Power: the ultimate truth
Sinne and Love are not the universal truths. Iain wrote:
"Thus if something or someone is not full of love or based in love then they are Sin. As we all already know this means that power is a sin. The urge to control others, to hold power over them is sinful. Hobbes has been proved wrong. "
Not even close. Hobbes doesn't recognize "sin." If you want to label his Man as sinful, go ahead. Such labels mean nothing to Hobbes. In fact, he already thinks man is depraved, nasty and greedy. What have you proven by saying that someone not motivated by love is motivated by sin? If you identify want of power as sinful, you are only proving that men, by nature flawed, ARE motivated for power and sin rather than love. Herbert said that Love and Sinne exist. He was wrong about love, as it is merely a construct for simpering idiots. He mislabeled power as sinne. there is no love, there is no sinne. Both can be reduced to two sides of the appropriate 17th century way of looking at things through religion. Love is the accepted form of desire, or appetite. Sinne is the unacceptable form of appetite: that which society deemed inappropriate. there you have it--sin is a social construct. Social constructs, by the way, are a form of exerting power over others. By controlling what people do, they are rendered less powerful and less likely to exert their power over those who wish to keep holding power. What better way for the church to protect its power than to institute a cultural reform whereby every man and woman censures him or her self? Policing is not even necessary when people are preventing themselves from acting on their natural impulses to enjoy life and take what they can. Sneaky, sneaky church.
The only thing Iain proved was that the church has too much power if natural appetites are condemned as sins. This is not proof that Love and Sin are the universal truths. It is also not proof that Hobbes is wrong about Man's motivation for power.
"Thus if something or someone is not full of love or based in love then they are Sin. As we all already know this means that power is a sin. The urge to control others, to hold power over them is sinful. Hobbes has been proved wrong. "
Not even close. Hobbes doesn't recognize "sin." If you want to label his Man as sinful, go ahead. Such labels mean nothing to Hobbes. In fact, he already thinks man is depraved, nasty and greedy. What have you proven by saying that someone not motivated by love is motivated by sin? If you identify want of power as sinful, you are only proving that men, by nature flawed, ARE motivated for power and sin rather than love. Herbert said that Love and Sinne exist. He was wrong about love, as it is merely a construct for simpering idiots. He mislabeled power as sinne. there is no love, there is no sinne. Both can be reduced to two sides of the appropriate 17th century way of looking at things through religion. Love is the accepted form of desire, or appetite. Sinne is the unacceptable form of appetite: that which society deemed inappropriate. there you have it--sin is a social construct. Social constructs, by the way, are a form of exerting power over others. By controlling what people do, they are rendered less powerful and less likely to exert their power over those who wish to keep holding power. What better way for the church to protect its power than to institute a cultural reform whereby every man and woman censures him or her self? Policing is not even necessary when people are preventing themselves from acting on their natural impulses to enjoy life and take what they can. Sneaky, sneaky church.
The only thing Iain proved was that the church has too much power if natural appetites are condemned as sins. This is not proof that Love and Sin are the universal truths. It is also not proof that Hobbes is wrong about Man's motivation for power.
posted by Melody Stevens at 7:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home