Imagine waking up tomorrow and discovering that
every single rule, law, and social expectation
has just vanished overnight. Oh man, just totally
gone. Totally gone. Like there are no police,
no courts, no property lines. You have absolute
unrestrained freedom to do whatever you want,
take whatever you want, go wherever you want.
Which, you know, it sounds incredibly liberating
for about five seconds. Exactly, five seconds
max. Because then the realization hits you. Your
neighbor, that stranger down the street, and
everyone else in the world suddenly has that
exact same absolute freedom. Right, and your
freedom to take whatever you want directly collides
with their freedom to do the exact same thing.
Yeah, it's terrifying. It really is. We tend
to, like, romanticize freedom as this universally
beautiful harmony. harmonious concept, but in
its purest, most unchecked form, it is fundamentally
terrifying. Without a mechanism to resolve disputes,
every single interaction becomes a potential
zero -sum game for survival. Which is just a
wild thought experiment. And welcome to today's
custom -tailored deep dive. The terrifying scenario
we just described isn't from some sci -fi movie.
It's actually the core of a 17th century Latin
phrase that changed how we view civilization
itself. Yeah, it's a massive shift in human thought.
For sure. Today, for you listening, we are pulling
from a single really fascinating Wikipedia article
that details the history and the huge cultural
impact of the phrase Bellum Omnium Contra Omnis.
A very heavy sounding phrase. It is. And our
mission today is to explore how this incredibly
dark thought experiment about the origins of
society evolved over the centuries. We're going
to trace how it became a lens for understanding,
like everything from the legitimacy of our governments
to the exhausting modern economic rat race. really
is the ultimate philosophical what -if scenario.
Let's unpack this. What exactly does this phrase
mean, and where did the concept even originate?
So the phrase bellum andium contra omnes translates
literally to the war of all against all. The
war of all against all. Wow. Yeah, it's intense.
And it's basically the foundational concept that
attempts to explain why human beings tolerate
authority at all. like why we pay taxes and follow
rules in our daily lives. The phrase was coined
by the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Right,
Hobbes. Yep. It first appeared in Latin in the
preface of his 1642 book Deceive, well, specifically
in a revised edition printed in Amsterdam in
1647. Gotcha. And then he brought the concept
to an English -speaking audience a few years
later in his incredibly famous 1651 book Leviathan,
where he spelled it out as a war of everyone
against everyone. one. And Hobbes was trying
to describe what he called the state of nature.
Exactly, the state of nature. Which is this hypothetical
pre -social condition where humanity existed
before any government's laws or societies were
ever formed. And in this state, because there's
no legal code dictating who owns what, everyone
has an absolutely equal right to all things.
Equal right is the catalyst for the conflict.
I mean, if you and I both have an equal right
to the same apple tree, and there is no judge
to appeal to, the only way to settle who gets
the apples is through force. Or, you know, the
threat of force. But what is crucial to understand
here is Hobbes' very specific, highly psychological
definition of the word war. Hobbes makes a vital
distinction between a war and a battle. Oh, interesting.
Yeah. War, in his framework, doesn't just mean
active fighting or actual physical combat. He
points out that war is the known will to contend
by battle. Wait, let me make sure I'm following
this. Are you saying the war isn't the physical
punch? It's like the anticipation of the punch?
Yes. That is the exact mechanism. It's the psychological
terror of knowing you could be attacked at any
moment and no one would come to your rescue.
Right. It's a state of constant pervasive insecurity.
It's the psychological weather you live in. Think
of like a Cold War scenario, but on an individual
level. You might go weeks without physical violence,
but you know that at any moment your neighbor
could decide they want what you have. Because
there is absolutely no higher authority to deter
them, you have to constantly be on guard. building
defenses, and maybe even planning a preemptive
strike just to stay safe. That paints such a
vivid, stressful picture. I actually want to
read the famous quote from Chapter 13 of Leviathan,
where Hobbes describes what life is actually
like in this state of nature. Oh, please do.
It's a classic. He writes, And he goes on listing
things like no navigation, no building, no arts,
no society. And then comes the real kicker. Yeah,
the really famous part. He says, and which is
worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent
death and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish and short. Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish
and short. I mean, it is arguably one of the
bleakest descriptions of the human condition
in all of Western philosophy. It's so dark. But,
you know, when you break down the logic, it makes
perfect sense. I keep thinking of the tense,
paranoid first few days in a post -apocalyptic
movie. Oh, totally. Like zombies or an EMP or
something? Right, you know the trope. Civilization
has just been wiped out. The characters are wandering
around, and they realize the lack of rules means
they can't even close their eyes to sleep. Because
someone will just take your stuff. Exactly. And
more importantly... Why would you bother planting
a garden or building a house or inventing a new
technology if someone stronger can just come
along tomorrow and take it from you? The time
horizon just shrinks to zero. It shrinks to immediate
survival. Yeah, the fruit of your labor is uncertain,
as Hobbes put it, so you just stop laboring and
start hoarding. Right. In that post -apocalyptic
scenario, all human energy is diverted away from
progress, art, long -term building. It is funneled
entirely into sheer moment -to -moment survival.
