tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post8194248921933896992..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: The great undoer?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-25435988049792925592009-11-11T08:47:14.626+11:002009-11-11T08:47:14.626+11:00Thursday said... Hobbes was a great analyst of ...<i>Thursday said... Hobbes was a great analyst of power, and, after Burke, perhapst the greatest political thinker who ever lived.</i><br /><br />The second greatest? Perhaps you mean "modern" political thinker, for which a case could be made (if one discounts Machiavelli and the later contract theorists, Rousseau and Locke). But it would be wrong to exclude the classical theorists (Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas). And even Hobbes understood the classical tradition well, and showed respect as is evident by comparing sections of Aristotle's <i>Rhetoric</i> with Hobbes's <i>Elements, Leviathan, and De homine</i>; along with his translation of Thucydides. <br /><br />Finally, to ignore classical political theory in favor of the kind of work Hobbes produced is to greatly underestimate what is important in the human sciences, I think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-50648725301003900922009-11-05T18:27:21.976+11:002009-11-05T18:27:21.976+11:00I think a lot of Hobbes' individualism comes f...<i>I think a lot of Hobbes' individualism comes from the fact that, like a lot of nerds, he was probably a bit aspergery.</i><br /><br />Interesting. I've wondered the same thing myself.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-23005083299429717452009-11-05T08:24:19.839+11:002009-11-05T08:24:19.839+11:00Hobbes was a great analyst of power, and, after Bu...Hobbes was a great analyst of power, and, after Burke, perhapst the greatest political thinker who ever lived, but you are right that his methodological individualism was his greatest weakness and lead to many falsities in political thought.<br /><br />I think a lot of Hobbes' individualism comes from the fact that, like a lot of nerds, he was probably a bit aspergery.Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002311410445623799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-76456977262584176652009-11-01T10:57:53.509+11:002009-11-01T10:57:53.509+11:00Asher, you're making a somewhat different poin...Asher, you're making a somewhat different point.<br /><br />Do children really sign on to a coercive contract of family life because they fear, being weaker than their parents, that otherwise their parents will kill them?<br /><br />Is this the only basis for the relationship between parent and child?<br /><br />I don't think so. I do think it's natural for men and women to want to have children; that there are natural paternal and maternal bonds between parent and child; that young children do naturally love their parents and so on.<br /><br />So Hobbes's model of human motivation is wrong - it's way too reductive.<br /><br />This doesn't mean that the single law to follow is "do what comes naturally". I don't know of any conservatives who take such a view.<br /><br />Is the family natural? Yes, in the sense that no human community could survive by leaving mother and child alone to fend for themselves. Yes, in the sense that there are, in human nature, strong instincts and impulses tending toward family life.<br /><br />This doesn't mean, though, that a monagamous form of marriage will always prevail. There are plenty of human societies in which polygamy is the common form of family life.<br /><br />I do believe that monogamy is the highest form of family life and that it takes a certain amount of discipline at the personal and social level to keep it working well.<br /><br />Remember, though, that polygamy requires <i>an even stronger set of social sanctions</i> to keep in place. <br /><br />So I'm not sure I'm willing to sign on to the "polygamy is natural, monogamy is an artificial product of civilisation" theory.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-65564188005474204512009-10-31T04:38:21.959+11:002009-10-31T04:38:21.959+11:00Hobbes is correct in intuiting that the family is ...Hobbes is correct in intuiting that the family is not in the natural order of things, but is imposed on us by civilization. And a good thing, too, because advanced civilization requires the nuclear family for social cohesion.<br /><br />Empirical evidence is pretty stark that the history of our species is not a history of monogamy. Currently, our species is the product of about twice as many females as males and that ratio has been steadily falling. A millenia ago the ratio might have been closer to four procreating females to each procreating male.<br /><br />Conservatives just stick their heads in the sand by not acknowledging that circumscribing nature is the sine qua non of civilization. You know, Oz, sometimes I think you almost get it and then you let me down, like here.Ashernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-51303100630087391432009-10-29T19:26:21.229+11:002009-10-29T19:26:21.229+11:00Yeppers. "Modern liberals" love them so...Yeppers. "Modern liberals" love them some dictatorship (and mass murder).