Day One (DDRD 1,001): July 29, 2020
Turns out my #1🌞 had a copy of Leviathan in the basement, so I didn't have to mess around with that shitty e-version from the library whilst waiting for a copy to arrive in the mail. I really wanted this cover, too, so I'm twice blessed.
I've been thinking about reading this book for a long time, but to date I've only managed about a dozen pages...which appeared in the Introduction to Great Books Second Series text that I used back in the day when I was a teacher man. But I have long had the impression that this was one of the most important books written in the English language, and I'm anxious to see what Mr. Hobbes has to offer.
And?
Well. I read from page 1 to page 15 today...all introductory material. There were several interesting bits. (1) The editor says (primarily of Hobbes), "We want not only to understand and to control power, but also to harness it to right." When I look at our current political landscape, it seems to me that "we" are no longer so concerned with harnessing power to right. I suppose it's been that way (or, at least, heading in that general direction) for some time, but the current political representatives in the Trump administration and in Congress seem to be vivid personifications (if we can bend enough to credit them with person-like qualities) of the desire for power in and of itself, the purpose not of being to Right or to the Public Good, but solely for self-enrichment and self-aggrandizement. Maybe I'm just cynical. Or maybe Hobbes was naive. Or maybe political leaders have changed drastically. (I find the last to be the least likely of these possibilities.)
There's also reference to Hobbes's "overriding concern" regarding what Axl Rose tells us we don't need no: civil war. C. B. Macpherson (editor and writer of the introduction) seems to regard this as a somewhat antiquated concern, as "clearly" wars between nations were a far greater concern to his late 20th century eyes. I have to wonder if that is still true--especially of America in the 21st century, when armed insurrection seems a very viable threat...and where, in fact, we have a President who seems to think that if he is not re-elected there will actually be a civil war. I'm wondering, too, if it's possible that Leviathan has become more viable now than it has been for several hundred years. We'll find out soon, I suppose.
Speaking of hundreds of years...it struck me that Hobbes, who was born in 1588 (and lived to be 91!), was Shake-speare's contemporary. That kind of puts things into perspective, doesn't it? The U.S.A. wasn't even a gleam in England's eye when this man was born...nor even when this book was first published (1651), for that matter.
My reading for today ended with a reference to Hobbes providing his readers with "A warning against any disaffection with established government...." That sounds pretty troubling to me. Caesar wants you to believe that everything belongs to Caesar, and that you should, therefore, render it all up to him. I'm more of a fuck Caesar kind of guy. I was kind of hoping that Thomas Hobbes was, too.
Day Two (DDRD 1,002): July 30, 2020
Read to page 25 this morning.
Speaking of Shake-speare...Hobbes was buds with Francis Bacon. In fact, there's a reference to Hobbes as Bacon's amanuensis. That is some pretty serious buddy action. AND Hobbes palled around with Galileo...and was greatly influenced by him. That's pretty cool. There are also several references to Leviathan being seen as a controversial and even dangerous work. Anthony à Wood--who is identified as an ANTIQUARY on Wikipedia...and if you click through on that you get this lovely (and Public Domain) picture:
--said that Hobbes "corrupted half the Gentry of the nation." Not bad.
Lastly, Our Editor says that Hobbes "dug the channel in which the mainstream subsequently flowed" with respect to English political thought. That's some pretty high praise, ennit?
Speaking of Shake-speare...Hobbes was buds with Francis Bacon. In fact, there's a reference to Hobbes as Bacon's amanuensis. That is some pretty serious buddy action. AND Hobbes palled around with Galileo...and was greatly influenced by him. That's pretty cool. There are also several references to Leviathan being seen as a controversial and even dangerous work. Anthony à Wood--who is identified as an ANTIQUARY on Wikipedia...and if you click through on that you get this lovely (and Public Domain) picture:
--said that Hobbes "corrupted half the Gentry of the nation." Not bad.
Lastly, Our Editor says that Hobbes "dug the channel in which the mainstream subsequently flowed" with respect to English political thought. That's some pretty high praise, ennit?
Day Three (DDRD 1,003): July 31, 2020
The Introduction is now shifting from background information and general comments to some specific ideas from Hobbes, and throwing up some quotes to illustrate how those ideas are portrayed. This seems like a pretty helpful thing to me...kind of serving the function of Pre-Reading Questions from those Great Books days.
Here's a bit which I found particularly interesting: "...whosoever looketh into himselfe, and considereth what he doth, when he does Think, Opine, Reason, Hope, Feare, etc, and upon what grounds; he shall thereby read and know, what are the thoughts, and Passions of all other men, upon the like occasions. I say the similitude of Passions, which are the same in all men...." That seems like bullshit to me. Or if not bullshit, then naive optimism based upon the idea that all "men" are governed by reason. My years on this planet have taught me, however, that my mind, my way of thinking, is substantially different from that of many (perhaps most) of my fellow human beings. My attempts to have rational discourse with a Facebook Friend who is a Trump supporter have really borne this home of late. There are things which I regard as incontrovertible facts which she interprets as opinions...and she disagrees with my opinions. We've (thus far) managed not to attack each other, but I am beginning to wonder if there's any use in continuing the conversation. I feel that we're at the point where I say, "Well, this stone is white, so...." and she interrupts me and says, "What are you talking about? That stone is red." Where do you go from there? At any rate...I do not think that all human beings are of like substance. (Maybe we were at some point, but transubstantiation occurred somewhere along the line. Or maybe anti-transubstantiation.)
Furthermore...a few pages later we're told, that "appetites continually change, and are different in different men"...and also that "appetites are of different strengths in different men." It's a given (at least by Hobbes and me) that our appetites constitute an essential part of our motivation and identity, so if our appetites differ, it's only logical to conclude that our natures differ in direct proportion to the differences in our appetites.
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding Mr. Hobbes on this.
This section of the introduction ended with some interesting comments on power. It essentially said that according to Hobbes (henceforth AtH), power is always obtained at the expense of others. It made me think of how Trump constantly attacks people he sees as his opponents...or even allies who oppose him on some matter.
I have the feeling that I'm going to be thinking about Trump a lot over the course of the next couple of months whilst reading Leviathan.
Sigh.
Day Four (DDRD 1,004): August 1, 2020
Ten more pages of introduction down, several more interesting points courtesy of C.B. Macpherson. To wit:
This bit seems to be central to Hobbes' thought:
"...the only way for men to avoid death and provide for themselves the possibility of commodious living was for them to acknowledge a perpetual sovereign power, against which each of them would be powerless...."
This immediately evokes several questions for me. First off, is this indeed "the ONLY way"? I have my doubts about that. Second off, what does perpetual mean in this context? Presumably we are either using hyperbole or we are invoking a sovereign power which is not a single human being. If it's the latter, as I suspect it is, then Third off, what on earth leads Hobbes to believe that there is any group of human beings...much less any one human being...who can be trusted completely? (I'm thinking that William Barr would be happy about this part, though.) And Fourth off, I am hoping that at some point in Leviathan proper Hobbes gets around to telling us what to do if the Sovereign Power turns out to be an asshole. Oh, there's a Fifth off, too: the implication (via the word "powerless") is that all of the other "men" in the society have to turn over ALL of their power, not just a portion of it. That seems like an egregiously bad idea to me.
A bit later on, there's this bit from another Hobbes work, Elements of Law:
"...that which is not against reason, men call RIGHT...."
On the one hand, it's nice to see that Hobbes is down with the idea of Absolute Good. I'm a fan myself. On the other hand, I don't agree not reason is the only light which can guide us to truth, and Hobbes seems to imply that it is. I wonder what his stand on religion was. Hopefully he'll get around to that at some point. This is also a line which seems to show a great deal of faith in human beings, as the idea is that all men can discern, appreciate, and act on Reason. I wouldn't go that far myself.
Lastly (for today's ten pages), there's this line from Leviathan:
"Covenants, without the Sword, are but Words...."
And there we have, in a way, the opposite of what we saw vis-a-vis faith in humanity in the previous quotation. This also goes with the idea that Hobbes thinks that without a powerful perpetual sovereign, society would descend into absolute chaos and not only would no further progress be made, but what had been made up until that point would be destroyed. Life would be (say it with me) nasty, brutish, and short. So he clearly would not be getting behind the Defund the Police movement.
My appetite has been whetted. I'm really ready to plunge into Leviathan's waters. Going to be a few more days on the Introduction, though. But I'm glad that I didn't skip over it. I have a natural aversion to introductions, for the most part, but this Macpherson fellow has done a good job of giving me the lay of the land. So far, anyway. I suppose he still has time to fuck that up. But I don't think he will.
Day Five (DDRD 1,005): August 2, 2020
Whilst reading today's 10 from the Introduction, several thoughts occurred to me: (1) I am really enjoying this introduction, (2) tomorrow will be my last day of the introduction (followed by one more day's worth of preliminary textual matter, and then it's Hammer Time), (3) it would be interesting to read a book on Hobbes' Leviathan in addition to reading the book itself. So I might have to have a look around for something of that ilk. For the most part I prefer to get my milk straight from the tit, but reading Macpherson's comments...and seeing how he draws together ideas from other works, by Hobbes and other folks, shows me the benefit of pasteurization. I don't know enough to know the larger context...nor do I know enough to reject any bits of Hobbes that might prove to be indigestible. Okay, that's enough of that metaphor extension. But it might be an interesting follow-up for Leviathan...assuming I can find something that would fit the bill. Maybe even something my Macpherson? I'm betting that such a book exists.
As for today, though, here's what I found noteworthy:
This quote seems to address several of the points I was pondering yesterday: "Shall whole Nations be brought to acquiesce in the great Mysteries of Christian Religion, which are above Reason...." There's not enough context here for me to figure out what Hobbes is saying about Christianty, but clearly it is a part of his geometry. So there's that.
There are several references to Hobbes depending upon the concept of a Bourgeois State. What the hell does that mean? The best that I can grasp here is that it means that those who own and control the means of production and whose primary interests are the preservation of their own property are the ones who run the state. I'm not sure that that definition does me a whole lot of good, but I'll see what else I can find out about it.
And just to set the anchor firmly in the sea bed, there's this: "... as [Hobbes] said, the main object of all his political thought was to find how to prevent future civil war...."
And reference my questions about the sovereign yesterday, Macpherson makes it clear that Hobbes favored a monarch, but could also see a Sovereign Assembly as working out. Here's an interesting twist on that, though: "With respect to a sovereign assemby...although it might be originally an elective assembly, it could not continue to be dependent on an electorate but must have the power to perpetuate itself by itself filling vacancies in its own membership...." Shades of Trump's version of the G.O.P., man. This ain't no democratic party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no foolin' around. Hobbes is sounding pretty fascist here, isn't he? But, then again, if one of your axioms is that the majority of human beings are bloody, ignorant apes, then I guess that makes sense.
Lastly, Macpherson calls Hobbes out on one count: "...he failed to see that [his] model also necessarily generates a class differentiation which can be expected to produce a class cohesion, at least in the class which is on its way up to the top." Which I think means pretty much what I was talking about in the preceding paragraph.
Time will tell. And so will I.
Day Six (DDRD 1,006): August 3, 2020
Well, that's it for the introduction. Which means tomorrow will be a light reading day, since of the ten pages remaining prior to the actual Leviathan, only 4 of them are full text pages. I'm going to let it be a light day, though, since (1) Charlie Kaufman's 720 page Antkind is due in a couple of days, and I know I won't be able to renew it, so I really want to finish that off and (2) Wednesday is my previously announced Start Date, and I might could have reading company this time around.
As for today's reading...two significant bits.
(1) "...there is no evidence that he had seen that once the bourgeois had consolidated their power they would be a cohesive class which could upset his calculations. He saw classes, but did not see politically important class cohesion. And it may well have been his obsession with equality that blocked this recognition from his scientific imagining.... He did not see the consequent feature of the bourgeois order: that it necessarily led to class differentiation and class cohesiveness."
This reminds me of Alexis de Tocqueville's writings with regard to how an aristocracy arises from industry. Essentially, those who control the means of production not only increase their wealth and power, but also their intellectual possibilities, thus inequality increases until we end up with the plot of every dystopian science fiction novel ever written, wherein the sky people live off the labor of the cave people. Also pretty much the plot of George Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier. (There's a book I wouldn't mind re-reading in the near future.)
(2) "If the obligation of individuals to the state is based only on their calculation of their own self-interest, how can it be sufficient to hold a society together, since the same self-interest can be expected to dictate a breach of that obligation whenever it changed circumstances would seem to make that profitable?"
I immediately thought of Trump.
Also, in the Ask And It Shall Be Given To You Department, Mr. Macphereson follows the Introduction with this:
As I suspected, Mr. Macphereson does indeed have a book about Hobbes, so that might be worth looking for. On the other hand, The Hunting of Leviathan is definitely the best title. Some window shopping is going to be required here.
Day Seven (DDRD 1,007): August 4, 2020
Short read this morning: Note on the Text by C.B. Macpherson, frontispiece illustration, and title page. Some interesting information about the earliest publication of Leviathan, though. And that illustration...pretty cool, with the body of the Sovereign being made up of lots of the "little people." I'm also amazed at the linework of this illustration--it is so intricate that it's hard to believe such a thing could have been produced in 1651. A little Googling led me to Columbia College and Wikipedia (of course), which told me that the artist was one Abraham Bosse, and that the image was created with input from Thomas Hobbes. The commentary pointed out some details that I'd missed, such as the fact that the people who make up the body of the Sovereign are all facing away from the viewer and towards that Sovereign.
Meanwhile, my cat, Jet, has taken a liking to Leviathan:
So with her blessing, I am going to begin the text proper tomorrow.
My first ten pages of Leviathan will begin with "TO MY MOST HONOR'D FRIEND Mr. FRANCIS GODOLPHIN of GODOLPHIN," continue through the Table of Contents, through "The Introduction," and end with Part I, Chapter I ("Of Sense"). That's actually page onto the top of page 87 in my version, but I don't want to stop in the middle of such a short chapter, and I'll even things out along the way.
Note: It would be easily to read along for free by using The Project Gutenberg version of Leviathan, which is available HERE.
Another Note: Gutenberg means Good Mountain.
Day Eight (DDRD 1,008): August 5, 2020
My first day of actual text. It was a little difficult, actually, as the English of 370 years ago is not nonchalantly accessible. I think my brain will adjust as I go on, though...and it wasn't that hard to make things out. But my initial thought, "I could probably knock out twenty pages a day, no sweat," pretty quickly changed to "ten pages a day seems about right here."
One of the things that struck me in the first ten pages was that Hobbes was essentially addressing the issue of virtual reality here...a few centuries before that concept became a thing. He notes, for instance, that
"...there is no conception in a mans mind, which hath not at first, totally, or by parts, been begotten upon the organs of Sense."
This is not a particularly profound thought, of course, but it does serve as a reminder to me that all of our experiences in this world are mediated by our senses...which means that we are all essentially living in a virtual reality.
"...the thing we see, is in one place; the appearance, in another."
"...the object is one thing, the image or fancy is another."
That way of thinking would, you'd think, lead one to question one's own assumptions about reality at least a little bit...since it is completely dependent upon the interpretation of our sensory input. I know that I have, on occasion, "seen" something incorrectly (as I realized later on)...or not seen something to which someone else drew my attention. If our senses are not completely reliable (which is, I think, axiomatic), then there is always room for misinterpretation.
Near the end of Chapter One, Hobbes takes a potshot at Aristotelians, essentially saying that they are full of shit. I liked that. I never did trust Aristotelians. Give me Plato or give me death.
Also, the chapter ended on a note which I found to be pretty funny. He is talking about Things That Need to be Amended in Universities, and notes that "the frequency of insignificant Speech is one." Oh, man...if he could have peeked into the 21st century and gotten a glimpse of social media and texts, he'd have probably had a seizure.
Tomorrow's "10" will be from CHAPTER II. OF IMAGINATION to the end of CHAPTER III. OF THE CONSEQUENCE OR TRAYNE OF IMAGINATIONS.
Day Nine (DDRD 1,009): August 6, 2020
So according to Mr. Hobbes, ""...Imagination and Memory are but one thing...." Hmmm. I don't like that very much. Which doesn't mean it isn't true, of course. But it makes human beings seem much less...well, human. If we don't have the ability to go beyond the information of our senses, then we are essentially nothing more than squishy computers. Which, again, might be true. I do like to think that there is more to us than that, though...that we can conceptualize things which don't exist, for instance. How could any progress be possible if that weren't so? Wouldn't we still be living in caves and eating raw meat if we couldn't conceptualize beyond the existent?
ANYway...it's a thought worth thinking, and I shall continue to think it for awhile.
Meanwhile...here are some other things I noted in today's "ten" pages:
I liked Hobbes comments on dreams. Dreams seem very significant to our existence to me. Which is another reason why I don't like the who Imagination is Memory schtick, because that would mean that Dreams are just a reshuffling of our decaying sense impressions, and I like to think that they are a lot more than that. (Keeping in mind that I'm well aware of the fact that because I like to think something does not make it true.)
Also, Hobbes makes mention of Julius Caesar to illustrate one of his points, but makes no reference to Shakespeare's play. I thought that was kind of odd, in that Julius Caesar's first recorded appearance was September 11, 1599, so you'd think it would have been something an Englishman would feel compelled to reference if he found himself making some comments about Julius Caesar. But maybe not. It will be interesting to see if Hobbes makes any literary allusions in the course of Leviathan, though. So far he's made reference to Newton, Aristotle, and maybe Galileo (not sure about that one). Oh, breaking news. This is a bit startling. I was doing a little Googling to insure that I had my facts straight with respect to Hobbes' allusion to Newton, and immediately saw that there was a problem there. Newton lived from 1642 to 1727. Leviathan was published in 1651. I was pretty sure that Newton hadn't codified his laws of motion before he was 9 years old...so something else was going on.
Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published in 1687, and that was the work in which he introduced his three laws of motion. So how is it that Hobbes says,
"That when a thing lies still, unlesse somewhat els stirre it, it will lye still for ever, is a truth that no man doubts of. But that when a thing is in motion, it will eternally be in motion, unless somewhat els stay it...."
Did Hobbes beat Newton to the punch by 36 years? Everything I've looked at online says that The Three Laws of Motion belong to Isaac Newton, and that he formulated them in 1686...yet there is the first law, bold as brass, in Leviathan. This is very curious. I'm going to try to follow up on this.
Okay, I'm finding it hard to shake loose of that thought, but here's the rest of my stuff for today's reading.
I thought it was very cool how in his discussion of Imagination (sense, memory, etc.) Hobbes makes a journey that goes from religion and superstition, to social interaction and government, to the educational process. This man knows how to walk around a barnyard.
And speaking of the educational process, reading this--"In summe, the Discourse of the Mind, when it is governed by designe, is nothing but Seeking, or the faculty of Invention..."--hurt me more than a little bit. It just seemed to say that the entire educational process--in which I was an enthusiastic participant for over two decades--is a very false process. Is, in some ways, antithetical to education. Because our educational system isn't based on teaching young people to seek, is it? So much of the day to day process in the modern American schoolroom is based on the idea of filling the empty minds of students with Knowledge. Hmmmm.
A big day for my poor little head.
Tomorrow's Ten will be from the beginning to the end of Chapter IV. Of Speech.
Day Ten (DDRD 1,010): August 7, 2020
Chapter IV. Of Speech was, to borrow a phrase from The King and I (1956), a puzzlement. It seemed to me a pretty tedious discussion of words, words, words...with nothing particularly interesting observed. Although I was surprised at the way Hobbes dismissed metaphorical language (twice)...essentially saying that metaphor was somewhere between inaccurate speech and outright falsehood. Hmph. Wonder what he had to say about the parables of Jesus. Especially since he makes reference to two Biblical stories, Adam naming the animals and the tower of Babel, which seem to show him to be pretty fundamentalistic in his understanding of religion. Which is also a puzzlement. I find it hard to understand how a man of great intellect...which of necessity means a man possessed of a curious nature...could accept any story from the Bible as straight-up history. I've read the Bible all the way through twice...and read it every day now (several times, actually, since Jacqueline requires readings from two different Bibles per day and Joe from yet another one), and I rarely get through a reading without thinking, "Well, THAT's not quite right, is it?" Of course there's always the possibility that Accepted Religious Belief was just a cover story, since to run counter to that current could easily end in personal disaster in the 16th century.
The only other thing I saw that caught my interest in today's ten pages was an aside wherein Hobbes noted, "...need (the mother of all inventions)...." Once again I'm wondering if Hobbes was the first man to step on a moon (as yesterday with the first law of motion, wherein I ended up being wrong) by coining this phrase. So I cut to the chase and went to Wikipedia, wherein I found this:
"The author of this proverb is unknown. Plato's Republic says "our need will be the real creator",[5] which Jowett's 1894 translation rendered loosely as "The true creator is necessity, who is the mother of our invention."[6]
"The connection of mother and necessity is documented in Latin and in English in the 16th century: William Horman quoted the Latin phrase Mater artium necessitas ("The mother of invention is necessity") in 1519;[7][page needed] Roger Ascham said "Necessitie, the inventour of all goodnesse" in 1545.[8][page needed] In 1608, George Chapman, in his two-part play The Conspiracy and Tragedy of Charles, Duke of Byron, used a very similar phrase: "The great Mother / Of all productions, grave Necessity." And the exact phrase is used by Richard Franck in 1658.[9][1]"
The Introduction is now shifting from background information and general comments to some specific ideas from Hobbes, and throwing up some quotes to illustrate how those ideas are portrayed. This seems like a pretty helpful thing to me...kind of serving the function of Pre-Reading Questions from those Great Books days.
Here's a bit which I found particularly interesting: "...whosoever looketh into himselfe, and considereth what he doth, when he does Think, Opine, Reason, Hope, Feare, etc, and upon what grounds; he shall thereby read and know, what are the thoughts, and Passions of all other men, upon the like occasions. I say the similitude of Passions, which are the same in all men...." That seems like bullshit to me. Or if not bullshit, then naive optimism based upon the idea that all "men" are governed by reason. My years on this planet have taught me, however, that my mind, my way of thinking, is substantially different from that of many (perhaps most) of my fellow human beings. My attempts to have rational discourse with a Facebook Friend who is a Trump supporter have really borne this home of late. There are things which I regard as incontrovertible facts which she interprets as opinions...and she disagrees with my opinions. We've (thus far) managed not to attack each other, but I am beginning to wonder if there's any use in continuing the conversation. I feel that we're at the point where I say, "Well, this stone is white, so...." and she interrupts me and says, "What are you talking about? That stone is red." Where do you go from there? At any rate...I do not think that all human beings are of like substance. (Maybe we were at some point, but transubstantiation occurred somewhere along the line. Or maybe anti-transubstantiation.)
