Note: The remainder of this file contains the first 100-or-so messages posted on the hobbes list, one of the mailing lists hosted by The Free Lance Academy. The list is now running at onelist.com. To subscribe, send a message to: hobbes-subscribe@onelist.com or visit http://www.onelist.com and search on hobbes. Lance Fletcher lance@interactive.net ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 8 Date: 03-22-96 18:20 From: Christopher Kristofco Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Anyone? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Is there anyone out there on this list? I wouldn't mind discussing Philosophy if anyone is actually active on the list. Chris K. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 9 Date: 03-23-96 21:47 From: Kent Palmer Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Thinknet Philosophy Guide ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hi--- Anyone on this list interested in taking care of the Hobbes Page at Thinknet? See URL http://server.snni.com:80/~palmer/philosophy_guide.html All you need to do is download the existing page, update the links and send me the result. If there are more than one person to volunteer precedence goes to the first one, or you can work together. Keep the same format as appears on the page now. Just change the links or text and I will post the result. You can have your name on the page as the caretaker and it will give you a chance to particpate in DialogNet in an extremely important way. Interested? Drop me a line. Kent Palmer Thinknet Philosophy Guide Administrator. palmer@exo.com -----------------------------------:----------------------------------------- Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D. :Administrator of ThinkNet {aka DialogNet} Software Engineering Technologist :philosophy and systems theory email lists autopoietic social systems theorist:hosted at the Thinknet BBS (714-638-0876) -----------------------------------:Send message "HELP" to listserv@think.net palmer@think.net palmer@exo.com : ***** A new universe of discourse. ***** -----------------------------------:----------------------------------------- DialogNet homepage: http://server.snni.com:80/~palmer/dialognet.html -----------------------------------:----------------------------------------- ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 10 Date: 03-24-96 20:17 From: V2k (v.) Systems Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: anyone? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ >Is there anyone out there on this list? I wouldn't mind discussing >Philosophy if anyone is actually active on the list. > > > Chris K. I'm here and listening....... Reg ________ Reg Foulkes Senior Manager Nortel/BNR (613) 763-4131 ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 11 Date: 03-24-96 23:29 From: Stuart Broz Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: anyone? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ I'm currently working on an independent project on Hobbesian moral theory and how it fits into his larger system of ideas... I would be happy to discuss this topic (or any other aspect of Hobbes's philosophy, actually) if anyone is interested. To start things off, one thing which I find fascinating is Hobbes's placement and characterization of ethics as opposed to both "the science of just and unjust" and political philosophy in the chart on the classification od the sciences in chapter nine of Leviathan. I would be interested in hearing if anyone has any opinions on this... if you haven't really looked at it, do so... it is somewhat intriguing... Stuart P. Broz I------------------I | Graduate Student | I Philosophy Dept. I I and Law Center I | Georgetown Univ. | I------------------I ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 12 Date: 03-25-96 18:32 From: William D Kolodzie Jr Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: anyone? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ I am particularly interested in Hob=FBbes'understanding of natural right. Will Kolodzie wkolo@tenet.edu ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 13 Date: 03-25-96 18:32 From: William D Kolodzie Jr Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: anyone? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ I am particularly interested in Hob=FBbes'understanding of natural right. Will Kolodzie wkolo@tenet.edu ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 14 Date: 03-28-96 12:02 From: Stuart Broz Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: hobbes web page ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ I am currently in the process of updating the thinknet philosophy guide hobbes page. If you have any suggestions or ideas on what you would like done, please drop me a note. The old page can still be seen at: http://server.snni.com:80/~palmer/philosophy_guide.html thank you, Stuart P. Broz I------------------I | Graduate Student | I Philosophy Dept. I I and Law Center I | Georgetown Univ. | I------------------I ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 15 Date: 03-31-96 09:25 From: Stephen Straker Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: anyone? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ > Is there anyone out there on this list? I wouldn't mind discussing > Philosophy if anyone is actually active on the list. > Chris K. Chris, I'm here and certainly prepared to take up any worthwhile topic. Stephen Straker straker@unixg.ubc.ca Arts One // History (604) 822-6863 University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z1 ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 16 Date: 04-09-96 07:57 From: Lawrence Casse Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: hobbes web page ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ > >I am currently in the process of updating the thinknet philosophy guide >hobbes page. If you have any suggestions or ideas on what you would like >done, please drop me a note. > There was a prose translation of a Latin autobiographical piece (or was it a poem?) by Hobbes that appeared about ten years ago in _Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy_. The translation was by Seth Bernadete as I remember. Might be a good piece for the Web if you could get permission to reprint it- if that is the right word.. regards LC ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 17 Date: 05-19-96 23:00 From: Stephen Straker Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: anyone? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ On Sun, 24 Mar 1996, Stuart Broz wrote: > I'm currently working on an independent project on Hobbesian moral theory > and how it fits into his larger system of ideas... I would be happy to > discuss this topic (or any other aspect of Hobbes's philosophy, actually) > if anyone is interested.... I'm going through old mail and came across your note again. Doesn't seem to have been any reply. I wouldn't mind talking about Hobbes IF any others are interested. Maybe we could discuss Quentin Skinner's recently published book on *Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes* (I *think* is the right title)? As to the question you posed about the place of "ethics" in Leviathan, I think you need to pose the question more specifically before responses can be thought about. best wishes, Stephen Straker straker@unixg.ubc.ca Arts One // History (604) 822-6863 University of British Columbia / FAX: (604) 822-4520 Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z1 ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 18 Date: 05-20-96 17:37 From: Fernando Soler Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: anyone? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ .. > >I'm going through old mail and came across your note again. Doesn't seem >to have been any reply. I wouldn't mind talking about Hobbes IF any >others are interested. Maybe we could discuss Quentin Skinner's recently >published book on *Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Thomas >Hobbes* (I *think* is the right title)? > Would you, please, be so kind to confirm the right title and the edition of Skinner's book? If I can get the book here in Spain, I would be interested in discuss it. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 19 Date: 05-21-96 20:35 From: Tomasz Banaszak Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: anyone? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ On Mon, 20 May 1996, Fernando Soler wrote: > .. > > > >I'm going through old mail and came across your note again. Doesn't seem > >to have been any reply. I wouldn't mind talking about Hobbes IF any > >others are interested. I missed this note, probably because of too many letters I had got. I joined this list a few months ago and I suprised there was nobody eager to talk about Hobbes with which I have been dealing from several years. But now I see that somebody is interested. I don't know this book of Q.Skinner, only some his articles on Hobbes. But I will be certainly interested in any disscusion on Hobbes. We are already two, Fernando and me. Maybe someone else? Maybe we will start with a simple question: why do (don't) we like Hobbes? Or maybe with something entirely different? Tomek Banaszak University of Poznan Poland > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 20 Date: 05-21-96 17:18 From: Stuart Broz Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: anyone? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ On Tue, 21 May 1996, Tomasz Banaszak wrote: > Maybe we will start with a simple > question: why do (don't) we like Hobbes? I like Hobbes for much the same reason most people don't. That is, because he does not glorify human morality in the way, say, Kant does. Morality for Hobbes is just a corrollary of human nature. Given an account of human psychology and sociology there are a range of possible actions and outlooks one could take. Human psychology itself places limits on which of these are acceptable, and human reason can tell us how to limit ourselves (via habituation into virtues and enforcement by law) so that we minimize the chances of an unacceptable situation arising. It is a neat, self-contained, naturalistic system. I like that. Stuart P. Broz I------------------I | Graduate Student | brozs@gusun.georgetown.edu I Philosophy Dept. I I and Law Center I broz@nicom.com | Georgetown Univ. | I------------------I http://www.nicom.com/~broz/ ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 21 Date: 05-24-96 17:07 From: Tomasz Banaszak Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: anyone? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ On Tue, 21 May 1996, Stuart Broz wrote: > > I like Hobbes for much the same reason most people don't. That is, > because he does not glorify human morality in the way, say, Kant does. > Morality for Hobbes is just a corrollary of human nature. Given an > account of human psychology and sociology there are a range of possible > actions and outlooks one could take. Human psychology itself places > limits on which of these are acceptable, and human reason can tell us how > to limit ourselves (via habituation into virtues and enforcement by law) > so that we minimize the chances of an unacceptable situation arising. > > It is a neat, self-contained, naturalistic system. I like that. I think that Stuart Broz very acurately rendered Hobbes' main ideas and what I think of Hobbes is very similar. But there is, I suppose, one problem about it. What in fact can we do with such standpoint nowadays? Hobbes used it to justify his conception of rights and obligations; can we make it in his way? He used it to justify the scope of state power: can we do it being aware of the fact that Hobbesian psychology is naturalistic in seventeenth century's style? Today we justify the structure of rights and obligations on the ground of morality. Hobbes offers quite different, in my opinion more interesting and fertile, way. But I what I think of is the question how to enter this path and go further. Today's contractarian theories, although they often use Hobbes about the social contract, seem to me not enough aware of the difference sketched above. Do you have any ideas about it? Or maybe I am wrong as to my opinion on Hobbes? all the best tomek ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 22 Date: 06-06-96 04:32 From: Cameron Wybrow Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: question regarding Aubrey ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ I hope readers of the Leo Strauss list will not object to my forwarding this query, which they will have already read, to the Hobbes list. I want to post it on both lists, because I can't be sure everyone on the Hobbes list is also on the Strauss list, and I want to hit everyone who might have an answer. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 01:14:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Cameron Wybrow To: leo-strauss@freelance.com Subject: question regarding Aubrey, Hobbes, and Spinoza Being a newcomer to the Strauss list myself, I cannot answer the complaint of someone recently about why this list is so silent. However, I would like to offer to break the silence with a question which some Strauss scholar out there might be able to answer. Readers of Strauss on Hobbes will know that he more than once cites a remark of John Aubrey, Hobbes's biographer, to the effect that Hobbes was jealous of Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise because he, Hobbes, "durst not write so boldly". The idea is that the Biblical criticism put forward by Hobbes in the Leviathan did not reveal the true depth of Hobbes's unbelief, as Spinoza's treatise did of Spinoza's own unbelief. Now in an article I read long ago (before 1982, when I was finishing my Master's thesis on Hobbes's account of the Bible in Leviathan), someone (whether a Straussian or not I can't remember) was contesting Strauss's use of this passage from Aubrey. I can't remember (having only glanced at the article, the reference to which I have lost) whether the article writer was contesting the authenticity of the statement from Aubrey, or whether he was contesting what Strauss drew from it. Anyhow, in line with this article, as I discovered independently, not all editions of Aubrey's Brief Lives have this alleged quotation of Hobbes about Spinoza. Strauss uses an old edition published in Edinburgh, edited by someone named Clark (or is it published by T. & T. Clark?); my edition of Aubrey, however, edited by Oliver Lawson Dick and supposedly more complete than the Clark edition, has no mention of Spinoza at all. Lawson Dick is dead so I cannot write to ask him why his edition differs. Does anyone remember any article published between about 1940 and 1980 which dealt with this question? (I read every article published on Hobbes during that period for the thesis, so it could be anywhere in there.) Or does anyone know off-hand why such a conspicuous statement would be left out by Lawson Dick? Did he simply make an accidental omission, or did he think the quotation spurious? I know that one could easily argue that Leo Strauss's case for Hobbes's unbelief doesn't depend on Aubrey's report, since Strauss gives ample evidence for Hobbes's unbelief from Hobbes's own writing. Still, it is odd that Strauss would stress an unreliable report which has since been found spurious. Either he did not know there was something wrong with Aubrey here, or the people who discount this quotation by Aubrey remark are wrong. I would be interested in hearing from anyone who knows anything about this. Cameron Wybrow Part-time Lecturer in Biblical Greek McMaster Divinity College Hamilton, Ontario ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 26 Date: 01-19-97 11:43 From: Niklas Olaison Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Hobbes studies - the addr ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hello, I understand that this list is rather silent at the moment, but I'll try anyway... I am a Swedish PH.D student writing a thesis on Hobbes. Part of it is devoted to a discussion of the influence of Zabarella and Paduan methodology on Hobbes, but primarlily I am trying to apply the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze to Hobbes, in order to see the internal tensions between a nomadic and a hierarchic thought in the latter. (This is still rather fuzzy). I would be happy to discuss this further with anyone interested in similar problems. I need some help. I would like to get my department to subscribe to the journal Hobbes Studies (as well as order any available back issues), as it is not available in Sweden at all, but I do not have the address or anything, nor information on the costs. Could anyone out there with access to the Journal give me the necessary data? Thank you, Niklas Olaison ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 27 Date: 01-20-97 13:57 From: Niklas.olaison@ideh.su.se Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Hobbes Studies ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hello, I am having trouble getting in touch with this list, so I apologize if you have already have received a message from me. I need the address and the subscrpition rates for the Journal Hobbes Studies. If anyone could help me, I would be very grateful. Thank you very much, Niklas Olaison ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 28 Date: 01-21-97 06:47 From: Type Your Real Name Here Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: hobbes studies ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ The publisher is Van Gorcum, PO Box 43, 9400 AA Assen, The Netherlands. Subscription for individuals 60 Dutch guilders. At 13:57 20/01/97 -0500, you wrote: >Hello, > >I am having trouble getting in touch with this list, so I apologize if >you have already have received a message from me. > >I need the address and the subscrpition rates for the Journal Hobbes >Studies. If anyone could help me, I would be very grateful. > >Thank you very much, > >Niklas Olaison > > ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 31 Date: 01-26-97 21:52 From: Niklas Olaison Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Sidney Godolphin ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hello again, Inspired by the prompt reply to my last query, I will try again. A couple of years ago I read an essay on Sidney Godolphin and more generally on the Great Tew Circle. However, it appeared in an anthology of three essays by the same author, the first of which was about Clarendon. Does anyone recognize the book from this admittedly vague description, and could you please give me the title? And oh, perhaps I should introduce myself. I am a Swedish Ph.D student of History of Ideas, writing on Hobbes as a border figure between traditional Aristotelianism and a very radical empiricism indeed, which I (owing to an as yet incomplete understanding of the works of Gilles Deleuze, whose thinking I intend to use for a starting-point in order to understand Hobbes) call "nomad philosophy". So it will be a post-modern reading of sorts (whatever that is). Anyone else out there trying to deconstruct Hobbes? Thank you Niklas Olaison ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 32 Date: 01-26-97 19:14 From: Orcibal@aol.com Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: sidney godolphin ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hello Niklas Olaison, I do not know the collection of essays you are referring to. However, there is a discussion of Hobbes' and the Tew circle in Richard Tuck's NATURAL RIGHTS THEORIES (Cambridge, 1979). There is also an article on Clarendon, mentioned by Tuck, by H. Trevor-Roper in the TLS (January 10, 1975). Tuck deals with Hobbes' s intellectual milieu in another article----"The Modern Theory of Natural Law" in THE LANGUAGES OF POLITICAL THEORY IN EARLY-MODERN EUROPE ed. Anthony Pagden (Cambridge, 1987). You may know all this stuff. Sorry I can't be of more help. Hobbes isn't my bailiwick. Michael Cull orcibal@aol.com ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 33 Date: 02-05-97 10:52 From: Niklas Olaison Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Harvey ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hi, Anyone out there that knows of a reference concerning the relationship between Hobbes and William Harvey (apart from the books of Watkins and Gargani). Thank you, Niklas ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 35 Date: 02-14-97 16:27 From: Niklas Olaison Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: The Short Tract ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hello again, This time I'm looking for an article on the Short Tract. I know that it is in Hobbes Studies somewhere, but I remember neither the author nor the year. If anyone has seen it, please give me the reference, as I have to order it from abroad (no library in Sweden subscribes to HS). Thank you, Niklas ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 37 Date: 03-21-97 15:01 From: Niklas Olaison Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Prometheus ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Could anyone put me in mind of the place where Hobbes compares the prudent man to Prometheus? Thanks Niklas ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 38 Date: 03-21-97 17:37 From: Kent Guida Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Prometheus ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ The passage Niklas Olaison seeks is printed below. It is the only mention of Prometheus in Leviathan. What do you make of it? Kent Guida CHAPTER XII OF RELIGION SEEING there are no signs nor fruit of religion but in man only, there is no cause to doubt but that the seed of religion is also only in man; and consisteth in some peculiar quality, or at least in some eminent degree thereof, not to be found in other living creatures. And first, it is peculiar to the nature of man to be inquisitive into the causes of the events they see, some more, some less, but all men so much as to be curious in the search of the causes of their own good and evil fortune. Secondly, upon the sight of anything that hath a beginning, to think also it had a cause which determined the same to begin then when it did, rather than sooner or later. Thirdly, whereas there is no other felicity of beasts but the enjoying of their quotidian food, ease, and lusts; as having little or no foresight of the time to come for want of observation and memory of the order, consequence, and dependence of the things they see; man observeth how one event hath been produced by another, and remembereth in them antecedence and consequence; and when he cannot assure himself of the true causes of things (for the causes of good and evil fortune for the most part are invisible), he supposes causes of them, either such as his own fancy suggesteth, or trusteth to the authority of other men such as he thinks to be his friends and wiser than himself. The two first make anxiety. For being assured that there be causes of all things that have arrived hitherto, or shall arrive hereafter, it is impossible for a man, who continually endeavoureth to secure himself against the evil he fears, and procure the good he desireth, not to be in a perpetual solicitude of the time to come; so that every man, especially those that are over-provident, are in an estate like to that of Prometheus. For as Prometheus (which, interpreted, is the prudent man) was bound to the hill Caucasus, a place of large prospect, where an eagle, feeding on his liver, devoured in the day as much as was repaired in the night: so that man, which looks too far before him in the care of future time, hath his heart all the day long gnawed on by fear of death, poverty, or other calamity; and has no repose, nor pause of his anxiety, but in sleep. This perpetual fear, always accompanying mankind in the ignorance of causes, as it were in the dark, must needs have for object something. And therefore when there is nothing to be seen, there is nothing to accuse either of their good or evil fortune but some power or agent invisible: in which sense perhaps it was that some of the old poets said that the gods were at first created by human fear: which, spoken of the gods (that is to say, of the many gods of the Gentiles), is very true. But the acknowledging of one God eternal, infinite, and omnipotent may more easily be derived from the desire men have to know the causes of natural bodies, and their several virtues and operations, than from the fear of what was to befall them in time to come. For he that, from any effect he seeth come to pass, should reason to the next and immediate cause thereof, and from thence to the cause of that cause, and plunge himself profoundly in the pursuit of causes, shall at last come to this, that there must be (as even the heathen philosophers confessed) one First Mover; that is, a first and an eternal cause of all things; which is that which men mean by the name of God: and all this without thought of their fortune, the solicitude whereof both inclines to fear and hinders them from the search of the causes of other things; and thereby gives occasion of feigning of as many gods as there be men that feign them. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 39 Date: 03-21-97 19:52 From: Cameron Wybrow Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: prometheus ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Niklas Olaison wrote: > Could anyone put me in mind of the place where Hobbes compares the prudent > man to Prometheus? > > Thanks > > Niklas *Leviathan*, Chapter XII ("Of Religion"), fifth paragraph. P. 169 in the Penguin edition of MacPherson. Cameron Wybrow. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 40 Date: 03-21-97 19:52 From: Cameron Wybrow Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: prometheus ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Niklas Olaison wrote: > Could anyone put me in mind of the place where Hobbes compares the prudent > man to Prometheus? > > Thanks > > Niklas *Leviathan*, Chapter XII ("Of Religion"), fifth paragraph. P. 169 in the Penguin edition of MacPherson. Cameron Wybrow. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 41 Date: 03-22-97 15:43 From: Niklas Olaison Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: prometheus ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ >The passage Niklas Olaison seeks is printed below. It is the only mention >of >Prometheus in Leviathan. What do you make of it? >Kent Guida Thank you for helping me. I think that this passage is a succinct portrait of the existential plight of man, who, being endowed with reason, is prey to everlasting anxiety, which is also the cause of the unfortunate dynamics in social interaction which give rise to the condtion of nature. This process has been splendidly described by MacPherson in his Introduction to Leviathan. I think that it is an extremely interesting passage. The discrepancy between the infinite chain of causes and man's finite imagination is not only the source of man's conception of God, but his conception of anything. The world is infinitely complex but man's imagination is finite, so the search for causes has to end somewhere, but the exact point is arbitrary. (Gary Herbert's _Thomas Hobbes_ contains an interesting discussion of this.) Therefore, any conception that we have of things outside ourselves is necessarily incomplete, and incomplete in an arbitrary way at that. I think this is the key to the conflict between realism and arbitrarism in Hobbes. As to his views on religion, the passage is inconclusive. My personal view is that Hobbes is a genuine Christian, but this is open to dispute. Niklas ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 42 Date: 03-22-97 23:13 From: Cameron Wybrow Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Hobbes a Christian? