jects. In time of war there is a unification of interests, especially if the war is fierce; but in time of
peace the clash may be very great between the interests of one class and those of another. It is not
by any means always true that, in such a situation, the best way to avert anarchy is to preach the
absolute power of the sovereign. Some concession in the way of sharing power may be the only
way to prevent civil war. This should have been obvious to Hobbes from the recent history of
England.
Another point in which Hobbes's doctrine is unduly limited is in regard to the relations between
different States. There is not a word in Leviathan to suggest any relation between them except war
and conquest, with occasional interludes. This follows, on his principles, from the absence of an
international government, for the relations of States are still in a state of nature, which is that of a
war of all against all. So long as there is international anarchy, it is by no means clear that increase
of efficiency in the separate States is in the interest of mankind, since it increases the ferocity and
destructiveness of war. Every argument that he adduces in favour of government, in so far as it is
valid at all, is valid in favour of international government. So long as national States exist and
fight each other, only inefficiency can preserve the human race. To improve the fighting quality of
separate States without having any means of preventing war is the road to universal destruction.
CHAPTER IX DescartesRENÉ DESCARTES ( 1596-1650) is usually considered the founder of modern philosophy,
and, I think, rightly. He is the first man of high philosophic capacity whose outlook is profoundly
affected by the new physics and astronomy. While it is true that he retains much of scholasticism,
he does not accept foundations laid by predecessors, but endeavours to construct a complete
philosophic edifice de novo. This had not happened since Aristotle,