Furthermore...a few pages later we're told, that "appetites continually change, and are different in different men"...and also that "appetites are of different strengths in different men." It's a given (at least by Hobbes and me) that our appetites constitute an essential part of our motivation and identity, so if our appetites differ, it's only logical to conclude that our natures differ in direct proportion to the differences in our appetites.
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding Mr. Hobbes on this.
This section of the introduction ended with some interesting comments on power. It essentially said that according to Hobbes (henceforth AtH), power is always obtained at the expense of others. It made me think of how Trump constantly attacks people he sees as his opponents...or even allies who oppose him on some matter.
I have the feeling that I'm going to be thinking about Trump a lot over the course of the next couple of months whilst reading Leviathan.
Sigh.
Day Four (DDRD 1,004): August 1, 2020
Ten more pages of introduction down, several more interesting points courtesy of C.B. Macpherson. To wit:
This bit seems to be central to Hobbes' thought:
"...the only way for men to avoid death and provide for themselves the possibility of commodious living was for them to acknowledge a perpetual sovereign power, against which each of them would be powerless...."
This immediately evokes several questions for me. First off, is this indeed "the ONLY way"? I have my doubts about that. Second off, what does perpetual mean in this context? Presumably we are either using hyperbole or we are invoking a sovereign power which is not a single human being. If it's the latter, as I suspect it is, then Third off, what on earth leads Hobbes to believe that there is any group of human beings...much less any one human being...who can be trusted completely? (I'm thinking that William Barr would be happy about this part, though.) And Fourth off, I am hoping that at some point in Leviathan proper Hobbes gets around to telling us what to do if the Sovereign Power turns out to be an asshole. Oh, there's a Fifth off, too: the implication (via the word "powerless") is that all of the other "men" in the society have to turn over ALL of their power, not just a portion of it. That seems like an egregiously bad idea to me.
A bit later on, there's this bit from another Hobbes work, Elements of Law:
"...that which is not against reason, men call RIGHT...."
On the one hand, it's nice to see that Hobbes is down with the idea of Absolute Good. I'm a fan myself. On the other hand, I don't agree not reason is the only light which can guide us to truth, and Hobbes seems to imply that it is. I wonder what his stand on religion was. Hopefully he'll get around to that at some point. This is also a line which seems to show a great deal of faith in human beings, as the idea is that all men can discern, appreciate, and act on Reason. I wouldn't go that far myself.
Lastly (for today's ten pages), there's this line from Leviathan:
"Covenants, without the Sword, are but Words...."
And there we have, in a way, the opposite of what we saw vis-a-vis faith in humanity in the previous quotation. This also goes with the idea that Hobbes thinks that without a powerful perpetual sovereign, society would descend into absolute chaos and not only would no further progress be made, but what had been made up until that point would be destroyed. Life would be (say it with me) nasty, brutish, and short. So he clearly would not be getting behind the Defund the Police movement.
My appetite has been whetted. I'm really ready to plunge into Leviathan's waters. Going to be a few more days on the Introduction, though. But I'm glad that I didn't skip over it. I have a natural aversion to introductions, for the most part, but this Macpherson fellow has done a good job of giving me the lay of the land. So far, anyway. I suppose he still has time to fuck that up. But I don't think he will.
Day Five (DDRD 1,005): August 2, 2020
Whilst reading today's 10 from the Introduction, several thoughts occurred to me: (1) I am really enjoying this introduction, (2) tomorrow will be my last day of the introduction (followed by one more day's worth of preliminary textual matter, and then it's Hammer Time), (3) it would be interesting to read a book on Hobbes' Leviathan in addition to reading the book itself. So I might have to have a look around for something of that ilk. For the most part I prefer to get my milk straight from the tit, but reading Macpherson's comments...and seeing how he draws together ideas from other works, by Hobbes and other folks, shows me the benefit of pasteurization. I don't know enough to know the larger context...nor do I know enough to reject any bits of Hobbes that might prove to be indigestible. Okay, that's enough of that metaphor extension. But it might be an interesting follow-up for Leviathan...assuming I can find something that would fit the bill. Maybe even something my Macpherson? I'm betting that such a book exists.
As for today, though, here's what I found noteworthy:
This quote seems to address several of the points I was pondering yesterday: "Shall whole Nations be brought to acquiesce in the great Mysteries of Christian Religion, which are above Reason...." There's not enough context here for me to figure out what Hobbes is saying about Christianty, but clearly it is a part of his geometry. So there's that.
There are several references to Hobbes depending upon the concept of a Bourgeois State. What the hell does that mean? The best that I can grasp here is that it means that those who own and control the means of production and whose primary interests are the preservation of their own property are the ones who run the state. I'm not sure that that definition does me a whole lot of good, but I'll see what else I can find out about it.
And just to set the anchor firmly in the sea bed, there's this: "... as [Hobbes] said, the main object of all his political thought was to find how to prevent future civil war...."
And reference my questions about the sovereign yesterday, Macpherson makes it clear that Hobbes favored a monarch, but could also see a Sovereign Assembly as working out. Here's an interesting twist on that, though: "With respect to a sovereign assemby...although it might be originally an elective assembly, it could not continue to be dependent on an electorate but must have the power to perpetuate itself by itself filling vacancies in its own membership...." Shades of Trump's version of the G.O.P., man. This ain't no democratic party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no foolin' around. Hobbes is sounding pretty fascist here, isn't he? But, then again, if one of your axioms is that the majority of human beings are bloody, ignorant apes, then I guess that makes sense.
Lastly, Macpherson calls Hobbes out on one count: "...he failed to see that [his] model also necessarily generates a class differentiation which can be expected to produce a class cohesion, at least in the class which is on its way up to the top." Which I think means pretty much what I was talking about in the preceding paragraph.
Time will tell. And so will I.
Day Six (DDRD 1,006): August 3, 2020
Well, that's it for the introduction. Which means tomorrow will be a light reading day, since of the ten pages remaining prior to the actual Leviathan, only 4 of them are full text pages. I'm going to let it be a light day, though, since (1) Charlie Kaufman's 720 page Antkind is due in a couple of days, and I know I won't be able to renew it, so I really want to finish that off and (2) Wednesday is my previously announced Start Date, and I might could have reading company this time around.
As for today's reading...two significant bits.
(1) "...there is no evidence that he had seen that once the bourgeois had consolidated their power they would be a cohesive class which could upset his calculations. He saw classes, but did not see politically important class cohesion. And it may well have been his obsession with equality that blocked this recognition from his scientific imagining.... He did not see the consequent feature of the bourgeois order: that it necessarily led to class differentiation and class cohesiveness."
This reminds me of Alexis de Tocqueville's writings with regard to how an aristocracy arises from industry. Essentially, those who control the means of production not only increase their wealth and power, but also their intellectual possibilities, thus inequality increases until we end up with the plot of every dystopian science fiction novel ever written, wherein the sky people live off the labor of the cave people. Also pretty much the plot of George Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier. (There's a book I wouldn't mind re-reading in the near future.)
(2) "If the obligation of individuals to the state is based only on their calculation of their own self-interest, how can it be sufficient to hold a society together, since the same self-interest can be expected to dictate a breach of that obligation whenever it changed circumstances would seem to make that profitable?"
I immediately thought of Trump.
Also, in the Ask And It Shall Be Given To You Department, Mr. Macphereson follows the Introduction with this:
As I suspected, Mr. Macphereson does indeed have a book about Hobbes, so that might be worth looking for. On the other hand, The Hunting of Leviathan is definitely the best title. Some window shopping is going to be required here.
Day Seven (DDRD 1,007): August 4, 2020
Short read this morning: Note on the Text by C.B. Macpherson, frontispiece illustration, and title page. Some interesting information about the earliest publication of Leviathan, though. And that illustration...pretty cool, with the body of the Sovereign being made up of lots of the "little people." I'm also amazed at the linework of this illustration--it is so intricate that it's hard to believe such a thing could have been produced in 1651. A little Googling led me to Columbia College and Wikipedia (of course), which told me that the artist was one Abraham Bosse, and that the image was created with input from Thomas Hobbes. The commentary pointed out some details that I'd missed, such as the fact that the people who make up the body of the Sovereign are all facing away from the viewer and towards that Sovereign.
Meanwhile, my cat, Jet, has taken a liking to Leviathan:
So with her blessing, I am going to begin the text proper tomorrow.
My first ten pages of Leviathan will begin with "TO MY MOST HONOR'D FRIEND Mr. FRANCIS GODOLPHIN of GODOLPHIN," continue through the Table of Contents, through "The Introduction," and end with Part I, Chapter I ("Of Sense"). That's actually page onto the top of page 87 in my version, but I don't want to stop in the middle of such a short chapter, and I'll even things out along the way.
Note: It would be easily to read along for free by using The Project Gutenberg version of Leviathan, which is available HERE.
Another Note: Gutenberg means Good Mountain.
Day Eight (DDRD 1,008): August 5, 2020
My first day of actual text. It was a little difficult, actually, as the English of 370 years ago is not nonchalantly accessible. I think my brain will adjust as I go on, though...and it wasn't that hard to make things out. But my initial thought, "I could probably knock out twenty pages a day, no sweat," pretty quickly changed to "ten pages a day seems about right here."
One of the things that struck me in the first ten pages was that Hobbes was essentially addressing the issue of virtual reality here...a few centuries before that concept became a thing. He notes, for instance, that
"...there is no conception in a mans mind, which hath not at first, totally, or by parts, been begotten upon the organs of Sense."
This is not a particularly profound thought, of course, but it does serve as a reminder to me that all of our experiences in this world are mediated by our senses...which means that we are all essentially living in a virtual reality.
"...the thing we see, is in one place; the appearance, in another."
"...the object is one thing, the image or fancy is another."
That way of thinking would, you'd think, lead one to question one's own assumptions about reality at least a little bit...since it is completely dependent upon the interpretation of our sensory input. I know that I have, on occasion, "seen" something incorrectly (as I realized later on)...or not seen something to which someone else drew my attention. If our senses are not completely reliable (which is, I think, axiomatic), then there is always room for misinterpretation.
Near the end of Chapter One, Hobbes takes a potshot at Aristotelians, essentially saying that they are full of shit. I liked that. I never did trust Aristotelians. Give me Plato or give me death.
Also, the chapter ended on a note which I found to be pretty funny. He is talking about Things That Need to be Amended in Universities, and notes that "the frequency of insignificant Speech is one." Oh, man...if he could have peeked into the 21st century and gotten a glimpse of social media and texts, he'd have probably had a seizure.
Tomorrow's "10" will be from CHAPTER II. OF IMAGINATION to the end of CHAPTER III. OF THE CONSEQUENCE OR TRAYNE OF IMAGINATIONS.
Day Nine (DDRD 1,009): August 6, 2020
So according to Mr. Hobbes, ""...Imagination and Memory are but one thing...." Hmmm. I don't like that very much. Which doesn't mean it isn't true, of course. But it makes human beings seem much less...well, human. If we don't have the ability to go beyond the information of our senses, then we are essentially nothing more than squishy computers. Which, again, might be true. I do like to think that there is more to us than that, though...that we can conceptualize things which don't exist, for instance. How could any progress be possible if that weren't so? Wouldn't we still be living in caves and eating raw meat if we couldn't conceptualize beyond the existent?
ANYway...it's a thought worth thinking, and I shall continue to think it for awhile.
Meanwhile...here are some other things I noted in today's "ten" pages:
I liked Hobbes comments on dreams. Dreams seem very significant to our existence to me. Which is another reason why I don't like the who Imagination is Memory schtick, because that would mean that Dreams are just a reshuffling of our decaying sense impressions, and I like to think that they are a lot more than that. (Keeping in mind that I'm well aware of the fact that because I like to think something does not make it true.)
Also, Hobbes makes mention of Julius Caesar to illustrate one of his points, but makes no reference to Shakespeare's play. I thought that was kind of odd, in that Julius Caesar's first recorded appearance was September 11, 1599, so you'd think it would have been something an Englishman would feel compelled to reference if he found himself making some comments about Julius Caesar. But maybe not. It will be interesting to see if Hobbes makes any literary allusions in the course of Leviathan, though. So far he's made reference to Newton, Aristotle, and maybe Galileo (not sure about that one). Oh, breaking news. This is a bit startling. I was doing a little Googling to insure that I had my facts straight with respect to Hobbes' allusion to Newton, and immediately saw that there was a problem there. Newton lived from 1642 to 1727. Leviathan was published in 1651. I was pretty sure that Newton hadn't codified his laws of motion before he was 9 years old...so something else was going on.
Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published in 1687, and that was the work in which he introduced his three laws of motion. So how is it that Hobbes says,
"That when a thing lies still, unlesse somewhat els stirre it, it will lye still for ever, is a truth that no man doubts of. But that when a thing is in motion, it will eternally be in motion, unless somewhat els stay it...."
Did Hobbes beat Newton to the punch by 36 years? Everything I've looked at online says that The Three Laws of Motion belong to Isaac Newton, and that he formulated them in 1686...yet there is the first law, bold as brass, in Leviathan. This is very curious. I'm going to try to follow up on this.
Okay, I'm finding it hard to shake loose of that thought, but here's the rest of my stuff for today's reading.
I thought it was very cool how in his discussion of Imagination (sense, memory, etc.) Hobbes makes a journey that goes from religion and superstition, to social interaction and government, to the educational process. This man knows how to walk around a barnyard.
And speaking of the educational process, reading this--"In summe, the Discourse of the Mind, when it is governed by designe, is nothing but Seeking, or the faculty of Invention..."--hurt me more than a little bit. It just seemed to say that the entire educational process--in which I was an enthusiastic participant for over two decades--is a very false process. Is, in some ways, antithetical to education. Because our educational system isn't based on teaching young people to seek, is it? So much of the day to day process in the modern American schoolroom is based on the idea of filling the empty minds of students with Knowledge. Hmmmm.
A big day for my poor little head.
ADDENDUM: I wrote to my older sister, who actually IS a rocket scientist, and she set me straight reference Newton's first law of motion. Ironically, she quoted from a Wikipedia page which I had checked, but not carefully enough, obviously: "The law of inertia apparently occurred to several different natural philosophers and scientists independently, including Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan (1651).[f] The 17th-century philosopher and mathematician René Descartes also formulated the law, although he did not perform any experiments to confirm it."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion)
Sis also said that Galileo's law of inertia was essentially the first formulation of Newton's first law of motion, and that Newton credited GG for this. And, of course, Galileo was pals with Hobbes, so I guess that mystery is now solved. Sigh. I was kind of rooting for Hobbes there. Oh well, it was still a nice little canter.
Tomorrow's Ten will be from the beginning to the end of Chapter IV. Of Speech.
Day Ten (DDRD 1,010): August 7, 2020
Chapter IV. Of Speech was, to borrow a phrase from The King and I (1956), a puzzlement. It seemed to me a pretty tedious discussion of words, words, words...with nothing particularly interesting observed. Although I was surprised at the way Hobbes dismissed metaphorical language (twice)...essentially saying that metaphor was somewhere between inaccurate speech and outright falsehood. Hmph. Wonder what he had to say about the parables of Jesus. Especially since he makes reference to two Biblical stories, Adam naming the animals and the tower of Babel, which seem to show him to be pretty fundamentalistic in his understanding of religion. Which is also a puzzlement. I find it hard to understand how a man of great intellect...which of necessity means a man possessed of a curious nature...could accept any story from the Bible as straight-up history. I've read the Bible all the way through twice...and read it every day now (several times, actually, since Jacqueline requires readings from two different Bibles per day and Joe from yet another one), and I rarely get through a reading without thinking, "Well, THAT's not quite right, is it?" Of course there's always the possibility that Accepted Religious Belief was just a cover story, since to run counter to that current could easily end in personal disaster in the 16th century.
The only other thing I saw that caught my interest in today's ten pages was an aside wherein Hobbes noted, "...need (the mother of all inventions)...." Once again I'm wondering if Hobbes was the first man to step on a moon (as yesterday with the first law of motion, wherein I ended up being wrong) by coining this phrase. So I cut to the chase and went to Wikipedia, wherein I found this:
"The author of this proverb is unknown. Plato's Republic says "our need will be the real creator",[5] which Jowett's 1894 translation rendered loosely as "The true creator is necessity, who is the mother of our invention."[6]
"The connection of mother and necessity is documented in Latin and in English in the 16th century: William Horman quoted the Latin phrase Mater artium necessitas ("The mother of invention is necessity") in 1519;[7][page needed] Roger Ascham said "Necessitie, the inventour of all goodnesse" in 1545.[8][page needed] In 1608, George Chapman, in his two-part play The Conspiracy and Tragedy of Charles, Duke of Byron, used a very similar phrase: "The great Mother / Of all productions, grave Necessity." And the exact phrase is used by Richard Franck in 1658.[9][1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_is_the_mother_of_invention
So I guess that William Horman beat Hobbes to the punch...but not in English. But a Latin grammar textbook (Vulgaria)? Does that really count? By the way, Horman said, "grammar cannot be perfect without music." That's pretty good.
Tomorrow's Ten will be from CHAPTER V. OF REASON, AND SCIENCE to the third page of CHAPTER VI. OF THE INTERIOUR BEGINNINGS OF VOLUNTARY MOTIONS. (Specifically, I will stop at the sentence which begins, "The Latine Tongue has two words, whose significations approach to those of Good and Evill...." This is the first sentence of the section labelled "Pulchrum Turpe." I was hoping to keep my reading breaks confined to chapter headings, but Chapter VI doesn't end until page 130 in my book, and I'm not ready for a 20 page reading. (And Chapter V ends at the top of page 118, and I don't want to do a 7 page reading, either.)
P.S. Last night I was checking out ComiXology and noticed that a book I'd been interested in, How to Read Nancy: The Elements of Comics in Three Easy Panels by Paul Karasik, Mark Newgarden, was available on ComiXology Unlimited, which I subscribe to. (I hadn't been interested enough to put down $10 to buy a digital copy, but since it was "free" now, I went ahead and downloaded it.) I don't know if I have time and desire to read it all the way through, since I'm already reading 10 different books (literally), but I went for a Spaziérgang. It was pretty interesting, actually. It's essentially a long essay about deconstructing a single Nancy comic strip. (I'm really into the whole Drilling Down thing.) But in the course of my reading I bumped into this:
Which isn't an extraordinary coincidence, I know, but it is at least a little one. Mostly, though, it was just nice to see that Mr. Hobbes was still alive and well...even in an unlikely place like an essay on a newspaper comic strip.
Day Eleven (DDRD 1,011): August 8, 2020
Read to page 120 today...of 729, which means that I'm over 16% of the way there. (And if that doesn't sound like much, what's the APR on your savings account these days?) It was a nice read, too. Hobbes is still in the process of setting up his methodology and defining his terminology, but he is also squeezing out some sparks.
Day Twelve (DDRD 1,012): August 9, 2020
Read to the end of Chapter VI. It was mostly Hobbes defining words, which wasn't all that thrilling, but I do appreciate the fact that he is very carefully setting everything up for the main course. I'm also impressed by the fact that this guy, who is writing almost 400 years before Freud, seems to understand the way that the human mind works in terms of conflicting motivations, subconscious (though of course he couldn't use that term *) impulses, etcetera.
There was one bit in these ten pages which particularly caught my attention:
"Sudden glory, is the passion which maketh those Grimaces called LAUGHTER; and is caused either by some sudden act of their own, that pleaseth them; or by the apprehension of some deformed thing in another, by comparison whereof they suddenly applaud themselves. And it is incident most to them, that are conscious of the fewest abilities in themselves; who are forced to keep themselves in their own favour, by observing the imperfections of other men. And therefore much Laughter at the defects of others is a signe of Pusillanimity. For of great minds, one of the proper workes is, to help and free others from scorn; and compare themselves onely with the most able."
At first this struck me because it seemed so grumpy, with Hobbes defining laughter as a form of grimace...and then saying that it was evoked when we saw "deform[ity]" in others. Yowza. But then things started to get Wise with the second sentence, and stayed there long enough to make me think, "He is definitely looking into his crystal balls and talking about Donald J. Trump here."
NEXT TEN PAGES: From the beginning of CHAPTER VII. OF THE ENDS OR RESOLUTIONS OF DISCOURSE to the end of the "Rage" sub-section in CHAPTER VIII. OF THE VERTUES COMMONLY CALLED INTELLECTUAL; AND THEIR CONTRARY DEFECTS
_____________________________________________
* "...from French subconscient as coined in 1889 by the psychologist Pierre Janet...." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subconscious
Day Thirteen (DDRD 1,013): August 10, 2020
More definitions. Talk about a slow burn. Hobbes also had yet another go at Metaphors--I think this was the third time around. This time he went straight at it: "In Demonstration, in Councell, and all rigourous search of Truth, Judgement does all; except sometimes the understanding have need to be opened by some apt similitude; and then there is so much use of Fancy. But for Metaphors, they are in this case utterly excluded. For seeing they openly professe deceipt; to admit them into Councell, or Reasoning, were manifest folly." That is some serious disdain for metaphors. Interesting, too, in that just a few lines prior to this he was extolling the virtues of various forms of poetry...and I'm pretty sure that poetry doesn't exist without metaphor. Come to think of it, didn't Plato dismiss poets as liars and exclude them from his Utopia? (BTW1: a quick Google search says that Plato didn't hate poetry, though he did ban poets from his ideal state...and adds that Aristotle hated poetry. So there's that. BTW2: according to my document search, Hobbes refers to Metaphor 33 times in the course of Leviathan...and the one I just quoted was #10.)
Hobbes also makes reference to Madness...which is always a topic of interest to me. Interestingly enough, he starts with a bit of implicit equivocation: "...to have stronger, and more vehement Passions for any thing, than is ordinarily seen in others, is that which men call MADNESSE." [Emphasis added.] And although this doesn't seem particularly positive, surely vehement Passion is at the root of all work of genius, right? One of the reasons I have an affinity for Madnesse is that it seems to me that is it primarily a rejection of the external world...or, at least, a sublimation of the importance of the external world...and an embrace of the internal world. I don't have a hell of a lot of faith in the external world.
I timed today's reading, and it came in at 18 minutes, which is just about right. I feel that I could do more, but it's better not to feel pressured, which is what inevitably happens when you start increasing the "required" page count. And pressure leads to suffering, and suffering leads to missing days, and missing days leads to never finishing books that are difficult to read.