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ On Sat, 22 Mar 1997, Niklas Olaison wrote: > As to his views on religion, the passage is inconclusive. My personal view > is that Hobbes is a genuine Christian, but this is open to dispute. Well, it depends upon what is meant by "genuine". If you mean, he conceived himself to be a Christian *of some sort*, I suppose that is possible, though the arguments of Strauss that he is an atheist would obviously have to be refuted to establish this. But if you mean "orthodox" Christian, that is, a Christian who held to any mainstream interpretation, that would seem impossible. His direct attack on the Roman tradition of his day is obvious enough, and the implicit attack on Protestantism (cleverly disguised in the form of a discussion of the principles of Biblical criticism in Book III of Leviathan) is quite striking once one sees the implications of his discussion. So I would think the most that could be said is that Hobbes is an unorthodox, maverick sort of Christian, whose Christian theology is not easy to discern. That may have been the case. I think the odds are about 75% against it, though. (Most Straussians would say 100%, but I am not a dogmatic Straussian.) However, even if he was not a Christian I believe it is very likely that his political thought is shaped in moral tone and contents by his reading of the Bible; certain parts of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, supply him with the "realistic" assessment of human nature (in contrast with the "idealistic" one found, according to him, in Greek and medieval thought) which undergirds his systematic reasoning. Cameron Wybrow. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 43 Date: 03-23-97 17:25 From: Leocasey@aol.com Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: hobbes a christian? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ This is a hotly debated issue, and one which has little by the way of definitive resolution. I find the Straussian contention that Hobbes was a closeted atheist quite short of evidentiary and textual proof, and quite long on the general schematic of political philosophy and on speculation -- which is par for the course with Straussian readings of figures in political philosophy. Leo Casey ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 49 Date: 01-02-98 12:49 From: Scott David Foutz Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: ??? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ hello, i recently joined the hobbes mailing list and haven't heard a peep. anyone else waiting for something? i am particularly interested in hobbes' physical philosophy (nominalism) and epistemology (including his optical theory). scott david foutz ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 50 Date: 01-02-98 16:30 From: Eduardo Hernando Nieto Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: ??? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hi, I am also interested in Hobbes and I have not heard anything about him since I subsbribed this list. I am basically interested in his political theory and in his view on rationalism (the Fool problem). Have you already read Skinner s last book ? (reason and rethoric) I read an excellent article on the Fool problem in Political Theory No 5. (september-October 1997) Hasta la vista Eduardo > >hello, > i recently joined the hobbes mailing list and haven't heard a=20 >peep. anyone else waiting for something? i am particularly interested in=20 >hobbes' physical philosophy (nominalism) and epistemology (including his=20 >optical theory).=20 > >scott david foutz > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------= -- >Internet: sfoutz@albion.trin.edu (Scott David Foutz) >Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- >For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com=20 >http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page)= or- >To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub= " >Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com >---------------------------------------------------------------------------= -- > > Eduardo Hernando Nieto Tupac Amaru 636 Lima 21 PERU e-mail: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe Phone: (51-1) 4634156 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: - "Necessitas non habet legem" =20 =20 - " Has alejado de mi al amigo y a mi compa=F1era, mi =FAnico amigo es la oscuridad.." =20 SALMO 88, 18 =20 =20 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 51 Date: 01-02-98 22:43 From: Niklas Olaison Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: ??? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ hello Scott, there hasn't been any activity on this list for a long time, so it is nice to hear from you. I'm writing a PhD on Hobbes trying to apply some concepts from Gilles Deleuze on Hobbes - sort of a deconstruction, I suppose, something which for some reason noone has yet done to Hobbes, as far as I know. French philosophers tend to stick to Descartes. I am primarily interested in Hobbes's epistemology and theory of meaning, so we might have some interests in common. If you would like an extended discussion you are welcome to e-mail me privately. Niklas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on. - Terry Pratchett ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 52 Date: 01-03-98 03:31 From: Nicola Caleffi Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: R: ??? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hi Scott (or everyone else who has subscribed the list). I'm also interested in Hobbes's political philosophy. I'm writing a thesis about Hobbes at the moment, a work about the relation between politics and society in Hobbes's thought. The thesis started as a work about the relation between Hobbes's political philosophy and 17th Century England, but up to now I'm still working on an "insightful" view on Hobbes's political theory. For what concerns this mailing list, as far as I know the first messages arrived to me only last days, but I don't know the reason why. Anyway, I'm interestes in exchanging opinions and advices about Hobbes's philosophy (political thought in particular). Nicola Caleffi My Hobbes's page http://www.aspide.it/freeweb/hobbes ---------- > Da: Scott David Foutz > A: Multiple recipients of list HOBBES > Oggetto: ??? > Data: venerdύ 2 gennaio 1998 18.49 > > hello, > i recently joined the hobbes mailing list and haven't heard a > peep. anyone else waiting for something? i am particularly interested in > hobbes' physical philosophy (nominalism) and epistemology (including his > optical theory). > > scott david foutz > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > Internet: sfoutz@albion.trin.edu (Scott David Foutz) > Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or- > To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub " > Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 53 Date: 01-03-98 03:35 From: Nicola Caleffi Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: R: ??? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hi Eduardo, I'm also interested in Hobbes's political philosophy, I'm writing a thesis about it. I've read Skinner's last book, it's very interesting and rich. I think it's one of the masterpiece in Hobbes's literarture, even if from a very partial point of view (Skinner deals with the rhetoric dimension of Hobbes's thought, and with 17th Century England rhetorical renaissance). PS If everyone of you is interested, I own a site devoted to Hobbes (it's in italian, sorry). The url is http://www.aspide.it/freeweb/hobbes ---------- > Da: Eduardo Hernando Nieto > A: Multiple recipients of list HOBBES > Oggetto: re: ??? > Data: venerdύ 2 gennaio 1998 22.30 > > Hi, I am also interested in Hobbes and I have not heard anything about him > since I subsbribed this list. > I am basically interested in his political theory and in his view on > rationalism (the Fool problem). > Have you already read Skinner s last book ? (reason and rethoric) > I read an excellent article on the Fool problem in Political Theory No 5. > (september-October 1997) > > Hasta la vista > > Eduardo > > > > > >hello, > > i recently joined the hobbes mailing list and haven't heard a=20 > >peep. anyone else waiting for something? i am particularly interested in=20 > >hobbes' physical philosophy (nominalism) and epistemology (including his=20 > >optical theory).=20 > > > >scott david foutz > > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- = > -- > >Internet: sfoutz@albion.trin.edu (Scott David Foutz) > >Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > >For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com=20 > >http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page)= > or- > >To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub= > " > >Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- = > -- > > > > > > Eduardo Hernando Nieto > Tupac Amaru 636 > Lima 21 > PERU > e-mail: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe > Phone: (51-1) 4634156 > > :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > - "Necessitas non habet legem" > =20 > =20 > > > - " Has alejado de mi al amigo y a mi compa=F1era, mi =FAnico amigo es la > oscuridad.." =20 > SALMO 88, 18 > =20 > =20 > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > Internet: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe (Eduardo Hernando Nieto) > Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or- > To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub " > Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 54 Date: 01-03-98 03:39 From: Nicola Caleffi Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: R: ??? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ It's a little strange to hear about the relation between Hobbes and Deleuze, I think you're a kind of a piooner in dealing with this. "Deconstruction" is a concept that could fit well in Hobbes's interpretation of Holy Scriptures (Leviathan part 3&4). It could be more problematic to apply it to Hobbes's view of rationality, but it's an interesting challenge. ---------- > Da: Niklas Olaison > A: Multiple recipients of list HOBBES > Oggetto: re: ??? > Data: sabato 3 gennaio 1998 4.43 > > hello Scott, > > there hasn't been any activity on this list for a long time, so it is nice > to hear from you. I'm writing a PhD on Hobbes trying to apply some concepts > from Gilles Deleuze on Hobbes - sort of a deconstruction, I suppose, > something which for some reason noone has yet done to Hobbes, as far as I > know. French philosophers tend to stick to Descartes. I am primarily > interested in Hobbes's epistemology and theory of meaning, so we might have > some interests in common. If you would like an extended discussion you are > welcome to e-mail me privately. > > Niklas > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made > you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on. > > - Terry Pratchett > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > Internet: olaison@mail.datakom.su.se (Niklas Olaison) > Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or- > To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub " > Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 55 Date: 01-03-98 10:26 From: Eduardo Hernando Nieto Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Hobbes & Schmitt ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hola Nicola! thanks for answering my questions. I am still waiting for Skinner=B4s book but after hearing your comments I hope that the book arrive= soon What I have read some years ago was Carl Schmitt essay on Hobbes s= Leviathan. I wrote my MA dissertation on Schmitt =B4s Total state and now I am= completing my Doctorate dissertation on Political Theology and Decisionism dealing with de Maistre, Donoso Cortes, and Carl Schmitt but Hobbes is always helpful. In fact, I agree with Schmitt in his simbolic interpretation of Hobbes s= Leviathan. I would like to know why italians are so interested in Hobbes. When I studied at Exeter University I meet an italian guy who was finishing his Phd thesis on Hobbes (he started writing the thesis under MM. Goldsmith supervision before he moved to Australia) and where I did the MA (East Anglia) I meet another italian guy interested in David Gauthier (who uses Hobbes to write his "Moral by agreements". Perhaps is Machiavelli influence I guess! Last but not least What do you think about Strauss =B4s Thoughts on= Machiavelli? I will try to get your page although italian is not easy for me though it is similar to spanish. Besos Eduardo =20 Eduardo Hernando Nieto Tupac Amaru 636 Lima 21 PERU e-mail: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe Phone: (51-1) 4634156 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: - "Necessitas non habet legem" =20 =20 - " Has alejado de mi al amigo y a mi compa=F1era, mi =FAnico amigo es la oscuridad.." =20 SALMO 88, 18 =20 =20 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 56 Date: 01-03-98 19:03 From: Nicola Caleffi Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: R: hobbes & schmitt ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hi Edoardo, it's nice to hear from other Hobbes's students around the world. Schmitt's book is very interesting, I read it some months ago and it has been useful (Schmitt is a very "deep" political thinker... in certain case too deep!) Anyway, Schmitt's symbolic interpretation of Leviathan and Behemoth is interesting, even if - in a certain way - too "metaphysical" or Heidegger-oriented (maybe more for the language than for what it really says about Hobbes). I don't think Machiavelli is the origin of Italian's interest in Hobbes. It could be our juridical background (the fact that in Italy, for example, law studies still deal with roman law), or a kind of reaction to fascism cultural despotism during the 20's and 30's. Another reason could be the omnipervasive presence of Hegel in our philosophical culture. As a political thinker, Hobbes represents one of the most "systematic" philosopher, just as Hegel (and Hegel, much more than Marx, is the greatest modern political philosophy. who owes to Hobbes many concepts). I must admit that some of the Italians Hobbes students (Norberto Bobbio, Arrigo Pacchi and Tito Magri for example) are worldwide acknowledged as some of the greatest ones. Finally, I'm not much concerned on Strauss's interpretation of Machiavelli. I know that in the american edition of his book about Hobbes he changed his mind and gave to Machiavelli the title of "originator of modern political philosophy", basing his new judgement on Machiavelli's "Discorsi". This could be originated by the more republican-democratic view of the "Discorsi", but I'm not much sure of this. I'm interested in exchanging Hobbes's material via email (essays, bibliographies, etc). If you want, I could even host some of your papers on my site about Hobbes (with an english translation of course). Let me know what you think. Thanks ---------- > Da: Eduardo Hernando Nieto > A: Multiple recipients of list HOBBES > Oggetto: hobbes & schmitt > Data: sabato 3 gennaio 1998 16.26 > > Hola Nicola! thanks for answering my questions. I am still waiting for > Skinner=B4s book but after hearing your comments I hope that the book arrive= > soon > What I have read some years ago was Carl Schmitt essay on Hobbes s= > Leviathan. > I wrote my MA dissertation on Schmitt =B4s Total state and now I am= > completing > my Doctorate dissertation on Political Theology and Decisionism dealing with > de Maistre, Donoso Cortes, and Carl Schmitt but Hobbes is always helpful. In > fact, I agree with Schmitt in his simbolic interpretation of Hobbes s= > Leviathan. > I would like to know why italians are so interested in Hobbes. When I > studied at Exeter University I meet an italian guy who was finishing his Phd > thesis on Hobbes (he started writing the thesis under MM. Goldsmith > supervision before he moved to Australia) and where I did the MA (East > Anglia) I meet another italian guy interested in David Gauthier (who uses > Hobbes to write his "Moral by agreements". Perhaps is Machiavelli influence > I guess! > Last but not least What do you think about Strauss =B4s Thoughts on= > Machiavelli? > I will try to get your page although italian is not easy for me though it is > similar to spanish. > > Besos > > Eduardo =20 > > > > Eduardo Hernando Nieto > Tupac Amaru 636 > Lima 21 > PERU > e-mail: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe > Phone: (51-1) 4634156 > > :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > - "Necessitas non habet legem" > =20 > =20 > > > - " Has alejado de mi al amigo y a mi compa=F1era, mi =FAnico amigo es la > oscuridad.." =20 > SALMO 88, 18 > =20 > =20 > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > Internet: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe (Eduardo Hernando Nieto) > Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or- > To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub " > Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 57 Date: 01-03-98 18:33 From: Andrew Wood Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Hobbes Political Philosop ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Eduardo Hernando Nieto wrote: > > Hi, I am also interested in Hobbes and I have not heard anything about him > since I subsbribed this list. > I am basically interested in his political theory and in his view on > rationalism (the Fool problem). > Have you already read Skinner s last book ? (reason and rethoric) > I read an excellent article on the Fool problem in Political Theory No 5. > (september-October 1997) > > Hasta la vista > > Eduardo > > > > >hello, > > i recently joined the hobbes mailing list and haven't heard a=20 > >peep. anyone else waiting for something? i am particularly interested in=20 > >hobbes' physical philosophy (nominalism) and epistemology (including his=20 > >optical theory).=20 > > > >scott david foutz > > > > > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------= > -- > >Internet: sfoutz@albion.trin.edu (Scott David Foutz) > >Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > >For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com=20 > >http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page)= > or- > >To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub= > " > >Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------= > -- > > > > > > Eduardo Hernando Nieto > Tupac Amaru 636 > Lima 21 > PERU > e-mail: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe > Phone: (51-1) 4634156 > > :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > - "Necessitas non habet legem" > =20 > =20 > > - " Has alejado de mi al amigo y a mi compa=F1era, mi =FAnico amigo es la > oscuridad.." =20 > SALMO 88, 18 > =20 > =20 > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Internet: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe (Eduardo Hernando Nieto) > Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or- > To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub " > Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've just been reading the Skinner 'Reason and Rhetoric' book which I think is excellent. It should be seen as a further attempt at 'recovering' Hobbes by contextual study. It certainly helps us with the Warrender problem of obligation (although Richard Tuck, another fine 17th C scholar, has already, to some extent done this); it also helps with the debate about Hobbes commitment to scientific method. Another book by Skinner has only been published in the last week or so (CUP). It's called Liberty before liberalism it a short reworking of his inaugaral lecture as Regius Prof of Modern History at Cambridge. It sets Hobbes in the context of the republican ( neo roman) thinkers of Hobbes' time and argues that Hobbes's absolute state, according to them would be a threat to liberty as liberty to these thinkers is co-terminous with a free state ( the threat to my liberty from not being part of a self-governing polis is a curtailment of my freedom). Whereas Hobbes, of course, thinks it doesn't matter, it the laws that count not who governs. Its a vital book for anyone interested in Hobbes's political theory and well worth getting hold of. Yes, lets have more on Hobbes and his political theory. By the way I'm not familiar with the 'fool argument, where can I find this in Hobbes? If it is what it sounds like I can see how the rhetoric argument in Skinner would work. Please let me know. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 58 Date: 01-03-98 11:44 From: Stephen Straker Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: ??? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Scott David Foutz wrote: > i recently joined the hobbes mailing list and haven't heard a > peep. anyone else waiting for something? i am particularly interested in > hobbes' physical philosophy (nominalism) and epistemology (including his > optical theory). Hello you 4 (or more) -- There hasn't been a peep for some time (more than a year at least, I think). In any case, I'm game to talk about these issues as well as the others that have been mentioned. If the rest of you are interested, perhaps we could begin by someone (not I) explaining why it is correct to describe Hobbes as a "nominalist" and to say he is such as opposed to ... what? If this isn't relevant or interesting right now, feel free to ignore the suggestion -- it's not a trap or provocation: I've long wondered if that really is the right thing to call Hobbes's (epistemological?) position and while I have my doubts I have no strong counter-views except to wonder whether he might not better be described as a kind of "conventionalist" (or is that too much of an anachronism?). SS -- Stephen Straker Arts One / History (604) 822-6863 / 822-2561 University of British Columbia Vancouver, B.C. FAX: (604) 822-4520 CANADA V6T 1Z1 home: (604) 733-6638 / 734-4464 ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 59 Date: 01-04-98 10:41 From: Eduardo Hernando Nieto Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: hobbes political phil ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hi Andrew, thanks for telling us about Skinner s last work, I am going to check it out in Amazon right now. As I told Nicola I am waiting "reason and rethoric" but I have read Skinner s past books and also Richard Tuck (I have just finished "Philosophy and Government" I really do not share his Republican point of view but what it is interesting as you mentioned is his contextual approach although we have to see more than the contextual. (I have to tell you that I follow in many ways Leo Strauss rather than the Cambridge School) About the "fool affair" you must read chapter XV (Leviathan)where Hobbes said that the fool says that when it conduces to one s benefit , it is reasonable to break covenants. Of course the Fool rejects Justice, Moral and God and perhaps is similar to Nietzsche last man. You can see "Hobbes and the foole" by Kinch Hoekstra (Political Theory Vol 25, No5 1997) Do you think that Hobbes was a believer? Why he took the second part of Leviathan to write on Political Theology? Cheers Eduardo 've just been reading the Skinner 'Reason and Rhetoric' book which I >think is excellent. It should be seen as a further attempt at >'recovering' Hobbes by contextual study. It certainly helps us with the >Warrender problem of obligation (although Richard Tuck, another fine >17th C scholar, has already, to some extent done this); it also helps >with the debate about Hobbes commitment to scientific method. > >Another book by Skinner has only been published in the last week or so >(CUP). It's called Liberty before liberalism it a short reworking of >his inaugaral lecture as Regius Prof of Modern History at Cambridge. It >sets Hobbes in the context of the republican ( neo roman) thinkers of >Hobbes' time and argues that Hobbes's absolute state, according to them >would be a threat to liberty as liberty to these thinkers is >co-terminous with a free state ( the threat to my liberty from not being >part of a self-governing polis is a curtailment of my freedom). Whereas >Hobbes, of course, thinks it doesn't matter, it the laws that count not >who governs. Its a vital book for anyone interested in Hobbes's >political theory and well worth getting hold of. > >Yes, lets have more on Hobbes and his political theory. > >By the way I'm not familiar with the 'fool argument, where can I find >this in Hobbes? If it is what it sounds like I can see how the rhetoric >argument in Skinner would work. Please let me know. > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Internet: woody3@netcomuk.co.uk (Andrew Wood) >Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- >For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com >http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or- >To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub " >Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Eduardo Hernando Nieto Tupac Amaru 636 Lima 21 PERU e-mail: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe Phone: (51-1) 4634156 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "Philosophy is the attempt to replace opinion with knowledge; but opinion is the element of the city, hence philosophy is subversive, hence the philosopher must write in a way that he will improve rather than subvert the city." LEO STRAUSS - "Necessitas non habet legem" ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 60 Date: 01-04-98 10:41 From: Eduardo Hernando Nieto Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: r: hobbes & schmitt ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hola Nicola! I agree with you when you say that Hegel is the main reason why italians are so interested in Hobbes. When I was in England all my Professors and lectures said that Hobbes -although his nominalism and positivism - was really far from the british tradition (i.e Locke, Hume, Smith etc) and closer to the Continental Tradition, I mean close to the POLITICAL tradition. And as you can see Kant and all his followers like Weber, Kelsen, Hayek, Rawls, Dworkin and so on represent a sort of antipolitical and neutral tradition, now a days challenged by Communitarians who have a great debt to Hegel and of course to all premodern traditional thought. About the Roman Law traditon I am not sure because here in Peru and in South America we use roman law but Kant is still powerful and all our political affairs are tackle by jurist and lawyers not by Political theorist or scientist. (I think that is one of the reason why we are undeveloped countries) I am absolutely sure that Carl Schmitt is XX century s Hobbes and I was always impressed by the power of his statements like "Sovereingn is he who decides on the exception" just comparable to Hobbes s "Auctoritas non Veritas..." Yes I wuold like to send you some of the papers I have written, however I am not sure about how to do it (you can send by e-mail long papers?, I think that you can read spanish , don t you?) Saludos Eduardo Pd: I have problems to get into your web page! Have you change the address? > Eduardo Hernando Nieto Tupac Amaru 636 Lima 21 PERU e-mail: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe Phone: (51-1) 4634156 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "Philosophy is the attempt to replace opinion with knowledge; but opinion is the element of the city, hence philosophy is subversive, hence the philosopher must write in a way that he will improve rather than subvert the city." LEO STRAUSS - "Necessitas non habet legem" ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 61 Date: 01-04-98 18:52 From: Nicola Caleffi Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: R: ??? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ As far as I know, Hobbes can be classified as a "nominalist" for the reason that his epistemological theory lies on the ground of the belief that external objects exists only because individuals own some determined faculties (language, sight) that let them organize those external objects in some conventional intellectual categories, on which individuals choose to agree. His epistemological view opposes to the "universalist" or "realist" view of reality -- by this point of view I think Hobbes could be described as a forerunner of some recent relativistic epistemological view (Rorty, Davidson, Feyerabend), for which the world exists not in itself (i.g. there is anything like an "external" or deep essence in reality), but only because we are able to describe it by our conventional language choices. Rorty would call it an "antirepresentationalist" (opposed to Descartes and Kant), tough Rorty didn't give much attention to Hobbes in his essay. Do someone agree with my interpretaion? ---------- > Da: Stephen Straker > A: Multiple recipients of list HOBBES > Oggetto: re: ??? > Data: sabato 3 gennaio 1998 17.44 > > Scott David Foutz wrote: > > i recently joined the hobbes mailing list and haven't heard a > > peep. anyone else waiting for something? i am particularly interested in > > hobbes' physical philosophy (nominalism) and epistemology (including his > > optical theory). > > Hello you 4 (or more) -- > > There hasn't been a peep for some time (more than a year at least, I think). > > In any case, I'm game to talk about these issues as well as the others > that have been mentioned. > > If the rest of you are interested, perhaps we could begin by someone (not I) > explaining why it is correct to describe Hobbes as a "nominalist" and to > say he is such as opposed to ... what? > > If this isn't relevant or interesting right now, feel free to ignore the > suggestion -- it's not a trap or provocation: I've long wondered if that > really is the right thing to call Hobbes's (epistemological?) position and > while I have my doubts I have no strong counter-views except to wonder > whether he might not better be described as a kind of "conventionalist" (or > is that too much of an anachronism?). > > SS > > -- > > Stephen Straker > Arts One / History (604) 822-6863 / 822-2561 > University of British Columbia > Vancouver, B.C. FAX: (604) 822-4520 > CANADA V6T 1Z1 home: (604) 733-6638 / 734-4464 > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > Internet: straker@unixg.ubc.ca (Stephen Straker) > Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or- > To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub " > Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 62 Date: 01-04-98 19:07 From: Nicola Caleffi Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: R: hobbes political philo ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ I haven't read Skinner's latest book (Liberty before liberalism), but according to what you wrote Skinner must have based on some essays recently attributed to Hobbes and written in 1620 (cf. "Three Discourses", A.Saxonhouse ed.) where there are some evidences of the Machiavelli's influence on Hobbes's first political thinking. An essay is a comment on Tacitus, and another is a work on the conecpt of law based on the interpretation of Roman history (civil wars, passage from monarchy ro republic). If those works have really been written by a young Hobbes, it is true that the figure of the Prince (=the monarch) was central in his first view on political order, and in this sense Machiavelli could have been a great influence on him. But in the new edition of this works there is no proof that Hobbes ever read Machiavelli. In my opinion, anyway, there is a great difference from Hobbes and republican political thinkers (Machiavelli, Guicciardini). The Fool problem: Hobbes deals with it in Leviathan, chap. 15. The "fool" is an individual that doesn't accept to ally with others on the ground of the defense of his personal interest. He is one who doesn't accept to get out from the state of nature because he doesn't want to renounce to his own benefit. Someone (David Guathier I think) has compared him to the "Free Rider" (a figure in economical and sociological explanation). ---------- > Da: Andrew Wood > A: Multiple recipients of list HOBBES > Oggetto: hobbes political philosophy > Data: domenica 4 gennaio 1998 0.33 > > Eduardo Hernando Nieto wrote: > > > > Hi, I am also interested in Hobbes and I have not heard anything about him > > since I subsbribed this list. > > I am basically interested in his political theory and in his view on > > rationalism (the Fool problem). > > Have you already read Skinner s last book ? (reason and rethoric) > > I read an excellent article on the Fool problem in Political Theory No 5. > > (september-October 1997) > > > > Hasta la vista > > > > Eduardo > > > > > > > >hello, > > > i recently joined the hobbes mailing list and haven't heard a=20 > > >peep. anyone else waiting for something? i am particularly interested in=20 > > >hobbes' physical philosophy (nominalism) and epistemology (including his=20 > > >optical theory).=20 > > > > > >scott david foutz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- = > > -- > > >Internet: sfoutz@albion.trin.edu (Scott David Foutz) > > >Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > > >For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com=20 > > >http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page)= > > or- > > >To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub= > > " > > >Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- = > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Eduardo Hernando Nieto > > Tupac Amaru 636 > > Lima 21 > > PERU > > e-mail: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe > > Phone: (51-1) 4634156 > > > > :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > > > - "Necessitas non habet legem" > > =20 > > =20 > > > > - " Has alejado de mi al amigo y a mi compa=F1era, mi =FAnico amigo es la > > oscuridad.." =20 > > SALMO 88, 18 > > =20 > > =20 > > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > > Internet: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe (Eduardo Hernando Nieto) > > Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > > For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > > http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) > or- > > To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub > " > > Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > I've just been reading the Skinner 'Reason and Rhetoric' book which I > think is excellent. It should be seen as a further attempt at > 'recovering' Hobbes by contextual study. It certainly helps us with the > Warrender problem of obligation (although Richard Tuck, another fine > 17th C scholar, has already, to some extent done this); it also helps > with the debate about Hobbes commitment to scientific method. > > Another book by Skinner has only been published in the last week or so > (CUP). It's called Liberty before liberalism it a short reworking of > his inaugaral lecture as Regius Prof of Modern History at Cambridge. It > sets Hobbes in the context of the republican ( neo roman) thinkers of > Hobbes' time and argues that Hobbes's absolute state, according to them > would be a threat to liberty as liberty to these thinkers is > co-terminous with a free state ( the threat to my liberty from not being > part of a self-governing polis is a curtailment of my freedom). Whereas > Hobbes, of course, thinks it doesn't matter, it the laws that count not > who governs. Its a vital book for anyone interested in Hobbes's > political theory and well worth getting hold of. > > Yes, lets have more on Hobbes and his political theory. > > By the way I'm not familiar with the 'fool argument, where can I find > this in Hobbes? If it is what it sounds like I can see how the rhetoric > argument in Skinner would work. Please let me know. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > Internet: woody3@netcomuk.co.uk (Andrew Wood) > Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or- > To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub " > Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 63 Date: 01-04-98 16:14 From: Leocasey Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Hobbes and Schmitt ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Schmitt's book on Leviathan is certainly interesting and worthy of study, given the general refusal to grapple with the symbolism of leviathan, and the significance of that symbolism in Hobbes' political philosophy. But I would question strongly the view that Schmitt's analysis is not open to serious question. There is little doubt that this text expresses a nasty and gratuitous anti-Semitism, openly expressed in Schmitt's work during his participation in the Nazi movement, and that this anti-Semitism shapes, in ways that are clearly historical distortions, his paradigm of contrasting Judaic and Christian traditions of leviathan interpretation, the former supposedly an anti-state tradition and the latter a pro-state tradition. This is central enough to Schmitt's analysis that it must be openly addressed in any intellectually honest appraisal of that work. Leo Casey ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 64 Date: 01-05-98 00:24 From: Nicola Caleffi Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: R: hobbes political philo ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hobbes was a true Christian believer. He was an anglican Church follower; Leviathan part 3 and 4 were written as a polemic against the power of Roman Church and papism, and, in a more general way, against the "forces of darkness" meant as the ideological means of religion against political power. There is a great book by David Johnston about this (The Rhetoric of Leviathan, 1986); it explains why half of Leviathan was dedicated to theological discussion. ---------- > Da: Eduardo Hernando Nieto > A: Multiple recipients of list HOBBES > Oggetto: re: hobbes political philosophy > Data: domenica 4 gennaio 1998 16.41 > > Hi Andrew, thanks for telling us about Skinner s last work, I am going to > check it out in Amazon right now. > As I told Nicola I am waiting "reason and rethoric" but I have read Skinner > s past books and also Richard Tuck (I have just finished "Philosophy and > Government" > I really do not share his Republican point of view but what it is > interesting as you mentioned is his contextual approach although we have to > see more than the contextual. (I have to tell you that I follow in many ways > Leo Strauss rather than the Cambridge School) > About the "fool affair" you must read chapter XV (Leviathan)where Hobbes > said that the fool says that when it conduces to one s benefit , it is > reasonable to break covenants. > Of course the Fool rejects Justice, Moral and God and perhaps is similar to > Nietzsche last man. > You can see "Hobbes and the foole" by Kinch Hoekstra (Political Theory Vol > 25, No5 1997) > Do you think that Hobbes was a believer? Why he took the second part of > Leviathan to write on Political Theology? > > Cheers > > Eduardo > > > 've just been reading the Skinner 'Reason and Rhetoric' book which I > >think is excellent. It should be seen as a further attempt at > >'recovering' Hobbes by contextual study. It certainly helps us with the > >Warrender problem of obligation (although Richard Tuck, another fine > >17th C scholar, has already, to some extent done this); it also helps > >with the debate about Hobbes commitment to scientific method. > > > >Another book by Skinner has only been published in the last week or so > >(CUP). It's called Liberty before liberalism it a short reworking of > >his inaugaral lecture as Regius Prof of Modern History at Cambridge. It > >sets Hobbes in the context of the republican ( neo roman) thinkers of > >Hobbes' time and argues that Hobbes's absolute state, according to them > >would be a threat to liberty as liberty to these thinkers is > >co-terminous with a free state ( the threat to my liberty from not being > >part of a self-governing polis is a curtailment of my freedom). Whereas > >Hobbes, of course, thinks it doesn't matter, it the laws that count not > >who governs. Its a vital book for anyone interested in Hobbes's > >political theory and well worth getting hold of. > > > >Yes, lets have more on Hobbes and his political theory. > > > >By the way I'm not familiar with the 'fool argument, where can I find > >this in Hobbes? If it is what it sounds like I can see how the rhetoric > >argument in Skinner would work. Please let me know. > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > >Internet: woody3@netcomuk.co.uk (Andrew Wood) > >Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > >For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > >http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) > or- > >To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub " > >Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > > > > > Eduardo Hernando Nieto > Tupac Amaru 636 > Lima 21 > PERU > e-mail: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe > Phone: (51-1) 4634156 > > :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > "Philosophy is the attempt to replace opinion with knowledge; but opinion > is the element of the city, hence philosophy is subversive, hence the > philosopher must write in a way that he will improve rather than subvert > the city." > > LEO STRAUSS > > > > - "Necessitas non habet legem" > > > > > > > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > Internet: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe (Eduardo Hernando Nieto) > Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or- > To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub " > Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 65 Date: 01-04-98 19:27 From: Eduardo Hernando Nieto Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: hobbes and schmitt ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ After reading George Schwab and Joseph Benderski s books on Schmitt (not to say Gunther Maschke) you has to admit that Schmitt was neither a nazi nor an antisemitic. Do not forget that thanks to him Leo Strauss was able to go to America. Furthermore it is not a secret that traditional political thought worked without making a difference between politics and religion (see for instance, Fustel de Coulange or Bertrand de Jouvenel), and that Jews have a particular view on nature. For them the time is sacred but space is secular. So if space is secular, the POLIS belongs to the space therefore the POLIS is secular and by this way you pave the way to modernity. That is all. Cheers Eduardo > >Schmitt's book on Leviathan is certainly interesting and worthy of study, >given the general refusal to grapple with the symbolism of leviathan, and the >significance of that symbolism in Hobbes' political philosophy. But I would >question strongly the view that Schmitt's analysis is not open to serious >question. There is little doubt that this text expresses a nasty and >gratuitous anti-Semitism, openly expressed in Schmitt's work during his >participation in the Nazi movement, and that this anti-Semitism shapes, in >ways that are clearly historical distortions, his paradigm of contrasting >Judaic and Christian traditions of leviathan interpretation, the former >supposedly an anti-state tradition and the latter a pro-state tradition. This >is central enough to Schmitt's analysis that it must be openly addressed in >any intellectually honest appraisal of that work. > >Leo Casey > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Internet: LeoCasey@aol.com (Leocasey) >Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- >For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com >http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or- >To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub " >Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Eduardo Hernando Nieto Tupac Amaru 636 Lima 21 PERU e-mail: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe Phone: (51-1) 4634156 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "Philosophy is the attempt to replace opinion with knowledge; but opinion is the element of the city, hence philosophy is subversive, hence the philosopher must write in a way that he will improve rather than subvert the city." LEO STRAUSS - "Necessitas non habet legem" ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 66 Date: 01-05-98 00:34 From: Nicola Caleffi Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: R: r: hobbes & schmitt ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hi Eduardo, I agree with your analysis about Carl Schmitt. Schmitt viewed himself as a kind of "contemporary" Hobbes (I read this in an essay about Schmitt), and decisionism surely derive from Hobbes's theory (altough also Kelsen's normativism has some relations to Hobbes's concept of law). The papers: if everything works right, there shouldn't be any problem in sending long papers via email. The way to do it is to send them as "Attachment" file, saving them before as zip file (using Win Zip to compress them), to reduce their dimensions in kylobite. I read MS Word document (6.0/95). If that doesn't work, you can copy and paste the text of the papers in an email and send it this way (to my adress, not to the entire list). I will also try to read Spanish. I don't know ther reason why you didn't get the url of my Hobbes's site. Try again: http://www.aspide.it/freeweb/hobbes Bye Nicola ---------- > Da: Eduardo Hernando Nieto > A: Multiple recipients of list HOBBES > Oggetto: re: r: hobbes & schmitt > Data: domenica 4 gennaio 1998 16.41 > > Hola Nicola! I agree with you when you say that Hegel is the main reason why > italians are so interested in Hobbes. When I was in England all my > Professors and lectures said that Hobbes -although his nominalism and > positivism - was really far from the british tradition (i.e Locke, Hume, > Smith etc) and closer to the Continental Tradition, I mean close to the > POLITICAL tradition. And as you can see Kant and all his followers like > Weber, Kelsen, Hayek, Rawls, Dworkin and so on represent a sort of > antipolitical and neutral tradition, now a days challenged by Communitarians > who have a great debt to Hegel and of course to all premodern traditional > thought. > About the Roman Law traditon I am not sure because here in Peru and in South > America we use roman law but Kant is still powerful and all our political > affairs are tackle by jurist and lawyers not by Political theorist or > scientist. > (I think that is one of the reason why we are undeveloped countries) > > I am absolutely sure that Carl Schmitt is XX century s Hobbes and I was always > impressed by the power of his statements like "Sovereingn is he who decides > on the exception" just comparable to Hobbes s "Auctoritas non Veritas..." > Yes I wuold like to send you some of the papers I have written, however I am > not sure about how to do it (you can send by e-mail long papers?, I think > that you can read spanish , don t you?) > > Saludos > > Eduardo > > Pd: I have problems to get into your web page! Have you change the address? > > > > > > > Eduardo Hernando Nieto > Tupac Amaru 636 > Lima 21 > PERU > e-mail: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe > Phone: (51-1) 4634156 > > :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > "Philosophy is the attempt to replace opinion with knowledge; but opinion > is the element of the city, hence philosophy is subversive, hence the > philosopher must write in a way that he will improve rather than subvert > the city." > > LEO STRAUSS > > > > - "Necessitas non habet legem" > > > > > > > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > Internet: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe (Eduardo Hernando Nieto) > Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or- > To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub " > Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 67 Date: 01-04-98 23:05 From: Lawrence Casse Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Hobbes and religion ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Nicola Caleffi wrote: > > Hobbes was a true Christian believer. He was an anglican Church follower; > Leviathan part 3 and 4 were written as a polemic against the power of Roman > Church and papism, and, in a more general way, against the "forces of > darkness" meant as the ideological means of religion against political > power. There is a great book by David Johnston about this (The Rhetoric of > Leviathan, 1986); it explains why half of Leviathan was dedicated to > theological discussion. Notwithstanding the fact that there are some expressions of support for Anglicanism in Hobbes's writings it is questionable whether Hobbes's larger argument against the "forces of darkness" applies to Anglicanism as well-as the Anglican bishops understood. Hobbes teaching also requires political support for the established relgion whatever it may be. On this point, I quote some remarks of Leo Strauss: " I cannor prove here that Hobbes was an atheist, even according to his own view of atheism. I must limit myself to asking the reader to compare * De Cive * XV, 14 with *English Works*, IV, 349. Many present day scholars who write on subjects of this kind do not have a sufficient notion of the degree of circumspection or of accomodation to the accepted views that was required, in former ages, of "deviationists" who desired to survive or die in peace. These scholars tacitly assume that the pages in Hobbes writings devoted to religious subjects can be understood if they are read in the same way in which one ought to read the corresponding utterances, say, of Lord Bertrand Russell. " In other words, I am familiar with the fact that there are innumerable passages in Hobbes's writings which were used by Hobbes and which can be used by everyone else for proving that Hobbes was a theist or even a good Anglican. The prevalent procedure would merely lead to historical errors, if to grave historical errors, but for the fact that the results are employed for butressing the dogma that the mind of the individual is incapable of liberating itself from the opinions which rule his society.... (Natural Right and History, p.199 note.) Question : can someone with the texts at hand provide the citation from English Works IV, 349 ? ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 68 Date: 01-05-98 00:25 From: Cameron Wybrow Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Hobbes and Christianity a ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Nicola Caleffi wrote: > Hobbes was a true Christian believer. He was an anglican Church follower; > Leviathan part 3 and 4 were written as a polemic against the power of Roman > Church and papism, and, in a more general way, against the "forces of > darkness" meant as the ideological means of religion against political > power. There is a great book by David Johnston about this (The Rhetoric of > Leviathan, 1986); it explains why half of Leviathan was dedicated to > theological discussion. It is doubtful whether Hobbes was a true Christian believer in any sense, but even if he was he was certainly not an Anglican Church follower if by that is meant one who believes that the Anglican teaching is "truer" Christianity, doctrinally speaking, than others. Hobbes knew perfectly well that the Anglican Church, like most other Churches over time, arose out of certain political accommodations which had peace as much as truth as their end. He no sooner thought the Thirty-Nine Articles were pure Christianity than he thought the decrees of the Council of Trent or of Nicaea were. If he prefers Anglicanism, is it because the alternatives, Roman Catholicism and pure Calvinism, tend towards political extremism which is dangerous to a healthy nation-state. I have not read the David Johnston book, but if it offers the interpretation of Parts III and IV given above I would say it is only a surface-level reading. Yes, Hobbes is attacking Rome for the reasons cited, but he is doing much more than that. Political scientists and philosophers don't know what to make of Parts III and IV because they don't understand the relationship between Hobbes and the foundations of modern Biblical criticism, which in the long run is more dangerous to Protestantism than Catholicism. The unfortunate compartmentalization of universities makes it rare that Hobbes scholars actually read Hebrew or Greek or know anything about the Bible. I tried to bridge this gap in my M.A. thesis, which is available on loan from McMaster University, and I have published one later article on the matter, "Hobbes as an Interpreter of Biblical Political Thought", in *Liberal Democracy and the Bible*, ed. by Kim Parker (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1992). I believe that Hobbes's thought is indeed permeated by certain Biblical themes, but that permeation does not establish that he was a Christian believer. I believe he thought the Bible a very useful and even at points a very wise book, but I would quite surprised to find that he believed it was divine revelation in any sense. Any reading of Parts III and IV that goes beyond the surface level (the polemic against Romanism) makes this highly unlikely. The similarity between Hobbes's arguments and those of the later thinkers Spinoza and Reimarus are too great to be ignored. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 69 Date: 01-05-98 00:52 From: Cameron Wybrow Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Jews on time and spac ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ On Sun, 4 Jan 1998, Eduardo Hernando Nieto wrote: > Furthermore it is not a secret that traditional political thought worked > without making a difference between politics and religion (see for instance, > Fustel de Coulange or Bertrand de Jouvenel), and that Jews have a > particular view on nature. For them the time is sacred but space is > secular. So if space is secular, the POLIS belongs to the space > therefore the POLIS is secular and by this way you pave the way to > modernity. The generalization attributed to Jews here requires some defense. It sounds like one of those grand thematic pronouncements which continental European thinkers are particularly fond of. Permit me to inquire about its basis? By "Jews" are we to understand the thought of liberal, post-enlightenment Judaism? Medieval Judaism? Talmudic Judaism? The Hebrew Bible? I would be interested in evidence culled from the Hebrew Bible which shows that space is secular and that time is sacred. As for the assertion that the polis belongs to space rather than time, it is arbitrary on general grounds, and certainly wrong for the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible places at least as much emphasis on the historicity of cities, that is, on their beginnings and their destinies, than on their geographical aspects. Start with the story of Cain in Genesis 4, for example. The characteristic fault of intellectual history is that its desire to paint sweeping pictures runs roughshod over the evidence of particular periods and texts. It may well be that Biblical thought contributed in subtle ways to the shaping of the modern world, but the sort of analysis given above, dear to intellectual historians, is based upon an academic idealization of "Jewish" thought which no thoughtful student of Jewish belief would recognize as Jewish. When philosophers do intellectual history, they too often try to take the shortcut around the thorny empirical problems of literary and historical interpretation. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 70 Date: 01-05-98 00:32 From: Leocasey Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: hobbes and schmitt ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ << After reading George Schwab and Joseph Benderski s books on Schmitt (not to say Gunther Maschke) you has to admit that Schmitt was neither a nazi nor an antisemitic. >> I has to admit nothing of the sort. For starters, you might try reading a text by someone not predisposed to being an apologist for Schmitt. Someone, for example, who does not overlook the fact that he joined the Nazi party in 1933, and was one of its leading militants in the academy and the field of law. Someone who does not ignore the facts that under the sponsorship of Goring and Frank, he was appointed Prussian state counselor, elected director of the University Teachers Group of the Nazi League of German Jurists, made editor of the leading law journal _Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung_ and given the prestigious chair of public law at the University of Berlin, all "coincidentally" within six months of having joined the Nazi party. Someone who does not ignore his advocacy of Nazi politics -- his justification of the bloody purges of the 'night of long knives' in the infamous article "The Fuhrer protects the law", or his public support for the Nuremburg laws which deprived Jews of citizenship rights and made anti-Semitic ideology into law, or his development of the international legal concept of 'grossraum' to defend the dominant and hegemonic role of the German Reich in central and eastern Europe. Someone who will actually examine the anti-Semitic stereotypes which underly the portrait of Judaic interpretations of leviathan in the text in question. Someone who would want to understand why Schmitt was known by the unflattering title of 'Kronjurist' (crown jurist) of the Third Reich. I might also add that I have actually researched the historical development of the concept of leviathan, and that any fair-minded person who spends some time in the stacks looking at the actual texts will quickly see how entirely distorted Schmitt's portrait of the Judaic and Christian traditions of leviathan interpretation are. Finally, you might consider that not everyone is enthralled with the work of Strauss, and that many of those who have studied the dalliance of the young Strauss with Hobbes are convinced that the meeting of their paths had a lot to do with the fundamentally anti-democratic (as well as anti-liberal) perspective of both. Hannah Arendt was, no doubt, cruel when, in an encounter in America with the refuge Strauss, she noted that it was a pity that his Jewishness had led to his exile from a regime which embraced many of his ideas, but she was not entirely off the mark. In any case, if Schmitt's relationship with Strauss, a Jew, is supposed to innoculate him from the charge of anti-Semitism, then by this logic Heidegger must have been a closet Semiphile, given his illicit affair with Arendt, a Jewess. The standards of academic argument require something more than this patchwork of illogic. Leo Casey ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 71 Date: 01-05-98 09:18 From: Eduardo Hernando Nieto Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: hobbes and schmitt ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ > >For starters, you might try reading a text by someone not predisposed to being >an apologist for Schmitt. Who can it be?, I guess you have in mind a liberal an antistraussian and antischmittian scholar like Prof. Stephen Holmes? I am right? :) It is possible to find neutral scholars? I do not think so. I just want to add that if Schmitt wrote "Der Hutter der Verfassung" and the other essays he was calling for a Decisionist Sovereign and he sincerely thought that this sovereign could be Hitler. I am sure that you have not read "Der Nomos der Erde" otherwise you have never used that silly argument about "Grossraum". Could you explain how Schmitt distorted the Leviathan Mith? I do not know anything about Heidegger s illicit affair with Hannah Arendt (Sorry but it sounds like a Puritan statement) but what I know is that Heidegger and Scchmitt were involved in the "German Conservative Revoluion" and as far as many jews represented the "Burgois style of life" they did not like them but of course not all the jews were close to this archetype like Strauss and Hannah Arendt. Saludos Eduardo Eduardo Hernando Nieto Tupac Amaru 636 Lima 21 PERU e-mail: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe Phone: (51-1) 4634156 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "Philosophy is the attempt to replace opinion with knowledge; but opinion is the element of the city, hence philosophy is subversive, hence the philosopher must write in a way that he will improve rather than subvert the city." LEO STRAUSS - "Necessitas non habet legem" ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 72 Date: 01-05-98 18:56 From: Andrew Wood Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: hobbes and christiani ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Cameron Wybrow wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Nicola Caleffi wrote: > > > Hobbes was a true Christian believer. He was an anglican Church follower; > > Leviathan part 3 and 4 were written as a polemic against the power of Roman > > Church and papism, and, in a more general way, against the "forces of > > darkness" meant as the ideological means of religion against political > > power. There is a great book by David Johnston about this (The Rhetoric of > > Leviathan, 1986); it explains why half of Leviathan was dedicated to > > theological discussion. > > It is doubtful whether Hobbes was a true Christian believer in any sense, > but even if he was he was certainly not an Anglican Church follower if by > that is meant one who believes that the Anglican teaching is "truer" > Christianity, doctrinally speaking, than others. Hobbes knew perfectly > well that the Anglican Church, like most other Churches over time, arose > out of certain political accommodations which had peace as much as truth > as their end. He no sooner thought the Thirty-Nine Articles were pure > Christianity than he thought the decrees of the Council of Trent or of > Nicaea were. If he prefers Anglicanism, is it because the alternatives, > Roman Catholicism and pure Calvinism, tend towards political extremism > which is dangerous to a healthy nation-state. > > I have not read the David Johnston book, but if it offers the > interpretation of Parts III and IV given above I would say it is only a > surface-level reading. Yes, Hobbes is attacking Rome for the reasons > cited, but he is doing much more than that. Political scientists and > philosophers don't know what to make of Parts III and IV because they > don't understand the relationship between Hobbes and the foundations of > modern Biblical criticism, which in the long run is more dangerous to > Protestantism than Catholicism. The unfortunate compartmentalization of > universities makes it rare that Hobbes scholars actually read Hebrew or > Greek or know anything about the Bible. I tried to bridge this gap in my > M.A. thesis, which is available on loan from McMaster University, and I > have published one later article on the matter, "Hobbes as an Interpreter > of Biblical Political Thought", in *Liberal Democracy and the Bible*, ed. > by Kim Parker (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1992). > > I believe that Hobbes's thought is indeed permeated by certain Biblical > themes, but that permeation does not establish that he was a Christian > believer. I believe he thought the Bible a very useful and even at points > a very wise book, but I would quite surprised to find that he believed it > was divine revelation in any sense. Any reading of Parts III and IV that > goes beyond the surface level (the polemic against Romanism) makes this > highly unlikely. The similarity between Hobbes's arguments and those of > the later thinkers Spinoza and Reimarus are too great to be ignored. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Internet: wybrowc@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA (Cameron Wybrow) > Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or- > To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub " > Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think what you say about Hobbes on religion is probably true. Two points to add: he would have needed to pretend that he believed even if he didn't given views at the time. Secondly, he is at best a a deist and no more on account of his philosophy requiring a first mover. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 73 Date: 01-05-98 14:04 From: Eduardo Hernando Nieto Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: r: hobbes & schmitt ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hola Nicola!, About Hobbes s metaphysics, I also think that he was a believer, but in some way he was a heterodox Christian. In "Behemot" he is particularly critic to all Christian traditions but he addresses his attack to the members of the church not necesarily to the dogma. However as Schmitt points out, Hobbes was something skeptic about miracles and this is a typical modern view. (For example, as far as I know there are no more official worship to the angels) On Kelsen s normativism if it is true that it expresses a will (state s will), this will is not decisonist because it was built under Kantian categories.It is therefore an static will not dynamic as Schmitt s. My computer knowledge is very poor so I will take time to understand the mechanism. The problem is that I am still trying to get Netscape 3.1 perhaps that is the reason why I cannot visit your page. Maybe I can send you by airmail some of my papers. Muchos saludos Eduardo > Eduardo Hernando Nieto Tupac Amaru 636 Lima 21 PERU e-mail: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe Phone: (51-1) 4634156 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "Philosophy is the attempt to replace opinion with knowledge; but opinion is the element of the city, hence philosophy is subversive, hence the philosopher must write in a way that he will improve rather than subvert the city." LEO STRAUSS - "Necessitas non habet legem" ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 74 Date: 01-05-98 11:53 From: Michael Green Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: hobbes and religion ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ 1. What is the citation for English Works IV, 349? (Casse) I don't have the Molesworth volumes here. According to Martinich's bibliography in A Hobbes Dictionary, this would be "An Answer to a Book Published by Dr. Bramhall, late Bishop of Derry; Called The Catching of Leviathan. Together With An Historical Narration Concerning Heresie, And the Punishment Thereof." According to Martinich, this was written about 1688 but published posthumously. Martinich quotes several passages from the reply to Bramhall suggesting that Hobbes was concerned to avoid the charge of atheism. But I couldn't find the specific passage that Strauss refers to. 2. Was Hobbes a true believer? (Caleffi) I don't know that we have enough evidence either way to decide the question of Hobbes's own faith. Hobbes made many professions of his own faith and held many views that were perceived to be in conflict with Christianity. In the context of this list, it may be interesting to discuss particular pieces of evidence one way or the other rather than trying to settle it once and for all. For example, Aubrey reports this annecdote. Hobbes gave a beggar 6 pence and was asked this by "a divine (Dr. Jasper Mayne) that stood by: 'Would you have done this, if it had not been Christ's command?' 'Yea,' said he. 'Why?' quoth the other. 'Because,' said he, 'I was in pain to consider the miserable condition of the old man; and now my alms, giving him some relief, doth also ease me.'" (Aubrey's Life of Hobbes, par. 16). This clearly suggests that Hobbes had a running dispute with at least this divine: the divine is trying to catch Hobbes in some behavior that shows that he actually believes despite his professions not to. But was their dispute about Christianity in general or about a more specific doctrine concerning the reliance of morality on divine commands? 3. Specifically, was he an Anglican? (Caleffi, Wybrow) Again, his personal faith is a bit mysterious, in my opinion. Aubrey says that Hobbes declared the Anglican church the best (par. 11) but also reports that its representatives "tormented" him and that he told them, along with Calvinists and Catholics, to leave him alone or "I will detect all your cheats from Aaron to yourselves" (par. 12). Chapter 47 of Leviathan describes the presbyterians' dissolution of the episcopacy as removing "the second knot" on Christian liberty and hence moving England along the path back towards "the independency of the primitive Christians, to follow Paul, or Cephas, or Apollos, every man as he liketh best. Which ... is perhaps the best" (Lev. Ch. 47, par. 20). On the other hand, in the Latin version of Ch. 47, Hobbes claims this about the purpose of Leviathan's Part 4: "lest the people be seduced by false doctors, I have exposed the ambitious and cunning plans of the adversaries of the Anglican church" (par. 29, trans. by Curley in the Hackett edition of Lev.). But this paragraph from the Latin edition doesn't appear in the English one. Is that significant? Got me. It's textual problems like these that lead me to think we can't decide the issue of Hobbes's own beliefs. An excellent discussion that convinced me of the intractability of this issue is an exchange between Edwin Curley and A. P. Martinich in the Journal of the History of Philosophy (1996) (I think that's right: I have the exact citation elsewhere). 4. But didn't he have theoretical/political reasons for prefering the Anglican church? (Casse, Wybrow) The Anglican church was the most capable of transmitting doctrines in support of the sovereign. Hobbes himself said that having control over religious doctrines is one of the three "rights which make the essence of sovereignty" (Lev. Ch. 18, par. 16) and he thought that the "science of just and unjust" ought to be taught from the pulpit in order to ensure civil order (Behemoth, Tonnies ed., p.38). Would that kind of control over religious doctrine have been possible for an English soveriegn of the time except through the Anglican church? Since I believe the answer to that question is "no" I think he had strong theoretically grounded reasons for supporting the Anglican church. But that is also why I find his apparent endorsement of Independency in Lev. ch. 47 (par. 20) so strange; Independency seems to loosen the sovereign's control over the church. How could he both endorse Independency AND retain such an important role for centralized, political control of church doctrines and teaching? Perhaps Independency had more room for centralized control than I appreciate. My knowledge of this movement is not as great as I would like it to be. Or perhaps Wybrow is on the right track: Hobbes only endorsed the Anglican church because the Catholic and Presbyterian alternatives were worse. When Independency seemed like a real alternative, he gladly abandoned episcopacy (i.e. the Anglican church). But why would he have that preference, given how useful a centrally controlled church could be for the sovereign? 5. More specifically still, does David Johnston's The Rhetoric of Leviathan show that Hobbes was a believer? (Caleffi) Not as I understood it. As I read him, Johnston argues that Hobbes was hostile towards Christianity and that the purpose of parts 3 and 4 was to bring about broad social change, specifically, undermining confidence in Christianity and replacing it with secular science. A friendlier secondary work to cite in support of the contention that Hobbes was a true believer is A. P. Martinich's The Two Gods of Leviathan. Martinich believes that Hobbes tried to reconcile science and Christianity, in part because he was a true believer. 6. How does the fact that modern Biblical criticism is ultimately more hostile to Proestantism than Catholicism bear on the interpretation of Hobbes? (Wybrow) I'm curious. Is there a short version that could be communicated via e-mail or this list? Michael Green Office: Building 90, 92G (650) 723-0855 Department of Philosophy Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 75 Date: 01-05-98 20:58 From: Leocasey Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: hobbes and schmitt ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ << Heidegger and Scchmitt were involved in the "German Conservative Revoluion" and as far as many jews represented the "Burgois style of life" they did not like them but of course not all the jews were close to this archetype like Strauss and Hannah Arendt. >> If you are going to employ anti-Semitic stereotypes yourself -- jew as bourgeois money grubbing merchant, the wandering disloyal cosmopolitan -- it is not surprising that you do not see them in Schmitt. It is just amazing to me that one can look at a body of uncontroverted evidence that includes Schmitt's entry into the Nazi party, his assumption of leading positions in the academy and legal life on behalf of the Nazis, his open support of Nazi policy such as the anti-Semitic Nuremburg laws and come to the conclusion that he was neither a Nazi or an anti-Semite. Leo Casey ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 76 Date: 01-06-98 10:42 From: Eduardo Hernando Nieto Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: hobbes and schmitt ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ >If you are going to employ anti-Semitic stereotypes yourself -- jew as >bourgeois money grubbing merchant, the wandering disloyal cosmopolitan -- Why you say that this is a stereotype. It is a FACT. Like it is a fact that many anglo-saxon protestants started modern industries and modern capitalism. (Just see Max Weber or Werner Sombart) It would be helpful to you if you take a look at Armin Mohler research on the German Conservative Revolution: "Die Konservative Revolution in Deutschland 1918-1932" (Darmstadt, 1972) I think that there is a french edition also. Schmitt was an antibourgeois! and if Nazism at the begining was antibourgeois he was a NAZI. Satisfy! Edurdo PD: Do not forget that the first Concentration Camps were neither germans nor spanish but bristish (built for the Boers), the first pogrooms against jews were russians and that the first racial laws were issued by AMERICANS. Eduardo Hernando Nieto Tupac Amaru 636 Lima 21 PERU e-mail: agata@amauta.rcp.net.pe Phone: (51-1) 4634156 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "Philosophy is the attempt to replace opinion with knowledge; but opinion is the element of the city, hence philosophy is subversive, hence the philosopher must write in a way that he will improve rather than subvert the city." LEO STRAUSS - "Necessitas non habet legem" ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 77 Date: 01-06-98 20:59 From: Nicola Caleffi Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: hobbes and christianity ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hi to everybody. It seems that not many of you agreed with my interpretation of Hobbes's christianity and (supposed) anglicanism. Many of your arguments, tough, were true and have been useful. I agree with Lawrence Casse when he writes that "Hobbes teaching also requires political support for the established relgion whatever it may be", but the fact that anglicanism was the established religion while Hobbes was living just confirms my opinion on Hobbes's anglicanism. Cameron Wycrow wrote that "It is doubtful whether Hobbes was a true Christian believer in any sense, but even if he was he was certainly not an Anglican Church follower if by that is meant one who believes that the Anglican teaching is 'truer' Christianity, doctrinally speaking, than others". If this is right, we should assume that Hobbes's religion belief was only a 'surface' belief, a shrewd and opportunist way to gain consent over his work or public figure. But if we accept this, than we also have to explain why his major work (and the most read at the time he was living) dealt with "the power and the form of a commonwealth ecclesistical and civil", and why half of that work was dedicated to a critical and historical discussion of the Holy Scriptures. Was it just an exterior necessity? I don't think so. And why did Hobbes choose to externally follow a belief that actually gave him so many problems with censorship? Wycrow also says that the biblical permeation of Leviathan "does not establish that he was a Christian believer". I'm sorry but I can't subscribe this statement. Chapter 43 of Leviathan contains a critical examination of many biblical passages (St. Matthew's Gospel especially) in which Hobbes often report that "that Jesus is the Christ" is the only article needed for salvation. I cite some passages here from the MacPherson edition: "For proof that the belief of this article, Jesus is the Christ, is all the faith required to salvation" (615, par.11) "The sum of St. Matthew's Gospel is this ... that men should believe that Jesus is the Christ" (615-616) "Therefore the scope of the whole Gospel was the establishing of that only article" (616) "Therefore this article believed, Jesus is the Christ, is sufficient to baptism, that is to say, to our reception into the kingdom of God, and, by consequence, only necessary" (618-619, par. 14) "Therefore the belief of this article is sufficient; and by consequence, there is no other article of faith necessarily required to salvation" (620 par. 15) "Having thus shown what is necessary to salvation, it is not hard to reconcile our obedience to God with our obedience to the civil sovereign, who is either Christian or infidel. If he be a Christian, he alloweth the belief of this article, that Jesus is the Christ; and of all the articles that are contained in, or are by evident consequence deduced from it: which is all the faith necessary to salvation" (624 par. 21) Does a true christian believer (I mean an original christian believer) need any other article of faith to support his belief in the Kingdom of God? Hobbes tought that only one article was needed, "that Jesus is the Christ", and also tought that no kind of spiritual belief (excpet this) could influence political power. In my opinion, Hobbes tought that religion and politics, on the one hand, should not be on the same plain (that is, political power should laid only in the hand of a secular representative); on the other, he was also aware that religion had a great influence on men's mind, so he needed to show that religiuos belief were dangerous for political government. But his attack on papism and presbyterianism didn't change a thing on his belief in Christ. Nicola Caleffi ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 78 Date: 01-06-98 17:29 From: Scott David Foutz Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Hobbes the nominalist ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hello Nicola, i would agree that hobbes is clearly a nominalist, but i personally do not think his stance is of the same relativism as later empricists. his 'motion theory' whereby he accounts for the interaction of physical objects with sense organs and cognitions precludes the type of subjectivity post-humeans proclaim. the organs' and mind's response to the stimuli of motion is determined through physical law, such that cognition is seens as simply an extension of the implications of physics. he writes, "Natural sense and imagination are not subject to absurdity. [Since] Nature itself cannot err". (Lev IV) Hobbes' purely physical framework allows him to deny human freewill (but instead proposes a compatibilist view whereby one freely chooses what one is determined to do) and even human consciousness (when defined as the immaterial part of man) in De Corpore. Thought is an inevitable result of the mind's obedience to physical law. for this reason, i think hobbes' system does not allow for the type of subjectivity which doubts the minds correlation to the physical world, since the same physical laws apply to all intra- and extra-mental phenomena. (this is one's humble opinion, no doubt) scott david foutz On Sun, 4 Jan 1998, Nicola Caleffi wrote: > As far as I know, Hobbes can be classified as a "nominalist" for the reason > that his epistemological theory lies on the ground of the belief that > external objects exists only because individuals own some determined > faculties (language, sight) that let them organize those external objects > in some conventional intellectual categories, on which individuals choose > to agree. His epistemological view opposes to the "universalist" or > "realist" view of reality -- by