Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

Hobbes' Leviathan functions as a great antidote to excessive postmod. bickering, conceptualization, mysticism, and to belle-lettrism of all sorts. His ideas of the sovereign were a bit draconian--but I think capable of progressive readings. And he's no friend of theocrats or aristocrats: more like a republican (as in euro/secularist/ or IRA, not GOPer) who felt a constitutional monarchy (one consented to, though, rather than imposed via Church or military) was the most effective strategy for maintaining order. His ideas on contracts, covenants, the state of nature, materialism, sovereignity, etc. are still worth reading closely and worth reading in the King's English--he's not that difficult a writer and indeed rather eloquent. Of course his materialism was very influential--not only to Locke and the sensationalists, but to Marx and utilitarians. Hobbes anticipates Darwin, or at least understood territoriality and the problems of altruism, or lack thereof. He's at least as powerful a thinker as Hegel and Marx were; indeed I would venture to say rather more powerful.

An interesting and enigmatic character was Master Hobbes: he was a student of Bacon (that itself a bit scandalous) and acquainted with leading figures of the day such as Gallileo, Ben Jonson and of course the royalists. He probably knew "Shakespeare" (tho' Hobbes would have been rather young) and most likely had some hushhush stuff on King Jimmy, Chas I, Cromwell, and the rest. Hobbes, expert latinist, may have had some hand in the First Folio of Shakespeare's plays as well. (I suspect Milton and the young Doc Locke had a few run-ins with the elder royalist Hobbes as well). Hobbes was also suspected of atheism (and Leviathan more or less reads as materialist/skeptical) and nearly beheaded, and forced to flee the country when Cromwell & Co came to power. Hobbes was probably a scoundrel early on, as was his mentor Bacon (whose system Hobbes later rejected), but Leviathan shows quite a melancholy and even tragic aspect as well.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of Hobbes' "laws of nature"--that is, after men decide to leave the state of nature, form covenants and live peacefully (it is in their interests to do so)--is that of the equality of distribution. In the first 10-15 chapters of Leviathan there's quite a bit of material which sounds rather socialist and egalitarian (at least in principle), though Hobbes admits his various covenants are more like "givens": he assumes that, for one, people are bound to carry out contracts/covenants they consent to (and that the King/Law exists to enforce that). Most rational people would agree to that, and to most of Leviathan; that idea of rational contracting is similar to what Rawls (John, not Lou) continues as well: what sort of society will rational people decide on, if they themselves have to live in the society they choose? They would probably agree that covenants should be respected; and that seems like a fairly Screeptural course of action as well. There is no need of recourse to theology or idealism.

Hobbes admittedly is not a great continentalist philosopher or scientist like Galileo, Newton, or even Descartes, and not exactly hospitable to platonic or cartesian metaphysics, but a pragmatic, politically oriented thinker, and even PC to some degree. And what is the Marxist state if not sort of a Hobbesian sovereign? The difference being that Marx never bothers arguing for covenants and economic entitlement, as far as I can tell; he instead is taking on Adam Smith (who also has a Hobbesian side). And of course with Stalin and Mao one gets to see what sorts of covenants the statist despots enforce: prison camps, or liquidation. Marx was not, however, so bellicose as to suggest the "liquidation of reactionaries," or was he.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is to say, Hobbes anticipates much Marxist thinking, but one, he is aware of the cooperation/non-cooperation issue--the prisoner's dilemma--some people are not willingly going to participate in civil society, if it's not in their best interest to do so; so coercion is a factor (Marx realizes this in a different form maybe). Hobbesianism also is thankfully free of the grand Hegelian abstractions which Marxism is chock full of (ie the bizarre conceptualizations of the commodity/value, and the dialectic itself). Hobbesian economics is not yet to the level of Smith's supply and demand model perhaps, but Hobbes "given" of equality-- men should more or less aim for equality of distribution of goods and resources-- is nearly as close to socialist ideals as Marxism is.

