PHIL 108H~FALL 2012
Exegetical Blog Assignment
HOBBES
Guidelines/Requirements:
1) Write a 50 - 100 word exegetical sentence (critical
analysis, explanation, interpretation) that captures the essence of the readings. Consider
the following: What are the main arguments (explicit and
implicit)? What is the point? Why has
the author tried to communicate something, in that way, and at that time, to
his/her audience?
2) Assumptions/Presuppositions: FIRST, what were YOUR assumptions and
presuppositions coming to this reading?
Then consider: Where does the author stand? What is assumed or taken for
granted in this piece of writing? Who is the assumed audience of this piece? As
a reader, work to pay attention to and discover the values, beliefs, biases,
and assumptions (sometimes overt, sometimes subtle) underlying what you read.
3)
Identifying any significant
insights that you took away from the
reading and/or class discussion (e.g. something you learned, a comment made in class that left
an impression, a paradigm shift, etc.).
Students are encouraged to think about Hobbes in relation to the other readings in the class (e.g. James, Emerson, Anderson, Hall). For example, how did any of the other readings impact your thoughts about Hobbes' account of the state of nature, state of war, laws of nature, the sovereign, etc.?
Students are also encouraged to read other student's posts and offer comments. (You do not have to read every post in the class, but try to read 2-3 and offer comments/feedback.
Fitz Green
ReplyDelete1) Hobbes focuses on Natural Law Theory, which states that reason dictates basic laws that govern our dealings with other people. Next, Hobbes states that the primary desire of men is self-preservation and that in the state of nature men are free and relatively equal. This equality leads to fear, which leads to a state of war of all against all. To counteract this, Hobbes suggests that men lay down their arms and freedom to a sovereign who will provide protection. Hobbes’ main point is to suggest the need for men to enter civil society with an absolute and irresistible force set over them.
2) I had a few presuppositions coming into this reading. I did not believe that the basis of all forms of government could be generalized into a single theory. For example, the purpose of a republic could be to best represent the interests of the populace, while the purpose of a dictatorship could be to support the whims of the leader. So I was skeptical that Hobbes could provide unifying characteristics that dictatorships and republics might have in common. I also assumed that the use of the term “men” referred to all humankind.
The article by Anderson helped shed some light on Hobbes as a situated knower, and the conditions that might inform some of his beliefs. As an upper class, white, European man, Hobbes represents one of the elite of the society of his time and place. The use of the word “men” refers to a very select few rather than all men and women or humanity in general. His audience is the same upper crust of society that he is writing about with his use of “men”. Hobbes takes for granted that women, children, the elderly, and fools have no reason and are incapable of being authors, meaning that they do not own their words or actions. Also, his ignorance of Native American culture is shown when he refers to the “savages of America” as having no government. These instances show the underlying biases of his embodiment as a privileged European male.
3) After reading the text, I thought that Hobbes’ idea of the sovereign was perhaps harsh, but a valid political theory given the anarchy that men are liable to cause. I believed it was a useful theory, especially in cases where civil society hadn’t existed for long and a strong leader was needed to keep order. However, the more I listened to class discussion, the more I realized that creating a Leviathan can actually perpetuate violence and create more disorder and injustice. When a leader has no checks on his authority, it is almost inevitable that they will become corrupt and abuse their privileges. Also, the fact that the people have no right to rise up and cast out a tyrannical Sovereign means that the leader will act without any regard for the citizenry. The clearest example of this in the United States is the justice system. Long jail sentences in dangerous prisons and the death penalty are just a few examples of the system as being more retributive than rehabilitative. Rather than solve the crime problem, these tactics merely contribute to a cycle of violence. Our discussion made me connect the Leviathan to the U.S. justice system because both function on an assumption that brute, absolute force is the best way to ensure desired results.
1. In his writings Hobbes argues that the natural state of man, (state of nature) while it is both free and equal, it is also a state of war. The natural scarcity of resources leads to competition, and the men in their natural state will seek peace amongst the other men, but if peace cannot be secured then they will prepare for war. Hobbes also asserts that the making of peace amongst men involves voluntarily laying down each other’s arms and in doing so, relinquishing the individual’s power and authority to one chosen “sovereign” to act on his behalf.
ReplyDelete2. As I come from a society that has been taught that monarchs are in many senses corrupt and a lesser form of government than democracy, it can be difficult to see the logic behind Hobbe’s argument for an individual sovereign. As Hobbes was born in England and lived in Europe all of his life during the 1600’s, it is not difficult to see why he would argue that the absolute monarch is the most efficient form of government, because all “civilized” nations at that time were ruled by monarchs. Since Hobbes was most likely writing to higher educated Europeans, it is expected that he tailored some of his writing for it to be more accepted by his society.
While Hobbes and I differ in our presuppositions, I liked much of what he wrote about the natural state of man. I believe that his view of the life of man without a social contract as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” would be an accurate description if we lived in a world where individual rights were not protected by a governing body. While this does not bode well for our opinion of the human condition, that we would all lie, cheat, steal, in order to get what we want; I believe in Hobbe’s argument that if we did not think this of our fellow man, then we would not lock our doors and chests at night out of fear. Essentially, Hobbe’s theory rests on the idea that humanity is brutish from nature, and would have no problem taking what one wants from another. Personally, I believe that this is true and is evidenced every day. I also agree that in order to avoid the state of war, one must sacrifice individual freedoms and enter into a social contract with others. I do not agree with Hobbe’s though that the social contract require an absolute sovereign of one person. In theory, this idea would work well because the monarch would not abuse their power in any way. While this is a stipulation that Hobbe’s includes, I do not believe that such a monarch exists. I can see the benefits that a monarchy would have over a democracy, but I believe that a democracy does a much better job at protecting the individual liberties of the people entering into it, which is essentially why the individuals joined a form of government in the first place.
