"Hobbes Won"

And so, as another term comes to an end, the smoke clears and… the winner is…?

I’ll give you a hint: it starts with “Hob”, ends with “bes” and it beat your sorry Metaphysical arguments into oblivion.
But, really, it was an uphill battle for the Metaphysicals who, through dark storms and even darker nights, open seas and fierce battles, fought valiantly and – oh, who am I kidding?

Here’s the real rundown:

The Metaphysical side of this debate started off strong or... well, at least talkative, though entirely insubstantial (kind of like their arguments). While making up evidence in the form of “faith as a sense”, the best thing about their claims was undoubtedly the “Nice use of block quotes.” From poetry to free will and finally to the state based on the eternal love of God, the Metaphysicals were unable to shake their delusions and leave their unrealistic and impractical love state behind.
Ultimately, it seems like it has all come down to practicality. Which side is the most viable in the real world (and, note, we’re talking about this world - you know… reality - and not some love-fest hippie fantasy)? After all, theories, claims and philosophies are all well and good, but if they have absolutely no bearing in that little thing called reality, which the Metaphysicals seem to enjoy disregarding, what is the purpose of them? I’m sure one would say that they give us perspective and I would heartily agree. This debate has certainly given perspective to the Metaphysical way of thinking as, through its unconvincing arguments, has reaffirmed the essentiality and importance of the viable Hobbesian state.

So, what more is there to say?

Nothing much except, to quote Professor O’s mantra of the course, “Hobbes won.”

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!

A Second View of "The Antiplatonick"

I’m not sure that Cleveland’s “The Antiplatonick” is quite uncontestable by Hobbes… I thought, while reading the poem, of the hunt for love – that is the power struggle between lovers which is illustrated within the poem. The imagery of hunting within “Cupid’s Dart / as a King hunting dubs a Hart” (221) and the double use of the word “quarry” is very reminiscent of the importance of power and dominance present within Leviathan. While the “Magnetick girl” could be seen in a romantic light, embracing the entirety of the man of iron, it can also be viewed as an individual with less power attempting to gain the protection of one with more power.

Also, with Love (or desire) afforded warlike qualities, as seen in stanza five, and with the use of all those phallic images, the Hobbesian mode is once again evoked. While “love is portrayed as the remedy to these restrictive, hierarchical roles”, the “dame of stone” imagery and the “Nunne of the Platonick Quarry” succumbing to the temptation of love represents the way in which love (which seems closer to wanton lust and desire) needs to be contained by the state or the church in order to avoid a collapse into the savagery which exists without the state.

That is to say that this alternative portrayal of love within “The Antiplatonick” depicts love in more of an animalistic or base light – a quality which needs to be contained by the commonwealth. Or else, all that free will and unrestricted love will mean everyone can have unrestricted love… and it could be your love another person wants! And then you’ll have Hobbes’ “Of Man” all over again. So, while Cleveland’s “The Antiplatonick” is certainly more “within the boundaries of what we-can-see”, what one sees within this poem is not the type of love which “can overcome the confines of the state and the church” but rather a portrayal of love which, in its corruptive, tempting and wanton state advocates for the order of the commonwealth.

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).