The leadership of Leviathan, or "mortal god," is a central theme in Thomas Hobbes's theoretical masterpiece, Leviathan. Literally, the word Leviathan derives from the Hebrew word livyathan, which etymologically means "to wrap, turn, twist"[1]. In biblical tradition it refers to the "dragon, serpent, enormous sea animal"[2] of the book of Job. Leviathan, a text written in the 17th century AD, proposes a conceptual political structure designed to achieve an ideal authority that best suits human nature. Through his famous notion of the hypothetical human State of Nature, Hobbes rationally constructs that the best government governs like a mortal god. Other political theorists, such as Aristotle (4th century BC) and Machiavelli (15th and 16th century AD), developed their own conceptions of human nature and the ideal political realm suited to it. In particular, the opinions of Aristotle in Politics and Machiavelli in The Prince and the Discourses compare and contrast with the political project proposed by Hobbes. Although there are some commonalities in their understanding of human nature and political authority, the authorities proposed by Machiavelli and Aristotle are primarily in conflict with Hobbes's conceptual Leviathan, due to the different goals each theorist intends to achieve through their respective sovereigns. This comparative analysis will explore the views of Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Aristotle on human nature, the powers of the sovereign ruler, the use of religion in politics, and the overall goals each philosopher intends to achieve. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay To hypothetically establish the hegemonic leadership of a ruler with unparalleled power, Hobbes first discusses human nature in Leviathan. The purpose of an omnipotent authority is to achieve “peace and common defense” (Leviathan, part 2, chapter 17), and only through understanding man's desires and aggressions is the establishment of peace possible. An aspect of human nature essential for Hobbes to establish a Leviathan is equality – human beings are, more or less, equally vulnerable and equally dangerous – as he explains: “Nature has made men so equal in faculties of body and mind as , although sometimes one finds a man manifestly stronger in body or with a quicker mind than another... the weaker has sufficient strength to kill the stronger, either by secret machination or by confederation with others who are in the same danger with himself" (Leviathan, part 1, ch. Thus, human beings are more or less equal in their potential danger to one another, making characteristics such as age, sex, and race irrelevant in Hobbes' State of Nature. Later in Leviathan, Hobbes argues that because of this equality, all men in the hypothetical state of nature must invariably submit to the conditions of mutual peace, as he concludes: “If then nature hath made men equal, that equality it must be recognized; or if nature has made men unequal, nevertheless because men who believe themselves equal will not enter into conditions of peace, but under equal conditions, such equality must be admitted... every man recognizes another as his equal by nature" (Leviathan , part 1, chapter 15). Only by entering equally peaceful conditions can a community emerge from the implacable State of Nature and move towards the establishment of a Leviathan. Therefore, through this reasoning, Hobbes believes that man's equality in nature is vital to establishing the sovereign. Aristotle, however, does not believe that humanity is equal by nature. Initially it is important to understandthat Aristotle sees human beings as political creatures destined for city life, but there is a difference in status in the Aristotelian conception of society. Instead of deducing his argument through man's vulnerabilities on the community scale like Hobbes's State of Nature, Aristotle in Politics establishes a system of authority within the most basic social unit: the family. The domestic economy is a fundamental component of the polis, as Aristotle explains, “the management of the house must be considered; for every city is composed of families” (Politics, Book 1, Part B, 1253b1). Without ensuring the proper management of animate and inanimate property, a man's active participation in political life is not possible, because a man's family must first be in relative order. Here Aristotle creates the hierarchy of the entire family, which "is composed of slaves and freemen" (Politics, Book 1, part B, 1253b1), each of whom is naturally inclined to slavery or lordship. The policy holds that nature selects one or the other into slavery: “It is also the intention of nature to erect a physical difference between the bodies of free men and those of slaves, giving to the latter strength for the menial duties of life , but making the former upright in carriages and… useful to the various purposes of civic life” (Politics, Book 1, Part B, 1254b27). Accordingly, Aristotle believes that nature drives slaves to pursue physical tasks to maintain the family's property, and that freeborn masters are naturally inclined to have a political life and manage their affairs in