3. For me, there were two main insights that were brought about from the reading, as well as the in class discussion. First, when I initially read through Hobbe’s, when he referenced “man” I assumed he meant everyone, women included. Not only until professor Gines mentioned that he really only meant men did I realize the distance between Hobbe’s society and our own. After I had realized this, it was harder for me to take what he had to say and apply it to society today, because he has demonstrated how his world is already radically different from our own. Second, someone in class made the comment that in Hobbe’s writings, the individual cannot criticize the sovereign, as they are a representation of that individual. This stood out to me because the right to freedom of speech is so essential in our way of life currently that I could not imagine the inability to criticize if I wished to do so. The mere fact that Hobbe’s included this in his writings I feel takes away from his argument for the sovereign, but it may just signify the distance between the world that Hobbe’s lived in and our own.
TJ, I definitely lost faith in Hobbes too after realizing he did not reference the entire population when he used the word "man" as well as with his discussion of the absolute power of the monarch. I really see how distanced we are from his theories, and it makes it difficult for me to validate them because they are so contrary to what we seem to value in our society today. My question is whether that is due to the idealism we see in our own governmental structure or rather what we have seen take place in history? I agree with you TJ that in a sense history has taught us to distrust sole rulers and monarchs.
DeleteThanks for engaging TJ, Sam. Both of you raise good points.
DeleteHobbes describes the state of nature as one of war and humans have a right to do whatever is necessary for self-preservation. He describes nature as a brutal place, one that people will willingly enter into a civil society in order to protect their basic rights. In short, society is chaotic, and only the willingness of the people to enter into society will create a natural order. The point of his argument is to explain how and why systems of government develop, and all of his reasoning points back to this idea that humanity is inherently violent and brutal when it comes to relations with each other.
ReplyDeleteI didn’t have many assumptions coming into this reading because I have studied Hobbes before and have studied the basic principles in which his writing is based upon. I knew that his basic argument is that in order for people to protect their lives and property in the inherently evil state of nature, they enter voluntarily into civil society which people collectively agree to. Hobbes is basically calling for a government self determined by the people within that specific society. I did assume that he meant a democratic style of government however. What is often taken for granted in this piece is that Hobbes is not necessarily referring to a democracy. In fact, he believes that an absolute monarch is the most effective head of state and that all civil societies should work to adopt this type of government system. Hobbes is often thought of as a founder of modern political thought, but an absolute monarch would be unimaginable in this day and age in the way that he envisions one.
While I do agree with Hobbes in that society is entered based on the idea that people need protection from the state of nature, his description of the state of nature is very pessimistic, while these principles may not be present in other areas of his writing. Mainly, when he mentions that he believes an absolute monarch is the best ruler of government, he seems to neglect the idea that these monarchs may be inherently evil like normal human beings as well. He seems to believe that this monarch will truly have the will of the people in mind. He may have believed that this would work for Europe in the 17th Century, but history tells us that absolute monarchs rarely made just and benevolent leaders. Hobbes seems to base this point on some basis of optimism and idealism, while his opinion of the rest of humanity is pessimistic. I do also prefer to be more optimistic about people in general, so I do tend to disagree with Hobbes with regards to human nature.
1) Hobbes' main argument is that an absolutist monarchy is necessary to avoid the horrors associated with man in his natural state, or as Hobbes calls it, the "state of nature". Hobbes sees this natural state of being as a state of constant war, where every man fights against every man, and the only priority is self-preservation. Hobbes argues that a strong central authority is the only way to remove the insecurities that keep peaceful cooperation from occurring.
ReplyDelete2) I did have some assumptions going into this reading. I have learned about Hobbes before, in my political science class last year, where we looked at his ideas on the state of nature when discussing why governments form. I guess I didn't realize how truly pessimistic Hobbes' outlook is when it comes to the nature of humanity. Also, as a libertarian, I tend to view the state of nature with less dread than Hobbes seems to. I believe that it is ultimately in every person's self-interest, including their interest in self-preservation, to peacefully cooperate with those around them, and that the vast majority of the human race is perfectly capable of cooperating without a central authority. However, there will always be a few people who will push the boundaries unless punished, and this is where I see eye to eye with Hobbes on the need for at least some basic level of law and order.
It is clear that Hobbes, as a situated thinker like all of us, held some assumptions himself. For example, his advocacy of absolutist monarchy seems particularly dated to modern, democratic citizens like us. However, in the context of the time period in which Leviathan was written, the idea of a self-governing democracy likely would have seemed rather absurd.
3)One insight that I gained from this reading concerns the seemingly dichotomous choice between anarchy and absolutism that Hobbes presents. While to me it seems that Hobbes is omitting an almost infinite number of potential balances between the two, it makes sense that there were so many monarchies in Europe at the time if popular thinking presented them as the only alternative to anarchy. I also find it interesting to consider how the question of human freedom versus centralized control has been answered differently throughout human history. The ancient Greeks clearly had a different idea than Europe during the middle ages, and just in the 20th century we have seen many different types of governments rise and fall. In addition to these thoughts, reading the posts above mine reminded me of just how different Hobbes' priorities were compared to what we would think about when designing a society. Both free speech, and equal rights for all, would be near the top of our modern list, but Hobbes dismisses them with barely a second thought.
Duncan, I think that's a good point about Hobbes' political sphere of knowledge of the time. I don't know the systems of government of every country or state at that time so I cannot say there weren't alternatives to monarchy being practiced in the world at that time, but as far as the more culturally transparent countries went and the countries that would fall within Hobbes' worldview, monarchy or anarchy would essentially be the choice. I think that's a interesting point that I never thought of, seeing as how we are so apt to place Hobbes within our modern worldview and especially compare him against our American system.
DeleteKate--I like almost everything you said. Something that stood out to me in your piece was that the means of war have evolved significantly since Hobbes' time. It is an interesting thought experiment to consider what a state of nature (or war, in Hobbes' world) would look like today.
