In Hobbled
by Hobbes Christopher Ryan argues that the anthropological and archeological
evidence is inconsistent with Steven Pinker’s interpretation of long term
trends in violence. I don’t yet have a firm opinion about that issue, but Ryan
also refers to Pinker and others as neo-Hobbesian. He explains that
“For reasons having nothing to do with scientific accuracy,
Hobbes’ dire sloganeering about the misery of pre-civilized human life echoes
down the centuries. Who among us, three and a half centuries later, has not
heard that our ancestors’ lives were “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and
short”? This demonization of human existence in pre-state societies is
essential to preserving the legitimacy of God and country—both of which run a
protection racket promising to guard us against our own demonic inner nature.
Hobbes’ infectious meme is certainly among the most famous phrases ever penned
in the English language, and it shows no sign of fading. Indeed, his dismal
view of human nature is still being enthusiastically spread by neo-Hobbesian
presidents, pundits and professors.”
I have thought for some time that Hobbes view of human
nature has been somewhat misinterpreted. In Chapter 11 of Leviathan he
describes his view of human nature:
“So that in the
first place, I put for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and
restless desire of power after power that ceaseth only in death.”
That does sound like a pretty dismal view of
human nature, but then he explains:
“And the cause of this is, is not always that a man hopes for a more
intensive delight than he has already attained to; or that he cannot be content
with a moderate amount of power; but because he cannot assure the power and
means to live well, which he hath at present without the acquisition of more.”
In Hobbes view the problem was less
our demonic human nature than that people are essentially a prisoners’ dilemma
type game, a multi-person arms race.
