The Book Club: Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes with John Yoo | The Book Club

Life is “nasty, brutish, and short.” That’s why we need a social contract-an exchange of freedom for security to avoid a dog-eat-dog state of nature. At least, that’s what Thomas Hobbes posited in Leviathan. Michael Knowles and guest John Yoo, Professor of Law at UC Berkeley, discuss how Hobbes’s seminal work has shaped political philosophy for centuries.
SUBSCRIBE today 👉 www.prageru.com/series/book-club
#bookclub #prageru

[@maureenmanning223]

Love the socks guys!!!

[@tessalister1226]

Great addition to the discussion.

[@JeffChen285]

This is the first video I have listened three times consecutively.

[@icychap]

Anyone else notice they're wearing the same socks?

[@J040PL7]

But do they smell the same.

[@peteratkinson922]

A same socks relationship

[@JPT1965]

Perhaps to help get the attention of those not otherwise Listening.

[@peteratkinson922]

@@JPT1965 That tends to beg the question 'Why would anybody apart from amateur borderline foot fetish fashionistas choose to waste X minutes of their time when there are many things that 'everyone ought to do' ('The very thought of your socks' by Ray Nobbley toes 1933).

[@adriantindall2629]

😂​@@peteratkinson922

[@georgeevanick40]

Very interesting conversation and book review. Thank you.

[@mikewallin6049]

We love Professor Yoo!

[@PapriceP]

I don't like him.

[@SoaronhighlikeEagle]

A wonderful sharing indeed! How I long for someone can do a book club with me on this book and books like Leviathan!!

[@sonicallenjosh2514]

Awesome read this at college love this

[@tjedwards4254]

The matching socks tho...

[@peteratkinson922]

Hobbes nail boots.Wa wa wa wah!

[@tessalister1226]

Great addition to the book discussion.

[@JamesLewis98]

Michael Knowles repeatedly misquotes Aristotle when describing the three forms of government and their corrupt counterparts. Government for the good of all by one is a monarchy, by a few is an aristocracy, and by many is commonwealth or polity. The corruption of monarchy is tyranny, of aristocracy is an oligarchy, and of polity is democracy. Democracy is mob rule according to Aristotle. Corrupt government rules in one's own self-interest and not in the interest of all. Democracy is the system by which the self-interests of many compete for supremacy through the creation of factions of aligned self-interests. This is how political parties form.

[@danblack5402]

I love the book club. Now, do War and Peace. I’ll be done with it by the end of next month.

[@melissaholman2466]

Yes!! I’m reading War & Peace after I finish Vanity Fair. I’m really excited for it!

[@michellemitchell5112]

I just finished War and Peace at 51 years old. I loved it ❤. I joined a book club to read it and it really helped

[@Molluck_the_Glukkon]

My APUSH teacher has this book in his class

[@tdtyyuf]

Do Confessions by Saint Augustine

[@Glottris]

Hobbes!

[@tessalister1226]

"moden"remember is 1662 when thisbook was published.

[@Lerian_V]

"The Forerunners of the Reformation" (Link below) “The Breakdown of the Tocquevillean Equilibrium.” (Link below)

[@Lerian_V]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/eYWwiWd5ZptsmMk kzbin.infosB2I1SNA_EE?feature=share

[@OkTxSheepLady]

So I give the right to rule to a sovereign but when he stops ruling for my good I withdraw my permission. The problem is the sovereign who refuses to give back his right to rule and then exerts force to maintain his rule. Peacefully leaving the controlling sovereign doesn’t seem possible without bloodshed. His ideas sound pleasant in theory but not possible in practice unless there were thousands of tiny villages amount which people are free to move without coercion, leaving the bad sovereigns at will.

[@MCOult]

Yes, but what would Hobbes say about those sox? Thanks for another excellent -- but FAR TOO SHORT -- video book review. I read Hobbes back in the '60s in high school; it made a huge impression on me then, but I'm going to re-read it, thanks to having watched this video.

[@utsavkaushal_]

Try De Cive (on the citizen) instead of Leviathan. Leviathan was truly a sentimental work used to instigate curiosity. A more philosophical account is found in De Cive. Although you will not find the elements of Christianity (part 3-4 of Leviathan) much in the book.

[@meinking22]

Hobbes would have been a fan of the pact of mutually assured destruction. 😉

[@mchristr]

Post-Reformation humanist philosophers tend to intimidate us (even Yale undergrads). They shouldn't. Despite the insightful description of the human condition, they fell far short of answers for the deepest questions of our soul.

[@AhmedT92]

Were the socks intentional or a coincidence? 😅

[@tessalister1226]

Doesn't matter, what they think is meant to be why they are talking.

[@AhmedT92]

@@tessalister1226 Why so grumpy, dear?

[@utsavkaushal_]

Haha it's PragerU dotted socks, perhaps given for marketing...implicit marketing. Hahaha

[@slick95112]

Thank you

[@merlinwizard1000]

3rd, 21 March 2023

[@MrDogsledder]

Leviathan is summerised in the book Ten Books That Screwed Up The World. "I want"="I have the right to". Seen at every abortion rally for example.

[@gloriapatria7439]

Utter nonsense. For Hobbes there is only one right: that of self-defence.

[@MrDogsledder]

@@gloriapatria7439 You never read leviathan then, did you. Don't embarrass yourself

[@gloriapatria7439]

@@MrDogsledder "The Right of Nature, which writers, commonly call 'jus naturale, is the liberty of each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own judgment, and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto." Leviathan 14.1 Just a thought: try debating the issue rather than instantly resorting to ad hominem. Hard work though, eh?