You cannot have a functioning economy or a scientific
community when everyone is perpetually bracing
for an attack. Because collaboration requires
trust. Exactly. And the state of nature completely
obliterates trust. So... We've established how
utterly terrifying Hobbes' vision of absolute
freedom is. But why did he create this incredibly
bleak picture? I mean, he wasn't just writing
dystopian fiction to entertain people. There
was a deliberate political purpose to this thought
experiment. Very much so. He had an agenda. Hobbes
is presenting us with a hypothetical terrifying
problem so that he can justify his proposed political
solution. OK, what's the solution? Well, according
to Hobbes, the outcome of this constant paralyzing
fear is that rational people will eventually
look around and realize, like, hey, we cannot
live this way. So they choose to enter into what
is called a social contract. Right, the social
contract. They voluntarily agree to give up a
significant portion of their absolute liberties,
their right to everything, in order to enjoy
peace and security. But to make that contract
actually work, to ensure people play by the new
rules instead of secretly cheating, you need
an enforcer. Someone to crack the whip. Yeah.
Hobbs argued this requires a common power to
keep them all in awe. OK, I need to push back
on this a little bit. Go for it. Is Hobbs just
using fear? to justify authoritarianism. Yeah.
Are we supposed to just surrender our freedom
and bow down to a dictator because we're terrified
of our neighbors? Yeah. That feels like a very
dark manipulation, like a protection racket run
by the state. Well, your reaction actually mirrors
the pushback Hobbs has received from his critics
for a century. Oh, really? Oh, yeah. It does
sound like a protection racket, but... To view
it objectively through the lens of political
science, this thought experiment serves as a
legitimation test for the state. A legitimation
test. Yeah. Hobbes is explaining the fundamental
mechanical role of the sovereign in guaranteeing
social order. The sovereign is the entity that
holds the monopoly on force, ensuring that the
war of all against all doesn't just break out
in the streets. So what does this all mean? It
means it gives us a theoretical baseline to evaluate
different types of governments. You can look
at any state, historical or modern, and ask,
how well does this system actually prevent the
state of nature? Oh, I see. Right. If a government
fails to protect its citizens from constant violence,
if it can't enforce contracts or secure property,
it is failing its most basic legitimation test.
The citizens are essentially back in the state
of nature. So the state, the government, the
laws, the police, all of it is framed as a necessary
boundary to protect us from our own absolute
violent freedom. Exactly. We build the cage ourselves
and we lock the door from the inside because
we are more scared of each other than we are
the bars and the windows. That's a great way
to put it. The social contract is fundamentally
a survival mechanism. It is the pragmatic choice
to trade the terrifying freedom of the wild for
the predictable restrictions of civilization.
That makes a lot of sense. Yeah. So having explored
Hobbes's original intent to justify state power,
we really need to look at how this concept traveled
forward in time, because this phrase, bellum
omnium contra omnes, it was too potent to just
stay in the 17th century. Oh, it definitely didn't
stay there. Right. Later thinkers across the
entire political spectrum started borrowing it
and twisting it to diagnose the specific sicknesses
of their own societies. Yeah. The phrase takes
on a life of its own. It moves from being a defense
of government authority to becoming a surgical
tool for social critique. Give me example. Well,
for instance, before we even get to the major
economic critiques of the 19th century, Thomas
Jefferson used a variation of the phrase in 1785.
Oh, wow, Jefferson. Yep. In his notes on the
state of Virginia, Jefferson tweaked the Latin
slightly to bellum omnium in omnia, which translates
to the war of all things against all things.
All things against all things. Why did Jefferson
tweak the phrasing? And like, what was he looking
at when he wrote that? He was observing the political
fragility of his time. He wrote this while lamenting
the risk that Virginia's constitution might collapse
and yield to a dictator. He was actually drawing
a direct historical parallel to the Roman Republic
in its final days. Oh, I see. When institutions
fail, when the Constitution breaks down, Jefferson
warned that society would be hurled back into
that chaotic, warring state. It was a warning
about how easily a fragile democracy can slide
back into the state of nature if the rules aren't
respected. That's incredibly relevant. Now, before
we dive into the next part of the source material
regarding Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, I want
to make sure we are really clear with you listening.
Our goal here isn't to take political sides or
endorse these specific economic views. Right.
Absolutely not. We are strictly here to impartially
report the historical analysis provided in the
source text and just examine how this specific
Latin phrase was weaponized by different thinkers
throughout history. That is an important framing.
