A question

In Leviathan, one of his major works, Hobbes frankly summarized the basic principles of natural law theory as the core of his thought into 22 articles. Hobbes expounded his thoughts on political life on the basis of these principles, and finally built his own theoretical building of political philosophy on the basis of these principles. Political philosophy, when it originated in ancient Greece, means establishing a way of life in the city-state. If a kind of politics cannot bear the value of guiding citizens to a truly beautiful life and a truly healthy life, then this kind of politics must be decadent. It is conceivable that if Hobbes does not want his political philosophy to go in a bad direction, then he must associate his political philosophy with the real good life and real health value of citizens. In fact, Hobbes' laws of nature are only discussing what is a truly beautiful civil life and what is the value of real health. What Hobbes wants to solve is the problem of lifestyle, according to Leo? Strauss judged that this issue has always been the core issue of political philosophy. What does Hobbes think of a healthy life? Obviously, there are two key points in Hobbes' concept of natural law: 1, the instinct of fear of death, and the desire for self-preservation arising from this instinct; 2. Keep the agreement. It is these two basic principles that make Leo? Strauss regards Hobbes as the father of modern political philosophy.

Why is this?

Second, the explanation of the problem

Remember an article about Francis? Bacon's research article, a? Parry Ramos wrote: "Max? The disenchantment of the world that Weber vividly used to describe the cultural characteristics of modern Europe is reflected in many fields. One of them is the change of religion, and another equally important field is the object of knowledge, that is, nature has become a soulless machine, a huge warehouse or a victorious image of an unconscious witness questioned in the most harsh way. " [1] Indeed, the medieval view of nature, which had been dominant in the ideological circle before, including ancient Greece, Rome (especially the Stoics) and the Middle Ages, no matter how great changes and adjustments it has undergone in the changes of the times, the core point has always been confirmed and adhered to, that is, nature is a huge living body, composed of moving objects that spread in space and permeate in time and space. The whole world has life, and all its movements are life movements with a purpose, which are regulated and guided by reason. Nature is not only alive, but also rational, not only a huge living body with its own soul or life, but also a rational animal with its own soul. According to its own level, any living thing can be divided into the world soul or the activity of divine reason and the world soul. There is no material world without spirit, and there is no spiritual world without matter. Matter itself is intangible, and spirit, as the ultimate cause and purpose cause, guides the change of matter.

By the seventeenth century, all this had changed. Enlightenment thinkers created a different material world with the help of scientific discovery or strictly speaking; A lifeless material world is infinite and full of movement, but it is driven by universal and pure power, without qualitative difference, rank, order, harmony and purpose. Matter is no longer invisible. Everything is formed by the form imposed on itself, not by the whole of moving objects organized in quantity.

With the change of natural view, people's views have also changed. In ancient Greece, Sdoia, Aristotle's cosmology and the medieval ideas dominated by nature, the natural landscape and human values are completely integrated. Aristotle's view of nature is based on material form and teleology. Life is the object of thinking, and norms and values constitute its essence. Things exist in a teleological chain and are gradually led to a more advanced life form, a more effective and energetic life form. The whole process contains the difference between the potential and the reality, and the potential is the cornerstone of the struggle. Therefore, the potential moves in the direction of reality, and the reality runs through the whole nature with the meaning of teleology, and finally moves towards the "static promoter". The process of the world cannot be self-existent, and there must be dynamic reasons outside nature to explain the changes that have taken place in nature. Obviously, this teleological development view puts people in a hierarchical order, realizes their own essence and value, and realizes the perfect existence of people. Therefore, people gain the meaning and direction of existence, and therefore have the soul of the world and their own fixed value. The modern view of nature denies the above metaphysical system with permanent and universal doubts, and only recognizes the objective existence of the dead material world scattered in infinite time and space. About spirit, soul and God, if not completely denied, at least excluded from the explanation of nature. Human beings have lost the unified order and internal harmony as the basic characteristics of medieval culture, as if they had become the outcast of the universe. Man's position in the universe is similar to that of the proletariat in the bourgeois world mentioned by Marx. In the mechanistic nature, he has no inevitable position setting, and nature itself has lost its purpose and order. Only through unremitting struggle can he get everything he can. Although Pascal was later worried about the position and value of human beings in this natural landscape, this view of nature showed the general characteristics of the Enlightenment in the main aspects, that is, the transformation from eternal order to human beings, from obligations and rules to rights and requirements. The legitimate research object of human beings is human beings. The so-called enlightenment, as Kant said, lies in the free and open use of one's own reason. Reason is no longer the original division of the world soul, that is, logos, or participation in the sacred order, but people's independent behavior and thinking ability. The ultimate goal of the whole scientific research is human happiness, and the basis of all knowledge lies in the investigation of the actual process of psychological activities. [2]

