An Evil Mindset.

We are all Hobbesian. I just finished Leviathan this afternoon, and the shift in thought is pretty obvious. People speak of Machiavelli as a philosopher of evil, which I have already challenged. If asked to finger such a one, my first glance would not fall on Machiavelli.

I assert that Hobbes is a philosopher of evil.

In Hobbes all things have liberty, and that liberty resides in unrestricted action. Liberty and license are the same thing. By nature, man has the right to do as he will, but this is a state of war with all other men, and they are likewise free to do with him as they will. The highest goal of man being the maintenance of his life, he may join himself to other men and surrender a measure of his freedom in order to form a collective will, or commonwealth, to protect his life. The highest good is the preservation of life, property, and public order.

What is Liberty in Machiavelli? Liberty is an inherently political quality; it is the attribute bestowed by participation in the life of the city, particularly in the making of law. The life of the citizen is not just about the safety granted by the protections of government, but that the richest possible life is found in a civic existence in service to your fellow men. It also bears note that Liberty in Machiavelli does not exist aside from duty. A man who shuns his responsibilities is not partaking fully of the life of the city, and so does not truly have liberty. This liberty, as a matter of course, involves the engagement of man's reason in service to his fellow men and society.

I need hardly say that I much prefer the latter version.

I also take objection to Hobbes writing on "The right of nature by which God reigneth over men." He sticks to his same logic that he used throughout. The "right of nature" dictates that God should be worshiped for no other attribute than his power. Not his goodness, nor our creation, but only for his power. In other words, we worship God, not because because he gives us faith, or because he created us, but because his power is infinite and his will irresistible. Basically, we worship god for the same reason we form societies: 'cause we really don't want to be squashed.

Hobbes also argues that there is no Divine law, save where it coincides with the laws he sees necessary for the cessation of the state of war. He argues that the laws of the old testament are not the laws of God, but the laws of the contemporaries. And he would go on to say that justice is what the sovereign or commonwealth says it is, so long as it keeps men from the state of war. The times change and there is no eternal law or ideal; there is only the pragmatic needs of the time. Martyrdom should not be an issue, because people should--at least publicly--adhere to the religious practices of the commonwealth. Civic law is the only real law. God is an abstraction.

Machiavelli speaks of good law, and good law is aimed at teaching the life of the city to the citizens. Civic law is needed to maintain order, but good citizens are shaped through religion.

Neither one of the two is someone from whom I would take theological pointers, but at least Machiavelli is compatible with a christian faith. If you take many of Hobbes thoughts about nature to their stated and logical conclusion, it is not only incompatible with Christianity, but there are elements which are antithetical to the christian faith.

I'll get back to this in good time, but it is time for homework.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tired, not Sleepy.

*Danger* *Point of no return* I am at war. There is no enemy except the one within, and my task is not to fight him, but to keep him disciplined. The most annoying thing about this battle is that, in my everyday surroundings, the longer and better that I hold my discipline the more it becomes a burden. It is abnormal in the eyes of society, and abnormality is a grievous sin. I will not comply and my non-compliance is often misconstrued as dysfunction. I do not have a girlfriend. There is a lot of weight in that phrase. Healthy American males of my age are expected to form romantic attachments. If they do not form any attachments of this kind, it is often thought that 1) We are not sufficiently attractive, or, 2) We are merely anti-social. What on earth could possibly be wrong with me? Why is that child unable/unwilling to attract a mate? Has he been gelded? Is he afraid??? My pride would just as soon answer them by doing as they expect. What better way to shut them up than to give up a
Read more

To Every Hobo a Suit...or Not

A sad reality has struck me. I have known it for a long time, but only now do I actually feel the enormity of what it was I saw. Men do not wear suits, and those few who can be found in a suit, really do not wear them very well. The suits I see have rolled collars, gaping necks, puckered backs, strained buttons. Men seldom make the mistake of choosing a suit that is too large; they but suits that cling to them in the hope that it will be slimming. They don them in this shameless style because they do not understand the marvelous metamorphosing power of a decent suit; the power to broaden your shoulders and make your gut appear, not bloated, but as part and parcel of your steady, consequential, masculinity. Last week I fitted at least four gentlemen of more than forty years who claimed never to have purchased a suit. All of them ultimately elected the cheapest available option. All seemed chagrined over having to buy a suit, and almost seemed to wear the fact that they had never worn
Read more

Welfare and the Promise and Problems of Democracy in Contemporary America.

For those who need a little something to help them get to sleep, I present my final paper from Y401- Promise and Problems of Democracy in America. It naturally has many imperfections, but I liked it. The last century of human history has seen a change. As methods of production grew more advanced, and the great economies of the world became more democratic, concerned citizens and government turned to the creation of procedures and policies with which to combat poverty and inequality amongst the people. The name that came to be given to such programs was welfare. The goal is plainly seen in the title; to vouchsafe the welfare of our fellow man. There is something undeniably noble in this ideal. But it is the enthusiast’s mistake to confound intent with result, and the efficacy of welfare is perpetually in dispute. To understand the effect welfare has on democracy, one might look to the great writers on politics; men whose ideas have been tried in the laboratory of history. And one
Read more