But Fortune, hostile to his glory, took his life instead of giving it – she interrupted those projects that Castruccio had intended to realize for a long time, plans that only death could have prevented him from realizing” ( The life of Castruccio Castracani, pp. 539). Quickly, Castruccio was killed by freezing cold and high fever at the height of his military success, rendering his plans only dismaying. This element therefore demonstrates that Fortune plays a major role in Machiavelli's human nature and in the rise and fall of leaders; an element that does not exist in Hobbes' works. By establishing a standard for human nature and the general equality of man, Hobbes succeeds in launching his Leviathan: a single ruler who reigns as a mortal god. Because of the relentlessness of the State of Nature, Hobbes explains, the only way for a community to end the war of all against all is by mutual consent – ​​by disarming weapons and enacting natural laws – so as not to not hurt yourself. They do this out of “foresight of their own preservation” (Leviathan, part 2, ch. 17), because without common agreement, the state of nature would simply continue without end.Thus, the people cede some of their freedoms to a sovereign to ensure mutual peace for the greater good, as Hobbes explains: "The only way to erect a common power such as is capable of defending it from the invasion of strangers, and the wounding of one another...to confer all their power and strength on one man, or one assembly of men, who can reduce all their wills, by the plurality of voices, to one only will” (Leviathan, part 2, ch. 17). This excerpt is significant because it demonstrates how men must entrust their liberties to a sovereign, preferably a single man, to protect a community from itself and others. Thus, Hobbes' mortal god is created, while equally insecure men also bestow powers to naturally establish the Leviathan, with the aim of creating order. The fabricated strength of this sovereign is unquestioned, as Hobbes continues, "one person, whose deeds constitute a great multitude...that he may use the strength and means of all as he shall think expedient for their peace and their common defense” (Leviathan, part 2, ch.17). Therefore, the sovereign concentrates the power of all in a single authority responsible for maintaining peace. The concept of a ruler as a single man, or a body of men, is not unique to Aristotle in his Politics. In his famous typology, Aristotle identifies that a constitutional polis can be governed either by three valid authorities or by corrupt versions of these three respectively. “The civic body of each city is the sovereign; and the sovereign must necessarily be either One, or Some, or Many… [if they] govern with a view to the common interest, the constitutions under which they do so must necessarily be good constitutions” (Politics , Book 3, Part 7, 1279a25). Here he argues that a polis can be governed either by an individual, by a group of individuals, or by several individuals – in any case, if the sovereign governs in the interest of the community, then the constitution of the polis city ​​is intrinsically good. In this respect, Aristotle agrees with the mortal god of Leviathan, in that Hobbesian authority reigns with the consent of the many in the name of peace; a quality that is in the best interest of the community in terms of safety and longevity. A Leviathan is therefore not a tyrant, but rather a king. Aristotle goes on to say that although a singular monarchy, which Leviathan leans towards but does not require, may be an ideal form of government, it is not the most appropriate form of government in a densely populated city; “It is possible for a single man, or a few, to be of exceptional excellence; but when dealing with large numbers, accuracy in all varieties of excellence can hardly be expected. (Politics, Book 3, Part 7, 1279a25) In his context, Aristotle claims that it is difficult for one or a few men to be exceptional in all qualities among a large group of men. Aristotle also argues that a singular monarchy is a primitive power not found in modern politics, as he says: "Kingships do not exist in our day and any such government that emerges today is personal government or tyranny. » (Politics, Book 5, Part 11, 1312b38). Therefore, he sees kingship as a form of government best suited to smaller or pre-modern societies, while Hobbes's State of Nature does not specify a size for this community, nor a time period, and therefore , a single ruler is preferred for all communities in Hobbesian theory. Aristotle presents his own models of authoritiesexemplary for the polis described in its Policy. The best form of government, he says, is aristocracy; "among the forms of government by a few persons (but more than one) it is called Aristocracy - the name being given to this species either because the best are the rulers, or because its object is what there is is best for the city and its members” (Politics, Book 3, Part 7, 1279a25). Therefore, as Aristotle says, aristocracy is best when governed by those who enjoy liberty, property, and merit (Politics, Book 3, Part 9, 12781a2), because it is the governance of best (aristoi). However, according to Aristotle, the most applicable authority is the political regime, also known as the mixed regime, because it is the most practical system. Politics is the government of the middle class of citizens, who would ideally form the majority of a large polis, as Aristotle explains: "the best form of political association is that in which power is vested in the middle class and, secondly, this good government is feasible in cities where there is a large middle class...enough to be stronger than either of them individually...