Lysander Spooner's asserted that the Hobbesian/Lockean/ Jeffersonian contract was never really enacted, except for a lucky few; that since the great majority of citizens never participated in the social contracting (or Constitution) in reality, America was for the most part a state of anarchy and perpetual warfare with various constabularies as Hobbes had suggested: a lawless state of nature, or shall we say Blackbeardland, regardless of a few wealthy robber barons or mercantilists. That's not to say marxism (or fascism) is necessarily preferable to that anarcho-capitalism, but I think in some sense Spooner's insights (sort of a reversed Hobbesianism if you will) still hold: for many of us, this is Blackbeardland--as it was in the early 1600s when Hobbes penned Leviathan.

I wish I could say I wish I understood it. But I can't because I don't.

Maybe someone else here does and will be able to discuss it with you.

But I can't because I don't.

Don't or won't? Hobbes is not difficult to understand. It's mystics and metaphysicians--and yes, poets-- who are difficult to understand. Suffice it to say (if you are interested) Hobbes begins with economic materialism--not with a Cartesian ghost-mind or theology. We are biological-economic creatures, according to Hobbes. That is the beginning of his political theory as well: which is about cooperation (which he asserts is in our best interest) instead of perpetual warfare (or say mafia-land). It's not far from Founding Fathers sort of ideas, but Hobbes does question some aspects of democracy (is a popular vote always good? Ich denke nicht). Of course the comedy team of Marx and Engels had (as had most FF.s, most likely) read their Leviathan, and marxist ideas of economic materialism not far from Hobbes, though KM adds the abstractions of the Hegelian dialectic. Hobbes was also a bit of a literary type, though towards his middle age he rejected the theatre/lit. people (and clerics). I suspect the young Hobbes--latinist scholar-- had quite a bit to do with the later plays of Shakespeare--maybe as copyist, if not actually contributing to the writing (especially given Bacon's connection to Shakespeare--Hobbes was Bacon's protege).

Both. *shrug*... sorry. I guess I shouldn't have replied since I didn't have anything to say.

Whatevs. What is somewhat amusing tho' is how everyone reads Shakespeare--- and views his plays as profound truth --but his contemporary, and in ways, intellectual superior Hobbes (certainly in terms of putting forth well-reasoned political theory) is now a historical footnote. Lit. generally has a lot more sex appeal than politics and economics, it seems--even if fiction/drama/poesy is all invented, constructed, metaphorical.

Lit. generally has a lot more sex appeal than politics and economics...

I think you said more than you may realize here. Sex appeal is pretty much the root of it all. After all we are biologically sexual creatures, (as are all other life forms), and not political or economical logicians (altho there are a few).

Remove sex from life and life becomes lifeless. Introduce political or economic theory and you remove the majority of humanity (unless any of these theories incorporate sexuality into the system).

Hobbes was far more aware of humans' biological requirements--including food, shelter, economic goods [and rights to those goods], and sexuality --than were most metaphysicans or writers. Besides, all mammals copulate and yet only humans are capable of writing, say, Hamlet or Leviathan or spinning integrals; along with copulating and writing, humans need to eat, work, and have a place to live, and some type of society to allow them to do that more or less peacefully--that's what Leviathan's about--sort of an economic groundwork--not like the soft-porn for aristos of Shakespeare's As you like It or something (and this section concerns Great Ideas, not erotica, raht). I suggest you might read some of Leviathan and discover what he has to say.

I mentioned the word, 'sexuality' and not 'erotica', if you recall. Sexuality provides for reproduction (and enjoyment, which makes us a tad more human than what we call animal) of the species, which then necessitates more basics to the offspring.

T: "... along with copulating and writing, humans need to eat, work, and have a place to live, and some type of society to allow them to do that more or less peacefully--that's what Leviathan's about--sort of an economic groundwork..."

I certainly don't disagree with you on the fact that we humans, like other animals, need to eat and shelter ourselves. It takes a great deal of work to accomplish these things and even others to lessen the burden involved in the tasks. 'More or less peacefully' is happening as we write, somewhere on this planet. Conversely, where there is great drought there is famine, where there is economic instability there are less resources available to those in need. This has been the long and restless history of humanity - the haves and have nots. Regardless of our greed and inequalities, nature (weather and natural disasters) has been a contributing factor to a large extent in preventing a more equitable distribution of human necessities - healthy food, clean water and safe shelter to provide for any positive future for mankind so education can duly follow.

