Hobbes begins Leviathan, a primarily political work, with a description of man, which he sees as an isolated unit, a mechanical automaton whose only connection with the external world occurs through the senses. Even his thoughts are determined by external objects whose effect is translated by sensation, "since there is no conception in the mind of a man that has not been initially, totally or in parts, generated by the organs of the senses" [8]. His vision of men is similar to Epicurus' conception of atoms, a theory in which the universe is made up of indivisible and eternal particles, whose infinite collisions influence our senses and allow us to understand the world around us. Hobbes interprets this condition, the state of nature, as a state of fear and uncertainty. There are no absolute moral standards because each person experiences the world differently, finds pleasure in different things and judges them accordingly. Hobbes assumes that the reader will be convinced by his description of human nature; challenges him to read his representation of humanity and «consider whether he too does not find the same thing in himself» [8]. However, it is inevitable that the author's ideas are fundamentally influenced by his particular experiences. If humans came to understanding only through the senses and experience, then different conditions should require different understanding. According to his logic, Hobbes' theories apply only to the specific situation in which he lived. Perhaps his observations and conclusions would have been very different if he had lived in an era of peace and stability, rather than in the midst of a chaotic civil war. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Hobbes's understanding of interactions between individuals is based on the assumption of complete self-interest. Above all, men are concerned with their own preservation and enjoy dominance over others. He states that "men feel no pleasure (but on the contrary a lot of pain) in frequenting companies where there is no power capable of intimidating them all" [83]. Furthermore, there is no obligation, therefore no inclination, to respect the rights of others in the absence of a higher authority to enforce the law, since "in such a condition every man has the right to everything, even to the body of the other " [87]. For Hobbes, right, wrong and a sense of responsibility towards others do not exist until the conclusion of a contract. However, not everyone would agree that human nature is really that misanthropic. Within families, for example, individuals clearly do not behave as atomized units; each member is instinctively committed to the safety of others. Seeing that it is nearly impossible to survive, much less enjoy life alone, many argue that compassion and concern for the well-being of others are as intrinsic a part of human nature as is the drive for self-preservation. At the same time, Hobbes claims that men are equal because of their similar passions and faculties. His proof that they are equally wise, for example, is that each man is satisfied with his own level of wisdom, which he defines as “not the reading of books, but of men” [7]. However, the logic that supports this conclusion is not convincing: "there is ordinarily no greater sign of the equal distribution of a thing, than the fact that every man is happy with his share" [82]. Men are just as likely to be content with what they have when they can't compare it to what others have and can't imagine having anything else. In any case, if men areequally wise, why should one man dominate over others? Shouldn't a leader with absolute power over his subjects have a superior understanding of men to properly represent them? The reader therefore fails to understand how Leviathan deserves his authority. Hobbes tries to resolve this dilemma by arguing that Leviathan deserves his authority. The laws on which a civil society is based can only be understood with reason, a faculty that "is not born with us", but rather "acquired by industry"[ 31]. For him, “a law of nature is a… general rule found by reason, by which a man is prohibited from doing that which is destructive to his life” [86]. It seems that such laws should be instinctive or, according to Hobbes' logic, discovered quickly by experience. However, he makes his case for an absolute leader who understands and applies law and reason by declaring that "the laws of nature (such as justice, fairness, modesty, mercy and (in summary) doing unto others, as we would be done to us, in themselves, ... are contrary to our natural passions” [111]. Only with the faculty of reason can men understand the fundamental laws of nature, in particular the order to strive for peace, which otherwise they would not. would be clear to them. Men do not sufficiently develop their reason and are incapable of organizing themselves into a peaceful society without the constant threat of force, since they act according to their passions. However, it seems unlikely that a society can function only through enlightened reasoning elite who can see the benefits of peace. A society held in line by fear would quickly forget the conditions that led it to accept despotic rule, especially if it were forbidden to read history books. More plausibly, all of humanity feels naturally compelled to live together and maintain peace at least within a sustainable unity. Even if the reader accepts Hobbes's conception of the state of nature, his description of a state organized around a Leviathan seems no less unappealing; it offers only the fear of punishment as a substitute for the fear of death. Hobbes himself says: "there are very few fools who do not prefer to govern themselves rather than be governed by others" [102]. Fear of punishment is the only irresistible force that makes contracts possible, thus enabling the benefits of trade, commerce, and a comfortable, stable life. However, Leviathan's absolute power does not eliminate uncertainty; subjects are still vulnerable to the changing whims of the sovereign. The only change is that the uncertainty comes from one powerful source rather than the many weaker ones that make up the state of nature. Furthermore, the Leviathan will only enforce both ends of a contract when it chooses to do so. He may not care about a violation or intervene in his own interests or those of a favorite topic. Not being bound by a contract himself, he can change the laws as he pleases. Locke rightly criticizes this arrangement, stating, "much better is it in the state of nature, where men are not bound to submit to the unjust will of another... [Political Writings 268]. Even Hobbes's description of Leviathan's government is inconsistent with his previous statements. The ruler's theoretical representation of all his subjects seems impossible given the assumption of knowledge through sensory experience. Although people sacrifice their rights to him, there is no way that Leviathan can have a perfect knowledge of all their opinions and desires" may have none at all. If it does not respond to the will of the people, how can it avoid governing solely based on its own experience?,.