Every Philosopher Has His Day-Twice
By C.P. Clarke
Posted On November 28, 2005
In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes famously argues for an all-powerful sovereign, either in the form of one man or an assembly of men, that uses terrifying force to subdue a population of otherwise selfish, greedy, competitive citizenry. I’m currently teaching the Leviathan to my tenth graders in the South Bronx (New York City). While they grasp the essential nature of his argument, many feel his ideas about human nature are excessively cynical, and, in light of our flowering capitalistic democracy, somewhat irrelevant. Popular historians such as Charles Van Doren lend credence to their indifference by emphasizing the contributions of England’s other famous political philosopher, John Locke. This makes sense. Locke’s Second Treatise on Government argues that all men are created equal (a “blank slate” on which society encodes its values) and that royal power emanates from the people, two ideas that led to the establishment of America. In this way, Locke is seen as the far more prescient and useful of the two. When one looks to the future, however, one sees that Hobbes’ philosophy of government is far more able to describe the oncoming sociopolitical topography.
Europe emerged from the 17th century as global economic and political force. The Age of Exploration led to a newfound level of global trade and cultural interaction that led to enormous wealth and European hegemony over Africa, Asia, and the Americas. In response to this burgeoning financial might Kings developed a newfound sense of power. Monarchs limited representative bodies, raised powerful armies and levied taxes with impunity. We call this trend to autocratic central government “Absolutism.” Its best practitioners were King Charles V and Phillip II of Spain, Louis XIV of France, and Peter the Great of Russia. Sensing an opportunity to partake in this royal feast, James I of England wasted commissioned Thomas Hobbes to craft the invitation in the form of a philosophical justification. His response was the Leviathan. While James I succeeded in his goal of achieving sovereign power at the expense of a parliament, his victory was pyrrhic; forty years after he took the throne England was plunged into civil war. Oliver Cromwell instituted the Commonwealth and then, after the Restoration, Parliament and the King learned to compromise in a way that alleviated the sociopolitical tension and created a lasting framework for modern democracies. Unfortunately for other countries mentioned, no such political wisdom nor bravery on the part of the citizenry could be found. Instead, these countries went from autocratic regimes to bloody revolutions.
Fast forward to the 21st century. Every day we hear in the media about the wondrous advances of DNA technology, stem cells, and the potential uses of microchips. Through technology and political machinations, the world appears to be heading towards a one-world socialist state governed by a class of people with access to the best in bio-technology. Using artificial intelligence and nano-technology, this new class of rulers will have dominion over ordinary humans. This half-machine men will use computers to institute absolute rule over mankind. In History of Knowledge Charles Van Doren speculates that these computers will be the ultimate administrators of Justice. “There would be no possibility of revolt or even disobedience on any important matter.” He goes on to write, “Lacking human desires for power and possessing no trace of the human addiction to war, there is every reason to believe that they would be just masters, although cold ones. That is, mercy might be as difficult a concept for them to understand as cruelty.” Through this plausible vision of the future, one that marries science and politics, one sees chilling echoes of Mr. Hobbes bleak philosophy.
The question is, will mankind in the 21st century react like Oliver Cromwell? Or the people of France and Russia? Will we sit back and watch as we are enslaved or will fight for liberty? Will we listen to the pundits as they tout the benefits of technology, or, will heed Thomas Hobbes warning that mankind has the ability to “represent goodness in the likeness of evil and evil in the likeness of goodness”?
E-mail this article to a friend.
