Theological Origins of Modernity

hobbes’ fearful wisdom 239
imity to one another inevitably live in a state of war and that this war
can only be brought to an end in a commonwealth ruled by an absolute
sovereign. 107
Th e war of all against all is a consequence of the radical individuality
of human beings. Each individual strives for power but can never have
enough because the amount he needs depends on the power of those in
his vicinity. Th e more each has the more all others need. War may begin
because some are greedy or vainglorious, but even if everyone were moderate
and virtuous our inability to know others’ intentions would lead us
to fear for our lives, prepare for self-defense, and thus become threats to
others. As Hobbes sees it, the fear of violent death and the desire for preservation
thus lead to the pursuit of “power aft er power that ceaseth only
in death.” 108 Under such circumstances, life becomes solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish, and short.
It is in this abyss of despair where no one is secure and the fear of violent
death possesses everyone that the path to earthly salvation begins. 109 It is in
this moment when fl ight is no longer possible because death waits everywhere
that one has to choose between peace and war. Hobbes argues that
in these circumstances reason dictates that one fi rst seek peace and only if
that fails that one pursue war. Indeed, for him this is the fi rst and fundamental
law of nature. But how does reason reach this decision and in what
sense is it a law? Reason for Hobbes certainly does not supply us with this
precept out of itself. In fact, in this case it seems to be merely the spokesman
for the body and its overwhelming desire for preservation.
To understand how this can be a law rather than a merely prudential
maxim, we need to return to Hobbes’ anthropology. According to Hobbes,
human bodies are characterized by both vital and voluntary motion. Th e
former consists in autonomic processes such as respiration and digestion.
Th ese matters are not under our conscious control, since they are essential
to our existence from the moment we are born. Voluntary motion, by
contrast, involves choices about those things that are pleasurable or advantageous
to us but that are not immediately essential to our preservation.
Th e crucial question for Hobbes is which of these forms of motion
best describes our reaction to the fear of violent death. Hobbes believed
that the motion this fear engendered was like respiration. We can hold our
breath, but not indefi nitely. Similarly, we can stand and fi ght or at least
some of us can some of the time. We all do this naturally when we must
in order to preserve ourselves. Some of us do so for short periods of time
when we believe it to be to our advantage, just as we hold our breath when
we dive beneath the water, but Hobbes seems to have been convinced that