What am I in for?

What am I in for?

Some of the best English prose in the canon.

Not even memeing. Don't let the archaic spelling and capitalization throw you. It's great stuff.

Honestly one of the best pieces of political philosophy ever written. And not just politics but religious theory and Hobbes' conceptions of science too. It's pretty much GOAT for the genre.

A real political redpill of the kind /pol/ can't handle.

I skipped most of 'On Man' and went straight for the political philosophy. Am I a filthy casual?

Yes. Hobbes actually only wrote this text because he was so pissed that everyone in England was killing each other and not letting him get on with his scientific and psychological speculation that he wanted somebody to establish order. Politics was to him a distraction. The 'On Man' section was what he was really interested in and used it as a baseline for his speculations on human political communities.

However, it is pretty much universally acknowledged that Hobbes' science has aged much less well than his political theory has.

samefag

Man is trash until he agrees not to be trash with other men.
The separation of church and state is a funny joke, and we shouldn't do it

>much less well

the literary equivalent of pringles

I enjoy Pringles.

this is not surprising, coz pol cannot even read

The best book on Monarchism ever written, but ignored by Monarchists because he spends the later parts explaining why the pope unnecessary.

All you will retain is a memory of that fucking picture.

OYPYJCS - Shop

It is without doubt, without question, without true foible the most superior cover ever devised by mind of man in all the divers histories of our ages.

Hobbes is a major influence on NRx though

Damn good book.

Politically, people from all strains of thought can get something from it.

The prose is beautiful. Definitely one of the best works written in English.

>this philosophical work's prose is beautiful
Am I being memed on?

What is everyone saying? The prose was bad, some of the dullest text ever. He believes in materialism, saying that ghosts etc. don't exist and that gods and mythology are incventend by men, and still believes in god. Says you can't criticize monarchs, because you've given them the sovereignty and everything they do should be good for you (he just assumes that all monarchs are just and able). He criticizes Aristotle, but pretty much copies him for the first half of the book.

The only interesting thing here that aren't very dated are some of the religious observations.

I've bought the Penguin one.

First 100 pages is an introduction which rambles on about bourgeois morality and perceived faults in the book.

Second 100 pages is a dictionary written by Hobbes explaining all terms and concepts he uses. Nearly finishes this after a long long time. You might find some witty things to say at a party in it but besides that I didn't find it that interesting.

So yeah that's almost half the book, hoping the rest is better.

SEEING there are no signs nor fruit of ‘religion’ but in man only, there is no cause to doubt but that the seed of ‘religion’ is also only in man; and consisteth in some peculiar quality or at least in some eminent degree thereof not to be found in other living creatures. 1
And, first, it is peculiar to the nature of man to be inquisitive into the causes of the events they see, some more, some less; but all men so much as to be curious in the search of the causes of their own good and evil fortune. 2
Secondly, upon the sight of anything that hath a beginning, to think also it had a cause which determined the same to begin, then when it did, rather than sooner or later. 3
Thirdly, whereas there is no other felicity of beasts but the enjoying of their quotidian food, ease, and lusts, as having little or no foresight of the time to come, for want of observation and memory of the order, consequence, and dependence of the things they see, man observeth how one event hath been produced by another, and remembereth in them antecedence and consequence; and, when he cannot assure himself of the true causes of things (for the causes of good and evil fortune for the most part are invisible), he supposes causes of them, either such as his own fancy suggesteth, or trusteth the authority of other men, such as he thinks to be his friends and wiser than himself.

He did mention he believes in equality though.

You think this is beautiful? It's clunky as hell.

>Secondly, upon the sight of anything that hath a beginning, to think also it had a cause which determined the same to begin, then when it did, rather than sooner or later.
I literally cannot understand this. I get it's about supposing causes to things, and I think it's about assuming causes of causes, but what does "then when it did" even mean?
I get it; it's forceful. It's kind of like an autist's block of text that you sometimes find towards the end of really long arguments.

I didn't say the prose was beautiful I just wanted to show you what it is like.

Reads like a legal text to me. Thank god they kept the old spelling and grammar to make it even better!

What. The spelling is exactly the same as nowadays, and grammar is a pretty chancy thing to mess around with when it comes to philosophical texts. Footnotes are best.

>The spelling is exactly the same as nowadays
Are you blind or stupid?
>remembereth, suggesteth, trusteth, etc.

That's your problem? I assumed you were talking about unstandardised spelling, not mild archaisms.

It has bits in it like 'to beget mongrill gods' and 'peraventure'. Not being a native speaker I had to read it twice before the meaning of a sentence actually got processed.

Not understanding mongrill is more understandable. Easy enough for a native though.

>He did mention he believes in equality though.

Only in a crude pragmatic sense, in that every human being generally has an equal ability to kill one another given the same conditions. That's about it.

This. I find legal texts fun to read.

Despite all his talk about God, I didn't take him for a believer.

One of the best books in political philosophy that is still relevant today is what you're for.

>A real political redpill of the kind /pol/ can't handle.

Wut. To me Leviathan reads exactly like someone arguing for a authoritarian state. Good arguing, but it is what it is nonetheless.

I remember reading parts of the leviathan multiple times for various university courses and finding Hobbes one of the more compelling authors within the history of political philosophy.

It's got a v specific backdrop.

Read it aloud.

Yes it does. Still serves as a good theoretical basis for many contemporary works within international relations theories.