As a creature who adores extended analysis I found that 'Leviathan' was
somewhat disappointing. Now I don't blame Thomas Hobbes for this mild irk, he
wasn't complicit in the publication's decision to *not include a correspondence
to his most honor'd friend Mr. Francis Godolphin.* I curiously read the
document on the e-book of 'Leviathan' the same book PPS (Pacific Publishing
Studios) explosively announced it being an International Best Seller... not only does the book have the highest of
accolade, it boasts the book was a landmark bestseller which inspired multiples
of millions worldwide. I'm sure it did, because Hobbes was a founder of modern
political philosophy; in his dialogue with Godolphin (not in the book) he
states...
"I humbly Dedicate unto you this my discourse of Common-wealth.
I know not how the world will receive it, nor how it may reflect on those that
shall seem to favour it (Leviathan). For in a way beset with those that contend
on one side for too great Liberty, and on the other side for too much
Authority, 'tis hard to passe between the points of both unwounded." Dear
readership, you may denote Hobbes had his doubts about 'Leviathan' - and I can
see why; social contract theorems are not exactly a subject modern living
engages in. And I suspect this mirrored Hobbes opinion in the seventeenth
century.
Hobbes also pens... "Besides, I speak not of the men, but (in
the Abstract) of the Seat of Power..."
I firmly get the impression Hobbes would not of approved of influencing
millions per se... albeit, merely settled on governing chieftains perched on
seats of power. Ye-s, I am a creature of extensive analysis and I've unveiled a
mammoth discrepancy directly from the discourse of Thomas Hobbes. On the book
jacket you read grandiose terms like... 'Writing that shaped the world;' alas,
inside the book civil is spelt 'civill' - I quickly confirmed it really should
be 'Philosophy that shaped the world.' Although, I've a strong view Hobbes had
little to do with the (2011) Leviathan version, I cannot imagine he'd approve
the book should be written in 'old English,' or formatted for actual secondary
school study... it wasn't his audience.
You could concur I'm boldly announcing an intellectual property
injustice here - even the book's glossy cover is superfluously elaborate, he'd
much prefer 'Leviathan' was published as a pamphlet; or simply glazed over a
plump lawmaking loaf. Whereby every citizen can experience the 'Leviathan'
staple diet of humanity, decency and logic, without rallying about in a frenzy
of tribal warfare, politically or economically. Those who speak with a
bellicose tongue deceives their public abhorrently; there's zero need for it -
but its done to create societal trepidation, and directly gifts those in power
to mistreat and starve the vulnerable. There are only two types of chieftains
those who starve the vulnerable and those who don't; there's no inbetweeners,
the failure of neo-liberialism in recent eras is a behemoth example.
From a modern prospective, my steely observations is directed at our
authoritarians today and dare I say it... dare I say it... yes, I am: 'the seats of authoritarianism
are too barbaric to relate to Hobbes social contract to civil liberty and
decency.' In uncertain times civility
in policy and ideology has to supersede the alarmists; indeed, Hobbes portrays
this in Chapter II - 'Of imagination.' By background or definition of
ones' background, the ubiquitous default position trounces the view of
open-mindedness... ye-s 'Of imagination' plays a vital part of mindful concepts
surrounding social values and morals - you nay notice that the blatant obvious
is obscured by a deranged misconception. A few may call it invalid
interpretation, naturally the premise simulates Hobbes's 'Of imagination;' 'man
measure men and other things purely by themselves, automatically the reality is
clouded and when endorsed by their own kind; quickly you witness the flaws -
the imaginative view is escalated and this is where the layers of deceit warps
societal values, to the point *frail* core positions manifest from transfiguration. Why the archetypal
politician systematically recall early memories whenever trying to gain
confidence. In retrospect, this is pure transfiguration, overtly has nothing to
do with gaining trust whatsoever; it's a delusional prophecy to highlight a
self-diagnosed egocentricity - again, the memory is built on the 'Of
imagination' self-orientated mantra, it is redundant to societal contracts with
the public. Movements are not, the reason why they're not is due to the
comprehension of collective governing. 'Of imagination' premises are far less
part of the societal landscape... personal memories are irrelevant; cajoled
futures are the focus. Positive language and actions are the only means to
capture influence, and from influence there's hope and greater influence;
inadvertently, this is where the right kind of prosperity resides.
