In order to explain his materialist philosophy, Hobbes uses a metaphor to compare the human body to an “automata,” or a self-moving machine:
Nature [...] is by the Art of man, as in many other things, so in this also imitated, that it can make an Artificial Animal. For seeing life is but a motion of Limbs, the begining whereof is in some principall part within; why may we not say, that all Automata (Engines that move themselves by springs and wheeles as doth a watch) have an artificiall life? For what is the Heart, but a Spring; and the Nerves, but so many Strings; and the Joynts, but so many Wheeles, giving motion to the whole Body, such as was intended by the Artificer?
Hobbes was an early proponent of materialism, a school of philosophy that argues that only that which is made of matter can truly be said to exist. Materialists such as Hobbes argue that even things that seem to be immaterial, such as mental states of consciousness, can be understood as the interaction of material things. Here, Hobbes attempts to explain the complex phenomenon of life in material terms, and to do so, he uses an extended metaphor that compares the human body to an automaton—like, for instance, watches that “move themselves by springs.” Building upon this comparison, he further argues that the heart can be understood as a “Spring,” the nerves as “strings” and the joints of the body as “wheeles.” Hobbes does not mean to argue that the human body is literally the same thing as a machine, but rather that the body is designed by “the Artificer,” or in other words, God, in much the same way that we design a watch. His metaphor suggests that the human body can be rationally understood.
Hobbes uses magnifying glasses and telescopes as metaphors for understanding the biases of individuals in a passage of Leviathan that argues for the advantages of a commonwealth:
The greatest pressure of Soveraign Governours, proceedeth not from any delight, or profit they can expect in the dammage, or weakening of their Subjects, in whose vigor, consisteth their own strength and glory; but in the restiveness of themselves [...]. For all men are by nature provided of notable multiplying glasses, (that is their Passions and Self-love,) through which, every little payment appeareth a great grievance; but are destitute of those prospective glasses, (namely Morall and Civill Science,) to see a farre off the miseries that hang over them, and cannot without such payments be avoyded.
Here, Hobbes considers the various “pressures” operating on a sovereign, or King. The biggest issue that a sovereign faces, he claims, is the “restiveness” or restlessness of his subjects, who are hesitant to offer their money to the state (through, for example, taxes) even though this is in their best, collective interest. He uses two closely related metaphors for understanding the myopic view of the subjects who can only see what benefits them immediately. Men, he argues, “are by nature provided of various multiplying glasses,” namely “their Passions and Self-love,” which give them an exaggerated view of their own minor complaints. Each small payment made by a subject to a King seems, due to this magnifying lens, like a “great grievance.”
Accordingly, these subjects lack the “prospective glasses” (or in modern English, a telescope) that would allow them to recognize threats that are “farre off.” Only a sovereign, Hobbes implies, is distant enough from small, everyday concerns to see the “big picture” and lead effectively.
In a passage concerning the relationship between the structure of the family and the state, Hobbes uses the metaphor “a little Monarchy” to describe the family:
By this it appears, that a great Family if it be not part of some Common-wealth, is of it self, as to the Rights of Soveraignty, a little Monarchy; whether that Family consist of a man and his children; or of a man and his servants; or of a man, and his children, and servants together: wherein the Father or Master is the Soveraign. But yet a Family is not properly a Common-wealth; unlesse it be of that power by its own number, or by other opportunities, as not to be subdued without the hazard of war.
Here, Hobbes notes that a large or powerful family can sometimes resemble a small state in itself—or, in his words, “a little Monarchy.” In this way of understanding the family, the father serves as “Master” or “Soveraign,” and the other classes are represented by the other members of the family, such as the children and the servants. However, Hobbes still insists that a family “is not properly a Common-wealth” unless that family is so large or so powerful that it cannot be “subdued” by the state without having to resort to war. For Hobbes, then, his own metaphor is problematic: powerful families should not be allowed to compete with the true King for power, and he concludes elsewhere that any family in a position to do so is a threat to the state.
