Platos and Hobbes Philosophy - Assignment Example

PHILO TEST QUESTIONS How does Hobbes’ views on our senses influence his overall theory? Hobbes views the senses as ruling the mind, rather than the other way around. From this perspective, sensation leads to perception, and sensation therefore takes the place of an original impulse. “The Originall of them all, is that which we call SENSE; (For there is no conception in a mans mind, which hath not at first, totally, or by parts, been begotten upon the organs of Sense” (Hobbes, 1994). Because of this perspective that Hobbes takes on the importance of the senses, he views recollection as less stable and reliable than other philosophers might, because he views recollection as a remembrance of a sensation that has now decayed. According to Hobbes, our senses become weaker over time. As a result, we get further away from this original sense which humans had. But at the same time, there is also a value in getting further around from this original sense, because according to Hobbes, it runs contrary to reason and rationality. Therefore, to make a society together, people need to rely on their reason instead of their senses. This idea of the senses as being original states from which one rises translates well into some of Hobbes’ most important theories, including the social contract. The social contract is formed to take humanity above a debased state of nature, from Hobbes’ perspective. Hobbes was a thinker who influenced profoundly by offering a theory in which life was explained in terms of a rather more harsh sort of natural law than any of the thinkers’ predecessors had put forth, and part of this can be traced to his reliance on the senses as a fount of truth. This represents a sort of harsh natural law. Hobbes stated, among other concepts, that the struggle for life made human beings selfish by nature and very individualistic, and it is also formed in Hobbes that there was a constant war being waged between people, and that this constant war was the basic state of nature, which is also the state of the original senses. Hobbes stated that humanity wanted to rise up from this condition of basic, sensual nature, so they created a state that would hold their most selfish and base impulses in check. Laws that bind in foro interno and in foro externo protect humans from each other and nature respectively. To Hobbes, crime was the result of an error in reasoning, because to him, the senses were always threatening to debase human reasoning. The debased state of nature that Hobbes envisions can be likened to a debased state of the senses. #2 How does the theory of recollection relate to two other major concepts in Plato’s dialogues? Socrates believed that people have immortal knowledge which they can tap into by recollecting a perfect original state, which existed before they were born. The theory of recollection therefore states that learning is artificial, because really all that is being done is recalling things that were there in this original pre-birth state, but had been forgotten. This perspective holds up the assumption made by Socrates that true knowledge was knowledge of the forms underneath reality, which have impetus in this pre-birth state (Plato, 2000). For example, I am able to perceive depth, only because I can recollect perfect forms. From this perspective, everything that I can learn, already exists; I cannot discover something new. I can only go back and pick up the things I once knew, before birth. Plato would argue, influenced by the theory of recollection, that we all seek what is good and beneficial in terms of knowledge from this original source, and thus we are inherently good, although ignorance obscures this fact. Remember that for Socrates and Plato, the theory of recollection also meant that true knowledge (godly wisdom) exists independently of our senses. While they are skeptical that we presently have this kind of knowledge, they both presume that it is a worthy goal/ideal of our process of self-examination. In Hobbes’ Leviathan, we learn of a different perspective: human thoughts are ultimately derived from our physical senses. But in Plato, the theory of recollection is more positive. Ideas of wisdom in Plato are also influenced by the theory of recollection. Socrates said that wisdom is a recognition that one knows nothing because he was not very interested in how, but more in why. Socrates was less interested in finding out how things worked than he was in finding out why things worked. He contributed many new ideas to philosophy, especially regarding the relationship between the individual and the society in which s/he lives, but he didn’t place too much emphasis on objective and categorized knowledge as value. Socrates was not able to complete the commonality of good acts in the Euthyphro, but was not afraid to address a lack in his work. During the time of Socrates, the Stoics were very serious about explaining in exacting detail the mechanics and functions of the world around them, often based on a continuing dialogue with the past that was more contributory than it was questioning or critical. Socrates represented a break from this Stoic intellectual tradition in that he valued the question more than the answer, possibly because under the theory of recollection, the answer already exists separately and independently. The philosopher recognized that his actions were in some way controlled by the moral