My Meaning of Life II

Ok, just one more post from me... Iain got me thinking with his "meaning of life" post. At one point Iain wrote,

"If we want to love our fellow humans, we can. If we desire to attain as much power as possible, we can do that too. Me, I just like existence."

Iain, I don't mean to undermine your final post, but doesn't Hobbes argue that our pursuit of power is simply for a means to live well; ie: because we "like existence"? So then aren't you really aligning yourself with Hobbes? Just a thought.

Anyhow, like Iain, I'd like to share my "interpretation" of life, although I'm not sure how well I can communicate it. Last year I took Physics 190 at SFU, Astronomy. Let me tell you, learning about the vastness of the universe--how stars are born, solar systems formed, and so forth--was so incredibly humbling. On the grand scale of the universe we are utterly insignificant. Our individual lives, Earth, our solar system, even our galaxy (which is huge by the way) are all inconsequential 'specs' in the vast emptiness of space. And to top it off, the universe is expanding, making us even more insignificant by the second. So like Iain said, we live, we die, it doesn't really matter; nothing matters. So why live by any morals at all, why not do whatever we wish, like Hobbes' natural state of man? Well, by the same token that nothing matters, everything matters. All we have is the world we live in, we don't live for any 'greater purpose' and we cannot make a lasting impression in the universe. However, since our lives are limited as such, so then is the scale by which the significance of our actions is measured. Thus, every single decision or action that each of us makes each day are of the utmost importance in relation to our lives. The meaningless of our lives is what gives everything "hyper-meaning". I hope I'm expressing myself adequately here, I hope this makes at least some sense.

So then the question I need to answer is: how does love and power fit into my interpretation of life? The scale of love and reason that Mel and I came up with places love and power as polar opposites to one another. So perhaps love and power act as the ultimate boundaries of human expression. Nothing we can do is outside one or the other, so they both exist as a defining quality of life. However, to say this is to acknowledge that they both exist as equal forces, thus I'm still not agreeing with Milton or Hobbes.

That's it guys, my head hurts. Mel says my posts are like essays in themselves, so I think I'll leave it at that. Like all of you, I consider myself quite lucky to be in this of all groups. Even though we didn't come to any definite conclusions as a group, I feel that we were all able to learn from eachother and refine our understanding of the 17th century debate that is very much still alive to this day. Thanks guys, it's been fun.

l'ultimo pensiero

I have had the hardest time trying to reconcile my thoughts on love and power. I tend to think people have a selfish nature, (and I think I'll go ahead and call that reason) but I do think it can and should be tempered with love. As for Hobbes and Milton, well, my thanks to them for exposing me to the flaws of such an argument. I found, over the course of this semester, that my ability to take up each side strengthened tremendously. Unfortunately, it confused the crap out of me, for Hobbes and Milton demand nothing less than absolute agreement. And here I am, still caught in the middle. I'm basically suggesting that madness should be the state of the world. Who wants to live in Hobbes's world? Or Milton's? Not me. If madness is what's left between the extremes of reason and love, I will gladly keep life interesting and go with madness.

To prove that neither Hobbes nor Milton is the victor:
I can't say I agree with Danny, that Hobbes won because the state of the world is in turmoil. Religion survived as much as war did. It just doesn't make the news.

Religion survived, and all major religions advocate some sort of selflessness, or sacrifce to a higher power. The fact that Christianity alone is so prevalent in our world proves that many, many people believe in the doctrine of selfless love. I live next door to a church, and every Sunday I sleep through a ceremony that glorifies what Hobbes would only consider weakness. Or madness.

So far, I am still most satisfied thinking that man's failure to commit to either of these extremes specifically signifies that we live in a state of madness or sin. It's the only way, according to the proposals of Hobbes and Milton, that I can justify the world as I see it--with war and religion, and war based on religion, etc. Even in the 17th century, my theory of madness works. Only a madman would turn on the Leviathan, and there they were, in the middle of a civil war. Madness to Milton would be equated as Adam and Eve, in the fallen state, turning their backs on God. The chance for redemption is always there, but they choose not to take it just yet. In the 17th century, and now, man is untrue to either path. The majority of people do not live in perfect love, nor in absolute pursuit of power. But both extremes do exist in the world, and I think, keep eachother in check. Milton and Hobbes are both so right that I cannot completely denounce either theory. Until I have some epiphany that includes both of them, I am resigned to keep turning the truths of each theory over in my head. My theory of madness will have to do for now, so I think Sean elaborated on a few things I agree with, and quite accurately.

I would like to thank the group members as well--I had a lot of fun with this assignment and class. I also feel very fortunate to have been included in this group. You guys were all great, and I hope to see you all again. Anyone else taking summer classes?!

