Political Fearism -
"Father of political science Thomas Hobbes and fear were born twins, they lived together and died together."
"A man is by birth a rational and fearful animal, life is a process of fearlessness."
After reading a quote of Hobbes, I started to think of his philosophy from a fearism perspective. I have given it the name Fearolotical (Fear+Political=Fearolotical). Simple logic behind it is; fear precedes politics.
Character of the state of nature is Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, short, no preservation, war, threatening, warning, danger, death, killing, violence, insecure=fear
Character of the state of sovereignty is government, institution, power, court, law, justice, prison, punishment, command, authority, order, preservation, force=fearless
.A man, government, or institution starts when switched on (fear on). Appearance of fear is silent in Hobbes's entire philosophy, not visible but active like under the eraser of Derrida. He says, "Liberty is in silence of law ". (Hobbes146) I say, "Law wakes up; when fear rings bell.-" Fear is gravity and motion, fear (>) is greater than (<) other emotions. It can be scientific and mathematically explained because Hobbes preferred scientific presentation. So, our motions (life) move towards fearlessness. In below images, fear and fearless activities are motion of fear-gravity. The state of nature was between two fears as sandwich (before coinage and after avoiding).
Political philosophy (Fear+Political=Fearolotical) philosophy can be understood exclusively (Hobbes) of Thomas Hobbes was born because of fear (state of nature and civil war of England). According to him, the nature of man was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short (Hobbes 83-84). His famous quotation was he was born twins with fear. He was not only born twins with fear; he lived with fear and died with fear. He had preferred absolute monarchy; it was his best system to preserve life. Core part of the whole philosophy is in the heart of preservation. Again, preservation can be defined as binary of fear. It means he had feared all the time. No preservation, war, threatening, warning, danger, death, killing, violence, and insecure were to fear. In the state of nature man had a special character that was rational. Using his distinct attribute, he avoided the state of nature.
Preservation, protection and security was his priority. We can read it starting at the end of The Leviathan. It looks common for all the people; as a Fearism author, I look at everything; life to cosmos in Fearism perspective.
It is obvious that since the beginning of his life, fear has played a great role. Prior to the civil war in England, he guessed that the situation was worsening. It was the Fear of unknown happening, thus he left England and lived in Paris. Though in Paris; fear was chasing him all the way of his life. It couldn't detach from the body, it was the shadow of life. He was looking for external solution, but it dwelled within him.
He exiled himself in 1640 and wrote the Leviathan when he was in Paris. He thought the accident of Socrates might repeat to him. Same phenomena happened to Aristotle 323 B. C. Such chaotic and fearful situations played a major role in his thinking. Hobbes applied fearful life, and environmental fact in fearolotical philosophy to draw people's attention. He wanted to make scientific laws like the law of gravity and motion. Law of gravity is the law of fear. How much magnetic power fear had; nothing had in comparison to fear. Every compass of life was attracted by fear (magnetic fear). Omitting the fear from the state; state would be paralyzed. It proves that the state of gravity was fear. Fear had the powerful magnetic and hypnotized power. One needle of fear was towards him and he wanted to turn that needle to the political direction. His political direction was the political science. This political science is what I called 'Fearoloticalogy'.
A man used his reason to avoid the state of nature. He explored and found the law of divine and law of man. He mixed up both and developed political science. In the round figure, the political theory of Hobbes is a theory of fear and fearlessness. It is an image of his state and he writes about state as:
- The old poet said that the gods were at first created by human fear :( Hobbes 72)
-"The gods were at first created by human fear. "The old poet is very true. In philosophy of Fearism (2014) I have written that god is a fear. In the state of nature, there was nothing except fears of starvation, animals, and natural powers. These calamities were a risk of life. So, they started to worship them as a god. After many years, people began to fear them, which they established.
A man, who looks too far before him, in the care of future time, hath his heart all day long, gnawed on by fear of death, poverty, or other calamity; and has no repose, nor pause of his anxiety, but in sleep.(ibid 72)
-Fear of death, evil, poverty, or other calamity is the bottom line of a man. For being that there be causes of all things that have arrived hitherto or shall arrive hereafter; are cause of fears.
Hereby it is manifested, that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, and they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war, as is of every man against every man. (ibid 83-84)
-"They were in that condition which is called war; and such a war, as is of every man against every man." It is a famous dictum of Hobbes in 17th century; it is very practical hitherto now. It was that time men lived without a common power to keep them all in awe. In normal conditions, we seek friends, relatives, when abnormal situation appears, all goes to deem it and self – preservation comes forward. It happens when food becomes scarce like a shortage of masks and sanitizer nowadays. In the state of nature, nobody had a food store. It was the reason; war was against every man. In the fearism it is written, man has stronger war than dog that fights for the bone. Man's fear- struggle is more dangerious than animal fighting because man can use rational, nepotism, bribes, conspiracy, flattery and force.
