Tracing the role of truth in the evolution of political thought acknowledges that an eternal objective truth has remained constant beneath the veil of political narrative encountered throughout history. Thus evident in contemporary polity; truth should play an immense role in politics. Aristotle (384–322 B.C.) set forth a scholastic system of political theory; Martin Luther (1483–1546) thereby transformed political theory into a nominalist system based on theology; concluding with Thomas Hobbes’s (1588–1679) system based on political historicism—leading to the birth of modern philosophy. Yet all three men recognized an inherent principle of truth in their predecessor’s work.
Aristotle drew from Plato’s (427–347 B.C.) account of Socrates (469–399 B.C.), government, and metaphysics to create a political system based on natural law; recognizing the object of truth to be something externally unifying. Political theologian Martin Luther’s understanding of truth successfully undertook initiating the Reformation against what he believed to have become corrupt. Early modern thinker Thomas Hobbes “loathed Aristotle’s politics,” writes historian Alan Ryan; “but he admired Aristotle’s biology,” (Ryan, A., p. 45). Thomas Hobbes recognized inherent truth from Aristotle’s theory; it was this essence of familiar implicit understanding that allowed Hobbes to develop his lasting theory of the social contract. Although the political theories of Aristotle, Martin Luther, and Thomas Hobbes differ in their interpretations of natural rights and commonwealth; all three observe an inherent resounding principle of predestined liberty.
Aristotle
Aristotle acknowledged inherent truth when he wrote that, “[f]or in truth no one would dispute that, there being a distinction among three groups of good things, those that are external, those of the body, and those of the soul, all these things ought to be available to the blessed,” (Aristotle; Lord, C., p. 262). Aristotle reconstructed Platonic theory and Stoic philosophy, basing his political theory on the doctrine of natural law based on metaphysics; Aristotle acknowledged virtue to be an essential component of a well-functioning government, noting its need for self-imposed limitations, (LeoStraussCenter). Historian Alan Ryan denotes that Aristotle advocated for kingships, aristocracy, and politeia; whereby “one, a few, or many persons possess ultimate power, and employ it to govern for the sake of the common good,” (Ryan, A., p. 79). Translator Carnes Lord writes that “Aristotle’s procedure also reflects his understanding of the purpose of practical science”…and it was directed “not to philosophers or students of philosophy…but to political men,” (Lord, C.; Strauss, L., p. 182). Political philosopher Leo Strauss did not treat Aristotle’s Politics as a historical subject; instead rather as a common procedure to social reality, (LeoStraussCenter). Strauss contended we cannot leave political science as hearsay—philosophy must be studied as a whole, beginning from Socrates, and in three parts; starting with Aristotle and the stoics, and Athens’s central theme of natural law, lasting until the French Revolution, whereby a historical approach approach began to dominate in the 19th century bringing us into the modern age (LeoStraussCenter). The first radical change the took place was in the 16th and 17th centuries “likely from Thomas Hobbes,” according to Leo Strauss; describing the transition from classical to modern political theory, (LeoStraussCenter).
Luther
Martin Luther understood his position in politics to be an divine ordinance from God. Historian David M. Whitford contends that; Luther “understood his main responsibility to be the care of souls…the Bible remained normative,” (McKim, D., p. 180). Luther wrote that, “God made the secular government subject to reason because it is to have no jurisdiction over the welfare of souls or things of eternal value, but only over bodily and temporal goods, which God places under man’s dominion,” (Forrester, D.; Strauss, L., p. 478). Government is a product of man, who himself is a product of God.
Luther claimed Aristotle to be a “’damned, conceited, rascally heathen’ when considering his influence on theology, becomes a most reputable authority when the question at issue is one of politics,” (Forrester, D.; Strauss, L, p. 478). Duncan Forrester adds that “[r]eason and political judgment are not dispersed equally among men. Ruling is a specialized craft for which preeminent gifts are required, for it is not simply a matter of following rules and principles,” (Forrester, D.; Strauss, L., pp. 478, 479). Forrester asserts that “[a] theory of human nature derived from an empirical [a poseriori] observation cannot but project a radically false picture;” similarly a rational a priori doctrine of human nature would be in no better case, for it is involved in the corruption and limitation of human reason. Despite Luther’s denouncement of
Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes, “attempted to deduce the natural law from what is most powerful in most men most of the time: not reason, but passion. Because of what he regarded as his discovery of the true roots of human behavior, his knowledge of human nature, and his scientific way of proceeding, Hobbes believed that he had succeeded where all others had failed, that he was the first true political philosopher,” (Berns, L.; Strauss, L, p. 564). Hobbes wrote “as for the first division of law into divine, natural, civil, the first two branches are the same law, (Hobbes, T., p. 180). Hobbes noted that laws held men—even deformed ones—equal; Hobbes wrote “it shall not be decided by Aristotle, or the philosophers , whether the same man or no, but by the laws,” (Hobbes, T., p. 181). Hobbes further clarified that “those laws that go under the title of response prudentum, that is to say the opinions of lawyers, are not therefore laws, because response prudentum, but because they are admitted by the sovereign,” (Hobbes, T., p. 182).
As Laurence Berns denotes, “Hobbes elaborated a code of moral or natural law, natural law as a morally binding law, determining the purposes of civil society; [Hobbes] separated his doctrine of the natural law from the idea of the perfection of man;” Berns adds that Hobbes “continually attacked the doctrines of Aristotle, ‘whose opinions are at this day and in these parts of greater authority than any other human writings,’ as both subversive and false,” (Berns, L.; Strauss, L, p. 564).
