The Social Contract Research Podcast · Social Contract Research Network

The Rhetoric of Science and the Science of Rhetoric in Hobbes's State of Nature, with Ioannis Evrigenis

·1 hr 33 min·5 clips

Why do Locke and Rousseau accept Hobbes' state of nature while rejecting almost everything else he believed?

Professor Ioannis Efigenis, a political theorist from Tufts University, presents a seminar on Thomas Hobbes's concept of the state of nature. The episode explores why Hobbes's idea became foundational despite its inherent contradictions and interpretative challenges. Efigenis argues that Hobbes's primary, consistent goal across his works was to advocate for peace and order over anarchy. Hobbes wrote three major political treatises: *The Elements of Law*, *De Cive*, and *Leviathan*, each showing an evolution in his presentation. A dominant scholarly narrative suggests Hobbes moved from a "humanist" phase to a "scientific" one after an encounter with Euclid, then later reintroduced rhetoric in *Leviathan*. Efigenis challenges this, noting Hobbes translated Aristotle's *Rhetoric* during his supposed "scientific" period. He highlights interpretative problems, such as why Hobbes favored a social contract foundation for monarchy over a simpler "might makes right" argument, as critiqued by Robert Filmer. The state of nature is described with contradictory attributes: it is both historical and ahistorical, confirmed by daily experience yet never universal, and a condition for both individuals and sovereigns. Efigenis points to Hobbes's constructed dichotomy between a harmonious world of mathematicians and a conflict-ridden world of dogmatists, a portrayal he calls inaccurate but strategically useful. Hobbes revised his works, like *De Cive*, based on reader feedback, which Efigenis sees as part of a "political psychology" aimed at persuasion. A key insight is that Hobbes replaced the classical *summum bonum* (highest good) with a *summum malum* (greatest evil)—the fear of violent death—as a basis for agreement. The famous description "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" succeeded as a memorable rhetorical device. Efigenis suggests Hobbes's social contract flatters individual readers by casting them as authors of sovereign authority through their daily tacit consent. This "democratic virus" within a monarchist framework, he argues, prefigured liberal thought by incorporating individuals into the political foundation. The tone is academic and lecture-based, structured around detailed textual analysis and scholarly debate. Efigenis frequently references specific chapters, historical figures, and interpretative schools. This episode would deeply interest students of political theory, intellectual history, and the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Listeners seeking a casual narrative or those unfamiliar with Hobbes's core concepts might find the discussion too specialized and dense.

As heard by us

A careful Hobbes lecture that keeps authorization and obedience in sharp view.

This seminar uses Hobbes to ask how political authority gets imagined, justified, and made to seem necessary. Ioannis Efigenis moves from early modern theology and science to the logic of authorization, and the result is a clear case for why Hobbes still matters to sovereignty,…

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

Listen if you want Hobbes explained through rhetoric, science, and political authorization.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from The Social Contract Research Podcast