this point of view I think Hobbes could be > described as a forerunner of some recent relativistic epistemological view > (Rorty, Davidson, Feyerabend), for which the world exists not in itself > (i.g. there is anything like an "external" or deep essence in reality), but > only because we are able to describe it by our conventional language > choices. Rorty would call it an "antirepresentationalist" (opposed to > Descartes and Kant), tough Rorty didn't give much attention to Hobbes in > his essay. > > Do someone agree with my interpretaion? > > ---------- > > Da: Stephen Straker > > A: Multiple recipients of list HOBBES > > Oggetto: re: ??? > > Data: sabato 3 gennaio 1998 17.44 > > > > Scott David Foutz wrote: > > > i recently joined the hobbes mailing list and haven't heard a > > > peep. anyone else waiting for something? i am particularly interested > in > > > hobbes' physical philosophy (nominalism) and epistemology (including > his > > > optical theory). > > > > Hello you 4 (or more) -- > > > > There hasn't been a peep for some time (more than a year at least, I > think). > > > > In any case, I'm game to talk about these issues as well as the others > > that have been mentioned. > > > > If the rest of you are interested, perhaps we could begin by someone (not > I) > > explaining why it is correct to describe Hobbes as a "nominalist" and to > > say he is such as opposed to ... what? > > > > If this isn't relevant or interesting right now, feel free to ignore the > > suggestion -- it's not a trap or provocation: I've long wondered if that > > really is the right thing to call Hobbes's (epistemological?) position > and > > while I have my doubts I have no strong counter-views except to wonder > > whether he might not better be described as a kind of "conventionalist" > (or > > is that too much of an anachronism?). > > > > SS > > > > -- > > > > Stephen Straker > > Arts One / History (604) 822-6863 / 822-2561 > > University of British Columbia > > Vancouver, B.C. FAX: (604) 822-4520 > > CANADA V6T 1Z1 home: (604) 733-6638 / 734-4464 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > Internet: straker@unixg.ubc.ca (Stephen Straker) > > Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > > For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > > http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this > page) or- > > To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub > " > > Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Internet: ncaleffi@pianeta.it (Nicola Caleffi) > Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or- > To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub " > Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|||////////////////////////////// Scott David Foutz sfoutz@trin.edu Teaching Fellow, Historical Theology sdfoutz@megsinet.net Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (847)317-7062 (office) Financial Aid Counselor (847)317-7081 (fax) Trinity International University http://www.trin.edu //////////////////////////////|||\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 79 Date: 01-06-98 17:29 From: Scott David Foutz Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Hobbes the nominalist ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hello Nicola, i would agree that hobbes is clearly a nominalist, but i personally do not think his stance is of the same relativism as later empricists. his 'motion theory' whereby he accounts for the interaction of physical objects with sense organs and cognitions precludes the type of subjectivity post-humeans proclaim. the organs' and mind's response to the stimuli of motion is determined through physical law, such that cognition is seens as simply an extension of the implications of physics. he writes, "Natural sense and imagination are not subject to absurdity. [Since] Nature itself cannot err". (Lev IV) Hobbes' purely physical framework allows him to deny human freewill (but instead proposes a compatibilist view whereby one freely chooses what one is determined to do) and even human consciousness (when defined as the immaterial part of man) in De Corpore. Thought is an inevitable result of the mind's obedience to physical law. for this reason, i think hobbes' system does not allow for the type of subjectivity which doubts the minds correlation to the physical world, since the same physical laws apply to all intra- and extra-mental phenomena. (this is one's humble opinion, no doubt) scott david foutz On Sun, 4 Jan 1998, Nicola Caleffi wrote: > As far as I know, Hobbes can be classified as a "nominalist" for the reason > that his epistemological theory lies on the ground of the belief that > external objects exists only because individuals own some determined > faculties (language, sight) that let them organize those external objects > in some conventional intellectual categories, on which individuals choose > to agree. His epistemological view opposes to the "universalist" or > "realist" view of reality -- by this point of view I think Hobbes could be > described as a forerunner of some recent relativistic epistemological view > (Rorty, Davidson, Feyerabend), for which the world exists not in itself > (i.g. there is anything like an "external" or deep essence in reality), but > only because we are able to describe it by our conventional language > choices. Rorty would call it an "antirepresentationalist" (opposed to > Descartes and Kant), tough Rorty didn't give much attention to Hobbes in > his essay. > > Do someone agree with my interpretaion? > > ---------- > > Da: Stephen Straker > > A: Multiple recipients of list HOBBES > > Oggetto: re: ??? > > Data: sabato 3 gennaio 1998 17.44 > > > > Scott David Foutz wrote: > > > i recently joined the hobbes mailing list and haven't heard a > > > peep. anyone else waiting for something? i am particularly interested > in > > > hobbes' physical philosophy (nominalism) and epistemology (including > his > > > optical theory). > > > > Hello you 4 (or more) -- > > > > There hasn't been a peep for some time (more than a year at least, I > think). > > > > In any case, I'm game to talk about these issues as well as the others > > that have been mentioned. > > > > If the rest of you are interested, perhaps we could begin by someone (not > I) > > explaining why it is correct to describe Hobbes as a "nominalist" and to > > say he is such as opposed to ... what? > > > > If this isn't relevant or interesting right now, feel free to ignore the > > suggestion -- it's not a trap or provocation: I've long wondered if that > > really is the right thing to call Hobbes's (epistemological?) position > and > > while I have my doubts I have no strong counter-views except to wonder > > whether he might not better be described as a kind of "conventionalist" > (or > > is that too much of an anachronism?). > > > > SS > > > > -- > > > > Stephen Straker > > Arts One / History (604) 822-6863 / 822-2561 > > University of British Columbia > > Vancouver, B.C. FAX: (604) 822-4520 > > CANADA V6T 1Z1 home: (604) 733-6638 / 734-4464 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > Internet: straker@unixg.ubc.ca (Stephen Straker) > > Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > > For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > > http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this > page) or- > > To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub > " > > Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Internet: ncaleffi@pianeta.it (Nicola Caleffi) > Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or- > To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub " > Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|||////////////////////////////// Scott David Foutz sfoutz@trin.edu Teaching Fellow, Historical Theology sdfoutz@megsinet.net Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (847)317-7062 (office) Financial Aid Counselor (847)317-7081 (fax) Trinity International University http://www.trin.edu //////////////////////////////|||\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 80 Date: 01-06-98 17:55 From: Scott David Foutz Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: hobbes and religion ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Michael Green wrote: > 2. Was Hobbes a true believer? (Caleffi) > > I don't know that we have enough evidence either way to decide the question > of Hobbes's own faith. Hobbes made many professions of his own faith and > held many views that were perceived to be in conflict with Christianity. hello michael, on the question of hobbes' personal faith we can speculate at best, but i find the following interesting. despite his explicitly physical framework for all phenomena, he suggests that "the works of God in Egypt, by the hand of Moses, [were] properly Miracles" (Lev 36). One might suggest (correctly perhaps) that Hobbes is accommodating the status quo and attempting to avoid outright heresy. but of importance here is that this claim stands in opposition to the total philosophy he has constructed prior to this discussion. my point is this, that hobbes will compromise his philosophical position at those points where his religious convictions emerge. perhaps a better example is found in his treatment of the term "Spirit" in those instances where an angel or spiritual being is clearly intended by the text of scripture. rather than suggest that the text itself is mistaken and offer a more physical interpretation (as he does for every other occurrence of the term), he finds himself required to introduce a completely new definition of substance in order to incorporate angels into his physical philosophy. (my suspicion is that he here compromises his initial limitation of substance, and thus knowledge, to physicality). hobbes defines such particular 'spirits' as "subtile Bodies" which, though remaining imperceivable to the senses, are to be understood as "Substance Incorporeal, a thing not imaginary, but Reall; namely a thin Substance Invisible, but that hath the same dimensions that are in grosser Bodies" (Lev 34). In Lev 4, hobbes explicitly states that the Scholastics' use of the term "incorporeall substance" is an abuse of terms "whose significations are contradictory and inconsistent", that is, it is an oxymoron. although the order of the terms are reversed in hobbes' passage on angels, i don't see enough conceptual difference to allow him to escape his own criticism. i don't mean to bore you, but my guess is that hobbes cannot personally bring himself to deny certain aspects of the christian faith due to his own need to see them maintained. he certainly does not hesitate to reinterpret other 'central' tenets which he deems less important (such as the trinity, redemption, eternal life, etc). but in those few areas where such reinterpretations result in what amounts to a denial of God, i see hobbes bending his otherwise amazingly consistent physical philosophy. in so doing, he seems to be defending at least a deists' faith, although his defense of angels (interactive divine agents) might point to something more than deism. my humble two cents' worth. thanks for reading! scott david foutz department fellow, historical theology trinity international university http://foutz.home.ml.org ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 81 Date: 01-06-98 17:55 From: Scott David Foutz Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: hobbes and religion ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Michael Green wrote: > 2. Was Hobbes a true believer? (Caleffi) > > I don't know that we have enough evidence either way to decide the question > of Hobbes's own faith. Hobbes made many professions of his own faith and > held many views that were perceived to be in conflict with Christianity. hello michael, on the question of hobbes' personal faith we can speculate at best, but i find the following interesting. despite his explicitly physical framework for all phenomena, he suggests that "the works of God in Egypt, by the hand of Moses, [were] properly Miracles" (Lev 36). One might suggest (correctly perhaps) that Hobbes is accommodating the status quo and attempting to avoid outright heresy. but of importance here is that this claim stands in opposition to the total philosophy he has constructed prior to this discussion. my point is this, that hobbes will compromise his philosophical position at those points where his religious convictions emerge. perhaps a better example is found in his treatment of the term "Spirit" in those instances where an angel or spiritual being is clearly intended by the text of scripture. rather than suggest that the text itself is mistaken and offer a more physical interpretation (as he does for every other occurrence of the term), he finds himself required to introduce a completely new definition of substance in order to incorporate angels into his physical philosophy. (my suspicion is that he here compromises his initial limitation of substance, and thus knowledge, to physicality). hobbes defines such particular 'spirits' as "subtile Bodies" which, though remaining imperceivable to the senses, are to be understood as "Substance Incorporeal, a thing not imaginary, but Reall; namely a thin Substance Invisible, but that hath the same dimensions that are in grosser Bodies" (Lev 34). In Lev 4, hobbes explicitly states that the Scholastics' use of the term "incorporeall substance" is an abuse of terms "whose significations are contradictory and inconsistent", that is, it is an oxymoron. although the order of the terms are reversed in hobbes' passage on angels, i don't see enough conceptual difference to allow him to escape his own criticism. i don't mean to bore you, but my guess is that hobbes cannot personally bring himself to deny certain aspects of the christian faith due to his own need to see them maintained. he certainly does not hesitate to reinterpret other 'central' tenets which he deems less important (such as the trinity, redemption, eternal life, etc). but in those few areas where such reinterpretations result in what amounts to a denial of God, i see hobbes bending his otherwise amazingly consistent physical philosophy. in so doing, he seems to be defending at least a deists' faith, although his defense of angels (interactive divine agents) might point to something more than deism. my humble two cents' worth. thanks for reading! scott david foutz department fellow, historical theology trinity international university http://foutz.home.ml.org ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 82 Date: 01-06-98 18:22 From: Scott David Foutz Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: r: ??? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ > > hello Scott, > > > > to hear from you. I'm writing a PhD on Hobbes trying to apply some > c concepts > > from Gilles Deleuze on Hobbes - sort of a deconstruction, I suppose, > > something which for some reason noone has yet done to Hobbes, as far as I > > know. French philosophers tend to stick to Descartes. I am primarily > > interested in Hobbes's epistemology and theory of meaning, so we might > > > > Niklas Niklas, this sounds very interesting. i take it you mean you will apply deleuze's views to hobbes and thus 'deconstruct' hobbes (so to speak). or are to unpacking the genealogy of hobbes epistemology leading up to such thinkers as deleuze? if the latter, our projects are quite close, since my own dissertation consists in the historical development of some of derrida's notions on epistemology, and thus language (especially religious language). i find hobbes very interesting in his optimism of attaining accurate objective knowledge through a rigorous application of physics-based definitions (in discourse). the seed for later skepticism lies in his following descartes notion that the stimuli impacting the sense organs (and thus mind) do not themselves have any intrinsic similarity to the qualities of objects. but he seems so fascinated with this cutting edge scientific hypothesis that skepticism never arises. this optimism, of course, would preclude any notion of 'hobbes the deconstructionist' (in my view, at least) although it certainly involves 'hobbes the anti-aristotelian' or 'hobbes the anti=metaphysicist'. hobbes never attribute complicit error to the terms themselves (as in derrida's need for a new grammatology transcending written terms), but simply to the traditional (scholastic) interpretations of the terms. (in fact, hobbes never attributes any error to the biblical text, as spinoza, simon and leclerc would soon do). the force of hobbes' system is its consistency and coherence throughout, as you note, epistemology and language (with conceptual and linguistic attribution of meaning). i would be VERY glad to hear your analysis of hobbes in light of your doctoral project. i am not a hobbes scholar nor a hobbes enthuisiast, but do find him highly relevant to contemporary deconstructionist/ continental philosophy. let's have it! scott david foutz department fellow, historical theology trinity international university http:;//foutz.home.ml.org ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 83 Date: 01-06-98 18:22 From: Scott David Foutz Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: r: ??? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ > > hello Scott, > > > > to hear from you. I'm writing a PhD on Hobbes trying to apply some > c concepts > > from Gilles Deleuze on Hobbes - sort of a deconstruction, I suppose, > > something which for some reason noone has yet done to Hobbes, as far as I > > know. French philosophers tend to stick to Descartes. I am primarily > > interested in Hobbes's epistemology and theory of meaning, so we might > > > > Niklas Niklas, this sounds very interesting. i take it you mean you will apply deleuze's views to hobbes and thus 'deconstruct' hobbes (so to speak). or are to unpacking the genealogy of hobbes epistemology leading up to such thinkers as deleuze? if the latter, our projects are quite close, since my own dissertation consists in the historical development of some of derrida's notions on epistemology, and thus language (especially religious language). i find hobbes very interesting in his optimism of attaining accurate objective knowledge through a rigorous application of physics-based definitions (in discourse). the seed for later skepticism lies in his following descartes notion that the stimuli impacting the sense organs (and thus mind) do not themselves have any intrinsic similarity to the qualities of objects. but he seems so fascinated with this cutting edge scientific hypothesis that skepticism never arises. this optimism, of course, would preclude any notion of 'hobbes the deconstructionist' (in my view, at least) although it certainly involves 'hobbes the anti-aristotelian' or 'hobbes the anti=metaphysicist'. hobbes never attribute complicit error to the terms themselves (as in derrida's need for a new grammatology transcending written terms), but simply to the traditional (scholastic) interpretations of the terms. (in fact, hobbes never attributes any error to the biblical text, as spinoza, simon and leclerc would soon do). the force of hobbes' system is its consistency and coherence throughout, as you note, epistemology and language (with conceptual and linguistic attribution of meaning). i would be VERY glad to hear your analysis of hobbes in light of your doctoral project. i am not a hobbes scholar nor a hobbes enthuisiast, but do find him highly relevant to contemporary deconstructionist/ continental philosophy. let's have it! scott david foutz department fellow, historical theology trinity international university http:;//foutz.home.ml.org ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 84 Date: 01-06-98 20:12 From: Cameron Wybrow Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: hobbes and religion ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ It is good to see substantial discussion on the Hobbes list, which I joined a year and a half ago and have hardly heard a peep from. I would like to reply to Michael Green's useful questions: On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Michael Green wrote: > 2. Was Hobbes a true believer? (Caleffi) > > I don't know that we have enough evidence either way to decide the question > of Hobbes's own faith. Hobbes made many professions of his own faith and > held many views that were perceived to be in conflict with Christianity. I agree with this, and add that, if Strauss is right, this complex appearance is exactly what Hobbes wanted. I think he wanted to appear Christian in a general way without committing himself to any contemporary expression, while leaving a vague impression that he supported the Anglican settlement. > 3. Specifically, was he an Anglican? (Caleffi, Wybrow) > > Again, his personal faith is a bit mysterious, in my opinion. > > Aubrey says that Hobbes declared the Anglican church the best (par. 11) but > also reports that its representatives "tormented" him and that he told > them, along with Calvinists and Catholics, to leave him alone or "I will > detect all your cheats from Aaron to yourselves" (par. 12). I doubt this story is true, but I think it is delightful and adequately captures Hobbes's position. I agree also that his faith is indeterminate, though Strauss makes a strong case for atheism. > Chapter 47 of Leviathan describes the presbyterians' dissolution of the > episcopacy as removing "the second knot" on Christian liberty and hence > moving England along the path back towards "the independency of the > primitive Christians, to follow Paul, or Cephas, or Apollos, every man as > he liketh best. Which ... is perhaps the best" (Lev. Ch. 47, par. 20). > > On the other hand, in the Latin version of Ch. 47, Hobbes claims this about > the purpose of Leviathan's Part 4: "lest the people be seduced by false > doctors, I have exposed the ambitious and cunning plans of the adversaries > of the Anglican church" (par. 29, trans. by Curley in the Hackett edition > of Lev.). > > But this paragraph from the Latin edition doesn't appear in the English > one. Is that significant? Got me. It's textual problems like these that > lead me to think we can't decide the issue of Hobbes's own beliefs. > > An excellent discussion that convinced me of the intractability of this > issue is an exchange between Edwin Curley and A. P. Martinich in the > Journal of the History of Philosophy (1996) (I think that's right: I have > the exact citation elsewhere). Thanks for this reference. I talk about the Independency preference in the article I mentioned in my last post, in the Parker book. > 4. But didn't he have theoretical/political reasons for prefering the > Anglican church? (Casse, Wybrow) > > The Anglican church was the most capable of transmitting doctrines in > support of the sovereign. Hobbes himself said that having control over > religious doctrines is one of the three "rights which make the essence of > sovereignty" (Lev. Ch. 18, par. 16) and he thought that the "science of > just and unjust" ought to be taught from the pulpit in order to ensure > civil order (Behemoth, Tonnies ed., p.38). > > Would that kind of control over religious doctrine have been possible for > an English soveriegn of the time except through the Anglican church? Since > I believe the answer to that question is "no" I think he had strong > theoretically grounded reasons for supporting the Anglican church. > > But that is also why I find his apparent endorsement of Independency in > Lev. ch. 47 (par. 20) so strange; Independency seems to loosen the > sovereign's control over the church. How could he both endorse > Independency AND retain such an important role for centralized, political > control of church doctrines and teaching? > > Perhaps Independency had more room for centralized control than I > appreciate. My knowledge of this movement is not as great as I would like > it to be. > > Or perhaps Wybrow is on the right track: Hobbes only endorsed the > Anglican church because the Catholic and Presbyterian alternatives were > worse. When Independency seemed like a real alternative, he gladly > abandoned episcopacy (i.e. the Anglican church). But why would he have > that preference, given how useful a centrally controlled church could be > for the sovereign? I think his official political teaching is that the state needs central control, hence something like Anglicanism to keep doctrine and practice in a moderate, middle way. My suspicion, which I cannot prove, is that he thought *theoretically* that Independency was better, since it allowed each person to work out his own salvation and since the central Christian doctrines and practices were simple enough that the Sovereign wouldn't need to enforce absolute uniformity of cult or speculative doctrine. He also might have thought that at some future time, when the religious passions of his era had cooled, greater religious latitude could be allowed than appears in *Leviathan*. In this he would be anticipating Locke's solution. Again, see my article. > A friendlier secondary work to cite in support of the contention that > Hobbes was a true believer is A. P. Martinich's The Two Gods of Leviathan. > Martinich believes that Hobbes tried to reconcile science and Christianity, > in part because he was a true believer. Thanks for reference. > 6. How does the fact that modern Biblical criticism is ultimately more > hostile to Proestantism than Catholicism bear on the interpretation of > Hobbes? (Wybrow) Someone had suggested last night that he was attacking the Church of Rome but not the Anglican Church. I was saying that his initiation of modern Biblical criticism threatens all Churches, Roman and non-Roman, but especially Protestant Churches, since unlike the Orthodox, Roman and Anglican Churches, the Protestant Churches rely (allegedly) on "scripture alone". If Scripture is the only witness of God, and scripture is tainted by its human origins, as Hobbes implies, then the foundations of Protestantism are at risk. For Catholics and to a lesser degree Anglicans the case is different, since not only scripture but the living work of the Holy Spirit in the tradition is authoritative. So Hobbes's explicit attack is on Catholics, and his weapon is the Protestant weapon of Scripture alone. But in employing Scripture alone against the Catholics he subtly drops hints that Scripture as a text has certain problems, and this threatens Protestantism, too. But he had to make the critique of Protestantism between the lines, for the discerning reader. If we don't see that Hobbes is undermining Protestantism as well, we misinterpret him. In every generation someone comes along to try to revive the idea that Hobbes was a good Protestant or Anglican. I believe Hood did it in the sixties, and now it sounds as if others are doing it in the nineties. In every case I have seen the revivalist is a political scientist who does not seem to know the Bible well and does not seem to have read Strauss. I think once one has read the Bible and its interpreters as closely as Strauss did one can see subtle things that Hobbes is doing that a typical professor of political science does not see. Because I did my work in religious studies rather than political science, I found I could see things the political scientists were missing. I wish more people would write on the links between the Bible and political philosophy, but the Biblical scholars are unphilosophical almost to a man and the political philosophers, except for Straussians, rarely know Hebrew or Greek or have done much work on either the Bible or the history of Biblical interpretation. > I'm curious. Is there a short version that could be communicated via > e-mail or this list? My computer set-up is too primitive (DOS on 286!) to allow me to upload documents onto my school's system. You would have to order the M.A. thesis by interlibrary loan from the McMaster University Library in Hamilton, Ontario. Your library must have a way of doing this. As for the shorter article, you can order the book containing it from Edwin Mellen Press in Lewiston, New York. It also has some very good articles by others on Locke, Spinoza and Kant, all connecting political thought to Biblical exegesis. It is a Strauss-influenced but far from dogmatically Straussian collection. Thanks. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 85 Date: 01-06-98 20:30 From: Cameron Wybrow Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: hobbes and christiani ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Nicola Caleffi wrote: > Hi to everybody. It seems that not many of you agreed with my > interpretation of Hobbes's christianity and (supposed) anglicanism. Many of > your arguments, tough, were true and have been useful. > > I agree with Lawrence Casse when he writes that "Hobbes teaching also > requires political support for the established relgion whatever it may be", > but the fact that anglicanism was the established religion while Hobbes was > living just confirms my opinion on Hobbes's anglicanism. This only proves that he thought the Anglican settlement should be accepted, not that he believed anything said by Anglican theologians about sacraments, salvation, etc. To say someone is Anglican because he supports whatever church is established by the sovereign is not to say much. He would be really Anglican if he supported Anglican beliefs as the truest expression of Christianity. I doubt he thought they were, but I am open to evidence to the contrary. > Cameron Wycrow [sic] [cn: Wybrow] wrote that "It is doubtful whether > Hobbes was a true Christian believer in any sense, but even if he was he > was certainly not an Anglican Church follower if by that is meant one > who believes that the Anglican teaching is 'truer' Christianity, > doctrinally speaking, than others". If this is right, we should assume > that Hobbes's religion belief was only a 'surface' belief, a shrewd and > opportunist way to gain consent over his work or public figure. I do take it for granted that Hobbes is not completely straightforward with us. In this I am influenced by Leo Strauss. If you reject Strauss's arguments, you will find my approach inadequate. > But if > we accept this, than we also have to explain why his major work (and the > most read at the time he was living) dealt with "the power and the form > of a commonwealth ecclesistical and civil", That he dealt with ecclesiastical matters was a necessity of his Christian times; he would not have had to deal with them had he been living in Aristotle's day, and he wouldn't have. > and why half of that work > was dedicated to a critical and historical discussion of the Holy > Scriptures. Was it just an exterior necessity? I don't think so. And > why did Hobbes choose to externally follow a belief that actually gave > him so many problems with censorship? These are all good questions, but I cannot answer at length here. If you can get either of the works I mentioned, you will find fuller explanations. I can't account fully for the *length* of Parts III and IV, but I believe the critical/historical discussion is intended partly against Catholics and partly in a more subtle way against Protestants. I believe also that he discerned in the Bible elements of a healthy political teaching, which he had to disentangle from the mangling activities of theologians. I think his political interpretation of the Bible is unsatisfactory, but it is very suggestive and I have tried to build on it in my own studies of the Bible. > Wycrow also says that the biblical permeation of Leviathan "does not > establish that he was a Christian believer". I'm sorry but I can't > subscribe this statement. Chapter 43 of Leviathan contains a critical > examination of many biblical passages (St. Matthew's Gospel especially) in > which Hobbes often report that "that Jesus is the Christ" is the only > article needed for salvation. Spinoza's work (TPT) is also permeated by Bible; does that mean he was a believer? Sheer volume of references does not prove the point, as Strauss shows. > I cite some passages here from the MacPherson edition: > > "For proof that the belief of this article, Jesus is the Christ, is all the > faith required to salvation" (615, par.11) > > "The sum of St. Matthew's Gospel is this ... that men should believe that > Jesus is the Christ" (615-616) > > "Therefore the scope of the whole Gospel was the establishing of that only > article" (616) > > "Therefore this article believed, Jesus is the Christ, is sufficient to > baptism, that is to say, to our reception into the kingdom of God, and, by > consequence, only necessary" (618-619, par. 14) > > "Therefore the belief of this article is sufficient; and by consequence, > there is no other article of faith necessarily required to salvation" (620 > par. 15) > > "Having thus shown what is necessary to salvation, it is not hard to > reconcile our obedience to God with our obedience to the civil sovereign, > who is either Christian or infidel. If he be a Christian, he alloweth the > belief of this article, that Jesus is the Christ; and of all the articles > that are contained in, or are by evident consequence deduced from it: which > is all the faith necessary to salvation" (624 par. 21) Of course Hobbes says all of this; but the issue is whether he is being sincere. Since Strauss wrote on Hobbes, everyone else who writes on him has the duty to at least ask this question before taking Hobbes at face value. > Does a true christian believer (I mean an original christian believer) need > any other article of faith to support his belief in the Kingdom of God? > Hobbes tought that only one article was needed, "that Jesus is the Christ", > and also tought that no kind of spiritual belief (excpet this) could > influence political power. > In my opinion, Hobbes tought that religion and politics, on the one hand, > should not be on the same plain (that is, political power should laid only > in the hand of a secular representative); on the other, he was also aware > that religion had a great influence on men's mind, so he needed to show > that religiuos belief were dangerous for political government. I agree with this paragraph. > But his attack on papism and presbyterianism didn't change a thing on his > belief in Christ. I agree with the last sentence; he *could* have been a Christian, though of an unorthodox kind. I don't rule this out, and this is where I hesitate to go all the way with the Straussians. He certainly had a shocking disregard for Christian tradition and Christian intellectual authority in his day, and he had a critical attitude toward the Bible which is not necessarily prove of unbelief, but certainly raises the question. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 86 Date: 01-07-98 06:03 From: Cameron Wybrow Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: hobbes and religion ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ I think all of Scott Foutz's observations below are worth noting. I myself have considered the difficulties posed by the passages he selects from Leviathan. I would add only that my interpretation leans in the opposite direction, and I think Mr. Foutz grants the legitimacy of such an interpretation. I think that the apparent contradictions do not represent the surfacing of core Christian convictions of Hobbes but the difficulty of completely reconciling his metaphysics with the Biblical statements, for example about angels. I think he is aware that careful readers (such as Mr. Foutz) will notice the parts that don't fit. The question is what to make of the inconsistency. It is possible that it springs from Christian belief on the part of Hobbes. On the other hand, one has the strong feeling that Hobbes was capable of forcing the issue of philosophy versus Bible if he chose, and his uncustomary incoherence and wavering on the nature of angels or other things may point in the direction of an esoteric teaching. On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Scott David Foutz wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Michael Green wrote: > > > 2. Was Hobbes a true believer? (Caleffi) > > > > I don't know that we have enough evidence either way to decide the question > > of Hobbes's own faith. Hobbes made many professions of his own faith and > > held many views that were perceived to be in conflict with Christianity. > > hello michael, > on the question of hobbes' personal faith we can speculate at > best, but i find the following interesting. despite his explicitly > physical framework for all phenomena, he suggests that "the works of God > in Egypt, by the hand of Moses, [were] properly Miracles" (Lev 36). One > might suggest (correctly perhaps) that Hobbes is accommodating the status > quo and attempting to avoid outright heresy. but of importance here is > that this claim stands in opposition to the total philosophy he has > constructed prior to this discussion. > my point is this, that hobbes will compromise his philosophical > position at those points where his religious convictions emerge. perhaps > a better example is found in his treatment of the term "Spirit" in those > instances where an angel or spiritual being is clearly intended by the > text of scripture. rather than suggest that the text itself is mistaken > and offer a more physical interpretation (as he does for every other > occurrence of the term), he finds himself required to introduce a > completely new definition of substance in order to incorporate angels > into his physical philosophy. (my suspicion is that he here compromises > his initial limitation of substance, and thus knowledge, to physicality). > hobbes defines such particular 'spirits' as "subtile Bodies" which, > though remaining imperceivable to the senses, are to be understood as > "Substance Incorporeal, a thing not imaginary, but Reall; namely a thin > Substance Invisible, but that hath the same dimensions that are in > grosser Bodies" (Lev 34). > In Lev 4, hobbes explicitly states that the Scholastics' use of > the term "incorporeall substance" is an abuse of terms "whose > significations are contradictory and inconsistent", that is, it is an > oxymoron. although the order of the terms are reversed in hobbes' passage > on angels, i don't see enough conceptual difference to allow him to > escape his own criticism. > i don't mean to bore you, but my guess is that hobbes cannot > personally bring himself to deny certain aspects of the christian faith > due to his own need to see them maintained. he certainly does not > hesitate to reinterpret other 'central' tenets which he deems less > important (such as the trinity, redemption, eternal life, etc). but in > those few areas where such reinterpretations result in what amounts to a > denial of God, i see hobbes bending his otherwise amazingly consistent > physical philosophy. in so doing, he seems to be defending at least a > deists' faith, although his defense of angels (interactive divine agents) > might point to something more than deism. > > my humble two cents' worth. > thanks for reading! > > > scott david foutz > department fellow, historical theology > trinity international university > http://foutz.home.ml.org ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 87 Date: 01-12-98 13:21 From: Niklas Olaison Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: r: ??? ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hello Scott, I am sorry for the delay in responding to you. I have been moving, and only yesterday got my desk assembled. My project is (even if I have trouble making it clear even to myself) to try to trace the implicit internal contradiction in Hobbes thinking between aristotelian logic and materialist epistemology, to put it very simple. Pursuing this I think that I have found a recurrent pattern in Hobbes. On all levels, from metaphysics to political philosophy, there is a tension between large stable formations and minuscule parts in a state of constant flux. Hobbes's problem is that he is trying to argue for absolute knowledge notwithstanding the constant flux (of conatus, sense, desire etc.). Here I am trying to apply some terms culled from Deleuze. I think that there is a certain affinity between Hobbes and Deleuze, so really I am trying to do to Hobbes was Deleuze has done to Spinoza, to choose certain sectors of his thought and show the contemporary relevance. I don't really know Derrida well enough to know whether this would quality as a deconstruction or not, but I should say that it is, in the loose sense of "a careful teasing out of internal inconsistencies" or something like that. It seems that we have several areas of overlapping interests, but I had a hard time getting through your homepage with my browser, and I couldn't read your biography at all, so I don't really know what your project is. I understand that you study and teach historical theology, though, and I myself think that Hobbes's theology may be a crucial area for testing my thesis, even though I haven't put much effort into that part yet, having ben occupied primarily with his logic, and recently with his metaphysics. I do hope that you do not mind being addressed as 'Scott'. I replied to your initial post on the spur of the moment, and netiquette can be tricky sometimes. Best wishes, Niklas PS. You can view my homepage at http://www.ideh.su.se/NiklasOlaisson.html. Unfortunately most of it is in Swedish. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on. - Terry Pratchett ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 88 Date: 01-30-98 16:19 From: Caw.dor@utoronto.ca Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Reading Leviathan. ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Hobbes list, Is anyone interested in a slow-read of Leviathan? Ernest. Caw.dor@utoronto.ca ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 89 Date: 01-31-98 01:12 From: Cameron Wybrow Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: reading leviathan. ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ I am, but only as a back-up player. Others would have to lead. On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 caw.dor@utoronto.ca wrote: > Hobbes list, > > Is anyone interested in a slow-read of Leviathan? > > > Ernest. > Caw.dor@utoronto.ca > > > ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 90 Date: 01-31-98 10:25 From: Nicola Caleffi Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: R: reading leviathan. ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ That could be very interesting, tough it could take us a very long time. Would you like to read all the book or just some part of it? Personally, I'm very interested in chapter 13-30, the ones dealing with the institution and dissolution of commonwealths. In those parts of the work Hobbes seems to point out not only how the political State rises from the state of nature, but also how subjects participate in that process. From my point of view that bring to some crucial question, all dealing with the "absolute character" of Hobbes's political argument: why, for example, Hobbes included in Leviathan an entire chapter (22) dealing with "systems"? And why did he also wrote about the liberties of the subjects in chapter 21? IMHO, as he was building his political argument for obligation, he was also aware of the necessities to leave a "space" for the subjects, and that fundamentally the political State stands on the irrational character of individuals (he often refers to it as "mortal" and "fragile"). So, in a certain way, he was compelled - by the very nature of his political argument - to include the irrational and subjective part in it. Did anyone agree? Nicola Caleffi ---------- > Da: caw.dor@utoronto.ca > A: Multiple recipients of list HOBBES > Oggetto: reading leviathan. > Data: venerdύ 30 gennaio 1998 22.19 > > Hobbes list, > > Is anyone interested in a slow-read of Leviathan? > > > Ernest. > Caw.dor@utoronto.ca > ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 91 Date: 01-31-98 10:12 From: Leocasey@aol.com Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: r: reading leviathan. ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ > Hobbes list, > > Is anyone interested in a slow-read of Leviathan? > > > Ernest. > Caw.dor@utoronto.ca I would, but my obligations are so many that I could not be counted on to be one of the leaders of the process. I have a particular interest in the rhetoric and metaphors used in Leviathan. Leo Casey ps: I see from your address that you are at U of T. I received my Ph.D. from there in Political Science in 1989. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 92 Date: 01-31-98 17:57 From: Murilo Furtado Coura Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: reading leviathan. ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Yes, I am interested in a slow-read. But all book or just parts of it? * Another thing: Is anyone interested in Macpherson's "The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism" or others Hobbes liberal conceptions? ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 93 Date: 01-31-98 17:57 From: Murilo Furtado Coura Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: reading leviathan. ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Yes, I am interested in a slow-read. But all book or just parts of it? * Another thing: Is anyone interested in Macpherson's "The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism" or others Hobbes liberal conceptions? ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 94 Date: 02-01-98 03:13 From: Solerf@uv.es Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: reading leviathan. ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ > Yes, I am interested in a slow-read. But all book or just parts of it? > * > Another thing: Is anyone interested in Macpherson's "The Political >Theory of Possessive Individualism" or others Hobbes liberal conceptions? > Yes, I am also interested in a slow-read. I don't understand the second question. Are you talking about a slow-read of Macpherson's book? Do you think Macpherson's conception is a liberal one? ____________________________________________________________________________= _ =46ernando Soler Alvarez Departament de Filosofia Universitat de Val=E8ncia Espanya-Spain ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 95 Date: 01-31-98 22:31 From: Caw.dor@utoronto.ca Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: reading leviathan ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Murilo Furtado Coura wrote: > Yes, I am interested in a slow-read. But all book or just parts of it? > * > Another thing: Is anyone interested in Macpherson's "The Political > Theory of Possessive Individualism" or others Hobbes liberal conceptions? I propose a slow-read of Leviathan beginning with the title. I am interested in the foundation of Hobbes' political science: to what extent is it a system; and does it somehow require experience or prudence? What is the nature of Hobbes' political science? Why does H. begin Leviathan as he does (with the senses and sense organs) and how does this bear on his science? What is his debt to Machiavelli? What is his influence on and contribution to modernity? Did Hobbes influence the American Founders? What is the nature of his break (or debt) with the ancients? To what extent is Hobbes' argument directed against Aristotle? to what extent is it directed against those who appropriated Aris? What is Hobbes' understanding of the bible? I would prefer to stay away from secondary sources or use them only to the extent they help flesh out problems in the text. But I propose approaching these questions by beginning with the title. Best Regards, Ernest. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 96 Date: 02-02-98 12:41 From: Murilo Furtado Coura Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Macpherson and Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Fernando and Hobbes list, I'm not talking about a slow-read of Macpherson's book. I'm talking about a slow-read of Leviathan. I think Macpherson changes Hobbes usual interpretation. For him, Hobbes wasn't a conservative political philosopher, but a liberal one. In his interpretation, Hobbes was aware of the socio-economic tranformation that was happening in England (raising of capitalism) and was writing for it. But this point of view has some problems. That's what I want to discuss if someone is interested. Ernest, I'd like to participate of this complete reading of Levithan. Murilo ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 97 Date: 02-02-98 11:03 From: Stuart Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: r: reading leviathan. ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Nicola Caleffi wrote: > That could be very interesting, tough it could take us a very long time. > Would you like to read all the book or just some part of it? Personally, > I'm very interested in chapter 13-30, the ones dealing with the institution > and dissolution of commonwealths. In those parts of the work Hobbes seems > to point out not only how the political State rises from the state of > nature, but also how subjects participate in that process. From my point of > view that bring to some crucial question, all dealing with the "absolute > character" of Hobbes's political argument: why, for example, Hobbes > included in Leviathan an entire chapter (22) dealing with "systems"? And > why did he also wrote about the liberties of the subjects in chapter 21? > IMHO, as he was building his political argument for obligation, he was also > aware of the necessities to leave a "space" for the subjects, and that > fundamentally the political State stands on the irrational character of > individuals (he often refers to it as "mortal" and "fragile"). So, in a > certain way, he was compelled - by the very nature of his political > argument - to include the irrational and subjective part in it. > > Did anyone agree? > > Nicola Caleffi > ---------- Nicola, To a certain point, I agree, but - to me - that's why it is imporant to begin at the beginning of Leviathan. You refer to "the irrational character of individuals" - if insight into this character is to be found in Leviathan, it will be in the first few chapters. (Though we might be even better of reading De Homine.) Stuart Broz ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 98 Date: 02-06-98 15:10 From: Lance Fletcher Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Announcement from list ow ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ I am pleased to see that there is life on the Hobbes list. It seems there is a consensus to conduct a slow reading of the Leviathan. I want to make a couple of announcements: 1. I have asked Ernest Leigh (known to some as caw.dor) to serve as discussion leader, and I am pleased to announce that he has agreed. It has been my experience that slow readings work much better when there is a discussion leader. This is not meant to limit anyone, and I am sure that Ernest would be happy to share the responsibilities if anyone else wishes to do so. 2. As the list owner, I am responsible for all administrative matters, especially those having to do with problems in unsubscribing. If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, here is how to do that: Send a message to listserv@freelance.com containing the line: unsub hobbes If that doesn't work, send private e-mail to lance.fletcher@freelance.com and I will take care of you. Do NOT post administrative messages to the list. This will have no effect other than to cause annoyance. 3. As far as I know, the existence of this list has never been formally announced. Nonetheless, 68 people have somehow subscribed already. Since there is now a discussion leader and a reading plan, I intend to make an announcement elsewhere on the internet, inviting new subscribers to this list. So it's likely that our numbers will increase a bit over the next week or so. 4. I have uploaded the text of Leviathan to my website in the form of an "Envoy" document. I have attached below a copy of the explanatory web page that I just uploaded as well. The URL for this page is: http://www.freelance.com/hobbes/hobbes.htm The Leviathan can also be downloaded in plain text form, or in HTML from a number of internet sites (just do a web search on "Leviathan"), however, reading a text file of 1.2 megs can be a chore for those who do not have a good text editor. Also, the Envoy viewer allows you to insert annotations and bookmarks into your copy of the text, as well as to copy sections of it into messages that you are writing. Lance Fletcher ======================================================================= Index for Hobbes Archive

Index for Hobbes Archive

Notes regarding:

hobbes.evy (NB: To download this file correctly, hold down the shift key while you click the mouse button. If you don't, your browser may try to read it as text. If you see weird characters starting to come onto your screen. Click STOP and start the download over again.)

hobbes.exe

Both of these files contain the complete text of the Leviathan in Envoy portable document format. (This is a format similar to the Acrobat pdf format. Although the Acrobat format is more widely-known, I personally believe that the Envoy format is superior. In any case, it's the one for which I happen to own the publishing software.)

Hobbes.exe is a "runtime" version of the Leviathan for Windows 3.1, meaning that it contains the Windows 3.1 version of the Envoy viewer built in. If you can run Windows 3.1 programs, after downloading hobbes.exe, simply double-click on the icon and you will be able to read, annotate, bookmark, copy or print this version of the Leviathan.

If you are using a Macintosh computer, you should download hobbes.evy and obtain a copy of the Mac version of the Envoy viewer from:

http://www.tumbleweed.com/download.htm

The Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 versions of the Envoy viewer can also be downloaded from this site. If you like, you can also obtain an Envoy "plugin" which will enable you to read the file in Envoy format online. However, I don't recommend trying to read the entire 540 pages of the Leviathan while you are online.

