Hobbes says that we form societies so that we are not in a state of war, yet he admits that this state of war has never historically occurred. This should lead us to an initial suspicion. Is man not the type of creature that is naturally compelled to create societies because a society is man's natural habitat? It seems that man has more natural inclination towards good and productive things in him than Hobbes acknowledges. I think two concepts to examine are friendship and beauty. Friendship is something that Hobbes mentions a few times in Chapter 13 (sec. 7) and Ch. 14 (sec. 12) as something that exists but he never explains how it came to be. It seems that man can have friends just for the sake of friendship. It is true that if a friendship was harmful to man he would not be in the relationship but it is not merely a by-product of wanting something or wanting reputation. Man is the type of animal that enjoys and needs friends on an emotional level. Beauty is also a phenomenon that Hobbes never explains. It seems that no type of fear or negative passion can inspire the desire for beauty. Yet no human being would rather look out of their window at a decaying factory when they could have the view of a beautiful park with a lake and lush rolling meadows. It seems that Hobbes cannot (or at least does not) explain for this part of the soul which yearns for good things out of a positive desire and not a reactionary negative desire.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Hobbes and Humanity
As Dr. Davis has said in class if one is to find a fault with Hobbes it must be in his definition of the passions or his account of the soul (although he wouldn't admit the term). My problem with Hobbes is that his account of humanity is pathetic and makes humans look weak, which of course they can be. Hobbes says that the fundamental motivation in human life is fear. While fear is certainly a powerful aspect of human life I think Hobbes overestimates its value. The fearful picture that Hobbes paints of human beings is not even an animal one. Animals do not (seem to) live the fear driven lives that we supposedly live. Although it is true that they are in a state of war, they do not constantly look over their shoulders out of fear that they will be killed or attacked by members of their own species.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Beauty not only introduce additional desires alongside the mandate to survive, but it can also directly oppose our survival instinct. For if we desire the beautiful, then we can desire a beautiful death, which may significantly decrease our life-span.
ReplyDeleteBeautiful is (in Aristotle's Nic. Ethics) anything worth doing for its own sake rather than the sake of use or pleasure. Beauty is one of the three goods (two really since use falls away). Beauty is thus the sensible sign of self-sufficiency. This idea also favors teleology since beauty often relies on a natural, inner purpose being expressed through order, symmetry, etc.
ReplyDeleteAll of which points to a world of passions and purposes much different from Hobbes'. So yes, I think the disappearance of the beautiful is noteworthy.
When I looked over Chapter xiii, in which Hobbes discusses Man in a state of nature, it seems to me that what he is describing is not even human. The description fits best a reptile; one who would kill any other, including children, if necessary for personal survival. If there is even one hint of selfless compassion in human (and maybe mammal) nature, then the First Law of Nature could possess an exception, and possibly fall apart. I am not sure how to logically prove this compassionate spirit, however.
ReplyDeleteSo yes Mr. York, I agree that the fact that the state of war has never occured historically is suspicious, and that what Hobbes may be unknowingly referring to is a reptilian creature in the state of nature, not a mammal.