an affective manner. Furthermore, he considers freeborn males superior to freeborn females, as He states that “the relationship between male and female is naturally that of the superior to the inferior, of the ruler to the ruled. This general principle must apply equally to all human beings in general” (Politics, Book 1, Part B, 1254b13). Her reasoning behind women's inferiority is their supposed natural lack of forethought and prudence, which renders women incapable of entering political life, despite their mental faculty of deliberation (Politics, Book 1, Part B, 1260a12). In this process, however, Aristotle erects a freeborn female master in the family to rule over children and slaves when the freeborn male is not present. Therefore, it is correct to say that Aristotle sees human beings in a hierarchy towards which nature intends and inclines humanity, and does not agree with the simple equality of all humanity proposed by Hobbes. Interestingly, Hobbes responds with disagreement to Aristotle's separation of freemen and slaves. He writes: “Aristotle in the first book of his Politics, as a foundation of his doctrine, makes men by nature, some worthy of commanding... others of serving... since master and servant were not introduced by consent of men, but unlike ingenuity, which is not only against reason, but also against experience. For there are very few fools who would not rather govern themselves than be governed by others” (Leviathan, part 1, chapter 15). Here, Hobbes explains that although Aristotle argues that freeborn men and slaves are different by nature, the idea that slaves submit to their masters with their consent is “foolish” and unrealistic. Leviathan argues that humans are selfish and, therefore, would naturally fight to serve themselves rather than succumb to other humans. Machiavelli's views on human nature agree somewhat with Hobbes's, but still have unique differences. Machiavelli also argues in The Prince that human beings are selfish creatures, stating: “In general this can be said of men: thatthey are ungrateful, fickle, pretenders and deceivers, avoiders of danger, greedy for gain... when [danger] approaches you, they turn away.” (The Prince, ch. 17, pp. 131) Here he explains that, although it is ideal for a Prince to be loved and feared by his subjects, men are ultimately selfish and selfish, and will go against the Prince when he is in danger. However, Machiavelli sees human civilizations as constantly in a cycle, where societies eventually change and evolve over time, both positively and negatively (The Discourses, ch. 2, pp. 179) – therefore, human society is capable of progress or degrade as the cycle continues, and is not permanently frozen, nor completely open. Furthermore, a fundamental keystone in Machiavellian theory is the role of Fortuna (sometimes translated as "Fortune") in one's political life. Fortune is a hypothetical goddess that Machiavelli introduces to the prince who has the ability to cause the rise and fall of leaders with her will. In politics he prefers aggressive and aggressive young people, as the Prince explains “he lets himself be taken more often by impetuous men than by men who make cold advances; and then, being a woman, she is always friends with young people, because they are less cautious, more aggressive” (The Prince, chapter 25, pp. 162). Accordingly, Fortune empowers those who concern her with hasty and bold courage. His power over men is immoderate, since "he is the arbiter of half of our actions" (The Prince, chapter 25, pp. 159); but her actions are not entirely random, as she allows men to subjugate her and command her boldly if she allows it (The Prince, chapter 25, pp. 162). An ample example that Machiavelli provides to demonstrate the power of Fortune is found in the life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca, who was guided to become a conqueror and achieve glory in a great military project. By chance (or luck), Castruccio's life was saved several times and his success grew, until luck chose to make him bankrupt at the end of his life. “But Fortune, hostile to his glory, took his life instead of giving it to him, interrupted those plans that Castruccio had long intended to realize, plans that only death could have prevented him from realizing” (The Life of Castruccio Castracani, pp. 539) . Quickly, Castruccio was killed by a chill and a high fever at the height of his military success, rendering his plans only dismaying. This element, therefore, demonstrates that Fortune plays an important role in Machiavelli's human nature and in the rise and fall of leaders; an element that is non-existent in Hobbes' works. By establishing a standard for human nature and the general equality of man, Hobbes is able to launch his Leviathan: a single ruler who rules as a mortal god. Because of the inexorability of the State of Nature, Hobbes explains, the only way for a community to end the war of all against all is through mutual consent – ​​disarming weapons and establishing natural laws – so as not to harm each other . They do so for “the sake of their own preservation” (Leviathan, part 2, chapter 17), because without common agreement, the