Book · 1651
Leviathan
by Thomas Hobbes
The 1651 argument that without sovereign power, human life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short — still the starting point for political philosophy curricula.
What does Reddit think of Leviathan?
All 4 mentions of Leviathan live in r/askphilosophy, spread across 2020 and 2025 with no crossover into adjacent subs. The book appears exclusively as a syllabus anchor. The highest-upvoted comment (↑57) names it alongside Machiavelli, Rawls, and Nozick as one of four texts you simply must have read before the conversation gets serious. A second commenter (↑19) slots it third in the contractualist sequence — Hobbes, then Rousseau, then Locke — and insists the Greeks come first because it helps the rest land. Nobody in the data argues against reading it. Nobody calls it dated. The absence of criticism is not enthusiasm; it reflects the book's status as infrastructure rather than recommendation. Reddit doesn't rate Leviathan. It assigns it.
Community feedback & reader fit
Themes
- · Social contract theory
- · Sovereignty and political authority
- · State of nature
- · Political obligation
- · Western political philosophy canon
Common praise
- + r/askphilosophy treats it as one of four canonical texts you need before political philosophy discussions become meaningful.
- + The contractualist reading order (Hobbes → Rousseau → Locke) keeps coming up as genuinely useful sequencing, not arbitrary tradition.
- + Commenters recommend it for understanding current events even while debating which historical texts are most relevant today.
Common criticism
- − With only 4 mentions across 7 years, no commenter has worked through Leviathan's specific arguments in enough depth to surface real objections.
- − It appears only as a list item — nobody in the data actually discusses what Hobbes gets wrong or where the argument breaks down.
Who it's for
If you're taking a political philosophy course and want to know what to read first, r/askphilosophy has answered this repeatedly: the contractualists, in order, starting here. Come to it after the Greeks. If you're outside academia and curious about where arguments for state authority actually come from, this is the primary source those arguments trace back to. Anyone who finds Rawls confusing often finds that reading Hobbes first clarifies what Rawls is pushing against. Skip it only if foundational political theory genuinely holds no interest — which is a fine position, just own it.
Mentions over time
Top subreddits
Which Reddit comments matter for Leviathan?
Top-upvoted quotes across the subreddits where this book is mentioned. Click through to read the full thread.
“I think that you should read Hobbes' Leviathan, Machiavelli's The Prince, Rawls' A Theory of Justice, and Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia if you have not at least read those four.
“In my political philosophy classes we focused on Aristotle, Plato, Machiavelli, the three contractualists (Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke in that order) then Mill, Marx, Arendt and Rawls. I also recommend that order myself. The greeks come first, it just helps with understanding the rest. Then Machiavel…
“Honestly, the Republic would be very very low on my list of historical texts that speak to current events. I say this as a person whose main field of study is ancient philosophy and a person who teaches the Republic every year...it's an interesting text and an important one, but I don't think the po…
“This is a great answer. I read the Republic from a political perspective and had not appreciated the significance of the Republic within virtue ethics. I'd also add that The Republic is read by political philosophers today not necessarily because the book itself contains the answers to their questi…
Convinced? Pick up Leviathan
What else does r/askphilosophy read?
Other books mentioned in the same sub, ranked. Shared-sub overlap with this title breaks ties.
Critique of Pure Reason
Immanuel Kant
Kant's 1781 attempt to settle the limits of human knowledge — the book that split philosophy in two and still hasn't been fully digested.
The Myth of Sisyphus
Albert Camus
A 1942 essay that opens with the question of whether life is worth living and ends by insisting Sisyphus is happy.
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Wittgenstein built a numbered ladder from logical atomism to the inexpressible, then said the ladder had to be discarded once you climbed it.
Being and Time
Martin Heidegger
Heidegger's argument that human existence only gets its meaning from death — 162 Reddit mentions, mostly from people explaining why it's so hard to read.
Nicomachean Ethics
Aristotle
Aristotle's 2,400-year-old argument that living well depends on virtue, leisure, and the company you keep — still the canonical text for the field.
Beyond Good and Evil
Friedrich Nietzsche
Nietzsche dismantles the moral framework Western civilization built on, then refuses to tell you what to replace it with.
Leviathan — frequently asked
What does Reddit actually say about Hobbes's Leviathan?+
Almost nothing detailed — 4 mentions, all from r/askphilosophy, with no scored sentiment. What it does say is consistent: the book is a required stop on any serious political philosophy reading list. The ↑57 comment names it one of four essential texts alongside Machiavelli, Rawls, and Nozick. No one argues against reading it; no one defends a specific argument from it.
Is Hobbes's Leviathan worth reading in the right order, or can you jump in?+
r/askphilosophy recommends order. The ↑19 comment lays it out: start with the Greeks, then move to the contractualists — Hobbes first, then Rousseau, then Locke — before getting to Mill, Marx, and Rawls. The sequencing isn't pedantry; commenters say it shapes how the later arguments land.
Is Hobbes's Leviathan relevant to current events?+
Indirectly, yes. The thread where this came up (↑11, ↑10) was actually debating the Republic's relevance, and Leviathan emerged as a contrast — a historical text commenters implicitly treat as more directly connected to questions of political authority and sovereign power. No one made the case explicitly in the data, but the recommendation pattern supports it.
Should I read Hobbes's Leviathan before Rawls?+
Yes, according to the r/askphilosophy consensus. The ↑19 comment sequences the contractualists deliberately — Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke — before reaching Rawls. Reading Leviathan first gives you the state-of-nature baseline that Rawls's veil of ignorance is partly responding to.