Posted on 02/16/2009 1:49:28 PM PST by Jandy on Genesis
The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) is remembered for his political philosophy. His 1651 book Leviathan influenced the thought of John Locke and the Founding Fathers of the United States. Many of his ideas are taken as good but can be understood as "good" only when viewed through the Enlightenment and Protestant Humanism. In the Eastern Church, Hobbes' work is rarely considered, except to recognize that it departs from and has little in common with Holy Tradition.
In Leviathan, Hobbes develops his contractarian political philosophy, often quoting the book of Genesis. He dances around the "orders of creation", which for our purposes will be defined as the differentiated constituents of Nature which are evident most fundamentally as supplementary opposites (night-day, female-male, etc.). In this essay we will explore some of Hobbes’ principles to see how they align with the reality expressed in Genesis that "in the beginning" God created all things and nothing exists except that which God has created.
Children’s Consent to Parental Governance Hobbes wrote: “Dominion is acquired two ways: by generation and by conquest. The right of dominion by generation is that which the parent hath over his children, and is called paternal. And is not so derived from the generation, as if therefore the parent had dominion over his child because he begat him, but from the child’s consent, either express or by other sufficient arguments declared.”
By this argument, we may conclude that the child’s consent to be governed by his parents is essential to the proper exercise of parental authority. By consenting to parental authority the child receives protection, material provision, training, guidance, nurture and perhaps sufficient bounty to make a marriage. In Hobbes’ view, children who are abused by their parents do not owe them consent to governance, as none can be compelled to obey an authority that commands self-injury or endangers without just cause.
We find in Hobbes’ view the beginnings of children’s rights. Later Bentham would adapt this principle in his promotion of animal rights.
On the Supremacy of Fathers Hobbes wrote that the dominion “over the child should belong to both [mother and father], and he be equally subject to both, which is impossible; for no man can obey two masters… In Commonwealths this controversy is decided by the civil law: and for the most part, but not always, the sentence is in favour of the father, because for the most part Commonwealths have been erected by the fathers.”
By this argument, we may conclude that the child must obey as his first authority the governance that is established for him by civil law. But doesn’t this overthrow the child’s “right” to consent to be governed by the parent? Do we have here an inherent contradiction in Hobbes' thought?
By this argument, we also may conclude that patriarchy is not a natural order but the artifice of male law makers. This is not supported by anthropological research, as no true matriarchy has ever been found to exist. It is no small point that orders of creation reflect a fixed reality while artifices, even those endowed with authority, reflect malleable realities.
Justification for Absolute Monarchy For Hobbes, the ideal government is a monarchy perpetuated by rules of succession that keep control within the royal family. He quotes I Samuel 8:11-17 as an authority for his view of monarch’s power over lands, harvests, flocks, populace, militia and all judicature, “in which is contained as absolute power as one man can possibly transfer to another.”
By this argument, we may conclude that not even a prophet of God has authority to question the ruler’s will. The ruler is the supreme authority on earth, usurping even God’s authority. While Hobbes argues that the power of the ruler is established by God on earth, he does not recognize the equally authoritative offices of the prophet and the priest. This being so, he justifies civil authority as superior to ecclesial authority and develops a comprehensive Erastianism.
The young Charles II, Hobbes's former pupil, granted him a pension of £100. The king’s protection was important to Hobbes, especially when he was accused of heresy. Terrified of being labeled a “heretic”, Hobbes burned some of his papers and set about to examine the law of heresy. He presented the results of his investigation in three short Dialogues added as an Appendix to his Latin translation of Leviathan. In this appendix, Hobbes argued that, since the Restoration had put down the High Court of Commission, there remained no court of heresy and nothing could be heresy except opposing the Nicene Creed, which, he maintained, Leviathan did not do. This definition of heresy served Hobbes well, but it ignores the question of whether Hobbes’ political views contradict the orders of creation.
Hobbes’ fear of societal chaos convinced him of the necessity of absolute regal powers. He wrote, “And though of so unlimited a power, men may fancy many evil consequences, yet the consequences of the want of it, which is perpetual war of every man against his neighbour, are much worse.”
Power Validates Contracts In Hobbes' view, the validity of a contract depends on the sovereign's power to coerce compliance. It is power that validates covenants. Justice is not a possibility until sovereignty has been created. By this argument, we may conclude that justice is a product of coercive power and cannot exist apart from such. This contradicts the message of Jesus Christ, who emptied Himself and took the form of a servant to demonstrate the nature of true power.
It is Natural for Man to Honor Valid Contracts In Leviathan, Hobbes develops his third law of nature: that men must honor valid contracts. Were this reality, the only occasion for war and turmoil would be a vaccum of power. Hitler's Third Reich refutes this principle. After concentrating both executive and legislative power in his person, Hitler exercised his coercise power to destroy millions of people and to wage war on two fronts. He regarded coercive power as a necessity in renewing German nationalism.
On Judging Good from Evil Hobbes wrote, “For the cognizance or judicature of good and evil, being forbidden by the name of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, as a trial of Adam’s obedience, the devil to inflame the ambition of the woman... told her that by tasting it they should be as gods, knowing good and evil. Whereupon having both eaten, they did indeed take upon them God’s office, which is judicature of good and evil, but acquired no new ability to distinguish between them aright.”
Hobbes concludes that humans take God's role as judge upon themselves without having God's ability to judge good from evil. Since this is the case, free will must be determined by material, not metaphysical concerns. He wrote, "The universe is corporeal; all that is real is material, and what is not material is not real." Here he tosses out the final piece of Christian Tradition and prepares the ground for the materialist philosophies of later centuries. He treats freedom as being able to do what one desires and he treats the Creation as matter in motion.
Conclusion Thomas Hobbes was born prematurely on Good Friday in 1588. It is said that his birth was precipitated by his mother's fear of the invasion of the Spanish Armada. He lived through the most tumultuous and bloody times in English history and this shaped his worldview. Unfortunately, his misconceptions also shaped western political ideas and have moved us with tidal wave force to the brink of a new totalitarianism. Christian Holy Tradition is the single worldview that has power to confront and expose Hobbes' fallacies.
Why throw out such an inflammatory statement in the opening paragraph and then not support it? Why not cite the parallels between the writings of Hobbes and the works of St. Thomas Aquinas or discussing where they might differ? For Aquinas, natural law exists in the individual’s conscience, as opposed to Hobbes belief that individuals had limited access to virtue, and therefore needed to be coerced into doing good by the state.
read later
Not inflammatory for me since I don’t believe that either the Enlightenment or Protestant Humanisn have produced good fruit.
Hobbes was a product of Scholastic education but rejected the metaphysical heart of Scholasticism.
If you read Hobbes through the lens of Aquinas you will understand that the Leviathan was a metaphor comparing the governments of man with whale that swallowed Jonah. Only faith can persevere.
It is not necessary to read Hobbes through the lens of Aquinas or Aristotle to know that his work departs from Holy Tradition. The Tradition from which the Christian Faith emerges precedes Aristotle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.