Abstract
In The Platonian Leviathan, Leon Craig provides a multilayered critique of political philosophy. First, he criticises the conventional readings of Hobbes. He questions the apparent Baconian scientific materialism, nominalism, causal determinism, hedonism, psychological egoism and logical positivism of Leviathan, systematically demonstrating that each is flawed. Interestingly, Craig assumes that Hobbes was aware of these inadequacies. In a rather Straussian reading, Craig argues that these surface-level arguments are Hobbes’ pandering to various non-philosophical audiences, while concealing a Platonic strand embedded in Leviathan. While he avoids claiming that Hobbes is a Platonist outright, he acknowledges that ‘My aim is the more modest one of showing the Platonic character of Hobbes's masterpiece, that the inspiration for Leviathan is from the dialogue which is in effect its complement: Plato's Republic’ (p. 488).
Given the comprehensiveness of subjects covered, there is something in The Platonian Leviathan for almost every Hobbesian scholar. In particular, Craig succeeds in challenging the conventional readings of Hobbes in ways that must be addressed if the viability of each reading is to be maintained. Then, he draws interesting parallels between the Leviathan and the Republic (e.g., both states seem to invoke Platonic natural justice, both desire philosophers to be made kings or at least advisers to kings, both start from an analogy between man and the state, both found regimes using lie and myth, and finally both provide a similar treatment of philosophy [pp. 488–95]). While one's initial reaction is that Craig's challenges to the conventional readings and his claims about the Platonic elements are each by themselves weak, compounded one on top of the other they do combine into a persuasive alternative reading of Hobbes. Still, one is left wondering if Hobbes really is the brilliant rhetorician and political philosopher Craig makes him out to be or if Craig's reinterpretation is really a revision that gives Hobbes too much credit.
As one last point, Craig's treatise has a second audience. While Part I and Part II are primarily for Hobbesian scholars, the sidebars (the ‘Prelude’, ‘Melvillian Overture’, ‘Conradian Intermezzo’, ‘Melvillian Coda’ and ‘Postlude’) are for the contemporary political philosopher. The ‘Postlude’ represents a scathing critique of current political philosophy for being ideological and lacking comprehensive vision and analysis of real social problems. Craig combines the ‘Postlude’ with these other parts to show what political philosophy can (again) be – comprehensive literary satires of current practices that highlight fundamental political problems in meaningful and productive ways.