[@peteratkinson922]

Duelists too had a sovereign power in the form of an impartial referee. See 'Life and Death of Colonel Blimp' for example.

[@terrorists-are-among-us]

Funny 😂 I hate it when idiots assume they know what i want or need, so i guess i live by the latter 🤯

[@Pet.Wifey.Voice.Of.Reason]

Leviathan is a very important book to cover. Now please, cover the Satyricon! I have requested this book since the founding of the Book Club. Will you please consider it?

[@hephaestusfortarier249]

Their socks.

[@solomonsalsberg5961]

Did Michael read the book or he did not read the book.. whatever

[@peteratkinson922]

If the other guy did why worry? Maybe we are all a little worried?

[@MattWestbrook]

Yes, let’s all sit around the fire and learn from the man most singularly responsible for the Unitary theory of the Executive branch, which advocates that if a president does something, it is legal simply because of being president. That gave you the Patriot Act, torture memos, the Iraq War , unlimited employment of Executive Orders, and every tyrannical act by a president since GWB. Yay! Thanks, Michael Knowles!

[@peteratkinson922]

Clever? intelligent? Tea?

[@tessalister1226]

Elect another President then.

[@zacharyscott2298]

This is so weird to see Americans have a hard time with Hobbes, if you are apart of the British Empire or commonwealth it makes perfect sense. Uk, Canada, Australia, NZ are the best representation of Hobbesian societies.

[@utsavkaushal_]

No, they're not. Hobbes failed in his project; we have in the UK exactly what he was fighting against. The same is true in Canada, Australia, and NZ. The constitutional monarchies have the parliament with most Sovereign's infrangible powers, and the Monarch (Charles for now) is just a ceremonial yet dormant power holder. The powers are distributed, but the status quo also, in this empirical description, proves Hobbes wrong. We do not have clashes with both the parliament and the monarch (who got some sovereign power): there is always a compromise and ground-talk. If anything, Hobbes was right about the existent State of Nature among the Sovereigns: the Realism in IR

[@zacharyscott2298]

@@utsavkaushal_ Hobbes contention was that there is no inherent right to revolution, this is absolutely the case in Uk,Can, Aus, NZ. The Crown is the rightful, lawful, authority and cannot be changed through any revolutionary processes. This is fundamentally different to the Lockian approach which asserts a right to revolution embodied by the American revolution. In British civilization the prerogative of the monarch is absolute, but constrained by convention. In this sense Hobbes is the basis of British civilization and its constitution order.

[@utsavkaushal_]

Interesting...BUT. 1. It was not Hobbes' argument. He did not concern himself with specific aspects of what people/soveregin should or should not do, akin to Machiavelli's approach. Hobbes did provide an idea of what is criminal and what is sinful, but never in isolation of mere social/political efficiency. His sole aim was to defend absolute sovereignty and no revolution against would be a part of that. 2. Hobbes never used the word "Revolution" anywhere in his Elements, De Cive, or Leviathan. Instead, he used the more direct term Rebellion. This difference is significant, as a revolution tends to carry more symbolic weight, with the use of force being secondary to the intended message. (The distinction between revolution and rebellion is often misunderstood.) Thus, Hobbes would be least concerned with the principles of the American Revolution. For Hobbes, it was a mere rebellion. Then he would argue that it is SINFUL (not criminal) against sovereignty, i.e., that the rebels are not subject to punishment from the Sovereign but are its enemies. However, once the Americans establish the new Sovereignty, the covenant is supposed to be given to the American government, which now becomes their protector. It's important to note that when Charles II became king, Hobbes did not say, "Here is the heir of sovereignty," but instead stated, "Here is your new protector." Because a King is not someone who innate the sovereignty, but is a sovereign because he can protect all. So, the term "revolution" would be an unconventional (I doubt absurd) term, and Hobbes would consider it all mere Rebellion, which DOES HAVE A RIGHT: when the sovereign fails to adequately protect the citizens. 3. Once again, it was not Hobbes' aim to define political terms based on practical ethics or their feasibility in the abstract. Hobbes was solely concerned with absolutism, which he ultimately failed to achieve. The UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are all precisely what Hobbes did not want them to be.

[@msm91101usa]

You lost me when you said “woke”.

[@duskarmedia280]

What about their underwear

[@purpleslog]

Having ads every few minutes made this video unwatchable. Downvote.

[@richardwardle9822]

Could care less about book club

[@merlinwizard1000]

Then why are you here?

[@mchristr]

Well, okay. But these books, or rather these ideas, will chase you down like the hound of hell (or heaven). Run fast!

[@OccamsRazor393]

That's a shame, reading is fundamental. More knowledge is definitely needed in the world.

[@meinking22]

Why read a book when you could be blissfully ignorant?

[@Davehatessocialists]

Hobbes cover completely rips off 'the body of christ'. Would have been nice to see more push back against hobbe's presuppositions.

[@estebangarcia5265]

Hobbes is perhaps one of the most overrated political philosophers

[@J040PL7]

No one knows about him, I'd hardly call that overrated

[@meinking22]

You seem to be a Hobbes savant. How so?

[@gloriapatria7439]

Only by those who have never experienced the State of Nature, which is pretty much everybody who lives the West.

[@ye333]

Often happens to revolutionary thinkers...

[@tessalister1226]

Have to give at least a few words as to why you come to that conclusion.