Conclusion

Abstract

This concluding chapter argues that Thucydides' approach to politics is more preferable than Hobbes's. Hobbes, despite his pessimistic assumptions about human nature, is not realistic. Is it realistic to assume that all people act predictably, that they are always guided strictly by self-interest, that all other motivations are a sham—or, if genuine, so rare that to take them into account is useless? According to Thucydides, human beings are multifaceted, so that it becomes necessary, for example, to examine individual leaders and to listen seriously to their reasons for acting a certain way. Thucydides also shows that there is a natural sociability in people that goes beyond vying for power and glory and, indeed, coexists with these urges, so that it is unrealistic not to take into account a certain amount of genuine altruism. Does Hobbes's account of leadership deal with the impact of great individuals on history? Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War contains individuals with varying motivations, some altruistic, some self-interested, some acting on rage and revenge. In other words, it reflects reality. As such, Thucydides, as often as Hobbes, has been dubbed the father of international realism. The chapter then discusses how realism and neorealism, despite their differences, share the same philosophical roots. It also suggests that Thucydides has been misunderstood and that he actually provides an interesting alternative approach to realism in the study of international politics.