Philosophy

» RLSharp - A New Era

In response to A New Era posted by pink101:

Hobbes is largely responsible for the rise of liberalism, by which I mean the idea that freedom is an important part of the state. His influence here is somewhat indirect, but he first says that all men are created equal. Then he says that the state has obligations to its citizens, essentially that the people put the state in power (at first directly, and later by implication...by submitting to the state). His views led to Locke, which led directly to Jefferson and the others responsible for our state.

-- posted by RLSharp

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Nataraja - freedom

Does Hobbes believe that human nature is essentially violent? Could communities exist in this state of nature? I'm curious because the country I live in (Cambodia) has always struck me as a remarkably Hobbesian. There are cardboard cutouts of things like government and police, but they are far from effective as institutions, and so people run around in anarchic freedom, driven by want, envy and lust. The newspapers and NGO hangouts are rife with stories that would make you sick if you could get beyond the absurdity of what people will do given the "freedom." Life for many here, Cambodians and foreigners alike, is indeed nasty, brutish and short.

It strikes me, though, that if Hobbes does believe that human nature is essentially violent and driven by short-sighted self-interest, what kind of definition does he give freedom to make the claim that it would exist in a lawless society? Granted, an individual may be able to do things like kill people or have sex with children or drive through red lights, but that's about the extent of it. Is that what our nature really strives for? Life would be lived in fear and threat; people would be stuck to their homes and families as it would be too dangerous to leave anything unguarded. If you are the biggest and strongest (in contemporary terms: have the most money) then, yes, you would have freedom in the sense that you could exercise your will without restraint, and be fulfilled if your will was solely covetous and destructive.

However, if your ambitions were to build something, create a work of art, learn about the world, do anything that contributes to a sense of self, you would find yourself sadly limited. One needs structure and cooperation to accomplish such things. One needs to be able to share and rely on the goodwill of others. One needs space to step outside his/her own barbed-wire enclosure to speak and be heard if one desires to create. It seems to me that there are plenty of societies in the world today where people are not able to do these things, and we certainly do not consider them free.

If people are by nature selfish and covetous, then I don't see how laws and institutions, or an omnipotent and presumably benevolent dictator, would restrict freedom. If there were stronger laws and some means of controlling behaviour here in Cambodia, then thieves and rapists might suffer restrictions on their "freedom," but the rest of us could do things like take the bars off our windows or enjoy a walk in the moonlight.

Is it possible, though, that there is more to human nature than Hobbes posits? If humans were also innately capable of creating community and harmony and were able to act out of responsible goodwill, then maybe the overbearing will of an individual (is the Leviathan an individual, or a society like in the Republic?) could be seen as oppressive. Maybe we should invite Rousseau to the table on the matter of goodwill. Does he have a different understanding of what it means to be free?

-- posted by Nataraja

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Great Thoughts

In response to freedom posted by Nataraja:

.
That was a great post, Nataraja!
.
And, it provides much for consideration beyond Hobbes.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Nataraja - Great Thoughts

In response to Great Thoughts posted by pink101:

thanks, pink.

-- posted by Nataraja

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» RLSharp - freedom

In response to freedom posted by Nataraja:

Actually, Hobbes agrees with much of what you are saying about Cambodia (and thanks for the insight about your country). Hobbes thinks that too much freedom allows people to behave in the selfish ways that are their nature. In other words, he thinks people take what they want, if allowed to do so. So he is not for unlimited freedom. He thinks that's how it was WITHOUT government. This is why we need a strong government.

In Cambodia, there is no such power. Without the absolute power to enforce rule of law, people devolve back into animals, treating each other as tools to their own pleasure. They steal, they kill, they rape...whatever they want to do. As long as there is no real fear that the state will destroy you for doing bad things, you are free to do them, Hobbes would say.

In fact, he specifically addresses the issue of art and culture. They can't exist without a stable state to provide the security necessary to make culture. There is no room for human accomplishments without rule of law. The Leviathan is that law; it is an all-powerful state. Hobbes thinks that without it, life is a daily struggle. You can't create art when you are worried about your family or about losing your property. You can't write poetry while your neighbor has a gun pointed at you.

So Hobbes is not for unlimited freedom at all. His ideas eventually lead to the conception of the liberal state (see the article on Locke I wrote today), but I don't think he would like where his ideas were taken. He felt people had to give up some liberty in order to have security. Otherwise, they could not really enjoy ANY liberty. They may have it, in a technical sense, but they couldn't enjoy it because of the constant threat of death.

-- posted by RLSharp

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» RLSharp - freedom

In response to freedom posted by RLSharp:

I'll be offline for a few days, btw. But please feel free to continue any conversations. Both I and the site in general encourage it.

-- posted by RLSharp

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Nataraja

In response to Great Thoughts posted by Nataraja:
.
What about the arrest made in Bangkok the other day of a suspect in the Joh Benet Ramsey murder case.
.
What's being said in Cambodia about that? Anything?
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Nataraja - Nataraja

In response to Nataraja posted by pink101:
Hi Pink,

Sorry for the delay; it’s a bit tricky to get to the internet in the rainy season.

Jonbenet: yes, there has been a mumble or two in the papers about the guy being caught in Thailand. But, more to the point over here right now are the two 60 year old German men who are finally on their way to Cambodian prison for months of rape and torture of pre-teen Vietnamese girls and boys, some of whom had been “provided” to these men by their own parents. Today’s headlines were “screams of torture heard for months,” (and could have continued, “and nothing was done or said about it.”) Granted these kids don’t have names and faces to anyone beyond their families, they will never be national heroes like cute little coloured-in Jonbenet, and also they weren’t killed in the end, but it seems to me their fate was worse. And the only reason this story is any different from the leagues of other rape and torture stories that may get a paragraph in the papers, is because the perpetrators were foreigners. Glory be the “freedom” in a stateless society—that’s why these types flock here. It makes you want to vomit.

But anyway, regarding Hobbes, it is the definition he seems to give freedom that troubles me. The concept of freedom seems to be of such critical importance to Westerners, so to define it in terms of the innate drive to consume and destroy, and then creating a political philosophy around how to attain it, the application seems headed for disaster. I am much more impressed with the Eastern conception of freedom that entails overcoming one’s hunger, not just sating it until all resources are exhausted or until you become lunch.

How would the Leviathan look if Hobbes took a more Eastern slant and assumed the same definition of human nature, but accepted that freedom is limited by that nature, as opposed to being realized in the exercise of that nature.

-- posted by Nataraja

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» RLSharp - Nataraja

In response to Nataraja posted by Nataraja:

I think (though I can't be certain) that Hobbes thought of freedom only in it's purely negative sense. In other words, he thought freedom meant the absence of obstacles. In that sense, the sick rapists you are talking about are more free in Cambodia than they would be in the U.S.

However, Hobbes also recognized that freedom had no value in such situations. It was freedom, even absolute freedom, but it wasn't a good life. Technically, the same freedom those criminals in such countries "enjoy" could also be used to kill them without the authorities doing much about it. For most of the people in such a state (or non-state?), the extra freedom has a price that is far too high to be worth paying.

-- posted by RLSharp

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Blows My Mind

In response to Nataraja posted by Nataraja:
.
I have a difficult time trying to imagine what you must experience and know about human behavior as it is expressed in Cambodia.
.
Isn't that where the killing fields were? If I understand what you're telling us at all, it blows my mind to think such terrible injustice can exist anyplace on earth.
.
What a hell it must be. It leaves me speechless. I can't think of anything appropriate to say.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds