Reading about Hobbes was very
interesting. Parts of his philosophy are fascinating, and I like them. Other
parts are horrid; like Plato’s republic, except without even the hope of a
philosopher-king. I didn’t know he used the term “artificial life,” and I like
that he considered a state to be an artificial man. Naming anything “Leviathan” makes it cooler anyway. I’m glad
and impressed that he did not believe in prophetic dreams, witchcraft, or
ghosts. That is not something to be taken for granted from somebody who lived
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
I dislike
his idea of desire and aversion, where something is called good or bad only
based on their place in our desires. I believe in objective morality, not
defined by the desires of individuals. I also heavily believe in free will, which he disagrees with.
His
philosophy of government is very interesting. Everybody is the state of nature
is equal, wanting nothing but to stay free while dominating everybody else;
warring the whole time. Self-preservation is a big topic. Then people decided
to escape this constant warring by subjecting themselves to a central
authority, and thereby end their political power. “the citizens lose all right
except such as the government may find it expedient to grant.” The idea of such
supreme authority over the people, with even their right to rebel being
removed, is horrifying to my American self. An unlimited sovereign, with rights
of censorship and rights to all property; I'd prefer not to live there.
“Even the
worst despotism is better than anarchy.” I’d have to disagree. Anarchy is bad,
but designing a system of government where the person(s) in charge are given
such ultimate might is a horrible, corrupting idea. Giving the citizen the
right of self-preservation against such a ruler would not be much aid, since
the idea of rebellion would be thought wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.