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?

The Awesome Power of Love

Ok, I had to do it. I had to have one really good post advocating the awesome power of love, because although I find myself agreeing with everything Hobbes says, I still believe in the supremacy of love, because I have been utterly devastated by it and it has shaped my life and who I am to this day.

If we analyze the world around us logically, break it down like Hobbes does, then there's no denying the model which Hobbes presents. At a fundamental level we all are driven by self-preservation, the need to survive. Everything else just follows so naturally and logically; there's no arguing with Hobbes' premises or conclusions. Logically, Hobbes is absolutely correct.

But you know what, we don't always follow logic and reason. Whoever said "man is a rational being" was WRONG. Man is utterly enslaved by his emotions; it's only his ability of rational thought that prevents complete insanity and chaos. Of course it's not enough to say that we are often driven by our emotions, because Hobbes acknowledges this. He is fully aware that different people have different appetites and aversions which guide their behaviour. What is so essential, which Hobbes misses, is the fact that time and time again people are willing to give up their very lives in sacrifice for love, for others. To sacrifice one's own life for another entails a purely selfless act. Any other act of love shown to another can be reduced to a selfish act, for the mere pleasure or "good feeling" one obtains deep down inside. But to give up one's own life willingly in sacrifice for another cannot in any way be for oneself, because one won't exist thereafter. Hobbes argues that we all share a common desire: the desire for self preservation. However, in sacrificing your own existence for another, you are subverting the desire for self preservation to an even more important desire: the desire for the other's preservation and/or happiness. Sorry Hobbes, guess you didn't think about that one.

There is a power embodied within sacrifice, the only purely selfless act, which has been captured by Milton in Paradise Lost (and Christianity as a religion for that matter). In his justification of God's ways to mankind, Milton lays down a set of events in which evil (Satan) is only able to persist and corrupt man so that God can show love to mankind. Since God is omniscient, He knew Satan would rebell and eventually corrupt mankind. He could have prevented this without violating the freedom of choice He had given to Satan by simply not allowing Satan to leave Hell (cuz Satan had already made his decision at that point). But God allows Satan to corrupt man so that God the Son can save mankind by offering himself as a sacrifice: a purely selfless act. It is through sacrifice that love is revealed to mankind, and it is through sacrifice that love remains the fundamental desire embedded within all of us--not simply (and frigidly) the desire for self preservation as Hobbes would have us believe.

So although I've criticized "the awesome power of love" in the past, and although when we analyze the world using logic and reason there doesn't seem to be a place for love, there's no denying the proof of past sacrifices. The problem here is that logic and emotion have an uneasy balance in the world. If we attempt to limit ourselves to logic then love becomes neglected, and if we focus solely on love then the importance of power dissolves altogether. Look at some of the quotes from the previous post. "There isn't any formula or method" to love (Aldous Huxley). "Love knows no reason..."--I'm sure we've all heard that one before. "Love needs no logic for its mission" (Charles Lindbergh). Quite simply, love and reason don't mix. And yet they coexist within each of us--how wonderful is that.

how many times do I have to tell you it's all about power?

I am very sorry to have missed out on the hip-hop blogging, which appears to be resolved now. Good points on both sides, guys. Danny, I feel like we've finally tapped into your passion and the blog is almost over. That's a shame, but thanks for bringing it up- I just learned a lot about hip-hop I didn't know!
Since nobody has responded to Iain yet, I feel I should. But I also feel we've reached an impasse. What more can I say but Milton is wrong? Love is not the natural state- life is but a motion of limbs, and but the pursuit of power over other men. This is not love, for love is selfless. There is no way to reconcile the drive for power as a love for power, because (as I said in my presentation--was anyone listening?) pursuit of power over another requires selfishness, while love requires selflessness. Power means putting yourself first over others. We do not get what we "deserve," unless deserving is construed as ability to take. Because that's how society becomes ordered: through the power of each man to claw his way above the others. The man most capable of taking power, weilding it, and retaining it, is the most worthy of having it. Worth is not proven by Christian altruism, but by might. Men are created equal, with equal capacities to rise over other men. Natural hierarchy is bunk; if there is a natural hierarchy and all things respect their places in this hierarchy, men would never war with one another. Yet they do so conistently. The flaw in Milton's logic is clear when we look at the world in which we live and the world from which we have come.

