Just as most others concerned with metaphysics, Thomas Aquinas believed that one must first study the natural world and the effects therein. From this one becomes aware of the necessity of First causes. Hence, one studies metaphysics.
Thomas Hobbes agrees with Aquinas, at least that one becomes aware of the necessity of first causes through the study of the natural world: “For he that from any effect seeth come to pass should reason to the next and immediate cause thereof, and from thence to the cause of that cause, and plunge himself profoundly into the pursuit of causes, shall come to this: that there must be one first mover, that is, a first and an eternal cause of all things…” (ch.xiii)
For one who deems the study of metaphysics absurd, he most certainly is aware of the necessity of something metaphysical. Of course, (and thank God!) he has scriptural revelation to solve such a mystery: “ there must be one first mover, that is, a first and an eternal cause of all things, which is that which mean by the name of God…”
He deems metaphysical talk a cause of absurd conclusions, yet he is perfectly aware of the necessity of a supersensible entity. Without scriptural revelation, where would Hobbes be? As it relates to metaphysics, he would, if he is to maintain his integrity, have to give the issue no thought whatsoever (albeit the case that he is aware that there must be something supersensible). He could not speak or think about it; for, to him, our words and thoughts relate only to the sensible world. Is this a fault of Hobbes’s? No. Hobbes sees it fit to rely solely on faith to provide the knowledge of the necessary first cause (whether this is legitimate or not may be another story). Although Hobbes does have some peculiar theological positions, the Christian is able to claim that faith alone is sufficient for him. This is the only other option than silence for Hobbes with respect to metaphysics.
(But couldn’t Hobbes end up somewhere like Aquinas? No. Hobbes’s restrictions on language and concepts prohibit the use of the Thomistic and Aristotelian inquiry.)
I still don't understand how Hobbes is okay with reasoning toward a first cause and going no further. It seems that if he thinks it is legitimate to go to the point of conceding first cause (which must be a list of things to which he won't concede: eternal, non-moving, etc.) he must say we can know something metaphysical outside of faith.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I am forgetting something (and maybe this is what you're saying), but I seems that his "first cause" talk is, in itself, metaphysics, and he - by definition - breaks his own rules.
I think Hobbes's first cause has so little cognitive content attached that it becomes a curious result of physics, rather than metaphysics. Because Hobbes forbids us from studying the attributes and modes of Being, we cannot have categories such as "eternal," "motionless," "infinite," etc., we cannot attach these categories to the first mover. We'll never know anything about it except that it initiated physical force (somehow).
ReplyDeleteI think Mr. Levafor is correct. Hobbes is internally consistent; but this leads him to a place where he must rely only on the authority of divine revelation through scripture. Mr. Levafor was also correct to point out that we can only know, according to Hobbes, that God is. As far as what God is, besides that information given to us in scripture, we are incapable of delving.
ReplyDelete