Oh, Bam.

So, here's me putting the fists up for the Hobbes corner of this arena... After all, it would seem that Elliot likes to fight dirty… I mean an eye gauge and crickets? What's next? Probably something becoming of sissy, love-sick metaphysicals…perhaps some good old fashioned slaps and hair pulling?

Anyways, I would just have to say in response to that eye gauge that I found it all a terribly weak argument… to simply say that Hobbes was seeing man and the commonwealth “with imperfect measures” and then not even offering a tangible solution is just like disputing the fact that “humans are savages, life is brutish and short, and power and the material rule all” by arguing that “humans are not savages, life is not brutish and short, and power and the material do not rule all” – which of course is ludicrous and, as an argument, quite invalid.

All that has been argued in the favour of the metaphysicals is that there is possibly something more out there that Hobbes may have missed in his explanation of Man and the commonwealth. However, with nothing to support this postulation, other than the mere possibility of evidence, it is less than convincing.
Please, do explain why you “do not have the means with which to measure the metaphysical evidence against Hobbes. At least not currently”…. Is it because we have not the senses to perceive of or explain them? Or perhaps, as you have yet to reveal such empirical evidence, there is none? Regardless of the answer, concerning the realm of the empirical, which relies on observation, experience and the senses, I think that you will find it difficult to explain something which is as yet unobservable by the senses, as “a man can have no thought, representing anything, not subject to sense” (Hobbes, 19).