Truth, Culture and Tyranny: Where Hobbes' Leviathan Went Wrong

Introduction

I have recently been reading the work of Thomas Hobbes, and I have found myself generally in favour of his analogy between the state and a complex organism, or a body, where all the parts must work in harmony with each other, and in accordance with the Sovereign (or the mind). Of course, in the organism, the mind is not merely one whole and undivided willpower. The body is a state, and the mind, which directs the body, is also a state of its own. Within it, reason (logos) serves as the sovereign, the enduring character and moral compass (ethos) as the counsellors, and the passions and impulses (pathos) as the soldiers. In my view it was this that, in Hobbes’ analysis, was neglected.

The mind, or the soul, was simply regarded as the director, united and wholesome, and directly analogous to the sovereign – which is ideally a monarch due to its unity and decisiveness. I do concede that a well-functioning and harmonious mind will produce an output of unity and decisiveness, but that is emergent from the complex workings of within. If the analogy of the state and the body is to be used as an argument, then the specific nature of the mind – as well as all the parts, but most importantly the mind – must be properly addressed, and thus replicated in the state. The Sovereign is said to be the equivalent of the mind, and the Sovereign – although outwardly displaying a united and decisive front – must internally consist of many parts, all distinct characters working toward a common end. This end will be pinpointed by the guiding ethos, and will be achieved through the means, which is its own organism. So now, let us embark on our twofold investigation: first, to define what the guiding ethos is, and, second, to further outline the means as best as I can.

The Ethos of The Mind and The Ethos of The State

As this investigation is concerning the analogy between the state and the body, let us begin not with what is the ethos of the state, but instead of the mind. In the mind, the ethos may best be defined as the enduring character, which will, in effect, determine the direction of one’s pursuits. It must first be recognised that the nature of this character is hierarchical, specifically in a clearly bottom-up manner. At the roots lie the cognitive biases (unconscious), the innate temperaments that shape one’s fundamental worldview – prior even to conscious deliberation. From this arises one’s general belief systems and habits (subconscious), which may be altered consciously somewhat. Next arises one’s personality and mannerisms (conscious), which are much more malleable – through experience and conscious deliberation – although being nevertheless emergent from one’s fundamental character. This is the ethos, it is the navigator of one’s lifelong journey. The fact of this is very much evident when we observe a situation, such as a psychedelic trip, that is so extreme that, in some instances, the experience will strike through the surface and shake the core of their character. Their fundamental worldview may undergo a radical shift, and entirely reform the direction of their ship. When this happens, it may well be a sign that one’s underlying character was inaccurately aligned with truth, as is often the case with such, and so we may say that it is desirable to have the character, if it is to indeed to prove enduring, to be as best aligned with truth as possible.

So, to apply this analogously to the state, we may again outline a three-tiered ethos. At the roots lie the fundamental culture – often, but not always, religious – that is absorbed by the citizens unquestionably (except for the heretics, which will be discussed later). From this arises the laws, collective values and institutions. And, on the surface, lies the customs and cultural norms, such as fashions and etiquette. This can again be described as the unconscious leading to the subconscious leading to the conscious, and again serves as the navigator of the ship. In the case of the individual mind, I said that extreme experiences, such as psychedelics, serve the role of reforming the fundamental temperament of the character. In the case of the state, I say that this role is given to heretics, rebels and dissenters, who, when assembled in a large enough quantity, will often tear the culture up from its roots. I cannot imagine an instance of this so extreme as Mao in twentieth-century China, who set to work, with his triumphant communist regime, to tear up thousands of years worth of culture. When this happens, mayhem emerges and one of two things happens. Either a new system arises, more brilliant and lasting as before, as with Augustus’ Rome, or one of unjustifiable tyranny, as with Hitler’s Nazi Germany. 

But how may we ensure this chaos does not emerge at all, and that a state may be long standing?

Some may suggest a totalitarian regime whereby all dissenters and heretics will be eradicated. Yet this is top-down, and its cultural suppression will not stand the test of time. It is a prison, not a state, and as soon as someone breaks out the prisoners, all hell will break loose. Instead, I would suggest the same solution as I did with the individual mind. For the character to prove enduring, it must be well aligned with truth. Simply, this means that people cannot lie, and that they must always speak out when things start turning sideways. In this scenario, heretics, if they do ever arise, will be recognised by the shrewdness of the public as either a madman or a prophet of truth, and will be dealt with as such.

It seems now apparent not just how the ethos should be aligned, but also the means of governance. As I said earlier, the mind is not one singular and united whole, but is instead a complex collection of parts. Within it, reason (logos) serves as the sovereign, the enduring character and moral compass (ethos) as the counsellors, and the passions and impulses (pathos) as the soldiers. All parts must be working in harmony, and so it must also go in the organisation of a state. The ethos is the enduring culture. This culture will advise the Sovereign, or political body, in its administration. And, guided by that counsel, will the Sovereign steer the ship. Hobbes was wrong when he said that “Sovereign was the soul of the body.” The Sovereign is the king, but he is only half of the soul. The other half – the culture and the character of the people – is what gives the Sovereign his legitimacy, his direction, and his endurance.