By now, you'll take note 'Leviathan' is prominently theoretical. The
chapter; 'Apparitions or Visions' is typical of the extremes of illusory
content, gladly modernity pays less time engulfed in divine rhetoric compared
to 1651; alas, we've *accidentally* prospered due to living outside the realm
of incessantly repenting to a non-entity. Dreams whether in a vision of must
dos or regrets cometh under a veil of mystery, audaciously abstract and as a
rule has no worth in an industrial sense. On their own they're worth zilch, but
if the vision has the power to gravitate towards a positive outcome imperialism
can commence from relative stability. Hobbes refers to Marcus Brutes fearful
vision of Julius Caesar 'murthered' in 42 BC, prior to the event - there
closeness, comradeship enabled the dream to become a premonition, one which was
allegedly accurate.
Historians for
centuries have misdiagnosed visions as being truthful; you could easily
conclude that Marcus Brutus's grief could have triggered off a recent event
i.e. as in a vivid, short dream. Time gets jumbled and before long it's deemed
an apparition. Deism tends to usurp on these eventualities and you probably can
get a flavour of Hobbes's reaction in Chapter seven's 'Of the End or
Resolutions of Discourse.' No matter
what logic is gathered, belief systems is an animal of unknown quantities, no
logic can break the resolve of creed. When Hobbes's discourse gets to the
fundamental factor that individuals don't trust in man yet acknowledges the
doctrine , albeit, man wrote the bible. You find chaos erupts under mass
deception (s), and much of the shenanigans are based on identifying false idols,
neither can be proven and this is where the metaphor has cometh to the rescue
of Deism - indoctrinated metaphor is the
purest form of codology.
Hobbes directly warned his readership of the dangers of the metaphor,
because metaphors by character and meaning are suspicious and are man-made,
Designed to be ambiguous and therefore
allegedly immune from scrutiny, of course even the seventeenth century
philosophers knew this. Why the doctrine proclaims you cannot have faith in... Person,
your closest friend. In 'Leviathan' there's a comprehension doctrines has
via nature nothing to do with God; but a human attempt to live by a rule of
order... and what better order is there than one which is illusory; hence, lets
cut to the chase and make it directly a Higher Order. Hobbes's History tells us
if it's a good judgement or not.
Notably, there's a disrespectful attitude in regards to wisdom, duly for
the de facto (power under a perverse self-appointed divine right) allows for contradictory, untruths, inhumane sacrifices, rapes, stoning, repents, and
non negotiable preaching in a place of Worship -to validate the aforementioned
by adopting suchlike within a veiled belief system, is derisive to humanity.
Hobbes's 'Leviathan' was a plea to engage wisdom, logic and decency and bolster
the concept of reason; 'of the reality of flesh and blood should supplant super-naturalism.' My pedantic nature finds it difficult to fathom Hobbes's own interpretation of a 'Holy Man' for he
labels one of being voucher-safe, in being awarded or gifted with divinity;
amusing really due to the fact it's unlikely the gift of Omnipotent. Hobbes
may have had to adhere to a 'Government of Religion' whereby wisdom had to be
addressed to those connected to the 'GoR' in the mid seventeenth century.
Although, it was typical Hobbes to term the 'GoR' to be up to the job of not
being in fear of the Civill Sword; true to form the philosopher always gets the
final word.
Religion / CoE at this point in time was on fertile ground, probably
from the ripening fruits of William Laud's
(Archbishop of Canterbury) divine rhetoric; ye-s, he galvanized all the
parishes to play an active part in building on a supernatural laden society;
indeed he was executed in 1645 for his troubles. Indirectly, Laud's prophecy
was active throughout this epoch. when toleration affiliated to piety was set
at nil; for every citizen had to abide
by the 'CoE' indoctrination - for a man of great will and intellect you can see
why Hobbes took to the pen as if he was in battle.
Comments
Post a Comment