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.
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.
posted by Brenna @ 2:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home