Pete
9th August 2004, 19:05
So as not to overly change the course of the Jean Jaques Rousseau thread I make this one.
Touche.
But while you are entitled to your own interpretation, be careful not to project ideas into Hobbes' thought which are not his own.
In my own opinion you can have either authority or liberty characterize a society, regardless the governmental structure, and Hobbes is clearly in favor of authority as the lynchpin of a good government; it is my impression that leftism (if we can generalize) rests upon liberty in its most absolute attainable sense.
As we must always be, we must not attribute opinions to people who do not hold them, true, but how can anyone say what someone so long dead actually believed? I think in a text as widely studied as the Leviathan that what was meant to be said means a lot less than what can be interpreted from the words. As with Plato, the Leviathan has been around long enough that we can talk about it without caring much what was meant by the words, but how they can be used in the context of our modern society.
Authority is always needed, it just does not to be as open as a secret police force, or strict laws. There is great authority in 'common sense' and 'the golden rule,' though they are not inforced by any law, and need not be. The 'commonwealth', is, in its most invisible form, the cultral norms, mores, and taboos that allow a society to exist. Liberty is natural, and the cultural realities define how that liberty will be articulated in society. Remember Hobbes did not think that the state of nature ever did or ever could exist. There has always been some sort of commonwealth, even before government existed. There has always been 'authority' and there will always be so.
Leftism does rest on liberty. Any society rests on the authority of custom. The two must be made compatible, and since liberty is inherent, then it is society that must change. Change is always resisted. Hobbes thought that slow change was the best kind of change. I disagree. Any change is good change, and often you need a quick change. But not too quick. Society must be able to adapt to the changes without too much conflict, but conflict is always needed.
Perhaps this is less Hobbes, then my thoughts using Hobbes as a spring board.
Touche.
But while you are entitled to your own interpretation, be careful not to project ideas into Hobbes' thought which are not his own.
In my own opinion you can have either authority or liberty characterize a society, regardless the governmental structure, and Hobbes is clearly in favor of authority as the lynchpin of a good government; it is my impression that leftism (if we can generalize) rests upon liberty in its most absolute attainable sense.
As we must always be, we must not attribute opinions to people who do not hold them, true, but how can anyone say what someone so long dead actually believed? I think in a text as widely studied as the Leviathan that what was meant to be said means a lot less than what can be interpreted from the words. As with Plato, the Leviathan has been around long enough that we can talk about it without caring much what was meant by the words, but how they can be used in the context of our modern society.
Authority is always needed, it just does not to be as open as a secret police force, or strict laws. There is great authority in 'common sense' and 'the golden rule,' though they are not inforced by any law, and need not be. The 'commonwealth', is, in its most invisible form, the cultral norms, mores, and taboos that allow a society to exist. Liberty is natural, and the cultural realities define how that liberty will be articulated in society. Remember Hobbes did not think that the state of nature ever did or ever could exist. There has always been some sort of commonwealth, even before government existed. There has always been 'authority' and there will always be so.
Leftism does rest on liberty. Any society rests on the authority of custom. The two must be made compatible, and since liberty is inherent, then it is society that must change. Change is always resisted. Hobbes thought that slow change was the best kind of change. I disagree. Any change is good change, and often you need a quick change. But not too quick. Society must be able to adapt to the changes without too much conflict, but conflict is always needed.
Perhaps this is less Hobbes, then my thoughts using Hobbes as a spring board.