Musing on the previous posts
I guess I didn't mention that I was thinking about harming oneself in my last blog. Thanks, Sean, for straightening me out. I don't know how I got the "self" into my brain. Harming others is definitely NOT against the nature of Hobbes' man, nor is it insane. It is often necessary and perfectly natural.
And I agree that Hitler and Stalin were fully aware of their actions. I suppose Milton would argue that they were not worthy of rule and had to be taken out, as did Charles I. But Milton is a dough-head and doesn't understand that the ability to get power justifies anyone's having power. In wondering what Hobbes would say of our scary subjects....well, I can only agree that he would think their actions were their perogatives. If assertion of power means annihilation of enemies, then they were within their bounds as Leviathans.
However, Leviathans act on behalf of their people for the good of their people. These two acted for themselves more than for the good of the people.... Still, we cannot take this tempting reason to condemn them, for if Hobbes didn't turn on Charles I despite his incompetence and blunders, it is unlikely he would turn against Hitler and Stalin for their sickening directives. One does not turn against the Leviathan. Ever. Whew, it's a harsh point of view we Hobbesians share.
As for your question, Sean, I think you're going down the path of Iain and Dr. Ogden's earlier dialogue. Wasn't that the whole "does the orange t-shirt exist if I don't know it exists before I choose between the white one and the black one?" thing? And I don't know. Does a tree make a sound if it falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear? Is that a question we can ever answer satisfactorily?
But I'll take a shot at it...If good and evil are man-made, then no, they don't exist without knowledge of them. They are abstract ideas to which we have given labels- not absolute fact. They only exist because our world dictates that they must, so that we may discuss things such as this. If good and evil did not exist without our prior knowledge--prior meaning before we choose-- then there is only what IS. It is a neutrality with inarticulate dimensions, and we can neither discuss it nor choose between things, as without labels there is no meaning. Without labels, we would all be Helen Keller before she understood sign language. We have to label something in order to communicate in the first place. Even Hobbes accepted some labels, if he reduced away most of them. Could he talk about desires without acknowledging aversion and appetite? No. I think I might be the only person who gets this (I'm not saying it very well), so feel free to ignore it. I am, however, trying to say that there is no choice without knowledge.
And I agree that Hitler and Stalin were fully aware of their actions. I suppose Milton would argue that they were not worthy of rule and had to be taken out, as did Charles I. But Milton is a dough-head and doesn't understand that the ability to get power justifies anyone's having power. In wondering what Hobbes would say of our scary subjects....well, I can only agree that he would think their actions were their perogatives. If assertion of power means annihilation of enemies, then they were within their bounds as Leviathans.
However, Leviathans act on behalf of their people for the good of their people. These two acted for themselves more than for the good of the people.... Still, we cannot take this tempting reason to condemn them, for if Hobbes didn't turn on Charles I despite his incompetence and blunders, it is unlikely he would turn against Hitler and Stalin for their sickening directives. One does not turn against the Leviathan. Ever. Whew, it's a harsh point of view we Hobbesians share.
As for your question, Sean, I think you're going down the path of Iain and Dr. Ogden's earlier dialogue. Wasn't that the whole "does the orange t-shirt exist if I don't know it exists before I choose between the white one and the black one?" thing? And I don't know. Does a tree make a sound if it falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear? Is that a question we can ever answer satisfactorily?
But I'll take a shot at it...If good and evil are man-made, then no, they don't exist without knowledge of them. They are abstract ideas to which we have given labels- not absolute fact. They only exist because our world dictates that they must, so that we may discuss things such as this. If good and evil did not exist without our prior knowledge--prior meaning before we choose-- then there is only what IS. It is a neutrality with inarticulate dimensions, and we can neither discuss it nor choose between things, as without labels there is no meaning. Without labels, we would all be Helen Keller before she understood sign language. We have to label something in order to communicate in the first place. Even Hobbes accepted some labels, if he reduced away most of them. Could he talk about desires without acknowledging aversion and appetite? No. I think I might be the only person who gets this (I'm not saying it very well), so feel free to ignore it. I am, however, trying to say that there is no choice without knowledge.
posted by Melody Stevens at 4:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home