TOMORROW'S TEN PAGES: From "Rage" sub-section to end of CHAPTER IX. OF THE SEVERALL SUBJECTS OF KNOWLEDGE.
Day Fourteen (DDRD 1,014): August 11, 2020
Lots of references to Christian (and Jewish) things in today's ten, and definitely of the reverential sort. Oddly enough, Hobbes did make reference to a parable at the end of the "Melancholy" section
--"And whereas our Saviour (Math. 12. 43.) speaketh of an unclean Spirit, that having gone out of a man, wandreth through dry places, seeking rest, and finding none; and returning into the same man, with seven other spirits worse than himselfe; It is manifestly a Parable, alluding to a man, that after a little endeavour to quit his lusts, is vanquished by the strength of them; and becomes seven times worse than he was. So that I see nothing at all in the Scripture, that requireth a beliefe, that Daemoniacks were any other thing but Mad-men."--and has no problem at all with this metaphorical speech...and yet a few lines later in the "Insignificant Speech" sub-section he back to railing against the "abuse of words." He's such a methodical fellow that this seeming contradiction really bothers me.
TOMORROW'S TEN PAGES: CHAPTER X. OF POWER, WORTH, DIGNITY, HONOUR AND WORTHINESS. (Which, for the record, is 3057 words.)
Day Fifteen (DDRD 1,015): August 12, 2020
Pretty early on in Today's Ten Hobbes observed, "...let a man (as most men do,) rate themselves as the highest Value they can; yet their true Value is no more than it is esteemed by others." I found that interesting on a couple of counts. First off, it's kind of offensive...as is most of this section as Hobbes separates what is Honourable from what is Dishonourable. Because that's just un-American, isn't it? We're told that All Men Are Created Equal. Of course, we don't have to look very hard to see that that isn't really true. And we don't have to think very hard to see that this kind of thought leads us to absurdities like people refusing to wear a face mask during a pandemic because they think it restricts their oxygen intake (or whatever). So Second off, it seems to me that what Hobbes is saying is actually true. It might just be a True Because The World Is That Way kind of true...but hell, what other kind of true is there? Third off, this is another indication that Hobbes leans towards the Relative Truth perspective on the universe. In an absolute truth perspective, something...or, in the case of the quote, someone...would be of value in and of it/themself. And Hobbes isn't calling it that way.
TOMORROW'S TEN PAGES: From CHAPTER XI. OF THE DIFFERENCE OF MANNERS to the end of sub-section "And Suppose Them Incorporeall" of CHAPTER XII. OF RELIGION.
Day Sixteen (DDRD 1,016): August 13, 2020
"...the Felicity of this life, consisteth not in the repose of a mind satisfied."
Which is why we're gonna keep on tryin' till we reach our highest ground, I suppose. Also a good explanation of why we allow ourselves to be constrained to the mousewheel of capitalism...and why no matter how much a person has, they still want more, more, more.
I also liked this bit:
"...Ignorance it selfe without Malice, is able to make a man both to believe lyes, and tell them; and sometimes also to invent them."
And can't help thinking, "So if you couple Ignorance with Malice, you get... "
Lastly, check this out:
"...it is impossible to make any profound enquiry into naturall causes, without being enclined thereby to believe there is one God Eternall; though they cannot have any Idea of him in their mind, answerable to his nature. For as a man that is born blind, hearing men talk of warming themselves by the fire, and being brought to warm himself by the same, may easily conceive, and assure himselfe, there is somewhat there, which men call Fire, and is the cause of the heat he feeles; but cannot imagine what it is like; nor have an Idea of it in his mind, such as they have that see it: so also, by the visible things of this world, and their admirable order, a man may conceive there is a cause of them, which men call God; and yet not have an Idea, or Image of him in his mind." (from the "Naturall Religion, From The Same" sub-section)
Now I could be wrong. I only have a B.A. in English, an M.Ed. in Secondary Education with an English specialization, and 23 years of teaching behind me. But this smells a little bit like a metaphor to me.
I used to tell my Great Books students, "When you're reading and you happen upon something that you think is a contradiction, instead of dismissing the writer, consider the possibility that you have not properly understood what the writer is saying."
So that's a thing I now officially have going on with Mr. Hobbes. On the one hand, he overtly and repeatedly attacks the idea of metaphors. On the other hand, he approves of the Parables of the Bible and uses a metaphor to explain the concept of God. In the immortal words of Marvin Gaye, "What's Going On?"
Speaking of religion, today's reading proves, if it wasn't already proven, that Hobbes has indeed embraced the Christianity of his day, at least in large part. Which makes sense for lots of reasons...not the least of which is that God would be the absolute final codification of The Leviathan. It's still slightly disappointing, though, in that the Christianity of Hobbes day certainly did have a pretty high bullshit content, and you'd think that a perspicacious mind would have noted that. Of course, expressing those kind of observations wouldn't be good for your health. I'll be on the alert for subtle pot shots as I go forward from here.
TOMORROW'S TEN PAGES: From the "But Know Not The Way How They Effect Anything" sub-section to the end of CHAPTER XII. OF RELIGION.
Day Seventeen (DDRD 1,017): August 14, 2020
When I'm reading and I come across a quote I want to remember to comment about, I usually pick up my phone, open Facebook, and dictate a "What's on your mind?" entry. That can be challenging when you live with two autistic people. Witness the first of today's attempts, for instance:
"Oh no no no no no no the second ground for capital or religion, which is men's capital of ignorance of causes.... "
Ahem. What I meant to record was, "the second ground for Religion, which is mens Ignorance of causes...." And voilà, there's one of those little pot shots I was hoping for (see yesterday). Actually, it's a bit more than a pot shot, isn't it? Maybe even a pan shot. Anyway, saying that the second reason for religion is that humans don't understand cause and effect is a pretty big hit against organized religion. Hobbes is pretty careful to couch this as being an attack against religions which are not Christianity (in the larger context of the chapter), but I think it's pretty clear that he is disdainful of those who think that science and religion are at odds...or that any religion which is at odds with science can be anything but bullshit. A bit before this comment he also noted that "men that know not what it is that we call Causing, (that is, almost all men)..." which made me laugh. In a "yep, that's the truth" way.
In that same "people are stupid" vein, there was this--
"So easie are men to be drawn to believe any thing, from such men as have gotten credit with them; and can with gentlenesse, and dexterity, take hold of their fear, and ignorance."
Which also made me think of Trump's followers, since this seems to pretty much sum that scene up for me.
And now, this: I gave my cat a bath today. She was very unhappy with me, and was giving me the stink eye most of the morning. By the time I settled into my sofa cushions to hit Hobbes, though, she decided to forgive me.
So you can see the power of Hobbes there, for sure.
Oh, yeah, one last thing. The final sentence of today's reading baffled me. It goes like this:
"So that I may attribute all the changes of Religion in the world, to one and the some cause; and that is, unpleasing Priests; and those not onely amongst Catholiques, but even in that Church that hath presumed most of Reformation."
I would really like some professional commentary on this bit. Is Hobbes really doing a hard burn on all Christian priests? If so, that seems extraordinarily bold.
TOMORROW'S TEN PAGES: from CHAPTER XIII. OF THE NATURALL CONDITION OF MANKIND, AS CONCERNING THEIR FELICITY, AND MISERY to the end of the "Signes Of Contract Expresse" sub-section of CHAPTER XIV. OF THE FIRST AND SECOND NATURALL LAWES, AND OF CONTRACTS.
P.S. Hey, I just did the math, and I'm 1/4th of way through this book. Looks like a mere 55 days to go, which puts my end date at October 8th. Very exciting. I'm kind of hankering for a little Wealth of Nations once I get finished with Hobbes. There's a book I've been meaning to read for a very long time...and a book which Henry Thomas Buckle, one of my greatest heroes, said was the most important book written. Mmm-hmmm.
Day Eighteen (DDRD 1,018): August 15, 2020
Made it to the big, Cross-Stitch It On A Pillow quote today:
Makes you think of Grandma and cookies hot from the oven, doesn't it?
But isn't it true, too? It's like being a teacher in a public school. You might not like the concept of being a disciplinarian, but if you don't enforce discipline, you most certainly will not get much (if any) teaching done. And for the same reason that Hobbes doesn't see society / mankind getting much done without the Sovereign: because everyone will be busy pursuing their own needs and desires, and that will lead to fear, and fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to SUFfering.
America? Take a bow: "For the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small Families, the concord whereof dependeth on naturall lust, have no government at all; and live at this day in that brutish manner, as I said before."
Well, at least some things haven't changed all that much in 400 years.
But seriously folks...I don't see how you can argue with Hobbes' basic premise...which he restates thusly:
"Where there is no common power, there is no law: where no law, no injustice."
Is that based upon a cynical assessment of human nature? If it is, then I must be a cynic.
I do have some reservations about Mr. H's assertion that "The Passions that encline men to Peace, are Feare of Death...." Seems to me that there is a natural inclination to help other people. I'm thinking about my Dead Bird story, for instance. My daughter wasn't thinking about herself in any way when she rushed to come to the aid of a dying bird. And I am sure that that is in all of us.
So I guess that's where Mr. H and I part ways philosophically: I think that he overlooks the better angels of our nature.
TOMORROW'S TEN PAGES: From the "Signes Of Contract By Inference" subsection of CHAPTER XIV. to the end of the "Justice And Injustice What" sub-section of CHAPTER XV. OF OTHER LAWES OF NATURE.
Day Nineteen (DDRD 1,019): August 16, 2020
I guess Thomas Hobbes was ahead of the curve on the whole Torture thing: "Also Accusations upon Torture, are not to be reputed as Testimonies. For Torture is to be used but as means of conjecture, and light, in the further examination, and search of truth; and what is in that case confessed, tendeth to the ease of him that is Tortured; not to the informing of the Torturers: and therefore ought not to have the credit of a sufficient Testimony: for whether he deliver himselfe by true, or false Accusation, he does it by the Right of preserving his own life." Although it looks like he wasn't really opposed to it per se, since he makes reference to its "proper" use being "as means of conjecture, and light"...whatever that means.
Odd coincidence: last night I watched Rubicon (one of my all time favorite tv series) episode 8, "Caught in the Suck," in which Tanya MacGaffin (played by the loving Lauren Hodges) and Miles Fiedler (played by Dallas Roberts) are taken (by the CIA) to oversee the interrogation (under torture) of a captured AL-Qaeda member. Miles makes a comment about how the information obtained under torture is not reliable intel. Tanya responds...
Tanya: Your only objection to torture is that it's not reliable?
Miles: No, I don't object to torture for his sake. It's for my sake.
My objection to torture is because of what it does to my soul and the fact that it is, it is not reliable.
So Hobbes made it there long before Rubicon.
There was a lot of discussion about Covenant in this part, some of it centered on how there's got to be a hefty consequence for breaking the Covenant in order for people to stick with it. I tried not to, but I couldn't help but think about my marriages. I...well, I was going to write about that, but it's probably better to just swallow it down. There's enough stuff there to write a book or two about.
Ahem.
TOMORROW'S TEN PAGES: from the "Justice Not Contrary To Reason" sub-section to the "The Seventeenth, No Man Is His Own Judge" sub-section.
Day Twenty (DDRD 1,020): August 17, 2020
So many times Hobbes makes comments which seem apropos for a situation in our time. To wit:
TOMORROW'S TEN PAGES: From sub-section "The Eighteenth, No Man To Be Judge, That Has In Him Cause Of Partiality" to "Nor From A Great Multitude, Unlesse Directed By One Judgement."
Day Twenty-One (DDRD 1,021): August 18, 2020
The only thing that really caught my eye in today's 10 was a phrase which worried me: "...our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, that came to reduce the Jewes...." Um...what? I'm pretty sure that there is no definition of "reduce" which doesn't stink of anti-Semitism here, and I hate to see that going on in a great mind like that of Mr. Hobbes. Sure, he's a man of a certain time and all of that, but still, I can't help but think that a person of great intelligence can see beyond those confines.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from "And That Continually" sub-section of CHAPTER XVII. OF THE CAUSES, GENERATION, AND DEFINITION OF A COMMON-WEALTH to the end of "12. And Of Honour And Order" sub-section of CHAPTER XVIII. OF THE RIGHTS OF SOVERAIGNES BY INSTITUTION.
Day Twenty-Two (DDRD 1,022): August 19, 2020
It's getting fascist in here, so take off all your rights....
"...because the major part hath by consenting voices declared a Soveraigne; he that dissented must now consent with the rest; that is, be contented to avow all the actions he shall do, or else justly be destroyed by the rest."
Holy shit!
I mean, certainly I would agree that you have to give up some rights in order to be a part of a society...the right to harm others being foremost...but to give up the right to dissent? I can't go for that, no can do.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: From "These Rights Are Indivisible" (gee, for some reason I don't think this is a reference to the citizenry) to the end of the "Comparison Of Monarchy, With Soveraign Assemblyes" sub-section of CHAPTER XIX. OF THE SEVERALL KINDS OF COMMON-WEALTH BY INSTITUTION,AND OF SUCCESSION TO THE SOVERAIGNE POWER.
Day Twenty-Three (DDRD 1,023): August 20, 2020
Hmmm. Hobbes clearly favors Monarchy as the best form of government...and he talks about how all the other branches of government should (must!) be subservient to the Monarch. Maybe he would like Trump. I keep waiting for the qualifier to come into play--something on the order of, "Of course, all of this is null and void if the Sovereign is an asshat." Color me optimistic.
Meanwhile...I thought this bit was kind of funny (in a cranky old bastard kind of way):
"There be other names of Government, in the Histories, and books of Policy; as Tyranny, and Oligarchy: But they are not the names of other Formes of Government, but of the same Formes misliked. For they that are discontented under Monarchy, call it Tyranny; and they that are displeased with Aristocracy, called it Oligarchy: so also, they which find themselves grieved under a Democracy, call it Anarchy, (which signifies want of Government;)...."
Cuz according to Hobbes, there are only three types of government: Monarchy, Democracy, and Oligarchy. Interesting, too, is that his definition of Democracy clearly doesn't jibe with what we here in the U.S. of A. proclaim as such. He would clearly call our government an oligarchy. Wouldn't get an argument from me on that one.
Also Trumpian was this bit:
"And though he be carefull in his politique Person to procure the common interest; yet he is more, or no lesse carefull to procure the private good of himselfe, his family, kindred and friends; and for the most part, if the publique interest chance to crosse the private, he preferrs the private: for the Passions of men, are commonly more potent than their Reason."
Thing is, it doesn't seem like Hobbes really has a problem with that pursuit of private interest. He was the Ayn Rand of his time, I guess.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: Begin with the sub-section "Of the Right of Succession"
Holy Shit! Less than 60 seconds after I typed the above lines, the answer to a Jeopardy! question (which Jacqueline is watching right now, as every night) was "Ayn Rand." The Matrix is glitching tonight.
Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled program.
Read to the end of the sub-section "Difference Between A Family And A Kingdom" in CHAPTER XX. OF DOMINION PATERNALL AND DESPOTICALL.
Day Twenty-Four (DDRD 1,024): August 21, 2020
Then there are those days when you just don't have a damn thing to say, y'know? Not that I didn't enjoy the Hobbes...I did...but shit, the world is ending. Sometimes it's hard not to get caught up in that. Maybe tomorrow will be a brighter day.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from "The Rights of Monarchy from Scripture" to the end of "The Liberty which writers praise, is the Liberty of Sovereigns; not of Private men."
Day Twenty-Five (DDRD 1,025): August 22, 2020
I hit The Brick early today...before the Bad Shit could break through my umbrella. And?
Hobbes points out that in the Bible, the king is responsible for prescribing law: "...and therefore in him is the Legislative Power." Which (1) sounds pretty dangerous to me and (2) makes me wonder why Donald Trump couldn't cite a specific Bible verse as his favorite, since clearly this (One Kings 3:9) is right up his alley. But yeah, Hobbes thinks all power should be invested in the Sovereign. In fact, the title of the sub-section which follows this quote is "Soveraign Power Ought In All Common-wealths To Be Absolute," so you don't need to do any analysis on that one. Which brings me back to the same point that has been shaking my windows and rattling my walls for some time now: what if the Soveraign is a bad person? I don't understand why Hobbes doesn't see this as a deal breaker. (For that matter, I don't understand why 1/3 of America doesn't see this as a deal breaker.)
I think Mr. Hobbes anticipated B.F. Skinner (vis-a-vis Behavioralism) here:
"...in the Actions which men voluntarily doe; which (because they proceed from their will) proceed from Liberty; and yet because every act of mans will, and every desire, and inclination proceedeth from some cause, which causes in a continuall chaine (whose first link in the hand of God the first of all causes) proceed from Necessity. So that to him that could see the connexion of those causes, the Necessity of all mens voluntary actions, would appeare manifest. And therefore God, that seeth, and disposeth all things, seeth also that the Liberty of man in doing what he will, is accompanied with the Necessity of doing that which God will, and no more, nor lesse. For though men may do many things, which God does not command, nor is therefore Author of them; yet they can have no passion, nor appetite to any thing, of which appetite Gods will is not the cause."
Without the "God" stuff, of course, as B.F. can't go for that, no can do. But the idea that human beings actions are essentially a series of caused reactions...that's just straight up Behavioralism. It also reminds me of William James' thoughts in "On Habit," though I can't recall a specific bit at the moment, and since I no longer have a copy of Introduction to Great Books Second Series--alas!--, I can't easily check up on that. I'm sure it's Google-able, but not easily (I checked), so I'll just leave it to you. William James is definitely worth reading, at any rate. ANYway...once again it looks like Mr. Hobbes was a few centuries before his time.
Last shot for today, this--
"...the Athenians were taught, (to keep them from desire of changing their Government,) that they were Freemen, and all that lived under Monarchy were slaves...."
P.S. Last night I was checking out ComiXology and noticed that a book I'd been interested in, How to Read Nancy: The Elements of Comics in Three Easy Panels by Paul Karasik, Mark Newgarden, was available on ComiXology Unlimited, which I subscribe to. (I hadn't been interested enough to put down $10 to buy a digital copy, but since it was "free" now, I went ahead and downloaded it.) I don't know if I have time and desire to read it all the way through, since I'm already reading 10 different books (literally), but I went for a Spaziérgang. It was pretty interesting, actually. It's essentially a long essay about deconstructing a single Nancy comic strip. (I'm really into the whole Drilling Down thing.) But in the course of my reading I bumped into this:
Day Eleven (DDRD 1,011): August 8, 2020
Read to page 120 today...of 729, which means that I'm over 16% of the way there. (And if that doesn't sound like much, what's the APR on your savings account these days?) It was a nice read, too. Hobbes is still in the process of setting up his methodology and defining his terminology, but he is also squeezing out some sparks.
UNO: "...but that things should be determined, by no other mens Reason but their own, it is as intolerable in the society of men, as it is in play after trump is turned, to use for trump on every occasion, that suite whereof they have most in their hand. For they do nothing els, that will have every of their passions, as it comes to bear sway in them, to be taken for right Reason, and that in their own controversies: bewraying their want of right Reason, by the claym they lay to it."
Of course, using the word "trump" is hard for me to resist, but here I think it is particularly apropos. One of the things I have been wondering about for the past four years or so is how Republicans have put up with Trump's unseemly behavior. It's pretty clear that they loathed him when they were running against him in the primary. Check out the things Lindsay Graham had to say, for instance. (Here's a starter kit: "“He’s a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.... You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell.”) So why have they now fallen in line? Well, sure, fear is a big part of it. But I think there's a bigger issue, actually. Republicans might despise Trump, but he is a card they can play...and if they don't win, they still lose nothing of themselves. He has no ideology and no great intellect, so he can be persuaded to do pretty much anything. And if he goes too far and the Republican supporters don't want to go with him...well, it's not Mitch McConnell's fault, is it? Trump is the perfect fall guy.
DOS: I think that Hobbes' fatal error is his faith in Reason: "For who is so stupid, as both to mistake in Geometry, and also to persist in it, when another detects his error to him?" He really seems to think that if a person can just be shown the error in his (thon) way of thought that said person will slap his (thon) forehead I Could Have Had A V-8 style and mend his (thon) ways. I don't see that as a viable perspective in these early days of the 21st century. Not that I think that invalidates Mr. Hobbes' thoughts on life, the universe, and everything. Not at all. It's just a thing I need to keep in my perspective as I read. (Thon courtesy of Charlie Kaufman's Antkind, which I just finished reading a few days ago. Highly recommended.)
TRES: Quoth the Hamlet, "there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." You could question his sincerity there, since he is talking to his "friends" Rosencrantz and Guildenstern who (1) he is suspicious of, (2) are stupid, and (3) he likes to fuck with. But that aside, it's a powerful way of stating a belief in Relative Truth. Which I am not a fan of. And which I thought Hobbes would be vehemently opposed to. But there's this:
"For these words of Good, Evill, and Contemptible, are ever used with relation to the person that useth them: There being nothing simply and absolutely so; nor any common Rule of Good and Evill, to be taken from the nature of the objects themselves...."
Well, shit. Another one bites the dust. Maybe. I still see some hope for Hobbes being an Absolute Truth guy, though: IF he is simply saying that fallible human beings may dispute concepts of Good, Evill, and Contemptible. Because human perception of truth does not constitute Truth, does it? At least not [Truth]. I hope. Something else to keep my eyes on.
NEXT 10 PAGES: From the "Pulchrum Turpe" sub-section to the end of Chapter VI.
Read to the end of Chapter VI. It was mostly Hobbes defining words, which wasn't all that thrilling, but I do appreciate the fact that he is very carefully setting everything up for the main course. I'm also impressed by the fact that this guy, who is writing almost 400 years before Freud, seems to understand the way that the human mind works in terms of conflicting motivations, subconscious (though of course he couldn't use that term *) impulses, etcetera.
There was one bit in these ten pages which particularly caught my attention:
"Sudden glory, is the passion which maketh those Grimaces called LAUGHTER; and is caused either by some sudden act of their own, that pleaseth them; or by the apprehension of some deformed thing in another, by comparison whereof they suddenly applaud themselves. And it is incident most to them, that are conscious of the fewest abilities in themselves; who are forced to keep themselves in their own favour, by observing the imperfections of other men. And therefore much Laughter at the defects of others is a signe of Pusillanimity. For of great minds, one of the proper workes is, to help and free others from scorn; and compare themselves onely with the most able."
At first this struck me because it seemed so grumpy, with Hobbes defining laughter as a form of grimace...and then saying that it was evoked when we saw "deform[ity]" in others. Yowza. But then things started to get Wise with the second sentence, and stayed there long enough to make me think, "He is definitely looking into his crystal balls and talking about Donald J. Trump here."
NEXT TEN PAGES: From the beginning of CHAPTER VII. OF THE ENDS OR RESOLUTIONS OF DISCOURSE to the end of the "Rage" sub-section in CHAPTER VIII. OF THE VERTUES COMMONLY CALLED INTELLECTUAL; AND THEIR CONTRARY DEFECTS
_____________________________________________
* "...from French subconscient as coined in 1889 by the psychologist Pierre Janet...." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subconscious
Day Thirteen (DDRD 1,013): August 10, 2020
More definitions. Talk about a slow burn. Hobbes also had yet another go at Metaphors--I think this was the third time around. This time he went straight at it: "In Demonstration, in Councell, and all rigourous search of Truth, Judgement does all; except sometimes the understanding have need to be opened by some apt similitude; and then there is so much use of Fancy. But for Metaphors, they are in this case utterly excluded. For seeing they openly professe deceipt; to admit them into Councell, or Reasoning, were manifest folly." That is some serious disdain for metaphors. Interesting, too, in that just a few lines prior to this he was extolling the virtues of various forms of poetry...and I'm pretty sure that poetry doesn't exist without metaphor. Come to think of it, didn't Plato dismiss poets as liars and exclude them from his Utopia? (BTW1: a quick Google search says that Plato didn't hate poetry, though he did ban poets from his ideal state...and adds that Aristotle hated poetry. So there's that. BTW2: according to my document search, Hobbes refers to Metaphor 33 times in the course of Leviathan...and the one I just quoted was #10.)
Hobbes also makes reference to Madness...which is always a topic of interest to me. Interestingly enough, he starts with a bit of implicit equivocation: "...to have stronger, and more vehement Passions for any thing, than is ordinarily seen in others, is that which men call MADNESSE." [Emphasis added.] And although this doesn't seem particularly positive, surely vehement Passion is at the root of all work of genius, right? One of the reasons I have an affinity for Madnesse is that it seems to me that is it primarily a rejection of the external world...or, at least, a sublimation of the importance of the external world...and an embrace of the internal world. I don't have a hell of a lot of faith in the external world.
I timed today's reading, and it came in at 18 minutes, which is just about right. I feel that I could do more, but it's better not to feel pressured, which is what inevitably happens when you start increasing the "required" page count. And pressure leads to suffering, and suffering leads to missing days, and missing days leads to never finishing books that are difficult to read.
TOMORROW'S TEN PAGES: From "Rage" sub-section to end of CHAPTER IX. OF THE SEVERALL SUBJECTS OF KNOWLEDGE.
Day Fourteen (DDRD 1,014): August 11, 2020
Lots of references to Christian (and Jewish) things in today's ten, and definitely of the reverential sort. Oddly enough, Hobbes did make reference to a parable at the end of the "Melancholy" section
--"And whereas our Saviour (Math. 12. 43.) speaketh of an unclean Spirit, that having gone out of a man, wandreth through dry places, seeking rest, and finding none; and returning into the same man, with seven other spirits worse than himselfe; It is manifestly a Parable, alluding to a man, that after a little endeavour to quit his lusts, is vanquished by the strength of them; and becomes seven times worse than he was. So that I see nothing at all in the Scripture, that requireth a beliefe, that Daemoniacks were any other thing but Mad-men."--and has no problem at all with this metaphorical speech...and yet a few lines later in the "Insignificant Speech" sub-section he back to railing against the "abuse of words." He's such a methodical fellow that this seeming contradiction really bothers me.
TOMORROW'S TEN PAGES: CHAPTER X. OF POWER, WORTH, DIGNITY, HONOUR AND WORTHINESS. (Which, for the record, is 3057 words.)
Day Fifteen (DDRD 1,015): August 12, 2020
Pretty early on in Today's Ten Hobbes observed, "...let a man (as most men do,) rate themselves as the highest Value they can; yet their true Value is no more than it is esteemed by others." I found that interesting on a couple of counts. First off, it's kind of offensive...as is most of this section as Hobbes separates what is Honourable from what is Dishonourable. Because that's just un-American, isn't it? We're told that All Men Are Created Equal. Of course, we don't have to look very hard to see that that isn't really true. And we don't have to think very hard to see that this kind of thought leads us to absurdities like people refusing to wear a face mask during a pandemic because they think it restricts their oxygen intake (or whatever). So Second off, it seems to me that what Hobbes is saying is actually true. It might just be a True Because The World Is That Way kind of true...but hell, what other kind of true is there? Third off, this is another indication that Hobbes leans towards the Relative Truth perspective on the universe. In an absolute truth perspective, something...or, in the case of the quote, someone...would be of value in and of it/themself. And Hobbes isn't calling it that way.
TOMORROW'S TEN PAGES: From CHAPTER XI. OF THE DIFFERENCE OF MANNERS to the end of sub-section "And Suppose Them Incorporeall" of CHAPTER XII. OF RELIGION.
Day Sixteen (DDRD 1,016): August 13, 2020
"...the Felicity of this life, consisteth not in the repose of a mind satisfied."
Which is why we're gonna keep on tryin' till we reach our highest ground, I suppose. Also a good explanation of why we allow ourselves to be constrained to the mousewheel of capitalism...and why no matter how much a person has, they still want more, more, more.
I also liked this bit:
"...Ignorance it selfe without Malice, is able to make a man both to believe lyes, and tell them; and sometimes also to invent them."
And can't help thinking, "So if you couple Ignorance with Malice, you get... "
Lastly, check this out:
"...it is impossible to make any profound enquiry into naturall causes, without being enclined thereby to believe there is one God Eternall; though they cannot have any Idea of him in their mind, answerable to his nature. For as a man that is born blind, hearing men talk of warming themselves by the fire, and being brought to warm himself by the same, may easily conceive, and assure himselfe, there is somewhat there, which men call Fire, and is the cause of the heat he feeles; but cannot imagine what it is like; nor have an Idea of it in his mind, such as they have that see it: so also, by the visible things of this world, and their admirable order, a man may conceive there is a cause of them, which men call God; and yet not have an Idea, or Image of him in his mind." (from the "Naturall Religion, From The Same" sub-section)
Now I could be wrong. I only have a B.A. in English, an M.Ed. in Secondary Education with an English specialization, and 23 years of teaching behind me. But this smells a little bit like a metaphor to me.
I used to tell my Great Books students, "When you're reading and you happen upon something that you think is a contradiction, instead of dismissing the writer, consider the possibility that you have not properly understood what the writer is saying."
So that's a thing I now officially have going on with Mr. Hobbes. On the one hand, he overtly and repeatedly attacks the idea of metaphors. On the other hand, he approves of the Parables of the Bible and uses a metaphor to explain the concept of God. In the immortal words of Marvin Gaye, "What's Going On?"
Speaking of religion, today's reading proves, if it wasn't already proven, that Hobbes has indeed embraced the Christianity of his day, at least in large part. Which makes sense for lots of reasons...not the least of which is that God would be the absolute final codification of The Leviathan. It's still slightly disappointing, though, in that the Christianity of Hobbes day certainly did have a pretty high bullshit content, and you'd think that a perspicacious mind would have noted that. Of course, expressing those kind of observations wouldn't be good for your health. I'll be on the alert for subtle pot shots as I go forward from here.
TOMORROW'S TEN PAGES: From the "But Know Not The Way How They Effect Anything" sub-section to the end of CHAPTER XII. OF RELIGION.
Day Seventeen (DDRD 1,017): August 14, 2020
When I'm reading and I come across a quote I want to remember to comment about, I usually pick up my phone, open Facebook, and dictate a "What's on your mind?" entry. That can be challenging when you live with two autistic people. Witness the first of today's attempts, for instance:
"Oh no no no no no no the second ground for capital or religion, which is men's capital of ignorance of causes.... "
Ahem. What I meant to record was, "the second ground for Religion, which is mens Ignorance of causes...." And voilà, there's one of those little pot shots I was hoping for (see yesterday). Actually, it's a bit more than a pot shot, isn't it? Maybe even a pan shot. Anyway, saying that the second reason for religion is that humans don't understand cause and effect is a pretty big hit against organized religion. Hobbes is pretty careful to couch this as being an attack against religions which are not Christianity (in the larger context of the chapter), but I think it's pretty clear that he is disdainful of those who think that science and religion are at odds...or that any religion which is at odds with science can be anything but bullshit. A bit before this comment he also noted that "men that know not what it is that we call Causing, (that is, almost all men)..." which made me laugh. In a "yep, that's the truth" way.
In that same "people are stupid" vein, there was this--
"So easie are men to be drawn to believe any thing, from such men as have gotten credit with them; and can with gentlenesse, and dexterity, take hold of their fear, and ignorance."
Which also made me think of Trump's followers, since this seems to pretty much sum that scene up for me.
And now, this: I gave my cat a bath today. She was very unhappy with me, and was giving me the stink eye most of the morning. By the time I settled into my sofa cushions to hit Hobbes, though, she decided to forgive me.
So you can see the power of Hobbes there, for sure.
Oh, yeah, one last thing. The final sentence of today's reading baffled me. It goes like this:
"So that I may attribute all the changes of Religion in the world, to one and the some cause; and that is, unpleasing Priests; and those not onely amongst Catholiques, but even in that Church that hath presumed most of Reformation."
I would really like some professional commentary on this bit. Is Hobbes really doing a hard burn on all Christian priests? If so, that seems extraordinarily bold.
TOMORROW'S TEN PAGES: from CHAPTER XIII. OF THE NATURALL CONDITION OF MANKIND, AS CONCERNING THEIR FELICITY, AND MISERY to the end of the "Signes Of Contract Expresse" sub-section of CHAPTER XIV. OF THE FIRST AND SECOND NATURALL LAWES, AND OF CONTRACTS.
P.S. Hey, I just did the math, and I'm 1/4th of way through this book. Looks like a mere 55 days to go, which puts my end date at October 8th. Very exciting. I'm kind of hankering for a little Wealth of Nations once I get finished with Hobbes. There's a book I've been meaning to read for a very long time...and a book which Henry Thomas Buckle, one of my greatest heroes, said was the most important book written. Mmm-hmmm.
Day Eighteen (DDRD 1,018): August 15, 2020
Made it to the big, Cross-Stitch It On A Pillow quote today:
But isn't it true, too? It's like being a teacher in a public school. You might not like the concept of being a disciplinarian, but if you don't enforce discipline, you most certainly will not get much (if any) teaching done. And for the same reason that Hobbes doesn't see society / mankind getting much done without the Sovereign: because everyone will be busy pursuing their own needs and desires, and that will lead to fear, and fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to SUFfering.
America? Take a bow: "For the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small Families, the concord whereof dependeth on naturall lust, have no government at all; and live at this day in that brutish manner, as I said before."
Well, at least some things haven't changed all that much in 400 years.
But seriously folks...I don't see how you can argue with Hobbes' basic premise...which he restates thusly:
"Where there is no common power, there is no law: where no law, no injustice."
Is that based upon a cynical assessment of human nature? If it is, then I must be a cynic.
I do have some reservations about Mr. H's assertion that "The Passions that encline men to Peace, are Feare of Death...." Seems to me that there is a natural inclination to help other people. I'm thinking about my Dead Bird story, for instance. My daughter wasn't thinking about herself in any way when she rushed to come to the aid of a dying bird. And I am sure that that is in all of us.
So I guess that's where Mr. H and I part ways philosophically: I think that he overlooks the better angels of our nature.
TOMORROW'S TEN PAGES: From the "Signes Of Contract By Inference" subsection of CHAPTER XIV. to the end of the "Justice And Injustice What" sub-section of CHAPTER XV. OF OTHER LAWES OF NATURE.
Day Nineteen (DDRD 1,019): August 16, 2020
I guess Thomas Hobbes was ahead of the curve on the whole Torture thing: "Also Accusations upon Torture, are not to be reputed as Testimonies. For Torture is to be used but as means of conjecture, and light, in the further examination, and search of truth; and what is in that case confessed, tendeth to the ease of him that is Tortured; not to the informing of the Torturers: and therefore ought not to have the credit of a sufficient Testimony: for whether he deliver himselfe by true, or false Accusation, he does it by the Right of preserving his own life." Although it looks like he wasn't really opposed to it per se, since he makes reference to its "proper" use being "as means of conjecture, and light"...whatever that means.
Odd coincidence: last night I watched Rubicon (one of my all time favorite tv series) episode 8, "Caught in the Suck," in which Tanya MacGaffin (played by the loving Lauren Hodges) and Miles Fiedler (played by Dallas Roberts) are taken (by the CIA) to oversee the interrogation (under torture) of a captured AL-Qaeda member. Miles makes a comment about how the information obtained under torture is not reliable intel. Tanya responds...
Tanya: Your only objection to torture is that it's not reliable?
Miles: No, I don't object to torture for his sake. It's for my sake.
My objection to torture is because of what it does to my soul and the fact that it is, it is not reliable.
So Hobbes made it there long before Rubicon.
There was a lot of discussion about Covenant in this part, some of it centered on how there's got to be a hefty consequence for breaking the Covenant in order for people to stick with it. I tried not to, but I couldn't help but think about my marriages. I...well, I was going to write about that, but it's probably better to just swallow it down. There's enough stuff there to write a book or two about.
Ahem.
TOMORROW'S TEN PAGES: from the "Justice Not Contrary To Reason" sub-section to the "The Seventeenth, No Man Is His Own Judge" sub-section.
Day Twenty (DDRD 1,020): August 17, 2020
So many times Hobbes makes comments which seem apropos for a situation in our time. To wit:
TOMORROW'S TEN PAGES: From sub-section "The Eighteenth, No Man To Be Judge, That Has In Him Cause Of Partiality" to "Nor From A Great Multitude, Unlesse Directed By One Judgement."
Day Twenty-One (DDRD 1,021): August 18, 2020
The only thing that really caught my eye in today's 10 was a phrase which worried me: "...our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, that came to reduce the Jewes...." Um...what? I'm pretty sure that there is no definition of "reduce" which doesn't stink of anti-Semitism here, and I hate to see that going on in a great mind like that of Mr. Hobbes. Sure, he's a man of a certain time and all of that, but still, I can't help but think that a person of great intelligence can see beyond those confines.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from "And That Continually" sub-section of CHAPTER XVII. OF THE CAUSES, GENERATION, AND DEFINITION OF A COMMON-WEALTH to the end of "12. And Of Honour And Order" sub-section of CHAPTER XVIII. OF THE RIGHTS OF SOVERAIGNES BY INSTITUTION.
Day Twenty-Two (DDRD 1,022): August 19, 2020
It's getting fascist in here, so take off all your rights....
"...because the major part hath by consenting voices declared a Soveraigne; he that dissented must now consent with the rest; that is, be contented to avow all the actions he shall do, or else justly be destroyed by the rest."
Holy shit!
I mean, certainly I would agree that you have to give up some rights in order to be a part of a society...the right to harm others being foremost...but to give up the right to dissent? I can't go for that, no can do.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: From "These Rights Are Indivisible" (gee, for some reason I don't think this is a reference to the citizenry) to the end of the "Comparison Of Monarchy, With Soveraign Assemblyes" sub-section of CHAPTER XIX. OF THE SEVERALL KINDS OF COMMON-WEALTH BY INSTITUTION,AND OF SUCCESSION TO THE SOVERAIGNE POWER.
Day Twenty-Three (DDRD 1,023): August 20, 2020
Hmmm. Hobbes clearly favors Monarchy as the best form of government...and he talks about how all the other branches of government should (must!) be subservient to the Monarch. Maybe he would like Trump. I keep waiting for the qualifier to come into play--something on the order of, "Of course, all of this is null and void if the Sovereign is an asshat." Color me optimistic.
Meanwhile...I thought this bit was kind of funny (in a cranky old bastard kind of way):
"There be other names of Government, in the Histories, and books of Policy; as Tyranny, and Oligarchy: But they are not the names of other Formes of Government, but of the same Formes misliked. For they that are discontented under Monarchy, call it Tyranny; and they that are displeased with Aristocracy, called it Oligarchy: so also, they which find themselves grieved under a Democracy, call it Anarchy, (which signifies want of Government;)...."
Cuz according to Hobbes, there are only three types of government: Monarchy, Democracy, and Oligarchy. Interesting, too, is that his definition of Democracy clearly doesn't jibe with what we here in the U.S. of A. proclaim as such. He would clearly call our government an oligarchy. Wouldn't get an argument from me on that one.
Also Trumpian was this bit:
"And though he be carefull in his politique Person to procure the common interest; yet he is more, or no lesse carefull to procure the private good of himselfe, his family, kindred and friends; and for the most part, if the publique interest chance to crosse the private, he preferrs the private: for the Passions of men, are commonly more potent than their Reason."
Thing is, it doesn't seem like Hobbes really has a problem with that pursuit of private interest. He was the Ayn Rand of his time, I guess.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: Begin with the sub-section "Of the Right of Succession"
Holy Shit! Less than 60 seconds after I typed the above lines, the answer to a Jeopardy! question (which Jacqueline is watching right now, as every night) was "Ayn Rand." The Matrix is glitching tonight.
Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled program.
Read to the end of the sub-section "Difference Between A Family And A Kingdom" in CHAPTER XX. OF DOMINION PATERNALL AND DESPOTICALL.
Day Twenty-Four (DDRD 1,024): August 21, 2020
Then there are those days when you just don't have a damn thing to say, y'know? Not that I didn't enjoy the Hobbes...I did...but shit, the world is ending. Sometimes it's hard not to get caught up in that. Maybe tomorrow will be a brighter day.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from "The Rights of Monarchy from Scripture" to the end of "The Liberty which writers praise, is the Liberty of Sovereigns; not of Private men."
Day Twenty-Five (DDRD 1,025): August 22, 2020
I hit The Brick early today...before the Bad Shit could break through my umbrella. And?
Hobbes points out that in the Bible, the king is responsible for prescribing law: "...and therefore in him is the Legislative Power." Which (1) sounds pretty dangerous to me and (2) makes me wonder why Donald Trump couldn't cite a specific Bible verse as his favorite, since clearly this (One Kings 3:9) is right up his alley. But yeah, Hobbes thinks all power should be invested in the Sovereign. In fact, the title of the sub-section which follows this quote is "Soveraign Power Ought In All Common-wealths To Be Absolute," so you don't need to do any analysis on that one. Which brings me back to the same point that has been shaking my windows and rattling my walls for some time now: what if the Soveraign is a bad person? I don't understand why Hobbes doesn't see this as a deal breaker. (For that matter, I don't understand why 1/3 of America doesn't see this as a deal breaker.)
I think Mr. Hobbes anticipated B.F. Skinner (vis-a-vis Behavioralism) here:
"...in the Actions which men voluntarily doe; which (because they proceed from their will) proceed from Liberty; and yet because every act of mans will, and every desire, and inclination proceedeth from some cause, which causes in a continuall chaine (whose first link in the hand of God the first of all causes) proceed from Necessity. So that to him that could see the connexion of those causes, the Necessity of all mens voluntary actions, would appeare manifest. And therefore God, that seeth, and disposeth all things, seeth also that the Liberty of man in doing what he will, is accompanied with the Necessity of doing that which God will, and no more, nor lesse. For though men may do many things, which God does not command, nor is therefore Author of them; yet they can have no passion, nor appetite to any thing, of which appetite Gods will is not the cause."
Without the "God" stuff, of course, as B.F. can't go for that, no can do. But the idea that human beings actions are essentially a series of caused reactions...that's just straight up Behavioralism. It also reminds me of William James' thoughts in "On Habit," though I can't recall a specific bit at the moment, and since I no longer have a copy of Introduction to Great Books Second Series--alas!--, I can't easily check up on that. I'm sure it's Google-able, but not easily (I checked), so I'll just leave it to you. William James is definitely worth reading, at any rate. ANYway...once again it looks like Mr. Hobbes was a few centuries before his time.
Last shot for today, this--
"...the Athenians were taught, (to keep them from desire of changing their Government,) that they were Freemen, and all that lived under Monarchy were slaves...."
--made me laugh. That parenthetical aside, man.
Propaganda was clearly alive and well in the mid-17th century...and, assuming Hobbes is correct in what he says here, in the 6th century B.C. as well. And look at the political ads running right now. "If you vote for Biden, the United States will become a Socialist country!" "If you vote for Trump, the United States will become a Fascist country!" Well...in the immortal words of Mark Knopfler, "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." And it's possible that both of them are wrong, hmmm?
TOMRROW'S 10 PAGES: From "Liberty Of The Subject How To Be Measured" (also known as "Liberty Of Subjects How To Be Measured") to the end of sub-section "Protestation Against The Decrees Of Bodies Politique" (also known as "Protestation Against The Decrees Of Bodies Politique sometimes Lawful; but against Soveraign Power never").
Day Twenty-Six (DDRD 1,026): August 23, 2020
Big Breakthrough Today: the first time (unless I've been napping, and I don't think that's the case) that Hobbes has indicated that the power of the "Soveraign" is not unlimited. To wit:
"If the Soveraign command a man (though justly condemned,) to kill, wound, or mayme himselfe; or not to resist those that assault him; or to abstain from the use of food, ayre, medicine, or any other thing, without which he cannot live; yet hath that man the Liberty to disobey."
And furthermore (immediately following the above),
"If a man be interrogated by the Soveraign, or his Authority, concerning a crime done by himselfe, he is not bound (without assurance of Pardon) to confesse it; because no man (as I have shewn in the same Chapter) can be obliged by Covenant to accuse himselfe."
Interesting distinction made here: the Soveraign has the power to kill a man, but not the power to force him to kill himself. I think there's something more to be made of this, but I'm not equipped to do that just yet.
But it goes one step farther at the end of this sub-section ("Are Not Bound To Hurt Themselves;"):
"...the Obligation a man may sometimes have, upon the Command of the Soveraign to execute any dangerous, or dishonourable Office, dependeth not on the Words of our Submission; but on the Intention; which is to be understood by the End thereof. When therefore our refusall to obey, frustrates the End for which the Soveraignty was ordained; then there is no Liberty to refuse: otherwise there is."
That seems like a very big step indeed. Isn't the implication that the Soveraign can, indeed, be a dishonorable person? And isn't the consequence of that that the citizen / subject has the right to disobey an order which contradicts the fundamental reason for the Soveraign's existence...which has already been boiled down to "protect the subjects of his realm"? Seems like the horse has changed color.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: From "Bodies Politique For Government Of A Province, Colony, Or Town" sub-section to the end of CHAPTER XXII.
Day Twenty-Seven (DDRD 1,027): August 24, 2020
Money money money money...MAH-knee!