DeleteOften in class, while discussing Hobbes and the state of nature, I considered the case of Somalia. Somalia plunged into a civil war in 1991, and has not yet emerged, so to speak. Do to in-fighting and factionalism, there has not been a functioning government in over 20 years. It might be crude and overly-simplistic to call this the "State of Nature," Hobbes was referring to, but in today's world, I think it might be the best example. In the 20+ years since the last functioning government, some half a million have died as a result of the civil war.
Maybe a contemporary state of nature would look like Somalia. Maybe it wouldn't, but it's an interesting thought experiment nonetheless.
1. Hobbes makes the basic assumption that all of mankind is in a constant "State of Nature" in which a scarcity of resources leads to competition for those resources that ultimately pushes man into a "State of War." The only way that Hobbes believes that we can avoid such a torrid fate is if we all willingly lay down our right to self preservation (and consequently our right to attack others) to a sovereign that will govern with absolute authority and all rights to his own self preservation.
ReplyDelete2. Whenever I approach a reading in which someone claims to be able to design a better system of governance, it is quite difficult not to laugh. Humans have been around as a species for, at the very least, 100,000 years. We have been living in cohesive societies for somewhere around 5,000 years. In all that time, with all of the great political, moral, and religious philosophers that have come and gone, we have never been able to design a perfect, and some would argue even a very good, system of governance. Everything from Monarchies, to Republics, to Dictatorships, to even Democracies have, at one time or another, failed. While it is absolutely critical that we never give up trying to find a better system, I was skeptical that Hobbes, a man that lived through the English Civil War (which, rather ironically, saw the end to the Monarchy system in Englad) could properly advocate for a system of an absolute monarchy.
Additionally, I took issue with the basic premise upon which Hobbes builds his argument. In order for Hobbes' premise to work, humanity must be filled with vile individuals whose only motivation against perpetrating a given action is the fear of punishment. I believe that people can be good without the promise of a reward or the fear of punishment. For example, we do not refrain from killing everyone we know simply because we fear jail time. We do so because there is a deeper connection between humans that allows us to do good simply for the sake of doing good. With his bold assertion that humanity is only good when an authority figure is watching over it, Hobbes lost a fair amount of credibility with me and it was consequently hard to accept his ideas.
3. The first thing that stood out to me was the striking disregard for pretty sizable portion of humanity that Hobbes displays when discussing his system. When he writes about the rights of "men" I realized, through class discussion, that he was actually excluding nearly 50% of the population who are not men. Additionally, as I stated in the last question, I found it ironic that a man that lived through a civil war to unseat a monarchy would argue so passionately for a single sovereign system. It was at that point that I realized just how narrow Hobbes' world view actually is. Despite his wealth and education, a man like him would have had far less access to information about history and geo-political relations than even a high school or college student would have today. When I think about this, it makes me realize just how much our views and ideas are shaped by not only the information that we have, but by our time in history. Therefore, it is critical that we as a society be able to adapt and change when new information and circumstances present themselves to us.
Ryan, I really like that you provided additional context information concerning the fact that Hobbes lived through the English Civil War. To me, this discredits Hobbes and his argument in favor of one absolute sovereign even more but it also makes it easier for me to understand where Hobbes is coming from regarding his bleak perspective on human nature.
DeleteRyan! I had the exact same problem with Hobbes's argument: he didn't account for the human tendency to intrinsically care for others which would indicate a desire to look out for the preservation of people other than oneself. I think it is presumptuous and rather cynical to see people in such a dismal light when there is so much evidence of human benevolence and even occasionally outright altruism in the world today (and throughout history).
Delete1. Hobbes deals primarily in this reading with the concepts of natural law, in particular our state of nature and our state of war, and juxtaposes that "natural state" against our desire for a "civil state" or civil society under the governance of a sovereign. His main argument is rather bleak; that men (not women and not non-white men) in the state of nature, self-preservation reigns as the supreme motivating force, and war is constant and largely inevitable in the natural state: all vs. all, all the time. However, Hobbes does offer reasons as to why men (again not women and not non-white men) enter into civil society. Thus, men, fearing the preservation of themselves and their resources, look to a sovereign to govern but most importantly to protect them. Men out of fear enter into a social contract with other men, laying down their rights to the ability to self-preserve no matter what and giving absolute power, no questions asked (no questions asked ever) to a sovereign, all in order to form a civil society.
ReplyDelete2. Coming into this reading, my assumptions, being somewhat familiar with what Hobbes and Locke philosophize and theorize about already, were to find a logical determination about the reasons for and origins of civil society. I was surprised to find a rather harsh and hard view of mankind (not womankind or non-white mankind). This view being that men are constantly and essentially trying to kill one another in their natural state in order to preserve their own lives and their resources. It struck me that self-preservation and fear are the only motivators. There is no altruism, no capacity of mankind to love and live in peace, but rather men’s tendency being that of war. We are not so selfish as Hobbes seems to imagine. There is more variation than that in the race of man. Yes, you have those men that choose to think only of themselves and choose to preserve themselves above all else; yet, you also have a good and a humanity within the hearts of man as well. I found however that Hobbes functions within quite a hypocritical belief system. His cynicism and utter distrust of mankind and within mankind is clear in his evaluation of the state of nature/state of war as well as of our motivations for entering into a civil society. He gives man not an inch, not an ounce of heart, not an ounce of goodness can be found in man’s nature. Yet, on the other hand, Hobbes is quite willing to give of all his trust and optimism to the rule of one man, a sovereign. How is it that a man in his natural state, being selfish and warlike, can be trusted to hold a position of absolute power without he becoming absolutely corrupt and absolutely tyrannical? This to me is Hobbes’ greatest contradiction, and a contradiction that I find no acknowledgement of or explanation for in Hobbes. Men are expected to contract with each other and lay down their rights to self-preservation all in order to give those rights to one man who is able to still attain his personal rights to self-preservation. Hobbes, to me, is functioning under some sort of delusion or naïveté if he believes that one man, allowed to retain his rights to self-preservation (so essentially allowed to retain his natural state) will be the ideal sovereign he theorizes. Especially considering that he theorizes earlier in his Leviathan that man essentially cannot be trusted in the natural state.
