Page 2 of 5
Re: Part 1: Of Man 1-16
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:32 pm
by Dave The Marine
President Camacho, after reading your analysis of this sentence I took a fresh looka at it.
"And though by mens actions wee do discover their designe sometimes; yet to do it without comparing them with their own, and distinguishing all circumstances, by which the case may come to be altered, is to decypher without a key, and be for the most part deceived, by too much trust, or by too much diffidence; as he that reads, is himself a good or evil man."
1. That sometimes we discover the designs (I think he means motives) of others but often we are wrong
2. But that we cannot know all their circumstance which would alter their design (possibly)
3. Since we dont know all their circumstance it is like trying to decyper something without the key
4. That we are often deceived because either we trust the person to much and thus give them good motives or we don't like them and assign them bad motives (this could be stereotyping)
5. This he compares to a person who reads a book they are either "good" or "evil" implying that they will draw conclusions based on their preconceived notions.
Re: Part 1: Of Man 1-16
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:11 pm
by President Camacho
I could very well be wrong but I think it's also another attack on learned men of the day who put too much faith in Greco-Roman philosophers.
What do you think of Hobbes' departure from Greek thinking?
Hobbes begins Leviathan by quantifying and defining words in a scientific fashion. Throughout Plato's Dialogues of Socrates, you'll notice that seeking to define particular words is usually what each dialogue develops (regresses?) into. Socrates shows how whole arguments can be shattered because their foundation of the definitions of justice or virtue were found to be insufficient or inaccurate.
So I see that Hobbes has immediately sought to quantify his words so that they may be more accurately weighed and to obviate or close doors to any possible point of entry in which his argument may be compromised and overturned. That's the first thing I notice.
The second, are these little tidbits like the one above that every now and again seek to negate the value of ancient philosophy.
Hobbes says, "For there is no such finis ultimus, (utmost ayme) nor summum bonum (greatest good) as is spoken of in the old morall philosophies."
Greek moral philosophy was based on finding and securing the greatest good in all things. A polis needed to be self sufficient, stable, able to defend itself, and it was held in some fashion to be responsible for molding its citizens.
Hobbes deviates but retains some very Greek traits such as his constant use of analogy, similes, and metaphors, and also his view on Power. Power is a virtue to the Greeks. Might is Right is most all cases.
Another notable departure is how the argument is presented to the reader. This book is a lesson, not a discussion insomuch as a book can be. While reading Aristotle, a person feels he is joining the author on a journey to seek truth - climbing difficult arguments, noticing dead-ends, turning back and finding agreeable paths and firm philosophical footing. While reading Hobbes, the reader feels as if he's being beaten over the head.
Honour is another point of discussion and contention for me. Wealth is power, power is honour, and power is seeking in itself. It's its own end and it looks like it can never be satisfied.
Re: Part 1: Of Man 1-16
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:26 pm
by President Camacho
Does government or the constitution of a nation affect the constitution/personality/virtuosity of the people in that nation? Is there a difference between a man who has been raised in a relatively democratic society and one that has been accustomed to servitude or slavery? The Greeks thought so.
What's your take?
How do you think someone living under Hobbes' philosophy would stack up against someone living under the Constitution of the United States?
Re: Part 1: Of Man 1-16
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:17 pm
by Dave The Marine
In reference to the last question: How would someone living under Hobbes' philosophy stack up against someone living under the Constitution of the United States?
I don't necessarily think this is an apt comparison simply because the Constitution is not a philosophy but a system to organize a government although the underlying foundation is philosophically based. One thing that sticks out to me is Hobbes leaves all (or most moral decisions) to the sovereign and further states that if the sovereign tells you to do something, it is not up to you to question the rightness or wrongness and that (if you are a believer which Hobbes was)if it was morally wrong the sovereign would be the one held to account and you would be morally innocent. So the difference is in where this lack of personal moral responsibility might lead, and I believe we have an example of where it could possibly go in Nazi Germany where many stood by and allowed a human tragedy. The Constitution of the United States in no way abducates personal moral responsibility.
I do agree with you that his idea of defining words at the outset is certainly the opposite of what the Greeks such as Plato and Aristotle. Now, we almost need to do the same thing to keep people from twisting what we say into such a pretzel as to make it say exactly the opposite.
Re: Part 1: Of Man 1-16
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:50 pm
by geo
I'm just going to come out and say it. I made it to pg. 45. I was going to stick it out at least to the end of Of Man, but it's just not very readable. Maybe I'll pick it up again some day.
My apologies to all.
