Forum / Thomas Hobbes

• 
  Chris Okum

  Nov 13, 04:39pm

  "The obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect them."

• 
  strannikov

  Nov 17, 03:14pm

  --but how analytically accurate and philosophically trustworthy is Hobbes?

• 
  David Ackley

  Nov 17, 05:55pm

  On the contrary, this seems so obvious as to be a political truism, hardly needing elaborate support. If the sovereign can't protect his subjects, it seems they would not longer be able (or willing) to protect the sovereign, who would then be replaced by someone else at the hands of the subjects or a foreign force.

• 
  strannikov

  Nov 17, 09:45pm

  David: I think it was Lev Shestov who persuaded me to be wary of self-evident "truths". (Candor confession: I've read much more of Machiavelli than of Hobbes.)

  No doubt Hobbes is astute as far as Hobbes was willing to go. He seems only to have gone so far, though, and not one step beyond.

  From the thumbnail account of "Leviathan" in the fourth ed. of the Oxford Companion to English Literature:

  ". . . all individuals must enter into a contract 'to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon an assembly of men'. 'This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a commonwealth.' This representative person is sovereign, and his power is inalienable. The contract is not between the subjects and the sovereign, but only between the subjects. The sovereign power is indivisible; it cannot for instance be divided between king and parliament. Hobbes is careful to repudiate the rival claim of the Church to control over the citizen, which involves either a division of sovereign power, or the absorption of the State in the Church. He accordingly makes the Church subordinate to the State.
  "The absolute power thus given to the sovereign is, however, subject to certain limits. There is liberty to refuse obedience if the command of the sovereign frustrates the end for which the sovereignty was ordained, i.e., the preservation of the life of the individual. Moreover, the obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last so long as, and no longer than, 'the power lasteth, by which he is able to protect them'. The sovereign is responsible to God, if not to his subjects, for the proper discharge of his office."

  No philosopher moi, I severely doubt nonetheless that the hermeneutics pertaining to Hobbes have been settled, no matter what interpretations and explanations have emerged since 1651. I can't claim to understand Chris's citation, unless it was to assert only that Hobbesian subjects can withhold their contractual obedience and support for the designated Hobbesian sovereign (more hermeneutical leaking likely is entailed if the Hobbesian subjects are not ardent readers of Hobbes and his commentators, I suppose).

  In short: rejecting a Hobbesian sovereign for some other (designated or self-designated) candidate for Hobbesian sovereign presents no necessary improvement or amelioration. As Voegelin put it in the closing sections of his New Science of Politics (1952): "it must never be forgotten that Western society is not all modern but that modernity is a growth within it". Disposing of Hobbesian sovereigns altogether remains an option, we need not limit ourselves simply to choosing to remain Hobbesian subjects obedient to a rival candidate for Hobbesian sovereign. (Voegelin's assessments and analyses are much more elaborate so don't take my word for it. I have not read Leo Strauss's 1934 Political Philosophy of Hobbes [OUP].)

• 
  David Ackley

  Nov 18, 01:38am

  Ay! I bring up a small point of agreement with the single propositon that Chris quoted, and am met with a fusillade of citations, authorities, and elaboration that is ...well... pardon, Edward, not terribly clear. Never mind all the rest of Hobbes, did you agree or not with what was said?

• 
  strannikov

  Nov 18, 01:59am

  I don't know what Chris's citation signifies, frankly. (Hobbes had a gift for rhetorical flourish: fine.)

  I'm no more in favor of adopting or abiding by Hobbesian categories of Hobbesian sovereigns and Hobbesian subjects than I am of adopting political criteria for assessing literary quality and practice.

• 
  Chris Okum

  Nov 18, 02:34am

  Hey, "Strannikov," you questioning Thomas Hobbes' analytical and philosophical acumen is boring. You're a bore.

• 
  strannikov

  Nov 18, 03:29am

  Fine way to close down a discussion instead of having one, Chris: just suppress questions with an ad hominem slur.

  "[T]he prohibition of questions is not harmless, for it has attained great social effectiveness among men who forbid themselves to ask questions in critical situations."

• 
  Jeffrey S. Callico

  Nov 18, 02:00pm

  I agree with Strannikov on this. Name-calling isn't welcome on any forum, and should be prohibited. Those who do so should be asked to refrain or leave the site.

• You must log in to reply to this thread.