"Fin-de-semester"

Since we have approached the fin de semester, we should attempt to reach some sort of conclusion in our blog debate. Suppose that we come to agree that, for example, Hobbes' polemic beat Milton's. We would still have to consider that as litterary works, Milton's Paradise Lost may have much more artistic appeal than Hobbes' Leviathan (or vice-versa). So we cannot be sure who 'won', even if we were somehow able to sufficiently break down Milton and Hobbes' complex arguments to the extent of perfect understanding (which is quite inconceivable, though possible). Also, if the supremacy of love or power as a force in the world is a constant, then it should be observable today. Thus, we are forced to look at today's world for justification as to who really won the debate back in the seventeenth century.

If our blog debate has proven anything, it's that this seventeenth century debate is as very much alive now as it was back then, although maybe not so explicately addressed in litterature. However, from the various blog posts our group memebers have made, there has not been an obvious 'winner' between love and power in today's world.

On the other hand, if artistic appeal did indeed sway people's decisions, that does not change who was objectively 'right' ... or does it? Hobbes defines 'right' and 'wrong', or truth and falsehood, as only attributable to words. Thus, it is Hobbes' words vs Milton's that determine who 'wins' their debate. Perhaps if we are to resolve this semester-long debate in our blog, we need to focus on what both Hobbes and Milton have presented. We really must keep in mind what Dr. Ogden told us in lecture, to "jugde the seventeenth century by the seventeenth century's terms".

In Paradise Lost, Milton uses God the Son's self-sacrifice as a means to maintain justice, while in the presence of mercy--love. Hence, for Milton, self-sacrifice is the only way to uphold both justice and love. Yet Hobbes reduces self-sacrifice to mere madness (the absence of reason), since it is a form of self-harm. So unless you can counter Hobbes' logic, Milton's man would be living in a state of perpetual madness. However, Milton puts great emphasis on the value of freedom. Archangel Michael tells Adam that “true liberty / Is lost, which always with right reason dwells” (12.83-4). Thus, reason and freedom are connected, in a way such that if man is living in the absence of reason, then he is also in the absence of freedom; ie: man does not have freedom of choice--free will. As simply as that, Milton's construction of the world falls apart under the attack of Hobbes' unrelenting logical discourse.

So is that it for me? Do I think Hobbes is right, that power is the 'fundamental force' in the world? I dunno... if I had to choose, then yes. Dr. Ogden was absolutely correct in that he said the twentieth century is less concerned with consistency. I'm perfectly content with not chosing a side, accepting both Hobbes and Milton's arguments as 'correct', and I'm sure the majority of people out there would be too. If the seventeenth century was the century of polemics, then the twentieth century was the century of apathy. But like I said, the debate is very much still alive. Perhaps that's an indication of the irresolvability of this debate; perhaps it could go on indefinitely. If that's the case, then there is no 'winner', rather all we could conclude is that both love and power as 'forces' exist in a sort of harmy with one another. I really like what Mel has done by placing love and reason in an equation with madness being the main variable. I suppose mathematically it might look something like this:

Love = Reason + (m) ;
where (m) = degree of madness, and Love and Reason are constants.

By this equation, in the absence of reason love is equated with madness. Also, in the absence of madness, love becomes reason, ie: reason dominates. It's a nice equation in attempt to sum up the very complicated relationship that exists between love and reason, and the role that madness plays in determining it.

So that might be it folks; inconclusiveness, indifference, and apathy seem to be the dominating forces at the moment. I guess that's simply the unnatural state we're living in. However, like I said before, if forced to choose then I would choose Hobbes, because as an academic, reason is dominating the madness within me--or is it?

- Sean

Reason, Madness, Love

“There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness” –Nietzsche. I found this quotation on the link Danny added. I decided it could imply that there is a continuum between reason and love, the differentiating variable being the degree of madness separating the two extremes. Love is reason corrupted by madness. This theory works for me- add selflessness (which I would like to parallel with madness) to reason (which is selfish according to Hobbes) and reason degenerates nicely into love.
I think my new theory also fits interestingly into Sean’s post. It explains why love and reason do appear to coexist in man. If you think Hobbes didn’t properly address self-sacrifice for a loved one, I think he did. As insanity, true, but insanity is a factor Hobbes accounted for. Self-destruction in any form, love or otherwise, is reduced to madness. Is there some way we can come to a resolution between love and power on this blog? And if so, am I on the right track? Maybe we can forge a bridge between Hobbes and the Metaphysicals by asserting that madness, or reason diminished, is the state in which men are most often engaged. For the most part, we are all corrupt from the ideals of reason as well as the ideals of love. Maybe corruption/madness is the common denominator.
Anyway, the very fact that we are able to sustain a lengthy discourse on this topic indicates that there are valid AND truthful elements to both sides. Sean, being the official waffler, has your point of view changed over the course of this project?

Whoops, I know I’m still supposed to be arguing for Hobbes, but now I’m concerned with trying to figure out what, if any, conclusions I’ve come to over the course of this semester. Anyone else want to share on that?