The Power of Speech according to Hobbes - Assignment Example

1 According to Hobbes, nature sets us apart from each other but we may artificially be brought together. With reference to this notion, compare and contrast Hobbes’s conception of prudential knowledge (natural thoughts) and scientific knowledge (artificially improved thoughts). Explain the steps of how, according to Hobbes, scientific knowledge comes about from the invention of speech and how it is necessary to solve the problem of war. According to Hobbes, there are two kinds of knowledge; on is scientific knowledge, the other prudential knowledge both of which reaffirms one another. Prudential knowledge is nothing more but sense, faculty, and memory and absolute knowledge. And by ‘absolute’, Hobbes meant reality that a person knows as truth with ‘absolute’ certainty (Hobbes 53). For instance, childhood memories, or knowledge that scissors could cut paper, or that burger patties are made from pork or beef meat are examples of absolute knowledge because these are knowledge that a person knows with absolute certainty as truths because he has experience it personally or has remember witnessing it being done. Either way, it requires a witness. The other knowledge, scientific knowledge is conditional knowledge. This is because it requires a condition for a person to know something for him to be able to know that something is indeed a fact (Hobbes 53). For instance, he needs to know that by grounding meat and seasoning it could produce patties and by putting a patty in between two breads would create a burger. Or that two metal blades with handles could be bolted and joined together so that it could create cutting motion and this would form a whole new tool called scissors. For a more ‘philosophical’ example, scientific knowledge is conditional because it will require knowledge for a person to know that when you draw any line on a circle that passes through the middle, that would divide the circle equally in half. The person who knows this technical knowledge Hobbes called philosophers. Hobbes further added that the registry of scientific knowledge is recorded in history and that there are two types of history—natural and civil. Natural is anything that concerns those that are independent of man’s will while civil history is the “voluntary actions of men in Commonwealths” (Hobbes 53). Now these philosophers are people in the society who are able to successfully fuse together both their prudential knowledge and scientific knowledge. They were able to use scientific knowledge and combine it with their prudential knowledge in explaining things around them thus developing their speech faculty. The Power of Speech The power of speech is very important because it is through speech that people gets to communicate with one another. Ergo, those who are nobles, those who are privileged, those who are in power, consistently do so because they have the power of speech “eloquence is power; because it is seeming prudence.” “Reputation of prudence in the conduct of peace or war is power; because to prudent men we commit the government of ourselves more willingly than to others” (Hobbes 58). Therefore, speech is a skill that is highly-developed among the privileged and the nobles because it is seen as a source of power. The more eloquent a person is—the efficacy of him in conveying his thoughts and sound judgments, the more powerful he becomes and the more esteemed he is in the commonwealth, wherein reputation is important either in time of war or of peace. But Hobbes also added that “a learned and uncorrupt judge is much worth in time of peace, but not so much in war. And as in other things, so in men, not the seller, but the buyer determines the price. For let a man, as most men do, rate themselves at the highest value they can, yet their true value is no more than it is esteemed by others” (Hobbes 58). Ergo, men tries to bid himself at the highest value by creating actions that would add to his power –coveting great riches, ambitions of grandeurs, and other dishonorable acts of obscurity (Hobbes 62) causes rifts that could lead to war. If eloquence is power and reputation is the perception of worth or value of a man from the perspective of others, then both eloquence and reputation plays a crucial role in solving the problem of war. With reputation comes great value placed on the honor of a man. And when a man is honorable and is highly regarded by the people, he is treated with respect. And when he speaks, everybody listens. Everyone listens to what he has to say and everybody listens to his speeches because they know that the man has honest intentions. If such a man is to intervene on problems of war, where his name precedes his reputation then his eloquence, his power of speech, could easily move people to be diplomatic enough to sit down and talk on the political issues and try to work things out as calmly and as diplomatic as gentlemen should. 2.) Explain Hobbes’s use of geometric methodology in the derivation of the laws of nature. Explain how the first three laws of nature are derived from the concepts of Right of Nature. How does the concept of the Right of Nature help account for the cause of the war? How does the second law of nature account for the cause of peace? The right of nature or jus naturale is the liberty given or innate to each man to utilize his own strength and power as he see fit for self-preservation, particularly to preserve his own life. Consequently, doing any actions and activities that is according to his judgment and reason is the best way to pursue the safeguarding of his life (Hobbes 89). In a nutshell, liberty, freedom, autonomy, free will, independence, whatever you would like to call it—innately given to man allows him to live his life on such a manner that he pleases. Without social contract or commonwealths, man is not bounded to other people or community but only to himself emancipated from any responsibility of any sort but to be bound only to his survival. Thus, the right of nature reiterates that man is somewhat to ‘each his own’ responsible only to his self and for his continued existence. On the other hand, the law of nature or lex naturalis is a principle or a general rule that is founded in reason. lex naturalis’ first three laws states that “[1]man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his live, [2] taketh away the means of preserving the same, and [3] to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best preserved” (Hobbes 89). The first law requires that it is against the nature of man to do things on himself that would cause him intentional harm. For instance, knowing that running a knife in your arm would pierce your skin, hurt yourself, and could cause you to fall ill or die is against the first law of nature. The second law means that depriving one’s self of means of self-preservation is against the law of nature. For instance, depriving yourself of food meant that you are depriving your body of nourishment that it needs for it to function that could cause you to fall ill is again going against the law of nature because you are taking away the very thing that preserves your life. The third law of nature talks about the best way of preserving life. For instance, nourishment is one of our basic needs but if you keep on substituting processed food as opposed to eating organic healthy foods—i.e. vegetables and fruits, then you are violating the third law of nature which implies that reason dictates you chose the best methods or means to which you have the best chances of preserving your life. And clearly, choosing processed foods over organic foods is not, with reference to reason, the better option towards self-preservation and thus, goes against the third law of nature. In essence, the first three laws of nature took its roots or derived its concepts from the rights of nature—self-preservation, but the difference is that with the rights of nature; the only concern of it is the pursuit of self preservation in any means possible. But with the law of nature, it uses reason as to how to best pursue the safeguarding of and maintenance of self to the best of one’s appeal to reason. Right of Nature is to War, Law of Nature is to Peace According to Hobbes the essence of the first law of nature is “to seek peace and follow it” while on the other hand, the totality of the right of nature could be summed up as “by all means we can to defend ourselves” (Hobbes 90). Reason dictates that if we are to think of the best way to preserve ourselves and to have the liberty and obligation to do so, then a man, just like he has right to everything, has the right to another person’s body. But because reason dictates that security is also important to allow man to live a decent life. And consequently, it is also a general rule of reason that man makes an effort towards obtaining peace. And if at all cannot be possibly obtain, would result to seeking allegiance and all help necessary to have full advantages of war (Hobbes 89-90). Right of nature gives us liberty to do whatever we must to ensure our survival. Ergo, without resolving to reason, clamor for resources could lead to antagonisms, tensions, or misunderstandings because everyone is pursuing the same thing. When everyone is pursuing the same thing, chances are, there will be hostilities. But with the law of nature and with reason, the pursuit of, and the clamor for the same resources could be pursued with in an objective, more rationale manner that avoids hostilities and promotes peaceful concords. Works Cited Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Forgotten Books, 2008. Read More