(Blog answer continued in the next post).
3. Yet, there was a veritable elephant in the room that I sadly was not aware of until after our class discussion on Hobbes. I have parenthetically in this blog noted that Hobbes’ definition of man is rather “white man.” This I truly did not think of until our discussion in class. I, as a female, am not included in Hobbes’ society, and neither are my non-white classmates. We are ignored, somehow considered sub-human to Hobbes. That is precisely why I found Barbara Hall’s piece on Hobbes’ racism so compelling. Yes, he might not have been an outspoken opponent of African Americans or outspoken proponent of slavery, but in his language, the distinction he makes between the races is clear. He refers to non-white men as savages and displays an overwhelming ignorance in his speech regarding race and slavery. His racism is imbedded within his cultural construction, but that is no excuse, and as Hall argues, he is still a racist based on his inaction and his seemingly inherent view of the inferiority of “savages.”
ReplyDelete1. Imagine a world where no one can be trusted. It’s every man for himself and the only thing keeping your neighbor from stealing from you is the fact that he fears you might kill him first. Life as we know it has become “nasty, brutish and short”. This, according to Thomas Hobbes, is the “State of Nature” that humankind is predisposed to, a constant state of war. This hypothetical world is what Hobbes uses to back his argument for one absolute sovereign. He claims that unless there is a governmental body to keep order and punish those who violate the rights of others, chaos will ensue because humans are self-interested by nature.
ReplyDelete2. I had studied Hobbes briefly in other classes in the past but didn’t know much about him before going into these readings. I expected Hobbesian philosophy to be quite authoritarian from everything I had already learned about him. Hobbes assumes a bleak stance on human nature in Leviathan. He asserts that it is in the best interest for humankind in general if there is an absolute sovereign in power to protect the rights of as many people as possible. Hobbes is speaking to those who question the nature of government and asserts why it is a necessary institution. Personally, I believe that Hobbes assumes most people are more brutish at heart than they truly are and that he doesn’t place enough faith in the innate goodness of humankind. However, I do agree that it is necessary for a governmental body to step in and defend the rights of its people when they have been violated.
3. One point that really stood out to me during our class discussion on Hobbes was the fact that when he references “man” Hobbes is really is only referring to men. While this statement may sound redundant, I could tell I was not alone amongst my female classmates in automatically assuming that the term “man” when used in this context also applied to us. This, to me, discredits Hobbes in that it shows that he is disregarding half of a population when deciding how it should be governed. Another place where I think Hobbes misses the mark is that he is in favor of a single person serving as an absolute monarch. It seems as though he is assuming that there is some perfect, unbiased, moral person out there in his dog eat dog world, a point where he clearly contradicts himself.
1. In her article, “Race in Hobbes”, Barbara Hall analyzes the lifestyle of Thomas Hobbes and his philosophical theories in an effort to determine whether or not he may have believed in/ upheld racial ideals. Hall argues that due to Hobbes’ dealings with William Cavendish and the Virginia Company, his use of the term “savages” in his writings and his belief in conquering other peoples suggests that he may have been a racist. Although Hobbes never explicitly addresses race, Hall concludes that because Hobbes never addressed the wrongs of racism/slavery, specifically in relation to the Virginia Company, and the fact that his works were written around the time when African slave trading and European conquest were developing, he must be a racist.
ReplyDelete2.When we were first assigned this article, I was not sure of what to expect from the author, solely based on the title alone. However, once I read the first page or so, I was actually rather shocked that Hall had accused Hobbes of being a racist. As an African-American, I tend to become hyper aware of issues of racism. I am constantly analyzing situations in my head and questioning, “Was that racist?” I have found that it is difficult, and actually a rather harsh accusation, to categorize a person as a racist based on one comment or situation. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to issues of race, maybe because I would much rather get over a situation than dwell on it- that could just be me! At any rate, I was shocked that Hall accused Hobbes of being a racist because the thought just never crossed my mind while I read Leviathan. Granted, I may have been confused throughout half of the reading, namely due to the language that Hobbes uses, but I never once felt that he was being racist. Furthermore, once I delved into Hall’s argument further and read the passages about Hobbes’ involvement in the Virginia Company or his use of the term “savage,” I could not help but think that Hall was just reaching for an argument. Her reasoning seemed to lack any true validity and I really did not buy it one bit. The fact that Hall expected Hobbes, who only had one share in the Virginia Company, to make a substantial change in the beliefs of the Virginia Company, and more specifically William Cavendish, is absolutely preposterous. Not to mention, she states herself that Hobbes never explicitly addressed race, so for her to infer such claims about his beliefs is a little farfetched. Furthermore, as humans, we may not always comment on things that we know others are doing wrong, but that does not mean that we necessarily support what they are doing either! By the end of this reading, the only question that remained in my mind was, “Is Barbara Hall an African-American?” I ask this because it makes me wonder if the author’s own race could have some impact on how she views Hobbes and his theories.
3.During class, a question about whether or not we can separate the theorist from their theory really struck me. Then, the question expanded to whether or not a theory would be discredited if the theorist’ lifestyle did not reflect their theory. I immediately thought about my experiences in church where a pastor might be encouraging the congregation to do something but in turn, he/she is also expected to uphold the same principles that they are preaching about; I can remember my mother and grandmother always saying, “Practice what you preach!” However, once hearing some of the comments of other students in the class, I began to realize that maybe there is not a definitive “yes” or “no” response to this question. I believe it was Chelsea who mentioned that Thomas Jefferson was one of our founding fathers and author of the Declaration of Independence, yet he owned slaves. However, we do not discredit the Declaration of Independence because of Jefferson’s personal lifestyle. This example really made me think twice about our values as a society and when we find it acceptable to disassociate the theory from the theorist and when we don’t.