V For Vendetta

Ok, first and foremost: wow. I loved the movie, simply loved it. I had a tremendously favourable appetite towards it. As I watched it earlier tonight (by the way, where was everyone huh? I got there about 7:05, watched the movie alone, and didn't even find anyone from class afterwards!) I couldn't help but appreciate how nearly every single line had Hobbesean undertones. Unfortunately I cannot remember a lot of them right now, so I'll have to stick to the ideas rather than catchy one-liners. Of course "People should not be afraid of their governments; Goverments should be afraid of their people" and "strength in unity" really made impressions, but there was so much good stuff when 'V' or Chancellor Sutler made speeches, it blew my mind.

Imagine a society in which everyone has given up their basic freedoms out of fear of terrorism, disease, invasion, etc. It's frightening just how easy this is to imagine. An unknowingly staged incident such as a virus outbreak by the government and people are more than willing to hand over their personal freedom for "protection" provided by the governemnt. I couldn't help but think about all the controversy surrounding 911 and the claims that it was entirely staged by the Bush administration. It's the constant "threat" of terrorism that keeps Bush in power, that ensured a re-election that never should have happened. Hobbes was so right: the Leviathan uses fear to control the people. In "V for Vendetta" when Sutler is going to make a public announcement he says something to the effect that the people need to be reminded to be afraid.

On a side-note, it was interesting when Chief Inspector Finch went through a possible chain of events in which someone makes a mistake (policeman shoots a little girl) and 'the shit hits the fan'. He was worried that V's plan wouldn't work out very pretty in the end. All it would have taken was for one single military officer to fire his gun during the final scene of the movie, and civil war would have broken out. This easily could have happened since there was a mass of thousands of people marching towards them presumably in an attempt to overthrow the government; not everyone would wait for that order to shoot. But anyway, it's a movie, so it didn't end in a blood-bath, killing thousands of unarmed civilians. And that would have been tragic, since once the Leviathan figure, Sutler, was killed the revolution was basically over. Just a side-note.

Anyway, there's so much more to be said about the ideas engaged with in this movie, but I'll leave it at that for now. Oh and there's a lot on the official site about who Guy Fawkes really was and his attempt to overthrow James I in 1604. However, I'm not sure how relevant the history is because he appears to have been more religiously motivated, rather than for freedom from oppression.

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.

Love does NOT make the world go 'round

Love: we all fall victim to it at one point or another in our lives, in varying forms and degrees. It is tremedously tempting to view love as this wonderful thing that makes the world go 'round, the driving force behind our dreams and aspirations. While we all explicitly seek love, not all of us seek power (or do we?--I'll get to this). As Iain eloquently put it (while horribly misspelling 'eloquently'--sorry Iain, I had to say something), "[Love] is both our best and favorite drink and we all cannot get enough". Hobbes reduces love and hate to mere appetites, inclinations we have towards and away from things (6.3-4). He too recognizes that while we may each desire different things, we all desire (11.1); ie: we all "love" (and hate). However, Hobbes argues that we all have "a perpetual and restless desire of power after power" (11.2), not "love after love" as Iain (and Cher) would say. Hobbes argues that our pursuit of power is "not always ... for a more intensive delight", but simply because we always require "power and means to live well" (11.2).

Nicely put, Hobbes, but I can't help but ponder if one can reach a state of living in which one does not require more power to live well? There is always pressure from others, competition, which forces one to constantly compete in order to maintain a means to live well. This is true in any society, whether there is a Leviathan figure or not, due to the very nature of work, labour, money exchange, etc. One way to avoid this competition would be if there was a purely utopian communist state, in which everything is shared equally among everyone, and then one wouldn't have to work harder than his fellow man in order to ensure a means to live well (then we could ask what's the motivation for anyone to work, other than the continuing everything runs smooth, in which case would technology ever progress? Mind you, that's a whole other debate). The only other way to avoid this competition and thus our relentless pursuit of power, is if one chooses to live in solitude, isolated from society. If a person is completely self-sustaining, then one does not require to pursue any more power than is necessary to provide food, water, and shelter for oneself. This would be a constant amount of power yeilded over nature, not any fellow man. This is fine and dandy, however, I do not believe Hobbes would find this very relevant, because human beings are social animals and this is an extreme case. So as I see it, in any democracy, aristocracy, or monarchy, we are required to constantly seek power in order to ensure a means to live well.

