Philosophical arguments often rely on a foundation of unstated beliefs and assumptions. These implicit statements, though not explicitly articulated, are crucial to the coherence and persuasiveness of the reasoning presented. By examining the implicit assertions within a given passage, we can gain a deeper understanding of its underlying logic, its potential strengths, and its inherent vulnerabilities. Consider, for instance, the reasoning embedded in Thomas Hobbes's discussion of the state of nature in Leviathan. Hobbes argues that in a state of nature, without a sovereign power, life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." This stark assertion, while seemingly a direct observation, is built upon several significant implicit statements about human nature and the conditions necessary for social order.
One of the most prominent implicit statements in Hobbes's reasoning is his view of human beings as fundamentally self-interested and driven by a perpetual desire for power. He does not explicitly state, "All humans are inherently selfish," but this is the bedrock upon which his description of the state of nature is constructed. The constant competition for resources, the fear of death, and the pursuit of glory, which Hobbes details as characteristics of this pre-social condition, all stem from this assumed egoism. If humans were naturally cooperative or altruistic, the state of nature would not necessarily devolve into a war of all against all. His description of individuals constantly seeking to "overreach" others implies a built-in mechanism for conflict that arises directly from their assumed psychological makeup.
Furthermore, Hobbes implicitly assumes that security and order are the highest human goods, or at least paramount among the goods achievable in this life. His entire project, the justification for absolute sovereignty, is aimed at escaping the horrors of the state of nature. The implicit statement here is that the preservation of life, even a life of hardship under a ruler, is vastly preferable to the constant threat and violence of anarchy. The absence of a common power is presented as a state where individuals cannot rely on "industry," "agriculture," "navigation," or "arts," suggesting an implicit value placed on productivity and civilization, which are seen as impossible without sovereign enforcement of contracts and property rights. This highlights an unspoken belief that human progress and well-being are contingent on a stable, enforceable legal framework.
Another crucial implicit statement is Hobbes's belief in the rationality of individuals to recognize their own self-interest and the need for a solution to the state of nature. While he describes passions like fear and desire as primary motivators, he also posits that individuals possess reason, which allows them to discern the "inconveniences" of their current predicament. The famous "laws of nature," which he outlines as precepts discovered by reason to seek peace, are presented as guides for escaping the state of nature. This implies that individuals, even in their pursuit of self-preservation, are capable of rational calculation and can understand that surrendering some individual freedom to a sovereign will ultimately serve their own best interests by providing security. Without this capacity for rational self-assessment and the recognition that cooperation, even under duress, is beneficial, the transition to civil society would be logically unsupported by his own premises.
The very concept of a "sovereign" power, as envisioned by Hobbes, relies on an implicit understanding of the nature of authority and the social contract. He doesn't elaborate extensively on the inherent legitimacy of such a sovereign, but rather on its necessity. The implicit statement is that a power capable of inspiring fear and enforcing obedience is the only mechanism that can restrain the destructive impulses he attributes to human nature. The sovereign is not necessarily good or just in itself, but its absolute power is implicitly deemed the necessary condition for any semblance of peace and order. This is a pragmatic, rather than a moral, justification, emphasizing the practical outcomes of obedience over the inherent rights of the sovereign or the ruled.
In conclusion, Hobbes's powerful depiction of the state of nature is not merely a direct assertion but a carefully constructed argument built on a framework of implicit statements. His assumptions about human egoism, the supreme value of security, the capacity for rational self-interest, and the necessity of absolute power all work in concert to support his ultimate conclusion: the need for a sovereign. Unpacking these implicit assertions reveals the depth of his philosophical project and allows for a more critical engagement with his arguments, questioning whether these unstated premises accurately reflect human nature or the conditions for a flourishing society.