THE RIGHT OF NATURE, which writers commonly call just naturale, is the liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life, and consequently, of doing anything, which in his own judgment, and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto. (ibid 86)
-For the preservation of the right of nature of a man; that is to say, of his own life; and consequence.
A LAW OF NATURE, (lex naturalis) is a percept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same; and to omit, that, by which he thinketh it may be best preserved. (ibid 86)
-A law of nature, which is forbidden to do, that is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same, so he wanted to avoid it because he didn't see any preservation there. Omit, that, by which he thought it may be best preserved. It was the thinking of Hobbes.
The mutual transferring of right is that which men call CONTRACT. ((ibid 89)
-At last the nature of the state reached the position of CONTRACT. It was the mutual transferring of rights to save the lives. According to Hobbes, the best solution and option to exit from the solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short was contract.
Good and evil, are names that signify our appetites, and aversions. (ibid 105)
-Appetites, and aversions is also a famous dictum of Hobbes. Appetite was the prime reason for war. Limited food couldn't fulfill the appetite, to find more; needed to invade others. No one could sit silent; their appetite didn't let a man sit in rest and peace because if it didn't fulfill, chances would be to lose the life. Increasing appetite was the cause of enemies. A man was always sandwiched between fear of being hungry and fear of the enemy. How to do the best to preserve life? It was the final cause. Aversion was a secondary action. If a man didn't like or fear, he had a way of aversion. In some cases fear chases a man.
If they think good, to a monarch, as absolutely, as to any other representative. (ibid 123)
-In te concept of Hobbes; he mentioned that an absolute monarch is the best political system. Absolute monarch can secure life better than assembling.
And thus I have brought to end my Discourse of Civil and Ecclesiastical Government, occasioned by the disorders of the present time, without partiality, without application, and without order design than to set before man's eyes the mutual relation between protection and obedience; of which the condition of human nature, and the law of divine, (both natural and positive) require an inviolable observation. (ibid475)
-At the end Hobbes in his Fearolotical philosophy; Discourse of Civil and Ecclesiastical Government, he focused on the mutual relation between protection and obedience. Base of his state was protection; it was his first priority. Outstanding were supportive to the protection.
Conclusion
It shows that man abandoned the state of nature because of many problems and fears. He made a social contract, in the contract; it is doctrine that; sovereignty may be assembly, absolute monarchy and institution. To sovereignty, through the contract, he gave all his natural rights except self – preservation. In the state of nature, self-preservation was in danger; so, he left it. If preservation was dangerious in the state, he could revolt against the government because this right was not handed over to the state. At any cost and at any means preservation was the most important. If there was no life everything would be useless. To avoid the fear of the state of nature; he created an artificial social contract and handed over to absolutely power (monarchy, government and commonwealth).Entire political philosophy of Hobbes wandered around the hide and seek of fear and fearlessness. Not only his theory; theory of John Locke, J.J. Rousseau, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Karl Marx are also in the periphery of fear, but it is veil. A man is by birth a rational and fearful animal. For any kind of contract there was a hidden fear. The state of nature was the state of fear for a man because a man was by birth rational and fearful. He had a great war against his fears rather than his enemy. A man lived with external and internal fears; he had war against his fears all the time. It was known as fear struggle in the history of Fearism.
What was the incident Hobbes wanted to avoid the state of nature, pin point was fear. Cruel civil war he faced and it struck him. He has taken the state of nature as its backbone. His state of nature is hard liner, Locke softer and the Rousseau the softest. After reading him and sharing experience, we can say, a man by birth is a fearful animal and life is the process of fearlessness. Political Fearism is a faculty of Philosophy of Fearism.
He has a long reference about the Bible and explanation in the last chapters. His advocating the absolute monarchy. He had a good relationship with royal families. Hobbes was against power division. He argued that share power means sharing punishment, reward and law. It developed powerless sovereignty. As a consequence; it could beget an unhealthy society. He followed the absolute power system of God. God never shared his power; that was the reason; everyone followed him because everyone got terrified with him. One point was mismatching; in the kingdom of a man, people can revolt the government if danger comes for the preservation but it was impossible in the kingdom of the God.
It is an example article of Rephilosophy. In Philosophy of Fearism (2014), I have used Dephilosophy; now using Rephilosophy. Dephilosophy needs to deconstruct first but in rephilosophy, it doesn't require. It can be directly rephilosophy means rethink or re-analyze.
