I still want to write “That is all” and let it go, but I don’t think I would be allowed to, so I will now attempt to formulate some sort of stream of thought.
I thought Crawford did a great lecture. It clarified things and he was able to (somewhat) pinpoint what  Hobbes was trying to say. But I am sorry, HE IS NOT GOD. The very thought of him “recreating” the bible makes me cringe (and yes I am catholic, but not super devout) He is just some old, sad, british, fart who had a few ideas and seemed to be slightly OCD/ADHD (not insulting anyone who is actually that) You know people have deep rooted issues when they try and knock down all of the built bases of society….JUST STFU Hobbes.
Another issue I took with “Leviathan” is the awesome title it has and the fail of a book inside of it. The word Leviathan is so power, it just rolls off the tongue and I think of an epic tale not some boring dissertation about government….So in a sense, it does fool the reader into getting the book (nice marketing Hobbes)
Also, what is up with all of the god damn definitions. On one hand it was nice reading them cause they were quick and filled up a huge potion of the pages but i didn’t sign up for Arts One and paid a grand to read an encyclopedia.
I can’t write any more because even thinking about the book is making me mad. I try and have an open mind, but really, I don’t. I dislike philosophy thoroughly!!!!!!!! (sorry Christina) Sometimes you have too just enjoy things and not over analyse things or else your life ends awfully.\
http://t.qkme.me/3r70a3.jpg
I agree that the definitions are very dull to read, but I hope you can see why Hobbes thought they were necessary, at least after discussing it today?
I think Hobbes doesn’t necessarily think of himself as God, but he does think of himself as writing a text that would help the gods on earth, the sovereigns, rule better (and their subjects to see why they must obey). That is certainly some hubris on his part, no doubt, but I’m not sure the lecture suggested that Hobbes thinks of himSELF as God, but rather thinks that sovereign powers could be compared to gods on earth. This is partly because of the immense power he thinks the sovereign should have, but also because, for Hobbes, the words of God in the scriptures have to be interpreted, and because people disagree on interpretations someone is going to have to be the final arbiter/judge of what interpretation we should all follow. And that is…you guessed it… the sovereign. Hobbes doesn’t want to divide power between the sovereign and religious authorities (who, one might think, would have the responsibility for interpreting scriptures) because this can lead to quarrels between the church and the state, which can lead to people deciding not to follow the authority of the state but instead that of the church. That can then lead to rebellion and breakdown of the state in the worst case scenario, which, of course, for Hobbes is the worst thing.
I can feel your dislike of philosophy in your many exclamation points! And I don’t think everyone has to like philosophy by any means, so it doesn’t bother me.
But let me offer this to think about: we really haven’t read very many texts that would be strictly counted as philosophy in Arts One, just three things so far (Plato, Butler, Hobbes), so maybe it’s a bit premature to conclude something about all of philosophy? That isn’t to say that you haven’t read other philosophical texts elsewhere, because perhaps you have! It’s just to say that deciding a whole field is something you dislike without having a wide exposure may be jumping the gun a bit. Still, you may have more exposure and still think the same thing later!
Thanks for the comments.
Crawford’s lecture obviously did clarify the book ten folds. The reference to Leviathan being a new “bible” and stuff like that just rubbed me the wrong way ( I didn’t think so much of my catholic upbringing steeped into my thinking)
I should clarify. I thought the definition part tedious and unnecessary BUT it was my favorite part of the dissertation.
I guess Social studies and people from my highschool have very much jaded me towards philosophy and people who practice it. I don’t want to sound like i’m ragging on the field, cause I respect wholeheartedly anyone who chooses to study it. I have just found that people from highshcool (teachers and students) who claim to be philosophical all have a superiority complex. I think this is shown often in philosophical works (Plato, Hobbes) Of course I don’t want to generalize too much. I am quite enjoying Rousseau’s arguments and writings but Hobbes just peeved me (as did Butler)
I think it is evident I did Arts One more for the History/English elements rather than the philosophical component.
Le soir du r
I don’t quite understand your comment. Expand please?