[this] will prevent either opposite extremes of becoming dominant. (Politics, Book 4, 1295b34) This means that the judgment of the middle class would be the least extreme compared to the controversial rich and poor, while still including a significant majority or minority of the polis in the governing process. This superiority of the middle class is preferred by Aristotle, due to his belief that the “too rich” and the “too poor” are respectively arrogant and petty (Politics, Book 4, 1294a34). This is relevant to consider when comparing Aristotle. to Hobbes regarding authoritarian rule, because Aristotle's theory contains both a societal hierarchy and a class division, whereas in Hobbes' State of Nature these dissections do not exist. A complete parallel therefore, between the two concepts of authority is not possible. However, as has been established above, the sovereign in Aristotle's polis (whether a king, an aristocracy, or a polity) has complete authority when serving the common good, a bit like Hobbes' mortal god. The two theorists therefore have points of similarity and points of contrast. Machiavelli, for his part, believes that a single prince is best for a nation in need of unity and direction. He argues that all political authorities can be divided into two broad categories: principalities, which involve the rule of a single sovereign, and republics, which involve the government of citizens. The Prince is dedicated to Prince Lorenzo and therefore constitutes the center of the work. is about principalities and how they should succeed (The Prince, ch. 2 pp. 79). In times of friction between the peoples of a nation, such as Italy in Machiavelli's time, or in times of foreign domination, a prince is necessary to seize power and establish a principality, following the examples of Moses, Cyrus , Romulus and Theseus throughout the period. the Prince, who, if they had not been armed, “could not have enforced their institutions for long” (The Prince, ch. 6, pp. 95). Concretely, a prince must master the use of violence, as Machiavelli explains, "if he is forced to beg or if he is capable of using power to direct affairs... In the first case, he ends up always bad and never accomplishes anything; but when they rely on their own resources and can use power, they rarely find themselves in danger. Hence the fact that all the armed prophets were victorious and that those whowere not armed were ruined” (The Prince, ch. 6, pp. 94-95). This means that all those who attempt to seize authority through only peaceful means and prayer have failed and, therefore, a prince must resort to violence when necessary. Compared to Hobbes, Machiavelli's prince has supreme authority (like a mortal god) once he seizes it. , but there is a difference in the way in which the sovereign gains this power. This is not with the peaceful consent of the people, but rather through coercion and good fortune. However, for Machiavelli, the principality is a means to the eventual establishment of a republic, and he develops this idea in The Discourses. The singular Prince only succeeds if he plans to realize the political project of creating respectful citizens and creators of laws, and therefore a republic: "a single man... a prudent founder of a republic, whose intention is to govern ". for the common good and not in his own interest, not for his heirs but for the good of the country, he should strive to have authority for himself alone; and a wise mind will never reproach anyone for an extraordinary action accomplished to found a kingdom or establish a republic. (The Discourses, ch. 9, pp. 200) This essential passage explains that although the prince is an individual with extraordinary power, the ideal goal of his reign is to found a republic, for the good of his nation, rather than succeeding it. hereditarily. In the same chapter, Hobbes cites Romulus' murder of his brother Remus and his ally Tatius, and justifies: “It is indeed fitting that though the action indicts him, the result excuses him; and when this result is good, as it was for Romulus, it will always excuse him” (The Discourses, ch. 9, pp. 200-201). Thus, the elimination of other rulers of the principalities was necessary for the establishment of a single ruler, and later the Roman republic. Therefore, although the Prince and Leviathan both hold unparalleled authority and rule as mortal gods, the purpose