(I have taken reference from the book of Thomas Hobbes the Leviathan. In the article I have shown the fearism effect on his political theory and invisible fear was the important to invent political science.)
This article is edited by David Nwaobi, Osinakachi Akuma Kalu, Bhawani Shankar Adhikary and Rachelle Roberthon Favaloro.
Reference
- Thomas Hobbes Leviathan Oxford World's Classics Edited with an introduction and noted by J.C.A.Gaskin1996 (Mostly I have taken reference from it.)
- DeshSubba, Philosophy of Fearism (2014) Xlibris
- https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/existence-of-fear-precedes-essence-desh-subba
- https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/knowledge-is-fear-existence-of-fear-precedes-power-is-death-of-fe
- https://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/111138
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxEZukcNidM
Comments
THANKS
Beautiful.
Oh my friend. In Peru we have a big poet who once a time writed: "bien sabe la rosa en que mano se posa" or "the rose knows in which hand stay"...
Nice link between Hobbes and Fearism! I agree that politics was born as an answer to our “poor, nasty, brutish” nature and that it has become the “final cause” of that “rational and fearful animal”, which is called “man”. I wouldn’t agree that a monarch would be the best solution (a monarch with an absolute control could become another dangerous Leviatan), but this is not the central point of the contribution: in contractualism there are many different position, like Locke’s or Rousseau’s ones, that give the control to different political institutions (without considering the effects of the “National Revolutions” from the end of XVII Century). Maybe the historical background of Hobbes could have affected his particular point of view on monarchy? I would make an essential distinction between “force” and “power” (while you seem to put them together in the “character of the state of sovereignty).
This is my position: the “capability of evil” is the intersubjective effect of being human, i.e. we have a body, we need to preserve it, so we need to use our force to keep us alive, to eat, to have/find a job, etc.; from a subjective point of view, force let us to actualize our existence, but, from an intersubjective point of view, force gives us the possibility of hurting the others and denying their freedom. The political “power” was born when man recognized his own “capability of evil” and decided to keep it under control. So, in my opinion, “power” is the use of “force” that preserves the “final cause” of every citizen’s subjective freedom, and politics must keep the citizen’s “force” under control, so that every citizen can actualize his existence without denying the others’ one.
At the same time, we need to make a difference between power and sovereignty. Power is the same force. Sovereignty is political power, that's to say, power legitimazed by law. Like the Max Weber's point of view: the State has the political power because it has the legitimate monopoly on force.
Yeah this is another way of calling similar concepts, i.e. a distintion between raw force and a controlled/legitimate force. If it is legitimate force, it means that it is the means to reach an end. And that's exactly what should be considered, in my opinion.
Yes. I agree with you.
Hi. In Hobbes, the absolute monarch is dangerous for the enemies of the State. We must remember Hobbes writed during the glorious revolution against the war religions. Well, in this case, it was necessary the absolute power.
True ... force and power, life and death, libido and destrudo, fear and fearlessness and so on go the nature of nature itself in a dual, contradictory manner. Hobbes, being influenced by theistic principles and subsequent implied scriptural support to monarchic style of rule , hypothesised his political philosophy favouring the same. It is in this regard that Plato in BC era itself stressed that king should be a philosopher, thereby meaning the ruler must be wise and knowledgeable so as to administer the populace righteously.
As you said, duality takes over both the monarch as well as the people. When the king is good, good rule will ensue. In Sanskrit there is an old adage, 'yatha raja, thatha prajaa' which means 'as is the king, so are the people.' A good king enforces very few rules. But a dictator may impose too many restrictions. When people encounter much strictness in social behaviour, they feel fearful. Then, the ruler himself or herself becomes the source of fear and terror as it happened when Mary Antoinette was the Queen during the French revolution.
As Subba theorised, self preservation finds its origins in human's instinctual urge for selfishness to survive at any cost. Primitive humans were always in danger from wild animals much the same way as presently we are hunted, haunted and threatened by lifeless minute virus. Here again, we find the duality of fight or flight.
All this thinking was long attended to by Buddha in 6th century BC, who as we all are aware, suggested for middle path, that is neither any extreme.
Subba emphasises that there is good fear. Fisher reminds us of the negative consequences of toxic fear. But practically observing, we see most of the humanity is stuck in the middle of the continuum of fear. Hobbes' idea of self preservation and absolute monarchy also presupposes the same because balance is essential. Hence, to control the ruler, present democracies have established the rule of law; equally enforceable on all. But, again some are more equal than others. I suppose that here comes the pivotal role of goodness, a sort of ethical and moral standards, guiding and backing the power of the ruler as well as the conduct of people. As you already stated, the people's conduct should be such that as to not hurt others, while enjoying their own freedoms.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 8 Next