Lance Fletcher

‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 99 Date: 02-12-98 22:15 From: Caw.dor@utoronto.ca Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Hobbes' Leviathan Slow-re ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ As far as I know, Leviathan is mentioned four times by Hobbes in the book. In the title; once in the Introduction ("For by art is created that great LEVIATHAN called a COMMONWEALTH, or STATE (in Latin, CIVITAS), which is but an artificial man . . . "); chapter 17 ("the multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH; in Latin, CIVITAS. This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence."); and once in chapter 28 ("Hitherto I have set forth the nature of man, whose pride and other passions have compelled him to submit himself to government; together with the great power of his governor, whom I compared to LEVIATHAN, taking that comparison out of the two last verses of the one-and-fortieth of Job; where God, having set forth the great power of Leviathan, calleth him king of the proud. 'There is nothing,' saith he, 'on earth to be compared with him. He is made so as not to be afraid. He seeth every high thing below him; and is king of all the children of pride.'") Since the first word in a work is its title, why would Hobbes choose Leviathan? What would he desire to bring to the mind of his readers? The Encyclopedia Britannica cites the following which my be of interest: Hebrew LIVYATAN, in Jewish mythology, a primordial sea serpent. Its source is in prebiblical Mesopotamian myth, especially that of the sea monster in the Ugaritic myth of Baal (see Yamm). In the Old Testament, Leviathan appears in Psalms 74:14 . . . . In Isaiah 27:1. . . . In Job 41. Yamm also spelled YAM (Hebrew: "Sea"), ancient West Semitic deity who ruled the oceans, rivers, lakes, and underground springs. He also played an important role in the Baal myths recorded on tablets uncovered at Ugarit, Edwin Curley contends that Leviathan was popularly known to as the devil, that it was one of the seven fallen angels associated with one of the seven deadly sins (envy). This last seems to accord with citation from chapter 28--Leviathan as breaker of evil pride. As pride or vain-glory inclines to war, it must be eradicated or held in check. "And therefore for the ninth law of nature, I put this: that every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature. The breach of this precept is pride." (ch 15) But this is perhaps jumping ahead. Any thoughts? Ernest Leigh. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 100 Date: 02-15-98 09:07 From: Kent Guida Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: title ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Here is Chapter 41 of Job. I agree with the interpretation that says the title "Leviathan" points to the crucial role of pride and 'vain-glory' in Hobbes's thought. Kent Guida Chapter Job.41 1: Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? 2: Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn? 3: Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee? 4: Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever? 5: Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens? 6: Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants? 7: Canst thou fill his skin with barbed iron? or his head with fish spears? 8: Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more. 9: Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him? 10: None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me? 11: Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine. 12: I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion. 13: Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle? 14: Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about. 15: His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. 16: One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. 17: They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. 18: By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. 19: Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. 20: Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. 21: His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. 22: In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him. 23: The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved. 24: His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone. 25: When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves. 26: The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon. 27: He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. 28: The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble. 29: Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear. 30: Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire. 31: He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment. 32: He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary. 33: Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. 34: He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 101 Date: 02-15-98 23:04 From: Nicola Caleffi Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: R: hobbes' leviathan slow ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ "why would Hobbes choose Leviathan? What would he desire to bring to the mind of his readers?" Mr. Leigh asked a very crucial question about the title of Hobbes's masterpiece. The simplest and straightest answer, I think, is that Leviathan is associated in Hobbes's readers with a mythological creature that represents an irrational and, at the same time, powerful figure; when Hobbes wrote that Leviathan is the "king of the proud" he means that Leviathan is the figure that embodies the irrational characters of men and - by doing this - neutralizes them in some way. But we don't have to take the word "Leviathan" in a strictly way: I think that Hobbes decided to use it because that was a very powerful and immediate image through which he was able to get the attention of his readers, who knew Biblical language and images very well. Nothwithstanding this, it is also true that the word "Leviathan" had a very precise meaning in Hobbes's political theory; and this is the reason why we have to pay attention not only to that word, but also to the second part of the title, which deals with "the matter, form and power of a commonwelath ecclesiastical and civil". Our attempt to understand Hobbes's title must take care of both the sides of it, the mythological and the political one: the first is some kind of a literary (even if deeply meaningful) strategy to symbolize the political argument; the second is the political argument itself, which goes straight to the core of the theory: what are the matter, the form and the power of a state that we mean to be civil and ecclesiastical? ---------- > Da: caw.dor@utoronto.ca > A: Multiple recipients of list HOBBES > Oggetto: hobbes' leviathan slow-read -- title. > Data: venerdύ 13 febbraio 1998 4.15 > > > As far as I know, Leviathan is mentioned four times by Hobbes in the > book. In the title; once in the Introduction ("For by art is created > that great LEVIATHAN called a COMMONWEALTH, or STATE (in Latin, CIVITAS), > which is but an artificial man . . . "); chapter 17 ("the multitude so > united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH; in Latin, CIVITAS. This is > the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather, to speak more > reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, > our peace and defence."); and once in chapter 28 ("Hitherto I have set > forth the nature of man, whose pride and other passions have compelled him > to submit himself to government; together with the great power of his > governor, whom I compared to LEVIATHAN, taking that comparison out of the > two last verses of the one-and-fortieth of Job; where God, having set > forth the great power of Leviathan, calleth him king of the proud. > 'There is nothing,' saith he, 'on earth to be compared with him. He is > made so as not to be afraid. He seeth every high thing below him; and > is king of all the children of pride.'") > > Since the first word in a work is its title, why would Hobbes choose > Leviathan? What would he desire to bring to the mind of his readers? > > The Encyclopedia Britannica cites the following which my be of > interest: > > Hebrew LIVYATAN, in Jewish mythology, a primordial sea serpent. > Its source is in prebiblical Mesopotamian myth, especially that of > the sea monster in the Ugaritic myth of Baal (see Yamm). In the > Old Testament, Leviathan appears in Psalms 74:14 . . . . In Isaiah > 27:1. . . . In Job 41. > > Yamm also spelled YAM (Hebrew: "Sea"), ancient West > Semitic deity who ruled the oceans, rivers, lakes, and > underground springs. He also played an important role > in the Baal myths recorded on tablets uncovered at Ugarit, > > Edwin Curley contends that Leviathan was popularly known to as the > devil, that it was one of the seven fallen angels associated with one of > the seven deadly sins (envy). This last seems to accord with citation > from chapter 28--Leviathan as breaker of evil pride. As pride or > vain-glory inclines to war, it must be eradicated or held in check. > "And therefore for the ninth law of nature, I put this: that every man > acknowledge another for his equal by nature. The breach of this precept > is pride." (ch 15) But this is perhaps jumping ahead. > > Any thoughts? > > > Ernest Leigh. > > ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 102 Date: 02-16-98 11:25 From: Leocasey@aol.com Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: r: hobbes' leviathan ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ The issue of the title of Hobbes' Leviathan is a very important and complex one. I have researched the matter, and have a nearly completed essay which is already more than fifty pages long. The questions it raises, in my view, are thus: (These are the opening paragraphs to my essay) The shadow of Hobbes' preeminent political symbol, the leviathan, falls across the imagery of modern political discourse. Yet for the modern reader and student of politics, this influence has been rendered largely invisible. When in the middle of the 17th century Hobbes chose the leviathan symbol to represent his concept of the state and to entitle his most important political treatise, he was embracing a widely recognized image with a long and varied history in the western world, an image rich in connotations. But today, this history has been obscured and these associated meanings have been lost: the term 'leviathan' is now a dead metaphor, functioning as little more than a synonym for a powerful, even authoritarian state. And so the figure of leviathan has become an enigmatic hieroglyph, and its symbolic meaning waits to be deciphered. With very few exceptions, modern studies of Hobbesian political theory have been content to ignore the original symbolism of the Hobbesian leviathan figure. As a consequence, several vexing questions which go straight to the core of Hobbes' political thought have been sidestepped. Why was a text which opposed, explicitly and unequivocally, the use of rhetorical figures in political philosophy crowned with a metaphorical title? Why was a conception of the state which claimed to be the sole embodiment of an exclusive and homogeneous Reason represented by a mythical figure? And why was the particular metaphorical and mythical figure of leviathan, a figure with negative connotations of evil and tyranny, chosen? If the power and complexity of Hobbesian political theory is to be more fully grasped, and if the imagery of the modern political discourse which ensued in part from that theory is to be placed in greater reveal, then an archeological expedition into the lost meanings of 'the leviathan' must be undertaken. Let me simply add to this that if one investigates in any depth the history of the leviathan symbol and its uses, both in the Judaic and the Christian traditions, it immediately becomes clear that it is universally seen, until the period of the late middle ages, as a figure of evil and tyranny. Moreover, it was an important enough figure, appearing iv virtually every significant thinker, that it would have been virtually impossible for a man of Hobbes' education and learning to be unaware of its full significance. However, this issue has been almost completely ignored by Hobbes' scholars. First, it raises too many troubling questions which would disrupt prevalent interpretations of Hobbes; secondly, the one figure to ever have discussed it any depth was Carl Schmitt, and his book on the topic, recently translated and published in English, was written during his association with the Nazis and had a decidedly anti-Semitic cast in its interpretation and contrast between the Judaic and Christian views of Leviathan. Leo Casey ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 103 Date: 02-24-98 20:32 From: Caw.dor@utoronto.ca Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: r: hobbes' leviathan ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ I wish to apologize to the Hobbes List (and to Mr Fletcher in particular) for neglecting my responsibility as a list leader. I live in the mid-west and have been a victim of the recent barrage of flooding. At any rate: On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, Nicola Caleffi wrote: > "why would Hobbes choose Leviathan? > What would he desire to bring to the mind of his readers?" > > Mr. Leigh asked a very crucial question about the title of Hobbes's > masterpiece. The simplest and straightest answer, I think, is that > Leviathan is associated in Hobbes's readers with a mythological creature > that represents an irrational and, at the same time, powerful figure; when > Hobbes wrote that Leviathan is the "king of the proud" he means that > Leviathan is the figure that embodies the irrational characters of men and > - by doing this - neutralizes them in some way. But we don't have to take > the word "Leviathan" in a strictly way: I think that Hobbes decided to use > it because that was a very powerful and immediate image through which he > was able to get the attention of his readers, who knew Biblical language > and images very well. Nothwithstanding this, it is also true that the word > "Leviathan" had a very precise meaning in Hobbes's political theory; and > this is the reason why we have to pay attention not only to that word, but > also to the second part of the title, which deals with "the matter, form > and power of a commonwelath ecclesiastical and civil". Our attempt to > understand Hobbes's title must take care of both the sides of it, the > mythological and the political one: the first is some kind of a literary > (even if deeply meaningful) strategy to symbolize the political argument; > the second is the political argument itself, which goes straight to the > core of the theory: what are the matter, the form and the power of a state > that we mean to be civil and ecclesiastical? > This I think is an excellent and interesting point. But to what extent are the characteristics of man that the Leviathan embodies irrational? Or rather, are these characteristics merely conducive toward the war of all against all? But by being conducive toward war are they thereby irrational? And this raises another question: if the Leviathan is to suppress vain-glory, does this imply that the Leviathan or Sovereign is vain-glorious? But perhaps this is looking to far ahead. Ernest Leigh. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 104 Date: 02-24-98 21:07 From: Caw.dor@utoronto.ca Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: r: hobbes' leviathan ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 LeoCasey@aol.com wrote: > The issue of the title of Hobbes' Leviathan is a very important and complex > one. I have researched the matter, and have a nearly completed essay which is > already more than fifty pages long. The questions it raises, in my view, are > thus: > (These are the opening paragraphs to my essay) > > The shadow of Hobbes' preeminent political symbol, the leviathan, falls across > the imagery of modern political discourse. Yet for the modern reader and > student of politics, this influence has been rendered largely invisible. When > in the middle of the 17th century Hobbes chose the leviathan symbol to > represent his concept of the state and to entitle his most important political > treatise, he was embracing a widely recognized image with a long and varied > history in the western world, an image rich in connotations. But today, this > history has been obscured and these associated meanings have been lost: the > term 'leviathan' is now a dead metaphor, functioning as little more than a > synonym for a powerful, even authoritarian state. And so the figure of > leviathan has become an enigmatic hieroglyph, and its symbolic meaning waits > to be deciphered. > > With very few exceptions, modern studies of Hobbesian political theory have > been content to ignore the original symbolism of the Hobbesian leviathan > figure. As a consequence, several vexing questions which go straight to the > core of Hobbes' political thought have been sidestepped. Why was a text which > opposed, explicitly and unequivocally, the use of rhetorical figures in > political philosophy crowned with a metaphorical title? Why was a conception > of the state which claimed to be the sole embodiment of an exclusive and > homogeneous Reason represented by a mythical figure? And why was the > particular metaphorical and mythical figure of leviathan, a figure with > negative connotations of evil and tyranny, chosen? If the power and complexity > of Hobbesian political theory is to be more fully grasped, and if the imagery > of the modern political discourse which ensued in part from that theory is to > be placed in greater reveal, then an archeological expedition into the lost > meanings of 'the leviathan' must be undertaken. > Let me simply add to this that if one investigates in any depth the history of > the leviathan symbol and its uses, both in the Judaic and the Christian > traditions, it immediately becomes clear that it is universally seen, until > the period of the late middle ages, as a figure of evil and tyranny. Moreover, > it was an important enough figure, appearing iv virtually every significant > thinker, that it would have been virtually impossible for a man of Hobbes' > education and learning to be unaware of its full significance. However, this > issue has been almost completely ignored by Hobbes' scholars. First, it > raises too many troubling questions which would disrupt prevalent > interpretations of Hobbes; secondly, the one figure to ever have discussed it > any depth was Carl Schmitt, and his book on the topic, recently translated and > published in English, was written during his association with the Nazis and > had a decidedly anti-Semitic cast in its interpretation and contrast between > the Judaic and Christian views of Leviathan. Thanks for this, Mr Casey. I was not aware of utter dearth of attention Hobbes' title has received. I like that you point out, moreover, how Hobbes rails against the use of metaphor as an impediment to rational thought and contrary to his scientific (geometric) method. "To these uses [of speech], there are also four correspondent abuses. . . . Secondly, when they use words metaphorically; that is, in other sense than that they are ordained for, and thereby deceive others." (I.4.4) "For it is most true that Cicero saith of them somewhere; that there can be nothing so absurd but may be found in the books of philosophers. And the reason is manifest. For there is not one of them that begins his ratiocination from the definitions or explications of the names they are to use; which is a method that hath been used only in geometry, whose conclusions have thereby been made indisputable: * * * * The sixth [cause of absurd conclusions is] to the use of metaphors, tropes, and other rhetorical figures, instead of words proper." (I.5.7-14) And yet, as you point out, Hobbes' book is shamlessly "crowned with a metaphorical title." But I guess we have to ask whether or not this detracts from the validity of Hobbes science of politics? And does his science allow for pedagogical use of metaphor? Is his use of metaphor different from Plato, for example? And finally, does his use of the metaphorical title contradict the principles of his science? All in favor of moving on to the Intro? Ernest Leigh. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 105 Date: 02-25-98 08:10 From: Michael Green Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Leviathan, the title. ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ I don't have much of my own to add concerning the title, but do know what some other people have said. Here's what Leibniz thought of Hobbes's title (this is from a letter he wrote, as cited by Edwin Curely, "I Durst Not Write So Boldly," Hobbes e Spinoza, scienza e politica, ed. E. Bostrenghi (Naples: Bibliopolis, 1992): "I have recently seen an article from from Leipzig, doubtless yours, in which you treated according to its deserts an intolerably unrestrained book on the liberty of philosophizing [Spinoza's Tractatus theologico-politicus]. The author seems to follow not only Hobbes' politics, but also his religion, which he has outlined so adequately in his Leviathan, a work monstrous even in what its title suggests. For Hobbes, in a whole chpater of Leviathan has also sown the seeds of that very smart critique which this bold man carries out against sacred scripture." As I read this, Leibniz thinks the title is monstrous because of its religious (as opposed to its political) implications. It's not decisive evidence for an interpretation, but it is evidence of how the title was received by the audience Hobbes would have anticipated addressing. In any event, here are two articles on this topic that I found in the Philosopher's Index that may be interesting to those who are working on this. The abstracts are by the authors, not me. Hobbes's Biblical Beasts: "Leviathan" and "Behemoth" Author: Springborg Journal Name: Polit Theory, 23(2), 353-375, My 95 Language: English Document Type: Journal Article Journal Announcement: 294 Descriptors: BEASTS; BIBLE; NATURE; RELIGION; SATAN Named People: HOBBES Leviathan as Metaphor. Author: Mintz, Samuel I Journal Name: Hobbes Stud, 2,3-9, 1989 Language: English Document Type: Journal Article Journal Announcement: 234 In the renaissance, the image of the sea monster Leviathan was read as a metaphor of the state. Hobbes adopted this reading, and expanded it to make the metaphor of Leviathan the bearer of mimetic or imaginative truth. The making of Leviathan, the generation, that is, of the commonwealth, is an imaginative enactment of a fictional world similar to the speech acts that brought the natural world into being at the creation. The metaphor of Leviathan is a creative act of language, a performative utterance which, said hobbes, "resembles that "fiat", or the "let us make man", pronounced by God in the creation." Descriptors: POLITICAL PHIL; METAPHOR; POWER; TRUTH Named People: HOBBES Michael Green Office: Building 90, 92G Philosophy Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-2155 (650) 723-0855 ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 106 Date: 02-25-98 15:23 From: Sfoutz@tiu.edu Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: r: hobbes' leviathan ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ sorry. i seem to be a little behind. i sshould have simply dittoed this dialogue. scott david foutz On 24 Feb 98 at 20:32, caw.dor@utoronto.ca wrote about re: r: hobbes' leviathan slow-read : } To: Multiple recipients of list HOBBES } Reply-to: hobbes@freelance.com } From: caw.dor@utoronto.ca } Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 20:32:36 -0500 } Organization: The Free Lance Academy (bbs) 201-963-6019 } Subject: re: r: hobbes' leviathan slow-read -- title. } I wish to apologize to the Hobbes List (and to Mr Fletcher in particular) } for neglecting my responsibility as a list leader. I live in the } mid-west and have been a victim of the recent barrage of flooding. } } At any rate: } } On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, Nicola Caleffi wrote: } } > "why would Hobbes choose Leviathan? } > What would he desire to bring to the mind of his readers?" } > } > Mr. Leigh asked a very crucial question about the title of Hobbes's } > masterpiece. The simplest and straightest answer, I think, is that } > Leviathan is associated in Hobbes's readers with a mythological creature } > that represents an irrational and, at the same time, powerful figure; when } > Hobbes wrote that Leviathan is the "king of the proud" he means that } > Leviathan is the figure that embodies the irrational characters of men and } > - by doing this - neutralizes them in some way. But we don't have to take } > the word "Leviathan" in a strictly way: I think that Hobbes decided to use } > it because that was a very powerful and immediate image through which he } > was able to get the attention of his readers, who knew Biblical language } > and images very well. Nothwithstanding this, it is also true that the word } > "Leviathan" had a very precise meaning in Hobbes's political theory; and } > this is the reason why we have to pay attention not only to that word, but } > also to the second part of the title, which deals with "the matter, form } > and power of a commonwelath ecclesiastical and civil". Our attempt to } > understand Hobbes's title must take care of both the sides of it, the } > mythological and the political one: the first is some kind of a literary } > (even if deeply meaningful) strategy to symbolize the political argument; } > the second is the political argument itself, which goes straight to the } > core of the theory: what are the matter, the form and the power of a state } > that we mean to be civil and ecclesiastical? } > } } This I think is an excellent and interesting point. But to what extent } are the characteristics of man that the Leviathan embodies irrational? Or } rather, are these characteristics merely conducive toward the war of all } against all? But by being conducive toward war are they thereby } irrational? And this raises another question: if the Leviathan is to } suppress vain-glory, does this imply that the Leviathan or Sovereign is } vain-glorious? But perhaps this is looking to far ahead. } } } Ernest Leigh. } } } } **************************************** scott david foutz department fellow of historical theology trinity international university (847) 317-7062 **************************************** ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 107 Date: 03-08-98 13:39 From: Lawrence Casse Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: title and frontispiec ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Does anyone have any further information on the frontispiece illustration= that appeared in the 1651 edition of Leviathan ?=A0=A0 Did Hobbes have any inv= olvement with its design or at least approve it?=A0 This is certainly conceivable; Rous= seau , for example, seems to have chosen or directed the frontispiece illustrations = that appear in some of his works. The engraving=A0 appears in part on the cover of the Pelican edition edit= ed by Macpherson and entirely on p. 71 of that edition.=A0 The quotation that a= ppears on the top in Latin appears to be from Job 41, verse=A0 33: " Upon earth the= re is not his like, who is made without fear." .=A0 But the attribution is to Job 4= 1, verse 24.=A0=A0 Is this just a printer's slip-up or is there some deeper signif= icance?