First, "In a Bodie Politique, for the well ordering of forraigne Traffique, the most commodious Representative is an Assembly of all the members; that is to say, such a one, as every one that adventureth his mony, may be present at all the Deliberations, and Resolutions of the Body, if they will themselves." Um...if I'm hearing Mr. Hobbes correctly, he is suggesting that only the monied folks have a say here...but since he specifies that this is with respect to "forraigne Traffique," maybe that makes sense...and maybe it's not meant to imply anything about the rest of the Bodie Politique. It still makes me a little nervous, though, as we've certainly seen this "the people who own this country ought to run it" before, and it usually doesn't bode well for the 85% of the folks who don't have the do-re-mi.
A bit later on in the reading, there was this: "Justice cannot be had without mony...." Well. Nothing new under the 🌞, right?
It will be interesting to see where this goes. There are 102 mentions of "mony" in this book...and another 7 of "money," so clearly we'll be revisiting this topic.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: read to the end of CHAPTER XXIV. OF THE NUTRITION, AND PROCREATION OF A COMMON-WEALTH.
Day Twenty-Eight (DDRD 1,028): August 25, 2020
Nothing to say about today's reading.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: Read CHAPTER XXV. OF COUNSELL.
Day Twenty-Nine (DDRD 1,029): August 26, 2020
Thomas Hobbes taught me a new word today: dehortation.
Day Thirty (DDRD 1,030): August 27, 2020
Some more very disturbing statements vis-à-vis the power of the Soveraign in today's ten. Such as...
"...the Soveraign is the sole Legislator. For the same reason, none can abrogate a Law made, but the Soveraign; because a Law is not abrogated, but by another Law, that forbiddeth it to be put in execution."
So when Nixon said, "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal," does Mr. Hobbes nod in agreement? Well, arguably not, since in a democracy / aristocracy power does not reside solely in the head of the executive branch...but it's still too close to comfort for me. Also, we see what happens when you have a man like Trump in power and a majority of craven cowards in the Senate. Trump is de facto a soveraign given his "character" and the current state of the Senate.
Less obnoxious...nay, even funny...was this:
"Over naturall fooles, children, or mad-men there is no Law, no more than over brute beasts...." So here's to all of the fools, children and mad-men.
And this struck a note which just rang forever in my mind:
"...where men build on false grounds, the more they build, the greater is the ruine...."
I mean...isn't that the G.O.P. in a nutshell? And maybe the Democratic Party as well, at least at times. Both sides seem determined not to examine any detail which doesn't fit into their larger assumptions. For instance...I was listening to the RNC last night, and one of the things that I heard repeatedly was that lawlessness was only happening in cities run by Democrats. Well, you can just do a knee jerk "That's not true!" etcetera, but what if you actually sit down and look at the nuts and bolts? Here are the cities which have had major protests coupled with riots (so far as I know):
Atlanta Chicago Columbus Dallas / Fort Worth
Des Moines Denver Detroit Los Angeles Louisville
Minneapolis New York City Phoenix Portland
And with the cities with democratic mayors in blue, you can see (and don't think this doesn't hurt me to say) that the Republicans have a point. Now, it's quite possible that that point is on the top of their heads. So, for instance, six of these cities are in amongst the top ten most populated cities in the U.S.A., and you would think that that is a part of the equation. I'm not sociologist enough to go any further than that without some research, but clearly there are two mistakes being made here, the first by the Democrats and the second by the Republicans: (1) denying that the violence has been most extreme in cities led by democratic mayors and (2) not going beyond this to see what else these cities have in common. Interesting, too, that by denying the first proposition, the democrats have cut themselves off from any more profound investigation into what's going on here.
There you go. Who says that Hobbes isn't relevant today? Not me.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: From the "All Lawes Need Interpretation" sub-section to the end of CHAPTER XXVI. OF CIVILL LAWES.
Day Thirty-One (DDRD 1,031): August 28, 2020
If there was any doubt remaining as to the place of religion in Mr. Hobbes's world (there wasn't), these pages would have eliminated that doubt. In fact, there was such intense focus on the nexus of religion and The Law--including some rather extensive quotes from the Old Testament--that I started wondering if this was why Hobbes seemed comfortable in putting his faith in The Soveraign; if you're convinced that God has His Hand on the helm, then maybe you don't need to worry about human frailty. Doesn't sound like a very good game plan to me, but hey, I'm no Thomas Hobbes.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: From the beginning of CHAPTER XXVII. OF CRIMES, EXCUSES, AND EXTENUATIONS to the end of the "Totall Excuses" sub-section.
Day Thirty-Two (DDRD 1,032): August 29, 2020
Some days the bear eats you. And that fuckin' bear has been nibbling on me for a couple of days now, actually, but it didn't really hit me until I looked at the clock and thought, "It's 3:00 pm and I haven't done my Leviathan reading for the day...and I really don't feel like doing it at all." Which says a lot more about my day than about Leviathan, but here's something that says something about me: I'm going to go read ten pages of Leviathan right now.
And?
Well...it took me 3 1/2 hours to get there. Part of that time was taken up by watching Real Time with Bill Maher. I don't have any love for Bill, but he had some guests that I was interested in. And then I tried to start reading, but slid right into a bit of a nap. Came to and checked out some CNN. Then some MSNBC. Finally shook it off and finished my reading.
Despite my state of mind and body, there was some good stuff in today's pages.
Such as this, which I at first took to be an indication that Hobbes wasn't swallowing the Bible hook, line, and sinker:
"To be delighted in the Imagination onely, of being possessed of another mans goods, servants, or wife, without any intention to take them from him by force, or fraud, is no breach of the Law, that sayth, "Thou shalt not covet:" nor is the pleasure a man my have in imagining, or dreaming of the death of him, from whose life he expecteth nothing but dammage, and displeasure, a Sinne; but the resolving to put some Act in execution, that tendeth thereto. For to be pleased in the fiction of that, which would please a man if it were reall, is a Passion so adhaerent to the Nature both of a man, and every other living creature, as to make it a Sinne, were to make Sinne of being a man."
...since the Bible says clearly that "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)
But I'm wondering if the disclaimer "but the resolving to put some Act in execution" mitigates this "disagreement." I'm not sure. But at the very least, Hobbes did not completely toe the Bible Party Line on this one, and that makes me think that he did have a little spunk in him with respect to the accepted religious principles of his day. And I must say that I like that in a man...especially if he is not obnoxious about it.
I thought Hobbes broke very "modern" when he said that "The source of every Crime, is some defect of the Understanding; or some errour in Reasoning, or some sudden force of the Passions." Not so much the last clause, but the first two? It seems to break with the idea that human beings are evil by nature...and, in fact, to lean in the opposite direction entirely.
And then there was the hen bit. Hobbes notes that "the Stoicks not observing, held it as great a Crime, to kill a Hen, against the Law, as to kill ones Father." A supposition which he finds to be ridiculous. And I agree with him there. In fact, one of the things I've heard Christians say which is most odious to me is "All sins are equal." As far as I'm concerned, saying that that idiotic sentence is true is proof that not all brains are equal.
By the way...the last quoted phrase from Leviathan is the only time that the word "hen" appears in this book. So there's that. (🐔!)
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the "Excuses Against The Author" sub-section to the end of sub-section "Hurt Inflicted For A Fact Done Before The Law, No Punishment" in CHAPTER XXVIII. OF PUNISHMENTS, AND REWARDS.
Day Thirty-Three (DDRD 1,033): August 30, 2020
Got down to my Hobbes business a bit earlier today--finished before 9:30 am--which seems to make a big difference in terms of how I feel about the job. The later it gets, the less enthusiasm I have for the gig. So I'm going to try to shift back to doing early morning readings. We'll see how that goes.
Meanwhile...
Here's a thought which I wish had been embedded in our constitution:
"...to Robbe a poore man, is a greater Crime, than to robbe a rich man; because 'tis to the poore a more sensible dammage." Which not only just makes sense...but is also a nice fit with one of Christianity's big New Testament moments:
Luke 21:1-4
1 And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, 2 and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. 3 So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; 4 for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.”
So that's a twofer.
It's been awhile since Mr. Hobbes went on a bitchrant about metahors, but I've continued to be aware of that situation, thus it was with some amusement (and some bemusement) that I read this:
"Before I inferre any thing from this definition, there is a question to be answered, of much importance; which is, by what door the Right, or Authority of Punishing in any case, came in." Because therein we have both personification ad metaphor, and this time around there's no "Jesus did it!" to fall back on.
This is also the only appearance of the word "door" in LeviathaI, by the way.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: From the "The Representative Of The Common-wealth Unpunishable" (uh-oh) sub-section to the end of the "Pretence of Ispiration" sub-section of CHAPTER XXIX. OF THOSE THINGS THAT WEAKEN, OR TEND TO THE DISSOLUTION OF A COMMON-WEALTH.
Day Thirty-Four (DDRD 1,034): August 31, 2020
In his discussion of the power of the Soveraign to punish, Hobbes takes a look at Capital Punishment, and has this (in part) to say: "And of these, some be Capitall, some Lesse than Capitall. Capitall, is the Infliction of Death; and that either simply, or with torment."
Or with torment.
Holy shit, man. The way he puts that...it's like you can have your rice straight or with soy sauce. Whatever you prefer. No big fucking deal either way.
That is some fascistic shit indeed.
On the lighter side of the news...
I was unaware that the word "nocent" was the antonym of "innocent" until Mr. Hobbes told me so. (Without torment.) It makes sense, of course. The "in-" prefix means "not." I thought it was probably an archaic thing...as did spellcheck, which kept changing it back to "docent"--but when I looked at dictionary.com, I found this:
nocent[ noh-suhnt ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR nocent ON THESAURUS.COM
adjective Rare.
harmful; injurious:
nocent chemical waste and other toxins.
guilty; not innocent.
So it's an adjective rare, not an archaic word.
Okay, enough with the etymology, let's get back to the fascist shit.
According to Mr. Hobbes, "it is manifest, that the measure of Good and Evill actions, is the Civill Law...." Yowza. Not that it doesn't fit in with everything which has preceded this statement, but it's still a bit startling, isn't it? So...slavery was a Good Action until the law was changed, and Abolitionists were all Evil revolutionaries who should have been put to death, probably with torment.
Just to hammer that point home, Hobbes says that "the Law is the publique Conscience, by which he hath already undertaken to be guided. Otherwise in such diversity, as there is of private Consciences, which are but private opinions...."
Geeze. If Trump could read, this would be his favorite book.
And just to cap off today's ten pages, here's a bit on Prophets:
Under the sub-section title "Pretence Of Inspiration," Mr. Hobbes has this to say:
"It hath been also commonly taught, 'That Faith and Sanctity, are not to be attained by Study and Reason, but by supernaturall Inspiration, or Infusion,' which granted, I see not why any man should render a reason of his Faith; or why every Christian should not be also a Prophet; or why any man should take the Law of his Country, rather than his own Inspiration, for the rule of his action. And thus wee fall again into the fault of taking upon us to Judge of Good and Evill; or to make Judges of it, such private men as pretend to be supernaturally Inspired, to the Dissolution of all Civill Government. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by those accidents, which guide us into the presence of them that speak to us; which accidents are all contrived by God Almighty; and yet are not supernaturall, but onely, for the great number of them that concurre to every effect, unobservable. Faith, and Sanctity, are indeed not very frequent; but yet they are not Miracles, but brought to passe by education, discipline, correction, and other naturall wayes, by which God worketh them in his elect, as such time as he thinketh fit. And these three opinions, pernicious to Peace and Government, have in this part of the world, proceeded chiefly from the tongues, and pens of unlearned Divines; who joyning the words of Holy Scripture together, otherwise than is agreeable to reason, do what they can, to make men think, that Sanctity and Naturall Reason, cannot stand together."
Emphasis added, btw. But so much for the religion thing, right? Hobbes just lops off the whole mystical aspect of religion. And you know what religion is without its mystical aspect? A clever way to keep the rabble in line.
I'm not going to stop reading...not by any means...for one thing, I am now halfway through a book I have intended to read for a half of a century (50.3429355281207% of the way through, to be exact)...but I think I am finished with making excuses and waiting for the turning of the tide; Hobbes is an advocate for fascist, and that makes him a fascist. Ain't no two ways about it.
Sigh. I guess it's stupid to be disappointed in a man who died 341 years ago (minus a few months)...but I am most decidedly disappointed in him anyway. I expect smart people not to be motherfuckers, no matter what age they lived in.
Tomorrow's 10 Pages (With Torment): from the "Subjecting The Soveraign Power To Civill Lawes" sub-section to the end of CHAPTER XXIX. I think I have a pretty good idea of how that first sub-section is going to go, though.
Day Thirty-Five (DDRD 1,035): September 1, 2020
So first off...Thomas Hobbes can be pretty fucking weird at times. Check this out:
"To what Disease in the Naturall Body of man, I may exactly compare this irregularity of a Common-wealth, I know not. But I have seen a man, that had another man growing out of his side, with an head, armes, breast, and stomach, of his own: If he had had another man growing out of his other side, the comparison might then have been exact."
I mean...shades of Dr. Bloodmoney, right? I'd also like to go on record as noticing that this EXTENDED METAPHOR is just one of dozens of examples of figurative language that Hobbes employs in this section, so I guess all of that Fuck Metaphors stuff from earlier on is out the windee now, eh?
I was also brought up short by this comment:
"... the Veins which by their naturall course empty themselves into the Heart, are not (as they ought to be) supplyed from the Arteries...."
Um...this book was published in April of 1651. When did Harvey "discover" that blood circulated through the body? I thought it was after that?
Well...yes and no. Exercitatio Anatomica de Motu Cordis et Sanguinis in Animalibus was published in Latin in 1628. The first English translation did not appear until two decades later, but I guess that need not have stopped Mr. Hobbes, in that he obviously could swing the Latin hammer. So not a mystery after all. Still, pretty impressive that in the course of writing a political treatise he casually lets us know that he has read a Latin text on anatomy. I don't know about you, but I'm impressed.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: From the beginning of CHAPTER XXX. OF THE OFFICE OF THE SOVERAIGN REPRESENTATIVE to the end of the "Equall Taxes" sub-section.
Day Thirty-Six (DDRD 1,036): September 2, 2020
As for this fascism...this so-called fascism...here's this:
"For the prosperity of a People ruled by an Aristocraticall, or Democraticall assembly, commeth not from Aristocracy, nor from Democracy, but from the Obedience, and Concord of the Subjects; nor do the people flourish in a Monarchy, because one man has the right to rule them, but because they obey him."
Prosperity = obedience. That is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know, right?
Old Hobbes takes it on home from there, and spends several pages showing how the ten commandments hook right into this how obedience to the Soveraign thang. Keeping the rabble in line.
In an unrelated topic, he also makes an aside reference a father's relationship to his children, which is obviously the paradigm of Soveraign to subject, and has this to say:
"...nor would there be any reason, why any man should desire to have children, or take the care to nourish, and instruct them, if they were afterwards to have no other benefit from them...."
And in a way that just seems to sum everything up for me. Hobbes doesn't understand human beings at all, does he? To him, everything is explained as a struggle for domination, and he seems to have no room for love or respect or admiration or any of that pussy stuff. It doesn't make me want to stop reading, by any means, but it does make me acutely aware of his shortcomings as a thinker.
Okay, one more thing. Read this and try not to think of Trump:
"Impunity maketh Insolence; Insolence Hatred; and Hatred, an Endeavour to pull down all oppressing and contumelious greatnesse, though with the ruine of the Common-wealth."
Also makes me think of Yoda, but that's another story.
But this is so spot-on for Trump that I wish I weren't doing a Twitter Boycott right now...'cause this would be a perfect Tweet-thing, wouldn't it?
Well, maybe I'll remember to do that next week.
Probably not, though.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the"Publique Charity" sub-section to the end of the "The Right Of Gods Soveraignty Is Derived From His Omnipotence" sub-section in CHAPTER XXXI. OF THE KINGDOME OF GOD BY NATURE.
Day Thirty-Seven (DDRD 1,037): September 3, 2020
A couple of points on which Hobbes seems very modern: first, he refers to laws as being like hedges which are not designed to stop people but to keep them on the safe path.
"For the use of Lawes, (which are but Rules Authorised) is not to bind the People from all Voluntary actions; but to direct and keep them in such a motion, as not to hurt themselves by their own impetuous desires, rashnesse, or indiscretion, as Hedges are set, not to stop Travellers, but to keep them in the way."
Second, he refers to the purpose of punishment as"not revenge, and discharge of choler; but correction, either of the offender, or of others by his example...."
Also another Trump moment for me: "...Malice encreaseth by being vendible." Yep, it sure do. That's pretty much the story of Trump's presidency, isn't it? He has found a way to cash in on hatred.
The title of the last sub-section of Today's Ten--"The Right Of Gods Soveraignty Is Derived From His Omnipotence"--kind of says it all, doesn't it? According to Hobbes, God doesn't rule as Soveraign because He is the creator or because of His love for his creation or any of that soft shit. He rules because He is the ultimate power. Because it's all about power, whether we're talking God, man, or antkind.
Sigh.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the "Sinne Not The Cause Of All Affliction" sub-section to the end of CHAPTER XXXI. OF THE KINGDOME OF GOD BY NATURE...which is also the end of PART II.
Day Thirty-Eight (DDRD 1,038): September 4, 2020
* See "Wind Chill Factor (Minus Zero)" by Bob Geldof / The Boomtown Rats. It's a great song written by a great writer and recorded by a pretty great band that has, unfortunately, been forgotten.
"If the Soveraign command a man (though justly condemned,) to kill, wound, or mayme himselfe; or not to resist those that assault him; or to abstain from the use of food, ayre, medicine, or any other thing, without which he cannot live; yet hath that man the Liberty to disobey."
And furthermore (immediately following the above),
"If a man be interrogated by the Soveraign, or his Authority, concerning a crime done by himselfe, he is not bound (without assurance of Pardon) to confesse it; because no man (as I have shewn in the same Chapter) can be obliged by Covenant to accuse himselfe."
Interesting distinction made here: the Soveraign has the power to kill a man, but not the power to force him to kill himself. I think there's something more to be made of this, but I'm not equipped to do that just yet.
But it goes one step farther at the end of this sub-section ("Are Not Bound To Hurt Themselves;"):
"...the Obligation a man may sometimes have, upon the Command of the Soveraign to execute any dangerous, or dishonourable Office, dependeth not on the Words of our Submission; but on the Intention; which is to be understood by the End thereof. When therefore our refusall to obey, frustrates the End for which the Soveraignty was ordained; then there is no Liberty to refuse: otherwise there is."
That seems like a very big step indeed. Isn't the implication that the Soveraign can, indeed, be a dishonorable person? And isn't the consequence of that that the citizen / subject has the right to disobey an order which contradicts the fundamental reason for the Soveraign's existence...which has already been boiled down to "protect the subjects of his realm"? Seems like the horse has changed color.
🐎🐎🐎🐎🐎🐎🐎🐎
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: From "Bodies Politique For Government Of A Province, Colony, Or Town" sub-section to the end of CHAPTER XXII.
Day Twenty-Seven (DDRD 1,027): August 24, 2020
Money money money money...MAH-knee!
First, "In a Bodie Politique, for the well ordering of forraigne Traffique, the most commodious Representative is an Assembly of all the members; that is to say, such a one, as every one that adventureth his mony, may be present at all the Deliberations, and Resolutions of the Body, if they will themselves." Um...if I'm hearing Mr. Hobbes correctly, he is suggesting that only the monied folks have a say here...but since he specifies that this is with respect to "forraigne Traffique," maybe that makes sense...and maybe it's not meant to imply anything about the rest of the Bodie Politique. It still makes me a little nervous, though, as we've certainly seen this "the people who own this country ought to run it" before, and it usually doesn't bode well for the 85% of the folks who don't have the do-re-mi.
A bit later on in the reading, there was this: "Justice cannot be had without mony...." Well. Nothing new under the 🌞, right?
It will be interesting to see where this goes. There are 102 mentions of "mony" in this book...and another 7 of "money," so clearly we'll be revisiting this topic.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: read to the end of CHAPTER XXIV. OF THE NUTRITION, AND PROCREATION OF A COMMON-WEALTH.
Day Twenty-Eight (DDRD 1,028): August 25, 2020
Nothing to say about today's reading.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: Read CHAPTER XXV. OF COUNSELL.
Day Twenty-Nine (DDRD 1,029): August 26, 2020
Thomas Hobbes taught me a new word today: dehortation.
noun
(usually uncountable, plural dehortations)
(archaic) Dissuasion; advice against something.
Origin From Latin dehortation
(https://www.yourdictionary.com/dehortation)
When I read, I usually dictate my notes into my phone or my Kindle so I don't have to stop for long. The phone does a pretty good job, but the Kindle makes some pretty funny choices. E.g.: "dehortation" became "die horse Asian."
TOMMOROW'S 10 PAGES: From the beginning of CHAPTER XXVI. OF CIVILL LAWES to the end of sub-section "The Interpretation Of The Law Dependeth On The Soveraign Power."
Day Thirty (DDRD 1,030): August 27, 2020
Some more very disturbing statements vis-à-vis the power of the Soveraign in today's ten. Such as...
"...the Soveraign is the sole Legislator. For the same reason, none can abrogate a Law made, but the Soveraign; because a Law is not abrogated, but by another Law, that forbiddeth it to be put in execution."
So when Nixon said, "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal," does Mr. Hobbes nod in agreement? Well, arguably not, since in a democracy / aristocracy power does not reside solely in the head of the executive branch...but it's still too close to comfort for me. Also, we see what happens when you have a man like Trump in power and a majority of craven cowards in the Senate. Trump is de facto a soveraign given his "character" and the current state of the Senate.
Less obnoxious...nay, even funny...was this:
"Over naturall fooles, children, or mad-men there is no Law, no more than over brute beasts...." So here's to all of the fools, children and mad-men.
And this struck a note which just rang forever in my mind:
"...where men build on false grounds, the more they build, the greater is the ruine...."
I mean...isn't that the G.O.P. in a nutshell? And maybe the Democratic Party as well, at least at times. Both sides seem determined not to examine any detail which doesn't fit into their larger assumptions. For instance...I was listening to the RNC last night, and one of the things that I heard repeatedly was that lawlessness was only happening in cities run by Democrats. Well, you can just do a knee jerk "That's not true!" etcetera, but what if you actually sit down and look at the nuts and bolts? Here are the cities which have had major protests coupled with riots (so far as I know):
Atlanta Chicago Columbus Dallas / Fort Worth
Des Moines Denver Detroit Los Angeles Louisville
Minneapolis New York City Phoenix Portland
And with the cities with democratic mayors in blue, you can see (and don't think this doesn't hurt me to say) that the Republicans have a point. Now, it's quite possible that that point is on the top of their heads. So, for instance, six of these cities are in amongst the top ten most populated cities in the U.S.A., and you would think that that is a part of the equation. I'm not sociologist enough to go any further than that without some research, but clearly there are two mistakes being made here, the first by the Democrats and the second by the Republicans: (1) denying that the violence has been most extreme in cities led by democratic mayors and (2) not going beyond this to see what else these cities have in common. Interesting, too, that by denying the first proposition, the democrats have cut themselves off from any more profound investigation into what's going on here.