Here's the last paragraph I read:
And this difference of quickness is caused by the difference of men’s passions, that love and dislike, some one thing, some another; and therefore some men’s thoughts run one way, some another; and are held to and observe differently the things that pass through their imagination. And whereas in this succession of men’s thoughts there is nothing to observe in the things they think on, but either in what they be ‘like one another,’ or in what they be ‘unlike,’ or ‘what they serve for,’ or ‘how they serve to such a purpose;’ those that observe their similitudes, in case they be such as are but rarely observed by others, are said to have a ‘good wit,’ by which in this occasion is meant a ‘good fancy.’ But they that observe their differences and dissimilitudes, which is called ‘distinguishing’ and ‘discerning’ and ‘judging’ between thing and thing, in case such discerning be not easy, are said to have a ‘good judgment;’ and, particularly in matter of conversation and business, wherein times, places, and persons, are to be discerned, this virtue is called ‘discretion.’ The former, that is, fancy, without the help of judgment, is not commended as a virtue; but the latter, which is judgment and discretion, is commended for itself, without the help of fancy. Besides the discretion of times, places, and persons, necessary to a good fancy, there is required also an often application of his thoughts to their end, that is to say, to some use to be made of them. This done, he that hath this virtue will be easily fitted with similitudes that will please not only by illustrations of his discourse, and adorning it with new and apt metaphors, but also by the rarity of their invention. But without steadiness and direction to some end a great fancy is one kind of madness; such as they have that, entering into any discourse, are snatched from their purpose by everything that comes in their thought, into so many and so long digressions and parentheses that they utterly lose themselves—which kind of folly I know no particular name for, but the cause of it is sometimes want of experience, whereby that seemeth to a man new and rare which doth not so to others, sometimes pusillanimity, by which that seems great to him which other men think a trifle; and whatsoever is new or great, and therefore thought fit to be told, withdraws a man by degrees from the intended way of his discourse.
Re: Part 1: Of Man 1-16
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:05 am
by geo
Disregard the last post. I'll continue to read, but I'm not breaking any speed-reading records here.
Re: Part 1: Of Man 1-16
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:17 pm
by President Camacho
Geo, I'm actually super happy you posted that quote and even more happy that you're soldiering on!
Hobbes' writing style is almost like a 'musings' type column (as Montaigne would write?) with an intent to classify and categorize for scientific awe and authoritative guise.
He attacks people who use 'similitudes'. This can possibly be another attack on Greek philosophy but it's highly hypocritical because Hobbes uses similes, analogies, and metaphors constantly. He continuously tries to differentiate between a courageous person and a timid person. For a sycophant and slave to the nobility as Hobbes was - how could he write honestly about it without ripping himself to shreds?
I'm not saying this person had any real effect on policy but he's presented a seminal argument for the antithesis of what we commonly believe. It's very much worth reading. I'm surprised more readers haven't disagreed with what he's saying.
Notice what he thinks of the common man. How he values and honors the person who works night and day for their family like most people do. No one has even mentioned this.
Re: Part 1: Of Man 1-16
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:08 am
by heledd
Geo - I'm struggling too. But it's really interesting hearing other peoples opinions. I like the way other people feel they are being 'beaten about the head' with his arguments. I must have read the paragraph you quoted over and over before I grasped what he was on about. I'm wondering whether I should just read on, and not understand everything, and perhaps in the end it will make more sense. Also would be interested to read some Aristotle.
Re: Part 1: Of Man 1-16
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:56 am
by President Camacho
Dave, I happen to believe that a country's laws and government can mold people, change them, and influence their behavior. This topic hasn't really been breached by Hobbes.
He takes a very dim view of people as beastly, selfish, power hungry, ignorant, and credulous. He very nearly paints a picture of them as individuals without the proper tools to govern themselves. In my opinion - this is the very argument WHY there should never be a monarchy. Monarchy is justified when the people are KEPT in this position as children. Once people are educated and are practiced in freedom - monarchy becomes disgusting.
Two heads are better than one. You ever hear that expression? It's been popular since way before Jesus... and for a reason.
Great power to do good is also great power to do evil.
I pay attention to Power in books like these. Who gets what? Who gets a share of government - because that is power.
When Hobbes talks about power deferred or transferred, my attention perks. That once a person relinquishes power, they have no right to ask for it back has me very concerned.
Re: Part 1: Of Man 1-16
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:14 pm
by Dave The Marine
I agree, that Hobbes' belief that once a person, or society reliquish power they no right to ask for it back, is not only wrong, but a very dangerous idea. Additionally, Hobbes seems to say that once a society gives up these rights future members of society have no right to ask for them back, I believe that the "social contract" has to be somewhat renewed from generation to generation. In other words its fine that James Madison accepted the constitution, but each generation has to affirm the philosophic underpinnings in order for the society to continue, as it is without fundementally altering the system.
Further, I think that sometimes under certain conditions, war would be one, we must relinquish certain rights for the preservation of society. That said this reliquisment should be the least intrusive to the individual as possible and should last only as long as necessary and the rights should be taken back up by the individual.
Two heads are better then one, not always, and at best they are only one better. The people who wrote the constitution placed alot of faith in the multitudes to come to the right decision, or put differently they thought they wouldn't take the wrong path forever and would eventually put things back on the right track. Which reminded me of a qoute I think by Winston Churchill..... American's will always end up doing the right thing after they have tried everything else.
Centralizing power in the hands of one or a few who "know better", is not a good idea be they Hobbes soveraign or Plato's "philosopher kings", the truth is no one man or small group of elites can possibly plan a society and best they could do is set up a system of government that fosters freedom and liberty.