Political Philosophies of Democratic Governments All Over the World - Essay Example

? A Critique of Writing About Thomas Hobbes Section: Question: In the selections from “Thomas Hobbes: Skepticism, Individuality and Chastened Politics,” Richard Flathman concludes that for all of her authority, the Sovereign’s power is mainly on paper, that the Leviathan is indeed a paper tiger (Flathman 1993). How does Flathman arrive at this conclusion? Is it compelling? Does Flathman see this as a strength or a weakness to Hobbes’s argument? Do you agree with Flathman’s conclusion? Why or why not? Word Count: 2,012 (8 pages) I. Introduction (100 words) In his article Thomas Hobbes: Skepticism, Individuality and Chastened Politics, Richard Flathman unleashes a harsh critique of Thomas Hobbes’s philosophy. In examining Hobbes’s view of good and evil, we will look at how Flathman arrived at his conclusion and whether it was compelling. Then we will see how Hobbes arrives at his theory of justice and, and Flathman seeing this as a strength or a weakness to Hobbes’s argument. Finally, in reflecting upon moral philosophy, we will decide whether we agree with Flathman’s conclusion or not, and why this is believed to be so. Here begins our analysis of sovereignty. II. Good and Evil (500 words) Hobbes had very express ideas about what constituted good and evil. Hobbes states, "Another doctrine repugnant to civil society, is that whatsoever a man does against his conscience, is sin; and it dependeth on the presumption of making himself judge of good and evil. For a man's conscience and his judgement are the same thing, and as the judgement, so also the conscience may be erroneous.”1 In other words, he was basically saying that he thought whatever went against one’s conscience was supposedly sin. This drew the line between good and evil. Hobbes had developed ideas about what was real and actual and discrete out of indiscrete, abstract concepts. Surely, one can’t necessarily see “good” or “evil,” but one can witness the respective beneficial or negative effects of either aspect. Flatham says Hobbes’s concepts “…do not form binaries or dichotomies, are matters of more and less, not all or none. There are real difficulties with his epistemology and his philosophies of language and science…”2 This is untrue, because good and evil are types of binary or dichotomy. They are not matters or more and less. Just because good and evil do not necessarily have values of all or none does not make them any less relevant values. Thus, Flathman’s argument here seems baseless, as though he is just attacking Hobbes the person instead of his ideas. Flathman’s argument here, in this case, does not hold water because he is attacking the basis of the idea and not the idea itself. He has a problem with Hobbes’s epistemology, which means that he basically has a problem with the foundation of all his thought. Flathman uncharacteristically attacks Hobbes’s thought basically because he says it has no dichotomies. However, that is entirely untrue, as the very basis for Hobbes’s thought deals with the idea that indiscrete entities can indeed be given names that describe them—ideas such as love, hate, and justice. In fact, it is that concept of justice which drives Western political philosophy, due to Hobbes. If it weren’t for Hobbes’s identification of several of these principles, perhaps modern democratic governments would not be what they are today. Truly, Flathman’s criticisms are not legitimate, and they trod on a philosopher’s legacy. Hobbes sought not to make a point with dichotomies and binaries, but simply proffered his ideas as just those—ideas. He didn’t say that these concepts were set in stone. Good and evil, if they were not explicitly defined, would simply be ideas floating out there somewhere—instead of us now having a basis for some type of penal code or legal code. For, these concepts of good and evil are not some unusual or unimaginable concepts that one can’t wrap one’s head around. Good and evil are concepts that can be understood by anyone, and that one doesn’t need to be philosopher to know what right and wrong are. Flathman’s unsupported criticisms do nothing to bolster his case, and indeed—he acts like a desperate man, effectively undermining Hobbes. III. Justice (615 words) Hobbes’s ideas about justice effectively strengthen his own argument, while Flathman’s complaints about Hobbes’s arguments are fleeting and temporary. Flathman argues, “Hobbes reduces us to a choice between…order and…submission to authoritarian government…[or] assertive self-making and self-direction at the cost of disorder, conflict, and mutual destruction.”3 Indeed, the question of today is either assigning oneself to authoritarian rule or democratic rule. There is no really going in-between or waffling on this point. Either one rules oneself or someone rules over that person. Therefore, it is in the individual’s best interest to realize that one only has this moment, one may not have other moments in which to capture one’s freedom. Hobbes himself says in Leviathan that, "To this war of every man against every man, this also in consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues.”4 Many times one may have heard protesters saying, “No justice, no peace!” Where there is injustice anywhere, it is a threat to justice everywhere. In essence, Hobbes says that, at a certain point, within the war against injustice, there is no justice or injustice. There is no right or wrong in doing what is right to a certain point, he argues. Flatham argues, “The most fundamental artifice of all is inventing names and assigning them to nameless and largely incomprehensible things.”5 Flatham speaks about these things as though they had not a name because he probably does not know what it’s like to be oppressed, or homeless, or underprivileged. He is most likely a middle-aged white man, who has society on his side. He has no reason to lash out at this philosopher other than personal spite, and because Hobbes was the person upon which Western political thought was based. Flatham is basically saying that Hobbes is putting names on indiscrete objects. Well, one cannot see the wind, but we name the wind because we can see it moving the leaves on the trees. Flatham’s blatant and flagrant assertions seem to attack Hobbes more than they support him. That is why is assertion, examined in the next section—that he is supporting Hobbes’s theories—is so dubious. If someone agrees with one’s ideas, that person is not going to come outright and attack the other person’s ideas. That is the reasoning that does not make any sense. In essence, if Flatham agreed with Hobbes’s ideology, he should have made that clear in the beginning—not trying to make the reader guess where his true loyalties lie after having led them on a wild goose chase of an article which makes radical (and wrong) assumptions about Hobbes’s thoughts without any substantial proof. Truly, it is Flatham’s ignorant and puffed-up sense of self-importance that saturates his article, making the reader absolutely shocked at the end when Flatham says that he actually supports Hobbes. This is very hard to believe, if not impossible, based on the specific attacks that Flatham makes to Hobbes’s philosophy in ways that are unfair, especially since Hobbes only has his text left in order to defend himself. Indeed, Flatham has shown himself to be a nuisance as well as a liar—not to mention someone who has no conscience in the writing of this article—except for a small admission in which he says that perhaps Hobbes made his writing so obtuse and unclear that only a small portion of readers would actually understand or believe it. This is not only an insulting concept, but it also demeans the readers of Flatham’s article. IV. Moral Philosophy (515 words) Moral philosophy is an idea that Hobbes felt quite strongly about. "Moral philosophy is nothing else but the science of what is good, and evil, in the conversation, and society of mankind. Good, and evil, are names that signify our appetites, and aversions; which in different tempers, customs, and doctrines of men, are different."6 Obviously, Flatham’s moral philosophy is flawed, saying, “If we attack or defend his ideas we had better be prepared to support our own,” yet in the last paragraph of his essays states, “[m]y objective is to defend this reading of Hobbes…”7 This is quite laughable, as, throughout the whole article he has unceremoniously attacked Hobbes. What pours salt on the reader’s wound, as one makes one’s way through the article, is that, at the end, this is probably the only inkling of Flatham’s moral universe that could probably sense the fact that he was doing a great wrong by attacking Hobbes’s ideas without a solid intellectual basis of fact for it. As Hobbes himself says, "Leisure is the mother of philosophy."8 It is very obvious that Richard Flatham had the leisure to put time and effort into writing an article that was antithetical to Hobbes’s theory—but why? Who knows. The only thing that can really be understood is that Flatham, indeed, does not prove his assumptions or points with facts or evidence, but rather stays within the realm of his own personal opinion and ideas. In this regard, we see that Flatham has indeed not proved his points, and that no one should agree with his points because of this. In order to critique Hobbes, one must realize the masterful power of a philosopher who was educated in so many areas, and had such a breadth of understanding about the nature of true democracy. Democracy is not ripping apart someone’s ideas just because one doesn’t like them. Democracy engages in the spirit of true debate, with each side presenting evidence and then having the best argument win. In this article, Flatham doesn’t let Hobbes stand a chance, attacking his works and his entire philosophical framework without one shred of evidence backing up his statements or assertions. In turn, he expects the reader to believe that he does this all to support Hobbes’s work. This is not only unbelievable but a falsehood. If Flatham really wanted his readers to believe that Hobbes’s ideas were not valid, he should have provided valid arguments behind his assertions. Simply attacking somebody’s ideas because one doesn’t agree with them is tantamount to kindergarten schoolyard bullying tactics. Moreover, Hobbes himself is not around to defend his ideas. He only has his texts left behind in order to substantiate themselves. His words, Hobbes’s words, still ring true in the face of Flatham’s untruth. Ultimately, Flatham realizes that he cannot undo the definition of sovereignty that Hobbes puts forth in Leviathan because he has no proof otherwise. It is a nice idea to want to refute a well-known philosopher with a witty article, but Flatham does not achieve his goal, since he has no evidence to the contrary. V. Conclusion (272 words) Sovereignty is obviously composed of good and evil, justice, and moral philosophy. Without these principles, Western political philosophies of democratic governments all over the world would be without any kind of moral fabric. Indeed, sovereignty is not some foreign concept, as Richard Flatham claims it to be in his article Thomas Hobbes: Skepticism, Individuality, and Chastened Politics. Good and evil, nor justice, nor morals, are simply figments of the imagination. These are principles which can be demonstrated in real life, and which Hobbes did ultimately give a name to—in the end. To use a Biblical example—if Adam had not given names to all of the animals because they were considered abstract ideas, perhaps we would never know that an animal with an extremely long neck is called a giraffe. Truly there are several issues that can be seen in Richard Flatham’s unwarranted criticisms of Hobbes’s philosophies, whose article claimed at the end to be in support of his work. This seems to be a hard pill to swallow, especially considering the scathing flogging which Flatham gives to Hobbes’s philosophical underpinnings at the beginning of his article. So, not only are his ideas flawed, but Flatham does not, in effect, prove, that Hobbes’s pillars of sovereignty were just pipe dreams. These ideas are actually what reinforces today’s democratic politicians in their beliefs that sovereignty is a possibility, and that the Leviathan, indeed, is not just a paper tiger. Rather, it is Flatham’s own article which is a paper tiger, trying to stir up drama within the philosophical world with his assertions against Hobbes’s philosophy and then claiming to support his ideas. WORKS CITED Flathman, Richard E. Thomas Hobbes: Skepticism, Individuality, and Chastened Politics. USA: Sage Publications, 1993. Pp. 7, Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Online. Retrieved 24 Feb 2011. Available: . Read More