We're looking at the mechanics of an idea here.
So moving to Karl Marx, we see him use the concept
to critique the structure of capitalism itself.
Okay, how so? In his 1843 work, On the Jewish
Question, Marx argued that religion had become
the spirit of civil society. But he defined this
modern civil society as the sphere of egoism
and crucially the sphere of Bellum Omnium contra
Omnis. So he's essentially saying that modern
civil society, which is driven by individual
self -interest and private property, hasn't actually
escaped the war of all against all. It just formalized
it. But how does Charles Darwin fit into this?
Because the source mentions a connection between
Marx, Darwin, and Hobbes, which seems like a
crazy crossover. The intellectual web gets incredibly
tangled here. So in 1862, Marx wrote a letter
to his collaborator, Friedrich Engels. Marx was
reading Charles Darwin's groundbreaking theories
on nature, specifically concepts like the struggle
for existence and the competition for scarce
resources. The survival of the fittest stuff.
Exactly. And remember, Darwin was heavily influenced
by the Malthusian struggle, which is the idea
proposed by Thomas Malthus that populations will
always outgrow their food supply, leading to
inevitable conflict and starvation. Right. Mouth
has basically said there isn't enough pie for
everyone so people have to fight for the slices.
Yes. Darwin looked at the natural world and saw
this Malthusian struggle playing out among plants
and animals. But when Marx read Darwin, he found
it remarkable that Darwin was looking at the
animal kingdom and essentially rediscovering
the structure of English capitalist society.
Oh, really? Yeah. Marx saw Darwin's descriptions
of nature. the division of labor, competition,
the opening of new markets, the Malthusian struggle,
and directly compared them to Hobbes' Bellum
Omnium Contra Omnis. That is wild. I used an
analogy earlier about a post -apocalyptic movie,
but this feels more like a funhouse mirror. Oh,
so? Well... Humans take their own modern economic
behaviors, all this cutthroat competition, the
division of labor, the scramble for resources,
and we project it outward onto plants and animals.
We look at the jungle and say, wow, nature is
so competitive. And then we point back to nature
and say, look, that's just how the world works.
We have to organize our economy this way because
it's the natural law of the universe. What's
fascinating here is that Friedrich Engels called
out this exact logical loop. In an 1875 letter
to Pyotr Lavrov, Engels criticized Adaronis for
doing precisely what you just described. He actually
called it a conjurer's trick. A conjurer's trick,
like an illusion of logic. How did Engels explain
the mechanics of this trick? Ingles argued that
these thinkers were taking Hobbes' doctrine of
the war of all against all and combining it with
bourgeois economic doctrines of competition.
Which means what exactly? By bourgeois economic
doctrines, he means the middle class capitalist
system of private ownership and free market competition
that dominated Victorian England. Engels said
they transferred these human economic concepts
onto living nature. Then, once they performed
this conjurer's trick of finding capitalism in
the jungle, they transferred the same theories
back from organic nature into human history.
Oh, I see the loop. Yeah. And they used the cyclical
logic to claim that this brutal competition had
been proven as an eternal law of human society.
They laundered their economic ideology through
biology to make it seem like an unchangeable
law of the universe. Like, don't blame us for
the ruthless economy where people are starving
in factories, blame the animals. It's just Darwinism.
Exactly. It completely removes the moral responsibility
from the humans who actually designed the social
contract. It really highlights how malleable
Hobbes's original phrase truly is. I mean, it
can justify the existence of the state. It can
warn against the collapse of a republic like
Jefferson did. And it can be used to expose the
underlying assumptions of both 19th century capitalism
and evolutionary biology. It's everywhere. So
we move from grand political and economic critiques
to something even more intimate. How does this
massive philosophical phrase apply to the individual
human psyche? because the war didn't stay on
the battlefield and it didn't just stay in the
economy. It got inside our heads. That brings
us to the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Okay,
Nietzsche. In his 1873 essay, On Truth and Lies
in a Non -Moral Sense, Nietzsche takes the concept
of the state of nature inward. He argues that
in a natural state of affairs, the individual
wants to preserve himself against other individuals.
But how do we do that if the state has a monopoly
on physical violence? Right, because we can't
just hit each other anymore. Exactly. Nietzsche
says we cannot use swords or fists anymore, so
we employ our intellect mostly for simulation,
which is his term for deception. Simulation.
So we use our brains to fake each other out to
survive. How does that actually work in practice?
Think about social maneuvering. If you can't
physically fight your rival for resources, you
have to outsmart them. You use flaggery. You
hide your true motives. You form strategic alliances.
You manage your public relations. You smile at
people you despise to maintain your social standing.