Throughout Leviathan, Hobbes argues for the absolute power of the sovereign or King over the state. The job of a citizen, he insists, is to follow the laws established by the King even if he or she disagrees with those laws. However, Hobbes acknowledges that the ambiguities of language can produce many different ways of interpreting or understanding a law, which could create chaos. He uses a metaphor that compares the difficulties that emerge from varying interpretations of the law to knots:
[In] so much as no written Law, delivered in few, or many words, can be well understood, without a perfect understanding of the finall causes, for which the Law was made; the knowledge of which finall causes is in the Legislator. To him therefore there can not be any knot in the Law, insoluble; either by finding out the ends, to undoe it by; or else by making what ends he will, (as Alexander did with his sword in the Gordian knot,) by the Legislative power; which no other Interpreter can doe.
Because individuals might interpret the wording of a law in various ways, Hobbes thinks it's of critical importance that a legislator, or lawyer responsible for the administration of law, have a “perfect understanding” of the reasons “for which the Law was made.” This legislator, then, represents the will of the King in court and must be able to undo “any knot in the Law.” The legislator might do this by undoing the knot from the ends or, when necessary, by using the force of the law to enforce one interpretation. It is the principle job of a legislator, then, to resolve conflicts emerging from the ambiguities of interpretation.
In a lengthy discussion of the law and of the causes and natures of various crimes, Hobbes acknowledges that, while crime is not permissible, not all crimes are equal in severity. In order to demonstrate that some crimes have more long-lasting effects than others, he uses metaphors drawn from the language of human reproduction:
Again, if we compare Crimes by the mischiefe of their Effects, First, the same fact, when it redounds to the dammage of many, is greater, than when it redounds to the hurt of few. And therefore, when a fact hurteth, not onely in the present, but also, (by example) in the future, it is a greater Crime, than if it hurt onely in the present: for the former, is a fertile Crime, and multiplyes to the hurt of many; the later is barren.
Here, Hobbes delineates between what he refers to metaphorically as a “fertile Crime” and a “barren” crime. Fertile crimes, Hobbes suggests, do damage “noe only in the present, but also [...] in the future.” This kind of crime has long-lasting effects and must be taken seriously by the state. Conversely, barren crimes have limited consequences, causing harm only in the moment of its execution. Through these reproductive metaphors, Hobbes is able to distinguish between kinds of crime based upon severity.
Hobbes uses pleurisy, a disease which causes inflammation of the lining of the lungs, as a metaphor for understanding economic disorder in the body of the state or “body politic.” He writes that:
Again, there is sometimes in a Common-wealth, a Disease, which resembleth the Pleurisie; and that is, when the Treasure of the Common-wealth, flowing out of its due course, is gathered together in too much abundance, in one, or a few private men, by Monopolies, or by Farmes of the Publique Revenues; in the same manner as the Blood in a Pleurisie, getting into the Membrane of the breast, breedeth there an Inflammation, accompanied with a Fever, and painfull stitches.
Previously, he has described various other social and political ills as diseases; here, he turns to economic disorder, casting it in the metaphorical language of illness. A sickness resembling pleurisy afflicts the body politic when money, the “Treasure of the Common-wealth,” does not flow freely but “is gathered together in too much abundance” by just a few wealthy individuals. Much as blood might gather “into the Membrane of the breast” and therefore cause inflammation, money can, like blood, accumulate in the wrong place due to, for example, monopolies.
Hobbes’s metaphorical discussion of the circulatory system of the body politic suggests that money must be allowed to flow freely through the nation and that great hoards of private wealth threaten the health of the state.
In a striking metaphor, Hobbes compares supporters of democracy to rabid dogs. Characterizing democratic thought as a “venime” (venom), he writes:
Which Venime I will not doubt to compare to the biting of a mad Dogge, which is a disease the Physicians call Hydrophobia, or fear of Water. For as he that is so bitten, has a continuall torment of thirst, and yet abhorreth water; and is in such an estate, as if the poyson endeavoured to convert him into a Dogge: So when a Monarchy is once bitten to the quick, by those Democraticall writers, that continually snarle at that estate; it wanteth nothing more than a strong Monarch, which neverthelesse out of a certain Tyrannophobia, or feare of being strongly governed, when they have him, they abhorre.