In this decisive transformation from eternal order to man, the most effective force comes from Hobbes, who clearly distinguished law and rights for the first time. [3] According to Hobbes' analysis, law represents specific obligations and rules, which are derived from eternal ideas or sacred order. In ancient Greece and the Middle Ages, this was the theoretical basis of political thought. Justice was a standard and norm independent of human will in medieval society, but a concept of certainty about pure individual rights was not really realized. On the other hand, Hobbes believes that the state is first established on the basis of individual rights, and the law is the derivative of this right. Therefore, we can correctly understand political and social life from the perspective of "humanity". Hobbes found that the most fundamental and decisive characteristics of human nature are self-preservation and self-interest motivation, which is a simple and self-evident principle to explain the whole will activity. In essence, this self-preservation motivation refers to the maintenance and promotion of personal physical survival. All other activities of the will will serve this self-preservation. There is no other objective criterion to judge right or wrong, only whether it is beneficial or harmful to people's self-preservation as natural beings. The right to self-preservation has become the fundamental principle of Hobbes' political thought. Everyone's right to self-defense is fundamentally opposed to others' right to self-defense and conflicts occur. In order to protect themselves most effectively, people must get rid of the general war between all people, get rid of the bad natural state and enter a civilized society that lives in peace. The most feasible way to enter a civilized society is for people to conclude a mutual guarantee contract, build a country according to the contract, and decide right and wrong, good and evil by laws promulgated by the state. If people's right to self-protection must be restricted or corrected by national laws and regulations, then the country itself should first be the most perfect device among all devices designed by egoism to meet the requirements of self-protection. In addition, the so-called goodness, virtue, sacred order and human social attributes are not fundamental, even redundant or irrelevant to the country. They only exist as some conditions and means to realize self-preservation and peaceful life. The state does not assume the responsibility and power to guide citizens to do good, and should not have excessive spiritual requirements.

