"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:
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?
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.
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?
![[evil eyes]](http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7156/2200/200/touque2-evil.0.jpg)
- Sean
posted by Sean C at 4:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home