There you go. Who says that Hobbes isn't relevant today? Not me.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: From the "All Lawes Need Interpretation" sub-section to the end of CHAPTER XXVI. OF CIVILL LAWES.
Day Thirty-One (DDRD 1,031): August 28, 2020
If there was any doubt remaining as to the place of religion in Mr. Hobbes's world (there wasn't), these pages would have eliminated that doubt. In fact, there was such intense focus on the nexus of religion and The Law--including some rather extensive quotes from the Old Testament--that I started wondering if this was why Hobbes seemed comfortable in putting his faith in The Soveraign; if you're convinced that God has His Hand on the helm, then maybe you don't need to worry about human frailty. Doesn't sound like a very good game plan to me, but hey, I'm no Thomas Hobbes.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: From the beginning of CHAPTER XXVII. OF CRIMES, EXCUSES, AND EXTENUATIONS to the end of the "Totall Excuses" sub-section.
Day Thirty-Two (DDRD 1,032): August 29, 2020
Some days the bear eats you. And that fuckin' bear has been nibbling on me for a couple of days now, actually, but it didn't really hit me until I looked at the clock and thought, "It's 3:00 pm and I haven't done my Leviathan reading for the day...and I really don't feel like doing it at all." Which says a lot more about my day than about Leviathan, but here's something that says something about me: I'm going to go read ten pages of Leviathan right now.
And?
Well...it took me 3 1/2 hours to get there. Part of that time was taken up by watching Real Time with Bill Maher. I don't have any love for Bill, but he had some guests that I was interested in. And then I tried to start reading, but slid right into a bit of a nap. Came to and checked out some CNN. Then some MSNBC. Finally shook it off and finished my reading.
Despite my state of mind and body, there was some good stuff in today's pages.
Such as this, which I at first took to be an indication that Hobbes wasn't swallowing the Bible hook, line, and sinker:
"To be delighted in the Imagination onely, of being possessed of another mans goods, servants, or wife, without any intention to take them from him by force, or fraud, is no breach of the Law, that sayth, "Thou shalt not covet:" nor is the pleasure a man my have in imagining, or dreaming of the death of him, from whose life he expecteth nothing but dammage, and displeasure, a Sinne; but the resolving to put some Act in execution, that tendeth thereto. For to be pleased in the fiction of that, which would please a man if it were reall, is a Passion so adhaerent to the Nature both of a man, and every other living creature, as to make it a Sinne, were to make Sinne of being a man."
...since the Bible says clearly that "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)
But I'm wondering if the disclaimer "but the resolving to put some Act in execution" mitigates this "disagreement." I'm not sure. But at the very least, Hobbes did not completely toe the Bible Party Line on this one, and that makes me think that he did have a little spunk in him with respect to the accepted religious principles of his day. And I must say that I like that in a man...especially if he is not obnoxious about it.
I thought Hobbes broke very "modern" when he said that "The source of every Crime, is some defect of the Understanding; or some errour in Reasoning, or some sudden force of the Passions." Not so much the last clause, but the first two? It seems to break with the idea that human beings are evil by nature...and, in fact, to lean in the opposite direction entirely.
And then there was the hen bit. Hobbes notes that "the Stoicks not observing, held it as great a Crime, to kill a Hen, against the Law, as to kill ones Father." A supposition which he finds to be ridiculous. And I agree with him there. In fact, one of the things I've heard Christians say which is most odious to me is "All sins are equal." As far as I'm concerned, saying that that idiotic sentence is true is proof that not all brains are equal.
By the way...the last quoted phrase from Leviathan is the only time that the word "hen" appears in this book. So there's that. (🐔!)
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the "Excuses Against The Author" sub-section to the end of sub-section "Hurt Inflicted For A Fact Done Before The Law, No Punishment" in CHAPTER XXVIII. OF PUNISHMENTS, AND REWARDS.
Day Thirty-Three (DDRD 1,033): August 30, 2020
Got down to my Hobbes business a bit earlier today--finished before 9:30 am--which seems to make a big difference in terms of how I feel about the job. The later it gets, the less enthusiasm I have for the gig. So I'm going to try to shift back to doing early morning readings. We'll see how that goes.
Meanwhile...
Here's a thought which I wish had been embedded in our constitution:
"...to Robbe a poore man, is a greater Crime, than to robbe a rich man; because 'tis to the poore a more sensible dammage." Which not only just makes sense...but is also a nice fit with one of Christianity's big New Testament moments:
Luke 21:1-4
1 And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, 2 and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. 3 So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; 4 for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.”
So that's a twofer.
It's been awhile since Mr. Hobbes went on a bitchrant about metahors, but I've continued to be aware of that situation, thus it was with some amusement (and some bemusement) that I read this:
"Before I inferre any thing from this definition, there is a question to be answered, of much importance; which is, by what door the Right, or Authority of Punishing in any case, came in." Because therein we have both personification ad metaphor, and this time around there's no "Jesus did it!" to fall back on.
This is also the only appearance of the word "door" in LeviathaI, by the way.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: From the "The Representative Of The Common-wealth Unpunishable" (uh-oh) sub-section to the end of the "Pretence of Ispiration" sub-section of CHAPTER XXIX. OF THOSE THINGS THAT WEAKEN, OR TEND TO THE DISSOLUTION OF A COMMON-WEALTH.
Day Thirty-Four (DDRD 1,034): August 31, 2020
In his discussion of the power of the Soveraign to punish, Hobbes takes a look at Capital Punishment, and has this (in part) to say: "And of these, some be Capitall, some Lesse than Capitall. Capitall, is the Infliction of Death; and that either simply, or with torment."
Or with torment.
Holy shit, man. The way he puts that...it's like you can have your rice straight or with soy sauce. Whatever you prefer. No big fucking deal either way.
That is some fascistic shit indeed.
On the lighter side of the news...
I was unaware that the word "nocent" was the antonym of "innocent" until Mr. Hobbes told me so. (Without torment.) It makes sense, of course. The "in-" prefix means "not." I thought it was probably an archaic thing...as did spellcheck, which kept changing it back to "docent"--but when I looked at dictionary.com, I found this:
nocent[ noh-suhnt ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR nocent ON THESAURUS.COM
adjective Rare.
harmful; injurious:
nocent chemical waste and other toxins.
guilty; not innocent.
So it's an adjective rare, not an archaic word.
Okay, enough with the etymology, let's get back to the fascist shit.
According to Mr. Hobbes, "it is manifest, that the measure of Good and Evill actions, is the Civill Law...." Yowza. Not that it doesn't fit in with everything which has preceded this statement, but it's still a bit startling, isn't it? So...slavery was a Good Action until the law was changed, and Abolitionists were all Evil revolutionaries who should have been put to death, probably with torment.
Just to hammer that point home, Hobbes says that "the Law is the publique Conscience, by which he hath already undertaken to be guided. Otherwise in such diversity, as there is of private Consciences, which are but private opinions...."
Geeze. If Trump could read, this would be his favorite book.
And just to cap off today's ten pages, here's a bit on Prophets:
Under the sub-section title "Pretence Of Inspiration," Mr. Hobbes has this to say:
"It hath been also commonly taught, 'That Faith and Sanctity, are not to be attained by Study and Reason, but by supernaturall Inspiration, or Infusion,' which granted, I see not why any man should render a reason of his Faith; or why every Christian should not be also a Prophet; or why any man should take the Law of his Country, rather than his own Inspiration, for the rule of his action. And thus wee fall again into the fault of taking upon us to Judge of Good and Evill; or to make Judges of it, such private men as pretend to be supernaturally Inspired, to the Dissolution of all Civill Government. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by those accidents, which guide us into the presence of them that speak to us; which accidents are all contrived by God Almighty; and yet are not supernaturall, but onely, for the great number of them that concurre to every effect, unobservable. Faith, and Sanctity, are indeed not very frequent; but yet they are not Miracles, but brought to passe by education, discipline, correction, and other naturall wayes, by which God worketh them in his elect, as such time as he thinketh fit. And these three opinions, pernicious to Peace and Government, have in this part of the world, proceeded chiefly from the tongues, and pens of unlearned Divines; who joyning the words of Holy Scripture together, otherwise than is agreeable to reason, do what they can, to make men think, that Sanctity and Naturall Reason, cannot stand together."
Emphasis added, btw. But so much for the religion thing, right? Hobbes just lops off the whole mystical aspect of religion. And you know what religion is without its mystical aspect? A clever way to keep the rabble in line.
I'm not going to stop reading...not by any means...for one thing, I am now halfway through a book I have intended to read for a half of a century (50.3429355281207% of the way through, to be exact)...but I think I am finished with making excuses and waiting for the turning of the tide; Hobbes is an advocate for fascist, and that makes him a fascist. Ain't no two ways about it.
Sigh. I guess it's stupid to be disappointed in a man who died 341 years ago (minus a few months)...but I am most decidedly disappointed in him anyway. I expect smart people not to be motherfuckers, no matter what age they lived in.
Tomorrow's 10 Pages (With Torment): from the "Subjecting The Soveraign Power To Civill Lawes" sub-section to the end of CHAPTER XXIX. I think I have a pretty good idea of how that first sub-section is going to go, though.
Day Thirty-Five (DDRD 1,035): September 1, 2020
So first off...Thomas Hobbes can be pretty fucking weird at times. Check this out:
"To what Disease in the Naturall Body of man, I may exactly compare this irregularity of a Common-wealth, I know not. But I have seen a man, that had another man growing out of his side, with an head, armes, breast, and stomach, of his own: If he had had another man growing out of his other side, the comparison might then have been exact."
I mean...shades of Dr. Bloodmoney, right? I'd also like to go on record as noticing that this EXTENDED METAPHOR is just one of dozens of examples of figurative language that Hobbes employs in this section, so I guess all of that Fuck Metaphors stuff from earlier on is out the windee now, eh?
I was also brought up short by this comment:
"... the Veins which by their naturall course empty themselves into the Heart, are not (as they ought to be) supplyed from the Arteries...."
Um...this book was published in April of 1651. When did Harvey "discover" that blood circulated through the body? I thought it was after that?
Well...yes and no. Exercitatio Anatomica de Motu Cordis et Sanguinis in Animalibus was published in Latin in 1628. The first English translation did not appear until two decades later, but I guess that need not have stopped Mr. Hobbes, in that he obviously could swing the Latin hammer. So not a mystery after all. Still, pretty impressive that in the course of writing a political treatise he casually lets us know that he has read a Latin text on anatomy. I don't know about you, but I'm impressed.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: From the beginning of CHAPTER XXX. OF THE OFFICE OF THE SOVERAIGN REPRESENTATIVE to the end of the "Equall Taxes" sub-section.
As for this fascism...this so-called fascism...here's this:
"For the prosperity of a People ruled by an Aristocraticall, or Democraticall assembly, commeth not from Aristocracy, nor from Democracy, but from the Obedience, and Concord of the Subjects; nor do the people flourish in a Monarchy, because one man has the right to rule them, but because they obey him."
Prosperity = obedience. That is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know, right?
Old Hobbes takes it on home from there, and spends several pages showing how the ten commandments hook right into this how obedience to the Soveraign thang. Keeping the rabble in line.
In an unrelated topic, he also makes an aside reference a father's relationship to his children, which is obviously the paradigm of Soveraign to subject, and has this to say:
"...nor would there be any reason, why any man should desire to have children, or take the care to nourish, and instruct them, if they were afterwards to have no other benefit from them...."
And in a way that just seems to sum everything up for me. Hobbes doesn't understand human beings at all, does he? To him, everything is explained as a struggle for domination, and he seems to have no room for love or respect or admiration or any of that pussy stuff. It doesn't make me want to stop reading, by any means, but it does make me acutely aware of his shortcomings as a thinker.
Okay, one more thing. Read this and try not to think of Trump:
"Impunity maketh Insolence; Insolence Hatred; and Hatred, an Endeavour to pull down all oppressing and contumelious greatnesse, though with the ruine of the Common-wealth."
Also makes me think of Yoda, but that's another story.
But this is so spot-on for Trump that I wish I weren't doing a Twitter Boycott right now...'cause this would be a perfect Tweet-thing, wouldn't it?
Well, maybe I'll remember to do that next week.
Probably not, though.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the"Publique Charity" sub-section to the end of the "The Right Of Gods Soveraignty Is Derived From His Omnipotence" sub-section in CHAPTER XXXI. OF THE KINGDOME OF GOD BY NATURE.
Day Thirty-Seven (DDRD 1,037): September 3, 2020
A couple of points on which Hobbes seems very modern: first, he refers to laws as being like hedges which are not designed to stop people but to keep them on the safe path.
"For the use of Lawes, (which are but Rules Authorised) is not to bind the People from all Voluntary actions; but to direct and keep them in such a motion, as not to hurt themselves by their own impetuous desires, rashnesse, or indiscretion, as Hedges are set, not to stop Travellers, but to keep them in the way."
Second, he refers to the purpose of punishment as"not revenge, and discharge of choler; but correction, either of the offender, or of others by his example...."
Also another Trump moment for me: "...Malice encreaseth by being vendible." Yep, it sure do. That's pretty much the story of Trump's presidency, isn't it? He has found a way to cash in on hatred.
The title of the last sub-section of Today's Ten--"The Right Of Gods Soveraignty Is Derived From His Omnipotence"--kind of says it all, doesn't it? According to Hobbes, God doesn't rule as Soveraign because He is the creator or because of His love for his creation or any of that soft shit. He rules because He is the ultimate power. Because it's all about power, whether we're talking God, man, or antkind.
Sigh.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the "Sinne Not The Cause Of All Affliction" sub-section to the end of CHAPTER XXXI. OF THE KINGDOME OF GOD BY NATURE...which is also the end of PART II.
Day Thirty-Eight (DDRD 1,038): September 4, 2020
Pretty much all about religion today...with some very interesting comments. Such as this:
"...by God, is understood the cause of the World; and to say the World is God, is to say there is no cause of it, that is, no God."
Not only does this eliminate all of that pesky nature worship polytheistic stuff...but to me it also says something pretty profound: God is not a noun, but a verb. Not a thing, but an act. Not an object, but an energy.
Hmpf. That kind of goes right along with a lot of the stuff the gals in my Crazy Women Group say vis-à-vis Edgar Cayce and all of their other stuff (crystals, chakras, bowls, aromas, etc.).
Another? How about this:
"...there cannot be more than one Infinite...."
Now, that seems pretty clear, doesn't it? How can you argue with that? There can't be two infinities. But numbers are infinite. Does that mean that numbers are God? I know this sounds like a stupid thing to say, but the more I think about it, the more it seems to mean something.
Okay, never mind.
One more:
"There is no action of man in this life, that is not the beginning of so long a chayn of Consequences, as no humane Providence, is high enough, to give a man a prospect to the end."
Because of the diction, syntax, and punctuation of Hobbes' writing, this requires a little untangling, but I am pretty certain that that results in this:
Every human action begins a long chain of unforeseeable consequences.
Kind of makes you want to slip beneath the sheets and shiver there awhile, doesn't it? (I find this happening more frequently these days.*)
Oh...one more thing. This chapter ends Part II, and Hobbes goes out with a blaring trumpet. Check this out:
After telling us that he and Plato are bros (Leviathan as a modern version of The Republic), TH brings the chapter to a close with this:
🎺I recover some hope, that one time or other, this writing of mine, may fall into the hands of a Soveraign, who will consider it himselfe, (for it is short, and I think clear,) without the help of any interested, or envious Interpreter; and by the exercise of entire Soveraignty, in protecting the Publique teaching of it, convert this Truth of Speculation, into the Utility of Practice.🎺
Well...that's not immodest, is it? But beyond that, it left me wondering...what does Hobbes think that a Soveraign would get out of this work? That he should be a fascist dictator who controls all of the branches of government...and who controls the people down to their very thoughts?
Well...that's a bit disturbing.
Onward to Part III, then.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the beginning of CHAPTER XXXII. OF THE PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIAN POLITIQUES to the end of the sub-section "The Books Of The Kings, And The Chronicles" of CHAPTER XXXIII. OF THE NUMBER, ANTIQUITY, SCOPE, AUTHORITY, AND INTERPRETERS OF THE BOOKS OF HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Oh, yeah...56% through Leviathan now. Closing in on a D-.
Day Thirty-Nine (DDRD 1,039): September 5, 2020
Well, this is interesting:
"... we are not to renounce our Senses, and Experience; nor (that which is the undoubted Word of God) our naturall Reason. For they are the talents which he hath put into our hands to negotiate, till the coming again of our blessed Saviour; and therefore not to be folded up in the Napkin of an Implicate Faith, but employed in the purchase of Justice, Peace, and true Religion, For though there be many things in Gods Word above Reason; that is to say, which cannot by naturall reason be either demonstrated, or confuted; yet there is nothing contrary to it; but when it seemeth so, the fault is either in our unskilfull Interpretation, or erroneous Ratiocination.
Therefore, when any thing therein written is too hard for our examination, wee are bidden to captivate our understanding to the Words; and not to labour in sifting out a Philosophicall truth by Logick, of such mysteries as are not comprehensible, nor fall under any rule of naturall science. For it is with the mysteries of our Religion, as with wholsome pills for the sick, which swallowed whole, have the vertue to cure; but chewed, are for the most part cast up again without effect."
I'm not sure what to make of the last bit, as it seems to go against the grain of the first bit, but I'll ponder that in my heart for awhile. As to the first, though...I thought this was a pretty eloquent way of saying that To Be A Christian Does Not Mean To Disregard Logic and Reason...which seems like a pretty important thing to say right about now.
BTW, most of these ten pages were focused on religion. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the "Ezra And Nehemiah" sub-section to the "Spirit Of God Taken In The Scripture Sometimes For A Wind, Or Breath" sub-section of CHAPTER XXXIV. OF THE SIGNIFICATION OF SPIRIT, ANGEL, AND INSPIRATION IN THE BOOKS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
Day Forty (DDRD 1,040): September 6, 2020
As for today's reading...especially the title of the final sub-section, here's an email I wrote to one of my friends in the Crazy Ladies Group I attend at least once per month:
Hi, R. Sorry that I missed out on seeing you and the group last time around. I have a little story to tell you, and I don't trust my brain to remember it until I see you again, so I'm going to intrude into your life via email.
I have been reading various Bibles to Jacqueline for years. In fact, we've read 13 different version...some kiddie versions, but also including the complete "real" Bible. We are currently reading a version called The DK Illustrated Family Bible, which is actually quite interesting in that it has lots of annotations and illustrations. With respect to the former, when we were reading a story about the Pentecost yesterday there was an annotation which said, "The word for 'wind' is the same as the word for 'spirit' in both Hebrew (rush) and Greek (pneuma)." I immediately thought of you and what you had to say about your encounters with the wind, and I meant to write to you about it, but then didn't. Then today when we sat down to read I saw a second reference to wind = spirit, and again I thought, "I should write to Rebecca about his." But again I didn't. (I have vast problems with reaching out to contact people--I usually convince myself that I am being bothersome and then don't follow through with it.) But just a few minutes ago I sat down to read a few pages of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, and I saw that the next section I would read was entitled "Spirit Of God Taken In The Scripture Sometimes For A Wind, Or Breath." Well...that seemed like too much of a "coincidence" not to share.
So for what it's worth...there is a long history of wind being equated with Spirit...and, in fact, with wind being seen as a representation of God. (I think it was Blaise Pascal who spoke of God as "the wind in the reeds.")
So there's that.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the "Secondly, For Extraordinary Gifts Of The Understanding" to the end of CHAPTER XXXIV.
Day Forty-One (DDRD 1,041): September 7, 2020
ANYway...TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the "Baptisme For The Dead, How Understood" sub-section (and isn't THAT an intriguing title?) to the end of the "The Scriptures Doe Not Teach That Spirits Are Incorporeall" sub-section. Which puts me at page 664 of my copy of the book. Am I tempted to read two more pages? Ah...you know me so well, my dear.
Mostly about 👼angels👼 today, which I thought was pretty interesting. A little puzzling, too, as TH basically took down angels...and essentially (though not directly) said that angels were metaphors. Mmm-hmm.
"But if we consider the places of the Old Testament where Angels are mentioned, we shall find, that in most of them, there can nothing else be understood by the word Angel, but some image raised (supernaturally) in the fancy, to signifie the presence of God in the execution of some supernaturall work; and therefore in the rest, where their nature is not exprest, it may be understood in the same manner."
I do find it interesting that Hobbes sees an angel not as a separate beings, but as a word signifying God in action. Angel is essentially a verb. The depiction of an angel as a being with wings is just a metaphor.
So we've pretty much come full circle on that topic, haven't we? He also spent time showing how metaphors were useful to explain vital religious concepts to stupid people. No, really. Check this out:
"There you see Motion, and Speech, which are commonly attributed to Angels, attributed to a Cloud, because the Cloud served as a sign of Gods presence; and was no lesse an Angel, then if it had had the form of a Man, or Child of never so great beauty; or Wings, as usually they are painted, for the false instruction of common people."
Also interesting is the way this chapter ended:
"As also (Acts 2.2.) the wind, that is there said to fill the house wherein the Apostles were assembled on the day of Pentecost, is not to be understood for the Holy Spirit, which is the Deity it self; but for an Externall sign of Gods speciall working on their hearts, to effect in them the internall graces, and holy vertues hee thought requisite for the performance of their Apostleship."