State of Nature would simply continue ad infinitum. Therefore, peoples surrender some of their liberties to a sovereign to ensure mutual peace for the greater good, as Hobbes explains: “The only way to erect such a common power as to defend it from the invasion of strangers, and mutual injuries … give all their power and strength to one man, or to an assembly of men, who can reduce all their wills, through a plurality of voices, to one will” (Leviathan, part 2, chapter 17) . This passage is significant, because it demonstrates how men must surrender their liberties to a sovereign, preferably to a man,to protect a community from itself and others. In this way, Hobbes' mortal god is created, as equally precarious men equitably grant the powers to establish Leviathan naturally, for the purpose of creating order. The artificial strength of this sovereign is unchallenged, as Hobbes continues, "one person, whose deeds are a great multitude... at last he may use the strength and means of them all as he shall think fit for their peace and common defence" ( Leviathan, part 2, ch. Thus, the sovereign concentrates the power of all in a single authority responsible for maintaining the peace. The concept of the sovereign as a man, or a body of men, is not peculiar to Aristotle in his Politics. In his famous typology, Aristotle identifies that a constitutional polis can be governed respectively by three valid authorities or by corrupt versions of these three. “The civic body in every city is the sovereign; and the sovereign must necessarily be One, or Few , or Many… [if] they govern with a view to the common interest, the constitutions under which they do so must necessarily be just constitutions” (Politics, Book 3, Part 7, 1279a25). by an individual, by a group of individuals or by many: in any case, if the sovereign governs in the interest of the community, then the constitution of the city is intrinsically good. In this respect, Aristotle agrees with the mortal god of Leviathan, for Hobbesian authority rules with the consent of many for the sake of peace; a quality that is in the community's best self-interest for safety and longevity. A Leviathan, therefore, is not a tyrant, but rather is a king. Aristotle goes on to say that although a singular monarchy, which Leviathan tends towards but does not require, may be an ideal form of government, it is not the most suitable form of government in a densely populated city; “it is possible for a man, or a few, to be of exceptional excellence; but when dealing with a large number, we can hardly expect precision in all varieties of excellence.” (Politics, Book 3, Part 7, 1279a25) In context, Aristotle argues that it is difficult for one or a few men to excel in all qualities among a large group of men. Aristotle also argues that a singular monarchy is a primitive power not found in modern politics, as he says: "Kingship does not exist in the present day and any government of that kind that emerges today is a personal rule or tyranny." (Politics, Book 5, Part 11, 1312b38). Therefore, he views kingship as a form of government best suited to smaller or pre-modern societies, while Hobbes' State of Nature does not specify a size for that community, nor a time period, and thus, a single ruler is preferred for all communities in Hobbesian theory. Aristotle presents his own models of epitome authority for the polis described in his Politics. The best form of government, he says, is aristocracy, “among the forms of government of a few people (but more than one) it is called Aristocracy – a name given to this species either because the best are the rulers, or because its object it is what is best for the city and its members” (Politics, Book 3, Part 7, 1279a25). Thus, as Aristotle exclaims, aristocracy is best when governed by those who have freedom, property and merit (Politics, Book 3, Part 9, 12781a2), since it is the government of the best (aristoi). The most applicable authority, however, according to Aristotle, is politics, also known as mixed regime, since it is the most practical system. Politics is the government of the middle class of citizens, who ideally would form the majority of a large polis, as Aristotle explains, “the best form of political association is one in which power is vested in the middle class and, secondarily, thatgood government is achievable in those cities where there is a large middle class…enough to be stronger than either one alone…[it] will prevent one of the opposite extremes from becoming dominant.” (Politics, Book 4, 1295b34) This means that the judgment of the middle class would be the least extreme compared to the controversial rich and poor, while still including a significant majority or minority of the polis in the governing process. This middle-class superiority is preferred by Aristotle, due to his belief that the “too rich” and “too poor” are arrogant and mean, respectively (Politics, Book 4, 1294a34). This is relevant to consider when comparing Aristotle to Hobbes on the topic of authoritarian government, because Aristotle's theory contains both a social hierarchy and a class division, whereas in Hobbes' State of Nature these dissections do