of the Prince's power in Machiavelli is to establish republican rule, while Hobbes' Leviathan exists to ensure peace . questions revolving around religion, its difficulties and its uses, because he maintains that religion can be a vital pawn of a sovereign. Hobbes views religion as something unique to humanity and believes that an eminent degree of religiosity cannot be found in other creatures (Leviathan, part 1, ch. 7). First, he is clear in saying that we do not know, in reality, what true religion is, as he writes: "Men, not knowing that such apparitions are nothing other than creatures of the imagination, think themselves to be real and external substances, and therefore we call them phantoms… the opinion that such spirits were incorporeal or immaterial could never enter into the mind of any man by nature” (Leviathan, part 1, ch. 7). Thus, Hobbes explains that communication with the spiritual realm is contradictory, because spirits themselves (like God) are infinite and therefore incomprehensible to understanding. Second, Leviathan argues that religion was used to mobilize leaders and perpetuate loyalties. He says: “But both kinds did it for the purpose of making the men who relied on them more apt for obedience, for laws, for peace, for charity, and for civil society. So that the first religion is part of human politics; and teaches part of the duty which earthly kings require of their subjects. (Leviathan, part 1, ch. 7) This means that “true” and “false” religions have made men more subject to human spiritual authorityconsidered a representative of gods, nymphs or spirits. Finally, Hobbes argues that the use of religion was vital in the creation of the Commonwealths, as he argues: "And through these and other institutions they obtained, to achieve their objective, which was the peace of the Commonwealth, that the commons… were least inclined to mutiny against their governors.” Therefore, through the religious institutions that Hobbes said Numa, the founder of Peru, and Mohammed had used, peace had been achieved and the threat of rebellion against religious rulers had been minimized. Therefore, Hobbes believes that although religion has its dangers and superstitions, it can be a vital keystone in creating a Leviathan with strong authority through a religious institution. Aristotle's view on religion is not a defining element of his political theory, but he nevertheless recognizes the role of religion in the city, as well as its misuse as a political tool. In Book 6 of his Politics, Aristotle lists six essential functions required for a functioning city, and they include "functions relating to public worship, military affairs, revenue and expenditure, the market place, the central -city, to the ports”. , and the countryside” (Politics, book 6, part 8, 1322b29). The religion of the city then becomes one of its vital offices intended for the spiritual life of the citizens. He repeats the importance of establishing a religious body in the polis in book 7, as he writes: "The fifth (but actually the first) is an establishment for the service of the gods, or, as it is calls, public worship. » (Politics, Book 7, Part 8, 1328b2) However, unlike Hobbes, Aristotle does not require the use of religion for the sovereign body of the polis in Politics, despite its function in the city. Instead, he identifies the use of religion as a means for tyrants to maintain power: “He should always show special zeal in the worship of the gods. People are less afraid of being treated unfairly by those, especially if they believe that the ruler fears God and places a certain esteem on the gods; and they are less disposed to conspire against him, if they feel that the gods themselves are his friends. (Politics, Book 5, Part 11, 1314b35) Therefore, in tyranny, Aristotle's negative form of singular government, religion is used as a tool for the ruler to appear pious and to prevent insurrection against his corrupt government. Therefore, Aristotle and Hobbes agree that religion can be used to shape community loyalty to a sovereign, but disagree on the legitimacy of this tactic. In Machiavelli's Prince and Discourse, a ruler's use of religion is vital to the success of his community. .Among Machiavelli's four most excellent men, Moses was the first mentioned, as a legislator in the Judeo-Christian canon. He explains: “It was therefore necessary for Moses to find the people of Israel in Egypt enslaved and oppressed by the Egyptians, so that they would be willing to follow him and escape from this bondage…So these opportunities were made. these men succeeded, and their exceptional ingenuity made known to them this opportunity by which their nations were ennobled and became prosperous” (The Prince, ch. 6, pp. 93). The biblical Moses had led the Israelite exodus from Egypt, created a system of laws and rituals, and sowed the seeds of a free people, all in the name of religion, and Machiavelli acknowledges this here. Unlike priestly religious figures, Moses had resorted to violence and coercion and had succeeded in building.