Charisma, I feel the same way about Hall's article. I don't consider Leviathan to be a piece about race. While I do think she had a valid point in saying that Hobbes' use of the term "savages" could be interpreted to show racial insensitivity, when read within context it's clear that Hobbes is denoting political inferiority to the "savages" as opposed to racial inferiority. I'm not convinced that one unintentional racially insensitive remark makes a person a racist and thus, Hall has not convinced me with her argument.
DeleteI agree,
DeleteDespite Hall's work, I don't think Hobbes is a racist in the sense that we refer to today. I'm not even convinced that racism existed in the same way in the 17th century. I think it was less about race and more about domination and colonization. Hobbes saw the colonization of the New World in his life time and was aware of the superior position Englishmen felt they held. I feel that the use of the word "savages" denoted political or educational domination, as you said Sarah, not race.
Fanchen Yang
ReplyDelete1. The main point of Hobbes’ argument stems from this question of what causes humans to form into a society or civilization. From here, he reasons on the base state, or the state of nature. In order to reason the motivations of man, Hobbes states that ultimately it is a question of self-preservation that is the driving force behind humanity. In this state, there is no society, no civilization and therefore all men are free and equal because everyone has the ability to kill one another. This is where the idea of a war where everyone is against everyone comes up due to competition of limited resource. However, such a war can be recognized to be detrimental towards self-preservation, especially as more and more participants join the war. And so the birth of society is a way for many to protect each other in exchange for their own protection.
2. Coming into Hobbes, my own thoughts on the base state were very vague. As I have grown up in a society, imagining a world where it was abolished is perhaps fairly difficult. The biggest issue is that we were all raised in a society, one with rules and governments and people to tell us what to do. So the easiest way of thinking through this sort of a situation, putting myself in it, would have no merit. Of course, one cannot deny the fact that humanity has formed itself into tribes and into societies regardless of whatever the true state of nature is, and so as far as Hobbes’ definition of the state of nature, as wrong or as right as they are, it is difficult to say whether or not it matters since I would put forward a state of civilization that eventually overrides the state of nature if given enough time.
DeleteHobbes would then speak on about sovereigns and how a ruler with absolute power is the best form of government. Even before coming into this article, I believed this to be true. A dictator, as long as one can be found that is righteous, wise, and benevolent, would be an ideal absolute authority. The reason for this is one simple fact: I do not know everything. There will be situations where I do not know what to do and so that is the whole point of why there needs to be a leader in place. I personally would prefer only one monarch, due to the fact that finding one perfect human would be difficult enough and two would be astronomically difficult taking into account lifespans and such things. Furthermore, two perfect people would be in agreement on everything and so you could maybe flip a coin or something to choose one. That is why ancient monarchs used the idea of divine right to justify their rule, using beings above our understanding to placate the masses into believing that they knew better. And if they existed, then it would not be a difficult step of logic for humanity to place their faith into them to guide our blind human minds towards a better place. And it is this huge test of faith, to give up freedom and to allow others to have power over you that would require a figure of absolute authority to encompass the three properties listed above.
Stepping back a little bit, there is a slight jump that we have made here. It is this fact that why society requires a leader. Protection can be achieved through pure numbers of people. As far as self-preservation goes, simply grouping together would be enough to ensure safety. So why do you need to sacrifice your freedom to a man or an institution? The reason for this is for the exact reason why Hobbes felt that he had to write such a book as Leviathan. It is because everyone thinks differently and this uniqueness within “equality” creates tension within simple groups, the middle ground between society and nature. Society has to be centralized, for cooperation under the base assumption of any sort of preservation that includes the self (societal, racial, gender, self, etc.) is a simple matter of circumstance without authority to enforce it. However, perhaps Hobbes did not imagine such an argument and could only see a sovereign as a successful of government, much as how some of my classmates feel as though democracy is the right form of government judging by a few of the forum posts.
The last thing that must be mentioned is not concerned with the content, but with a few changes in society and culture that have occurred since Hobbes wrote his piece. Of course, this argument will be referring to his use of the word “men” and how it denotes a male Eurocentric view of the world and not the general term that we use it for today to mean the whole human population (whether or not it actually does mean that, even in today’s society is another debate). To this point, I would imagine that these sorts of implications that differ drastically from our current view have to be viewed within context. Do we simply dismiss his ideas and thoughts due to this prejudice? Would the inclusion of all the groups he excludes from his use of the term “men” change anything in his philosophy? I don’t see why it would and there are many points where I think his thinking is good. Obviously there are parts where I disagree as well, but that has nothing to do with who he is as a person. Personally I think Hobbes has done a fairly good job of separating his societal views from his work. Simply reading through, the term “men” is not instantly clear to exclude anyone and the passages where he does refer to savages can be written out or ignored without immediately discarding the rest of it. Ignorance is not a free pass, but it does need to be taken into account.
Delete3. Continuing on from question 2, what I think needs to be clarified is that if you agree with Hobbes, you do not have to agree with everything. What he encompasses is so vast and general that it is very simple to agree with parts of his argument while using completely different justification. It is also just as simple to use his justification and come to a completely different conclusion. I just find it very narrow minded to discard everything due to a small thing that has very little impact on the main impact. You can disagree and you can hate Hobbes, but at the very least I think he is owed the decency to be hated properly and be disagreed in such a way that major flaws in his logic can be shown in a very general sense. While full separation of his inherent racism and his philosophy cannot and does not exist, if you ignore it, the logic of his philosophy changes very little. If he based his whole philosophy upon the basic assumption that white male Europeans are the greatest and that all others are inferior, then it is quite obvious that from the beginning his argument has very little bearing on our current society. The general view of how he approaches his arguments encompasses so much more than race and can be applied on a general level, even if his view of “men” is different from ours. And here we can see that because this field of thinking is so large and the topics so general, sometimes individual ideals lose meaning when they are not specifically pointed out.
