@gabrielbrumberg229

1 year ago

I think you've misconstrued - or at least oversimplified - Hobbes a little bit. I'm not going to assume you didn't read the entirety of Leviathan, but I will say that it seems common for people who don't go beyond his "buzz quotes" to miss some of the more important subtleties of his writings. (By the way, this is in no way a defence of Peterson. He's a manipulating self-serving jerk who lies constantly. Ew.) Anyway, here are some nuances I think important, feel free to respond/disagree/poke: Firstly, you mention that Leviathan was "totally made up, historically inaccurate, and taken from ancient books instead of any real evidence." The first point is completely true; in the sense that all his ideas and theorems came from his own thinking/reasoning/head, Hobbes did "totally make up" Leviathan. The second point is partially true. Throughout the book, Hobbes sprinkles a number of lousy historical interpretations including the racist and false notion that native tribes in the Americas were uncivilized and savage. However, by and large, his historical descriptions are accurate. Lastly, the idea that Leviathan is taken from ancient books is entirely contrary to the truth. In fact, Hobbes refutes ancient texts numerous times, describing his contempt for those that take Greek and Latin philosophy as given. Instead, he stresses the importance of using ones owns logic, building his treatise from the ground up using empirical (if occasionally contradictary) observed evidence. Secondly, Hobbes never argues that the "state of nature" was a specific time period that existed before society. Yes, society has varied in many ways for 200,000 years. Hobbes knew this; he only used the idea of a "state of nature" as a way of describing what life is like at any given moment in the absence of regulation by higher authority. He states, "it may... be thought, there was never such a time nor condition of war as this; and I believe it was never generally so, over all the world." Thirdly, you say "Hobbes said without state force it's violent chaos all the time." In fact, he said the opposite: it's not chaos ALL the time (people will still make many covanents (agreements) with each other, collaborate, and try to agree not to fight), it's just that without state force, there's no GAURANTEE there won't be chaos at any time soon. As he puts it, it's not that people would always be fighting, but that there is fear in "the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary." You even highlighted the pertinent quote. It's not constant death and chaos, but constant FEAR and DANGER of violent death. Fourthly (and this is less specific to anything you said), Hobbes had a lot of perspectives that are left out of the modern understanding of "Hobbesian" thinking. Despite saying everyone is out for themselves, he also believed people desperately want to collaborate and seek peace. He had strong notions of how people ought to behave in society. Though he didn't name them "ethics" or "morality," he thought people should be kind, cooperative, honest, polite, gratious, forgiving, and humble. He thought people should avoid hate and that commonwealths are obliged to treat people equitably. He thought society should take care of the needs of those who are unable to work ("they ought not to be left to the charity of private persons, but to be provided for by the laws of the commonwealth.") And very unlike Peterson's views on lobsters and social hierarchies, Hobbes believed all humans to be essentially created equal and that a law of nature was to accept this equality between all people. Yes, many of his views were wacky, questionable, confusing, or altogether self-contradictory. Yes he argues an obedience to authority that is hard to justify. Nonetheless, his true outlook on the world was far from the oversimplified, pessimistic, authoritarian, curmudgeon-esque picture often painted by folks today.

3 |