Scan barcode
careers's review against another edition
3.0
The introduction to the book forewarned me that it has produced controversy from the day it was written, and I can understand why. I particularly enjoyed the methodical dissection of what makes a commonwealth in the first half, though quickly fell in over my head during what felt like a tedious second half. Redemption was found in the final 30 pages, however, which I found particularly rife with intrigue, and worth the build-up.
skylarh's review against another edition
1.0
I understand this is a political classic, but it was torture to read.
brew_strong's review against another edition
3.0
The first two parts are interesting as he delves into his social contract theory. The third part is a bit boring as its him ranting about theology as a way of indirectly proposing that kings(aka chruch of England) are the supreme christian authority( also know as kissing your bosses ass). The last part is him bashing the religions and philosophers of old and the only thing that gets him any brownie points at all is that he knows Aristotle to be full of shit.
greg_brown's review against another edition
3.0
Surprisingly relevant, considering it was written over 300 years ago. I found some of the passages perfectly applicable to life today.
"ignorance of the law, is no good excuse, where every man is bound to take notice of the laws to which he is subject." - I hear this all the time at my job!
"ignorance of the law, is no good excuse, where every man is bound to take notice of the laws to which he is subject." - I hear this all the time at my job!
shea92626's review against another edition
Was surprised by the large amount of Bible study during the last third of this work. Also learned once again that I, unfortunately, just do not have the patience or attention span for the minutiae of philosophy. But if you do, this was an interesting argument for 'monarchy', &c. Hrmm.
chriscarpenter's review against another edition
3.0
Hobbes starts with an interesting tour of psychology with many observations that do not appear to have anything to do with his stated goal of justifying a strong central monarch. In the second part we get what he is justifiably well-known for: his development of the state of nature and the social contract. If that's what you're interested in, just read the second part. He bases it solely on natural law and secular argument. Then in the third part we get a lengthy (and I mean lengthy) discussion of theology that he eventually applies to what is largely an anti-Catholic rant. If theology is not your interest, I'd avoid this and the fourth part. In the fourth part there are, however, some amusing cheap shots taken at the dominant scholasticism of the European universities of his time.
csocol's review against another edition
2.75
Interesting. Not my favorite thing to read during election season
miapaulinska's review against another edition
dark
tense
If you argue with the law of nature and biology, for me it's just an excuse to be mean.
marc129's review against another edition
2.0
Especially the piece about man is interesting: for the first time we get a systematic dissection of the human condition, and the beginning of a philosophy of knowing.
In political sense Hobbes clearly was not an absolutist, obviously because he wrote this book in Paris at the time of Louis XIV, though in the end he offers a light relativisation. The concept of 'natural condition of man' is useful, but too theoretical to build a comprehensive view on the state upon it. Hobbes obviously wasn't an atheist, but he brings a materialistic view, with room for miracles and god.
In political sense Hobbes clearly was not an absolutist, obviously because he wrote this book in Paris at the time of Louis XIV, though in the end he offers a light relativisation. The concept of 'natural condition of man' is useful, but too theoretical to build a comprehensive view on the state upon it. Hobbes obviously wasn't an atheist, but he brings a materialistic view, with room for miracles and god.