A relevant example that immediately comes to mind is Orson Scott Card, who is openly discriminated towards homosexuals (the reason why I don’t use homophobic is that it implies fear, and that’s not entirely applicable in this example). He imagines it is biologically unnatural for two people of the same sex to be together. Whether or not I agree with him, the point is that his views do not affect my enjoyment of his books. Building onto this, you can use the author’s views to discredit the author or to point out hypocrisy in his arguments or whatever, but ultimately you should not ignore the insight that you have personally gained from the author’s texts from your point of view, biases and all.
1) In the article “Race in Hobbes,” Barbara Hall attempts to analyze the work of Hobbes, specifically The Leviathan, to determine whether or not Hobbes was in fact a racist. She starts off by defining what racisms means. She comes to define racism as, “the view that some groups of people are inherently intellectually, culturally, or socially superior or inferior to other groups owing to some biological or genetic characteristic they do or do not possess.” She eventually comes to the conclusion that Hobbes is a racist. The reason that she gives is because he wrote much of his work during the age of colonization and the Atlantic Slave Trade, and he did not directly oppose slavery or conquest in his work, he therefore must be a racist by the fact that he did nothing to oppose it.
ReplyDelete2) After reading Hobbes, I was not thinking about whether or not he was a racist. From his work, he does not come across as clearly a racist as some other philosophers have, such as Kant or Locke. From the argument that Barbara Hall gives, it is difficult for me to come to the same conclusions that she has made. She first sites how Hobbes uses the word “savages” to describe those not of European decent. However, Hobbes also makes the comparison that Germanic tribes would be considered “savages” as well, in a past time. From this, it is difficult to say indubitably that Hobbes is a racist. Next, Hall examines Hobbes’ writings on conquest and slavery. Hobbes states that a slave is one that is conquered but does not accept servitude and will attempt to escape, kill the “master,” or willingly be killed. A servant is defined as someone who stops attempts to escape or conspire against the “master.” These are both very loose definitions, and neither one has reference to a particular races as being solely subject to slavery or servitude. Therefore, again, it is difficult to gather whether Hobbes was a racist from his remarks. Hall recognizes these aspects of Hobbes (that he does not directly address race), but then makes the conclusion that Hobbes is a racist because he does not address the issue of race. He is guilty by association with the time period and by no clearly classifying his motives.
In my opinion, we cannot say for sure that Hobbes was a racist. Many people jumped on the bandwagon of expansion, conquest, and slavery at the time because it was the way to make money and gain fame. Because a person holds a small amount of shares in the Slave Trade, does not discuss racism openly, disagrees somewhat with slavery, does not instantly make a person racist. By no means am I defending Hobbes. Most likely, Hobbes was in fact racist, even if just slightly. In the context of the time, racism was seen as more factual than hypothetical. In conclusion, Hobbes is most likely a racist, but this cannot be clearly determined by simply look at the works he has left behind. The only way to prove without a shadow of a doubt is to get a time machine and talk to Hobbes in person.
3) There were many good comments made in class about this topic. Many, however, have slipped my mind. Yet, some of the comments that did manage to stay with me were those about what defines racism. What I took away from the discussion was there are various ways to be racist. One main way is to be actively racist. To hold beliefs and express them through words or actions that you believe someone is lesser solely because of race. The other main way is inaction. One can still be racist by failing to act when confronted with a racist action. The second definition is clearly more difficult to identify, but nonetheless, it is still a form of racism. Both of these definitions greatly influenced how I responded to the Hall article.
Josh,
DeleteI agree with your argument that Barbara Hall was more or less digging for confirmation of her idea that Hobbes was a racist. Locke was much more obviously invested in the slave trade yet he has been deemed the "nice" philosopher. I think that Hobbes was not necessarily racist, rather he was just speaking from a highly privileged perspective that did not make an effort to represent other, less favored groups. That isn't racism; it could just as easily be sexism or classism (if that's a thing).
1) Thomas Hobbes, the 17th Century English philosopher best known for his masterwork Leviathan, built his “social contract theory” on the condition that a political system is needed to eliminate the state of war that inevitably arises among men in a state of nature. The social contract theory suggests that political arrangements occur as natural systems among rational, free, and equal men. He goes on to use the theory to defend his conclusion that the men must lie down their desire for self preservation in order to construct the most effective and efficient political system –a monarchy.
ReplyDelete-------------------------
2) Coming into this reading, the impression I had about Hobbes was centered on his statement that the life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. After the first section, that view hadn’t changed much. I still dislike the notion that humans are inherently selfish and only seek self-preservation, but even more than that, I resent his conclusion that people shouldn’t be trusted to make decisions for themselves.
I think Hobbes’s background and intended audience had a lot to do with the conclusions he reached. As a well-educated Englishman living in the 1600’s, Hobbes saw the strength and success of a monarchy first hand. He watched the birth of the North American colonies, and the taming of nature in the New World. He took for granted the fact that different people’s with different cultures existed, and that not all governments sought to conquer and organize peoples (as evidenced with the implied dominance of England over the “savages of America"). More, he assumed that people could not ever see past differences to organize themselves and make a collective impact.
-------------
3) We live in a different time Hobbes, one where his ideas on the state of nature and the state of war no longer fully apply. The world is bigger, more cultures and peoples with different political systems participate, more knowledge can be accessed by a wider audience than ever before, and means of war have likewise developed. By examining Hobbe’s case for a monarchy within the context of our time, I gained mord insight into the case against a monarchy. Ultimately, that a just and fair Leviathan is as hard to find as a man who wants to lay down all of his self-interest—it’s an impossible task.
