Hobbes - Leviathan Quoted

Personal Archives | 04-20-02 | PsyOp

[PsyOp]

Nor should the context be lost

Nothing is worse than using quotes out of context. I always try to pull quote sections that show the context. And where possible, I always include a date. It never ceases to amaze me that people use quotes when they know nothing about the subject, who said it, why they said it, or when they said it.

[Pistias]

Leviathan

"But whatsoever is the object of any man's appetite or desire, that is it which he for his part calleth good; and the object of his hate and aversion, evil; and of his contempt, vile and inconsiderable. For these words of good, evil, and contemptible are ever used with relation to the person that useth them: there being nothing simply and absolutely so; nor any common rule of good and evil to be taken from the nature of the objects themselves; but from the person of the man, where there is no Commonwealth; or, in a Commonwealth, from the person that representeth it; or from an arbitrator or judge, whom men disagreeing shall by consent set up and make his sentence the rule thereof."
Ch. VI

[PsyOp]

i.e., there is no justice in nature, it is wholly constructed by compact.

Or, as your photo shows, "de-constructed on impact." Those free-fire zones can be a real b***h!

[Pistias]

Two words that every society since man figured out how to huck big rocks has known:

STAND CLEAR

[PsyOp]

a.k.a. Incoming!

[conserve-it]

"It never ceases to amaze me that people use quotes when they know nothing about the subject, who said it, why they said it, or when they said it."

Welcome to modern EDUMICATION.

[PsyOp]

modern EDUMICATION

Now that's an oxymoron!

[Maelstrom]

OK...but I can't agree with a lot of the claptrap this guy spouted.

I guess he's some sort of liberal icon?

[PsyOp]

Hobbes was English. Leviathan was essentially a dissertation on the uses, and the justification for use, of state (i.e. monarchical) power. His works were well know to our founding fathers and influenced the development of our Constitution.

I have posted this thread, as well as others which you will find bookmarked at my profile page, as a resource to be used in the political discussion here at Free Republic.

As for his being a liberal icon, he's far from it. Ask any university poly sci professor and he'll probably characterize Hobbes as being right-wing. But its easy to find parallels in what he says and modern liberal thinking, just like Mien Kamp sometimes sounds like it was published by the DNC even though they like to refer to Conservatives as Nazis.

[Maelstrom]

Shall we deconstruct his thinking?

It shouldn't be difficult.

Men's actions are derived from the opinions they of the good or evil, which from those actions rebound unto themselves. - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651.

Like all over-generalizations this is overly-simplistic. In the political arena, Men's actions are derived as often out of self-interest then any opinions they have of good or evil, and even then those aren't mere opinions, they are *principles*.

All men that are ambitious of military command, are inclined to continue the causes of war; and to stir up trouble and sedition: for there is no honor military but by war; nor any such hope to mind an ill game, as by causing a new shuffle. - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651.

Like all over-generalizations this is overly-simplistic. The United States stands remarkable as a nation with the economic an military power to crush and occupy her opponents throughout the world and fails to do so. Her ambitious military commanders mostly seek to eliminate threats to her to end a conflict, potential confict or a future conflict within their carreers or lifetimes.

And we can go on with the rest of his quotes similarly.

[PsyOp]

You're right. So what does that have to do with my explanation of Hobbes and why I posted his quotes? Anyone can pull a couple of quotes and point out that they're generalizations. Besides, just because something is a generalization, even an overly simplistic one, doesn't mean that there is no truth in it.

In its time Leviathan was a seminal work of political tought that exerted great influence around the western world, including here. To understand politics today, it is always helpful to know its roots, whether you agree with them or not - whether they are generalizations or not.

[PsyOp]

Her [America's] ambitious military commanders mostly seek to eliminate threats to her to end a conflict, potential confict or a future conflict within their carreers or lifetimes.

As a former Army officer you will probably not find anyone who is in greater agreement with you on this. But Hobbes quote on this point was written in 1651. At that time in history, his observation on "men that are ambitious of military command," was all too true.

Observations like this were taken into account by our founders when they were deciding on how to structure our military, and was referred to in the debates on whether we should or should not have a standing army or a simple militia.

All of these quotes must be viewed in their proper context and with an eye towards how they were viewed by or founding fathers.

Go to my profile page. There you will find links to other quotation postings. When you finish reading them all, and those I will be posting in the future, you will see the patterns of philosophical influence that resulted in this great nation.

[Maelstrom]

All of these quotes must be viewed in their proper context and with an eye towards how they were viewed by or founding fathers.

Hobbes and Machivelli.

I love the Founders Quotes, I have them handy in hardcopy form. I think, though, that I'll continue to slam Hobbes, I tried to show that those quotes were not only over-generalizations, but also over-simplistic and fundamentally flawed.

Let's see if another round is more successful:
Competition of riches, honour, command, or other power, inclineth to contention, enmity, and war: because the way of one competitor, to the attaining of his desire, is to kill, subdue, supplant, or repel the other. - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651.

This broad condemnation of capitalistic systems if diametrically opposed to the actual case. Especially when it comes to competition of riches, Hobbes fails to see that this is a process for the best use of limited resources for the minimum cost in all cases. In the attainment of one's desire, it requires cooperation, communication, an agreeement of equity, and general goodwill. Without possessing these abstracts in a functional manner, one cannot compete effectively in a free market.

The source of every crime, is some defect of the understanding; or some error in reasoning; or some sudden force of the passions. - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. 1651.

Low crime may perhaps be these things, but High crimes quite often are not, these crimes consist of attempts to accumulate personal and complete power over one's fellow man. The reasoning if often sound, the understanding is malicious, and the passion has been tempered by years of following this ambition.

I am about to take my last voyage, a great leap in the dark. - Thomas Hobbes.

There is a God, and there is Life after Death.

In a democracy, the whole assembly cannot fail unless the multitude that are to be governed fail. - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651.

A Democracy is always a failure. Masses of people are easily mislead or swayed by a charismatic leader. The old cliche that democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. Democracy is no panacea for Mankind's inherent fallibility, but only limiting Mankind's power over another through government can minimize the harm one does to another using government.

If any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and on the way to their end, which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their dedication only, endeavor to destroy or subdue one another. - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651.

To imitate one’s enemy is to dishonor. - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651.

No two men both become enemies, any reasonable men find equity through commerce, neither is subdued or destroyed in this manner. There is no dishonor in imitating an honorable enemy and a great deal of good can come of it. Imagine if Japan and Germany had believed this fallacy? They did not and are now among members of G-7, the rest of the world should pray to be conquored to "suffer" this result "dishonorably" according to Hobbes.

There is much much more. If Hobbes were drawn upon rather than Locke, than I rather understand why and how the Federalists were so very very wrong in their push for improved power within the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists had the correct understanding of the Constitution and should have been heeded.

[PsyOp]

Let's see if another round is more successful

I fail to understand what it is that you think you are trying to convince me of. Slam Hobbes all you want - it bothers me not a bit, nor is it in the least bit relevent to the reasons I stated for making the post.

The members of the Constituional Conventions drew upon the works of all those I have posted; Hobbes, Rouseau, Locke, Hume, Aristotle, Machiavelli, and many more I have not yet posted, but will in time. They drew from each of them, some more than others, in the creation of our form of government and its checks and balances.

To fully understand how our founders came to the conclusions they did, and why it is to our peril to forget those conclusions, we need to know where those ideas came from. The fact that you dislike Hobbes and feel that everything he said is wrong, does not negate the influence of Leviathan on political thought in their time.

You seem to have completely missed the point of why I posted the quotes, even after I explained it to you. I'm not trying to be snotty here, because you are obviously intelligent, but I just don't understand the point of you ripping Hobbes as if you need to convince me of something Or have I missed some point of yours?). The quotes were not posted with intention of convincing people that Hobbes was the greatest thing since sliced bread. He's not. But he is worth taking a look at. Just as it is worth reading Marx or Hilter for the purpose of understanding why their writings influenced so many - to the detriment of the world. That's called education.

[Maelstrom]

Only this: If the Founders Used Hobbes they made a mistake.

I feel it is the Federalists that trusted Hobbes, that helped create the stituation which allowed a government to be created that was fully capable of ignoring it's Constitutional bounds leading to the strife seen in the War Between the States and the sentiments that make a true Civil War, in the future, a very real possibility.

[PsyOp]

Not everything Hobbes said was an overly simplified generalization. The first quote on the list is in large text for a reason, and is one of my favorite because I see it proved on a daily basis on this forum (this is not a jab at you).

If you are going to discount Hobbes then you need to discount the Idea of the executive branch of our government. As I am sure you know, there were two compelling reasons for the creation of an executive branch, both of equal importance.

First was the need of having a national representative that could deal on equal terms with other heads of state, who, at the time, were comprised entirely of sovereign monarchs who generally acted in accordance with Hobbes' dictums. Second, there was the need to invest in a nationally elected official, the power to wage war and command our national forces into battle in a timely manner should the need arise. Even in the days when the time between the declaration of war and the first shot fired months could be (or vice-versa), the need to act without wasting time in congressional debates stood paramount to the survival of a fledgling democracy surrounded by predatory monarchs. A point that has been proven right time and time again. This was one of Hobbes' positive contributions to our government.

As for the Civil War. Lincoln was right. Davis was wrong. It was the South that couldn't abide by the Constitutional process that was on its way towards eliminating its "beloved institution". Had Davis and his cronies succeeded, The United States would not exist, and its former states on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line would be sucking hind-tit to the rest of the world or back under British colonial rule - which is why they backed the South.

[Maelstrom]

As for the Civil War. Lincoln was right. Davis was wrong. It was the South that couldn't abide by the Constitutional process that was on its way towards eliminating its "beloved institution". Had Davis and his cronies succeeded, The United States would not exist, and its former states on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line would be sucking hind-tit to the rest of the world or back under British colonial rule - which is why they backed the South.

We'll forever disagree on this...I believe if Davis and his cronies had succeeded, slavery would have been abolished with a more graduated and more peaceful desegregation of the races and once that had been accomplished more of the Northern States would have seceded to join the Confederacy. The exception being the Northeast, which would have devolved into a fascist nation not unlike Hitler's Germany.

[PsyOp]

We'll forever disagree on this

Yes we will. Fortunately we'll never know for sure. A United States of will Always be better than a divided one. Besides, name a better country than this to live - even with its current flaws.

[Maelstrom]

Yes we will. Fortunately we'll never know for sure. A United States of will Always be better than a divided one. Besides, name a better country than this to live - even with its current flaws.

The same thing could be said within Germany had the Third Reich succeeded in it's goal of world domination.

Namely, "Name a better country than this to live - even with it's current flaws."

Do us both a favor and reject this form of debate, it's unbecoming in the person I know you to be. Meanwhile, let's concentrate on the things we agree upon...government needs to be limited once again to at *least* the restricted powers promised by the Federalists.

[PsyOp]

let's concentrate on the things we agree upon... government needs to be limited onceagain to at *least* the restricted powers promised by the Federalists.

Agreed.