Page 1 of 2

How shall this discussion be organized?

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:29 am
by Chris OConnor
I've seen the Table of Contents for Leviathan but am not sure of the best method for structuring or organizing this discussion. Does anyone have suggestions?
President Camacho, as the discussion leader and someone who has already started reading this classic, do you have any insights to how this discussion would best be formatted? I don't see chapter threads working.

Re: How shall this discussion be organized?

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:47 pm
by President Camacho
I'll definitely give it some thought tonight and I'm definitely open to suggestions from those who wish to read, interpret, and explore how this seminal piece of political philosophy has influenced governments and policy of yesterday and today.

I'm not a professor or expert of political philosophy or history, although I have an interest in both. I bring a very limited knowledge to the discussion so I'll probably be augmenting my knowledge with other resources besides the book. If anyone else feels they'd do a better job leading the discussion - I'm no tyrant.

Some of my goals will be:

1. To develop a sense of where this book fits in with the evolution of political thought
2. To bring in experts to help supplement and/or simplify Hobbe's philosophy as needed
2. To tie in the political philosophy with contemporary issues
4. To never use the # 3 in any list; goals or otherwise
5. To see how the philosophy itself fits or doesn't fit with today
6. To contrast/compare Hobbes with other political philosophers
7. To discuss the motives for writing the book
8. To make discussions lively and fun
9. To not molest anyone... or at least publicly apologize if I do

Re: How shall this discussion be organized?

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:35 pm
by geo
#3 looks good. :-)

I should be honest. I voted for this, but after browsing through the document online, I don't think I'm going to read it. I realize I should have my BT membership revoked or something.

Re: How shall this discussion be organized?

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:14 pm
by President Camacho
LOL. Chris did a great job by offering two non-fictions so hopefully you'll enjoy the other one. I wish I could persuade you to join the discussion. You'd put a classic under your belt and there is no better opportunity than this to make such a daunting read a little easier and enjoyable.

Either way, I plan to post some excerpts on controversial points of view and ANYONE can join in these philosophical questions without reading much. Everyone has an opinion when it comes to government; they have a right and a duty to. I want to hear what people think and get them confident in their decisions (popular or not) in order that they might throw their weight around on the boards a little.

Re: How shall this discussion be organized?

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:21 pm
by President Camacho
Alright, I think the best course may be to make threads for each part and then have the rest pretty much made up as I go. The Parts will give people a chance to make their own comments on particular sections in the book and I'll wind up making other threads for specific issues addressed inside the book which will be tailored to illicit comments from the readership and the community in general.

I'm very much open to suggestions! :)

Re: How shall this discussion be organized?

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:36 pm
by Robert Tulip
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.

Re: How shall this discussion be organized?

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:19 am
by Chris OConnor
Robert sure is a stickler for detail. LOL

Re: How shall this discussion be organized?

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:29 am
by geo
President Camacho wrote:LOL. Chris did a great job by offering two non-fictions so hopefully you'll enjoy the other one. I wish I could persuade you to join the discussion. You'd put a classic under your belt and there is no better opportunity than this to make such a daunting read a little easier and enjoyable.

Either way, I plan to post some excerpts on controversial points of view and ANYONE can join in these philosophical questions without reading much. Everyone has an opinion when it comes to government; they have a right and a duty to. I want to hear what people think and get them confident in their decisions (popular or not) in order that they might throw their weight around on the boards a little.
I'll start reading and see where it goes. I've heard a lot about Leviathan of course and I've always wanted to read it. I'd like to discover the context of this passage:

In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Re: How shall this discussion be organized?

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:34 pm
by geo
Actually there are several versions of Leviathan. Impulsively, I went with these two:

http://www.amazon.com/Leviathan-Oxford- ... rvi_cart_2

http://www.amazon.com/Leviathan-Selecte ... rvi_cart_1

Leviathan is structured into four large sections:

I Of Man
II Of Commonwealth
III Of A Christian Commonwealth
IV Of The Kingdom of Darkness

Hobbes' section 'On Man' is an attempt to explain human beings' function in the "state of nature" and is thus a sort of scientific text. However, Leviathan was written well before Darwin, so obviously it has to be understood in that context. I might have been tempted to skip Part III which one can expect to contain a lot of rationalizing and proselytizing of Christianity. But, in fact, Hobbes, was called an atheist by some of his peers, and his views were considered to be rather unorthodox at the time. Edwin Curley, in his introduction, said that Hobbes, who lived about the time of Shakespeare, might be viewed a theist in a modern definition. Indeed, one can wonder how Leviathan which is ultimately an argument for an absolute monarchy might have influenced Thomas Jefferson and other U.S. founding fathers who were very much opposed to monarchies and felt that power should ultimately lie with the people. I'm also interested in reading this in context of today's burgeoning financial crises, especially in Europe, where emerging entitlement states are leading to bankrupt nations. If 'the people,' over time, tend to gravitate towards socialism, then Democracy needs to be reformed. Can Leviathan still be relevant in the modern political state? I'm sure in many ways it is.

Re: How shall this discussion be organized?

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:57 pm
by President Camacho
The State of Nature is something that interests me a lot. I see this as a justification to explain man's role before the social contract was made. The State of Nature is used by a lot of English political philosophers of the time (1600's) and is probably more established in myth than in reality or science. I want to know WHY a precedent was looked for. English law is based in history and precedent. To try and establish some time as predating the written word (which came out of civilizations already established) without any type of proof is to create a fictional story... you're trying to rationalize the legitimacy of something and void something else - as in Law. The monarchy? Locke did just this... The Monarchy was illegal! What will Hobbes do with it, I have no idea. These philosophers use this imaginary time and state (state of nature) as a springboard to 'prove' their own ideas.

Well, I think it's important to keep in mind what is just in any government; whether it be a monarchy, an aristocracy, an oligarchy, or a democracy. The ends of any just government should be... what? There are so many facets to this question. Some want a government to groom its citizens into living not only happily but nobly as well! And who constitutes the citizenry anyway?

Though I agree with Locke in the respect that the majority is the only legitimate rule, I agree with Aristotle that the multitude serving the interests of themselves at the expense of the Nation is a tyranny and unjust... just like one man or a small group doing the same.

Leviathan has relevancy because it's a large piece of history in the development of political thought - whether or not it had any direct effect on actual policy remains to be seen.


I want to add that I will not be able to start the book until January! I have a research paper to write and am finishing up with another book. So feel free to post or open new threads. I will start reading in January.