No.995
General thread for discussing Thomas Hobbes. He is, after all, the monarchist thinker that most people have heard of. Or rather, there are far more, but he's the one everyone thinks of when you say "monarchist philosopher".
I've always had a weird respect for Thomas Hobbes, weird because I disagree with him on almost everything, from his view on human nature, to his epistemics, to his contract theory. What impressed me in Leviathan, however, were his stringency. He carefully laid down all his premises, answered all the obvious questions he knew his reader would have, and argued with care and precision. This is why it's so easy to point out just where he went wrong. I can't say the same for many other philosophies.
What relatively few critics of Leviathan understand is that Hobbes is essentially an individualist, not a collectivist and not a totalitarian. He even acknowledged a right of resistance, said that the state should further the commonweal by protecting society from crime instead of trying to run society, and he never made any claims to the effect that individuals are merely cells of some greater whole. It would go too far to call him a classical liberal, but really, he wasn't so bad.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1007
I've always thought of Hobbes as a "Might Makes Right" sort of figure. I've also thought of Leviathan as almost some sort of The Prince II: Why Power Is Even Better than You Thought. Because of this, I never really felt a strong desire to ever give him a fair shake and read the man.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1048
>>1007
He's fairly interesting. I liked him more than Locke and Rousseau. You might wanna skip the parts where he talks about theology, though, unless you're interested in it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1049
>>1048
>. I liked him more than Locke and Rousseau.
why?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1078
>>1049
More logical and stringent than Locke, and generally more interesting. I think Hobbes was better capable of thinking his premises through to their conclusions, whereas Locke seemed more fixated on arriving at a conclusion. But take that with a grain of salt, as I don't remember Locke all that well.
Rousseau, on the other hand, was crazy. He actually proclaimed that if enough people come together and found a state, that state becomes an organism of its own. He also had a very totalitarian conception of freedom, as he claimed that you could be forced to be free by being subjected to the "general will". Completely nuts.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1560
>>1078
So was he actually wrong, or do you just not like the extreme and overblown phrasing he was fond of?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1561
>>1048
>I liked Rousseau
I think you've become lost, friend. Here, I'll help you out:
>>>/leftypol/
>>>/reddit/
>>>/boomertown/
>>1078
>He actually proclaimed that if enough people come together and found a state, that state becomes an organism of its own.
>not believing in corporatism and integralism
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1563
>>1561
>Tells someone that they should go to reddit for liking Rousseau
>Then continues and tells that he should agree with Rousseau or he's dumb in the next post
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1569
>>1560
I take it you mean Rousseau? I think he was wrong, yes. He was a democratic totalitarian through and through, with all the problems that entails. He saw the ideal state as one big happy family, yet one that only consisted of brothers, with no father above them. That alone is ridiculous, but perhaps not as ridiculous as his collectivistic conception of freedom, or his denial of property rights.
If you mean his idea of the state as an organism in particular, I find that wrong, too. It could be that Rousseau was just talking in metaphors (unlike Mussolini, or rather Mussolini's ghostwriter), but I doubt it. I can only imagine that I was missing some nuances that are only available in the French version. Hobbes talked about the state as an organism, but he never saw humans as a real equivalent of cells, as is clear when he talks about the right of resistance. With Rousseau, it just fits into the totalitarianism he displayed throughout his work if he regards the collective as its own being.
>>1563
I think he only wanted to defend a single idea of Rousseaus. Not that he was very competent at it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1573
>>1569
>Not that he was very competent at it.
>still not believing in corporatism and integralism
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1581
>>1573
Make a case for these ideas, then we can talk. I'm willing to try and anticipate possible arguments or counter-arguments, but not your entire life philosophy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1871
>>995
>He even acknowledged a right of resistance, said that the state should further the commonweal by protecting society from crime instead of trying to run society
So he's actually rather harmonious with Locke?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1872
>>1871
I woulld say so. There aren't that many hard philosophical differences between them, although their conclusions are very different, of course.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2473
It's important to read Hobbes with the absolutist mindset: understand the history of the time period (like the English Civil War and medieval concepts like chivalry) and think about the concept of sovereignty and divine right paired with consent.
