Leviathan as the "Middle Way"

Well, I don’t think that my view of the Metaphysical state is “too extreme”… I think a more appropriate word would be practical or realistic. Because in realistic terms, to apply the Metaphysical state to the world we live in right now is (as I have shown in my previous posts) quite impossible. As for Fleming’s wish for the “middle way”, which “does not need to ignore notions of good and evil to create a peaceful state but brings goodness or peace out of evil”, does the state of Leviathan not do just this? From the innate qualities of mankind as fully capable of savagery and force when exercising their freewill, Hobbes’ version of the state creates your “middle way” peace out of the evil within men.

Since I’ve given the Metaphysical state of love so much attention, I suppose it’s only fair to give due consideration of Hobbes’ Leviathan. Fleming argues that both the state based purely on love and the state purely of power cannot exist because of its extreme nature. However, if the state of love delves into power of any form, it becomes void and becomes a form of Leviathan – that is to say that when love succumbs to power (i.e. an assertion of ones will upon another), the Metaphysical state falls in line with the Hobbesian state.
Conversely, if the state of power delves into love, it remains as a state based on power and does not become a state of love. This is, of course, because love can exist within the Hobbesian state (recall Hobbes’ connections between love, honour and the state – Part I, Chapter X) while power cannot exist within the Metaphysical version of the state.

So…is this Hobbesian state too extreme? Why, no, not at all.

Certainly, the state of love appears too extreme (or at least entirely delusional and completely unattainable) because of its inability to incorporate the presence of power into its design. However, Leviathan successfully integrates the concept of love into its system and uses it to strengthen its position within the state. Concerning the “notions of good and evil”, Hobbes does not ignore this issue. Instead, good and evil, as subjective terms, are assigned to things according to the will of the populace and “every subject is by this institution author of all actions, and judgments of the sovereign instituted” (Hobbes, 117). Leviathan, as a result, determines that which is good and evil. Within the Hobbesian state, good and evil are incorporated within the design of the commonwealth and not completely ignored or eliminated.

Therefore, Leviathan is able “to create a peaceful state but brings goodness or peace out of evil” by the incorporation of love into its foundation of power, creating, in the process, a viable and (as we can see in the world we live in today) attainable state.

Perhaps Leviathan was the “middle ground” you were looking for?



Postscript: As for the reconciliation of good and evil within Jesus, an actual explication of this point would be useful.

A "state based on the eternal love of God": Part II!

Just to respond to Jan’s post and continue my look at the Metaphysical love state… First, concerning her assertion that “we are a race doomed to war and the pursuit of our own egos”…. I don’t think that this is very accurate at all. We are not necessarily doomed, after all, that which is called Leviathan is sure to save us. And, what could be harder than fighting against, as you put it, our position as “a race doomed to war the pursuit of out own egos”? As Hobbesians, we do not want war and chaos. On the contrary, Leviathan and the commonwealth exist to combat our “egos” and bring order and peace to us all.

And, second, concerning your examples of peoples, who have managed to live on your basis of love, the Khoisan of Africa, I would like to point out, lived (note the past tense) according to your ideas of a state. However, their degradation into poverty really shows that unless everyone in the world lives in a “state based on the eternal love of God, a natural order (such as the one described by Boethius), or the inherent goodness of mankind”, no such state will ever be able to survive. It would only take one person who does not abide by or believe in your “spirit of love” to throw waves into your proposed system. And, if that person or group of people cannot live in your state, what then? Will they be cast out as Satan was?

In addition, your other example of Hopi culture may not be suitable in the state of love. Though they practice 'Sumi’nangwa' and 'Nami’nangwa', they nonetheless have a leader in the form of a Chairman. It also has legislative, judicial and executive branches which work just like the Canadian Government. So, if the only difference is its scale and the presence of 'Sumi’nangwa' and 'Nami’nangwa', then how does it reflect the Metaphysical form of the love state? Just as one can give names such as tyranny or oligarchy to unsatisfactory governments, the Hopi form of government seems to be doing the opposite and giving the name of “consensus decision making” to (what the Metaphysicals consider) the Hobbesian state. That is to say that what the Hopi have is nothing but a democracy, with “consensus decision making” as a form of the vote and the Chairman as a type of Prime Minister.

So, if the Hopi government is just like Canada’s democratic government and we all live in a Hobbesian world, then is the Hopi government Hobbesian as well? If not, then how is the Hopi government different from Canada’s government? If so, then exactly what does a state based on the “spirit of love” look like and how does it function without reverting into a Hobbesian mode?

A "state based on the eternal love of God"

Believing in the inherent goodness of others is all well and good, but perhaps the metaphysicals would like to take a step into real life? Let’s leave all those debates about the course texts alone for just a moment and try to see how your “state based on the eternal love of God, a natural order (such as the one described by Boethius), or the inherent goodness of mankind” stacks up to the Hobbesian world…

Besides the obvious difficulties one would have implementing such a state, the metaphysicals seem to think that turning the state into a religious state is the answer. I think that one of your problems lies in the fact that your state, which preaches “the eternal love of God”, does not take into consideration all of the diverse cultures and religions which make up a country. While your granting of a state which “conducts itself by giving over love and free will to its intended subjects, so that they are not subjects at all, but individual sovereigns”, you are falling into Hobbes’ Of Man and how we all have freewill. How can we all be individual sovereigns and be a part of a state? In your description of the metaphysical version of the state, you seem to place the love of God a fundamental component. But, which god will we be loving? Milton’s? Wait, what if I don’t buy all that religious stuff – will I be cast out (though, no doubt in loving manner I suppose)?
So, then if your state somehow comes into being, who’s going to be running this lovesick ship? If we’re all individual sovereigns, it would seem no one will be… which throws us into the world of chaos as everyone, according to their absolute freewill, will do whatever they please to do. Except for your “eternal love of God”, it doesn’t seem like there’s anything really holding your world together.

>>>>To be continued!