Monday, August 22, 2016

Yale - Hobbes WIP
The Yale professor says that what makes one person laugh makes another person cry, but I see no awareness of that in Hobbes' writing.
The professor says that Hobbes is facinated with the sheer number of human desires, but when Hobbes speaks of human desires he says of those innate to man, "not many". He says there are more that come of "Experience", but he doesn't seem particularly enthused about it.

The professor says that a person who has a revelation about religion cannot impose that on another, but what the professor forgets is that Hobbes has already stated that there is on person who can, the State.

Yeah, Hobbes asks the reader to check himself. I checked myself and the answer is no, Hobbes, many times, no, though people in rural areas are more likely to leave their doors unlocked than those in the city.
It never occurs to the professor that the pressures imposed by civil society cause the evils attributed to the state of nature.

I rarely feel any fear and I am openly questioning the legitimacy of this government.. Take that Hobbes.
The professor is so dulled in his blind acceptance of Hobbes that he doesn't even realize that his example of the trusting Yale students contradicts Hobbes.

Hobbes is not merely saying that people are insecure in their possessions but that people also always feel insecure, but the professor doesn't get that.

I posit that just as much, if not moreso, people are inclined to work together to solve their problems. However, there are bad actors, lacking in Hobbes analysis, that somehow haven't gotten the message, and it is these and not "everybody else" that we protect our possessions against.

Hobbes total authority government can only become the worst bad actor.
Alright so the professor finally acknowledges the rational actor strives for peace. But theb he points out that Hobbes doesn't believe that people are like this. I would go so far as to say that it doesn't even occur to Hobbes that people could even operate in this state of rationality. The professor goes on to reassert that Hobbes recognizes that people are diverse, something I don't see evident in Hobbes' writing. He then states Hobbes notion that fear and pride predominate in Man; two things I try to have as little to do with in this mode as possible.
The professor says that Hobbes wants pride more than anything to be kept in check, but a State with absolute authority results in the pride of the ruling class running rampant and unchecked.
The professor goes on to speak of the fear of death which is apparently the only value Hobbes can think of as a motive for peace. Neither companionship, nor the befits of working together even occur to Hobbes.
And as for peace, people crave some violence in their lives and Hobbes is completely oblivious to this need.

The professor asks why Hobbes still calls his own version of what he wants the reader to think is the same as laws of old laws even though Hobbes says it is a misnomer. The most likely reason is that Hobbes wants them to have the impact in his reader's mind that calling them laws gives.

The professor asks if he goes too far to say that Hobbes says "Give peace a chance". In a sense he does not go far enough. Hobbes is saying sacrifice everything else for peace.

The professor is equally blind as to why Hobbes values peace so highly. His home life growing up was with a violent father and then the war was a thing. Hobbes valued highly what was denied him.

The professor goes on to say that Hobbes valued life. I find that Hobbes valued the industry that life generated and that life was merely incidental to that.

So I see this at work: Hobbes valued peace because it was denied him and he valued industry as a justification for valuing peace.
The professor says the Sovereign is more an office than a person, but it seems to me that the Sovereign is more an organization than the other two.

The professor pictures Hobbes with a wry grin on his face when relating Hobbes' declaration that David did Uriah no harm, but I picture him with an earnest expression saying, "No, I really mean it." when confronted with the statement, "You've got to be

No comments:

Post a Comment