According to Leo? According to Strauss' analysis, the fundamental difference between classical political philosophy and modern political philosophy is that where classical political philosophy is based on laws and norms, modern political philosophy is replaced by individual rights and becomes the starting point of political philosophy. On this basis, Strauss regarded Hobbes as the father of modern political philosophy. He wrote: "In the mutual investigation of modern and classical political philosophy, there is no doubt that Hobbes, not others, is the father of modern political philosophy. Because it is Hobbes' unparalleled clarity that makes natural rights, that is, personal reasonable demands, become the basis of political philosophy without resorting to natural law or divine law from time to time. " [4] Indeed, Hobbes lived and wrote in the17th century, which was the period when the Enlightenment prevailed. At that time, the social life and intellectual life of European countries were at a huge turning point. Secular civilization grew up consciously next to religious civilization. It has been sneaking under the mainstream of western national religious civilization, expanding and growing, and finally broke through the ground, forming the basic characteristics of modern life with the image of a winner. Modern life showed colorful vitality, broke through the solid unity of the spirit of the Middle Ages, and the imperial era in the spiritual field collapsed. Rome lost complete control of religious life. The absolute rule of religious belief over science was destroyed. Accordingly, in the ideological field, the medieval scholasticism based on ancient Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle's philosophy, was thoroughly doubted and criticized. Descartes' philosophy of doubt became the spiritual ruling force of rational life in the17th century. Descartes, starting from the principle of doubting everything, examined all conceptual fields from all aspects. Descartes said that we have experienced so many changes in opinions and sensory deception that we can't believe them. The same object has different impressions in different environments. Faced with the diversity of these impressions, it is impossible to determine which one of these impressions or whether there is an impression that contains the true essence of things. According to our practical experience, the vividness and accuracy of our dreams will inevitably cause doubts that we can never give up: are we still dreaming even when we are sure that we are awake and aware of things? Therefore, in all the compositions that may be produced by imagination, we can only confirm a few simplest, clearest and most certain truths that we have to accept, such as the mathematical proposition 2+3 = 5. [5] Bacon's four illusions theory also expressed the same suspicion and critical intention. [6] This intention is aimed at medieval religions? The philosophical system headed by the Pope and the church empire supported by it require to seek and determine the reliable truth on the basis of universal suspicion, and take this as a starting point to construct a systematic and brand-new whole of all human knowledge. They hate the tradition of accumulating knowledge through history, and long for a brand-new philosophical creation cast by a mold. As Strauss said, "Dogmatism has never succeeded in overcoming skepticism once and for all. To ensure the realization of wisdom is to eliminate skepticism by treating the truth embodied in skepticism fairly. Therefore, extreme skepticism must be allowed to run rampant: only by withstanding the criticism of skepticism can it become an absolutely reliable foundation of wisdom. At the same time, the realization of wisdom is to establish an absolutely reliable theoretical building on the basis of extreme skepticism. " [7] Hobbes is thinking and writing in this ideological atmosphere and the background of the times. He pretends to be the first real political scientist, and his ambition is to create a brand-new political science on the basis of real stability. Hobbes found that this truly stable foundation is rooted in all kinds of natural passions of human nature, among which the fear of sudden death and the selfish motivation of self-preservation are fundamental and dominant. When people establish a proper political life or public life, they must take this motivation into account and make it the basic point of political life order. In the past, political theory examined the legitimacy of political life from the perspective of a harmonious pre-order system, and thought that political life should be based on virtue, and its goal was to guide the children in it to be good. This theory is represented by Aristotle. Aquinas, a master of scholasticism in the Middle Ages, inherited Aristotle's political discourse and reformed this theory under a strong religious background, which made Aristotle, a pagan thinker, take root in the Christian soil and eventually become the ruling force of rational life in the Christian world. Aristotle and Aquinas can be regarded as two commanding heights in the context of medieval European political thought. Their thoughts reflect each other and constitute the mainstream of medieval political discourse. On the one hand, Hobbes showed considerable respect for Aristotle, but fundamentally, he regarded the metaphysical system of the Middle Ages as meaningless nonsense and a bunch of inexplicable words. He pointed out in a tit-for-tat way that virtue and kindness are too high for political life to approach illusory requirements, which is totally unworkable. Political life should be based on people's natural desires and everyone's right to self-preservation. In short, political life should be thoughtful, not what it should be like. [8] Its task is to turn people from "wolves" in a state of war into citizens in a state of peace, and to lead the public life order between people from a bad natural state to a peaceful civilized state. In short, here in Hobbes, we see almost all the basic features of the mainstream discourse of modern political science, such as the fundamental importance of individual rights, the separation of the political world from the moral world and so on. Although the results derived from his contract theory are rarely accepted by later generations, the contract theory itself has become the most frequent and effective weapon in the hands of constitutional theorists. When Kant summed up the concept of social contract about the composition of the state, he came to the conclusion that there is no other more suitable method. All these make Hobbes the father of modern political philosophy, although we can't ignore Machiavelli's efforts to draw a clear line between politics and morality. [9]

Obviously, Hobbes' political philosophy needs not another religion, belief, prophet, value, transcendental field, morality, gods, theology, or even some kind of law. On the contrary, what he urgently needs is only one thing, that is, he can judge any politics-theology-religion-morality-custom-ancestor-law on the basis of unambiguous verification and reasoning. ! In other words, keeping people as nature is the existence of nature. Because of its naturalness, people should be aware of their own limitations and smallness, keep their natural existence away from such an attempt, cross the absolute boundary and step into the so-called unnatural field. By unnatural, I mean "supernatural" in traditional religious beliefs and "artificial fabrication" under the background of modernity. To achieve this, the basic point is: philosophy, or philosophical, or philosophical lifestyle. The philosophy here is "to think". In the face of the philosophical trial court, there is no overriding belief. Whether it is primitive superstition, Greek Homer myth, Christianity, Confucianism, Islam, or other things, it is just a "doxas" without thinking and trial.