I wanted to touch on something that came up in seminar on Monday. Someone argued that without love we would not aspire and dream, and thus we wouldn't have wonderful inventions like airplanes and the like. Hobbes argues that imagination is nothing more than decayed sense; we experience the world through our senses, and then recall this experience later when we imagine something. He also points out that it is impossible to imagine something that we have never experienced. We can combine previous experiences in order to form what he calls "compound imaginations" such as unicorns or centaurs, but we can never imagine something that cannot be broken down into constituent parts--by definition that thing would be inconceivable. So then our dreams can be nothing more than the remenants of our senses. A motivating dream, or aspiration, is then merely a decayed sense that we have a favourable appetite towards. We can call this favourable appetite "love", but that's just a name really. More importantly, love is certainly not always the motivational factor in our aspirations. Take the airplane, for example. The Wright Brothers were able to piece together an imagination which consisted of a flying contraption later called the airplane. And yes, they were motivated by their favourable appetite towards being able to fly. However, it wasn't until WWI that the airplane was heavily developed--for the use of war (power by acquisition). If it wasn't for that motivational factor, we wouldn't have the technology we have today. In fact, looking back on history, war was the motivational factor more frequently than "love" or should I say "favourable appetites" (of course this is something that is very hard to prove, as it would require a vast multitude of examples, but just think about it for yourself... the space race, airplanes, explosives, nuclear engergy--these are just recent ones!).

Wow it's late... I think I've set a new record even for myself, having school in a few hours that is. The point is, love does not make the world go 'round. Although we all love, or should I say we all have favourable appetites and inclinations, this is not the motivational factor behind most of our actions.

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.

Good stuff...

Our inability to describe hot and cold, light and dark, good and evil in terms other than in polar opposites to one another, may be merely a limitation of our language. We simply have no other way of describing darkness than the absence of light. We have an idea in our minds of what darkness is, but we cannot communicate that concept without making reference to light. This expands on Will’s argument that good and evil are nothing more than human constructs. He argued that in the natural state of things no actions made by animals are good or evil. The tiger is certainly not “evil” for killing the gazelle; it is merely doing what it naturally does to survive. Good and evil are then just labels that we humans have placed on actions that are socially acceptable and unacceptable. This was basically Danny’s argument. Since they are invented labels, this means we have chosen to define the concepts of good and evil as polar opposites to one another. Thus, by very definition the two concepts cannot be defined independently of one another. I like that.

Now... let’s not go as far as to say that people who disobey the socially accepted good are “insane” (as that would imply a complete lack of reason on their parts). However, people like Hitler and Stalin, who we label as “evil”, were clearly not motivated by the socially acceptable norms that govern the majority of us. Rather, they were acting in very selfish ways, attempting to gain power for themselves, no matter what the cost. Danny argued their behaviour was simply “not natural”. But according to Hobbes, their behaviour was entirely natural (recall his natural state of things in which everyone seeks power individually). Mel argued that “it is against the nature of man to do himself harm, or choose to do anything against his best interest”, and therefore “a man who would choose against his appetites (evil) is not acting in a sane capacity and his actions are void of meaning.” But actions that we label as “evil” are not necessarily harmful to the person performing them, or against his best interests. Rather, evil deeds are usually harmful to other people.

Ok, now before I finish this wonderful post in which I do nothing more than expand on or counter previous posts made by others (aren’t I clever, posting a question and then waiting for you all to respond so I can leech off of you all, muwahahaha), I’d like to address the second part of my question, which I feel didn’t receive nearly enough attention: Is it necessary for us to have the possibility, the presence of evil before us, in order for us to choose the path to goodness? Or in other words, does choice exist between good and evil without the presence of the two prior to the decision-making process? What’s choice without knowledge of the consequences of that choice? Ack! I can’t even fathom answering that now; I just finished writing a paper for another course. I’ll leave that to another day... or to other "groupies".

religious imposition explains it all

To respond to Iain's post on the common obsession of love, I argue that love is not the common obsession. People can be reduced not to having desire for love in common, but in having desire. We are all attracted, motivated, and driven to attain certain things. The label "love" is only a convention of society that makes desires appropriate. For some reason (religion), the nature of man has been deemed corrupt, and natural desires have also been labeled impure. Expression of appetites, in time, has forcibly become an appeal to false ideals. Instead of speaking plainly, society requires that appetites be couched in false terms of love, romance and happines. Suckling's poem is about the desire to satisfy his natural appetites; any wistful, or flowery diction is just the poet buying into socially-imposed conventions (these, naturally, have evolved from man's greatest and most flawed invention: religion).