not exist. A complete parallel, therefore, between the two concepts of authority is not possible. However, as established above, the ruler in Aristotle's polis (be it a king, an aristocracy, or a polity) has complete authority when serving the common good, just like Hobbes's mortal god. The two theorists therefore present points of similarity and points of contrast. Machiavelli, however, believes that a single prince is the best solution for a nation in need of unity and direction. He argues that all political authorities can be divided into two main categories: principalities, which involve the leadership of a single ruler, and republics, which involve the rule of citizens. The Prince is dedicated to Prince Lorenzo and, therefore, the focus of the work is about principalities and how they are to succeed (The Prince, ch. 2, pp. 79). In a period of friction between the peoples of a nation, such as Italy in the time of Machiavelli, or in a period of foreign domination, a prince is necessary to seize power and establish a principality, as in the examples of Moses, Cyrus, Romulus and Theseus around the world. the Prince, who, if they had been disarmed, “would not have been able to enforce their institutions for long” (The Prince, chapter 6, pp. 95). Specifically, a Prince must be skilled in the use of violence, as Machiavelli explains, «if he is forced to beg or is capable of using power in conducting business... In the first case it always ends badly and never accomplishes anything; but when they rely on their own resources and can use power, they only rarely find themselves in danger. Hence the fact that all the armed prophets were victorious and the unarmed ones went to ruin” (The Prince, chapter 6, pp. 94-95). This means that all those who seek to seize authority solely by peaceful means and prayer have failed, and therefore a prince must use violence when necessary. In relation to Hobbes, Machiavelli's prince has supreme authority (like a mortal god) once he has it. , but there is a difference in how the ruler obtains this power. This does not happen with the peaceful consent of the people, but rather through coercion and good luck. However, for Machiavelli the principate is a means for the eventual establishment of a republic, and he explores this idea in depth in the Discourses. The singular Prince is successful only if he intends to realize the political project of creating law-abiding and law-creating citizens, and therefore a republic: “a single man… a prudent founder of a republic, one whose intention is to govern for the common good and not for his own interest, not for his heirs but for the good of the country, he should try to have the authority all for himself; nor will a wise mind ever reproach anyone for some extraordinary deed done in founding a kingdom or establishing a republic.” (The Discourses, chapter 9, pp. 200) This fundamental passage clarifies that,although the Prince is an individual with extraordinary power, the ideal purpose of his government is to found a republic, for the good of his nation, rather than suffer its success. hereditarily. In the same chapter, Hobbes mentions Romulus' killing of his brother Remus and his ally Tatius, and justifies: “It is, indeed, fitting that while the action accuses him, the result excuses him; and when this result is good, as it was for Romulus, he will always excuse it" (The Discourses, chapter 9, pp. 200-201). Therefore, the killing of other leaders in the principalities was necessary for the establishment of a ruler and, later, the Roman republic. Thus, although the Prince and Leviathan both hold unparalleled authority and rule as mortals, the purpose of the Prince's power in Machiavelli is to establish a republican government, while Hobbes's Leviathan exists to ensure peace. issues that concern religion, its difficulties and its uses, as he argues that religion can be a vital pawn of a ruler. Hobbes sees religion as something unique to humanity and believes that an eminent degree of religiosity is not found in other creatures (Leviathan, part 1, ch. 7). First of all, he is clear in saying that we do not know, in all current times, what the true religion is, since he writes "men, not knowing that such apparitions are nothing more than creatures of the imagination, think they are real and external substances, and therefore to call them ghosts… the opinion that such spirits were incorporeal, or immaterial, could never enter into the mind of any man by nature” (Leviathan, part 1, ch. 7). Therefore, Hobbes explains that communication with the spiritual realm is contradictory, because spirits themselves (like God) are infinite and therefore incomprehensible to our understanding. Second, Leviathan argues that religion has been used to mobilize leadership and perpetuate loyalty. He says: “But both types did it with the purpose of making those men who relied on them more fitted for obedience, laws, peace, charity and civil society. So religion of the first kind is part of human politics; and teaches part of the duty which earthly kings require of their subjects.” (Leviathan, part 1, chapter 7) This means that both “true” and “false” religions have made humans more subservient to a human spiritual authority believed to represent gods, nymphs, or spirits. Finally, Hobbes argues that the use of religion was vital in the creation of the Commonwealths, as he argues: “And with these and other like institutions, they obtained, for their end, which was the peace of the Commonwealth, that the commonwealth… were the least likely to mutiny against their governors.” Therefore, through religious institutions, which Hobbes says Numa, the founder of Peru, and Muhammad had used, peace had been achieved and the threat of rebellion against religious rulers had been minimized. Consequently, Hobbes believes that, although religion has its dangers and superstitions, it can be a vital keystone in creating a Leviathan with solid authority through the religious institution. Aristotle's view on religion is not an instrumental element of his political theory, but he nevertheless recognizes the role of religion in the city, as well as its misuse as a political tool. In Book VI of Politics, Aristotle lists the six essential offices required for a functional city, and they include “the functions connected with public worship, military matters, revenue and expenditure, the market place, the city center, the ports, and the countryside” (Politics, Book 6, Part 8, 1322b29). The religion of the city, then, becomes one of its vital offices responsible for the spiritual life of the peoplecitizens. He repeats the importance of establishing a religious body in the polis again in book 7, as he writes: "The fifth (but really the first) is an institution for the service of the gods, or, as it is called, public worship." (Politics, Book 7, Part 8, 1328b2) However, contrary to Hobbes, Aristotle does not require the use of religion for the sovereign body of the polis in Politics, despite its function in the city. Instead, he famously identifies the use of religion as a means by which tyrants maintain power: “He should always show particular zeal in the worship of the gods. Men are less afraid of being treated unjustly by people of this kind, that is, if they think that the ruler is God-fearing and has some regard for the gods; and they are less willing to conspire against him, if they feel that the gods themselves are his friends. (Politics, Book 5, Part 11, 1314b35) Thus, in tyranny, Aristotle's negative form of singular government, religion is used as a tool for the ruler to appear pious and prevent insurrection against his corrupt government. Thus, both Aristotle and Hobbes agree that religion can be used to shape communal loyalty to a ruler, but they disagree about the legitimacy of this tactic. In Machiavelli's Prince and Discourses, a ruler's use of religion is vital to the success of his community. Of Machiavelli's four most excellent men, Moses was the first mentioned, as a legislator in the Judeo-Christian canon. He explains: «It was therefore necessary for Moses to find the people of Israel in Egypt enslaved and oppressed by the Egyptians, so that they would be willing to follow him and escape this servitude... These occasions, therefore, constituted these men were successful, and their exceptional ingenuity made known to them that opportunity, through which their nations were ennobled and became prosperous” (The Prince, chapter 6, pp. 93). The biblical Moses had led the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, created a system of laws and rituals, and sown the seeds of a free people, all in the name of religion, and Machiavelli acknowledges this here. In contrast to priestly religious figures, Moses had used violence and coercion and had successfully built a nation and a religion: these are vital qualities for Machiavelli's prince. Furthermore, in his Discourses, Machiavelli gives the example of Numa Pompilius, successor of Romulus, chosen by the Roman republic. Interestingly, Numa was also the founder of the religion of the Roman republic, with obvious similarities to Greek mythology. The Discourses continue: «Numa found the Roman people extremely undisciplined, and wanting to bring them back to civil obedience through the arts of peace, he turned to religion as an institution absolutely necessary for the maintenance of a civil government... for many centuries there had never been so much fear of God as in that republic" (I Discorsi, chapter 11, pp. 207). Accordingly, Machiavelli praises Numa for taming the unruly (and potentially dangerous, pp. 208) behavior of his people through the institution of religion, and for this reason argues that Rome was more indebted to Numa (The Discourses, ch. 11 , page 208). Also in The Prince Machiavelli maintains that a sovereign must appear religious and not against religion (The Prince, chapter 18, pp. 135). Therefore, Machiavelli agrees with the Hobbesian perspective that the sovereign mortal god would use religion to control and guide people towards order. Finally, it is important to consider the different goals that Hobbes, Aristotle, and Machiavelli impose on their rulers, as they free themselves from them. their arguments analyzed above. For Hobbes, the fundamental purpose of his Leviathan is the establishment of peace. Through consensus