<br /><br />Lenin -- they loved him, and still love him. They like to pretend he was different-in-kind fron Stalin.<br /><br />Stalin -- they loved him when he was top-dog. Nowdays, they clain to not love him. But then, they lie about just about everything, so who can know it they're speaking true about this.<br /><br />Mussolini -- when Mussolini began to gain world attention, and especially after he gained power in Italy, the "progressives" could say enough good about Fascism. FDR's "New Deal" was intentionally modelled on Mussolini's programs, and especially the "partnership" between Big Government and Big Labor and Big Business. The idea, in Italy and in America, was that private -- and free -- enterprise was too inefficient for the "modern age" and thus had to be brought under central command-and-control. To put it another way, the modern age "demanded" that government bureaucrats determine who wins and who loses (and after all, "liberals" cannot but see the economy, and life in general, as a sum-zero game).<br /><br />Hitler -- they loved him until Stalin said hate him. And that hatred burns burns white-hot to this day (though, some of them are beginning to see the "wisdom" of the Nazi Jew-hatred) ... which indicates that Stalin may still hold a special place in their hearts.<br /><br />Ché -- they adore him.<br /><br />Castro -- they adore him.<br /><br />Chávez -- the adore him.<br /><br />Mao -- the adore him.<br /><br />Pol Pot -- they adored him when he had power.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-34872090296078346602009-10-29T15:03:14.701+11:002009-10-29T15:03:14.701+11:00Modern liberals love the idea of an absolute ruler...Modern liberals love the idea of an absolute ruler. It seems to be a part of their DNAJackie Kempennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-35163268653655343622009-10-29T10:54:57.101+11:002009-10-29T10:54:57.101+11:00Strauss argues (in his 1936 essay on Hobbes) that ...Strauss argues (in his 1936 essay on Hobbes) that the original impetus leading to the social compact is multiform: fear of <i>violent</i> death; self reproach secondary to vanity; subsequent shame once this fear is recognized; and a further recognition that the fear is not, strictly speaking, the fear of an <i>individual</i> human enemy, but, rather, the fear of a "common enemy," i.e., Death. Finally, he argues that because of this nascent introduction of guilt, the sovereign State arising from the contract must have a moral quality. <br /><br />Therefore, it may not be accurate to believe, as some do, that the state of nature was ever an amoral war of all against all. Hobbes explains that in nature, although every <i>action</i> is permitted (this is the basis of natural right), not every <i>intention</i> is. The determining judgment turns on whether the intention is based on self preservation. Thus, justice is a legitimate concept, even in nature. <br /><br />In <i>Natural Right and History</i> Strauss argues the notion of classical versus modern natural right, with Hobbes being an example of the latter. Classical natural right asked the question, what is the end of man? Modern natural right looked for the beginning. If one is concerned only with beginnings, what is most distinctly human is ignored. That much is certain, and it is the major flaw of Hobbes (and many other moderns).<br /><br />At the same time, it is easy to see that without a concern for the natural end of man, Hobbes description of the actual life of man in nature is not far off. Think of the savage goings on in Richmond a few days ago, the Knoxville murder trial just ending, street life in inner city Detroit, Oakland, and so forth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-13203709417461392522009-10-29T07:12:43.584+11:002009-10-29T07:12:43.584+11:00Clark Coleman, thanks, fixed it.Clark Coleman, thanks, fixed it.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-11218804910783266192009-10-29T02:12:38.677+11:002009-10-29T02:12:38.677+11:00The "Good and Evil" quote from Hobbes ca...The "Good and Evil" quote from Hobbes came out "God and Evil."Clark Colemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09842923385104389365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-15843494907019827092009-10-29T00:10:58.745+11:002009-10-29T00:10:58.745+11:00"Modern liberalism is not cast entirely in th..."<i>Modern liberalism is not cast entirely in the pattern set by Hobbes. Modern liberals would reject the idea of harmonising wills through an absolute ruler. ...</i>"<br /><br />I don't see where "modern liberals" ever really object to "the idea of harmonising wills through an absolute ruler." It seems to me that they *always love* the idea -- they just don't want to call it what it is.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.com