This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hobbes was an important political philosopher. I personally don't feel qualified to create an infobox on him, but I believe that one is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.69.254 ( talk • contribs)
I recall watching BookTV about 5 or 6 years ago that taped a graduate school seminar of Hobbes given by a bigorapher Anyone know the name of the book or author? John wesley 15:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm ashamed to say I don't know how to fix the vandalism on the "Thomas Hobbes" page. Maybe someone else does.
Somehow the vandal has replaced the initial "Early Life" section with the following:
"Image: Http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg
Hobbes was very good friends with Lexington Steele, Nacho Vidal and Peter North. He back packed around Thailand once, but didn't think much of it. HE masturbated profusely, and ejaculated a great deal. He was heavily influenced by Mandingo, almost to the point og plagiarism."
Trouble is, I can't find that text when I go to edit...the "Early Life" text appears to be there, but when I go back to see, the other stuff is still taking its place. -- starfarmer 01:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that the controversies section with Wallis uses non-neutral language?
e.g. "...a criticism which exposed the utter inadequacy of Hobbes's mathematics." "Hobbes's lack of rigour meant that he spent himself in vain attempts to solve the impossible problems that often waylaid self-sufficient beginners" "he never had any notion of the full scope of mathematical science. "He was unable to work out with any consistency the few original thoughts he had, and thus was an easy target." "Wallis had an easy task in defending himself against Hobbes's criticism..." "The thrusts were easily parried by Wallis in a reply (Hobbiani puncti dispunctio, 1657). Hobbes finally took refuge in silence and there was peace for a time."
And so on...
I'm a bit of a wiki-newbie, but a) it's an awful lot to be devoting to Wallis in a page about Hobbes, b) the language is clearly biased, c) it looks like it was all written by one person from 72.79.28.236 on 1 June.
Should it just be deleted?
60.234.232.62 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Keith Ng
You might tone it down a bit but I think the general principal is fair: Hobbes's maths didn't fare well William M. Connolley 15:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be a good article, but would very much benefit from the inclusion of several reference citations. Badbilltucker 15:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a registered editor, so I can't change the article, but there is a section that could be better. In the 'Early life section' you can read " Hobbes later reported that "my mother gave birth to twins: myself and fear" with a reference to some dubious online biography. What Hobbes really wrote (in his verse autobiography) is ""my mother dear / Did bring forth twins at once, both me and fear". You can reference the autobiography itself. It can be found in E. Curley's ed. of Leviathan, 1994 Hackett edition, pages liv to lxiv (the quote is from liv). (----)
Hillel's golden rule was the golden rule in negation, just as you say was Hobbes' rule. Hillel came a good deal before Hobbes and therefore it is misleading to say that the Christian golden rule in negation is Hobbes' when in fact is it just that of Hillel and Judaism. Euroster 02:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I also think that the negative golden rule is a bit misleading, and it makes the "christian" rule seem to say that one SHOULD do to others what they don't want to themselves. Just my two cents ~Tyler~ 10 AM 26 October
I changed "Judaeo-Christian" to "Christian" today for that (Euroster's) reason, before I noticed this talk. "Positive" formulation is from NT, not Judaism. Sukkoth 19:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Kafziel, the point is not descriptions of origins. The labeling here is just not accurrate. "Judaeo-Christian" means, fairly closely, "Jewish and Christian". Thus, the article proposes to contrast Hobbes' formulation, that is, the "Do not do" phrasing, to the "Jewish and Christian" formulation, that is, the "Do" phrasing. Further, it does so with an opinion, accusing the latter of being a "recipe for social chaos". However, the "positve" phrasing is Christian, here is the source:
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12)
(From this Wiki but very well known elsewhere). This does not exist in Jewish sources. Without getting into the topic of influences, etc, the Jewish version, with source is:
When he went to Hillel, Hillel said to him, 'What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah; all the rest of it is commentary; go and learn.' (Talmud, Shabbat 31a)
This is essentially the same as Hobbes:
"Do not that to another, which thou wouldst not have done to thyself."
If this is nit-picking, then the whole topic should be removed, but it is explicitly inaccurrate to say that the Jewish form is the same as the Christian where that contrasts with Hobbes, especially if it is being set up for a derisive evaluation. This is not original research, it is a description of the well known record.
So, what do you say we call Christain "Christian" ? Sukkoth 17:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Christian is unambigously accurate wheras Judeo-Christian is doubtful. Seeing as the second formulation adds little of value the first should be used in an encyclopedia. How Hobbes' philosophy relates to Judaism is of marginal interest, how it relates to Christianity is plainly of the utmost importance. 90.200.32.88 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hobbes's views are much disputed, and Richard Tuck, although influential, is also much criticized. It would be nice if this entry could give a more balanced view of Hobbes's philosophy. In particular, if it could incorporate criticism of the traditional interpretation, works other that Leviathan, etc.
( William M. Connolley 19:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I've cut this:
This political philosophy has been analysed by the influential Richard Tuck as a response to the problems that Cartesian doubt introduce for moral philosophy. Hobbes concedes, with the sceptics and with Descartes, that we cannot know anything about the external world for certain from our sense impressions of it. His philosophy is seen as an attempt to base a coherent theory of social formation purely on the fact of the sense impressions themselves, arguing that these sense impressions are enough for man to act to preserve his own life, and building up his entire political philosophy from that single imperative.
here to see if anyone wants to defend it. Firstly, we cannot know anything about the external world for certain from our sense impressions of it is not obvious. Hobbes clearly asserts that we get our ideas from external sense impressions, but doesn't obviously express Cartesian type doubt. Secondly, I can't see how he bases all his theory on this: he explicitly introduces "laws of nature" type things which appear to me to be deductions from the mental sphere.
I don't really feel like defending it, but read Hobbes again, as well as his response to Descartes' Meditations, with this question in mind. You will likely have a different take when you are focused on the issue (I did). I believe Tuck is right. 70.80.196.191 15:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I have started a discussion regarding the Infobox Philosopher template page concerning the "influences" and "influenced" fields. I am in favor of doing away with them. Please join the discussion there. RJC Talk 14:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The article Hobbesian should perhaps be merged into this one, or deleted, as it is now just an article about a word, and not about the actual topic the word defines. Or perhaps it could be redirected to Competition or some such place. I likely won't be back to this talk page, so someone else will have to decide. -- Xyzzyplugh 13:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I have never in my life heard of these computer game characters but I am fairly certain that Calvin and Hobbes are very well known.
Calvin and Hobbes is possibly the most well known comic strip ever. Not Millions. Super-Bajillions -- Mackilicious 01:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
"Hobbesian
The word "Hobbesian" is sometimes used in modern English to refer to a situation in which there is unrestrained, selfish, and uncivilised competition. This usage, now well-established, is misleading for two reasons: first, the Leviathan describes such a situation, but only in order to criticise it; second, Hobbes himself was timid and bookish in person. Other uses, popular immediately after Hobbes published, carry connotations of atheism and the belief that "might makes right."
Umm why is this misleading? The word Hobbesian is used because it refers to Hobbes' ideas. I doubt anyone thinks it was coined because Hobbes was like this. Or because he proposed that this was a good thing. I think the paragraph should be removed or rewritten.
Disco
02:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The "In popular culture" section is a waste. Lestrade ( talk) 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
I am making some edits to the Leviathan section of the article to bring it into line with Wikipedia:Summary style. I think the article could be vastly improved if the section on Leviathan were supplemented with some on the Elements of Law and De Cive, but I think that someone else would have to take the lead on that. RJC Talk 03:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This article needs a section on Hobbes' epistemology and metaphysics. -- 140.180.21.96 ( talk) 16:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the biography it says that Hobbes' mother heard the Spanish Armada and then there is a parenthehical description that the Spanish Armada was a fleet of Spanish ships. Is this really necessary? I think the Spanish Armada is a pretty well-known term, as well as being self-explanatory. Why not just put Spanish Armada as a wikilink? DruidODurham ( talk) 21:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of anon vandalism of this page, so I've semi-ed it. But I'm also having an edit war myself. So if any admin wants to revoke the prot, please do William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The article states that Hobbes attended Magdalen Hall in 1603, yet the link states that Magdalen Hall was renamed Magdalen College in 1458. Which one's right?
He is listed as an alumnus of Hertford College. I haven't heard of him being a student of Magdalen...
The biographical sources I have all state Hobbes attended Magdalen Hall, Oxford from 1603-1608 Oakeshott 17:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it also says something about 'his master at Magdalen' so I will correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.45.159 ( talk) 12:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No your wrong, in the Oxford University Press addition of Leviathan, it cites that he went to Magdalen Hall, spelt with an N at the end and not an E. And it also goes on to say that Magdalen Hall became part of Magdalen College, Oxford. You can see this for yourself here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DhlOzCmNYj8C&dq=leviathan&pg=PP1&ots=Ukt7UCsxLI&sig=87oCYlW8OhZPhLA-v1E2_1Hx2B8&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.co.uk/search%3Fclient%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26channel%3Ds%26hl%3Den%26q%3DLeviathan%26lr%3Dlang_en%257Clang_it%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPP13,M1
Page 9! read it. I am changing it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.45.159 ( talk) 20:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it actually says on the Hertford College, Oxford page - that it is not to be confused with the Magdalen Hall, that became part of Magdalen College. And it says that Hert Hall changed to Magdalen hall later on due to poverty or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.45.159 ( talk) 22:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Are we clear now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackdelyelis ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The Hall became Hertford College in 1740. Due to funding problems, the College's buildings were taken over as Magdalen Hall ... in 1822.
So how could Hobbes have been at that Magdalen Hall!? when it was created in 1822! So therefore he must have been at one that became part of Magdalen College.( Jackdelyelis ( talk) 23:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC))
I have taken off the bit about Hertford, and just left it as Magdalen Hall! So we can end this geek-off! ( Jackdelyelis ( talk) 23:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC))
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.45.159 ( talk) 15:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to rely on OUP, and add that the 'buildings are now part of Magdalen College'. On Hertford's page it says something about this:
Magdalen Hall (not related to the similarly named Magdalen College whose separate Hall had been incorporated into the University as a college years before).
I trust Oxford University Press to be factual, more than I trust Hertford's philosophy fellows. ( Jackdelyelis ( talk) 23:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC))
why did you removed "republican" from hobbes page? some arguments? -- discourseur 23:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
moving on demand disscusion from personal page --
discourseur
13:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
assuming that no further argumentation means no arguments against republicanism i will include it back. -- discourseur 14:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to noe, as a British citizen, Commonwealth as used in British English is certainly not synonomous with Republic. Yobmod ( talk) 11:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Why are so many people vandalizing the Hobbes article using inappropriate laanguage? We really should crack down on vandalism on this article. ~~Dasta Lover 6~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.254.4 ( talk) 23:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I think Hobbes-Wallis controversy should be split out as a separate article. In simple terms, the reputation of Hobbes doesn't depend on that debate (and it shows him at his worst); the details shouldn't dominate this article, since it is not that important to him as philosopher as currently understood. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
In the Wiki documentary hypothesis article Thomas Hobbes, in chapter 33 of Leviathan, concluded that the first five books of the Bible could not have been written by Moses. This is one of the earliest attacks on the idea that they had been dictated by G-d to Moses. Might be nice to add this but I'm not sure where it would best fit. Nitpyck ( talk) 02:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Read an article over at [3] and was thinking of placing it somewhere within the article as it seems to be quite a decent summary (it is for a book review though so not sure how suitable it is). Anyone that is an expert in this field feel free to place it (or not) as you see fit. Cheers! Calaka ( talk) 07:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
What were his contributions to geometry? It's mentioned in the introduction but nowhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.179.66 ( talk) 00:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
In the space flight simulator Wing Commander, there is a Kilrathi character with the callsign "Hobbes". He claims it was given to him by a friend who claimed he was very wise, much like the philosopher. Incidentally, the in-joke is obvious in that his species are similar to that of tigers, which references Hobbes of "Calvin and Hobbes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptor4815 ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The dead rapper Big L starts his track, Put it on, 'Yo you better flee hobbes' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.20.236 ( talk) 01:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
...De Cive was republished... The printing began in 1646 by Samuel de Sorbiere through the Elsevier press at Amsterdam...
However, according to Elsevier, the company was only founded in 1880, over 200 years later!
Top.Squark ( talk) 14:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, why the tag in From the time of the Restoration he acquired a new prominence; "Hobbism" became a fashionable creed which it was the duty of "every lover of true morality and religion" to denounce[contradiction]. I fail to see the contradiction William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
"Hobbism" became a fashionable creed which it was the duty of "every lover of true morality and religion" to denounce.
What is meant by "every lover of true morality and religion"? I guess the meaning is ironic rather than literal? What does it take for someone to qualify as such? Who determined it was the "duty" of these "lovers" and how?
Top.Squark ( talk) 16:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Re [6]. Hobbes doesn't like rebellion (because the nature of this offence, consisteth in the renouncing of subjection; which is a relapse into the condition of warre, commonly called Rebellion; and they that so offend, suffer not as Subjects, but as Enemies. For Rebellion, is but warre renewed. for example [7]; and "Want Of Absolute Power" is one of the errors that may lead to dissolution of a commonwealth). OTOH there is also Having thus briefly spoken of the Naturall Kingdome of God, and his Naturall Lawes, I will adde onely to this Chapter a short declaration of his Naturall Punishments... it comes to passe, that Intemperance, is naturally punished with Diseases; Rashnesse, with Mischances; Injustice, with the Violence of Enemies; Pride, with Ruine; Cowardise, with Oppression; Negligent government of Princes, with Rebellion; and Rebellion, with Slaughter. So that looks like rebellion excused under some circumstances. But the best expression of that is "In What Cases Subjects Absolved Of Their Obedience To Their Soveraign" which has The Obligation of Subjects to the Soveraign is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth, by which he is able to protect them - which can be interpreted as rebellion is justified under severe abuse, and as long as you can get away with it William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
In October 1679 a bladder disorder was followed by a paralytic stroke, under which he died, in his ninety-second year. He was buried in the churchyard of Ault Hucknall.
It seems that at least up until 1679, Hobbes's life was not terribly nasty or brutish, nor was it at all short. -- Sewing 23:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hobbes lived under a monarchical government, which he defended for the very reason that he believed it altered the natural condition of man in such a way that his life would no longer be nasty, brutish or short. -- Adam Acosta, 20 March 2005
He suffered with something akin to Parkinson's Disease for at least the last two decades of his life. He was unable to write and had to employ an amanuensis, James Wheldon, to transcribe his thoughts. Oakeshott 21:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 21:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem in the "Early life and education" section: Hobbes was the tutor of William Cavendish, 2nd earl of Devonshire, son of William Cavendish, 1st earl of Devonshire. When you click on this name, you are redirected to William Cavendish, 3rd Earl of Devonshire. But Hobbes cannot make the Grand Tour in Europe in 1610, with a man who is born in 1617... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelo.mr ( talk • contribs) 08:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
You might mention the fact that he dines, courtesy of the Jesuits at the English College, Rome on 26 December 1635 with the young Earl of Devonshire; first published in Edward Chaney, The Grand Tour and the Great Rebellion, Geneva-Turin, 1985, pp. 301-03. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.189 ( talk) 17:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I just tried adding a link to a rather unique version of The Leviathan that includes an introductory essay with thoughtful hypertext commentary on several important sections and allows other site visitors to create a login and add their own thoughts/commentary as well. ( http://www.thefinalclub.org/work-overview.php?work_id=113). Does anyone have a problem with my adding that link? Why was it deleted? Sorry if I stepped on any toes by just adding the link, but I've posted to talk pages before an no one has ever responded. Andrewmagliozzi ( talk) 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Please consider adding the following external link, which tracks available digital books of Hobbes:
An image used in this article,
File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
I have removed this new section for discussion first. The idea of a legacy section sounds OK, but this actually seems to be enitrely about one modern author. Consider WP:UNDUE.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
==Legacy and influence in contemporary thought== Hobbes' work has had profound influence in modern political, philosophical, and legal thought.<ref>{{cite web|title=Hobbes: Moral and Political Philosophy|url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/}}</ref><ref>Duncan, Stewart, "Thomas Hobbes", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)</ref><ref>Dyzenhaus, David. 2001. "Hobbes and the Legitimacy of Law." Law and Philosophy 20 (September): 461–8.</ref><ref>Martinich, A.P. 1999. Hobbes: A Biography. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.</ref> The closest contemporary equivalent to his work is in the writings of philosopher and social and legal theorist [[Roberto Mangabeira Unger]].<ref>Dunn, J. 1986. “Unger’s Politics and the Appraisal of Political Possibility.” Nw. UL Rev. 81</ref><ref>Boyle, James. 1985. “Modernist Social Theory: Roberto Unger’s ‘Passion’.” Harvard Law Review 98 (5) (March 1): 1066–1083.</ref> Unger has conversed with and grappled with Hobbes in his writings on political and social order,<ref>Unger, Roberto Mangabeira. 1975. Knowledge & Politics. New York: Free Press.</ref> law,<ref>Unger, Roberto Mangabeira. 1976. Law in Modern Society: Toward a Criticism of Social Theory. New York: Free Press.</ref> and the self.<ref>Unger, Roberto Mangabeira. 1984. [[Passion: An Essay on Personality]]. New York: Free Press.</ref> Like Hobbes, Unger puts politics at the center of his view of humanity, and embeds his political and social thought in a broader account of our place in nature. Both Hobbes and Unger envision an intransigently naturalistic account of the human condition.<ref>Dunn, J. 1986. “Unger’s Politics and the Appraisal of Political Possibility.” Nw. UL Rev. 81</ref><ref>Boyle, James. 1985. “Modernist Social Theory: Roberto Unger’s ‘Passion’.” Harvard Law Review 98 (5) (March 1): 1066–1083.</ref> Similar to Hobbes, Unger sees the arrangements or structures of society as frozen politics--the outcome a relative containment or a temporary suspension of strife over the terms of social life. They can be returned at any moment through renewed conflict, to our primordial condition of fluidity, anguish, and aspiration. No one social order stands definitively for the possibilities of social life.<ref>Unger, Roberto Mangabeira. 1987. False Necessity: Anti-necessitarian Social Theory in the Service of Radical Democracy. Politics, a Work in Constructive Social Theory. London: Verso.</ref> There is nevertheless also a profound difference between these thinkers that centers around revolutionary projects of political and personal liberation -- liberalism, socialism, democracy, and romanticism -- that have aroused the world since Hobbes's time but are utterly alien to his way of thinking.<ref>Yack, Bernard. 1988. “Review: Toward a Free Marketplace of Social Institutions: Roberto Unger’s ‘Super-Liberal’ Theory of Emancipation.” Harvard Law Review 101 (8) (June 1): 1961–1977.</ref><ref>Boyle, James. 1985. “Modernist Social Theory: Roberto Unger’s ‘Passion’.” Harvard Law Review 98 (5) (March 1): 1066–1083.</ref> For Unger, our hope of ascent to a greater life rests on our nature as context-shaped but context-transcending beings who can turn the tables on their circumstances and transform the social and conceptual worlds in which they find themselves. Through such reconstruction, hope rises over fear, which was for Hobbes was the most powerful political sentiment.<ref>Unger, Roberto Mangabeira. 2007. The Self Awakened: Pragmatism Unbound. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.</ref><ref>Unger, Roberto Mangabeira. 1984. [[Passion: An Essay on Personality]]. New York: Free Press.</ref> |
And that author also happens to be a politician. I think you're right William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
As I see it, there are three concerns here, that of balance, that of relevance, and my motivations.
So I am kind of at a loss at the opposition. With the necessary references to point to this as a main trend in the philosophical discipline, it seems worthy to include in an article about Hobbes and his thought. Even if others find it incomplete, this seems to lend itself to view two of the WP:DEADLINE guideline cited above: don't rush to delete! Archivingcontext ( talk) 12:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Three paragraphs on an obscure politician seems excessive. Hobbes is one of the seminal figures in Western philosophy. Giving everyone else their due, proportionally increased to their importance, would make the legacy section a multivolume series. Any mention of this fellow seems to give him undue weight when the proper subject of a Legacy section is Locke, Rousseau, Oakeshotte, Schmitt, etc. RJC Talk Contribs 14:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
In order to reach consensus on this matter can I propose the inclusion of other contemporary thinkers and a shortening of the Unger material? In accordance with WP:DEADLINE, and in agreement with Alcmaeonid, there is no need to delete sections and material, but rather to improve them over time. I think that this article deserves a section on Hobbes' legacy and influences among contemporary thinkers and the trajectory of his ideas. I agree with the inclusion of Oakeshott and Schmitt, and maybe also a few sentences or graph on contemporary legal theory (Strauss' scholarship on Hobbes may be useful in this endeavor). Can we move forward with this initiative? Archivingcontext ( talk) 02:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Being such an important thinker, it is strange that this article lacks a proper section about his thoughts, as there are in so many other philosophers’ pages in the Wikipedia. -- CalaClii ( talk) 16:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Other uses popular immediately Hobbes published carry connotations of atheism and the belief that "might makes right."
This sentence is very convoluted. Can anyone who understands this reword it? Also, wasn't Hobbes an atheist? -- Malathion 4 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)
The evidence from Hobbes' writings support the view that Hobbes was not athiest but anti-clerical. He detested those theocrats that sought to elevate the theological power above the civil power. Oakeshott 17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a newbie so not sure if my entry is appropriate, however on the subject of his atheism, it might be of interest to note that a close friend of Thomas claims to have visited and spoken to him after Thomas had died. His friend John Bunyan (an English author), just after a failed suicide attempt, was shown a vision of hell by his guardian angel and found Thomas there because he had been an atheist. Please see heading "An Atheist in Hell" in John Bynyan's vision of Hell MaxWikiUser ( talk) 10:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
__________
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Storris ( talk • contribs) 01:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
To clarify on Hobbes and Atheism:
In Leviathan, Hobbes used 'Atheist' and 'Atheism' with their modern definitions:
"except by the Sadduces, who erred so farre on the other hand, as not to believe there were at all any spirits, (which is very neere to direct Atheisme)" Leviathan, Chapter 8, Pg 61 (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1909)
"Subjects therefore in the Kingdome of God, are not Bodies Inanimate, nor creatures Irrational, because they understand no Precepts as his. Nor Atheists, nor they that believe not that God has any care of the actions of mankind... because they acknowledge no Word for his, nor have hope of his rewards, or fear of his threatnings." Leviathan, Chapter 31, Pg 275 (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1909)
And he expressly denies the charge here, by stating a belief in the divine hand of God as the cause of all things:
"...every act of mans will, and every desire, and inclination proceedeth from some cause, and that from another cause in a continuall chaine, (whose first link is in the hand of God, the first of all causes)..." Leviathan, Chapter 21, Pg 162 (Oxford:Clarendon Press 1909)
The edition of Leviathan referenced, is here --> http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=869 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storris ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I noticed from reading the article that there should be more citations in the following subjects:
Civil war in England,
Opposition, and
Later Life.
Though I will admit that the whole article could use better citing. --
Orduin ⋠
T⋡
21:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Thomas Hobbes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear all,
I would like to bring your attention to the Bibliographic ressources/Works by Hobbes/Complete Editions/The English Works/Volume 4 section.
As can be checked simply by referring to the link currently held (archive.org) for Volume 4 (table of content), you can see that Consideration upon the Reputation, Loyalty, Manners and Religion of Thomas Hobbes is a different heading from An Historical Narration concerning Heresy, and the Punishment thereof
Could you please amend the wikipedia page to reflect this?
Thank you in advance, Best,
RFL GIRARD
RFLGirard ( talk) 23:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Thomas Hobbes was not in favor of traditional natural justice under natural law (the rights of the individual - as we would put it) he radically transformed these terms emptying them of their traditional meaning. Hobbes taught that the state could do anything the ruler or rulers wanted to do (the idea that he supported government "by consent" does violence to the normal meaning of the word "consent") and that "law" was simply the arbitrary will of the ruler or rulers - that there was no natural law or natural justice as traditionally understood. To identify Thomas Hobbes as giving useful ideas to the liberal tradition is absurd. 176.253.199.11 ( talk) 14:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The article is false - in key respects just about the opposite of the real Thomas Hobbes.
Thomas Hobbes actually held that humans were not moral agents. That we had no ability to tell moral right from moral wrong (only pleasure and pain) and no free will to choose between right and wrong even if we could know the difference, with all our actions being predetermined (as if we were pre programmed flesh robots - not people).
Far from being the inventor of "social contract theory" (an ancient idea), Thomas Hobbes actually radically subverted it, by eliminating any real CONSENT.
Also far from being a supporter of natural law or natural rights - Thomas Hobbes emptied these concepts of all moral content.
The real Thomas Hobbes was a supporter of tyranny (a total and unlimited state), to associate him with Classical Liberalism makes as much sense as associating the Emperor Diocletian or Louis XIV of France with Classical Liberalism.
It is difficult to believe that anyone could be so utterly ignorant as to write an article such as this one on Thomas Hobbes. Therefore I suspect, indeed I formally charge, whoever wrote the article with deliberate dishonesty - with the conscious intent of misleading readers. 90.195.107.55 ( talk) 17:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the section on Locke, because it appears to me to be junk. Looking back, I find it was added by Meshnoy not long ago ([ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Hobbes&diff=626163256&oldid=625892825}). I don't think there's any reason to tart it up and replace it: it doesn't fit: the section is for at-the-time opposition, not for anyone who subsequently disagree with Hobbes.
William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that is acceptable to remove. A section on the differences and similarities between Locke and Hobbes might be a good idea one day, as a section about his influence (few discussions of Hobbes do not mention something about Locke), but it is not a simple subject. It is easy to find lots of sources, but they all say different things, and many of them give a sort of fairy tail "just so" story. There are also writers who say Locke was just repeating Hobbes in a nicer way (whose name was dirt by that time). Hobbes and Locke lived in a time when you could get in serious trouble for the sorts of things they published about, and this makes it difficult.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that Hobbes's attempt to square the circle was idiotic. The word "geometry" in the leading paragraph gives a false impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.30.212 ( talk) 17:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
He went on to publish "De Corpore", which contained not only tendentious views on mathematics, but also an unacceptable proof of the squaring of the circle. This all led mathematicians to target him for polemics and sparked John Wallis to become one of his most persistent opponents. From 1655, the publishing date of "De Corpore", Hobbes and Wallis went round after round trying to disprove each other's positions. After years of debate, the spat over proving the squaring of the circle gained such notoriety that this feud has become one of the most infamous in mathematical history. |
Our:
is fairly dubious:
William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I had another thought about this paragraph. Isn't the word "Though" a non-NPOV (and arguably ahistorical) inclusion, since it communicates the assumption that absolutism and European liberal thought do not normally go together? Elcalebo ( talk) 16:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article Leviathan (book) is linked seven times in the article – not counting the "Main" template – including three links in the sections immediately preceding the "Leviathan" section. It should be linked at most three times: in the lead, in its own section, and once only in the "Works" section. Please de-link the remaining four. Also, the link to Leviathon in the sentence, "The State, it now seemed to Hobbes, might be regarded as a great artificial man or monster (Leviathan)...", should not be italicized, as it does not refer to a book. 95.44.50.222 ( talk) 14:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The following sentence makes no sense: "Hobbes also criticised religious doctrines on rationalistic grounds in the Commonwealth." Can somebody who knows what it is supposed to be saying re-phrase it appropriately, please? 95.44.50.222 ( talk) 14:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Also he took advantage of the rule of the Commonwealth to indulge much more freely than he might have otherwise dared in rationalistic criticism of religious doctrines; while, amid the turmoil of sects, he could the more forcibly urge, that the preservation of social order, when again firmly restored, must depend on the assumption by the civil power of the right to wield all sanctions, supernatural as well as natural, against the pretensions of any clergy, Catholic, Anglican or Presbyterian, to the exercise of an "imperium in imperio".
( William M. Connolley 19:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)) There is now a link to calvin+hobbes at the bottom and top of the page. I don't think the one at the top is appropriate. No-one is going to look for C+H under T H. Better to make Hobbes (currently a re direct) into the disambig and delete C+H from this page.
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Thomas Hobbes/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Needs reference citations badly. Badbilltucker 22:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Intro is short. Needs info about controversy between Hobbes and Locke. Only 1 inline citation. Kaldari 21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 08:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
When I find sufficient time, I will undertake a bold revision of parts of this article. Endymion.12 ( talk) 21:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
"not controversialour policy WP:V requires a citation where the content might be questioned. Nobody cares about your claims about
"academic background"because Wikipedia does not extend trust to editors because they say they have an education; we're all dilettantes here. You can change make changes but if we, as a community, revert you, you will have to explain your changes. I'd suggest you proceed with care. Chris Troutman ( talk) 22:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Here are mine and the original versions:
These two versions are identical in sense except that mine also states that Hobbes had a rational (and systematic) theory of politics, which is true (and amply supported throughout the article).
Neither the original, nor my wording take a position on how Hobbes developed his preference for absolutism. They are both merely statements of fact which have ample support in the sources provided throughout the article. Your interpretation of my changes above is bizarre.
Here is your preferred version:
This does not “soften” the claim, it transforms the claim. This version makes two strong claims: it implies (1) that Hobbes’ preference for absolutism was held principally on rational grounds and was therefore not prior to his authorship of De Cive or Leviathan (unsourced, and no, my version obviously doesn’t imply the contrary), and (2) in overstating his influence on the development of political liberalism (based on a single reference) further implies that Hobbes had liberal sympathies. These are very strong claims indeed, and need citation.
Per 3), I think you are missing something. The lead (per WP:LEAD) must summarise the contents of the article. If something isn’t extensively discussed in the article (or rather, isn’t discussed at all in the article), it obviously shouldn’t take up a third of the lead section of the article.
Here is what WP:LEAD says:
In other words, you will have to justify retaining this information in the lead section. It clearly ought to be moved to a section in the main body of the article. Endymion.12 ( talk) 14:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The bits from the 1911 article article are only partly edited. Parts of it didn't really survive the OCR process in any meaningful form. And it might even be too detailed (although in that case, maybe it should be condensed and the full article should be moved onto a subpage.)
I'll be diving back into it soon to do some editing, when I have more time. But I'm never in favor of removing potentially useful information from an article just because it's a little messy right now. Dachshund — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dachshund ( talk • contribs) 23:37, 20 September 2002 (UTC)
In the debate on US Neoconservatives, they are often pointed out as "Hobbesian". Maybe this would merit to be mentioned?
A dictionary definition once existed as the wikipedia article on Hobbesian:
-- Ruhrjung 21:27, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Something odd happened, and the edit I reverted, by 17:39 . . 208.35.239.18 has vanished from the edit history as of now. I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 1 February 2005 (UTC)
There's a lot of vandalsim on this page; I regret to say I was unable to fix it and I hope somebody else is able to. There's some stuff in the 'early life and education' portion of the article, but it doesn't appear when I try to edit. Returning to the article, it's still there. Bubble fish 14:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hobbes, he was born in Gloucestershire, was he not? Gloucestershire is fairly close to Wiltshire. I have a source that says this, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UBeR ( talk • contribs) 03:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it really accurate to say "Hobbes is the founder of political liberalism"? According to whom? Isn't it more common to say that Locke was the founder? POV notice: I more or less like political liberalism, and I can't stand Hobbes. - Nat Kraus e 07:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hobbes was one of the first to introduce the concept of the social contract, and for that alone he could be considered a father of modern liberalism. Bigger brains than mine (John Gray, for instance) make this point and others. It is, to this autodidact, a perfectly reasonable position to take.
Hobbes' philosophy sounds more like libertarianism than liberalism to me, particularly with respect to the supremacy of the free market.
Hobbes can be seen as the founder of political liberalism because he is the foundered of the political philosophical tradition that see the individual as the basic and central unit of social life. It is from this world view that later thinks, such as Locke, create the tenets of political liberalism that is more recognizable today.
I agree with the earlier comments that it would be more accurate to describe Hobbes as the founder of libertarianism. The social contract requires adherence to laws, and breaches of this result in strong government retaliation. Hobbes does not wish government to intrude on other aspects of everyday life in the state. As even the current entry correctly states, Hobbes believed “so long as one man does no harm to any other, the sovereign should keep its hands off him”. As such, the central authority in Hobbes’ state is only strong when dealing with issues pertaining to the breach of the social contract, and does not interest itself on issues such as the public welfare, as a liberal government would. Ergo, he’s definitely not the founder of liberalism, but there’s a strong case for him being the founder of libertarianism (considering of course that they hadn’t quite mastered the free market when he was around)
Those who say that he was the founder of political liberalism argue that it has a Hobbesian basis: the idea was that Locke "corrected" Hobbes on Hobbesian principles, that liberalism better protects those things which Hobbes said were alone worth protecting. Hobbes is called the founder, however, because it was he who argued for those things being the true ends of government, the protection of which was the touchstone of all legitimate authority. Political libertarianism is one strand of political liberalism, and one that I don't think Hobbes would support. As it is a contested matter, I think his being the founder should be mentioned in the article as one interpretation among others. - RJC 06:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is anachronistic to consider Hobbes either a political liberal or libertarian. Possibly the root of this claim might be that he first articulated the meaning of liberty as freedom from external constraints- this can be found in Chapter 21 of Leviathan. He could therefore be considered the founder of political liberty in the modern sense, rather than political liberalism. See Quentin Skinner, 'Hobbes and Republican Liberty', Cambridge University Press, 2008 -- 131.111.230.164 ( talk) 12:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place to add to the talk section, but regarding Hobbes and liberalism - the jury is out. It depends on that you think liberalism is. So, for instance, Susun Moller Okin writes: "Though Hobbes was no liberal in his conclusions, advocating an absolute rather than restrained state, many of his most important ideas-including original individual equality and freedom-became central tenets of liberal theory," "Humanist Liberalism,' in Liberalism and the Moral Life, ed. Nancy Rosenblum (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), page 257, David Van Mill is even stronger about him being a liberal (see his article 'Hobbes and the Limits of Freedom', while Alan Ryan writes "it would be absurd to call Hobbes a liberal” Ryan, "Hobbes's Political Philosophy" in The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes, ed. Tom Sorrell (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), page 233. (----)
The idea that Thomas Hobbes was the first political thinker to think in terms of individual human beings is absurd. Indeed Thomas Hobbes DEINED the very existence of individual human beings as traditionally understood - i.e. moral agents (reasoning "I") with the FREE WILL to CHOOSE between moral good and moral evil (Thomas Hobbes was a determinist, he denied free will, and a materialist - he denied the existence of the human soul as traditionally understood). Thomas Hobbes also denied all the traditional ideas of the right to rebel against tyranny (indeed to Hobbes "tyranny is but the name of sovereignty") and recognised no moral right, or moral duty, to go to the aid of someone else unjustly attacked by the state. Thomas Hobbes redefines such words as "justice", "contract", "right" and "law" to empty them of all traditional moral content. His social "contract" does not need voluntary consent (thus turning the Common Law understanding of "contact" on its head), and his idea of "law" and "justice" is just the arbitrary WILL of the ruler or rulers - Thomas Hobbes rejecting the traditional understanding of natural law and natural justice. The article presents Thomas Hobbes as some sort of Classical Liberal - he was the OPPOSITE (as the "Old Whigs" well knew). Thomas Hobbes was the great defender of tyranny (despotism) - the unlimited power of the state, with the people not being allowed to limit the powers of the state or to change the government. Indeed to DENY that the people had any right to limit the power of the state or to change the government is the basic principle of the work of Thomas Hobbes. 90.194.149.162 ( talk) 10:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The article is nonsense. Thomas Hobbes did not believe in the "rights of the individual" or that government should be "based on consent" - or he hopelessly twisted these terms utterly transforming their traditional meaning. Thomas Hobbes taught that humans were not persons, that we are fresh robots incapable of moral choice, and that, consequently, we have no moral rights or duties. Thomas Hobbes taught that there was no moral duty to defend someone who was unjustly attacked by the state or by private criminals, and that there was no difference between human freedom and the "freedom" of water after a dam has been blown up - not moral freedom (moral choice - natural justice), just "freedom" as an absence of external restraint. There is no moral reason to be in favor of such freedom - and Hobbes was not in favor of freedom. 176.253.199.11 ( talk) 14:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Indeed OPPOSITION to the principle that people could limit the power of the state or change the government is the central theme of the work of Thomas Hobbes - he redefined the idea of "contract" so that it does not involve voluntary consent (thus inverting the Common Law understanding of the term) and he redefines such concepts as "law" and "justice" to empty them of all moral content - making them just the arbitrary WILL (commands) of the ruler or rulers. The picture this article presents of Thomas Hobbes as some sort of proto Classical Liberal is utterly false (indeed the opposite of the truth). Thomas Hobbes was, in fact, a great enemy of human moral freedom (indeed of the very existence of human beings as traditionally understood - i.e. as moral agents, beings, subjects not just objects). Thomas Hobbes was a great defender of tyranny (despotism - to Hobbes "tyranny is but the name of sovereignty"), the unlimited power of the state. With the people having (to Thomas Hobbes) no right to either limit the powers of the state or to change the government. 90.194.149.162 ( talk) 10:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The article is absurd. The real Thomas Hobbes did not have "liberal" views limiting the power of the ruler or rulers. The author of "De Cive" and "The Leviathan" did not believe in anything a Common Lawyer would call a free "contract" (Hobbes own use of the concept of compact is utterly different) concerning the state. The real Thomas Hobbbes was an absolutist who believed that the law was the will of the ruler or rulers, that the regime could oppress the population as much as it liked - see his "Dialogue Between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Laws of England". Thomas Hobbes was the arch enemy of the tradition of the Common Law (of thinkers such as Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke before the time of Hobbes, and Chief Justice Sir John Holt after the time of Hobbes) just as he was the arch enemy of human moral choice (agency) itself - being a determinist. There is no right-of-resistance in the sense of coming to the aid of other people against-the-state in the work of Thomas Hobbes - indeed the basic purpose of his works is to deny such a right-of-resistance in the sense of coming to the aid of other people (although an animalistic reflex of self preservation remains). The basic claim of the article that Hobbes was, in some sense, a constitutional and even "liberal" thinker is an utter absurdity - a total reversal of what Thomas Hobbes actually was. What the writer of the article needs to do is to read (or reread) what the actual Whigs (the real believers in limited government and the right-of-resistance in the sense of coming to the aid of others attacked by the state) thought of Thomas Hobbes - and free his mind of the nonsense put there by academics. 2A02:C7D:B5B8:DA00:A4E9:6301:CDD2:D611 ( talk) 15:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The only "right" of ordinary people that Thomas Hobbes recognised was a reflex (reflex - because he did not really believe in free will human PERSONS at all, everything is a determined reflex to him) of trying to stay alive, he does not recognise any right or moral duty to come to the aid of someone else unjustly attacked by the state or by private criminals. Nor does Thomas Hobbes hold that the government should be based on "consent" (as the second paragraph of the article falsely claims) as this word is traditionally understood - Hobbes redefines the term contract to remove any voluntary choice (thus denying the traditional Common Law understanding of contract) and he empties such terms as "justice" and "law" of all traditional moral content - turning them into just the WILL (commands) of the ruler or rulers. Indeed to DENY the right of the people to either limit the power of the state or to change the government (to rebel against tyranny - despotism) is the central theme of the work of Thomas Hobbes. To present Thomas Hobbes as some sort of Constitutionalist, some sort of proto Classical Liberal, is not just false - it is the opposite of the truth. 2A02:C7D:B47A:C900:78CA:F2FA:EC9E:4B1B ( talk) 11:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
This talk page is getting kinda unwieldy. Would anyone object if I tried to set up one of the bots to do automatic archiving?
Links to archives would be provided in a boxy-thingy up top of the page (and I think we get a search dingus for free, but I'm not sure). Archiving would typically happen along the lines of: threads older than X days (typically something like 30, 60, 90, 120) are periodically moved into Archive N, until Archive N exceeds a given byte size (e.g. 100kb), at which point further threads are moved to Archive N+1. A minimum number of threads (2-3) are typically kept irrespective of age.
It's been a while since I set that up anywhere, and the bots performing the task have been replaced in the mean time, so caveat on the details; but that's roughly how it works anyway.
Opinions for, against, or even don't care would be appreciated! -- Xover ( talk) 07:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
|algo=old(90d)
, |minthreadsleft=3
, and |maxarchivesize=200K
, respectively. Documentation is available at
User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo (Lowercase sigmabot III has taken over the archiving duties that MiszaBot used to perform, but the old name is still used in the configuration).I am always happy to help so please do feel free to ping me if there are any issues with this setup (but no promises on response time, sorry), or the bots' maintainers can normally be contacted via the bots' talk pages. --
Xover (
talk)
11:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Can Thomas Hobbes properly be considered as an atheist? Martinben 19:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, many of his contemporaries certainly thought so. In October 1666 a committee of the House of Commons was empowered to examine the views expressed in Leviathan as part of the preparations for a bill intended to make hereesy a crime. Some even went so far as to suggest that Hobbes' doctrines were responsible for the Great Fire of London! His books were either banned or burnt, and the Catholic church placed De Cive on its Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1654. He was regularly attacked in the press of the day, which delighted in detailing the torments he would suffer in the after-life for his apparent lack of belief. It was his rationalism and materialism that tended to disturb people most; even God is reduced to a material level. Archbishop Tenison was to say of him "Yet for the very handsomeness in dressing his Opinions, as the matter stands, he is to be reproved; because by that means, the poyson which he hath intermixed with them is with the more readiness and danger swallowed." His views were certainly unsettling in an age not noted for latitude in matters of faith and belief: that there was no personal Satan; that the Pentateuch and many other books of the Bible were revisions or compilations from earlier sources; that few miracles could be credited after the Testament period; that witchcraft was a myth; and that religion was often confused with superstition. He was, as one writer has noted, 'anti-ecclesiastical, anti-clerical, anti-enthusiastic, anti-theology, anti-creeds and anti-inspiration.'
So, was he an atheist? All I can really say here is that the evidence suggests not; and in his personal life he adhered to the Anglican Church, which, in any case, was for him a necessary instrument of Leviathan. He believed in God as First Cause, but denied most of the manifestations and attributes accorded to Him by organised religion; even holiness, goodness and blessedness, which in the Hobbesian view are all unknowable facts. His God, such as He is, is distant, cold, intellectual amd essentially unknowable. What did he really believe? That is a question that can only be answered by God, and by Hobbes! Clio the Muse 02:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
All this seems pretty odd, based on reading Leviathan, where Hobbes very clearly has religious views, even if they were unorthodox. He can't possibly be called an atheist, unless there is some very good evidence from elsewhere that what he wrote in Leviathan was all a cover up. How for example can you parse So that it is manifest that the teaching of the religion which God hath established, and the showing of a present miracle, joined together, were the only marks whereby the Scripture would have a true prophet. any other way? William M. Connolley 21:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hobbes idea is strongly opposed to that of Locke and Rousseau.... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
121.1.23.50 (
talk)
08:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
ELEVEN YEARS AGO (2007) someone asked, “No section on his religious attitudes?” I agree with the concerns of Ghirlandajo in 2007, and I wonder if anyone will do anything? I am beginning to discern what seems to be an ANTI-THEISTIC BIAS in this HOBBES page. I quoted two exact quotations from Hobbes’ book, Leviathan, that showed him to be not only a theist—but a Christian theist. I tried to do it more than once—censored every time. Why? William M. Connolley wrote, “I don't think it belongs.” He also wrote, “Hobbes says many things about religion, in Leviathan and elsewhere.” Well, I checked the frequency of words in the Hobbes article. “Hobbes” appeared 75 times (understandable—no complaint); “Christ” appeared zero times; “Jesus” appeared zero times; and “Son of God” appeared zero times. Where in the article is there anything akin to these words of Hobbes in his Leviathan: “But though our Saviour was a man, whom we also believe to be God immortal and the Son of God, yet this is no idolatry, because we build not that belief upon our own fancy or judgement, but upon the word of God revealed in the Scriptures” or “The comparison between that eternal life which Adam lost, and our Saviour by his victory over death hath recovered, holdeth also in this, that as Adam lost eternal life by his sin, and yet lived after it for a time, so the faithful Christian hath recovered eternal life by Christ's passion, though he die a natural death, and remain dead for a time”? There is also the misleading heading, “Atheist”, but that is strongly suggestive that he might have been one. HE WAS NOT! Please someone show me how this Hobbes’ page is NOT biased. Paul G. Humber ( talk) 21:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know whether you are being serious or sarcastic, Paul G. Humber, but on the off-chance that it is the former: secondary sources are required for articles, not for talk page discussions. As for not knowing who wrote the post, it's signed by the poster so again it's not quite clear what you mean. -- bonadea contributions talk 08:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
References
“Chapter XLV.: Of Demonology and the Other Relics of the Religion of the Gentiles.” Leviathin.” https://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/6/Hobbes_Thomas_1660_The_Leviathan.pdf
“Chapter XXXVIII.: Of the Signification in Scripture of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, the World to Come, and Redemption.” . Leviathan.” https://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/6/Hobbes_Thomas_1660_The_Leviathan.pdf Paul G. Humber ( talk) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The notion that the worthiness of Hobbes words must be judged by secondary sources is an idol I refuse to bow to.That's entirely up to you, but it is also Wikipedia's policy that such things must be mediated through reliable secondary sources. In other words, the effect of what you are saying is that you refuse to follow Wikipedia's policies which, apart from being rude, is pretty much only apt to get you blocked from editing.You also wrote
Secondary sources are a mixed-bag--all over the spectrum.Yes, indeed. Which is exactly why Wikipedia's policy is that we must use secondary rather than primary sources: a primary source will always espouse just one view and will usually have some vested interest in the topic that biases their statements. We need to go to the secondary sources to get an unbiased perspective, and where the secondary sources have differing opinions we need to cover all the major viewpoints without ourselves taking a stance on which of them is "better" than the other. If we only look at a PepsiCo press release we will confidently assert that Pepsi is much better than Coca-Cola, and vice versa if we looked at one from The Coca-Cola Company. We need to go to the scientific literature to find the actual answer, as they will have the actual data on the two drinks' relative merits, usually from several perpectives (e.g. sales numbers, market testing / consumer polling, nutritional value, sustainability of production, brand recognition, and so forth). And we, as Wikipedia editors, can't make such determinations ourselves: we are all volunteers, anonymous and so with no way to verify credentials or biases, so if my personal preference was Dr Pepper the article would likely claim that it was the best soft drink, in contravention of all actual observable data. This is why all interpretive statements and weighting of information must be filtered through secondary sources.Saying "This is what Hobbes meant" is an interpretation, and selecting a particular quote from Hobbes is giving that particular quote weight over all his other writings and over what others wrote about Hobbes. Imagine if I was an activist atheist and was permitted to cherry-pick Hobbes quotes to make him look like he was unequivocally an atheist in the modern sense? What we're trying to tell you is that you are right now engaged in the same thing, only with the opposite goal: you're personally convinced that Hobbes was a theist, and you're picking quotes that support that view for the article to make it conform to your understanding of Hobbes. Why would we privilege your view over the hypothetical activist atheist? The secondary source and neutral point of view policies are designed (deliberately: it's the way we want it to be, not something that happened by accident) to neutralise both by requiring us to rely on what the experts in the relevant field have to say.You also several times refer to the permissibility of using primary sources that I mentioned in an earlier message in this thread. As a practical matter I would suggest you forget about that. We allow primary sources for an extremely narrow set of circumstances, none of which will apply in this situation. If you would like to contribute constructively here you must, in practice, forget about using primary sources and argue for your position based on 1) secondary sources and, 2) Wikipedia's policies. Right now all you're doing is saying that you disagree with Wikipedia's policies and refuse to comply with them. Quite apart from being exceedingly rude, the only probable outcome of that is that your editing privileges will be revoked.I count no less than 5 editors (volunteers all) who have graciously spent time attempting to guide you on Wikipedia's policies, and attempted to help you edit constructively here. So far your response has been to ignore their assistance, telling them that they are incorrect, implying that they have personal beliefs that you think are reprehensible (doesn't matter whether it's true: that fact that you view them that way means you are intending it as a personal attack), and dredging around quotes from Hitler, of all people, and the kind of religious proselytising that I would expect from someone standing on a soapbox at a street corner (and which would get them thrown out of every single place of business if they attempted it there). You can have whatever beliefs you want, on any imaginable subject, but you are not allowed to use Wikipedia as your soapbox. Please either attempt in good faith to act within the policies and community norms of Wikipedia, or go somewhere else. I can't speak for anyone else, but I suspect you have pretty much exhausted the community's willingness to assume, absent evidence, that you are here to help improve the encyclopedia, and certainly the willingness to expend effort on helping you find your way on the project. -- Xover ( talk) 08:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
If I could try one more time: Wikipedia articles are essentially synthesis from published secondary and tertiary sources. There are good reasons for this. The reason Wikipedia doesn't allow users to support statements with references to primary texts is that this would amount presenting the opinions or interpretations of users as though they were fact. What's more, your interpretation of Leviathan, say, will be inherently less credible than that of Quentin Skinner, for example, and it would be absurd to imply parity between published academic sources and the opinions of anonymous internet users. Furthermore, as it stands, the content of the encyclopedia is governed by what is published is reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Where there is some kind of controversy, all WP:DUE claims will be reproduced on Wikipedia. If this were not so, and we allowed users to go away and perform their own original research from primary sources, not only would the content be guff written by people without credentials, but there would be no standard for the inclusion of content—only a large number of users possessing differing opinions. You missed the point in your comment above: the WP:NOR policy explicitly states that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". You cannot construct arguments about primary texts on English Wikipedia with reference to the texts only, which would represent your personal perspective only.
To address your point about "the truth": There is an enormous volume of scholarship concerned with the interpretation Hobbes' writing, and not all of this scholarship (obviously) is in agreement. Wikipedia collates and restates what is published in secondary sources, and where there is controversy, presents this controversy in a disinterested way. Wikipedia is not interested in presenting the definitive interpretation of Hobbes' writing, nor does it assume (like you, apparently) that there is a single valid or "true" reading of a particular text (which happens to always correspond precisely with his own views on the subject). At one point you even say: "Truth is far more important than secondary sources". I have to inform you that your reading or interpretation of a given text does not represent "the truth". There will be controversy and reasonable disagreement about most subjects. This is what we mean when we say that Wikipedia is not interested in "the truth". If you are under the impression, as you appear to be, that going back to the original text will reveal its "true" meaning, you might like to consider why, if this is so, there is so much disagreement in the first instance.
To address the actual point of disagreement, Hobbes' highly heterodox religious views left him open to the charge of "atheism". This charge, like that of "Epicureanism", was largely polemical—a fact which the article makes clear. The undue emphasis placed on this one element of Hobbes' life and work simply reflects the fact that the article is not of a very high standard in general. I believe I have improved the situation by renaming the relevant section (which was, I believe, the original source of the confusion). What's more, despite everything you have written here, the section in question actually amounts to a discussion of the contemporary charge of atheism, and the association of "Hobbism" with atheism. It does not allege that Hobbes was in fact an atheist. If the article did claim that Hobbes was not a Christian, it would be incorrect—but happily, as I say, the article does not do that. Endymion.12 ( talk) 23:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
There was very little information in England about the Armada on 5/4/1588. It seems that we can't believe the story, about the date of birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 ( talk) 12:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hobbes was an important political philosopher. I personally don't feel qualified to create an infobox on him, but I believe that one is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.69.254 ( talk • contribs)
I recall watching BookTV about 5 or 6 years ago that taped a graduate school seminar of Hobbes given by a bigorapher Anyone know the name of the book or author? John wesley 15:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm ashamed to say I don't know how to fix the vandalism on the "Thomas Hobbes" page. Maybe someone else does.
Somehow the vandal has replaced the initial "Early Life" section with the following:
"Image: Http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg
Hobbes was very good friends with Lexington Steele, Nacho Vidal and Peter North. He back packed around Thailand once, but didn't think much of it. HE masturbated profusely, and ejaculated a great deal. He was heavily influenced by Mandingo, almost to the point og plagiarism."
Trouble is, I can't find that text when I go to edit...the "Early Life" text appears to be there, but when I go back to see, the other stuff is still taking its place. -- starfarmer 01:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that the controversies section with Wallis uses non-neutral language?
e.g. "...a criticism which exposed the utter inadequacy of Hobbes's mathematics." "Hobbes's lack of rigour meant that he spent himself in vain attempts to solve the impossible problems that often waylaid self-sufficient beginners" "he never had any notion of the full scope of mathematical science. "He was unable to work out with any consistency the few original thoughts he had, and thus was an easy target." "Wallis had an easy task in defending himself against Hobbes's criticism..." "The thrusts were easily parried by Wallis in a reply (Hobbiani puncti dispunctio, 1657). Hobbes finally took refuge in silence and there was peace for a time."
And so on...
I'm a bit of a wiki-newbie, but a) it's an awful lot to be devoting to Wallis in a page about Hobbes, b) the language is clearly biased, c) it looks like it was all written by one person from 72.79.28.236 on 1 June.
Should it just be deleted?
60.234.232.62 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Keith Ng
You might tone it down a bit but I think the general principal is fair: Hobbes's maths didn't fare well William M. Connolley 15:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be a good article, but would very much benefit from the inclusion of several reference citations. Badbilltucker 15:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a registered editor, so I can't change the article, but there is a section that could be better. In the 'Early life section' you can read " Hobbes later reported that "my mother gave birth to twins: myself and fear" with a reference to some dubious online biography. What Hobbes really wrote (in his verse autobiography) is ""my mother dear / Did bring forth twins at once, both me and fear". You can reference the autobiography itself. It can be found in E. Curley's ed. of Leviathan, 1994 Hackett edition, pages liv to lxiv (the quote is from liv). (----)
Hillel's golden rule was the golden rule in negation, just as you say was Hobbes' rule. Hillel came a good deal before Hobbes and therefore it is misleading to say that the Christian golden rule in negation is Hobbes' when in fact is it just that of Hillel and Judaism. Euroster 02:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I also think that the negative golden rule is a bit misleading, and it makes the "christian" rule seem to say that one SHOULD do to others what they don't want to themselves. Just my two cents ~Tyler~ 10 AM 26 October
I changed "Judaeo-Christian" to "Christian" today for that (Euroster's) reason, before I noticed this talk. "Positive" formulation is from NT, not Judaism. Sukkoth 19:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Kafziel, the point is not descriptions of origins. The labeling here is just not accurrate. "Judaeo-Christian" means, fairly closely, "Jewish and Christian". Thus, the article proposes to contrast Hobbes' formulation, that is, the "Do not do" phrasing, to the "Jewish and Christian" formulation, that is, the "Do" phrasing. Further, it does so with an opinion, accusing the latter of being a "recipe for social chaos". However, the "positve" phrasing is Christian, here is the source:
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12)
(From this Wiki but very well known elsewhere). This does not exist in Jewish sources. Without getting into the topic of influences, etc, the Jewish version, with source is:
When he went to Hillel, Hillel said to him, 'What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah; all the rest of it is commentary; go and learn.' (Talmud, Shabbat 31a)
This is essentially the same as Hobbes:
"Do not that to another, which thou wouldst not have done to thyself."
If this is nit-picking, then the whole topic should be removed, but it is explicitly inaccurrate to say that the Jewish form is the same as the Christian where that contrasts with Hobbes, especially if it is being set up for a derisive evaluation. This is not original research, it is a description of the well known record.
So, what do you say we call Christain "Christian" ? Sukkoth 17:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Christian is unambigously accurate wheras Judeo-Christian is doubtful. Seeing as the second formulation adds little of value the first should be used in an encyclopedia. How Hobbes' philosophy relates to Judaism is of marginal interest, how it relates to Christianity is plainly of the utmost importance. 90.200.32.88 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hobbes's views are much disputed, and Richard Tuck, although influential, is also much criticized. It would be nice if this entry could give a more balanced view of Hobbes's philosophy. In particular, if it could incorporate criticism of the traditional interpretation, works other that Leviathan, etc.
( William M. Connolley 19:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I've cut this:
This political philosophy has been analysed by the influential Richard Tuck as a response to the problems that Cartesian doubt introduce for moral philosophy. Hobbes concedes, with the sceptics and with Descartes, that we cannot know anything about the external world for certain from our sense impressions of it. His philosophy is seen as an attempt to base a coherent theory of social formation purely on the fact of the sense impressions themselves, arguing that these sense impressions are enough for man to act to preserve his own life, and building up his entire political philosophy from that single imperative.
here to see if anyone wants to defend it. Firstly, we cannot know anything about the external world for certain from our sense impressions of it is not obvious. Hobbes clearly asserts that we get our ideas from external sense impressions, but doesn't obviously express Cartesian type doubt. Secondly, I can't see how he bases all his theory on this: he explicitly introduces "laws of nature" type things which appear to me to be deductions from the mental sphere.
I don't really feel like defending it, but read Hobbes again, as well as his response to Descartes' Meditations, with this question in mind. You will likely have a different take when you are focused on the issue (I did). I believe Tuck is right. 70.80.196.191 15:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I have started a discussion regarding the Infobox Philosopher template page concerning the "influences" and "influenced" fields. I am in favor of doing away with them. Please join the discussion there. RJC Talk 14:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The article Hobbesian should perhaps be merged into this one, or deleted, as it is now just an article about a word, and not about the actual topic the word defines. Or perhaps it could be redirected to Competition or some such place. I likely won't be back to this talk page, so someone else will have to decide. -- Xyzzyplugh 13:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I have never in my life heard of these computer game characters but I am fairly certain that Calvin and Hobbes are very well known.
Calvin and Hobbes is possibly the most well known comic strip ever. Not Millions. Super-Bajillions -- Mackilicious 01:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
"Hobbesian
The word "Hobbesian" is sometimes used in modern English to refer to a situation in which there is unrestrained, selfish, and uncivilised competition. This usage, now well-established, is misleading for two reasons: first, the Leviathan describes such a situation, but only in order to criticise it; second, Hobbes himself was timid and bookish in person. Other uses, popular immediately after Hobbes published, carry connotations of atheism and the belief that "might makes right."
Umm why is this misleading? The word Hobbesian is used because it refers to Hobbes' ideas. I doubt anyone thinks it was coined because Hobbes was like this. Or because he proposed that this was a good thing. I think the paragraph should be removed or rewritten.
Disco
02:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The "In popular culture" section is a waste. Lestrade ( talk) 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
I am making some edits to the Leviathan section of the article to bring it into line with Wikipedia:Summary style. I think the article could be vastly improved if the section on Leviathan were supplemented with some on the Elements of Law and De Cive, but I think that someone else would have to take the lead on that. RJC Talk 03:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This article needs a section on Hobbes' epistemology and metaphysics. -- 140.180.21.96 ( talk) 16:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the biography it says that Hobbes' mother heard the Spanish Armada and then there is a parenthehical description that the Spanish Armada was a fleet of Spanish ships. Is this really necessary? I think the Spanish Armada is a pretty well-known term, as well as being self-explanatory. Why not just put Spanish Armada as a wikilink? DruidODurham ( talk) 21:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of anon vandalism of this page, so I've semi-ed it. But I'm also having an edit war myself. So if any admin wants to revoke the prot, please do William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The article states that Hobbes attended Magdalen Hall in 1603, yet the link states that Magdalen Hall was renamed Magdalen College in 1458. Which one's right?
He is listed as an alumnus of Hertford College. I haven't heard of him being a student of Magdalen...
The biographical sources I have all state Hobbes attended Magdalen Hall, Oxford from 1603-1608 Oakeshott 17:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it also says something about 'his master at Magdalen' so I will correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.45.159 ( talk) 12:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No your wrong, in the Oxford University Press addition of Leviathan, it cites that he went to Magdalen Hall, spelt with an N at the end and not an E. And it also goes on to say that Magdalen Hall became part of Magdalen College, Oxford. You can see this for yourself here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DhlOzCmNYj8C&dq=leviathan&pg=PP1&ots=Ukt7UCsxLI&sig=87oCYlW8OhZPhLA-v1E2_1Hx2B8&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.co.uk/search%3Fclient%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26channel%3Ds%26hl%3Den%26q%3DLeviathan%26lr%3Dlang_en%257Clang_it%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPP13,M1
Page 9! read it. I am changing it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.45.159 ( talk) 20:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it actually says on the Hertford College, Oxford page - that it is not to be confused with the Magdalen Hall, that became part of Magdalen College. And it says that Hert Hall changed to Magdalen hall later on due to poverty or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.45.159 ( talk) 22:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Are we clear now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackdelyelis ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The Hall became Hertford College in 1740. Due to funding problems, the College's buildings were taken over as Magdalen Hall ... in 1822.
So how could Hobbes have been at that Magdalen Hall!? when it was created in 1822! So therefore he must have been at one that became part of Magdalen College.( Jackdelyelis ( talk) 23:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC))
I have taken off the bit about Hertford, and just left it as Magdalen Hall! So we can end this geek-off! ( Jackdelyelis ( talk) 23:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC))
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.45.159 ( talk) 15:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to rely on OUP, and add that the 'buildings are now part of Magdalen College'. On Hertford's page it says something about this:
Magdalen Hall (not related to the similarly named Magdalen College whose separate Hall had been incorporated into the University as a college years before).
I trust Oxford University Press to be factual, more than I trust Hertford's philosophy fellows. ( Jackdelyelis ( talk) 23:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC))
why did you removed "republican" from hobbes page? some arguments? -- discourseur 23:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
moving on demand disscusion from personal page --
discourseur
13:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
assuming that no further argumentation means no arguments against republicanism i will include it back. -- discourseur 14:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to noe, as a British citizen, Commonwealth as used in British English is certainly not synonomous with Republic. Yobmod ( talk) 11:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Why are so many people vandalizing the Hobbes article using inappropriate laanguage? We really should crack down on vandalism on this article. ~~Dasta Lover 6~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.254.4 ( talk) 23:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I think Hobbes-Wallis controversy should be split out as a separate article. In simple terms, the reputation of Hobbes doesn't depend on that debate (and it shows him at his worst); the details shouldn't dominate this article, since it is not that important to him as philosopher as currently understood. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
In the Wiki documentary hypothesis article Thomas Hobbes, in chapter 33 of Leviathan, concluded that the first five books of the Bible could not have been written by Moses. This is one of the earliest attacks on the idea that they had been dictated by G-d to Moses. Might be nice to add this but I'm not sure where it would best fit. Nitpyck ( talk) 02:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Read an article over at [3] and was thinking of placing it somewhere within the article as it seems to be quite a decent summary (it is for a book review though so not sure how suitable it is). Anyone that is an expert in this field feel free to place it (or not) as you see fit. Cheers! Calaka ( talk) 07:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
What were his contributions to geometry? It's mentioned in the introduction but nowhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.179.66 ( talk) 00:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
In the space flight simulator Wing Commander, there is a Kilrathi character with the callsign "Hobbes". He claims it was given to him by a friend who claimed he was very wise, much like the philosopher. Incidentally, the in-joke is obvious in that his species are similar to that of tigers, which references Hobbes of "Calvin and Hobbes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptor4815 ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The dead rapper Big L starts his track, Put it on, 'Yo you better flee hobbes' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.20.236 ( talk) 01:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
...De Cive was republished... The printing began in 1646 by Samuel de Sorbiere through the Elsevier press at Amsterdam...
However, according to Elsevier, the company was only founded in 1880, over 200 years later!
Top.Squark ( talk) 14:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, why the tag in From the time of the Restoration he acquired a new prominence; "Hobbism" became a fashionable creed which it was the duty of "every lover of true morality and religion" to denounce[contradiction]. I fail to see the contradiction William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
"Hobbism" became a fashionable creed which it was the duty of "every lover of true morality and religion" to denounce.
What is meant by "every lover of true morality and religion"? I guess the meaning is ironic rather than literal? What does it take for someone to qualify as such? Who determined it was the "duty" of these "lovers" and how?
Top.Squark ( talk) 16:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Re [6]. Hobbes doesn't like rebellion (because the nature of this offence, consisteth in the renouncing of subjection; which is a relapse into the condition of warre, commonly called Rebellion; and they that so offend, suffer not as Subjects, but as Enemies. For Rebellion, is but warre renewed. for example [7]; and "Want Of Absolute Power" is one of the errors that may lead to dissolution of a commonwealth). OTOH there is also Having thus briefly spoken of the Naturall Kingdome of God, and his Naturall Lawes, I will adde onely to this Chapter a short declaration of his Naturall Punishments... it comes to passe, that Intemperance, is naturally punished with Diseases; Rashnesse, with Mischances; Injustice, with the Violence of Enemies; Pride, with Ruine; Cowardise, with Oppression; Negligent government of Princes, with Rebellion; and Rebellion, with Slaughter. So that looks like rebellion excused under some circumstances. But the best expression of that is "In What Cases Subjects Absolved Of Their Obedience To Their Soveraign" which has The Obligation of Subjects to the Soveraign is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth, by which he is able to protect them - which can be interpreted as rebellion is justified under severe abuse, and as long as you can get away with it William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
In October 1679 a bladder disorder was followed by a paralytic stroke, under which he died, in his ninety-second year. He was buried in the churchyard of Ault Hucknall.
It seems that at least up until 1679, Hobbes's life was not terribly nasty or brutish, nor was it at all short. -- Sewing 23:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hobbes lived under a monarchical government, which he defended for the very reason that he believed it altered the natural condition of man in such a way that his life would no longer be nasty, brutish or short. -- Adam Acosta, 20 March 2005
He suffered with something akin to Parkinson's Disease for at least the last two decades of his life. He was unable to write and had to employ an amanuensis, James Wheldon, to transcribe his thoughts. Oakeshott 21:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 21:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem in the "Early life and education" section: Hobbes was the tutor of William Cavendish, 2nd earl of Devonshire, son of William Cavendish, 1st earl of Devonshire. When you click on this name, you are redirected to William Cavendish, 3rd Earl of Devonshire. But Hobbes cannot make the Grand Tour in Europe in 1610, with a man who is born in 1617... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelo.mr ( talk • contribs) 08:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
You might mention the fact that he dines, courtesy of the Jesuits at the English College, Rome on 26 December 1635 with the young Earl of Devonshire; first published in Edward Chaney, The Grand Tour and the Great Rebellion, Geneva-Turin, 1985, pp. 301-03. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.189 ( talk) 17:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I just tried adding a link to a rather unique version of The Leviathan that includes an introductory essay with thoughtful hypertext commentary on several important sections and allows other site visitors to create a login and add their own thoughts/commentary as well. ( http://www.thefinalclub.org/work-overview.php?work_id=113). Does anyone have a problem with my adding that link? Why was it deleted? Sorry if I stepped on any toes by just adding the link, but I've posted to talk pages before an no one has ever responded. Andrewmagliozzi ( talk) 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Please consider adding the following external link, which tracks available digital books of Hobbes:
An image used in this article,
File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
I have removed this new section for discussion first. The idea of a legacy section sounds OK, but this actually seems to be enitrely about one modern author. Consider WP:UNDUE.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
==Legacy and influence in contemporary thought== Hobbes' work has had profound influence in modern political, philosophical, and legal thought.<ref>{{cite web|title=Hobbes: Moral and Political Philosophy|url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/}}</ref><ref>Duncan, Stewart, "Thomas Hobbes", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)</ref><ref>Dyzenhaus, David. 2001. "Hobbes and the Legitimacy of Law." Law and Philosophy 20 (September): 461–8.</ref><ref>Martinich, A.P. 1999. Hobbes: A Biography. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.</ref> The closest contemporary equivalent to his work is in the writings of philosopher and social and legal theorist [[Roberto Mangabeira Unger]].<ref>Dunn, J. 1986. “Unger’s Politics and the Appraisal of Political Possibility.” Nw. UL Rev. 81</ref><ref>Boyle, James. 1985. “Modernist Social Theory: Roberto Unger’s ‘Passion’.” Harvard Law Review 98 (5) (March 1): 1066–1083.</ref> Unger has conversed with and grappled with Hobbes in his writings on political and social order,<ref>Unger, Roberto Mangabeira. 1975. Knowledge & Politics. New York: Free Press.</ref> law,<ref>Unger, Roberto Mangabeira. 1976. Law in Modern Society: Toward a Criticism of Social Theory. New York: Free Press.</ref> and the self.<ref>Unger, Roberto Mangabeira. 1984. [[Passion: An Essay on Personality]]. New York: Free Press.</ref> Like Hobbes, Unger puts politics at the center of his view of humanity, and embeds his political and social thought in a broader account of our place in nature. Both Hobbes and Unger envision an intransigently naturalistic account of the human condition.<ref>Dunn, J. 1986. “Unger’s Politics and the Appraisal of Political Possibility.” Nw. UL Rev. 81</ref><ref>Boyle, James. 1985. “Modernist Social Theory: Roberto Unger’s ‘Passion’.” Harvard Law Review 98 (5) (March 1): 1066–1083.</ref> Similar to Hobbes, Unger sees the arrangements or structures of society as frozen politics--the outcome a relative containment or a temporary suspension of strife over the terms of social life. They can be returned at any moment through renewed conflict, to our primordial condition of fluidity, anguish, and aspiration. No one social order stands definitively for the possibilities of social life.<ref>Unger, Roberto Mangabeira. 1987. False Necessity: Anti-necessitarian Social Theory in the Service of Radical Democracy. Politics, a Work in Constructive Social Theory. London: Verso.</ref> There is nevertheless also a profound difference between these thinkers that centers around revolutionary projects of political and personal liberation -- liberalism, socialism, democracy, and romanticism -- that have aroused the world since Hobbes's time but are utterly alien to his way of thinking.<ref>Yack, Bernard. 1988. “Review: Toward a Free Marketplace of Social Institutions: Roberto Unger’s ‘Super-Liberal’ Theory of Emancipation.” Harvard Law Review 101 (8) (June 1): 1961–1977.</ref><ref>Boyle, James. 1985. “Modernist Social Theory: Roberto Unger’s ‘Passion’.” Harvard Law Review 98 (5) (March 1): 1066–1083.</ref> For Unger, our hope of ascent to a greater life rests on our nature as context-shaped but context-transcending beings who can turn the tables on their circumstances and transform the social and conceptual worlds in which they find themselves. Through such reconstruction, hope rises over fear, which was for Hobbes was the most powerful political sentiment.<ref>Unger, Roberto Mangabeira. 2007. The Self Awakened: Pragmatism Unbound. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.</ref><ref>Unger, Roberto Mangabeira. 1984. [[Passion: An Essay on Personality]]. New York: Free Press.</ref> |
And that author also happens to be a politician. I think you're right William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
As I see it, there are three concerns here, that of balance, that of relevance, and my motivations.
So I am kind of at a loss at the opposition. With the necessary references to point to this as a main trend in the philosophical discipline, it seems worthy to include in an article about Hobbes and his thought. Even if others find it incomplete, this seems to lend itself to view two of the WP:DEADLINE guideline cited above: don't rush to delete! Archivingcontext ( talk) 12:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Three paragraphs on an obscure politician seems excessive. Hobbes is one of the seminal figures in Western philosophy. Giving everyone else their due, proportionally increased to their importance, would make the legacy section a multivolume series. Any mention of this fellow seems to give him undue weight when the proper subject of a Legacy section is Locke, Rousseau, Oakeshotte, Schmitt, etc. RJC Talk Contribs 14:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
In order to reach consensus on this matter can I propose the inclusion of other contemporary thinkers and a shortening of the Unger material? In accordance with WP:DEADLINE, and in agreement with Alcmaeonid, there is no need to delete sections and material, but rather to improve them over time. I think that this article deserves a section on Hobbes' legacy and influences among contemporary thinkers and the trajectory of his ideas. I agree with the inclusion of Oakeshott and Schmitt, and maybe also a few sentences or graph on contemporary legal theory (Strauss' scholarship on Hobbes may be useful in this endeavor). Can we move forward with this initiative? Archivingcontext ( talk) 02:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Being such an important thinker, it is strange that this article lacks a proper section about his thoughts, as there are in so many other philosophers’ pages in the Wikipedia. -- CalaClii ( talk) 16:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Other uses popular immediately Hobbes published carry connotations of atheism and the belief that "might makes right."
This sentence is very convoluted. Can anyone who understands this reword it? Also, wasn't Hobbes an atheist? -- Malathion 4 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)
The evidence from Hobbes' writings support the view that Hobbes was not athiest but anti-clerical. He detested those theocrats that sought to elevate the theological power above the civil power. Oakeshott 17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a newbie so not sure if my entry is appropriate, however on the subject of his atheism, it might be of interest to note that a close friend of Thomas claims to have visited and spoken to him after Thomas had died. His friend John Bunyan (an English author), just after a failed suicide attempt, was shown a vision of hell by his guardian angel and found Thomas there because he had been an atheist. Please see heading "An Atheist in Hell" in John Bynyan's vision of Hell MaxWikiUser ( talk) 10:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
__________
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Storris ( talk • contribs) 01:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
To clarify on Hobbes and Atheism:
In Leviathan, Hobbes used 'Atheist' and 'Atheism' with their modern definitions:
"except by the Sadduces, who erred so farre on the other hand, as not to believe there were at all any spirits, (which is very neere to direct Atheisme)" Leviathan, Chapter 8, Pg 61 (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1909)
"Subjects therefore in the Kingdome of God, are not Bodies Inanimate, nor creatures Irrational, because they understand no Precepts as his. Nor Atheists, nor they that believe not that God has any care of the actions of mankind... because they acknowledge no Word for his, nor have hope of his rewards, or fear of his threatnings." Leviathan, Chapter 31, Pg 275 (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1909)
And he expressly denies the charge here, by stating a belief in the divine hand of God as the cause of all things:
"...every act of mans will, and every desire, and inclination proceedeth from some cause, and that from another cause in a continuall chaine, (whose first link is in the hand of God, the first of all causes)..." Leviathan, Chapter 21, Pg 162 (Oxford:Clarendon Press 1909)
The edition of Leviathan referenced, is here --> http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=869 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storris ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I noticed from reading the article that there should be more citations in the following subjects:
Civil war in England,
Opposition, and
Later Life.
Though I will admit that the whole article could use better citing. --
Orduin ⋠
T⋡
21:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Thomas Hobbes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear all,
I would like to bring your attention to the Bibliographic ressources/Works by Hobbes/Complete Editions/The English Works/Volume 4 section.
As can be checked simply by referring to the link currently held (archive.org) for Volume 4 (table of content), you can see that Consideration upon the Reputation, Loyalty, Manners and Religion of Thomas Hobbes is a different heading from An Historical Narration concerning Heresy, and the Punishment thereof
Could you please amend the wikipedia page to reflect this?
Thank you in advance, Best,
RFL GIRARD
RFLGirard ( talk) 23:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Thomas Hobbes was not in favor of traditional natural justice under natural law (the rights of the individual - as we would put it) he radically transformed these terms emptying them of their traditional meaning. Hobbes taught that the state could do anything the ruler or rulers wanted to do (the idea that he supported government "by consent" does violence to the normal meaning of the word "consent") and that "law" was simply the arbitrary will of the ruler or rulers - that there was no natural law or natural justice as traditionally understood. To identify Thomas Hobbes as giving useful ideas to the liberal tradition is absurd. 176.253.199.11 ( talk) 14:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The article is false - in key respects just about the opposite of the real Thomas Hobbes.
Thomas Hobbes actually held that humans were not moral agents. That we had no ability to tell moral right from moral wrong (only pleasure and pain) and no free will to choose between right and wrong even if we could know the difference, with all our actions being predetermined (as if we were pre programmed flesh robots - not people).
Far from being the inventor of "social contract theory" (an ancient idea), Thomas Hobbes actually radically subverted it, by eliminating any real CONSENT.
Also far from being a supporter of natural law or natural rights - Thomas Hobbes emptied these concepts of all moral content.
The real Thomas Hobbes was a supporter of tyranny (a total and unlimited state), to associate him with Classical Liberalism makes as much sense as associating the Emperor Diocletian or Louis XIV of France with Classical Liberalism.
It is difficult to believe that anyone could be so utterly ignorant as to write an article such as this one on Thomas Hobbes. Therefore I suspect, indeed I formally charge, whoever wrote the article with deliberate dishonesty - with the conscious intent of misleading readers. 90.195.107.55 ( talk) 17:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the section on Locke, because it appears to me to be junk. Looking back, I find it was added by Meshnoy not long ago ([ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Hobbes&diff=626163256&oldid=625892825}). I don't think there's any reason to tart it up and replace it: it doesn't fit: the section is for at-the-time opposition, not for anyone who subsequently disagree with Hobbes.
William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that is acceptable to remove. A section on the differences and similarities between Locke and Hobbes might be a good idea one day, as a section about his influence (few discussions of Hobbes do not mention something about Locke), but it is not a simple subject. It is easy to find lots of sources, but they all say different things, and many of them give a sort of fairy tail "just so" story. There are also writers who say Locke was just repeating Hobbes in a nicer way (whose name was dirt by that time). Hobbes and Locke lived in a time when you could get in serious trouble for the sorts of things they published about, and this makes it difficult.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that Hobbes's attempt to square the circle was idiotic. The word "geometry" in the leading paragraph gives a false impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.30.212 ( talk) 17:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
He went on to publish "De Corpore", which contained not only tendentious views on mathematics, but also an unacceptable proof of the squaring of the circle. This all led mathematicians to target him for polemics and sparked John Wallis to become one of his most persistent opponents. From 1655, the publishing date of "De Corpore", Hobbes and Wallis went round after round trying to disprove each other's positions. After years of debate, the spat over proving the squaring of the circle gained such notoriety that this feud has become one of the most infamous in mathematical history. |
Our:
is fairly dubious:
William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I had another thought about this paragraph. Isn't the word "Though" a non-NPOV (and arguably ahistorical) inclusion, since it communicates the assumption that absolutism and European liberal thought do not normally go together? Elcalebo ( talk) 16:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article Leviathan (book) is linked seven times in the article – not counting the "Main" template – including three links in the sections immediately preceding the "Leviathan" section. It should be linked at most three times: in the lead, in its own section, and once only in the "Works" section. Please de-link the remaining four. Also, the link to Leviathon in the sentence, "The State, it now seemed to Hobbes, might be regarded as a great artificial man or monster (Leviathan)...", should not be italicized, as it does not refer to a book. 95.44.50.222 ( talk) 14:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The following sentence makes no sense: "Hobbes also criticised religious doctrines on rationalistic grounds in the Commonwealth." Can somebody who knows what it is supposed to be saying re-phrase it appropriately, please? 95.44.50.222 ( talk) 14:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Also he took advantage of the rule of the Commonwealth to indulge much more freely than he might have otherwise dared in rationalistic criticism of religious doctrines; while, amid the turmoil of sects, he could the more forcibly urge, that the preservation of social order, when again firmly restored, must depend on the assumption by the civil power of the right to wield all sanctions, supernatural as well as natural, against the pretensions of any clergy, Catholic, Anglican or Presbyterian, to the exercise of an "imperium in imperio".
( William M. Connolley 19:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)) There is now a link to calvin+hobbes at the bottom and top of the page. I don't think the one at the top is appropriate. No-one is going to look for C+H under T H. Better to make Hobbes (currently a re direct) into the disambig and delete C+H from this page.
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Thomas Hobbes/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Needs reference citations badly. Badbilltucker 22:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Intro is short. Needs info about controversy between Hobbes and Locke. Only 1 inline citation. Kaldari 21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 08:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
When I find sufficient time, I will undertake a bold revision of parts of this article. Endymion.12 ( talk) 21:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
"not controversialour policy WP:V requires a citation where the content might be questioned. Nobody cares about your claims about
"academic background"because Wikipedia does not extend trust to editors because they say they have an education; we're all dilettantes here. You can change make changes but if we, as a community, revert you, you will have to explain your changes. I'd suggest you proceed with care. Chris Troutman ( talk) 22:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Here are mine and the original versions:
These two versions are identical in sense except that mine also states that Hobbes had a rational (and systematic) theory of politics, which is true (and amply supported throughout the article).
Neither the original, nor my wording take a position on how Hobbes developed his preference for absolutism. They are both merely statements of fact which have ample support in the sources provided throughout the article. Your interpretation of my changes above is bizarre.
Here is your preferred version:
This does not “soften” the claim, it transforms the claim. This version makes two strong claims: it implies (1) that Hobbes’ preference for absolutism was held principally on rational grounds and was therefore not prior to his authorship of De Cive or Leviathan (unsourced, and no, my version obviously doesn’t imply the contrary), and (2) in overstating his influence on the development of political liberalism (based on a single reference) further implies that Hobbes had liberal sympathies. These are very strong claims indeed, and need citation.
Per 3), I think you are missing something. The lead (per WP:LEAD) must summarise the contents of the article. If something isn’t extensively discussed in the article (or rather, isn’t discussed at all in the article), it obviously shouldn’t take up a third of the lead section of the article.
Here is what WP:LEAD says:
In other words, you will have to justify retaining this information in the lead section. It clearly ought to be moved to a section in the main body of the article. Endymion.12 ( talk) 14:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The bits from the 1911 article article are only partly edited. Parts of it didn't really survive the OCR process in any meaningful form. And it might even be too detailed (although in that case, maybe it should be condensed and the full article should be moved onto a subpage.)
I'll be diving back into it soon to do some editing, when I have more time. But I'm never in favor of removing potentially useful information from an article just because it's a little messy right now. Dachshund — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dachshund ( talk • contribs) 23:37, 20 September 2002 (UTC)
In the debate on US Neoconservatives, they are often pointed out as "Hobbesian". Maybe this would merit to be mentioned?
A dictionary definition once existed as the wikipedia article on Hobbesian:
-- Ruhrjung 21:27, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Something odd happened, and the edit I reverted, by 17:39 . . 208.35.239.18 has vanished from the edit history as of now. I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 1 February 2005 (UTC)
There's a lot of vandalsim on this page; I regret to say I was unable to fix it and I hope somebody else is able to. There's some stuff in the 'early life and education' portion of the article, but it doesn't appear when I try to edit. Returning to the article, it's still there. Bubble fish 14:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hobbes, he was born in Gloucestershire, was he not? Gloucestershire is fairly close to Wiltshire. I have a source that says this, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UBeR ( talk • contribs) 03:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it really accurate to say "Hobbes is the founder of political liberalism"? According to whom? Isn't it more common to say that Locke was the founder? POV notice: I more or less like political liberalism, and I can't stand Hobbes. - Nat Kraus e 07:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hobbes was one of the first to introduce the concept of the social contract, and for that alone he could be considered a father of modern liberalism. Bigger brains than mine (John Gray, for instance) make this point and others. It is, to this autodidact, a perfectly reasonable position to take.
Hobbes' philosophy sounds more like libertarianism than liberalism to me, particularly with respect to the supremacy of the free market.
Hobbes can be seen as the founder of political liberalism because he is the foundered of the political philosophical tradition that see the individual as the basic and central unit of social life. It is from this world view that later thinks, such as Locke, create the tenets of political liberalism that is more recognizable today.
I agree with the earlier comments that it would be more accurate to describe Hobbes as the founder of libertarianism. The social contract requires adherence to laws, and breaches of this result in strong government retaliation. Hobbes does not wish government to intrude on other aspects of everyday life in the state. As even the current entry correctly states, Hobbes believed “so long as one man does no harm to any other, the sovereign should keep its hands off him”. As such, the central authority in Hobbes’ state is only strong when dealing with issues pertaining to the breach of the social contract, and does not interest itself on issues such as the public welfare, as a liberal government would. Ergo, he’s definitely not the founder of liberalism, but there’s a strong case for him being the founder of libertarianism (considering of course that they hadn’t quite mastered the free market when he was around)
Those who say that he was the founder of political liberalism argue that it has a Hobbesian basis: the idea was that Locke "corrected" Hobbes on Hobbesian principles, that liberalism better protects those things which Hobbes said were alone worth protecting. Hobbes is called the founder, however, because it was he who argued for those things being the true ends of government, the protection of which was the touchstone of all legitimate authority. Political libertarianism is one strand of political liberalism, and one that I don't think Hobbes would support. As it is a contested matter, I think his being the founder should be mentioned in the article as one interpretation among others. - RJC 06:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is anachronistic to consider Hobbes either a political liberal or libertarian. Possibly the root of this claim might be that he first articulated the meaning of liberty as freedom from external constraints- this can be found in Chapter 21 of Leviathan. He could therefore be considered the founder of political liberty in the modern sense, rather than political liberalism. See Quentin Skinner, 'Hobbes and Republican Liberty', Cambridge University Press, 2008 -- 131.111.230.164 ( talk) 12:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place to add to the talk section, but regarding Hobbes and liberalism - the jury is out. It depends on that you think liberalism is. So, for instance, Susun Moller Okin writes: "Though Hobbes was no liberal in his conclusions, advocating an absolute rather than restrained state, many of his most important ideas-including original individual equality and freedom-became central tenets of liberal theory," "Humanist Liberalism,' in Liberalism and the Moral Life, ed. Nancy Rosenblum (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), page 257, David Van Mill is even stronger about him being a liberal (see his article 'Hobbes and the Limits of Freedom', while Alan Ryan writes "it would be absurd to call Hobbes a liberal” Ryan, "Hobbes's Political Philosophy" in The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes, ed. Tom Sorrell (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), page 233. (----)
The idea that Thomas Hobbes was the first political thinker to think in terms of individual human beings is absurd. Indeed Thomas Hobbes DEINED the very existence of individual human beings as traditionally understood - i.e. moral agents (reasoning "I") with the FREE WILL to CHOOSE between moral good and moral evil (Thomas Hobbes was a determinist, he denied free will, and a materialist - he denied the existence of the human soul as traditionally understood). Thomas Hobbes also denied all the traditional ideas of the right to rebel against tyranny (indeed to Hobbes "tyranny is but the name of sovereignty") and recognised no moral right, or moral duty, to go to the aid of someone else unjustly attacked by the state. Thomas Hobbes redefines such words as "justice", "contract", "right" and "law" to empty them of all traditional moral content. His social "contract" does not need voluntary consent (thus turning the Common Law understanding of "contact" on its head), and his idea of "law" and "justice" is just the arbitrary WILL of the ruler or rulers - Thomas Hobbes rejecting the traditional understanding of natural law and natural justice. The article presents Thomas Hobbes as some sort of Classical Liberal - he was the OPPOSITE (as the "Old Whigs" well knew). Thomas Hobbes was the great defender of tyranny (despotism) - the unlimited power of the state, with the people not being allowed to limit the powers of the state or to change the government. Indeed to DENY that the people had any right to limit the power of the state or to change the government is the basic principle of the work of Thomas Hobbes. 90.194.149.162 ( talk) 10:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The article is nonsense. Thomas Hobbes did not believe in the "rights of the individual" or that government should be "based on consent" - or he hopelessly twisted these terms utterly transforming their traditional meaning. Thomas Hobbes taught that humans were not persons, that we are fresh robots incapable of moral choice, and that, consequently, we have no moral rights or duties. Thomas Hobbes taught that there was no moral duty to defend someone who was unjustly attacked by the state or by private criminals, and that there was no difference between human freedom and the "freedom" of water after a dam has been blown up - not moral freedom (moral choice - natural justice), just "freedom" as an absence of external restraint. There is no moral reason to be in favor of such freedom - and Hobbes was not in favor of freedom. 176.253.199.11 ( talk) 14:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Indeed OPPOSITION to the principle that people could limit the power of the state or change the government is the central theme of the work of Thomas Hobbes - he redefined the idea of "contract" so that it does not involve voluntary consent (thus inverting the Common Law understanding of the term) and he redefines such concepts as "law" and "justice" to empty them of all moral content - making them just the arbitrary WILL (commands) of the ruler or rulers. The picture this article presents of Thomas Hobbes as some sort of proto Classical Liberal is utterly false (indeed the opposite of the truth). Thomas Hobbes was, in fact, a great enemy of human moral freedom (indeed of the very existence of human beings as traditionally understood - i.e. as moral agents, beings, subjects not just objects). Thomas Hobbes was a great defender of tyranny (despotism - to Hobbes "tyranny is but the name of sovereignty"), the unlimited power of the state. With the people having (to Thomas Hobbes) no right to either limit the powers of the state or to change the government. 90.194.149.162 ( talk) 10:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The article is absurd. The real Thomas Hobbes did not have "liberal" views limiting the power of the ruler or rulers. The author of "De Cive" and "The Leviathan" did not believe in anything a Common Lawyer would call a free "contract" (Hobbes own use of the concept of compact is utterly different) concerning the state. The real Thomas Hobbbes was an absolutist who believed that the law was the will of the ruler or rulers, that the regime could oppress the population as much as it liked - see his "Dialogue Between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Laws of England". Thomas Hobbes was the arch enemy of the tradition of the Common Law (of thinkers such as Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke before the time of Hobbes, and Chief Justice Sir John Holt after the time of Hobbes) just as he was the arch enemy of human moral choice (agency) itself - being a determinist. There is no right-of-resistance in the sense of coming to the aid of other people against-the-state in the work of Thomas Hobbes - indeed the basic purpose of his works is to deny such a right-of-resistance in the sense of coming to the aid of other people (although an animalistic reflex of self preservation remains). The basic claim of the article that Hobbes was, in some sense, a constitutional and even "liberal" thinker is an utter absurdity - a total reversal of what Thomas Hobbes actually was. What the writer of the article needs to do is to read (or reread) what the actual Whigs (the real believers in limited government and the right-of-resistance in the sense of coming to the aid of others attacked by the state) thought of Thomas Hobbes - and free his mind of the nonsense put there by academics. 2A02:C7D:B5B8:DA00:A4E9:6301:CDD2:D611 ( talk) 15:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The only "right" of ordinary people that Thomas Hobbes recognised was a reflex (reflex - because he did not really believe in free will human PERSONS at all, everything is a determined reflex to him) of trying to stay alive, he does not recognise any right or moral duty to come to the aid of someone else unjustly attacked by the state or by private criminals. Nor does Thomas Hobbes hold that the government should be based on "consent" (as the second paragraph of the article falsely claims) as this word is traditionally understood - Hobbes redefines the term contract to remove any voluntary choice (thus denying the traditional Common Law understanding of contract) and he empties such terms as "justice" and "law" of all traditional moral content - turning them into just the WILL (commands) of the ruler or rulers. Indeed to DENY the right of the people to either limit the power of the state or to change the government (to rebel against tyranny - despotism) is the central theme of the work of Thomas Hobbes. To present Thomas Hobbes as some sort of Constitutionalist, some sort of proto Classical Liberal, is not just false - it is the opposite of the truth. 2A02:C7D:B47A:C900:78CA:F2FA:EC9E:4B1B ( talk) 11:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
This talk page is getting kinda unwieldy. Would anyone object if I tried to set up one of the bots to do automatic archiving?
Links to archives would be provided in a boxy-thingy up top of the page (and I think we get a search dingus for free, but I'm not sure). Archiving would typically happen along the lines of: threads older than X days (typically something like 30, 60, 90, 120) are periodically moved into Archive N, until Archive N exceeds a given byte size (e.g. 100kb), at which point further threads are moved to Archive N+1. A minimum number of threads (2-3) are typically kept irrespective of age.
It's been a while since I set that up anywhere, and the bots performing the task have been replaced in the mean time, so caveat on the details; but that's roughly how it works anyway.
Opinions for, against, or even don't care would be appreciated! -- Xover ( talk) 07:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
|algo=old(90d)
, |minthreadsleft=3
, and |maxarchivesize=200K
, respectively. Documentation is available at
User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo (Lowercase sigmabot III has taken over the archiving duties that MiszaBot used to perform, but the old name is still used in the configuration).I am always happy to help so please do feel free to ping me if there are any issues with this setup (but no promises on response time, sorry), or the bots' maintainers can normally be contacted via the bots' talk pages. --
Xover (
talk)
11:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Can Thomas Hobbes properly be considered as an atheist? Martinben 19:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, many of his contemporaries certainly thought so. In October 1666 a committee of the House of Commons was empowered to examine the views expressed in Leviathan as part of the preparations for a bill intended to make hereesy a crime. Some even went so far as to suggest that Hobbes' doctrines were responsible for the Great Fire of London! His books were either banned or burnt, and the Catholic church placed De Cive on its Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1654. He was regularly attacked in the press of the day, which delighted in detailing the torments he would suffer in the after-life for his apparent lack of belief. It was his rationalism and materialism that tended to disturb people most; even God is reduced to a material level. Archbishop Tenison was to say of him "Yet for the very handsomeness in dressing his Opinions, as the matter stands, he is to be reproved; because by that means, the poyson which he hath intermixed with them is with the more readiness and danger swallowed." His views were certainly unsettling in an age not noted for latitude in matters of faith and belief: that there was no personal Satan; that the Pentateuch and many other books of the Bible were revisions or compilations from earlier sources; that few miracles could be credited after the Testament period; that witchcraft was a myth; and that religion was often confused with superstition. He was, as one writer has noted, 'anti-ecclesiastical, anti-clerical, anti-enthusiastic, anti-theology, anti-creeds and anti-inspiration.'
So, was he an atheist? All I can really say here is that the evidence suggests not; and in his personal life he adhered to the Anglican Church, which, in any case, was for him a necessary instrument of Leviathan. He believed in God as First Cause, but denied most of the manifestations and attributes accorded to Him by organised religion; even holiness, goodness and blessedness, which in the Hobbesian view are all unknowable facts. His God, such as He is, is distant, cold, intellectual amd essentially unknowable. What did he really believe? That is a question that can only be answered by God, and by Hobbes! Clio the Muse 02:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
All this seems pretty odd, based on reading Leviathan, where Hobbes very clearly has religious views, even if they were unorthodox. He can't possibly be called an atheist, unless there is some very good evidence from elsewhere that what he wrote in Leviathan was all a cover up. How for example can you parse So that it is manifest that the teaching of the religion which God hath established, and the showing of a present miracle, joined together, were the only marks whereby the Scripture would have a true prophet. any other way? William M. Connolley 21:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hobbes idea is strongly opposed to that of Locke and Rousseau.... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
121.1.23.50 (
talk)
08:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
ELEVEN YEARS AGO (2007) someone asked, “No section on his religious attitudes?” I agree with the concerns of Ghirlandajo in 2007, and I wonder if anyone will do anything? I am beginning to discern what seems to be an ANTI-THEISTIC BIAS in this HOBBES page. I quoted two exact quotations from Hobbes’ book, Leviathan, that showed him to be not only a theist—but a Christian theist. I tried to do it more than once—censored every time. Why? William M. Connolley wrote, “I don't think it belongs.” He also wrote, “Hobbes says many things about religion, in Leviathan and elsewhere.” Well, I checked the frequency of words in the Hobbes article. “Hobbes” appeared 75 times (understandable—no complaint); “Christ” appeared zero times; “Jesus” appeared zero times; and “Son of God” appeared zero times. Where in the article is there anything akin to these words of Hobbes in his Leviathan: “But though our Saviour was a man, whom we also believe to be God immortal and the Son of God, yet this is no idolatry, because we build not that belief upon our own fancy or judgement, but upon the word of God revealed in the Scriptures” or “The comparison between that eternal life which Adam lost, and our Saviour by his victory over death hath recovered, holdeth also in this, that as Adam lost eternal life by his sin, and yet lived after it for a time, so the faithful Christian hath recovered eternal life by Christ's passion, though he die a natural death, and remain dead for a time”? There is also the misleading heading, “Atheist”, but that is strongly suggestive that he might have been one. HE WAS NOT! Please someone show me how this Hobbes’ page is NOT biased. Paul G. Humber ( talk) 21:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know whether you are being serious or sarcastic, Paul G. Humber, but on the off-chance that it is the former: secondary sources are required for articles, not for talk page discussions. As for not knowing who wrote the post, it's signed by the poster so again it's not quite clear what you mean. -- bonadea contributions talk 08:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
References
“Chapter XLV.: Of Demonology and the Other Relics of the Religion of the Gentiles.” Leviathin.” https://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/6/Hobbes_Thomas_1660_The_Leviathan.pdf
“Chapter XXXVIII.: Of the Signification in Scripture of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, the World to Come, and Redemption.” . Leviathan.” https://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/6/Hobbes_Thomas_1660_The_Leviathan.pdf Paul G. Humber ( talk) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The notion that the worthiness of Hobbes words must be judged by secondary sources is an idol I refuse to bow to.That's entirely up to you, but it is also Wikipedia's policy that such things must be mediated through reliable secondary sources. In other words, the effect of what you are saying is that you refuse to follow Wikipedia's policies which, apart from being rude, is pretty much only apt to get you blocked from editing.You also wrote
Secondary sources are a mixed-bag--all over the spectrum.Yes, indeed. Which is exactly why Wikipedia's policy is that we must use secondary rather than primary sources: a primary source will always espouse just one view and will usually have some vested interest in the topic that biases their statements. We need to go to the secondary sources to get an unbiased perspective, and where the secondary sources have differing opinions we need to cover all the major viewpoints without ourselves taking a stance on which of them is "better" than the other. If we only look at a PepsiCo press release we will confidently assert that Pepsi is much better than Coca-Cola, and vice versa if we looked at one from The Coca-Cola Company. We need to go to the scientific literature to find the actual answer, as they will have the actual data on the two drinks' relative merits, usually from several perpectives (e.g. sales numbers, market testing / consumer polling, nutritional value, sustainability of production, brand recognition, and so forth). And we, as Wikipedia editors, can't make such determinations ourselves: we are all volunteers, anonymous and so with no way to verify credentials or biases, so if my personal preference was Dr Pepper the article would likely claim that it was the best soft drink, in contravention of all actual observable data. This is why all interpretive statements and weighting of information must be filtered through secondary sources.Saying "This is what Hobbes meant" is an interpretation, and selecting a particular quote from Hobbes is giving that particular quote weight over all his other writings and over what others wrote about Hobbes. Imagine if I was an activist atheist and was permitted to cherry-pick Hobbes quotes to make him look like he was unequivocally an atheist in the modern sense? What we're trying to tell you is that you are right now engaged in the same thing, only with the opposite goal: you're personally convinced that Hobbes was a theist, and you're picking quotes that support that view for the article to make it conform to your understanding of Hobbes. Why would we privilege your view over the hypothetical activist atheist? The secondary source and neutral point of view policies are designed (deliberately: it's the way we want it to be, not something that happened by accident) to neutralise both by requiring us to rely on what the experts in the relevant field have to say.You also several times refer to the permissibility of using primary sources that I mentioned in an earlier message in this thread. As a practical matter I would suggest you forget about that. We allow primary sources for an extremely narrow set of circumstances, none of which will apply in this situation. If you would like to contribute constructively here you must, in practice, forget about using primary sources and argue for your position based on 1) secondary sources and, 2) Wikipedia's policies. Right now all you're doing is saying that you disagree with Wikipedia's policies and refuse to comply with them. Quite apart from being exceedingly rude, the only probable outcome of that is that your editing privileges will be revoked.I count no less than 5 editors (volunteers all) who have graciously spent time attempting to guide you on Wikipedia's policies, and attempted to help you edit constructively here. So far your response has been to ignore their assistance, telling them that they are incorrect, implying that they have personal beliefs that you think are reprehensible (doesn't matter whether it's true: that fact that you view them that way means you are intending it as a personal attack), and dredging around quotes from Hitler, of all people, and the kind of religious proselytising that I would expect from someone standing on a soapbox at a street corner (and which would get them thrown out of every single place of business if they attempted it there). You can have whatever beliefs you want, on any imaginable subject, but you are not allowed to use Wikipedia as your soapbox. Please either attempt in good faith to act within the policies and community norms of Wikipedia, or go somewhere else. I can't speak for anyone else, but I suspect you have pretty much exhausted the community's willingness to assume, absent evidence, that you are here to help improve the encyclopedia, and certainly the willingness to expend effort on helping you find your way on the project. -- Xover ( talk) 08:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
If I could try one more time: Wikipedia articles are essentially synthesis from published secondary and tertiary sources. There are good reasons for this. The reason Wikipedia doesn't allow users to support statements with references to primary texts is that this would amount presenting the opinions or interpretations of users as though they were fact. What's more, your interpretation of Leviathan, say, will be inherently less credible than that of Quentin Skinner, for example, and it would be absurd to imply parity between published academic sources and the opinions of anonymous internet users. Furthermore, as it stands, the content of the encyclopedia is governed by what is published is reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Where there is some kind of controversy, all WP:DUE claims will be reproduced on Wikipedia. If this were not so, and we allowed users to go away and perform their own original research from primary sources, not only would the content be guff written by people without credentials, but there would be no standard for the inclusion of content—only a large number of users possessing differing opinions. You missed the point in your comment above: the WP:NOR policy explicitly states that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". You cannot construct arguments about primary texts on English Wikipedia with reference to the texts only, which would represent your personal perspective only.
To address your point about "the truth": There is an enormous volume of scholarship concerned with the interpretation Hobbes' writing, and not all of this scholarship (obviously) is in agreement. Wikipedia collates and restates what is published in secondary sources, and where there is controversy, presents this controversy in a disinterested way. Wikipedia is not interested in presenting the definitive interpretation of Hobbes' writing, nor does it assume (like you, apparently) that there is a single valid or "true" reading of a particular text (which happens to always correspond precisely with his own views on the subject). At one point you even say: "Truth is far more important than secondary sources". I have to inform you that your reading or interpretation of a given text does not represent "the truth". There will be controversy and reasonable disagreement about most subjects. This is what we mean when we say that Wikipedia is not interested in "the truth". If you are under the impression, as you appear to be, that going back to the original text will reveal its "true" meaning, you might like to consider why, if this is so, there is so much disagreement in the first instance.
To address the actual point of disagreement, Hobbes' highly heterodox religious views left him open to the charge of "atheism". This charge, like that of "Epicureanism", was largely polemical—a fact which the article makes clear. The undue emphasis placed on this one element of Hobbes' life and work simply reflects the fact that the article is not of a very high standard in general. I believe I have improved the situation by renaming the relevant section (which was, I believe, the original source of the confusion). What's more, despite everything you have written here, the section in question actually amounts to a discussion of the contemporary charge of atheism, and the association of "Hobbism" with atheism. It does not allege that Hobbes was in fact an atheist. If the article did claim that Hobbes was not a Christian, it would be incorrect—but happily, as I say, the article does not do that. Endymion.12 ( talk) 23:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
There was very little information in England about the Armada on 5/4/1588. It seems that we can't believe the story, about the date of birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 ( talk) 12:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)