Comments on: Nasty, Brutish and Short Revisited

By: speedbird

speedbird — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:58:31 +0000

“My own problem with the Leviathan is the abdication of personal resposibility for one’s own actions that it seems to require.”

In fact, I’m going to stick my neck out here and propose that responsibility for one’s actions is a defining characteristic of humanity. To abdicate this, to *represent* rather than to *be*, is to become a machine.

This then feeds through into the transformation of universities into sausage-factories producing ‘graduates’ who can go through the right motions without any actual understanding of the material… also the desire of large organisations to employ non-thinking members of staff to follow procedures to the letter… also the very idea of ‘intelligent’ machines… all a big merry-go-round with Hobbes at the centre. Sticks in my craw, too.

By: Jason Godesky

Jason Godesky — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 13:24:12 +0000

The idea is more prevalent than the formulation, just like far more people believe Hobbes than have read Hobbes. Such is the subtle dictatorship of philosophers. The neocons are well-known for their application of Hobbesian philosophy to international politics, as well as their marriage of Hobbesian and Machiavellian philosophies. Those are really the defining points of neoconservatism as a political philosophy.

By: speedbird

speedbird — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 12:49:14 +0000

Is that really a neocon point of view? My point was that it’s inherent in organisations driven towards continual expansion. Or is that the same thing?

By: Jason Godesky

Jason Godesky — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 12:22:38 +0000

Presumably the war of all-against-all still applies to the virtual persons of states and corporations because these are not evenly matched in the survival-resources stakes - ?

So say the neocons.

By: speedbird

speedbird — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 10:34:41 +0000

I’ve worried about Hobbes for a while, so I’m with you on this. Presumably the war of all-against-all still applies to the virtual persons of states and corporations because these are not evenly matched in the survival-resources stakes - ?

My own problem with the Leviathan is the abdication of personal resposibility for one’s own actions that it seems to require. When asked, most people say they are responsible citizens; when pushed, this turns out not to be the case. This disconnect seems unhealthy to me. (I’m following the work of Chris Argyris on this.)

By: Rick Larson

Rick Larson — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 03:34:11 +0000

Heres the link!:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohiia2.htm

By: Rick Larson

Rick Larson — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 03:33:25 +0000

If one becomes truly primitive, having all the senses of which comes from such activity, the chances of an untoward advance would be immediately felt and acted upon. Anotherwords, a primitive is in tune with the environment, while the perpetrator is only in tune with potential victims standing out as an angry bear.

Yes there are people who would sacrifice themselves for others. In the link below, find Owen Hammerberg, a relative.

By: erosoplier

erosoplier — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 10:21:06 +0000

We (as a species, most all of us thus far) have a distorted view of “what we are” and “what we may be” - we haven’t figured it out yet.

Do you admit that there are some genuinely nice people in the world? People who would, say, rather harm themselves before they would harm others? I do. And I am of the opinion that this kind of person is born with the potential - as is almost everyone other kind - but that it must be nurtured at many turns, and crucially, rarely stifled, perverted or crushed. Cruelty (and indifference) in an affluent society is little more than a contagious disease, passed from generation to generation.

All that is left is for the rest of humanity to realise this and modify their behaviour accordingly. Simple!

By: Petroleum et Imperium Americanum » The Anthropik Network

Petroleum et Imperium Americanum » The Anthropik Network — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:20:37 +0000

[…] The neoconservative philosophy owes itself primarily to Leo Strauss and his marriage of Machiaevelli and Hobbes. Neoconservatism accepts Hobbes’ basic idea of human nature, but extend his logic of “Leviathan” to a much larger context. For the neoconservatives, just as the “Leviathan” of government is necessary to liberate individual humans from their “solitary, nasty, brutish and short” existence, so, too, does the world at large require a global “Leviathan,” a power that is as ruthless as it is powerful, so that sheer, abject terror can extract obedience to the reigning social order. To the neoconservative, the natural candidate for such a Leviathan is the United States of America. […]