Having said that, Leviathan does sound like an interesting read. I may take you up on that when time allows. Until then, when we can possibly discuss its content, thank you.

great ideas for a new year, let's see!!!

why Leviathan?, I like the title, it sounds really literary!!!
the key words seems to be "contracts, covenants". Very empty words if you not know exactly what are you talking (more exactly writing about..).
it's probably Marx read Hobbes (he did a good brit/german cocktail!!)
a monarquía constitucional???? well, that's absolutley anachronic, friend!

(edit)

I believe the economically-oriented empiricist (Hobbesian, if you like) and Marxist can come to agreement on some issues, at least once the empiricist has the Marxist admit that one, humans are not mere pawns of the State (or 5 year plans), and two, that many Marxist claims (say surplus labor theory, or class struggle) are as provisional/falsifiable as any inductive claims. Really, hermana, I respect some of the more rational Marxists I meet online, but anyone--especially an American booj-wah-- who has read a bit about 20th century history cannot easily give carte blanche to those people who want to recreate the Bolsheviks or possibly more alarming, Maoism.

There is a middle path between marxist or fascist statism and anarcho-capitalism, one would like to believe--or some alternative to the Hitler-Stalin pact-- and however quaint Leviathan is, it is somewhat close to like Kropotkinesque or even Chomskyan views--one difference being that Hobbes does not believe altruism can really be defended. But Hobbes is nearly postmodernist in his insistence on the precariousness of society and covenants--he never claims people will necessarily agree to peaceful co-existence and some type of utopia--indeed he seems to suggest that if they don't, they will live in perpetual warfare--"bad" anarchy really. OK, Leviathan may not provide the kicks that MacBeth or the Metamorphosis does, but TH--like Marx, in a way-- possessed a great conceptual power and secular vision which many lit. people lack, or ignore.

yes, I know... I read tibetan authors, I do zazen and I have maoists friends. Maybe I have a problem (or two).

Of Man
Being the First Part of Leviathan

Thomas Hobbes

This first part of Hobbes’s revolutionary tome centers on the analogy of the physical body to the body politic and would fundamentally influence every theorist of the modern era.


http://www.bartleby.com/34/5/

This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence. For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the Commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred on him that, by terror thereof, he is enabled to form the wills of them all, to peace at home, and mutual aid against their enemies abroad. And in him consisteth the essence of the Commonwealth; which, to define it, is: one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defence.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/ ... han-c.html

Very timely topic for me

Listening to a California congressman speaking on NPR about how the nation must speak with one voice. And that voice is the president’s.
Hobbes knew fear.

Search the Leviathan


(XV)

"FROM that law of nature by which we are obliged to transfer to another such rights as, being retained, hinder the peace of mankind, there followeth a third; which is this: that men perform their covenants made; without which covenants are in vain, and but empty words; and the right of all men to all things remaining, we are still in the condition of war."


http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/ ... tents.html

Hobbes admittedly is not a great continentalist philosopher or scientist like Galileo, Newton, or even Descartes, and not exactly hospitable to platonic or cartesian metaphysics, but a pragmatic, politically oriented thinker, and even PC to some degree.

I was under the impression that Hobbes, besides his political works, did consider himself a scientist and published works on the laws of physical motion as well as human anatomy, not to mention his translations of ancient texts. Hence, his beginning Leviathan with a discourse on human psychology, and his attempt to explain human beings and their institutions in terms of motion.

Very few historical figures are as famous as Shakespeare, so comparing Hobbes' fame to his is rather unfair. 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 knew fear.

I'm not a huge fan of Hobbes' political views, and one of my problems is his premise that fear of the sovereign is preferable to that of the state of nature. I'd rather live in fear with my rights than live in fear without them.

I was born before world war two
My earliest memory is the fear of my Jewish immigrant family.

I was thinking about this article.
Hobbes' Twin Brother