Political Scientist Gary B. Herbert contends that Leo Strauss got Hobbes wrong—particularly that Strauss ignored any correlative development in Hobbes’ physics, thus ignored Hobbes’ systemic intention, (Herbert, G., p. 17). Herbert asserts that Hobbesian political theory was a precursor to phenomenology. Strauss adds that “the modern natural right doctrine which was originated by Hobbes,” (Strauss, L., p. 8). Philosopher and political theorist Leo Strauss contends that; “Hobbes regarded his political philosophy as wholly new. More than that, he denied that there existed prior to his work any political philosophy or political science worthy of the name. He regarded himself as the founder of the true political philosophy, as the true founder of political philosophy. He knew of course that a political doctrine claiming to be true had existed since Socrates. But this doctrine was, according to Hobbes, a dream rather than science,” (Strauss, L., p. 430). Bertrand Russell (1872–1920) remarked; “[f]or “a ‘tyranny’, according to Hobbes, is merely a monarchy that the speaker happens to dislike,” (Russell, B., p. 699; Hobbes, T., p. 682)). Hobbes wrote that it is “Men, and Arms, not Words, and Promises, that make the Force and Power of the Laws,” proceeding to denounce Aristotelian theory stating “another Errour of Aristotles Politiques, that in a wel ordered Common-wealth, not Men should govern, but the Laws, (Hobbes, T., p. 683). Yet Hobbes recognized Aristotle’s value; historian Laurence Berns (1928–2011) described that “[t]he doctrine that some men by nature are more worthy to command and others more worthy to serve is the foundation of Aristotle’s political science, Hobbes wrote,” (Berns, L.; Strauss, L., pp. 573, 574).
Thomas Hobbes presupposed that objective truth existed apart from human consideration; noting the depravity of man and his capability to reappropriate language to suit their grievances. Hobbes believed that men were unable to properly govern themselves; opting for a powerful Leviathan to limit the will of man. As Laurence Berns contends, “[t]he entire tradition, according to Hobbes, had failed, however, both in its quest for truth and in its inability to lead men toward peace,” (Berns, L.; Strauss, L., p. 563).
God warns us throughout Scripture that there can only be one authority (Mat 6:24; Luk 16:13)—His Holy Spirit scribes through the Apostle Paul; “[n]ow he is far above any ruler or authority or power or leader or anything else—not only in this world but also in the world to come. God has put all things under the authority of Christ and has made him head over all things for the benefit of the church. And the church is his body; it is made full and complete by Christ, who fills all things everywhere with himself,” (Ephesians 1:21-23; NLT).
Scripturally, men must ascribe to some form of objective belief to avoid disillusion; as it is written, “[i]f you’re unable to believe what I’ve told you about the natural realm, what will you do when I begin to unveil the heavenly realm?” (John 3:12; TPT). No matter the proposal of detriment to the acknowledgment of inherent sovereignty, there undoubtedly exists a God above all question, logic, comprehension, or disputation; thus any critical response whereby refuting His existence lies futile among the interpretations of political theory and human nature beyond what is known. Above all; a familiar fragrance of objective truth is found in the writings of all three political theorists, among many alike; despite their underlying opines on the context of reality and the nature of being and commonwealth. The truly great, memorable theorists of politics invoke some form of His eternal essence within the context of their advocation. Even should the individual himself be opposed to orthodox Christian doctrine—as seen in Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) and Thomas Hobbes—there remains an implicit truth that is easily recognizable and remains consistent in contemporary polity.
Conclusion
The transition of political theory from ancient scholasticism, to mediæval nominalism, to modern historicism; reveals that no matter the worldview, great ideas remain illuminated throughout millennia; fueled by the pursuit of truth and relevancy by the proceeding generations. Aristotle, Luther, and Hobbes; whilst all different, catered their interests to man; to the pursuit of something greater than themselves; to a collective undertaking of personal understanding to find the meaning of life, and to maximize the potential of the individual, while contributing to the development of a powerful polis. Now it remains the responsibility of the contemporary citizenry to fight for the truth no matter its cost; armed with Aristotelian political theory, Lutheran theology, and Hobbesian historical philosophy, the individual shall arrive at truth, producing solutions for today, while laying foundations for future polity.
Bibliography
Aristotle. (1984, 2013). Aristotle’s Politics: Second Edition. The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
Gaskin, J.C.A. (1994, 2008). Thomas Hobbes: Human Nature and De Corpore Politico. Oxford’s World Classics. Oxford University Press: New York, NY.
Herbert, G. (1988). Thomas Hobbes: The Unity of Scientific & Moral Wisdom. UBC Press.
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. True Sign Publishing House. Kindle Edition.
LeoStraussCenter. (Accessed on March 7th, 2024). Courses: Audio & Transcripts. The Leo Strauss Center. https://leostrausscenter.uchicago.edu/audio-transcripts/courses-audio-transcripts/.
McKim, D. (2003). The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther. Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, L., et al. (1963, 1972, 1987). History of Political Philosophy. The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
Strauss, Leo. (2017). Leo Strauss on Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra. (The Leo Strauss Transcript Series). The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
Russell, B. (1946). A History of Western Philosophy. Pocket Books. Kindle Edition.
Ryan, A. (2012). On Aristotle: Saving Politics from Philosophy. (Liveright Classics). Liveright.
Ryan, A. (2012). On Hobbes: Escaping the War of All Against All. (Liveright Classics). Liveright.
JMBK.NEWS 