In the Confessions humans are forever dealing with the pull towards the sort of ‘dark-side’ of events as well. Augustine uses his own life as a perfect example of what these tensions are, and how man is to battle with them and to eventually overcome and achieve the greater good, which in his case is the recognition of God. In his portrayed images he expands upon the recognition by saying; “I had my back to the light and my face was turned towards the things which stood in the light, were themselves in darkness” (Augustine, p.88). These tensions for Augustine are harsh, like those for Hobbes, but attaining enlightenment is a capability because humans are in a sense radically free. In the Republic, Plato’s view is not that humans are radically free, but more so malleable to striving to attain enlightenment. Plato does however have this strong sense that Hobbes and Augustine share the dilemma about being pulled toward the good and the evil. The chore of fighting for the good of course being the more masterful route, then taking the darkened path to the abyss. Plato explains that after man acquires intelligence he can then, “remember that there are two kinds of disturbances of the eyes, stemming from two sources – when they have been transferred from darkness to light” (Plato, 196). For Plato humans are not radically free, some are just good thinkers and philosophizers but even they cannot attain the wisdom of God in their lives at times.
Hobbes explores the idea that happiness is the highest virtue for humans. The ability to attain this ultimate happiness is all in creating the environment in which it can possibly take place. In his prophecies this means having a neutral third party to govern humans actions, he calls it a “Sovereign”, and to ensure that humans abide by their social contracts and when failing to do so punishing those accordingly. This absolute sovereign would act as peacemaker, a third actor in any confrontation between two subjects who could be trusted to hold power and defend each subject from another or collectively from another state. The sovereign would receive its authority by the collective consent being governed, and therefore being in a sense representing the will of the people the sovereigns' actions are indirectly the actions of the subjects. If the sovereign creates a law, it is the people creating the law, if the sovereign executes a subject, the subject has in fact executed himself. Hobbes portraying that the collective as a whole is stronger than a divided, insecure number of individuals. Insisting on a system be put into place where humans can feel a sense of security, and retreat from the continual fear of a violent death. Again Hobbes assures that no single men are as strong as a collectively governed body; “Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall” (Hobbes, p. 186). Hobbes regards the sense that humans are nothing but their own strength, where as they could be more with a governing body which would provide endless strength from a collective.
Both the Republic and Confessions have varied views on how to achieve the means end, but they too aspire for the sense of security, justice, good, and happiness in one sense of another like that of the Hobbesian view. For Socrates in the Republic ultimately the Good is the causal element of justice, but in order for the state to become just someone must first come to understand the Good and consequently justice as well. According to Plato, the sole possessors of this particular knowledge are the philosopher kings, who are either kings made philosophers or philosophers turned kings. Their ability to understand the good is initially cultivated by their ordained education which focuses on the study of subjects that will lead to the discovery of truth and being, namely the mathematical sciences and dialectic. Once their education is complete, they will not only be able to distinguish between the images of the visible world and the forms of the intelligible world, but most significantly will ultimately come to know the Good. Once known, the philosopher kings must act under its influence and order both their soul and the state in the likeness of its eternal model (Plato, p.219-220). This is how in Plato’s Republic his archetypal city-state becomes just, virtuous and good and how the Good becomes substantive within the visible world creating an underlying philosophy of order. Augustine’s ideal state is differing in the sense that it does not necessarily involve a rulling authority. Augustine portrays that humans should mould themselves after what God would want, and in doing this they should be striving in everyway humanly possible to achieve their relationship with God. He sees this “true love of God” differing from the past thoughts and beliefs of Platonists in the way that people can act against their nature, they can ‘will’ themselves towards this love of God. Differing entirely from what Plato believes in the sense that he would deem that reasoning would overpower spiritedness, not the other way around. This principle of having the faith and openness to be able to let God inside of you, and devote your life in its entirety to God himself is one of the main differing views between Plato, Augustine and Hobbes.
Hobbes’ view that for humans to achieve their ideal state of happiness through the means of possibly giving up some of their individual rights to the sovereign, is an example of their proficiency to reason. Reasoning being one of the more prevalent attributes that separates humans from other animals, for a large part this ability to possess the skills of reasoning and controlling passions and desires strongly supports the visions of Plato as well. Hobbes recognizes that the passion of wanting control and power never ceases to exist for humans, because it is “The State of Nature”. He takes kind of a Charles Darwin (survival of the fittest) stance on the issue of humanistic instinct, arguing that if an individual does not act in the time necessary to preserve themselves than they will be killed. Even then in “The State of Nature” humans are always being threatened, whether it be from a stronger individual, or from weaker ones who have ganged up with other weaker individuals who feel threaten by that particular humans very existence. This is the reasoning behind Hobbes’ view that with having a sovereign, “The State of Nature” can be abolished and humans can life without fear of a particularly harsh and short lifestyle followed by a violent death.
The lessons to be learned from the Leviathan, the Republic, and lastly the Confessions are vastly debated. Humans can view the explorations of all three works with a plethora of possibilities in mind, but never really explicitly grasp the exact meanings of any of them. But this sense of a constant thought process and re-emergence into the dialogue of all three may very well be their intended purposes. They all do show however that we as humans posses one of the most powerful tools there are, the ability to reason. Socrates does not ever say explicitly what the Good actually is, just as Augustine never exactly says what God is, but the principles are laid down for each individual to acquire the knowledge of what each means to him or herself. The themes of all three works are quite notably rooted in the same tree of thought.
