Thomas Hobbes's book, "Leviathan", presents an idea to
deal with the problems concerning government and the overall state of man.
His idea is to basically achieve peace and unity among men through establishing
a commonwealth. Hobbes's goes into great detail in describing what a
commonwealth actually is in chapter 17. He basically says that in order to
achieve a commonwealth men must have someone who enforces with fear, or that a
group of men pressure everyone into joining. " The only way to erect such
a common power... (is) to appoint one man or assembly of men, that may
reduce all their wills... unto one will" (109). The problem I have here
with Hobbes is that he is stating to do what men do when they become
Christians. To become Christian (as briefly as I can put it) a man gives up the
life he is living, gives it all to God, and lets God know that he wants him to
come into his life and take control, as well as forgive him for all his sins.
Mostly everyone where Hobbes resided was Christian, so I find it peculiar that
he would suggest something like this. If you read other works such as "God
and Thomas Hobbes", it presents Hobbes as more than likely believing in
God. It’s almost as if he is putting God as equal to us, and that is
just not true. Following this Hobbes begins to describe the Leviathan. The
Leviathan is an artificial person that is pictured on the cover of the book. Its
body is composed of people, but notice the Head is not made of men as well as
the sword and the staff. It's as if the Leviathan is God. Hobbes does a good
job in making the Leviathan into something powerful. Hobbes states things like,
"Subjects owe him sole loyalty", but however makes the Leviathan also
a protector and also lets the sovereign have some power (which is very important).
Another thing I
have trouble dealing with in Leviathan is that Hobbes is always freaking out
about language. He thinks that language is betrayal and is constantly worried
about people misconstruing his language. If that is the case why would he write
such a huge book like Dr.Cervantes pointed out? Also what makes everything he
says right and if anyone is against what he says wrong? C'mon Hobbes... you
know everything...really?
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3162212?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101594490983
(I have posted a link to "God and Thomas Hobbes") I've read some pages in it to try and understand Hobbes a little better. Sign in with your UNT ID for full access.)
I find it helpful to write the blog in Microsoft word first. That way if you are not sure about your word count, you can check the bottom of the screen. When you are done, simply copy your work from word and paste onto the blog. Best wishes everyone. -DD3
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you. I found Foucault and Locke much easier to read than Hobbes. That could be attributed to the intimidating length of the section of "Leviathan" that we read, but Hobbes just came off as pretentious to me. He's got this "holier than thou" (pardon the pun) kind of writing style. While "Of Commonwealth" was certainly an enlightening work, Hobbes does seem to contradict himself all throughout the work. It seemed to me like if Hobbes had his way, God would just descend from the heavens and act as a sovereign for us. Maybe that's why he spent so much time contradicting himself; if I saw my government crushed and started questioning my own religious beliefs, I'd have trouble trying to write an honest work too.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you. I found Foucault and Locke much easier to read than Hobbes. That could be attributed to the intimidating length of the section of "Leviathan" that we read, but Hobbes just came off as pretentious to me. He's got this "holier than thou" (pardon the pun) kind of writing style. While "Of Commonwealth" was certainly an enlightening work, Hobbes does seem to contradict himself all throughout the work. It seemed to me like if Hobbes had his way, God would just descend from the heavens and act as a sovereign for us. Maybe that's why he spent so much time contradicting himself; if I saw my government crushed and started questioning my own religious beliefs, I'd have trouble trying to write an honest work too.
ReplyDeleteNice summary of Hobbes, Donnie. After all, he does call the monarch a "mortal god."
ReplyDeleteI like your assessment of Hobbes and his text. I have similar issue with him. As I was reading "Leviathan" and the way in which it details what Leviathan represents, I got the image of the bride of Christ more than anything. In Ephesisans (I think) it talks about how the church is supposed to be a representation of the bride of Christ: the congregation is to symbolize arms, hands, legs, feet, and body. Since Hobbes is so preoccupied with language and Christianity, his idea of commonwealth seems to lend itself to that image--for me that is--a single unit composed of parts. I wonder if he had that in mind when writing "Leviathan," or if it is even a relevant comparison?
ReplyDeleteI really loved the irony of him writing about how words can be misconstrued. Especially because he's so awfully long winded with so much open for interpretation. It's especially humorous because he's not even been sarcastic, he's completely serious. Writing about how writing can cause problems just seems pointless and almost dumb, considering the sincerity in which he argues about people misconstruing words. If you're so worried about someone misinterpreting your work then then don't publish something that can have multiple meanings. Or don't publish anything at all.
ReplyDelete