hesitation that preceded them or the moral retribution that followed them if they were negative. He thought that the voice inside of him that caused him to stop and reflect before performing a certain action was divine, and therefore needed to be listened to. From the perspective of recollection, this voice represents original knowledge. #3 Whose philosophy is better justified, Plato’s or Hobbes’? Hobbes provides what is perhaps the most interesting view of human progression in that he ends up defending the absolute monarch as the most suitable form of government; that is, one that is unable to disagree with itself. From Hobbes’ perspective, the social contract stems from humanity’s abhorrence with the state of nature, for in this state, and in any other state under Hobbes’ philosophical authority, individuals are ultimately self-serving and are at constant war with one another. Forming a social contract that gives more power to society and less to the individual represents a step up from this war in terms of forming civilized rules that are based on the individual’s giving up some of his/her power to ensure his/her safety within the society. The underlying morality of this contract is that individuals should do unto others as they would expect others to do unto them. This seems to be justified by history, although it is not very positive about human nature. It does not seem justified to argue for dictatorships, but when one looks at history, some of the most effective regimes, for good or bad, have been dictatorships. Socrates seems less justified by history, but also more humanist than Hobbes. This humanist tendency also led Socrates to new ideas of goodness than had existed in pre-Socratic society. More and more throughout his life, Socrates began to see that goodness was not a reflection of divine destiny or a means to personal advancement, but was inspired by a sense of universal justice. To Socrates, being just to all meant goodness. This reflects the sense of fairness or balance that was a central feature in Socrates’ philosophy, which can be compared to other argumentative and unbalanced polemical perspectives. Hobbes also explored the logical and reasonable bounds of social contracts as they were determined by individuals seeking a basic underlying motive. Therefore Hobbes viewed social contracts as being limited to individuals’ power to pursue their own self-interests, which were seen to be as powerful in the context of social contracts as they were in basic nature. Individuals were seen to make contracts that limited their liberty, but not their right to self-preservation as cogent and free thinking individuals. Whereas others saw order as being necessarily maintained by secular authority that had its reflections in moral religious principles, Hobbes evinced these principles directly. His was a morality of peace; “That every person ought to endeavor peace as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war; the first branch of which rule contains the first and fundamental Law of Nature, which is, To seek peace and follow it” (Tinder, 2004). Overall, this philosophy seems the most justified. #4 Explain Hobbes’ thinking on the commonwealth. As stated above, Hobbes was a firm believer that the commonwealth needed to be ruled by an absolute monarch. In Hobbes, the reader does notice that fear/anxiety plays an important role in the life of politics, religion, and ethics. He sees the fear of the unknown as being a major motivating factor in the past to cause people to create religions in order to explain what they cannot understand. Even though this means that the commonwealth is also somewhat fear based, there are also positive aspects. Hobbes began, like many other philosophers, with the basic equality of all people, and went on to assert problems of social and authoritarian control over this basic assumption of equality. In terms of the formulation of secular authority, both religious and non religious political thinkers have proposed an idea of the functioning society that was nonetheless the result of a sort of ethical framework that could be seen to be shared on a basic level by different functionaries. The framework of the commonwealth in Hobbes was often stated in terms of natural law. The framework of Hobbes’ idea of the commonwealth has informed society in terms of modern politics in many ways, specifically as evinced in the analysis of the development of Thomas Hobbes’ political theories along the lines of natural law and the assumption of basic morality that points towards peace under sovereignty and a condemnation of basic human nature. “The natural state, Hobbes maintained, is one of war of every man against every man. Where there is no strong central government to overawe them all, then men have no pleasure, but on the contrary a great deal of grief, in keeping company, Life in such a state Hobbes asserted… is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” (Tinder, 2004). Tinder shows how Hobbes also had difficulties with the idea of people being free to exert authority over each other in the commonwealth he envisioned, but his consideration was informed less by basic Christian guilt in this sense than it was by a fear of the total chaos of nature. REFERENCE Hobbes, T (1994). Leviathan. New York: Norton Classics. Plato (2000). Phaedo. New York: Penguin. Tinder G (2004). Political Thinking: The Perennial Questions. New York: Longman Classics. Read More