=A0=A0 ( Or has the numbering system changed over time? )=A0 The quote from verse = 33 would certainly capture part of the essential Hobbesian=A0 doctrine- perhaps th= e entire Chapter=A0 41 of Job might=A0 point to Hobbes's intention.=A0=A0 Quoting = Verse 33 as the epigraph would seem to point to fear rather than vainglory as the fundame= ntal human=A0 phenomena. The bottom half of the illustration seems to show five pairs of opposites= on each side :=A0 a castle vs.=A0 a church ,=A0 a crown vs. a bishop's mitre,=A0 = a cannon vs. a cloud of lightning (divine judgment? ) , muskets vs. farm implements, war= vs. a peaceful assembly.=A0=A0 The=A0 meaning seems almost self-explanantory .=A0= Any comments? =2E LC =A0 Kent Guida wrote: > Here is Chapter 41 of Job.=A0 I agree with the interpretation that says= the > title "Leviathan" points to the crucial role of pride and 'vain-glory' = in > Hobbes's thought. > Kent Guida > > Chapter Job.41 > > 1: Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cor= d > which thou lettest down? > > 2: Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a= > thorn? > > 3: Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words = unto > thee? > > 4: Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant = for > ever? > > 5: Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for th= y > maidens? > > 6: Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him amon= g > the merchants? > > 7: Canst thou fill his skin with barbed iron? or his head with fish spe= ars? > > 8: Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more. > > 9: Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even = at > the sight of him? > > 10: None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand > before me? > > 11: Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under= the > whole heaven is mine. > > 12: I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proport= ion. > > 13: Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him wi= th > his double bridle? > > 14: Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round ab= out. > > 15: His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. > > 16: One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. > > 17: They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cann= ot > be sundered. > > 18: By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyeli= ds > of the morning. > > 19: Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. > > 20: Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldro= n. > > 21: His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. > > 22: In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy befor= e > him. > > 23: The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in > themselves; they cannot be moved. > > 24: His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the net= her > millstone. > > 25: When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of > breakings they purify themselves. > > 26: The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dar= t, > nor the habergeon. > > 27: He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. > > 28: The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him int= o > stubble. > > 29: Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear= =2E > > 30: Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon = the > mire. > > 31: He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot= of > ointment. > > 32: He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be= > hoary. > > 33: Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. > > 34: He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of= > pride. > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ------ > Internet: kent.guida@worldnet.att.net (Kent Guida) > Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet=A0 -- BBS: 201-963-6019= -- > For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this pa= ge) or- > To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub " > Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ------ =A0 ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 108 Date: 03-09-98 05:00 From: Cameron Wybrow Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: title and frontispiec ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, Lawrence Casse wrote: > Does anyone have any further information on the frontispiece illustration= > that > appeared in the 1651 edition of Leviathan ?=A0=A0 Did Hobbes have any inv= > olvement with > its design or at least approve it?=A0 This is certainly conceivable; Rous= > seau , for > example, seems to have chosen or directed the frontispiece illustrations = > that > appear in some of his works. > > The engraving=A0 appears in part on the cover of the Pelican edition edit= > ed by > Macpherson and entirely on p. 71 of that edition.=A0 The quotation that a= > ppears on > the top in Latin appears to be from Job 41, verse=A0 33: " Upon earth the= > re is not > his like, who is made without fear." .=A0 But the attribution is to Job 4= > 1, verse > 24.=A0=A0 Is this just a printer's slip-up or is there some deeper signif= > icance?=A0=A0 ( > Or has the numbering system changed over time? )=A0 The quote from verse = > 33 would > certainly capture part of the essential Hobbesian=A0 doctrine- perhaps th= > e entire > Chapter=A0 41 of Job might=A0 point to Hobbes's intention.=A0=A0 Quoting = > Verse 33 as the > epigraph would seem to point to fear rather than vainglory as the fundame= > ntal > human=A0 phenomena. > > The bottom half of the illustration seems to show five pairs of opposites= > on each > side :=A0 a castle vs.=A0 a church ,=A0 a crown vs. a bishop's mitre,=A0 = > a cannon vs. a > cloud of lightning (divine judgment? ) , muskets vs. farm implements, war= > vs. a > peaceful assembly.=A0=A0 The=A0 meaning seems almost self-explanantory .=A0= > Any comments? > =2E > > LC > =A0 I can recommend two sources on the Frontispiece. 1. "(The) Artist of the Leviathan Title Page", British Library Journal, volume 4 (Spring 1978), pp. 24-36. This is very interesting because the author of the article has discovered and reproduced an unused *drawing* of an alternative frontispiece for the book, and the imagery in the alternate version is striking, in some ways more appropriate for Leviathan than the one actually settled on. For example, in the version we have, the "scales" on the body of the Leviathan are really, on close inspection, tiny people, subjects, with their backs to us, facing the Leviathan, as subjects facing their master, dutifully awaiting orders. In the drawn, unused version, the body of the monster is composed of heads of all his subjects, and they all face out at the reader, in the same direction as the monster himself. This does not capture as well the motif of absolute obedience to the sovereign, but it does capture the notion that the Sovereign is really enforcing the will of the parties to the political contract, and that therefore his will gains its force from all their wills together. The rejection of this version of the frontispiece in favour of the other, whether by Hobbes or someone else, implies that the person making the decision thought that it was more important to emphasize the obedience of subjects to sovereign than the origin of sovereign power in the transfer to the sovereign of the aggregate will of the people. Perhaps an anti-democratic emphasis is involved in such a decision. Also, the unused drawn version reminds one of the Biblical story of the man possessed by devils whose name is Legion. The Leviathan looks like a composite of angry devilish faces. This would fit in with the scholarship of people who have said that in the Renaissance Leviathan was often equated with the devil (e.g., Steadman, "Leviathan and Renaissance etymology", Journal of the History of Ideas, 28 (Oct. 1967), pp. 575-6). Perhaps the decision not to use this devil-Leviathan was deliberate; perhaps the person deciding about the frontispiece, knowing the negative force of the devil-Leviathan interpretive tradition, wanted to stress that Leviathan was not to be taken as an evil force but a good one, a force for order, law, and justice. I don't recall if the author of the journal had any information on whether Hobbes supervised the frontispiece, but it is an interesting article and worth reading in any case. I have seen it summarized in an article in another journal, but I don't remember where that other article appeared. 2. *The Comely Frontispiece*. A large, hardcover volume, likely to be found only in the reference room of a larger research library. It is a study of seventeenth-century frontispieces, especially British, I believe, and reproduces in large size each frontispiece and then offers a discussion. I am almost sure that Hobbes's Leviathan is considered in the volume, but it has been fifteen years since I looked at it. In any case it is very informative about the practice of using frontispieces and the artistic conventions employed in such pieces. On the incorrect verse number in the frontispiece: in the King James Version, the Revised Standard Version, and perhaps also the Geneva Bible or Latin Vulgate or other Bibles which Hobbes had access to (I can't check on the Vulgate or older English Bibles), Chapter 41 of Job has 34 verses, and the verse in the frontispiece is verse 33. In the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint (Greek translation of about 180 BC), and the Jewish Publication Society version (1917), Chapter 41 has only 26 verses, and the verse in the frontispiece would be verse 25. (This is caused by the fact that in the latter texts the part about Leviathan starts in Chapter 40, verse 25; no verses are missing, they are just split over two chapters.) I would assume that the artist of the frontispiece consulted with someone familiar with the Hebrew-Septuagint tradition, or at least used a translation which followed that tradition. I would assume that if Hobbes mentions verse 33 in his text, he is following a different verse-numbering tradition, either from the Latin Vulgate (which I don't know) or from an English translation. I would guess that there is absolutely no significance to this variation, even if Hobbes himself directed the frontispiece art. He might easily have had a Septuagint in front of him when directing the frontispiece artist and an English Bible with the other pattern in front of him when composing the text of the book. I note, finally, that the numbering in the frontispiece is in error even if we accept my account above; it is off by one. 41.24 should be 41.25. This can easily be accounted for as a slip, or by the possibility that the Hebrew or Greek texts available in the seventeenth century (which would not be identical to the modern critical Hebrew and Greek editions I cited above) had a verse missing or had two verses compressed into one number somewhere before verse 25. I therefore think we can determine nothing by this numbering error, even if Hobbes was responsible for it. Cameron Wybrow. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 109 Date: 03-09-98 13:35 From: Niklas Olaison Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: title and frontispiec ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ >The bottom half of the illustration seems to show five pairs of opposites= > on each >side :=A0 a castle vs.=A0 a church ,=A0 a crown vs. a bishop's mitre,=A0 = >a cannon vs. a >cloud of lightning (divine judgment? ) , muskets vs. farm implements, war= > vs. a >peaceful assembly.=A0=A0 The=A0 meaning seems almost self-explanantory .=A0= > Any comments? The "farm implements" are really dialectical forks, i.e. theological aruguments, and the "peaceful assembly" an act of disputation. Aloysius Martinich analyzes these images in an appendix to his "The Two gods of Leviathan" but his contention that they represent Hobbes's endorsement of the church order rather than an ironic criticism of it seems hardly tenable. Niklas ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --when I heare a man upon the discovery of any new and ingenious knowledge or invention aske gravely that is to say scornefully what tis good for, meaning what monie it will bring in (when hee knows as little, to one that hath sufficient, what that overplus of monie is good for) to esteeme that man nott sufficiently removed from brutalitie - Thomas Hobbes ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 110 Date: 03-09-98 22:16 From: Cameron Wybrow Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: title and frontispiec ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Niklas Olaison wrote: > The "farm implements" are really dialectical forks, i.e. theological > aruguments, and the "peaceful assembly" an act of disputation. Aloysius > Martinich analyzes these images in an appendix to his "The Two gods of > Leviathan" but his contention that they represent Hobbes's endorsement of > the church order rather than an ironic criticism of it seems hardly > tenable. Can you give us the full reference for Martinich again? And by the way, are the things opposite the forks muskets? I can't make out the image in my small paperback edition. And I can't read all the words on the dialectical forks; once I knew them from a larger poster version, in which they were readable; can you give us the English (or Latin) words inscribed on each fork? I agree with your remark about Hobbes's intention; I think we must read the "church" side of the picture in light of the withering attack in Book Four. Also, can you give me the full reference for the Hobbes quotation below? It is truly wonderful. > --when I heare a man upon the discovery of any new and ingenious knowledge > or invention aske gravely that is to say scornefully what tis good for, > meaning what monie it will bring in (when hee knows as little, to one that > hath sufficient, what that overplus of monie is good for) to esteeme that > man nott sufficiently removed from brutalitie > - Thomas Hobbes ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 111 Date: 03-10-98 09:19 From: Niklas Olaison Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: title and frontispiec ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ >On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Niklas Olaison wrote: > >> The "farm implements" are really dialectical forks, i.e. theological >> aruguments, and the "peaceful assembly" an act of disputation. Aloysius >> Martinich analyzes these images in an appendix to his "The Two gods of >> Leviathan" but his contention that they represent Hobbes's endorsement of >> the church order rather than an ironic criticism of it seems hardly >> tenable. > >Can you give us the full reference for Martinich again? Aloysius Martinich, "The two gods of Leviathan", Cambridge 1992 >Also, can you give me the full reference for the Hobbes quotation below? >It is truly wonderful. It's from the epistle dedicatory of "A Minute or First Draught of the Optiques", critical edition by Elaine Condouris Stroud (unpublished dissertation), University of Wisconsin-Madison 1983, p. 76. Niklas ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --when I heare a man upon the discovery of any new and ingenious knowledge or invention aske gravely that is to say scornefully what tis good for, meaning what monie it will bring in (when hee knows as little, to one that hath sufficient, what that overplus of monie is good for) to esteeme that man nott sufficiently removed from brutalitie - Thomas Hobbes ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 112 Date: 03-10-98 15:13 From: Nicola Caleffi Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: R: title and frontispiece ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Some further notes on Leviathan's (author) frontispiece: The book recalled by Cameron Wybrow is M. Corbett, R. Lightbrown, "The Comely Frontispiece: The Emblematic Title-page in England, 1550-1660", London, 1979. That book is cited on an interesting article by M.M. Goldsmith dealing with the frontispiece of Hobbe's political works (Elements, Philosophical Rudiments, Leviathan) edited in 1650-51: "Hobbes's Ambiguous Politics", History of Political Thought, Vol. XI, No. 4, Winter 1990. Goldsmith states that the engraved version of the frontispiece "can be firmly attributed to a Parisan engraver, Abraham Bosse" while the drawn version of the frontispiece (prior to the engraved one) was by Wencelas Hollar, an artist who portraited both Hobbes and Charles II. So, the frontispiece for Leviathan's manuscript was first drawn by Hollar: that is the version with the heads of subjects facing the readers (cf. Wybrow). As Goldsmith states, "we must suppose that it is the fine copy on vellum that Hobbes presented to Charles II". But in the engraved version by Bosse, which appeared on the printed version by Andrew Crooke in April 1651, the subjects give their backs to us, facing the Leviathan. Was that a change due to Charles's influence? ---------- > Da: Lawrence Casse > A: Multiple recipients of list HOBBES > Oggetto: re: title and frontispiece > Data: domenica 8 marzo 1998 19.39 > > Does anyone have any further information on the frontispiece illustration= > that > appeared in the 1651 edition of Leviathan ?=A0=A0 Did Hobbes have any inv= > olvement with > its design or at least approve it?=A0 This is certainly conceivable; Rous= > seau , for > example, seems to have chosen or directed the frontispiece illustrations = > that > appear in some of his works. > > The engraving=A0 appears in part on the cover of the Pelican edition edit= > ed by > Macpherson and entirely on p. 71 of that edition.=A0 The quotation that a= > ppears on > the top in Latin appears to be from Job 41, verse=A0 33: " Upon earth the= > re is not > his like, who is made without fear." .=A0 But the attribution is to Job 4= > 1, verse > 24.=A0=A0 Is this just a printer's slip-up or is there some deeper signif= > icance?=A0=A0 ( > Or has the numbering system changed over time? )=A0 The quote from verse = > 33 would > certainly capture part of the essential Hobbesian=A0 doctrine- perhaps th= > e entire > Chapter=A0 41 of Job might=A0 point to Hobbes's intention.=A0=A0 Quoting = > Verse 33 as the > epigraph would seem to point to fear rather than vainglory as the fundame= > ntal > human=A0 phenomena. > > The bottom half of the illustration seems to show five pairs of opposites= > on each > side :=A0 a castle vs.=A0 a church ,=A0 a crown vs. a bishop's mitre,=A0 = > a cannon vs. a > cloud of lightning (divine judgment? ) , muskets vs. farm implements, war= > vs. a > peaceful assembly.=A0=A0 The=A0 meaning seems almost self-explanantory .=A0= > Any comments? > =2E > > LC > =A0 > > Kent Guida wrote: > > > Here is Chapter 41 of Job.=A0 I agree with the interpretation that says= > the > > title "Leviathan" points to the crucial role of pride and 'vain-glory' = > in > > Hobbes's thought. > > Kent Guida > > > > Chapter Job.41 > > > > 1: Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cor= > d > > which thou lettest down? > > > > 2: Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a= > > > thorn? > > > > 3: Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words = > unto > > thee? > > > > 4: Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant = > for > > ever? > > > > 5: Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for th= > y > > maidens? > > > > 6: Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him amon= > g > > the merchants? > > > > 7: Canst thou fill his skin with barbed iron? or his head with fish spe= > ars? > > > > 8: Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more. > > > > 9: Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even = > at > > the sight of him? > > > > 10: None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand > > before me? > > > > 11: Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under= > the > > whole heaven is mine. > > > > 12: I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proport= > ion. > > > > 13: Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him wi= > th > > his double bridle? > > > > 14: Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round ab= > out. > > > > 15: His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. > > > > 16: One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. > > > > 17: They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cann= > ot > > be sundered. > > > > 18: By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyeli= > ds > > of the morning. > > > > 19: Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. > > > > 20: Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldro= > n. > > > > 21: His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. > > > > 22: In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy befor= > e > > him. > > > > 23: The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in > > themselves; they cannot be moved. > > > > 24: His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the net= > her > > millstone. > > > > 25: When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of > > breakings they purify themselves. > > > > 26: The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dar= > t, > > nor the habergeon. > > > > 27: He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. > > > > 28: The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him int= > o > > stubble. > > > > 29: Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear= > =2E > > > > 30: Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon = > the > > mire. > > > > 31: He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot= > of > > ointment. > > > > 32: He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be= > > > hoary. > > > > 33: Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. > > > > 34: He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of= > > > pride. > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= > ------ > > Internet: kent.guida@worldnet.att.net (Kent Guida) > > Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet=A0 -- BBS: 201-963-6019= > -- > > For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > > http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this pa= > ge) or- > > To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub name>" > > Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= > ------ > > =A0 > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > Internet: lcasse@sympatico.ca (Lawrence Casse) > Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or- > To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub " > Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 113 Date: 03-12-98 01:30 From: Cameron Wybrow Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: r: title and frontispiece ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:13:02 -0500 From: Nicola Caleffi Reply-To: hobbes@freelance.com To: Multiple recipients of list HOBBES Subject: r: title and frontispiece Some further notes on Leviathan's (author) frontispiece: The book recalled by Cameron Wybrow is M. Corbett, R. Lightbrown, "The Comely Frontispiece: The Emblematic Title-page in England, 1550-1660", London, 1979. That book is cited on an interesting article by M.M. Goldsmith dealing with the frontispiece of Hobbe's political works (Elements, Philosophical Rudiments, Leviathan) edited in 1650-51: "Hobbes's Ambiguous Politics", History of Political Thought, Vol. XI, No. 4, Winter 1990. Goldsmith states that the engraved version of the frontispiece "can be firmly attributed to a Parisan engraver, Abraham Bosse" while the drawn version of the frontispiece (prior to the engraved one) was by Wencelas Hollar, an artist who portraited both Hobbes and Charles II. So, the frontispiece for Leviathan's manuscript was first drawn by Hollar: that is the version with the heads of subjects facing the readers (cf. Wybrow). As Goldsmith states, "we must suppose that it is the fine copy on vellum that Hobbes presented to Charles II". But in the engraved version by Bosse, which appeared on the printed version by Andrew Crooke in April 1651, the subjects give their backs to us, facing the Leviathan. Was that a change due to Charles's influence? ******* Thanks for this discussion. I cannot answer the last question, and I don't know how we could, as it is unlikely that Charles's indication of displeasure would have been recorded in writing anywhere, except maybe in a biography or an autobiography (if such exists) of the disappointed artist whose picture was censored. Of course, if Charles did censor it, it may have been for the reasons I suggested in my previous post (the early drawing made the king's power too clearly derivative from the people). I am curious to know why Goldsmith says "we must suppose" rather than "we may suppose"; the former seems too strong. But perhaps it will become clear if I read his article. Thanks for the reference. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 114 Date: 03-12-98 19:00 From: Leocasey Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: r: title and frontisp ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ What is especially interesting about the frontispiece, in my view, is how starkly it shows the distance between Hobbes' Leviathan and classical conceptions of the 'body politic'. When one looks at the use of the body politic metaphor from John of Salisbury, the body is differentiated, with different organs representing different social groups and classes. In Leviathan, as brillantly expressed in the frontispiece, this internal differentiation is polarized into that of the head (the Prince/State as the embodiment of Reason, and an undiffentiated mass of subjects. Of interest here also is the section of the introduction where Hobbes merges organic and mechanical metaphor, presenting the body politic in mechanical images. The play of the metaphors here, with the explicit 'modernization' of classical tropes, is quite interesting. Leo Casey ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 116 Date: 04-24-98 22:58 From: Nicola Caleffi Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: Leviathan Slow Reading ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ It seems that the list didn't work a lot in the last weeks. We had started a slow reading of Leviathan, but up to now we have just analyzed the title and the frontispiece of the work. Didn't anyone wish to continue this reading through the first chapter of the book, or the Introduction? ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 117 Date: 04-25-98 01:38 From: John Carney Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: leviathan slow readin ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ I am eager to continue the Hobbes slow reading of the Leviathan. I've been too busy to contribute lately, and the project seemed to have died before I got the chance. If others want to continue, I am all for it. John Carney. ‘ Area: Hobbes ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Msg#: 118 Date: 04-30-98 15:57 From: Caw.dor@utoronto.ca Read: No Replied: No To: All Mark: Save Subj: leviathan slow readin ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ Count me in. Ernest Leigh. On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, John Carney wrote: > I am eager to continue the Hobbes slow reading of the > Leviathan. I've been too busy to contribute lately, > and the project seemed to have died before I got the > chance. If others want to continue, I am all for it. > > John Carney. > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Internet: jcarney2@dolphin.upenn.edu (John Carney) > Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 -- > For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com > http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or- > To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub " > Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >