This has nothing to do with Hobbes or the Metaphysicals...

Okay, so I forgot to mention this in class, so I'll use the blog to make an announcement. Hopefully, people from other blog groups will see this too.

I am involved with a group of people who have recently put together a literary magazine. Our first issue goes to the printing presses in a week, so to celebrate (and raise money for our next issue) we are throwing a launch party!!

The party is on Tuesday, May 9th at The Railway Club (579 Dunsmuir, at the corner of Seymour) The event will include readings from the magazine and music by In Medias Res and Lover, Lover, Lover. Everything gets under way at 9:00pm. Cover is $8.

Come on out and support us! Tell your friends! Or at the very least go to our website: www.memewaronline.com and subscribe!! Hey, even feel free to submit some of your own work to the magazine!!

Final Words (unless someone else posts after me...)

In response to Megan’s comment about the family unit:

She says that “children choose to stay with their families because they love their families…not because of some sort of Hobbesian power.” Hmmm…let’s think about this, how does this so-called “love” develop between a child and its mother? The mother cares for it – feeds it, cleans it, keeps it alive. As the child grows older, he recognizes this and repays his mother by acting in a favorable manner toward her. This is what “love” is – gratitude for services rendered.

If love truly existed as some sort of impenetrable emotional bond, then why does it require this whole lead up to exist? You don’t randomly love the man across the street who you’ve never talked to – what a ridiculous thought; of course you don’t, he hasn’t benefited you in any way. “Love” is merely a fancy word used to describe this long-lasting, mutual exchange of benefits between two (or more) people. Why do you think so many marriages end in divorce? It is because not all people can continue giving these benefits for a lifetime.

Sure, I’ll admit that “love” exists. It just isn’t what you say it is. Love is practical – you don’t love the man who shanks you in the prison-yard; you love the man who provides you with the means to survive.

So how can someone say that love is some sort of inherent emotion? Ridiculous, I say. It’s nothing more than extended reciprocity.



In response to Megan’s comment on democracy…

You are absolutely right; Hobbes’ Leviathan is not a democracy. But that doesn’t matter because Hobbes’ Leviathan is better than a democracy. I could sit here all day and point out the problems of democracy (for just one example, take a look at the last election in the United States…), but why would I bother comparing Leviathan to something that doesn’t work? Leviathan isn’t a matter of including everyone’s best interest (as it is clearly impossible to satisfy everyone); this is a matter of doing what is most effective, and what produces the best results.

So what about all those people who are unhappy with Leviathan? The answer is simple – nobody is unhappy with Leviathan. Unhappiness is just a word we use to describe a reaction to a certain moral value in society, and in an effective Leviathan system this moral value does not exist (it has no need to exist because Leviathan is not concerned with making people “happy” or “unhappy”). And since this moral judgment does not exist, people cannot appeal to it to claim some unfounded emotional reaction to it.


In conclusion…

Hobbes cannot be proven wrong because everything he says is based on evidence and logic. Meanwhile, the Metaphysicals base their arguments on figments of their imagination: love, freedom, good, evil, etc. Go and write your poems, you hippies – move over and let a real man run the show.

You heard the man...

Liberty and love are perspectives...not words

I just got back from the movie V for Vendetta for my second time. This movie is so rich. It is like watching Milton and Hobbes go at it in a boxing ring...and of course...Milton wins..Love prevails. Any Hobbesian follower beg to differ? V the main character makes the claim that "Justice, Liberty and Love are not just words but they are perspectives."
Responding to the previous post; Hobbes is not for democratic rule. By definition democracies must respect individual freedoms and these freedoms can only be practiced when citizen's are informed, engaged and involved. Hobbes whole Leviathan is succsessful only when citizens are disillusioned, and isolated to their thoughts. It is through the gathering of collective conscious thought that societies (multitudes of people) are connected and embodied. Why is it possible that a dictator can be overthrown? Because he is just one man...he stands alone without his consensus. And this is what happened to the Chancelor, Hitler and the great OZ.
Hobbes would not believe in a public sphere where citizens could get together and debate about policy. Democracy works best when there are not significant differences in economic wealth and property ownership, when there is a sense of community and lastly, when there is a workable and sufficient system of communication. How would Hobbess "Dog eat Dog" mentality jive with that? The success of democratic revolutions in the 18th and 19th century was because of the emergence for the first time in human histoory of the public sphere. With all the new CMNS technology there is out there to connect us to one another, I think that we should be concerned about the small number of commercial giants that control our media systems.. Is our democracy turning into a Leviathan?...

Describe What Four Dimensions Looks Like…I Dare You…

In Response to Megan’s Post: “Lineland.”

For those of you who have not read the novel "Flatland," A. Square, has a dream that he goes to Lineland – a world that is only one-dimensional, composed of only a straight line. In Lineland, the inhabitants cannot move around (because they cannot walk around their neighbours) and their field of vision consists only of a single point (as if you were to look at a line from its end).

The argument is that because A. Square has an unconscious vision of Lineland, that the perception of other realities is possible, without the use of our senses. This is true, when we are speaking of the perception of realities that are less complex than our own. It is not too difficult for us to imagine a two-dimensional world – we can draw diagrams, and explain which dimension is missing from our own world. Likewise, A. Square can easily paint an accurate picture of Flatland or Lineland for us. There is nothing new in a one dimensional, or two-dimensional world that we cannot experience to some degree through our three-dimensional senses – we all know what a point and a line are.

It is when it comes to imagining dimensions beyond our own (like God), that it becomes impossible to perceive. Just as A. Square cannot imagine anything more than seeing only straight lines, we three-dimensional beings cannot imagine seeing a fourth dimension. Some people might call time the fourth dimension, or some people might call thought the fourth dimension, but I am talking about a physical fourth dimension here. It cannot be measured, it cannot be drawn, and it cannot be imagined – our minds are limited to our own world. Just try and imagine what it would be like – you can’t.

Megan also argues that people who see angels or miracles are using their senses to prove the existence of God. For starters, if angels or miracles are anything like God then we cannot perceive them either. A miracle can just be a random event, and an angel might just be someone or something that looks like an angel – those of us that are foolishly blinded by this false sense “faith” interpret them as acts of God. If you could actually sense these things, then they would likely exist. I’m just saying that they can’t possibly be sensed in the first place.

Perceiving God (I Don't Think So)

The short novel "Flatland," written in 1884 by Edwin A. Abbott, illustrates perfectly the impossibility of our human senses in perceiving God. As I have already explained below (and which the Metaphysicals seem to accept as truth, as they have made no contrary arguments to it), perceiving does not entail faith or belief, but actual observation through one or more of the five senses.

First, I need to explain a few basics of the novel. The story of “Flatland” follows A. Square, a geometric shape (a square) living in a two dimensional world. Since Flatland has only height and length, and no width, the inhabitants of this world can perceive nothing more than straight lines. A. Square explicates this to his readers in Spaceland by explaining:

“Place a penny on the middle of one of your tables in Space; and leaning over it, look down upon it. It will appear a circle.

But now, drawing back to the edge of the table, gradually lower your eye (thus bringing yourself more and more into the condition of the inhabitants of Flatland), and you will find the penny becoming more and more oval to your view; and at last when you have placed your eye exactly on the edge of the table (so that you are, as it were, actually a Flatlander) the penny will then have ceased to appear oval at all, and will have become, so far as you can see, a straight line.

The same thing would happen if you were to treat in the same way a Triangle, or Square, or any other figure cut out of pasteboard…Take for example an equilateral Triangle – who represents with us a Tradesman of the respectable class. Fig. 1 represents the Tradesman as you would see him while you were bending over him from above; figs. 2 and 3 represent the Tradesman, as you would see him if your eye were close to the level, or all but on the level of the table; and if your eye were quite on the level of the table (and that is how we see him in Flatland) you would see nothing but a straight line.”

Later in the story, A. Square encounters a Sphere, who descends into Flatland from the third dimension. To A. Square, all he is able to perceive of the Sphere (regardless of the fact that the Sphere is three-dimensional) is a straight line which changes in size as the Sphere lowers himself into and out of Flatland (see diagram). For A. Square, anything outside of Flatland does not exist – it cannot exist because it is not part of his world. It is only after the Sphere has pushed A. Square out of Flatland and into Spaceland that the humble Square is able to see the Sphere for what he really is.

This creates a parallel between the Sphere and our so-called God. Just as A. Square is unable to even conceive the notion of a third dimension, we are unable to conceive anything that is not limited to our three dimensions. Imagine what a four or five dimensional “extra-solid” (as A. Square calls it) would look like. Try and draw a picture of it. Try and explain which direction the new dimensions would work in. It is impossible. Our limited three dimensions cannot even come close – it isn’t a matter of figuring out the correct mathematics, or developing new ways of making models; it’s just simply impossible.

Apparently there is a group of mathematicians working on developing a model of a tesseract (the four-dimensional equivalent of a cube). This is almost as ridiculous as those people out there that think they can perceive God. Unless we can raise ourselves to some extra-dimensional status (and, I suppose, this dimension would have to be infinite – seeing as how we are dealing with the infinite God), we will never succeed in perceiving Him.

So the Pope says he can speak with God, eh? Well, unless he can comprehend an infinite voice (which he can’t), I don’t think his statement has much validity. In my books, no proof, and no possibility of proof equals non-existent. I think you need to find a new hobby, Mr. Benedict.

An Inter-Polemic Blog

Seeing as how the Metaphysicals on this blog can’t seem to make any actual arguments (figures…they’re so caught up in this love crap, that they can’t make a solid stance on anything for fear of offending someone), I am going to engage with an argument from one of the other blogs.

Elliott Lummin argues that faith is a sense. He says:

Hobbes portrays sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch all as objective, perfect receptacles for information (which Hooke proves is untrue), while conveniently reducing faith, or "fancy" as he calls it, to an after thought of these supposedly more legitimate senses. This is precisely why Hobbes fails to perceive the goodness of man and the universe; he has denied the one sense required for the accuracy of his study: faith. For the metaphysicals, we can point to universal goodness and love because of this. Faith is no product of imagination, but the sense with which we percieve this purely benevolent force. By this, I do not mean to group you with the perceptually impaired members of society. After all, I would not dream of insulting the visually and hearing imparied, people born with conditions that limit given senses, in such a way. Unlike them, you have chosen your "blindness"...the same way Satan chose Hell. If you had faith, you might join us in seeing the balance Boethius sees in nature.

First off, the Oxford English Dictionary would disagree. Sense is defined as:

“Each of the special faculties, connected with a bodily organ, by which man and other animals perceive external objects and changes in the condition of their own bodies.”

Faith is not connected in any way to a bodily organ. And don’t give me that crap about souls and hearts. Souls are not real organs. Hearts pump blood. And as for the perceiving – we cannot perceive God. God is infinite and (if he even exists) therefore cannot be comprehended by human beings.

How can you say that faith is a sense, then? Senses give us evidence of the existence of things (for example, smelling a cinnamon bun, or hearing a telephone). Faith only gives us the idea that we are perceiving something – you can’t say to someone else: “Hey, I sense God. Can you sense that too?” Faith is something personal to the individual and is therefore only a work of imagination.

The OED uses words like “confidence,” “reliance,” “trust,” and “belief” to define faith – hardly anything to base an argument on. I might have faith that that roast beef is going to taste good, but when I put it in my mouth and taste rancid meat, well…which argument are you going to side with?

Acceptance is not Love

I accept that Stephen Harper is our Prime-Minister and I'm not going to deny that fact. But I sure as hell don't love Mr. Harper (or necessarily respect him or his policies).

I also accept that there are two sides to any debate, and will listen to both arguments. But I don't think this constitutes love in any way either.

Milton presents us with more than one option because he wants to demonstrate our free will to choose between them. In other words, Milton may present both sides, but he still wants to push us in one direction. He is still opposed to certain aspects, and just because he admits they exist doesn’t mean he’s being a loving person. If anything, it makes him more malicious due to the fact that he gives the appearance to two choices, while stripping one so bare that you are only left with one plausible choice.

Hobbes ..a Protestant?

How can Hobbes be a secular- calvinist- protestant? Isn't the word secular related to atheism? WOuld someone clear this up for me? And isn't protestant a sect. of religon that believes in God, Jesus Christ and the rest of the lot. If anything I think that Hobbes only claim to religon would serves purposes of saving his butt from accusations of heresy and also, appealing to a wider market of people that he can seduce into his Hobbesian mindset of political rule (Tatiania, is this what you ment by "Hobbes thought the teachings of the church are great... but God's are crap"....to Hobbes?) Hobbes's only use for religon is as a tool to regiment people into a monarchial form of government. To refer to oneself as a protestant, on some level or another is to say you believe in Love and Freedom of death. Hobbes is probably barbequing hambergers with Satan right now....

Calvin and Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes is a secular Calvinist.

Presbyterianism evolved out of Calvinism.

It's interesting then that Milton is a Presbyterian. Calvinism came first; therefore, Milton’s beliefs are nothing more than an offshoot of Hobbes’ beliefs. Milton was also a Puritan. What a hypocrite – if Milton was so caught up in love and cooperation, why should he feel the need to “purge the Anglican church of Arminianism?”


Just to get this straight – Milton chose (of his own free will, no doubt) to associate himself with an anti-Catholic, anti-Armenian sect of Christianity. This doesn’t sound like love to me. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that it was Hobbes who based his ideologies on conflict and war. Hell, I guess this makes Milton pretty much the same as Hobbes. Maybe Milton should start practicing what he preaches.


Bill Waterson knew exactly what he was doing when he failed to create a character named “Milton.” Or wait, maybe he did…that’s right, he was only in the first two comic strips; after that Hobbes ate him.

knowledge....

Responding to the guestion of knowlege...
I remember someone in class mention the DeadSea scrolls. There is a book called "the Gnostic Gospels" by Elaine Pagels, which gives an account of the dead sea scrolls in relations to why they were hidden and left out of the Bible as we know it today. 'Gnosicim' means knowledge I think. I don't have the book on me because I am at a coffee shop. But what I remember about what Pagels says is that everything that the bible contains was included because of political reasoning. Apparently the reason the Gnostic Gospels were left out (actually hidden and found close to 50 years ago) is because it's doctrine included some themes or ideas that promote 'self knowledge' or mysticism. Don't quote me on this but I think Pagels said that at the time the Catholic church's doctrine was being formed it was crucial that it's teaching was consistent in order to form a solid body in the church. The dead sea scrolls has influences of eastern religous thought because Thomas the disciple, who spent much time in India, wrote with an Eastern vibe. The idea behind much of the writing in Gnostic gospels is blurry... between 'God is within us' to 'we are our own Gods.' The way it was interrupted is that man could become his own Christ, and this was a form of enlightenment. And in fact there is a passage where Christ recognizes the "christ" within his brother and (I can't remember his name) Christ tells him to no longer refer to him as master. It is all very interesting and my interpretation may be completely off...(don't quote me on anything because I have a tendency to make things up)...I will bring the book to class if anyone is interested...
Anyways "knowledge" can be very threatening in the political realm if it goes against the current grain of thought.
Ash

Don't Mess with Satan

This comic book is from a project I did last year for English 205.

I just thought it would help to show that the awe and power of Satan and his fallen angels are a force to be reckoned with.

.

.

"Better to reign

in Hell than serve

in Heaven."

-Satan

.

.

Oprahs got my back.....

Just words...yes, Hobbes may be right that words are just words in themselves, but this comment of Hobbes is a rather a lazy one. If Hobbes wants to rid himself of the 'uncertainty' and 'wonder' of metaphysical inquirey then he can go right ahead, but I will not confuse his fear of the unknown with intelligence. He is indeed intelligent when it comes to logic, persuasion and propaguanda, but in terms of metaphysics he is nothing more than a closed book, a shut mind, a stubborn two year old. C. S. Lewis says, "god shows himself to some people more than others- not because he has favourites but because he cannot show himself to a man whose whole mind and heart are in the wrong condition, just as sunlight cannot shine into a dusty mirror as well as a clear one." Words in themselves are merely words, but when Wilmot's sparking mind inquires 'what really happened before the BIg Bang,' this is when words become poetry.

Sincerely,
Eve and friends.

'Upon Nothing'

In this poem, Wilmot portrays Nothing as a sort-of Something - like shade, or the hand of God , etc (things that are not really there, but at the same time, they are). When we apply Hobbes' notion of what is infinite or finite, Nothing is a term that implies infiniteness (although, I suppose it could be argued to be the complete opposite of infinite - but even then, it would still be infinite, just in a negative sense). Nothing is therefore unconceiveable (hell, I'm confusing myself just trying to explain it). And therefore, Wilmot's poem is completely pointless as it tells us nothing of value. According to Hobbes, 'Nothing' and 'Something' are just words anyways, so Wilmot can go suck it.

hmmm...maybe that last comment was a bit too polemical...

As for Johnny Depp...maybe he wanted to meet John Malkovich. Either that, or he just wanted to star in a film where he gets to have an endless number of sex scenes with hot women. I'm guessing it was probably Malkovich...