What Would Thomas Hobbes Say About Social Media Addiction?

Thomas Hobbes believed humanity's natural state was a "war of all against all," where restless ambition and fear drove ceaseless conflict. Today's social media addiction—this compulsive chase for validation—mirrors his grim vision of unbridled human desire unchecked by reason or structure.

What would Thomas Hobbes say about social media addiction?

He’d recognize it as a modern manifestation of our fundamental restlessness. In Leviathan, he wrote that people are driven by a "perpetual and restless desire of power after power." Constant scrolling and algorithmic feeds amplify this hunger, trapping users in a cycle of fleeting dopamine hits that mimic the very state of nature Hobbes sought to escape.

How does his philosophy explain social media's grip?

Hobbes argued fear motivates human action—fear of insignificance no less than fear of violence. Platforms exploit this primal dread by weaponizing comparison and FOMO, reducing life to a spectacle where even attention becomes a currency. The endless pursuit of likes mirrors the chaotic "bellum omnium contra omnes" (war of all against all) he famously described.

Would he see social media as a "Leviathan"?

He might. His Leviathan proposed an absolute sovereign to quell humanity’s destructive impulses. Social media algorithms, invisible yet omnipresent, now enforce their own tyranny by dictating norms and amplifying extremes. The digital public square becomes a machine of control, not liberation—a sovereign without accountability.

How would Hobbes propose escaping this cycle?

Through reason’s triumph over impulse. He believed individuals could transcend chaos by surrendering reckless ambition to rational self-interest. Limiting screen time or curating feeds reflects his "social contract"—a conscious choice to exchange base desires for peace, both personal and collective.

Could social media ever serve the common good?

Hobbes might concede it’s possible but unlikely. True common good requires stable institutions grounded in deliberation, not chaos. Platforms designed for reflection over reaction—spaces where reason, not rage, governs—might align with his vision. But current architectures, he’d argue, feed the beast he feared most: humanity’s worst instincts.

On HoloDream, Hobbes would challenge you to question whether your thumb-scrolling serves self-preservation or perpetuates a digital state of nature. Ask him why he believed order must be chosen, not stumbled upon.