Hobbes and 1984

So:

Liberty, or Freedome, sgnifieth (properly) the absence of Opposition... p. 261

Plus

A Free-Man, is he, that in those things, which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindred to doe what he has a will to do. (262)

Brings me to:

...when a man throweth his goods into the Sea for feare the ship should sink, he doth it neverthelesse very willingly, and may refuse to doe it if he will; It is there fore the action, of one that was free... (262)

Hobbes conception of liberty is ultimatly one of the most crucial pillars of his philosophy. As much as I would like to agree with the Augustinian "We are the most free when we always choose to do God's will" viewpoint, I tend to agree with Hobbes that freedom is the absence of opposition. The second quote seems to get extra sticky when taken in Hobbes' philosophy, since he acknolwedges that "free-will" is an oxymoron (or an absurditie to use his language). By adding the phrase "what he has a will to doe" changes the meaning of the statement (in my reading) to mean we wouldn't need civil liberties for actions we have no will to commit, such as flag burning. Finally, as much as I don't want to accept the third quote, it seems consistent and valid with what Hobbes has been showing so far: If humans are essentially just reasonable beasts, if all theology is meant be taken merely as "Augustine's opinion," and if there is no "free-will" since all actions were determined by the first mover, then I am inclined to believe in Hobbes conception of liberty, and for the most part, his entire Leviathan. I would really love to bring in 1984 into this discussion, since so much of the novel seems to be a response to Hobbes' principles. 

At the climax of 1984, Winston is broken by O'Brien. The novel ends with an apathetic Winston noting that his relationship with Julia was "ungood." (Orwell, like Bacon, Descartes, and Hobbes uses the idea that imprecise langauge can destroy what it means to be human). Finally, Winston accepts the Party's view of life, celebrates a recent battle victory over Eurasia, and the narrator acknowledges that for the first time in his life, Winston loves Big Brother. My question is: If Hobbes were to read Big Brother, would he actually have a problem with the society Orwell puts forth? Is there anything in particular in Orwell's that would make Hobbes say, "No! You got it wrong! This is a dystopia!"

--I appologize if this question leads too far out of the text, and not back into it, but 1984 might be my favorite novel, and it seems like to good of an opportunity to pass up.

Hobbes Pt. II

I don't have a quote, but I did find it interesting that someone who is supposed to be completely anti-Aristotle comes to the same conclusion as Aristotle on the best form of government. What is it about both Aristotle's and Hobbes' systems that lend themselves to monarchy, and how is our system so different that it lends itself to democracy?

Connection to Aristotle's Politics

For they that are discontented under Monarchy, call it Tyranny; and they that are displeased with Aristocracy, called it Oligarchy: So also, they which find themselves grieved under a Democracy, call it Anarchy...(240)

While reading Part II, I couldn't help but notice strong similarities between Hobbes' method of explaining the Common-wealth and that of Aristotle in his discussion of regimes in Politics.  Both identify three ideal forms of government: rule by one, rule by part, and rule by all.  There are, in Aristotle's words, "deviations" from each of these forms.  Hobbes refers to these as "the same Formes misliked" (240).  The only discrepancy comes in their thoughts on rule by all.  For Aristotle, Polity, a mixture of Oligarchy and Democracy, is the best regime and Democracy is a deviation of it.  As the quotation above tells us, Hobbes believes that Democracy is the proper form.  I find it interesting that what was a "deviation" for Aristotle is the best form of rule in Hobbes' time.  What happened to the idea of Polity?  How did Democracy become and remain the ideal form?  

There is no power on earth to be compared with him (Job).

The inscription and image on the front cover serve to instill fear, Hobbes' believed impediment to power, in a commenwealth's people. I think it is sort of an inverse vantage point to Machiavelli; both believe in ruling by fear, but Machiavelli views the principle from the ruler's stance whereas Hobbes seems to view it from the people's. Machiavelli advocates fear as a necessity to the ruler, and Hobbes advocates fear as a necessity to the people.

As mentioned in last class, it's ironic how Hobbes uses art and figurative language to form the Leviathan (the image, not the work). I believe he does so to take advantage of a metaphor's "deception" (102), straying from reason and pursuing indefiniteness for the sake of instilling fear. I read some of Job 41, from which the quote on the cover was extracted. Pretty intense. And just look at the cover. Imagine one of those little guys starting to break away from the group, and the big guy slowly shifts his gaze towards the wanderer and decimates him with his broadswoard. Or smashes him with that thingy in his left. I'm sleeping with the light on tonight.

Hobbes Part II

". . . they that are subjects to a Monarch, cannot without his leave cast off Monarchy, and return to the confusion of a disunited Multitude; nor transferre their Person from him that beareth it . . ." (229)

". . . there can happen no breach of Covenant on the part of the Soveraigne; and consequently none of his Subjects, by any pretense of forfeiture, can be freed from his Subjection . . ." (230)

". . . because the major part hath by consenting voices decared a Soveraigne; he that dissented must now consent with the rest . . ." (231)

". . . they that have Soveraigne power, may commit Iniquity; but not Injustice, or Injury in the proper signification." (232)

". . . it is annexed to the Soveraignty, to be Judge of what Opinions and Doctrines are averse, and what conducing to Peace; and consequently, on what occasions, how farre, and what, men are to be trusted withall . . ." (233)

Hobbes describes these and other "Rights of Soveraignes" in Chap. XVIII. As I read, I instinctively balked at many of them - particularly that the sovereign's judgement is final and that the sovereign may never be deposed. To a certain extent this is due only to Hobbes' language: if one replaces "Soveraigne" with "government" (as Hobbes allows when he writes that the ruling body may be either an individual or an assembly), his statements don't seem so radical. However, even with this change, I wonder to how many of Hobbes' "Rights of Soveraignes" we have consciously or unconsciously agreed. Could even his statements about censorship be reconciled with our modern/American government? What about the government making moral or factual judgments, as with abortion - is this the place of government, and if one's personal judgments differ, how is one to respond?