This constant, exhausting performance is what
Nietzsche means by simulation. Intellect becomes
a weapon of self -preservation. But Nietzsche
adds a twist to this, right? The source mentions
something about humans wanting to exist heard
fashion. Yes. Nietzsche states that man, out
of need and boredom, wants to exist socially.
We want to be part of the herd. Isolation is
dangerous and lonely. And because of this profound
desire for social existence, man requires a peace
pact. We endeavor to banish at least the very
crudest form of the bellum omnium contra omnes
from our world. The very crudest form. Meaning,
we agree not to physically murder each other
over a parking spot. Exactly. We put away the
clubs and the spears. But we don't actually end
the war. We just make it polite. We replace physical
violence with intellectual simulation, passive
aggression, and social deception. That is the
core of his argument, and the psychological tension
is picked up by others as well. The philosopher
Max Stirner played with this term in his 1844
book, The Ego and Its Own, where he explored
extreme individualism, basically rejecting all
social structures as oppressive. Right. Later,
the esotericist Rudolf Steiner even described
a future apocalyptic epoch defined by this war
of all against all, driven by powerful unchecked
selfishness. The fear of this underlying war
never really goes away. It just changes shape
depending on the era. Here's where it gets really
interesting for your own daily life. If you look
at the see -also section of the Wikipedia article
we are exploring today, there are some incredibly
telling modern terms listed alongside Hobbes'
17th century Latin phrase. Yeah, the see -also
section is very revealing. One of them is anomie.
Anomie is a fascinating sociological concept
originally popularized by Emile Durkheim. The
source links it as normlessness. But it's more
than just a lack of rules. It's the psychological
vertigo that happens when social bonds break
down. When people feel connected from their community
and don't know what the moral rules of the game
are anymore, they experience profound isolation
and despair. It's the psychological equivalent
of being dropped back into the state of nature.
Wow, and the other modern term listed in the
source is rat race. If we connect this to the
bigger picture, it explains a major shift in
modern English usage. We rarely use phrases like
a war of each against all to describe literal
physical warfare today. As the source points
out, terms like competition or struggle are far
more common to describe this dynamic. Which makes
me wonder, like, did we ever really escape the
state of nature or did we just put in a business
suit? We are fighting over an apple tree in the
woods with sharpened sticks anymore. We are fighting
over promotions, market share, social media clout,
real estate. The anxiety, that will to contend
by battle that Hobbs talked about, the anticipation
of the attack, isn't that just the low -level
hum of anxiety everyone feels on a Sunday night
before the workweek begins? That is spot on.
The social contract mitigated the physical danger
of sudden death, which, as Hobbes noted, was
the worst part of the state of nature. It gave
us the physical security to build industry, arts,
and letters. Yeah. But the underlying drive to
secure one's own position against everyone else,
that constant competitive friction remains deeply
embedded in the structure of our daily lives.
So to bring this all together for you listening,
we started in the 17th century with Thomas Hobbes
looking out at a hypothetical world of absolute
terrifying freedom. A world so solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish, and short that we voluntarily
built a state to act as a cage to keep ourselves
safe from each other. A necessary cage. Right.
And from there... We saw how that dark vision
evolved. We saw Jefferson worrying about the
breakdown of constitutional institutions. We
explored marks and angles pointing out the conjurer's
trick of laundering human economic ruthlessness
through natural science. And finally, we arrived
at Nietzsche's observation that we only really
banned the bloodiest parts of the war, leaving
us to navigate the modern psychological simulation
we call the rat race. Which raises an important
question, and it ties into another ancient concept.
linked at the very end of the source article,
homo homini lupus. Man is wolf to man. Exactly,
man is wolf to man. It's a proverb that Hobbes
also helped popularize, and it suggests that
the greatest threat to a human being isn't nature
or wild animals, but another human being. Man
is wolf to man. It really strips away the veneer
of civilization, doesn't it? It does, and I want
to leave you with a final thought to ponder based
on that ancient proverb. Let's hear it. If our
original social contract was designed merely
to stop us from physically destroying one another,
is it truly equipped to handle the modern war
of all against all? Today, the battlefields aren't
physical spaces. They are economic markets, social
status hierarchies, and hyper -competitive digital
platforms where simulation and deception are
the primary weapons. We may not fear a violent
death from our neighbors anymore, but does our
current peace pact actually protect us from the
modern wolves? Or has the war simply become invisible,
operating silently beneath the surface of everything
we do? An invisible war where everyone is still
fighting for survival, just with different weapons
and a different set of rules. That is a heavy
but incredibly necessary thought to chew on.
Next time you feel the pressure of the rat race,
remember you might just be feeling the echoes
of the state of nature. Thank you for taking
this deep dive with us. Keep questioning the
structures around you, keep looking for the invisible
rules, and we will catch you on the next one.