Hobbes writes that a “mad Dogge” suffers from a cruel paradox: as a result of the “Hydrophobia, or fear of Water” characteristic of rabies, he has “a continuall torment of thirst” but at the same time “abhorreth water.” Likewise, Hobbes writes, when a state has been poisoned by “Democraticall writers,” who (like mad dogs) “snarle” at the sovereign, the state is afflicted with a sort of madness akin to rabies: “it wanteth nothing more than a strong Monarch,” he suggests, but it nevertheless “abhorre[s]” one in fear of tyranny. Hobbes's metaphor suggests that those democratic thinkers suffering from “Tyrannophobia” fear the only thing that would help them: a King.
Reflecting upon the varying rights and powers of civil authorities (the sovereign, or King, and his legal representatives) and spiritual authorities, Hobbes metaphorically compares pastors to schoolteachers:
Besides, it maketh nothing to the Power of any Pastor what kind of Government is the best; because their Calling is not to govern men by Commandement, but to teach them, and perswade them by Arguments, and leave it to them to consider, whether they shall embrace, or reject the Doctrine taught [...] And therefore the second Conclusion, concerning the best form of Government of the Church, is nothing to the question of the Popes Power without his own Dominions: For in all other Common-wealths his Power [...] is that of the Schoolmaster onely, and not of the Master of the Family.
Because Hobbes believes that a state must be run by one sovereign whose power is unrivaled and unchallenged, he regards spiritual authorities as a grave threat to the security of the state. While a King reserves the right to force a subject to act in a certain manner, Hobbes insists that the role of a pastor or priest is “not to govern men” but “to teach them, and persuade them by Arguments,” ultimately leaving it up to the “pupil” to decide “whether they shall embrace, or reject” what they have been taught. Hobbes's metaphor comparing spiritual authorities (and, in particular, the Catholic Pope) to a schoolmaster suggests that force (“to govern men by Commandment”) is a power exclusive to the King.
In his discussion of Christian republics, Hobbes offers an extended critique of the Catholic Church and, in particular, its claim to legal power akin to that of a state or sovereign. He uses mist as a metaphor for the general state of confusion and ignorance brought about by the Church’s rivalry with the civil powers of Europe. In reference to this sense of competition, Hobbes writes:
And by this means, as often as there is any repugnancy between the Politicall designes of the Pope, and other Christian Princes, as there is very often, there ariseth such a Mist amongst their Subjects, that they know not a stranger that thrusteth himself into the throne of their lawfull Prince, from him whom they had themselves placed there; and in this Darknesse of mind, are made to fight one against another, without discerning their enemies from their friends, under the conduct of another mans ambition.
Similar to his metaphors of darkness and perpetual night, the “mist” that arises from the conflict of civil and spiritual authorities is a state of general confusion and ignorance among the population. The subjects of the state walk around as if trapped in a thick mist, not knowing who is a rightful king and who has merely thrust themselves onto the throne. This metaphor, then, is one of Hobbes’s many ways of expressing what he believes to be the general state of ignorance encouraged by church authorities and, in particular, by the Catholic Church.
Hobbes uses an extended metaphor that pits “spiritual darkness” (or ignorance) against the bright light (or Enlightenment) of true reason:
[...] wee are therefore yet in the Dark. The Enemy has been here in the Night of our naturall Ignorance, and sown the tares of Spirituall Errors; and that, First, by abusing, and putting out the light of the Scriptures: For we erre, not knowing the Scriptures. Secondly, by introducing the Dæmonology of the Heathen Poets, that is to say, their fabulous Doctrine concerning Dæmons, which are but Idols, or Phantasms of the braine, without any reall nature of their own, distinct from humane fancy; such as are dead mens Ghosts, and Fairies, and other matter of old Wives tales.