Mix it in with the other absolutists of the time period like Sir Robert Filmer. They may disagree, but they both try to assert the concept the sovereignty from an absolutist standpoint. I'd recommend reading Thomas Hobbes' De Cive before reading Leviathan, because it asserts many important themes and reinforces the knowledge of the book. If it was difficult to understand Leviathan without reading De Cive. But the idea of what it means to consent to an authority is also important, because it's more than just saying "no". If you recognize an office from within your own mind, it is a form of consent and also partaking in the system. Outright rebellion, physically, and the rebel deserves little sympathy for attacking the sovereignty and shared heritage of everyone else (if it's the monarchy).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2597
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2621
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2984
Political constitutions under a constitutional monarchy strike me as Hobbesian. A time ago I read the Meiji Constitution and it struck me as Hobbesian to a degree. Perhaps monarchies with constitutions owe Hobbes for laying such a foundation for statescraft of monarchies and conceptualizing their powers so well.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.3022
Why does the far left concern itself with Hobbes? I'm curious because they read into him more than other social contract theorists. I've lurked on /leftypol/ and noticed they would pick on a few titles
If /leftypol/ is lurking, come out and explain. Does Hobbes give you insight on revolution because of what he said about the state?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.3079
>>3022
But Hobbes never treated the social contract that way, from what I know. He did gave people a way out of the social contract. The downside would be that they could be killed or subjugated. He saw it as an exercise of choice to be subjugated, too, because after all, you could just keep resisting and be killed. That you didn't showed you valued your life more than not being subjugated.
It's not a very nice conclusion, but more honest than most political philosophers. This kind of stringency is why I like Hobbes despite disagreeing with him on everything.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.3084
>>3079
The only language they understand is violence. It applies to every government. The thing they leave out is that violence is met with violence.
I'd like to know how someone could leave a system. If you know where in the book, tell me. I think the best you can do is emigrate or socially isolate yourself. If you commit the worst crimes in the realm, even if you didn't consent to the laws, it is sensible that someone would subject you. I don't think what Hobbes presents is too far-fetched than it's received.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.3092
Dumping read caps. Planning to simplify them.
I think I'll look into what Hobbes thought. We should look into other thinkers like Filmer and Maistre, maybe even make them a thread to discuss. For now, I'm going to prolong my study on Hobbes.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.3577
>>995
Hobbes is also an individualist in the sense that he also calls for loyalty to an individual, a leviathan, rather than ideals and morality and some kind of NAP. In ways, Hobbes separates from the classical knowledge and reforms it. Hobbes expanded on the ideal of chivalry and vassalship so well. He understood that authority must come between a ruler and a subject, and that it requires leadership to have this kind of hierarchy. And all leadership is faulty and all justice in this world requires a leader to sovereign to determine the laws and bridge it down through their authority.
And anarchists, republicans, and other idealists? They don't understand the concept of being loyal to an individual to begin with. They are the worst political animals. They construct constitutions and try to check and balance everything, believing that these laws are necessary. The problem is a government isn't about liberty and no authority – even a constitution – allows for the best liberty FROM other people! All liberty ceases to be true liberty when other people are involved and take away the atomized individual that the anarcho-kiddos worship. And for liberty to truly mandate itself in a civil society, there must be an authority. The consequence is people have a right to all things and each others' bodies.
What is authoritarian isn't bad at all, and it brings civil liberty between people and reconciles their conflicts to help promote harmony and love between an authority and people's liberty. The danger is totalitarian government that believes in the general will of Rousseau and popular mandates and the will of the mob. People take Hobbes for an atheist and part of that is rhetoric spawned from his enemies. Hobbes believed in social contract through consent to obey, divine mandate as portrayed in the Bible of social consent – AS God presenting a people with a king – and Hobbes puts this loyalty to justice central to his political theory as long as a sovereign provides protection in a Commonwealth.
While I appreciate most of Hobbes' political theory as "our social contract theorist" for monarchists, I don't agree with the ideal of a society contract theory. However, Hobbes deserves more praise as more and more people think him unpopular and lofty political theories of liberty and mass politics come out promoting anarchy over authority, disobedience over obedience, and majority rule over wholesome hierarchy. They promote everything that would destroy their utopian anarchy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.3578
Sir Robert Filmer deserves credit for conceptualizing monarchy in the most fairest sense that forms a nation from family, to tribe, to nation. A monarchy is quintessentially a family and a dynasty that rules over. What libertarians don't understand about this authority is it is the most benevolent authority. It starts with a paternal incentive to take care of offspring, and the virtues of this role; it also means that property is taken care of and safeguarded fundamentally as the monarch prescribes order and justice from the threshold of a household… by means of inheritance and natural hereditary practice.
They laugh at a monarch's inheritance as rulership, yet they don't understand how this form of government secures the rights of manhood and teaches us obedience. Before obedience and honor, rights have no fundamental place in society. Never lose sight of loyalty to someone.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.3579
Despite everything anarchists say about social contract theory and how they dislike it, I don't believe them. Modern politics is based on social contract theory. These anarchists all talk through these modern political means and think like republicans. They don't conceptualize the Divine Right of Kings or any contrarian ideals. They simply want "their state" instead of the dominant state.
The political hacks online and their political compasses need to screw off with their ideologies.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.