Thanks, Sean, for posting my interesting sentence about the virtue in choosing good. May I point out that in class, I was arguing on behalf of Milton's God, while on the blog I am for Milton's Satan and Hobbes.

Hobbes would say that there is no virtue in choosing good, as anything good boils down to an appetite. Evil, similarly, is paralleled with aversion. It is not virtuous to choose good- merely natural. It is against the nature of man to do himself harm, or choose to do anything against his best interest. Therefore, a man who would choose against his appetites (evil) is not acting in a sane capacity and his actions are void of meaning. For Hobbes, the choice is plain, and virtue is beside the point.

I do, however, agree with Will that appetite and aversion, or good and evil, are dependent upon one another to establish meaning. The polar opposites of good and evil, as man-made concepts, rely on one another to exist. What is hot, without the comparison of cold?

Choice: Good or Evil

Ok, let's get some discussion happening here folks. Yeah, that's right, I noticed no one has made a post in over a week. I'm just gonna throw something out there. Something radical (perhaps). Something totally crazy (maybe). Allow me to blow your minds:

"The virtue of choosing good is contingent upon temptation and rejection of
evil."

Crazy... or is it? This is what Mel came up with in tutorial on Monday. I don't have much to say at the moment; my mind isn't in academic mode. But I will ask the following. Can the concept of good be defined in terms strictly independent from any notion of bad/evil (and vice-versa)? ie: Are the concepts of good and evil defined solely by each being the other's polar opposite? Is it necessary for us to have the possibility, the presence of evil before us, in order for us to choose the path to goodness?

Star Wars Episode III

I watched part of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith the other day, as I was illegally... err, I mean, as I was legally backing up my friend's DVD of it. Not only is the final battle scene between Anakin and Obi-Wan which Dr. Ogden showed us in class a great allusion to Paradise Lost, and the notion of corruptio optimi est pessima, but there are so many others it's just not even fair! You don't even realize man...! Ahem, it's late, I'm not gonna be very academic here.

Ok, so about 15 min into the film Anakin is about to fight Count Dooku (ok, what kind of dumbass name is 'Dooku' anyway, geez George Lucas, get it together. don't get me started on 'Jar-Jar-Binks'...) and he says something to the effect, "I'm twice as powerful as last time we met/duelled with our cool lightsabres!" To this, the Count replies, "Ah, twice the pride, twice the fall.... young grasshopper!" And they fight, and it's cool, and yeah. I don't think I even need to explain that allusion, wow. So, further on, when the Jedi council dudes decide to make little Anakin an honorary member of their council, w/o elevating him to the prestigious (and wicked-cool) title of Jedi-Master, he's like totally pissed right off man. He looks like he's gonna go all angry-Sith-Lordish on their asses, but good ol' Obi-Wan calmes him down. Point is, his ambition and pride totally start to take over at this point, and it's all too easy for that scary emperor guy to corrupt him fully to the dark side. He doesn't use any force, it's all guile/deception. Oh yeah, and I really like how Emperor Palpatine used the idea of saving Padme's life by using the dark side to tempt and lure Anakin. He preyed on Anakin's love for Padme, the one thing that might have kept him on the light side of the force. I have to hand it to lil' Georgy on this one, he came up with some good stuff there, what with Anakin desperately trying to save his one love's life (he'd do anything, evil kill little jedi kids), but tragically he causes her death, because he goes down a path that she can't follow: the path to the dark side. So tragic... so beautiful.

ANYWAY... I hope that I have managed to shed some light on this subject. The chosen one, who would restore balance to the force (ultimately he does, through his son Luke, but that's another movie, err, episode I suppose), who had the greatest potential for good in him, conversely had the greatest potential for evil as well. And it was brilliant, simply brilliant to have the Emperor use Anakin's love for Padme to turn him. Yeah I don't know if I'm advocating the awesome power of love here, or just enjoying reading my own words as I type them. You decide. It's 5am.

huge load of....

Ok, first and foremost, Valentine's Day is huge load of smelly horse shit (metaphorically speaking, of course). Ahem... that wasn't very academic of me, oops.

Allow me to elaborate. As Mel was nice enough to look up the real origins of this now commercialized Hallmark-holiday (since the rest of us are far too apathetic to even care), she brings to our attention a very important point: no matter what the original context was surrounding St Valentine's Day, it has lost all of that original meaning as of present day. Celebrating something without knowing why is just something we humans like to do. Take the ancient Romans for example: they placed an enormous amount of stress on ritualistic sacrifices prior to and following any war campaign (they especially enjoyed sautéing animal intestines... yum). These strange practices were merely the remenants of old traditions of the Atruscan Kings who once ruled over Rome prior to the Republic. For the Atruscans, these rituals were highly religious practices, in honour of the Gods whom they worshipped. But the Romans were just carrying out the motions, not really knowing why. St Valentine's Day is no different--we are merely carrying out the motions because our social norms 'tell us' we should; it is utterly meaningless.

Now of course the commercialization of Valentine's Day has contributed to its wide-spread acceptance among different cultures, as well as serving to strengthen the ritualistic and fetishistic aspect of it. That's the beauty of commercialization--people (on a grand-scale) are easily persuaded into believing that they need certain things, when in fact these are 'false-needs' created by the culture industries with the sole purpose of providing satisfaction of these false-needs. They prey upon people's natural fetishistic tendency--that is, people's tendency to place value upon objects which they believe to be 'special', which they believe will make up for a certain lack which they feel in their lives. St Valentine's Day is no more than an exploitation of this fetishistic tendency by the culture industries. And I think it's pretty clear that they do this with the goal of making money--to gain power (not to make people feel good about themselves).

One could argue that this lack which people tend to feel and desire to make up for is a product of love (ie: they don't feel the love), and thus Valentine's Day is their attempt to attain that feeling of love. However, that still doesn't change the fact that Valentine's Day is an exploitation of people's 'appetites' (as Hobbes calls 'desires' appetites), not a representation of love, as we would like to believe.

Valentine's Day is there to placate those too weak to see that love doesn't exist

Saint Valentine's Day originated by celebrating the martyrdom of a priest who died for marrying soldiers in secret. How many people actually know that? I just had to look it up. And so what if, once upon a million years ago, people bought into the romantic celebration of something that can be reduced to an appetite- lust. Some of them have since come to their senses: Saint Valentine's day has been taken over by commercial industries like Hallmark and Hersheys. These savvy companies realized they could appeal to peoples' natural appetites through the romantic guise of love. This day is the one day of the year we sacrifice to keep the feeble-minded happy.

By the way, St Hobbes' Day does exist. It is every person's birthday--the celebration of the birth and life of the solitary individual and all that that implies. Is it just me, or do birthdays happen far more often than Feb 14th?

love doesn't make the world go round

There are signboards up in the WMC advertising that physiotherapy is available to students and faculty members in pain. Why? Not, as Milton enthusiasts might like to delude themselves, because love motivates people to selfless good deeds (and just how good is physiotherapy, really?). In reality, the people offering the “service” NEED and WANT your pain-inflicted bodies so that they may practice their skills and earn a dollar. It is necessity and the drive for self-preservation that motivates people to perform any vocation. Physiotherapists do not love you, nor do they care that they make you feel better. It is their JOB to reverse your ailments so that they may satisfy their clients and secure returning patients, you included.

On the nature of defense, isn’t it lucky that societies like the NRA still exist?! Here is a modern example of Hobbesian men and woman stubbornly clinging to their rights to arm themselves despite constitutional attempts to control firearms. These sturdy Americans refuse to relinquish their natural right to defend themselves from those who may jeopardize the rights or possessions of the former. Fear of the “other man” justifies the existence of the NRA. It is the right of any man to secure (by any means within his power) that which is his. The NRA stands for freedom to bear arms and protect oneself, not for love of the fellow man. Could you claim love for your fellow man as you foil his robbery attempt by pulling a gun on him?

A little on Paradise Lost

I really like what Bobby was touching on here with "Satan falling for us". The notion of immanence, God's transcendance of time and space such that He knows every that will ever be (omniscience), suggests that Satan's defiance and the ensuing war in Heaven, the corruption of man, etc--everything that follows in that causal chain of events is somehow part of God's great "plan". Now, taking for granted that God loves mankind and such, we can assume that this chain of events is the best possible fate for mankind. So then why do we even question any of this? Why did Milton feel the need to write an epic poem in an attempt to justify the ways of God to mankind? Satan tested out the water, and the water bit him in the ass. He then corrupts mankind, so mankind gets the boot out of Eden. BUT... we're given the gift of knowledge with that swift kick in the ass (kinda bitter-sweet really). Now the thing with free-will/freedom of choice, is that it works much better when you have knowledge to back up those choices (what's choice when you don't know the consequences?). And since God is omniscent, He must have known this too, thus He planned the whole thing with Satan corrupting us and all, so we would end up better off in the end.

Ok... am I missing anything here? There's gotta be more to this... I mean, it's a real nice idea--that everything is as it is because God is omniscient, transcends time and space, but most importantly because He Loves us, and therefore He has chosen/ordained the best possible fate for mankind through use of his omnipotent power. Love rules all, through God. What's left to question??

Please note, that I am neither arguing for nor against the existence of God, or any other religious beliefs. I am merely questioning, that given the premises behind Paradise Lost, how can anyone who follows Christian beliefs come to any other conclusion than what I have presented here?--That love is supreme. So now we are presented with a problem: if this is the case, then our debate does not rely upon polemics or validity of arguments, but rather upon religious disposition. Unless of course we are all atheists, this could be a problem. Someone, please tell me that I'm wrong, because I refuse to have our debate reduced to the subjectivity of individual religious beliefs!

John Wilmot, Against a Leviathan Figure

As Iain alluded to in his earlier post, as a group we did not reach a general consensus as to one predominant reading of John Wilmot's poem Upon Nothing. Personally, I found myself focussing on the religious aspect of the poem. The narrator begins by discussing the formation of the world from a "Primitive Nothing", from which "something strait begot" (5). He then refers to the creation of "Men, Beasts, Birds, Fire, Water, Air and Land" (12), while even more briefly mentioning man’s “undistinguish’d fall” (9). So far this is fairly typical Christian creation-story stuff—creation, man’s fall from paradise, etc. There is also reference to a “Rebel Light” (15), which I took to be Lucifer (the name literally means “Bright One”), and how him and his “Leagues combine, / To spoil thy [presumably God’s] peaceful Realm, and ruine all thy Line” (18). It is almost as though the speaker here is summarizing very briefly the biblical story of creation and Satan and his followers' expulsion from Heaven. As I recall, most of our group agreed upon this as an acceptable reading of the first half of this poem; it was during the latter half that we diverged.
I especially took notice to the eighth stanza:

Tho’ Mysteries are barr’d from Laick Eyes,
And the Divine alone, with
Warrant, pryes
Into thy Bosom where the truth in private lies;
(22-24)

I hate paraphrasing, but I missed this the first couple of times that I read the poem. The speaker here could be saying that only the “Divine”, God, possesses a warrant, or authorization, to see the secrets and private truths of mankind. More importantly, “Laick Eyes” are not permitted (I had to look up “Laick= Of or pertaining to a layman or the laity; non-clerical, secular, temporal”-OED). So the leader of state, or Leviathan figure, has no right or permission to pry into any person’s private life; God alone reserves that right. Further on, the speaker debases “Sacred Monarchs” (38), saying that they sit at council “With Persons highly thought at best for nothing fit” (39). Again, this implies that mankind should not be ruled by monarchical figures, as they are simply not fit for it. The following stanza calls them nothing more than “Fools in grave disguise” (43), with furs and gowns to make themselves look wiser. Moreover, the final stanza of the poem compares “Kings Promises” with “Whores Vows” (50). This debases Kings’ authority to the level of a common prostitute of the time, whose word is utterly meaningless.

One could easily write an entire essay analyzing each and every line of this poem, for there are so many subtle connotations behind Wilmot’s carefully chosen words. I have but glazed the surface with my own personal reading, in which I hope to have shown Wilmot’s alignment with the metaphysical poets, and his strong opposition to Hobbes’ notion of a Leviathan figure.

- Sean

First Post

Parliament won't work and it's BECAUSE men can and should do whatever they can to gain power.

Hobbes is great for recognizing that in the pursuit of power, all acts are right (whether they be just or unjust). He also acknowledges that it is natural for power to change hands. The King, or Leviathan figure, will always have a contender as someone else tries to accumulate power. In this sense, Parliament will never work because the men who compose Parliament will inevitably vie for power amongst themselves. One will always emerge victorious and become the new Leviathan, as it is in man’s nature to dominate or be dominated. The contender will try to seize power by any means necessary, as the King will try to hold power by any means necessary. Both are justified in their acts because man cannot share power equally if he desires a peaceful existence, as a state of equality means a state of war. He must be the Leviathan or be ruled by the Leviathan; peaceful existence is not possible any other way.