.Hence, his beginning Leviathan with a discourse on human psychology, and his attempt to explain human beings and their institutions in terms of motion
Yes, and that sensationism--and materialism--- was quite important to Locke and later empiricists (including Marx the empiricist), however primitive it might seem. That is one reason I think Leviathan is important; Hobbes in effect denies the Cartesian dualism or any claims of an immaterial thinking subject. According to Master Hobbes, our minds and egos are constructed from experience, not based on some innate or a priori soul---Uncle Meat, baby--that's what you izz. A Chomskyan might disagree, but the arguments are fairly sound (tho' the stuff on motion a bit outdated).
Very few historical figures are as famous as Shakespeare, so comparing Hobbes' fame to his is rather unfair.
The point was in regards to how literary constructs tend to replace the political, economic and historical discussion. Hobbes is, I assert, considered a dusty old empiricist, with only historical interest, whereas the Bard is evergreen. I beg to differ from that view--that literature always transcends politics and economics; and I suspect Hobbes was as capable a scholar as the man aka Shakespeare.
True, man: tho' I know of some "philosophy" types who start their courses teaching Locke, and not with Leviathan, which I think is at least a powerful work as Locke's political writings (for one, Hobbes attempts to ground his ethics and political theory in a freely chosen social contract--). And as I said, the Hobbesian sovereign IS a bit draconian, but many people who see it that way did not read the earlier sections where Hobbes argues for his various social contracts, which are not so different than what Rousseau argued for a 100 years later. I would agree he may have errored in assuming the sovereign would only enforce contracts--yet the Lockean insistence on popular democracy itself could lead to problems (as Rousseau realizes as well--the Tyranny of the Majority).I would be surprised if anyone who has ever taken a political science class was unaware of Thomas Hobbes or Leviathan. I would suggest that the reason why Hobbes is unknown to those outside of political theory is that most consider his conclusions flawed. Ultimately, compared to other contract theorists such as Locke or Rousseau who have governments modeled after their works, Hobbes relative obscurity isn't that surprising.
Hobbes' insistence on the violence of a state of nature quite preferable to the Lockean-Rousseauean beulah-land ideas as well; Hobbes was no utopian--indeed he reads almost like Nietzsche on occasion. Hobbes was also trying to formulate objective morality on what sort of politics humans would choose, and hold binding on themselves, via a sovereign (some entity to enforce the covenants): a type of egalitarian model (farms for all citizens, etc.). Locke rightly says that could lead to tyranny (the sovereign-State seizes control and starts to break covenants, etc.), but mob riots lead to tyranny as well, as the French Revolution or tradition of marxism amply demonstrates.