Last Thursday we made sense of Hobbes' Leviathan. He begins by stating that previous thinkers like Descartes were wasting their time with what cannot be know ie. the existence of God. He makes it clear that his Leviathan pays no regard to God. Instead it focuses is on what we can know, and all we can know is known through the senses, thus he proposes a solely materialistic world. He states that in this world a commonwealth can only have on e Leviathan who is chosen by those with in the commonwealth. I find that Hobbes proposes a very sound argument for how the world is, however I do feel that it is flawed in one aspect. That is that Hobbes, despite his strong opposition to wasting any time pondering any sort of theory about God and his existence, seems to unintentionally point to the existence of some greater being in his Leviathan. Using the argument he does it is unavoidable that he imply the existence of some greater being, even though he is so adamantly opposed to discussing the idea. The key ingredient to Hobbes’ Leviathan is the sovereign who holds all the power in his commonwealth because it is freely given to him by the members of the commonwealth. For Hobbes, A=A, meaning that there can only be one sovereign who can never change. Thus, whenever we see a revolution that over throws its “sovereign” it simply means that it was never the sovereign, but only believed to be so. All this makes sense, but that means the world has never seen a real sovereign. You might say that our government is the sovereign in our society, but let’s face it our government won’t last forever. If we look at history and our experience no government lasts forever, so who is sovereign? Hobbes depiction of the leviathan gives the picture of a vicious cycle; there is a perceivable sovereign who is overtaken by another perceivable sovereign. But in the end there must be one sovereign who will always remain sovereign, who is all powerful. Is this not by definition God? Maybe it is not how we conventionally perceive God, but is it not God?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would say that the 'true' sovereign would be the people of the commonwealth, because ultimately they are the source of any leader's power. I think that Hobbes calls the person who is given this power by the people the sovereign. This sovereign can and does change. In revolution, such as the French Revolution, the sovereign, Louis XVI was obviously not the sovereign power anymore. He was no longer supported by the people. The people took their power into their own hands, and Hobbes argues that ultimately the people are even more worse off because of it. Even though people suffered under the reign of Louis XVI, more people suffered under the reign of terror that followed.
ReplyDeleteI do see why the sovereign may be perceived as God since he is given power, but, unlike God the sovereign can change. However, a question I have wondered is that it almost sounds like the sovereign is predestined (by God perhaps). It seems to have a religious backing in this sense. Although the people technically choose the sovereign, everything happens for a reason and it seems like a higher being may be the one ultimately controlling who the sovereign is. Maybe this is a stretch but to me it sounds like the divine has something to do with it.
ReplyDeleteThere is always a definite sovereign, whether it is the person who was appointed the power or someone else. All the sovereign means is the power (head) of the common-wealth. Hobbes says there should never be two heads but it is still entirely possible. It’s an entity of power backed by the common-wealth.
ReplyDeleteIts true no government last forever but that does not mean that was never a true sovereign, or many different true sovereigns for that fact. Just because a sovereign changes does not mean that entity was never the true sovereign at some point in time. There does not have to be one ruling dominating sovereign. The power is allowed to shift. This is a necessary shift because without it the power would reside in the sovereign instead of in the people where it belongs.
Further, god cannot be a sovereign because God can't protect the common-wealth. Also saying that the overturning of sovereigns is the existence of a higher sovereign is flawed due to the fact that an overturning of a sovereign is extremely bad for the common-wealth. Hobbes explains this from his experiences with civil war. So if a higher power did control the continuing change of power, that power would not be a sovereign. I think a vicious cycle proves the lack of higher sovereign but says nothing about the lack of a higher power. Just that that power can’t be a sovereign.
Although I think your (claire) argument is a really interesting way of looking at it, hobbes would probably tell us to grow up. I feel like this theory is too idealistic for him and I have to agree with ben, in that the people are the true sovereign. As Hobbes said, we are the authors of the sovereign, so technically we are making our laws and leading ourselves. However, we need this sovereign position as a physical construct of a leader to keep us united, otherwise it would be chaos. Also, Elise, I completely agree with your thoughts on the idea that a sovereign being predestined must be related to God. In order for the sovereign to be predestined, which it seems to be so, there must be a systematic plan for the universe. And in order for there to be a systematic plan in the universe there must be a higher power guiding that plan. ( or maybe its midnight and ive been thinking about it for too long who knows)
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure Hobbes would agree that the sovereign is predestined. He would say that ideas of predestination are too idealistic and while nice, not relevant since we cannot know for sure. Even if we knew that some higher power was predetermining the sovereign, it would only be useful if we could either understand how or why (which with God, we can't), or have the power to change who is predestined (which again with God, we can't).
ReplyDeleteDirectly related to this discussion: Hobbes supported the doctrine of divine right of kings. However, you should consider whether you think he supported it in reality (i.e., God has had a continuous and active role in the history of political power, leading up to and investing this particular monarch as literally a "messiah" or divinely-blessed leader) or rhetorically (i.e., God has had a continuous and active role in the perception of political power, etc.).
ReplyDelete-W.
Hobbes might not want the general population to deny the divine right of kings, but he would not defend it as an actual reason some person should be the sovereign. Asserting that a particular king had the will of God behind him creates a power structure where the population isn't likely to revolt. Since an unjust ruler is better than no ruler, Hobbes would argue that the idea of the divine right of kings is a useful tool for preventing civil war. Hobbes would argue that whether or not a sovereign was actually ordained by God is irrelevant. The sovereign is the sovereign, regardless how he got this power. Hobbes might say that a more likely source of the sovereign's power is the people, but if God revealed himself to an entire population endorsing someone as sovereign, and furthermore He took action to implement this person, the sovereign would be the most power person (by far) on earth. No one could take power from him (presumably) so he would be the ultimate sovereign, at least as long as he remained in God's favor.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ben that Hobbes most likely supported the doctrine of divine right, not because he actually believed the doctrine itself, but realized that it is an incredibly useful tool. If the public believes that its sovereign was ordained by God then there is little room for the public to question the authority of this sovereign. Thus, the stability of the commonwealth becomes much easier to keep. Also it is a unifying factor which keeps disagreements among the public to a minimum.
ReplyDelete