Here, Hobbes plays extensively with the language of light and dark: mankind is “yet in the dark,” a state brought about by “The Enemy,” or the devil, who exploits “the Night of our naturall Ignorance.” If ignorance is a state of darkness akin to a perpetual night, then the Scriptures of Christianity are a “light” that the devil seeks to put out.
Hobbes then outlines some of the various strategies employed by the devil to bring about this state of ignorance or darkness. One such example, according to Hobbes, is “Demonology” or the belief in various demons which, Hobbes insists, “are but Idols or Phantasms of the braine.” Hobbes’s metaphorical use of darkness and light is typical of the 17th century, which imagined the “Enlightenment” as an antidote to the previous “Dark Ages” of superstition.
Hobbes uses a metaphor that compares what he believes to be the meaningless ceremonies of the Catholic Church to “old empty Bottles of Gentilisme” (the word "Gentilisme" refers to heathenism or paganism):
Nor do I think that these are all the Ceremonies that have been left in the Church, from the first conversion of the Gentiles: but they are all that I can for the present call to mind; and if a man would wel observe that which is delivered in the Histories, concerning the Religious Rites of the Greeks and Romanes, I doubt not but he might find many more of these old empty Bottles of Gentilisme, which the Doctors of the Romane Church, either by Negligence, or Ambition, have filled up again with the new Wine of Christianity, that will not faile in time to break them.
Hobbes, like many Protestant thinkers of his day, regarded the Catholic Church with great skepticism, viewing it as an essentially unchristian or Pagan institution. Here, Hobbes suggests that if one were to do some research into the "Religious Rites of the Greeks and Romanes,” they would likely find many traits and traditions shared with the contemporary Catholic Church. He metaphorically describes Catholic traditions as pagan bottles that are, every now and then, “filled up again with the new Wine of Christianity.” In other words, the Catholic priests, Hobbes suggests, have been falsely recycling old pagan ideas under the banner of Christianity.
Critiquing the abstraction of the ancient schools of philosophy, particularly those of Greece and Rome, Hobbes metaphorically compares their teachings to a “dream”:
The naturall Philosophy of those Schools, was rather a Dream than Science, and set forth in senselesse and insignificant Language; which cannot be avoided by those that will teach Philosophy, without having first attained great knowledge in Geometry: For Nature worketh by Motion; the Wayes, and Degrees whereof cannot be known, without the knowledge of the Proportions and Properties of Lines, and Figures. Their Morall Philosophy is but a description of their own Passions.
Throughout Leviathan, Hobbes suggests that his own philosophical method is drawn from the natural sciences and from mathematics instead of classical philosophy, which he regards as unclear, unhelpful, and even deceitful. The scientific theories of these schools of philosophy, he suggests, are “a dream” rather than “Science,” insofar as they make little sense. Only a rigorous study of geometry, Hobbes suggests, can help a philosopher avoid these cloudy errors. This metaphorical language of dreams, then, is used by Hobbes to critique classical philosophy for being too removed from daily life and the physical world.
In his lengthy critique of the Catholic Church, Hobbes describes the Church as the “Ghost of the deceased Romane Empire” in a pointed metaphor:
And if a man consider the originall of this great Ecclesiasticall Dominion, he will easily perceive, that the Papacy, is no other, than the Ghost of the deceased Romane Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof: For so did the Papacy start up on a Sudden out of the Ruines of that Heathen Power. The Language also, which they use, both in the Churches, and in their Publique Acts, being Latine, which is not commonly used by any Nation now in the world, what is it but the Ghost of the Old Romane Language?
For Hobbes and many other Protestant thinkers of his day, the Catholic Church was a common target for criticism. Here, Hobbes suggests that the Church is, essentially, a Roman and therefore pagan cultural institution despite its claim to represent the Christian faith. He describes the Church as a “Ghost of the deceased Roman Empire” that sits "upon the grave" of Rome itself, a reference to the location of the Vatican within the modern city of Rome. He also points out that Latin, the language of Ancient Rome, is used only within the Church. This series of metaphors, then, suggests that the Catholic Church is an archaic and outdated institution with no place in the modern world.