It further reaffirmed my beliefs in the freedom to challenge political systems--especially political systems that have come to be defined by a Leviathan. The desire for self-advancement is very real temptation and to trust a single individual not to abuse his/her absolute authority, may be naive. If a Leviathan's desire for self-preservation or self-advancement comes before the interests of the constituency, the constituency must have the power to act.
1.) In his seminal work Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes puts forth his theory of social organization. Hobbes introduces his social contract theory by imagining a world in which a man owes allegiance only to himself. Hobbes calls this the state of nature. Hobbes state of nature is grim, and he himself describes life in this condition as, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." This is so because men must compete for limited resources which they need to survive. In order to achieve this survival, Hobbes argues, men are justified in doing anything necessary, as self preservation is the paramount goal. Hobbes says that in order to escape this bleak existence, men will lay down their claim to all resources—but only when others do so as well. Upon laying down these claims, men have entered into a “society.” Hobbes goes on to argue that the best (and only acceptable) type of society is one ruled by a single monarch.
ReplyDelete2.) I approached Hobbes as a blank slate. The only work on Social Contract Theory I had ever encountered was a brief overview of Locke’s ideas and how they influenced Jefferson et al. I have only ever lived in the United States and think very highly of the system upon which America is (supposed to be) based. I therefore take issue with his stance on the best form of government (absolute monarchy). In theory, it could work, sure. But with the benefit of 400 years of hindsight since the time of Hobbes, I think history has shown it to be an unpopular and ineffective form of government. I did find Hobbes’ theory of the state of nature compelling, however, as well as it being the primary motivator for men entering into societies. I am of the opinion that governments should exist to protect rights (to life, property, etc.) and this is essentially what Hobbes states: that men cede power to governments for peace and protection.
3.) I am a white male (surprise!). With this in mind I think one of the most thought provoking discussions in class arose around the fact that when Hobbes referenced men, he was really talking about men only—and white men at that. This was an idea that I had never reconciled with myself. If you asked me who Hobbes was referring to, I might have gotten lucky and said only white males (if I was on my A game). But I had never considered this question, it had never seemed important to consider this question to me. I simply took Hobbes’ thoughts and applied them to contemporary society. In other words, I did not consider the implications of Hobbes totally ignoring—well—everyone but people like me. It can be uncomfortable to face that truth, but in the end, it’s good to be pushed from your comfort zone because that makes you consider things you never have before—and that’s when real learning occurs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Hobbes goes to great lengths to try to sell us certain ideas about human nature and how that human nature dictates decisions we make as individuals and as groups. In Leviathan, Hobbes reveals that we are selfish beings who are driven by self-interest and self-preservation. This human nature dictates the state of things where we live. Social Contract Theorists call this state of things the “State of Nature”. Because we are selfish beings, this state of nature is one riddled with competition and war. Hobbes’ state of nature is a “State of War” in which anything, even murder, can be used to preserve oneself. Now, there may be some hope for Hobbes, as he writes that we are all equal. But he takes us back down the dark path of war when he tells us that this equality is derived from our ability to destroy one another. In Hobbes state of nature there is no right and wrong, no justice, and no ethics. In such a state of nature, it is no surprise that people would seek to draw up a social contract create of a civil society. Hobbes argues that we enter into a civil society in order to collectively preserve ourselves instead of continue destroying one another in an “every man for himself” sort of way. Hobbes’ Civil Society is one that is reigned over by a monarch which, he argues, is the best and most efficient form of government. Hobbes’ theory about the state of nature and the subsequent recommendation on a form of government arose out of his attempt to defend the monarchy in England.
ReplyDelete2. I had the privilege of reading excerpts from Leviathan in another philosophy course, so I had an idea of what Hobbes had to say. I spent quite a bit of time with Social Contract Theory, and as a result was more interested in what the rest of the class had to say. As a general reaction, I disagree with Hobbes’ definition of human nature. It is difficult to say where Hobbes personally stood on the issues he writes about in Leviathan. It is safe to assume that he was a proponent of the monarchy. English citizens were Hobbes’ primary audience for this piece, and he strove to convince them that a monarchy was in fact the best type of governance for England. To me, political theory is just that, theory. Any system of governance could work in an ideal world. It remains to be seen if any system is perfect when put into practice. We seem to lean away from monarchy and more towards democracy. I attribute this to the fact that most of us grew up in an attempted democracy. I say “attempted” because even the US is not a perfect democracy. I personally enjoy the freedoms that we as American citizens get to enjoy as a part of this attempted democracy, but as far as it being the best and only potentially successful way to govern a civil society, I am not convinced.
3. I must say I was a little surprised by the class discussion we had and how many people agreed with Hobbes’ definition of human nature. I assumed that more people would disagree with Hobbes and the class would lean more towards the Lockean idea of human nature. I found it ironic that over the last few classes, we agreed more with Hobbes ideas about human nature and more with Locke when it came to which government would be most effective. Each theorist bases their theory of governance on their respective pre-supposed state of nature and the human nature that leads to it. Yet we seemed to mesh the two. This made me wonder what types of people enter into certain kinds of societies and why. It also made me think about what social contract our class would come up with considering our government and contemporary society. How would we define human nature and how would that definition dictate our supposition of an ideal civil society?
1) The essence of Hobbes’s argument is that all men are equal in the state of nature and they are free to use their right to self-preserve whenever necessary. Hobbes argues that these individuals should first seek peace but, if this is impossible, they are entitled to use the advantages of war in competition for resources to fulfill their innate desires to self-preserve. The second component of Hobbes’s theory states that rational men will abandon the mechanisms of self-preservation for the good of the whole group and authorize an absolute sovereign with the interests of the people at heart to act on their behalf.