So Hobbes is denying the reality of the Holy Ghost entering into the apostles...which seriously negates anything within a few miles of fundamentalism, doesn't it? Seems like a pretty bold move, really. Also interesting on a personal level, as my email to R. (yesterday) was written before I read this passage in Leviathan, and in the email I told her how I was initially inspired to write to her because of an annotation in the Bible I was reading to Jacqueline concerning the Pentecost. The Matrix is glitching today.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: From the beginning of CHAPTER XXXV. OF THE SIGNIFICATION IN SCRIPTURE OF KINGDOME OF GOD, OF HOLY, SACRED, AND SACRAMENT to the end of the sub-section "The Words Spoken By God And Concerning God, Both Are Called Gods Word In Scripture" in CHAPTER XXXVI. OF THE WORD OF GOD, AND OF PROPHETS
Day Forty-Two (DDRD 1,042): September 8, 2020
Interesting. Today's 10 were almost completely focused on Hobbes' assertion that when the Bible refers to The Kingdom of God that it means an actual Kingdom with God as Soveraign. The way Hobbes vacillates between Metaphor Good and Metaphor Bad continues to baffle me. At this point, it just seems to be a matter of which point he wants to prove rather some overall ideology or cosmogony. That's not good. Philosophical systems cannot exist ad hoc.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from...hmmm. For the first time there's a big difference between my book's sub-section title and the online version. So in my book tomorrow's start point is "The Word of God metaphorically used, first, for the Decrees and Power of God" (and I have to sigh at that), and in the online version it's the second paragraph of the sub-section entitled "The Words Spoken By God And Concerning God, Both Are Called Gods Word, In Scripture," which begins with the phrase, "Considering these two significations of the WORD OF GOD, as it is taken in Scripture...." And since there is some variety in some other sub-sections, I'm just going to make this easy and read to the end of the sub-section "God Sometimes Also Spake By Lots," which is found in both versions of the text.
Day Forty-Three (DDRD 1,043): September 9, 2020
Well...this Hobbes fellow continues to puzzle me. In the opening section of Today's 10, he has a little discussion about literal vs. metaphorical language. It seems to boil down to this:
"The Word of God, as it is taken for that which he hath spoken, is understood sometimes Properly, sometimes Metaphorically."
Well. That's pretty fucking convenient, isn't it? Metaphorical language is bad except when it's not. How can you tell the difference? Oh, don't worry, I'LL let you know which is which. I call bullshit.
Speaking of metaphorical language, Hobbes notes that some folks call Christ "the Verbe of God." That's kind of interesting, but, of course, just causes more turmoil in terms of Hobbes' underlying assumptions about terminology.
There was an interesting point about how God spoke to the prophets primarily in dreams, with the exception of Moses, with whom he spoke face to face. I guess I knew that, but hadn't really thought about it. However, a bit later on, Hobbes says that this God speaking to Moses was by mediation of an angel...and was therefore actually a vision...which Hobbes sees as pretty much the same thing as a dream. And just to add to the confusion, this seems to contradict what Hobbes had previously said about angels actually being a manifestation of God in action rather than separate beings.
Rosencrantz: Consistency is all I ask!
Guildenstern: Give us this day our daily mask.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from "Every Man Ought To Examine The Probability Of A Pretended Prophets Calling" sub-section to the end of CHAPTER XXXVII. OF MIRACLES, AND THEIR USE.
Day Forty-Four (DDRD 1,044): September 10, 2020
Today...prophets miracles. (If only you believed in miracles, so would I.) As for these prophets...these so-called prophets...Hobbes goes back to the Bible to find that...
"...the Prophets were generally lyars."
So clearly some things haven't changed in several centuries. He also notes that there is a story in which King Ahab (no relation) examined 400 "prophets" and only one of them was the real deal.
One of the most stiking bits re miracles was this:
"The first Rainbow that was seen in the world, was a Miracle, because the first; and consequently strange; and served for a sign from God, placed in heaven, to assure his people, there should be no more an universall destruction of the world by Water. But at this day, because they are frequent, they are not Miracles, neither to them that know their naturall causes, nor to them who know them not."
The interesting thing to me was that Hobbes is clearly saying that the post-ark rainbow was the first rainbow...which seems like an incredibly stupid thing for a guy who has any knowledge of science to say. And he obviously is a guy who has some knowledge of science, since he makes reference to the fact that rainbows have "naturall causes." Well...those are irreconcilable points of view.
Sigh. Remember those days or yore when I wondered what Hobbes' religious views were? I long for those days. Not that my interest has been killed by this...it hasn't. But stuff like this rainbow bullshit is hard for me to get past. Choose a side, for fuck's sake: you're either a fundamentalist Christian who ignores scientific evidence or you're a rational person who does not dismiss that which doesn't fit into your schema. Man up, Hobbes!
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the beginning of CHAPTER XXXVIII. OF THE SIGNIFICATION IN SCRIPTURE OF ETERNALL LIFE, HELL, SALVATION, THE WORLD TO COME, AND REDEMPTION to the end of the "Satan, Devill, Not Proper Names, But Appellatives" sub-section.
Day Forty-Five (DDRD 1,045): September 11, 2020
I just learned that today is not only the 19th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, it's also the 49th anniversary of the Attica Prison riots. Well, so-called riots. So not the happiest of days.
And, appropriately enough, today's 10 focused on the unhappiest of topics: Hell. In what is no longer a surprising move, Hobbes took a very fundamentalistic approach to Hell...though he did add some interesting Biblical details which suggest that Hell is (1) underwater and (2) inhabited by Giants. Hmpf. Then, it a bit of a surprise twist, he used logic and scripture--not usually a good combination--to tell us that (1) Satan, etc. are not the names of evil individual creatures, but just generic designations for Evil Entities. Also, he ends this 10 page section by telling us that "For Gods Kingdome was in Palestine; and the Nations round about, were the Kingdomes of the Enemy; and consequently by Satan, is meant any Earthly Enemy of the Church." And if you can go for that, then it seems pretty clear that the Enemies of Israel lived in Hell, right? Though I don't seem to remember any nations of giant people living underwater in the Middle East...but maybe I just missed that memo.
So, yeah: another bullshit night in shit city. But not without its interesting moments.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the "Torments Of Hell" sub-section (hot damn!--and I mean that literally) to the end of CHAPTER XXXIX. OF THE SIGNIFICATION IN SCRIPTURE OF THE WORD CHURCH
Day Forty-Six (DDRD 1,046): September 12, 2020
Well, that happened. Lots of hell...with a little church thrown in at the end.
But as for this hell...I've been thinking. Within the Hobbesian Universe, he has previously said that "Accusations upon Torture, are not to be reputed as Testimonies," and yet his version of Hell is the standard one, which means lots of torture. To what end? Just for giggles and shits, I guess, because he has already noted that is has no efficacy with respect to extracting the truth. And that kind of gets you thinking, doesn't it? Would any human being think that torturing a person from morn to night every day for decades was a fair punishment for any crime, no matter how vile? It's hard to imagine, isn't it? And yet "we" can conceive of a God...a merciful, loving God...who would torture those who had Sinned not just from morn to night, but 24/7...and not for decades, but forever. It just kind of blows your mind, doesn't it? And again...to what end? There's no goal here other than to inflict torment. Yeah...that doesn't make any sense to me, and I'm surprised that it can make sense to any rational human being. I think people who believe that shit have made God too small. Smaller than even the most awful human being. And that's just disrespectful, isn't it?
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the beginning of CHAPTER XL OF THE RIGHTS OF THE KINGDOME OF GOD, IN ABRAHAM, MOSES, HIGH PRIESTS, AND THE KINGS OF JUDAH to the end of the "Of The Rights Of The Kings Of Israel" sub-section.
Day Forty-Seven (DDRD 1,047): September 13, 2020
Well...that was a lot of Moses. This thing has pretty much turned into a theological treatise at this point. Not that there's anything wrong with that, just not what I expected. And it looks like that's just how it's going to be now. On the negative side, it looks like all of the quotations and summaries and allusions to Biblical writ is basically just in service to the theme, The Soveraign rules as God rules, and I'm not seeing that that needs to be re-said for several hundred pages, but maybe I'll be surprised.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the "The Practice Of Supremacy In Religion, Was Not In The Time Of The Kings,According To The Right Thereof" sub-section to the end of CHAPTER XLI. OF THE OFFICE OF OUR BLESSED SAVIOUR.
Day Forty-Eight (DDRD 1,048): September 14, 2020
This morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Jon Meacham was expressing his bafflement at the fact that 40 to 45% of Americans still support Trump, and he said (approximately), "There is something in us which is willing to cede power to this figure." And that, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with this whole Leviathan concept, isn't it? It requires that the individual absolve him/her self of personal responsibility and allow the Soveraign to do as He/She wills...with the previously mentioned exception that He/She can't tell the individual to kill him/herself. That's the one inch of freedom that Hobbes grants us. More like one millimeter of freedom, actually.
Today's 10 had me thinking hard about the concept of The Trinity. For instance, when Hobbes said of Jesus--
"Again, he is to be King then, no otherwise than as subordinate, or Viceregent of God the Father, as Moses was in the wildernesse; and as the High Priests were before the reign of Saul; and as the Kings were after it."
--it really made me see the (pardon) absurdity
the whole thing: God is subordinate to God. Which made me think about Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane. Praying to...Himself? And that made me think...not for the first time...that a lot of the problems of Christianity (for me) stem from the attempts to link the New Testament to the Old.
Speaking of, Hobbes did a number on that in these 10 when he linked Baptism to the washing of cured lepers in the OT and Communion to "the Eating...of the Paschall Lamb." For me, the problem is that the Old Testament is a story based upon violence and cruelty (with occasional moments of peace and kindness), while the New Testament is a story based upon peace and kindness (with...well, you know what kind of eyes she got).
ANYway, somewhere in there I thought, "When did this Trinity stuff first pop up, anyway?" and I went online to see what I could see. I found a book written by St. Augustine entitled De Trinitate ...available for a buck on Kindle...and I'm going to have a look at that. Don't know if I have the strength to read the whole thing, but we'll see how it goes. News as it happens.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the beginning of CHAPTER XLII. OF POWER ECCLESIASTICALL to the end of the "And Teach" sub-section.
BTW...a smidge above 71% finished now, so I've made it to a D!
Day Forty-Nine (DDRD 1,049): September 15, 2020
In today's Sunday School lesson, there were a few surprises for me.
Surprise the First: According to Hobbes (henceforth that will be AtH), there is no mention of the concept of The Trinity in the Bible...except when it mentions The Trinity. "God, who has been Represented (that is, Personated) thrice, may properly enough be said to be three Persons; though neither the word Person, nor Trinity be ascribed to him in the Bible. St. John indeed (1 Epist. 5.7.) saith, 'There be three that bear witnesse in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these Three are One:'" Well...I don't know what to say about that.
Surprise the Second: AtH, Moses was God. Yep. First time I have heard that one. Though in retrospect, I have to admit that the resemblance is striking.
[This just in from the Happy To Help Department: as I was posting the picture of God, Jacqueline was walking past me, and she stopped and asked, "Is that Moses?" See what I'm sayin'? (Both pictures Public Domain, btw.)]
"For so God the Father, as Represented by Moses, is one Person...."
Surprise the Third: AtH, it's okay to deny Christ if your Soveraign tells you to do that: "Profession with the tongue is but an externall thing, and no more then any other gesture whereby we signifie our obedience...." He also addresses the Problem with respect to martyrs who gave up their lives rather than by denying Christ by pointing out that
"...we are to distinguish the persons that have been for that cause put to death; whereof some have received a Calling to preach, and professe the Kingdome of Christ openly; others have had no such Calling, nor more has been required of them than their owne faith. The former sort, if they have been put to death, for bearing witnesse to this point, that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, were true Martyrs; For a Martyr is, (to give the true definition of the word) a Witnesse of the Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah; which none can be but those that conversed with him on earth, and saw him after he was risen: For a Witnesse must have seen what he testifieth, or else his testimony is not good."
In other words...you ain't no martyr, so feel free to deny Christ.
Sheesh.
Interesting coincidence: after reading today's 10 and writing the above, Jacqueline asked me to read to her. One of the things we are reading is a Bible, and we just happened to be reading the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. You know, the guys who were consigned to the Fiery Furnace because they would not bow down to Nebuchadnezzar's idol? Good thing they didn't read Hobbes, otherwise we'd have missed out on that story.
TOMRROW'S 10 PAGES: from the "To Baptize;" sub-section to the end of the "Of Persons Liable To Excommunication" sub-section...which in my text has a side-note of "I Sam. 8" in the margin which is not present in the Project Gutenberg e-text.
Day Fifty (DDRD 1,050): September 16, 2020
You know, for a Christian fellah, Hobbes has some pretty strange ideas about some of the major tenets of faith...or at least some pretty strange ways of stating his perspective. For instance...baptism?
"Baptisme is the Sacrament of Allegeance...."
Is that really the best way to look at "Baptisme"? Imagine the clouds parting above Jesus's head, the dove descending, and a booming voice saying, "This is my beloved son, who has pledged allegiance to me!" It just isn't right, y'know? And let's not even talk about excommunication. Sheesh.
What a fascist.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the "Of The Interpreter Of The Scriptures Before Civill Soveraigns Became Christians" sub-section to the end of the "Of The Power Of Councells To Make The Scripture Law" sub-section. Which is 4192 words / 23, 373 characters (19219 characters excluding spaces), by the way.
Day Fifty-One (DDRD 1,051): September 17, 2020
Have to confess that today's Bible lesson wore me down a bit--especially when Hobbes started throwing down the ten commandments, then reinterpreted them all fron an Obey Your Leader perspective. To wit--
"Of these two Tables, the first containeth the law of Soveraignty; 1. That they should not obey, nor honour the Gods of other Nations, in these words, "Non habebis Deos alienos coram me," that is, "Thou shalt not have for Gods, the Gods that other Nations worship; but onely me:" whereby they were forbidden to obey, or honor, as their King and Governour, any other God, than him that spake unto them then by Moses, and afterwards by the High Priest. 2. That they "should not make any Image to represent him;" that is to say, they were not to choose to themselves, neither in heaven, nor in earth, any Representative of their own fancying, but obey Moses and Aaron, whom he had appointed to that office. 3. That "they should not take the Name of God in vain;" that is, they should not speak rashly of their King, nor dispute his Right, nor the commissions of Moses and Aaron, his Lieutenants. 4. That "they should every Seventh day abstain from their ordinary labour," and employ that time in doing him Publique Honor."
I mean...seriously...who does Hobbes think he is, Bill Barr?
So today was a bit wearying, to be honest.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the beginning of the "Of The Right Of Constituting Ecclesiasticall Officers In The Time Of The Apostles" sub-section to the end of the "In Our Saviours Time, And After" sub-section. So I'm guessing that we are not getting off the Christianity Supports Fascism merry-go-round anytime soon.
Day Fifty-Two (DDRD 1,052): September 18, 2020
Well...disciples, mostly. I found myself wondering if Adam Smith went off on Christianity in Wealth of Nations, which I was thinking about reading next. I'm going to have to look into that, because if he did...I am going to need to read something else next. I am fascinated by and love reading progressive theology, but this fundamentalist shit just grinds my ass.
That said, I was impressed that Hobbes seems to be working from his own knowledge of Greek...to wit:
So there's that.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the "The Ministers Of The Gospel Lived On The Benevolence Of Their Flocks" sub-section to the end of the "Cardinal Bellarmines Books De Summo Pontifice Considered" sub-section.
P.S. I took a little peek at Wealth of Nations via a few word searches and found this:
God 0
Jesus 0
Savior / Saviour 0
Christ 0
Christian 3
Christianity 2
Salvation 0
Gospel 1
Lord 79--
most of which are the back end of landlord, and all of the others are used as a reference to the title
The table of contents didn't seem to indicate an room for theological matters, either. So maybe I do have the energy to take on Wealth of Nations (that is to say...An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations).
Day Fifty-Three (DDRD 1,053): September 19, 2020
TBH, today's reading made my balls hurt. The Soveraign* has the power to...well, do anything. Shit on your driveway. Fuck your sister. And then there was WAY too much information on the laying on of hands. This juxtaposition of absolute loyalty to the Dear Leader with Christian fundamentalism is wearing me out. Hit page 576 today. 153 pages to go. I can tough it out, right? Well, probably. But I doubt that I could if I weren't taking the 10 pages a day approach.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the "The first book" subsection to the paragraph beginning, "Secondly, he alledgeth that of Matth. 16...." Because there's no sub-section close to my ten page goal.
* I just looked back and saw that auto-correct has been changing my "Soveraign"s (Hobbes' spelling) to "Sovereign"s. Don't have the strength to go back and change them, but hey, Auto-correct...fuck you.
Day Fifty-Four (DDRD 1,054): September 20, 2020
I may have to quit drinking...or cut back to just a couple. Seems that every time I have more than that...five big shots of whiskey last night...I feel really good until it's time to go to bed, and then, even though I'm sober as a judge, I either can't get to sleep, only sleep a few hours and wake up, or, as was the case last night, both. I finally gave up completely around 3 am and started listening to some Joseph Haydn string quartets, thinking that might lull me back to sleep...but no dice. So I settled down on the sofa and...nope. So I started reading Leviathan, thinking that surely that would put me out. But I cleared the "Secondly, he alledgeth that of Matth. 16..." sentence without a single moment of nodding off. Which is not to say that I had any fun at all during those ten pages...which started with a summary of four of Robert Bellarmine's books, then went deep into the question of The Infallibility Of The Popes Judgement In Points Of Faith. Mmm-hmmm. But you know...I have so much day ahead of me (still only 7:40 am as I write this) that I'm thinking of knocking out a few more pages of Leviathan...possibly even another ten. Because the going is tough, for sure, but you know what they say about that: when the going gets tough, the weird turn pro. So we'll see how it goes, but yeah, I might could do some more today. To be honest, I wouldn't mind finishing this thing off early so I can move on to bigger and better things. Probably Wealth of Nations. Though I'm also eyeing that Winston Churchill 6 volume The Second World War boxed set. Not to mention lots of other things.
And?
Well, I was beginning to think I didn't have it in me, as I was so tired...and my youngest son kept calling me (2 hours total phone time)...and I rode my stationary bike for an hour...and I watched a football game...and then started watching another...but then I thought, No, I'm going to read a few more pages, and I did. I read to where the sub-section "The Question Of Superiority Between The Pope And Other Bishops" starts. I was thinking that this would even things out, but with this as tomorrow's starting point, there's no obvious end point for TOMMORW'S 10 PAGES. So it will be from the start of the sub-section just mentioned up to sentence which begins, "But Spirituall Common-wealth there is none in this world...."
Oh, there was one thing which I found noteworthy in "Today's 10" (which was more like 16 pages):
"...our Saviour himself came not to Judge, that is, to be King in this world; but to Sacrifice himself for Sinners, and leave Doctors in his Church, to lead, not to drive men to Christ, who never accepteth forced actions, (which is all the Law produceth,) but the inward conversion of the heart; which is not the work of Laws, but of Counsell, and Doctrine."
I was especially fond of the "Christ...never accepteth forced actions, ...but the inward conversion of the heart...." It's not surprising in and of itself, but I think it does go to the heart of the Christian matter.
Thassall.
136 pages to go.
Day Fifty-Five (DDRD 1,055): September 21, 2020
Today's 10 focused on the Power of the Pope...which was at least a if not the subject of the Bellarmine books that Hobbes has been beating to death for the past twenty pages or so. Here's a puzzlement:
Hobbes (or perhaps Hobbes' Bellarmine) makes reference to the "fact" that the Pope gets his power from Christ. Well. Obviously that only works if you see Peter as the first Pope, and I guess you can do that if'n you want to, but there are some problems with that kind of thing, namely (1) the Church did not yet exist, and if there's no Church, there's no Pope, and (2) Jesus never used the word Pope, did he? So as much as I appreciate the Catholic church, I have to say that pegging this whole hierarchy thing on Jesus seems false to me...like they're trying to legitimize the choices they made my suggesting that Jesus started it.
Somewhere long the way in today's reading there was this phrase: "some are Bishops but of own Town, some of a hundred Towns...." The word "own" appears 514 times in the text of this book. I wasn't about to check every one of them, but I did look at more than a few, and in every case "own" meant "own," not "one." So TA-DA, looks like we have a 400 year old typo here, folks. Well, okay...369 year old typo.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from "But Spirituall Common-wealth there is none in this world...." to the end of the "Faith comes by Hearing" sub-section.
125 pages to go. Which is, by the way, a mere 37,691 words. Or 21,1761 characters. (17,4414 excluding spaces.)
Sigh.
Day Fifty-Six (DDRD 1,056): September 22, 2020
Okay...check this shit out:
"...Christians, (or men of what Religion soever,) if they tolerate not their King, whatsoever law hee maketh, though it bee concerning Religion, doe violate their faith, contrary to the Divine Law...."
I mean...wow. But even though it's as complete a piece of bullshit as I have ever encountered in all of my born days, it does make sense of two things: (1) the Seventh Day Adventists Pat and I ran into the park, who, when I asked them what they thought of Trump, said, "We don't get involved in politics at all." and (2) why the religious right would be so devoted to Trump. Both of these examples show stupidity of a devastating stature, of course, but still...at least I can understand that stupidity in the light of Mr. Hobbes.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the "Proved From The Scope Of The Evangelists" sub-section to the end of the "Errors From Misinterpreting The Scriptures, Concerning The Kingdome Of God" sub-section. Which is actually a bit more than ten pages, but by going to this point I actually go under 100 pages to go, and I need me some of that.
Woo-hoo.
Day Fifty-Seven (DDRD 1,057): September 23, 2020
A surprise: today's "ten pages" were actually pretty interesting. We are whole hog into theology now, and I don't expect that we will pull out before this ends. Speaking of which, I am now under 100 pages to go, so woofuckinghoo on that. That means 10 more days at my current pace...and there is that in me which wants to pour it on now and get through, so we'll see how that urge holds up when it comes to putting it into action.
ANYway, some of the interesting bits from today:
There's a reference to Mark 1:15 wherein Hobbes says, "our Saviour preached, saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand, Repent and Beleeve the Evangile,' that is, the Good news that the Christ was come. Therefore to Repent, and to Beleeve that Jesus is the Christ, is all that is required to Salvation." First off, this was a reminder to me of a moment in one of Father Eugene Zoeller's theology classes (I took 5 of them...so I kind of minored in theology there, didn't I?) wherein Father Zoeller referred to Jesus saying that the Kingdom of God was at hand...and how He was clearly wrong. Wow, that was a shocking moment for me...and I was a Lutheran-reared non-believer at the time, so I can imagine how those poor Catholic boys and girls were feeling. But this much is true: there are several references in the New Testament to the end being nigh, and here we are, still waiting. I would like to talk to somebody about that at some point in the near future. I also thought it was interesting that after quoting the line from Mark, Hobbes seems to go off on his own interpretation. Or is he just summarizing what comes after? Let's have a look, shall we?
14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
16 Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.