In The Myth of the Country, Cassirer talked about a miracle in the history of western thought, that is, when the city-state philosophers began to think philosophically with their own reason, it actually triggered a confrontation between reason and myth. In this confrontation, those who are engaged in philosophical questioning intervened in the confrontation with the help of the brand-new concept of "nature" and finally won the struggle.

Nature discovered by the ancient Greeks is opposite to art and poetics, mainly to Nomos, which refers to special laws, customs, agreements, consents and authoritative opinions. It is in this opposition that the concepts of nature and natural law came into being. Its purpose is to transcend the special customs and rules of special people, regions and times, and to seek a universal, eternal and transcendent normative system. "The theory of natural law is as old as philosophy. As Aristotle thought, curiosity was at the beginning of philosophy, and people also found curiosity at the beginning of natural law theory. " [10] Curiosity, as a state of mind, is different from obedience and humility required by moral education and religious obligations. It refers to the unique working intention of philosophy. Generally speaking, this intention is a rational exploration of the natural principles of all things, and it is a pure act of loving wisdom, which requires human rationality to examine the world and the universe. Therefore, the goal of philosophy in politics, jurisprudence and ethics is to seek a universal lifestyle that transcends special regions, nationalities, religions and morals. [1 1] This is exactly what Socrates' predecessors devoted themselves to. Before that, the intellectual state of ancient Greek civilization was basically in the mythical atmosphere created by Homer's epic. Political and legal norms are mixed with all kinds of religious and moral obligations derived from myths. The social order on which people live is naturally created by gods, and the law is firmly branded with various gods and attached to them. In the 6th century BC, everything changed radically. Greek civilization experienced a revolution from myth to philosophy, which originated from the dialogue and struggle between "reason" and "myth". Philosophy demands and tries to uncover the myth veil hanging over our rationality, and demands that the empirical world be explained through the concept of reality. In this confrontation between philosophy and myth, the Greeks quickly found a "brand-new method" to make people look at the problem from a brand-new perspective. They study nature before politics. "[12] They almost suddenly created the concept of nature, and on this basis, they used their rational thinking to fight against myths." They are Columbus in this field. Without this first step, they can't challenge the power of myth and thought, and the new concept of nature has become the same basis for human life and social life. [13] Based on this new concept of nature, the concept of natural law was born together with philosophy. From the beginning, it confronted the ancient myths, legends, customs and ancestral ethics of the polis. The opposition between nature and customs, namely Physis and Nomos, has always been an axis of ancient Greek thought. [14] Here, the "regularity" of things is no longer protected by authority; They become a problem or the object of being questioned. The identity between primitive goodness and ancestral ethics is replaced by the basic differences between them. [15] Obviously, the new concepts of nature and natural law are the product of philosophy. It was born when people began to doubt the authority and old ethics in city-state life, realized that all laws are eternal divine laws, and comprehensively examined them with critical rationality. It has become an effective tool for philosophical inquiry and the foundation of new personal life and social life. Being born in accordance with nature is a higher behavior law achieved by getting rid of the chaotic habits and rude indulgence of vulgar people. People are aware of the variability of ancient patriarchal ethics, and go beyond their own polis to investigate the different laws and systems of many other polis. At this time, people excitedly asked: What is the right law? What is the moral basis of laws that conform to nature? Why is the law binding? How does the law regulate people's conscience What is the ethical basis of the coercive power of national law and moral order? These basic problems have become the basic problems of natural law theory, which have attracted the attention of almost all natural law theorists since Plato's time. What these natural law theorists seek is the moral foundation with universal effect about the legal order, which needs a unified or natural standard to measure people's lives in different regions and times. The reason why this unified standard pretends to have universal effect is not based on force, nor on specific moral, religious or philosophical education matters, but on human rationality.

Interestingly, Hobbes stood at the beginning of the modern world and at the turning point from religious civilization to secular civilization. When confronting the religious civilization in the Middle Ages, he relied on the concept of "nature". Hobbes is actually advocating a brand-new way of life by shaping a brand-new concept of "nature". The basic nature of Hobbes' concept of "nature" is sharply reflected in the following three points:

1, involving the issue of will. In Hobbes' concept of nature, we see the first expression of a basic feature of the modern world in political life. This basic feature is that will takes precedence over intelligence. Truth and falsehood, right and wrong, beauty and ugliness all depend on people's passion and will, and there are no pre-existing objective and universal norms like in the Middle Ages. Therefore, people can freely create the required norms, and this free creation is based on Hobbes' new epistemology. In this regard, Strauss has made a detailed analysis: Hobbes' view of nature and cosmology is unwise and mechanistic, and there is no world power beyond human beings. Hobbes did not believe that the teleological worldview of the medieval world was possible. "This means that the world itself does not need a purpose, so it is enough to just include the purpose in cognition." In other words, "cognition itself can provide the necessary teleological principles" (natural rights and history, the same as before. , page 176). This has a profound impact on modern political philosophy, that is, the identity of cognition and purpose. Therefore, Hobbes' so-called "scientific knowledge" is not only an objective description of facts, but also has the significance of teleology, and ultimately it must have the relevance of value and purpose. Because of this correlation, cognition must expect action. For the essence of modern epistemology, Strauss gave a direct definition: "Understanding is creation." (natural rights and history, same as before. , p 177, p 1 1 note), which reminds us of bacon's proposition "knowledge is power". According to Strauss, modern action epistemology means "giving up the priority of meditation or theory and replacing it with the priority of practice." (natural rights and history, p 176 note 1 1). Considering the profound theological background in Hobbes' thought, this is not only the relationship between theory and action, but also the deeper relationship between will and reason, which is precisely a core issue in the history of western political philosophy. (See natural rights and history, op. cit. ，p 174- 177)。 Will precedes reason, or rights precedes norms, which constitutes a basic feature of modern political life.

2, related to historical issues. Strauss has a chapter devoted to the role of historical issues in Hobbes' thought. In Hobbes' early thoughts, he seems to show a special interest in Thucydides, without the non-historical characteristics of rationalism. Hobbes' transition from pure philosophy to history is not an ancient wonder. On the contrary, this turn is driven by his strong teleological concern. Strauss pointed out: "Hobbes' interest in historical growth is his concern for use." (Hobbes' Political Philosophy, op. cit. , page 89). This is based on Hobbes' view that "traditional philosophy cannot use norms." (Hobbes' Political Philosophy, op. cit. , p. 98), and his systematic doubts about the validity of traditional philosophical aphorisms (Hobbes' political philosophy, op. cit. , page 92) and his judgment about the uselessness of reason (Hobbes' Political Philosophy, op. cit. , page 93). At first glance, the change from philosophy to history seems to be a change from values, norms, aphorisms and purposes to pure knowledge about facts, or a change from what should be to what should be. However, as mentioned above, Hobbes' cognition and knowledge have a strong teleological significance, which determines that Hobbes should seek a new philosophy in historical reality, not in the invalid traditional philosophy. This also explains why Hobbes returned to philosophy and his brand-new political philosophy in his later thoughts, saying that brand-new is because it has the core of new norms and aphorisms and began to oppress and expel history. Therefore, Hobbes' attitude towards historical issues is complicated, and the judgment that "historical issues are not important" in this paper is based on the maturity of his thoughts.

3, related to rational issues. In Hobbes' thought, rationality has been transformed into a simple computing power without value appeal, but its status is still very low. Because of the teleological significance in Hobbes' political philosophy and his emphasis on use, Hobbes' political philosophy is no longer a political philosophy in the traditional sense, because the traditional political philosophy is completely awed by the so-called "eternal norms", "the best regime", goodness or virtue that transcend human will and action. Hobbes' political philosophy only pursues utilitarianism. With this change from truth to utility, the role of reason itself will inevitably change. Simply put, in Hobbes' political philosophy, reason is the same as passion such as fear and self-preservation. (Hobbes' Political Philosophy, op. cit. , page 1 13). Hobbes believes that fear and vanity are just the opposite, vanity makes people easily confused, and fear makes people see things clearly, thus giving people enlightenment and inspiration. It illuminates and inspires reason. Therefore, it is fear that guides and dominates rationality, in other words, it is passion that guides and dominates rationality. Hobbes believes that this passion of fear can provide enough motivation for people's legitimate behavior and legitimate government. This is the basis of Hobbes' moral philosophy. Here, he completely subverted the moral philosophy of the Middle Ages, replacing reason with passion, norms with action and reason with will.

Two centuries later, Marx asserted that Hobbes' view of nature was a mechanistic view of nature. However, according to Strauss' analysis, Hobbes' political philosophy is not based on the mechanistic view of nature as generally thought. His political analysis process really runs through the strict scientific nature of the analysis-synthesis method, analyzing political life into the simplest and most basic elements, namely individuals and their freedom, and then establishing a set of political order through universally agreed contracts. However, no matter how rigorous the analysis process is, there is also a termination point, and this point is the most common and lowest-level daily life experience of human beings described by Hobbes, such as fear of death and self-preservation. Conversely, Hobbes' strict science will eventually become the most effective tool for people to clearly understand and adhere to their daily life experiences. Everything that is mysterious and can't stand scientific analysis has been completely eliminated by it. Really, nothing is more mysterious and clear than a contract. "Political philosophy, because its principle is not borrowed from natural science, nor from any other science, but provided by experience, so it is independent of natural science, and these experiences are available to everyone. More precisely, it can be discovered through everyone's self-awareness and introspection. " [16] Therefore, in Hobbes' view, "knowing yourself" is the real foundation of his political philosophy. The reason of mental activity can be understood not only by reasoning, but also by the experience gained by everyone's efforts to observe their own movements. [17] People's efforts in self-cognition provide a way closer to obtaining real life experience than scientific methods. But people must make efforts to this end. Hobbes appealed: "Let people not know others completely according to their actions. This method can only be applied to people they know very well, which is a minority. People who want to rule the whole country must understand from their hearts that it is not this or that individual, but all mankind. " [ 18]

The question now is: how is this possible? It may be inappropriate to deny the role of scientific principles in the realization of Hobbes' concept of "nature", but can Hobbes' whole political philosophy system be achieved by scientific principles alone? In fact, Hobbes not only didn't shy away from religious issues and belief issues, but simply talked about human issues. Heaven, earth, god and man constitute four inseparable and mutually supportive sources in Hobbes' ideological system. As analyzed by the Strauss School, the theoretical work that Hobbes finally wants to achieve is precisely to prove that the political philosophy expounded in the Bible and his own political philosophy go hand in hand. So the final question is: how is this possible?

Here's the situation.

Hobbes, together with Bacon and Descartes, became the pioneers of the Enlightenment. From the very beginning, the Enlightenment drew lessons from the universal and eternal nature of people or everything, criticized the existing system and put forward the principle of reforming the system. It tends to ignore the vitality of history and the legitimacy of reality. It thinks it is necessary to turn the existing system into an unreasonable whiteboard in order to draw a complete society according to the new principles. This non-historical nature of the Enlightenment expressed the rational construction intention about the formation of the system. However, this kind of construction intention ultimately expresses the aversion to traditional accumulation, which requires rational ambition to judge and lift the constraints imposed on individuals by medieval hierarchical order. To this end, it needs brand-new ideas and methods. Bacon completely confined philosophy to the study of nature, refused the traditional metaphysical discussion, and only let the doctrine talk about divinity and the supernatural fate of mankind. He regards the teleological view of nature as one of the dangerous racial illusions, which is a fundamental mistake. The correct way is to regard nature as a mechanical thing waiting for human beings to conquer. Hobbes would rather let people know that his view of nature is the same as Epicurus's, and what he sees in his supernatural view is only the lack of nature?