ReplyDelete2) My assumption coming into this reading was that his theory would probably sound good on paper but fail in practice. I hold this belief as a student who has studied much government through history and ascertained that almost any government sounds nice in theory but falls apart in reality. I also believe that there is no one-size-fits-all type of government, so no matter what Hobbes proposed, I didn’t see it being feasible across different societies with diverse needs. Hobbes stands that we live in a self-interested, dog-eat-dog world where people only look out for themselves. This ideology takes for granted that not all people are selfish and only act positively out of fear of retribution. Hobbes discounts human benevolence and the tendency to care for others, especially others in one’s own in-group. I think Locke did a better job with this by including the preservation of others in his model of the state of nature. I am not saying that humans are by any means universally or “naturally” altruistic, I just think that Hobbes disengaged a greater audience with his assumption that penalties determined by a sovereign are the only aspects keeping people in line. I think that the assumed audience for this piece is other men like Hobbes: men that fit in the same demographic of white, well-educated, wealthy Englishmen. I feel that others from different vantage points (especially women and unrepresented minorities) would not be so keen on forfeiting their voices to a sovereign, because chances are that sovereign would abuse his power and act in the best interest of the upper crust of society; of individuals such as Hobbes himself.
3) Anderson’s “situated knowledge piece” really resonated with me because her concept of situated knowledge very closely mirrors an idea that I’ve always called “personal filters.” These ideas basically assert that one cannot understand the biases and presuppositions behind another’s argument without assessing their background and trying to recognize factors that would influence their beliefs and value systems. This is very relevant with Hobbes’s argument, which was made from a platform of privilege and therefore naturally wouldn’t identify with people that hailed from different social arenas.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete**Like**
Delete1)In the Leviathan, Hobbes identifies the state of nature in which men are free and equal and in which every man seeks to preserve his own life at any cost. This state of nature is characterized by scarcity of resources which naturally leads to fierce competition for survival. Thus, this state of freedom requires continued dominance, causing fear, finally leading to a state of war. According to Hobbes, war is, therefore, a natural condition. In contrast, peace serves as an indicator of a civil society. Hobbes then elaborates on how and why men should enter into a contract with one another to escape the state of war and form a society. He also suggests that a sovereign monarch oversee the society and ensure that the men do not regress back into the state of nature.
ReplyDelete2)This was my first time reading Hobbes. All I knew was that he is the author of the quote about life being “nasty, brutish, and short,” so it was interesting to read some of his political theory. I somewhat agree with his pessimistic approach to human nature. I do believe that humans at heart are fairly self-seeking and selfish and I believe that generous behaviors are socialized and taught. I was surprised to see in class that many of my classmates disagreed with Hobbes and defended human nature; many of them saw mankind in a much brighter light than what the Englishman suggests. I do think that Hobbes paints a pretty bleak picture, but I also think it is only to serve his argument in favor of the absolute monarchy.
Hobbes' defense of the absolute monarchy makes sense because he is writing this argument around the mid-1600s in Europe. Hobbes was a member of the upper class and his audience was most likely of the same social standing. His audience was also probably exclusively white and male—the most educated members of European society at the time. According to European mainstream thought of the 1600s, Hobbes would have believed that European society was superior to every other society; he was probably Christian, and he was most likely sexist—Europe would have been a male-dominated society at the time.
3)The main thing that stood out to me in this reading was when, discussing contracts, Hobbes states, “covenants without the sword are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all” (106). This quote stands out to me in particular especially in light of the current American presidential race when words and promises—“covenants”—are thrown around sometimes carelessly. It is also frustrating to me how often promises are broken in our society in general. Plans are made and unmade with incredible speed, and “last minute” obligations and changes come up frequently; does giving someone our word that we’re going to do something mean anything anymore? Of course covenants like these cannot be placed under the control of an absolute monarchy, but it is interesting that without “the sword”—or some kind of painful reinforcement—promises are made and then broken with relative ease. I am in no way suggesting using violence against someone when they break a promise, I am only observing a probable decrease in the value of someone’s word when they enter into covenants with others.
1) Hobbes deconstructed the political ideology upon which the foundation for the society in which he lived was constructed. Condensed and interpreted simply, Hobbes’s philosophy posited that the state was a superstructure, a composite organism made up of many individual parts. Those constituent parts were its inhabitants, its citizens, who were bound together by aspects of shared identity and the agreement about their commonalities. Hobbes viewed this organism of the state as being unstable and highly vulnerable in its native state, however. “Commonwealths,” he wrote, are “imperfect,” and even when they are stabilized, they are “apt to relapse into disorder”. “There may be principles of reason to be found out,” Hobbes continued, and he proposed some of these principles in his political philosophy, which retains relevance to contemporary society.
ReplyDelete2) Before reading Hobbes for this course, having read the Leviathan in high school, I had an idea of what he stood for and quite the negative overall regard for his philosophy. I believed him to be inadequate in moral philosophy and in bed with monarchy. His assumption that the sovereign will not abuse his power was sickening. After going over his writing for this course, my opinion has not changed. However, I now see why we still pay so much attention to his theories. For better or worse, he left a lasting mark on political thought that survives to this day in most democratic forms of government, especially the executive branch and the concept of presidency.
3) A significant insight I took from Hobbes this time around would have to be the notion that political philosophy should try to work towards consensus, but should respect the literal and symbolic authority invested in the representative the people have elected through a social contract. It's a realistic proposition with multiple lines of questioning that should be explored.
Manuel,
DeleteI too liked his idea that a political philosophy should work towards a consensus, but I thought there was a flaw in the way that he reached a consensus. Hobbe's idea of a consensus is to just have the Leviathan be the consensus and is an all benevolent representation of the people's will. He is so benevolent and accurate a representation of everyone, that Hobbe's says that it is impossible for someone who enters into the social contract under this Leviathan to disagree with the Leviathan because he is essentially part of you. Personally, I feel that there is alot wrong with this idea because it assumes that everyone in this community thinks in the exact same way, and that the leader has the interest of everyone in mind. I think this seems Utopian, and I don't think there could ever be a perfect consensus that would allow for Hobbe's Leviathan to be a legitimately good leader.