Final Report blog: Thomas Hobbes as an extension by comparisons

   

(A depiction of the "Leviathan")

Thomas Hobbes preached in    leviathan about man unified. A unity that does not prioritize the individual. He believed men couldn't be trusted to be free and argued they'd just destroy themselves or at best, never reach they're "full potential". This is the philosophy of the monarch and two examples who embody this are Ellsworth Toohey from The Fountainhead and The Empire from Star Wars.
                                                                                                                                                                                               (Empirical symbol )
      In Star Wars, there was the Galatic Republic that was overthrown by the Empire, a fascist government comprised and led by the Sith (evil Jedi). The Republic as it were represented every planet and the Jedi order but the Empire was just a ruling power. without the representation of every planet, the Empire would be able to decide by itself what would be best for the galaxy. What makes the empire's philosophy similar to Hobbes is how they handle the Jedi Order. The Sith embrace the dark side, believing the light side does give the true power the force is capable of, so in order to protect the "true power" the empire order the death of all Jedi. This, in particular, reminded me of  a part in leviathan in which Hobbes states "‘Though of so unlimited a power, men may fancy many evil consequences, yet the consequences of the want of it, which is perpetually warre of every man against his neighbor, are much worse." meaning that if the ruling power can do whatever it wants if its in the name of preventing large scale war. Even the power structure of the sith can be compared to Hobbes. There is a rule that only two sith lords can exist, a Jedi and a master so that they can decide without consultation what is best and so they can be stronger. This is a juxtaposition to the Jedi order, in which there are many Jedi and a council that makes decisions. 

(The Enright House, The Fountainhead)

    In the novel The Fountainhead, the main antagonist Ellsworth Toohey embodies this philosophy to control the opinions of the masses. In the 1920s, Toohey uses his social influence in the form of banquet speeches, conversations with rich socialities, and his newspaper critique column to decide what is good art and bad art for his very large audience. When protagonist Howard Roark, an architect who according to the book is objectively gifted and ahead of his time, begins to advance his works into more mainstream buildings Toohey convinces the undecided public that Roarks work isn't good. He uses this same influence to popularize an architect who sticks to the norms and conventions that Toohey has sold for years. Toohey does this with every medium of art throughout the book (plays, paintings, and sculptures) and he does it because he believes the public can't be trusted with the advancement of art. He knows and admits Roark is a great architect but also knows that the work Roark's work would inspire would be unconventional and out of his control, which opens the world up to one day, liking "bad art". Toohey believes 

                                    "The basic trouble with the modern world … is the intellectual fallacy that freedom and compulsion are opposites. To solve the gigantic problems crushing the world today, we must clarify our mental confusion. We must acquire a philosophical perspective. In essence, freedom and compulsion are one. Let me give you a simple illustration. Traffic lights restrain your freedom to cross a street whenever you wish. But this restraint gives you the freedom from being run over by a truck. If you were assigned to a job and prohibited from leaving it, it would restrain the freedom of your career. But it would give you freedom from the fear of unemployment. Whenever a new compulsion is forced upon us, we automatically gain a new freedom. The two are inseparable. Only by accepting total compulsion can we achieve total freedom"  (The fountainhead, Ayn Rand) 


     Ultimately, Toohey and the Empire both use this philosophy to justify their own interest. They both use institutions that do unjust things for an end they believe are "worth it". I chose these two characters because I think Hobbes subscribed to an evil man's philosophy. Hobbes leviathan and is following philosophy is the only logical argument for an authoritarian government but just because it's logical doesn't mean that it is good.  I feel Hobbes was unaware of his own position in life. Having written his book based on the English civil, He ignores the fact that he wasn't a poor starving Englishman with no education. For a man with such high social standing, his argument actually protected his standard of living by trying to justify it. It's easy to tell a man he is starving for the greater good or that the taxes must be as high as they are but it is not easy to be that man.