All men, Hobbes argues, have thoughts that are clean and unclean, holy and blasphemous, serious and vulgar, and these thoughts do not ultimately determine the moral character of the person who has them. Discussing the importance of discretion in judging character, Hobbes uses a simile that compares those who speak openly on vulgar topics to a man covered in dirt.
An Anatomist, or a Physitian may speak, or write his judgement of unclean things; because it is not to please, but profit: but for another man to write his extravagant, and pleasant fancies of the same, is as if a man, from being tumbled into the dirt, should come and present himselfe before good company. And ’tis the want of Discretion that makes the difference.
Context, Hobbes argues, determines what thoughts should be shared with others. Doctors, for example, discuss “unclean things” because it is the nature of their profession to look unflinchingly upon the human body. Others, however, who falsely assume the same right to say or write down whatever they please are like a man who has “tumbled” in dirt but nevertheless “[presents] himself before good company.” Here, Hobbes uses this simile to mark a major distinction between private thoughts and ideas that should be expressed publicly.
In a discussion of the human passions, chief of which for Hobbes is the desire for power, he uses a simile that compares the thoughts to “Scouts, and Spies”:
For the Thoughts, are to the Desires, as Scouts, and Spies, to range abroad, and find the way to the things Desired: All Stedinesse of the minds motion, and all quicknesse of the same, proceeding from thence. For as to have no Desire, is to be Dead: so to have weak Passions, is Dulnesse; and to have Passions indifferently for every thing, GIDDINESSE, and Distraction; and to have stronger, and more vehement Passions for any thing, than is ordinarily seen in others, is that which men call MADNESSE.
For Hobbes, all mental activity relates in some way to the outside world. This is important for Hobbes’s argument in favor of philosophical materialism, as those philosophers who argue against materialism often point to the activity of the mind as a phenomenon that cannot easily be explained materially. If nothing exists but matter, the opponents of materialism ask, then what is a thought? Hobbes’s answer to this objection is that thoughts exist only to help us achieve our desires in the physical world. Just as a king sends out spies to do his bidding, the mind sends out thoughts to “range abroad” and achieve the mind’s goals. Desire for things in the physical world, then, is the source of all thinking, and mental disorders stem, for Hobbes, from improper amounts of desire.
Arguing that humans can never have certain knowledge about the nature or intentions of God, Hobbes uses a simile that compares human ignorance to blindness.
For as a man that is born blind, hearing men talk of warming themselves by the fire, and being brought to warm himself by the same, may easily conceive, and assure himselfe, there is somewhat there, which men call Fire, and is the cause of the heat he feeles; but cannot imagine what it is like; nor have an Idea of it in his mind, such as they have that see it: so also, by the visible things of this world, and their admirable order, a man may conceive there is a cause of them, which men call God; and yet not have an Idea, or Image of him in his mind.
Though Hobbes was accused of being an atheist after the publication of Leviathan, he insists that he is not skeptical of the existence of God, but rather of the human ability to understand God. In a lengthy simile, he argues that humans are as ignorant of the true nature of God “as a man that is born blind” is of fire. Though the blind man of Hobbes’s simile can “assure himselfe” that there is something “which men call Fire” and can feel the “heat” of the fire, ultimately he can never truly have a perfect understanding of fire as he has never seen it, but only feels it from a distance. Likewise, Hobbes writes, a man may feel the effects of God and believe in his existence but can never “have an Idea, or Image of him in his mind.” The human senses, for Hobbes, are incapable of grasping God
Arguing for the supremacy over the sovereign over any citizen of a state, including the wealthy, Hobbes uses a metaphor that compares a King to a fountain from which “Honour” flows.
And as the Power, so also the Honour of the Soveraign, ought to be greater, than that of any, or all the Subjects. For in the Soveraignty is the fountain of Honour. The dignities of Lord, Earle, Duke, and Prince are his Creatures. As in the presence of the Master, the Servants are equall, and without any honour at all; So are the Subjects, in the presence of the Soveraign. And though they shine some more, some lesse, when they are out of his sight; yet in his presence, they shine no more than the Starres in presence of the Sun.
Here, Hobbes does not limit himself to an argument in favor of monarchy, but rather, argues that the monarch should be “greater” in all power than any of his subjects. “In the Soveraignty,” he writes, “is the fountain of Honour.” Hobbes’s metaphor imagines the King as a fountain from which all honor and greatness flows. As the King is the source of all honors, his honor must be the greatest, and even lesser nobles, such as “Lorde, Earle, Duke, and Prince” merely receive their “dignities” from the King.
Outlining the various diseases and weaknesses which might afflict a “body politic” or commonwealth, Hobbes compares corporations and other figures who might rival a King in power to worms in a striking simile:
As also the great number of Corporations; which are as it were many lesser Common-wealths in the bowels of a greater, like wormes in the entrayles of a naturall man. To which may be added, the Liberty of disputing against Soveraign Power by pretenders to Politicall Prudence; which though bred for the most part in the Lees of the people; yet animated by False Doctrines, are perpetually medling with the Fundamentall Lawes, to the molestation of the Common-wealth; like the little Wormes, which Physicians call Ascarides.
Some large corporations, Hobbes writes, are large, rich, and strong enough to rival states, and are therefore like “many lesser Common-wealths.” This is problematic for Hobbes; after all, if a state is like a body, then these corporations are many bodies occupying the larger body, like parasites. He writes that these corporations live within "the bowels" of the body politic, “like worms in the entrayles of a naturall man.” Further developing this simile, he notes that those animated by “False” or democratic doctrines are also “like the little Wormes” insofar as they compete with the King for power. Hobbes’s similes, then, support his argument that only one person, a King, must have absolute control over the state.
Hobbes engages in pointed satire while critiquing those who read the words of the Bible in an overly literal fashion. Discussing a line in the Book of Genesis (“God inspired into man the breath of life,”) Hobbes writes:
On the signification of the word Spirit, dependeth that of the word INSPIRATION; which must either be taken properly; and then it is nothing but the blowing into a man some thin and subtile aire, or wind, in such manner as a man filleth a bladder with his breath; or if Spirits be not corporeall, but have their existence only in the fancy, it is nothing but the blowing in of a Phantasme; which is improper to say, and impossible; for Phantasmes are not, but only seem to be somewhat.
Hobbes insists that we must interpret much of the Bible as a metaphor, especially when the Bible describes things that do not seem to exist in the world, such as spirits. Using the line from the Book of Genesis (quoted above) as an example, he satirizes those who would read the phrase “breath of life” literally as “some thin and subtle aire or wind.” Here, Hobbes invokes a humorous simile: God blowing air into a man’s throat “as a man filleth a bladder with his breath.” This farcical image is hardly an appropriate way to conceive of God and the miracle of life, and Hobbes uses it to satirize what he understands as a common way of misreading the Bible.