18 And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him.
Now, first of a--um, what? Oh, yes, thank you for noticing. You know, I have been very unhappy with the new format that Blogger has forced upon me. I confess that that is at least partially (and maybe even mostly, but not all-ly) because any change disorients me, and I don't like to be disoriented...especially not with respect to something as near and dear to my heart as this blog. But when I went to change the font on those Bible verses, I noticed for the first time that there was an option on the pull down menu that said, "Add more fonts." Hmmm? So I had a look. And my gosh...there were tons of fonts. I looked for a Gothic one, as I thought that would be perfect for a Bible verse (I'm just an old-fashioned guy, I guess...like mid-15th century old-fashioned), but none of the Gothic types I found were very Gothic looking. So I poked around for a bit. Enough to see that my life is too short to look at all of the fonts available. But I liked the look of this Eagle Lake one, so I went for it.
Now where was I? Bible. Right. Okay. So you can see that in the Bible itself, Jesus says the kingdom of God is at hand and then he moves on down the road. Everything that follows "that is"--to wit, "the Good news that the Christ was come. Therefore to Repent, and to Beleeve that Jesus is the Christ, is all that is required to Salvation"--is Hobbes interpreting the text. And while most of what he has to say is not a stretch, that last sentence quoted is definitely not in the words of the Bible as quoted here. It's a little hard to give full credence to a guy who is willing to Procrustean Bed the Bible like that, y'know? And he does it for the same reason that people usually do such a thing: because he has a point to make, so he's shaving everything down to make it match that point. That is not what logical, fair-minded people do, though. That is the work of propagandists and other liars.
Another interesting statement: "when wee are said to be Justified by Works, it is to be understood of the Will, which God doth alwaies accept for the Work it selfe, as well in good, as in evill men." And more than interesting, a comforting statement. God accepts what you want to do over what you actually do. Of course, this is just Hobbes talking, and we already know that he's a lying liar, but hey...even a stopped 🕰, right? This, by the way, follows a discussion of how a human being's works are never purely good, which I would have to say seems to be true, so it's nice that Hobbes sees a chance for us to get a little leg room on this issue.
I also liked this bit a lot:
"...it is not the bare Words, but the Scope of the writer that giveth the true light, by which any writing is to bee interpreted; and they that insist upon single Texts, without considering the main Designe, can derive no thing from them cleerly; but rather by casting atomes of Scripture, as dust before mens eyes, make every thing more obscure than it is; an ordinary artifice of those that seek not the truth, but their own advantage."
Kind of ironic that the "casting atomes" and "dust" bit is basically what I just accused Hobbes of doing with Mark 1:15...but hey, God is an Iron. (Quoth the Spider Robinson.)
And I must also refer to this, as I think it is a perfect description of the current state of the Republican Party:
"This considered, the Kingdome of Darknesse, as it is set forth in these, and other places of the Scripture, is nothing else but a 'Confederacy of Deceivers, that to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavour by dark, and erroneous Doctrines, to extinguish in them the Light, both of Nature, and of the Gospell; and so to dis-prepare them for the Kingdome of God to come.'"
You feel me? BTW, I don't know what is up with those interior quotation marks. I Googled around to see if Hobbes was quoting someone else, but the only hits I got were from Leviathan. Another mystery. Which kind of makes me want to read a book about Leviathan all over again...a desire which I thought Hobbes had extinguished in me with all of his filly farting around. We'll see.
And (dirty in rumpled raincoat, turning in the doorway, cigar in hand) just one more thing: Hobbes has referred to that moment in the Old Testament where the Children of Israel told God that they were tired of being run by Judges and wanted a Real King like all of the other countries had quite a few times. Clearly because the ax he is grinding has to do with God as the ultimate and paradigmatic Soveraign. Or is that just the dust I'm throwing in your eyes? Anyway...he has referred to that story quite a few times, and did it again in this section.
TOMORROW 10 PAGES: from the sub-section "As That The Kingdome Of God Is The Present Church" to the end of the sub-section "Answer To The Text On Which Beza Infereth That The Kingdome Of Christ Began At The Resurrection"...which is actually just 10 pages in my edition, so you know...ANYTHING can happen.
Day Fifty-Eight (DDRD 1,058): September 24, 2020
I have to admit that I thought today's ten was going to be another tedious read, and it did, indeed, start out that way, but then somebody lit a fire under Mr. Hobbes' esteemed ass and the resultant heat must have caused some fluids to expand rapidly, because the man really blew a gasket. Maybe more than one.
The Short Version: Hobbes tore into Catholicism like a man possessed.
The Long Version:
It starts with what seems like a snitty little comment: "... the Pope pretendeth that all Christians are his subjects."
But then Hobbes takes off the kid gloves 🐐🧤and throws some serious haymakers:
"...the Priest, in stead of Consecrating Bread and Wine to Gods peculiar service in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper...pretends, that by saying of the words of our Saviour, "This is my Body," and "This is my Blood," the nature of Bread is no more there, but his very Body; notwithstanding there appeared not to the Sight, or other Sense of the Receiver, any thing that appeareth not before the Consecration." That in itself constitutes some serious 🔥, but Hobbes is just getting warmed up. He goes on to accuse the archetypical priest in the act of consecrating the host of being guilty of performing magic! Or, more accurately, of pretending to perform magic. Picking right up from where he left off above, he goes on to say:
"The Egyptian Conjurers, that are said to have turned their Rods to Serpents, and the Water into Bloud, are thought but to have deluded the senses of the Spectators by a false shew of things, yet are esteemed Enchanters: But what should wee have thought of them, if there had appeared in their Rods nothing like a Serpent, and in the Water enchanted, nothing like Bloud, nor like any thing else but Water, but that they had faced down the King, that they were Serpents that looked like Rods, and that it was Bloud that seemed Water? That had been both Enchantment, and Lying. And yet in this daily act of the Priest, they doe the very same, by turning the holy words into the manner of a Charme, which produceth nothing now to the Sense; but they face us down, that it hath turned the Bread into a Man; nay more, into a God; and require men to worship it, as if it were our Saviour himself present God and Man, and thereby to commit most grosse Idolatry. For if it bee enough to excuse it of Idolatry, to say it is no more Bread, but God; why should not the same excuse serve the Egyptians, in case they had the faces to say, the Leeks, and Onyons they worshipped, were not very Leeks, and Onyons, but a Divinity under their Species, or likenesse. The words, 'This is my Body,' are aequivalent to these, 'This signifies, or represents my Body;' and it is an ordinary figure of Speech: but to take it literally, is an abuse; nor though so taken, can it extend any further, than to the Bread which Christ himself with his own hands Consecrated. For hee never said, that of what Bread soever, any Priest whatsoever, should say, 'This is my Body,' or, 'This is Christs Body,' the same should presently be transubstantiated. Nor did the Church of Rome ever establish this Transubstantiation, till the time of Innocent the third; which was not above 500. years agoe, when the Power of Popes was at the Highest, and the Darknesse of the time grown so great, as men discerned not the Bread that was given them to eat, especially when it was stamped with the figure of Christ upon the Crosse, as if they would have men beleeve it were Transubstantiated, not onely into the Body of Christ, but also into the Wood of his Crosse, and that they did eat both together in the Sacrament."
That is some fierce shit. I am not nor have I ever been a Catholic, but I have to admit that this offended me a bit. And I certainly am not without my own objections to the doctrine of transubstantiation. But I'm not rude about it! Also note that Hobbes says that to take Christ's words about the bread and the wine "is an abuse." Kind of funny that Hobbes started out talking about metaphorical language as a kind of abuse, but now that wormed has turned a full 180° and he is insisting that anything other than a metaphorical interpretation is an abuse. For fuck's sake.
One more big tirade in this section--this time against purgatory.
"...when the Body was dead, the Soule of every man, whether godly, or wicked, must subsist somewhere by vertue of its own nature, without acknowledging therein any supernaturall gift of Gods; the Doctors of the Church doubted a long time, what was the place, which they were to abide in, till they should be re-united to their Bodies in the Resurrection; supposing for a while, they lay under the Altars: but afterward the Church of Rome found it more profitable, to build for them this place of Purgatory; which by some other Churches in this later age, has been demolished."
Found it more profitable. Man, that is some master level snide going on. I also found it amusing that Hobbes was so coy in the last phrase here..."some other Churches." Heh.
So I have to admit that I was fascinated by this unpleasantness. Also by the fact that Hobbes has assented to his belief in miracles and the resurrection and the ascension and the second coming and lots of other things which are way beyond the natural world...but he draws the line when it comes to issues of faith which contradict the branch of Christianity he's chosen to cling to. That seems rather small minded to me. If you're going to bring your powers of reason to bear upon religious matters, then you shouldn't shy away from looking at your own accepted beliefs, hmmm?
First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:5)
I had another early wake up (4 am), so after a little Haydn video and after a 6 am call from my #2🌞, I polished off today's ten. Which does leave me room for a bit more later. I don't really see that happening, but you never know. Sometimes the spirit catches you and you fall down.
"TOMORROW'S" 10 PAGES: starts with the sub-section "Explication Of The Place In Mark 9.1" and ends with the sub-section "Places Of The New Testament For Purgatory Answered"...which is just a tad over ten pages, actually, but that latter sub-section is relatively long. So there's that.
Day Fifty-Nine (DDRD 1,059): September 25, 2020
Another pretty interesting reading. And another pretty fierce attack...I suppose specifically against Catholicism, though I'm not sure. It goes like this:
"We read not that St. John did Exorcise the Water of Jordan; nor Philip the Water of the river wherein he baptized the Eunuch; nor that any Pastor in the time of the Apostles, did take his spittle, and put it to the nose of the person to be Baptized, and say, "In odorem suavitatis," that is, "for a sweet savour unto the Lord;" wherein neither the Ceremony of Spittle, for the uncleannesse; nor the application of that Scripture for the levity, can by any authority of man be justified."
I mean...yowza. That is seriously nasty. Hobbes uses the word "spittle" three times in the course of this long book: two of them in this passage another another time ("the unhallowed Spittle of the Priest") in a separate reference to baptism.
Later on, Hobbes takes on Purgatory. He basically says there's no scriptural evidence for it, which I'd have to say seems true to me (having read the Bible through twice as of this writing). In the course of this refutation, he makes reference to Hebrews 13:5...and there seems to be another "interpolation" problem. Here's what Hobbes says:
" [It is said in]...Gen. 5.24. 'Enoch walked with God, and he was not; for God took him;' which is expounded Heb. 13.5. 'He was translated, that he should not die; and was not found, because God had translated him. For before his Translation, he had this testimony, that he pleased God,' making as much for the Immortality of the Body, as of the Soule, proveth, that this his translation was peculiar to them that please God; not common to them with the wicked; and depending on Grace, not on Nature." (And hence out out, damned Purgatory.)
Here's the thing, though. Here's Hebrews 13:5:
"Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."
Um...what the fuck? So I Googled the phrase "He was translated, that he should not die; and was not found, because God had translated him. For before his Translation, he had this testimony, that he pleased God," and got this:
Hebrews 11:5: "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God."
Well, mystery solved--though it looks like Hobbes wasn't using a King James translation of the Bible. But you know...there's a big difference between Hebrews 13:5 and Hebrews 11:5. How much do you trust a guy who gets a Bible reference wrong? It definitely damages my trust. (And quadruple that with respect to Hobbes' editor, and the long line of editors and proofreaders that stretch from April 1651 until today.
Two more things. One, Hobbes did win be back a might with his questioning how a merciful God could cause a soul to be tormented eternally:
"...it seemeth hard, to say, that God who is the Father of Mercies, that doth in Heaven and Earth all that hee will; that hath the hearts of all men in his disposing; that worketh in men both to doe, and to will; and without whose free gift a man hath neither inclination to good, nor repentance of evill, should punish mens transgressions without any end of time, and with all the extremity of torture, that men can imagine, and more. We are therefore to consider, what the meaning is, of Everlasting Fire, and other the like phrases of Scripture."
He takes the baton from that last bit and runs with it, concluding that the torments of the damns are just for a little bit, and then they "die eternally." (Funny that he has to hang on to that horrible torture idea, though. Does it make it better that it doesn't last forever? I would suppose so. Does it still contradict the idea of a God who is the Father of Mercies? Um...yep.
The other thing that rubbed me the right way was when Hobbes made reference to the raising of Lazarus, and basically said, "Well, where the hell was he for the four days that he was dead?" I have spent more than a little bit of time thinking about that one. I asked a very religious friend of mine about it...a very smart, highly educated fellow, by the way...and he smiled and said, "Some things we just can't understand." My least favorite answer. It is indicative of nothing but fear and insecurity so far as I can tell.
Ixnay on hathay. It was a bad day, and for this and that reason I found myself back in Leviathan, and so I decided to go ahead and read up to page
Sorry to say that the extra pages I read today weren't all that thrilling, but hey...on the bright side, I am now 91/358024691358% of the way through this book.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the "Answer to Certain Seeming Texts for Images" sub-section (anybody else smell another attack on Catholicism cooking?) to the end of the "Answer to the Argument From the Cherubins, and Brazen Serpent" sub-section.
Day Sixty (DDRD 1,060): September 26, 2020
Decided to combine my pleasures / pursuits this morning and read today's 10 whilst listening to Haydn's 5th and 6th Symphonies (combined length of about 40 minutes, so I actually got to listen to all of 5 and a bit of 6). And it was good. I definitely was not paying a whole lot of attention to the music, but (1) I had already listened to 5 a half-dozen times, and I will go back to 6, and (2) I think that having music which is not intrusive in the background helps me to focus more steadily, actually. Why that would be I do not really know. One thought: my brain tends to bubble and leap about quite a bit when I read, so maybe having the music playing helped me because I had a direct message of "you have to focus" going for me. Or maybe it's just magic. What the hell do I know.
At any rate, today's reading was a very nice exercise in logical thinking. It starts with a subject to examine: The Worship of Images. It then goes on to define all of the terms which will be involved--what is worship, what is an image, what is idolatry--and comes to the (unsurprising) conclusion that it is idolatry to worship Graven Images unless (1) God tells you to do it--with references to the cherubim which were a part of the ark of the Covenant and the bronze serpent thingie or (2) you are forced to do so by someone who is threatening to kill you. Though as for that, Hobbes notes that it is better to let them kill you, and that if you are a religious leader that it is a sin if you do not choose to let them kill you. All of which just boils down to another reason why Hobbes hates Catholics and Catholicism. The big objection to worship of Graven Images / Idols--aside from the fact that it is expressly prohibited by the second commandment--seems to be that since the infinite cannot be expressed in the finite, to worship a finite representation of the infinite demeans the infinite. Which seems like a nice logical conclusion, so hats off to Hobbes on that. On the other hand...can a finite human being demean an infinite God? Do I really care if a gnat says "Fuck you!" to me? Well.
This section ends on two notes which amused me. The first is when Hobbes says, "...some man may think it impossible for people to be so stupid, as to think the Image to be God, or a Saint; or to worship it in that notion; yet it is manifest in Scripture to the contrary...." I don't know, maybe it's just that you don't expect the phrase "so stupid" to appear in a 17th century work? Or maybe it's just me.
The other note ♪ is just a beat after the first, and goes like this: "And wee see daily by experience in all sorts of People, that such men as study nothing but their food and ease, are content to beleeve any absurdity, rather than to trouble themselves to examine it; holding their faith as it were by entaile unalienable, except by an expresse and new Law." I think it might work even better if you leave out a few bits, thus:
"...People...are content to beleeve any absurdity, rather than to trouble themselves to examine it..."
That pretty much sums up the whole 🐘 Party for me right now. (Just sayin', sir.)
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the "Painting Of Fancies No Idolatry: Abusing Them To Religious Worship Is" sub-section (so you can see that we're not through riding that train yet, eh?) to the end of the "University What It Is" sub-section.
BTW...almost 93% now. With a teacher who doesn't mind rounding up a smidge, I've made it to an A- now. (At least for those teachers who aren't on that Pussy A = 90% scale.) But I want an A+ at least. Without any rounding up. In fact, I want extra credit.
BTW2...only 52 pages to go. Very exciting. I think I'm going to go down to the basement and see if I can find my set of Churchill books on World War II and start making my final decision as to What Comes Next.
Day Sixty-One (DDRD 1,061): September 27, 2020
A pretty unpleasant 10 pages today, as Hobbes takes the torch to Catholicism and the Greeks. He really bears down on Catholicism, and asserts that pretty much everything from images to Saints to processions to the Pope is the product of early Christianity whoring itself out to the pagans and allowing their practices to be incorporated into the Christian church. One of these accusations did amuse me, though:
"...They their Procession of Priapus; wee our fetching in, erection, and dancing about May-poles...."
From pole to pole indeed. But our good friends at Wikipedia say that this is bullshit:
"Some observers have proposed phallic symbolism, an idea which was expressed by Thomas Hobbes, who erroneously believed that the poles dated back to the Roman worship of the god Priapus. This notion has been supported by various figures since, including the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud." (Wikipedia)
Hobbes also puts his great trust in the power of Reason up full frontal, saying, "...nothing is produced by Reasoning aright, but generall, eternall, and immutable Truth." Hmpf. Seems to me that some things have been produced by Reasoning aright which have led to death, destruction, and immutable cruelty, but maybe it's just me.
At any rate, it was an unpleasant ten pages for me. The good news? Not that many ten pages to go at this point. Four of them, to be precise.
TOMORROW'S 10 PAGES: from the "Errors Brought Into Religion From Aristotles Metaphysiques" sub-section to the puzzlingly titled "And That All Government But Popular, Is Tyranny" sub-section.
BTW: Only 12,716 words / 72,463 characters / 59,876 characters excluding spaces to go! Woot! Woot!
Day Sixty-Two (DDRD 1,062): September 28, 2020
Ended up going a little bit farther...read "That not Men, but Law governs"...which put me on page 700. What can I say, I like round numbers. Anyway....
This time around Hobbes accuses Aristotle of caving in to the Grecian government on the issues of "entities and essences," which he said were corroborative of their religion, because he feared that he would suffer the same fate as Socrates. I'm pretty sure that that is bullshit.
Hobbes does ask a good question, though his target for it is not the same as mine would be. "Can any man think that God is served with such absurdities?" Yeah, that's a question for the Religious Right, for sure.
TOMOROW'S 10 PAGES: from "Laws over the Conscience" sub-section to the end of "The Authors of spirituall Darknesse, who they be"...which will put me on page 712 of 729!
Day Sixty-Three (DDRD 1,063): September 29, 2020
Wow. Today just shows me more of the reason that I am so disappointed in and so ready to be done with this book. Once again Hobbes launches into an attack on Catholicism, and once again he goes way beyond the realm of justifiable / reasonable strategy. This reaches its apex with two absurd assertions:
(1) "...the Papacy, is no other, than the Ghost of the deceased Romane Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof: For so did the Papacy start up on a Sudden out of the Ruines of that Heathen Power." To which he adds this "proof": "The Language also, which they use, both in the Churches, and in their Publique Acts, being Latine, which is not commonly used by any Nation now in the world, what is it but the Ghost of the Old Romane Language." For fuck's sake. Hobbes was the Alex Jones of his day, apparently. But then he takes it an extra step too far and asserts that...
(2) "...their whole Hierarchy, or Kingdome of Darknesse, may be compared not unfitly to the Kingdome of Fairies...." And he goes on to show several "parallels" between Catholicism and Fairy Kingdoms. As if calling the Church the "Kingdome of Darknesse" weren't enough.
Actually (2) came before (1) in the text, but I was thinking in terms of a hierarchy of stupidity, so I wanted to end with the Fairy Kingdom bit.
Let's put it this way: if this kind of shit had been in the early part of this book, I would have put it down and never gone back to it. As it is, though, I now have a mere 3,926 words to go (I read a little bit farther than my goal for the day...which left me with only the A REVIEW, AND CONCLUSION section to go), so I'm going to finish the walk and then take The Rolling Stones' advice in "Sweet Virginia" and scrape that shit right off my shoe.
Okay. That said, there were actually two bits which I thought were worthy of preserving in today's "10" pages.
"...the best men are the least suspicious of fraudulent purposes." That hit a personal note with me, as I have often been blindsided by the fraudulence of my fellow man...and especially my fellow women...and it at least makes me feel better to think that perhaps my naiveté indicates some measure of quality in my person. Of course, Hobbes could be wrong, too.
Speaking of naiveté, check this out: "...power is preserved by the same Vertues by which it is acquired; that is to say, by Wisdome, Humility, Clearnesse of Doctrine, and sincerity of Conversation; and not by suppression of the Naturall Sciences, and of the Morality of Naturall Reason; nor by obscure Language; nor by Arrogating to themselves more Knowledge than they make appear; nor by Pious Frauds...." I mean, think of the Trump administration and see how completely naive / ass backwards this statement is when applied to the political realities of our day.
Sheesh.
Okay. So tomorrow is it. Unless I decide to just get it over with and swallow the last clump today, which I am thinking of doing. It will take some whiskey, for sure, but I have some of that.
And then? Well, I have been prevaricating like a son of a bitch as to what should come next. I am now considering...
An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
by Adam Smith
The Second World War
by Winston Churchill
Stalingrad
by Vasily Grossman
(which would be my first non-fiction for DDR)
Pacific War Trilogy
by Ian W. Toll
(which I just happened upon and started nibbling at...and have found it quite a pleasing scent to my nostrils)
And those are just the front runners. There are another half-dozen in the "Someday" pile. But hey, I still have at least 24 hours to decide, so we'll see what happens.
And...I knocked it back, man. Finished. Finito. Done.
I feel relieved.
There were two more things I wanted to note, though. First, I thought this bit was pretty spot on: "...there is scarce a Common-wealth in the world, whose beginnings can in conscience be justified." I mean...for REAL, man. Can't say that I expected that kind of observation from Mr. Hobbes.
The other, however, is not to my liking...and in a way it sums up all that I find wrong with Mr. Hobbes. It goes like this:
"...all Truth of Doctrine dependeth either upon Reason, or upon Scripture...."
It makes me laugh to think there was a time when I wondered if Hobbes was a religious sort of guy. He is a fucking religious MANiac. And all of his political perspectives seem to derive from that Old Testament paradigm wherein God was the ruler...because of His power, not because of his right (this is explicitly stated by Hobbes, by the way)...which Hobbes then uses as the model for the earthly Soveraign. And it is just bullshit. For one thing, no human is good enough to be a stand-in for God, and to pretend that that can be so is just ridiculous. Also reference that quote, I would simply say, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Hobbesy, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
In fact, you know what? That's a real fine place to end. Except to say that my advice to you, young friend, is not to waste your time on Leviathan. I can't say that I'm completely sorry to have read it, but I certainly could have lived without it.
Onward and upward.
You can access the full text of Leviathan here:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment