Geo wrote:If 'the people,' over time, tend to gravitate towards socialism, then Democracy needs to be reformed.

edited

I wonder why we are considering not discussing the book serially chapter by chapter. It's how I for one plan to read this book.

I think that in our day and time reading the classics that formed our opinion of what government ought to be, as we are proposing to do here, is extremely important. Obviously there is great dissatisfaction with the current governmental system, particularly in regards to the rules under which wealth is distributed. The Wall Street protest movement is a direct outcome of that dissatisfaction. Unfortunately, unlike the other populist movement under way in our country (I refer to the Tea Party) the Wall Street protesters appear to have no constructive agenda other than to express dissatisfaction. They are not suggesting any constructive or realistic alternatives.

By reading the political classics on the nature of government itself and doing some careful fundamental thinking about the way government was structured, not structured, and why that is, I believe it may be possible to bring forth ideas at a more fundamental level in order to formulate a positive constructive alternative that would give this march on Wall Street movement a purpose: namely the transformation of our society to a more just (in the sense of economic equity) and prosperous one for, if not all, most. It is in this sense and for this purpose that I intend to direct my reading of Leviathan.

Starting with the first couple chapters, I must admit I find Hobbes' writing a bit irrelevant. He makes a lot of epistemological distinctions in a somewhat trite and banal manner, such as the difference between memory, sense perception, and dreams.

The first sentence that I read that seems to me to have some relevance to today, that gets me thinking seriously, is near the end of chapter 2, the last sentence of the third to last paragraph:

"If ... superstitious fear of spirits were taken away, and with it prognostics from dreams, false prophecies, and many other things depending thereon, by which crafty ambitious persons abuse the simple people, men would be more fitted than they are for civil obedience."

What an amazing statement! Hobbes appears to be asserting that educating people away from superstitious folly (and I imagine applied today this means disabusing them of nonsense beginning with what appears in supermarket tabloids up through and including such superstitious folly as what religions peddle) would make them more civilly obedient. The intelligentsia as obedient civil servants? Hobbes appears to take this notion as a given and does not argue much of a coherent case for it. In an age which burned witches - Hobbes mentioned this phenomenon a paragraph or two before the quoted sentence - I can see why he might assume his statement to not require substantiation. But I don't think his statement applies today. I believe civil disobedience is at least as likely to be performed today by an intelligent, well-read, reasoning person as by a superstitious simpleton, and ought to be, assuming there is a purpose or constructive agenda behind the civil disobedience.

On the flip side of the coin, I wonder if it is okay or desirable to manipulate simple people through their superstitions or other cherished, firmly-held simplistic conceptions into civil obedience for a "good cause"? Was this in fact accomplished during our Revolutionary War, or the recently concluded War on Iraq?

Having read these first two chapters, I very much look forward to thinking about and discussing the remaining forty-six.

Hey, Dan. I don't know if we've met before. Great post. I'm going to make some threads later tonight. In the past, I've seen a book chopped up so thoroughly, chapter by chapter, that the potatoes never touch the steak. I think it'll be advantageous to group this work into large parts containing several chapters and then try to make threads which bring them all together and encourage discussion - such as which issues have relevancy, what views may have influenced policy, how effective the ideology was in bringing about political change, if it would be beneficial or not to apply any of these views today.... and so on.

This should make not only for a better discussion but should help everyone retain what Hobbes proposes.

Don't be afraid to make your own threads. Go for it... and if you feel you want to lead the discussion, Ive led plenty already. I'll be very happy to move aside and get someone else involved.

I'll be starting the book in January.

Hi PC. I am a relative newcomer here and so defer to your wisdom in preferring to set the discussion up over sections and on topics. I will continue my reading and commenting by chapter privately, and not post it until you establish the format. At that point, I'll post relevant parts of what I have written in order to be consistent (in compliance) with your format. I think that will work fine. I look forward to the discussion really beginning next month then.

Geo - I'm glad you're not giving up. I started the book last night, and find it a bit daunting at the moment.

President Camacho wrote:edited

I had no problem with your post by the way. My participation on forums these days is really sporadic and that's why I didn't respond.

I'm reading the introduction right now. I'll start a thread on the historical context later because I think it's important to discuss what was going on during this time period. Otherwise, I would think we would discuss this chapter by chapter. That makes perfect sense. I think there are 47 chapters altogether.

heledd, I think it's going to be a challenging read. I suspect that I will read it rather slowly. We might want to take this slowly and give people time to participate in their own way. Let's help each other slog through!

More later . . .

Robert Tulip wrote:umm... you did two number twos in your list, and your number four makes no sense at all

nasty brutish and short

abominable atheism

state and empire - relation to Locke, Hume, property and science.

Yes, Hobbes is interesting.

You forgot positively medieval!

heledd wrote:Geo - I'm glad you're not giving up. I started the book last night, and find it a bit daunting at the moment.

You may be better off not reading the selection its self but rather studing an authoritative (contemporary) guidebook. Any resourceful philosophy major would do.