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
Piergiacomo... nice teaching metaphor of the room... and attention and where it goes... and, I would add that there is (as you imply through your argument above) --a deeper motivation (affective at its base) is always involved... and, we could call that Eros/Agape (Love) drive(s) and (or vs.?) Phobos/Thanatos (Fear) drive(s)... a kind of meta-dual-motivational paradigm operating in the "attending" to what we attend to or not. My point, is that just what is "big" and "obvious" may not be what is most attended to in all situations--there's even that notion of the 'blind spot' where we don't even see (or, wish to acknowledge) the 'elephant in the room'--which is 'big' but on a different plane than the obvious, physical--and, thus we enter a metaphysical (more affective) dimension of reality and our behaviors.
Yeah, I totally agree with you. And the importance of phenomenology in the XX century thought confirms your/our position. In my studies (and I agree with them), the deeper motivation is something that has a value for us (it should be an "organic development": we have a natural tendency and the capability of "actualising" it). And another important point in what you say, is that we are talking of a metaphysical dimension: when existence preceeds essence, what has value in my existence and what I focus my attention on becomes what I will try to actualise, so it will become the essence/incarnation of my life. So the subjective focus on a particular aspect/value has at least an ontological relevance: it will lead to the actualisation of an existential essence. Well, this is pure existentialist language, I'm sorry... but you hit the spot with your comment!
"We are talking of a metaphysical dimension: when existence preceeds essence, what has value in my existence and what I focus my attention on becomes what I will try to actualise, so it will become the essence/incarnation of my life." The encarnation would be the goal of my life. that´s the point!
Good proposition. But essence need not necessarily become the goal or purpose of life unless existence is assured safety from the vagaries of insecurity and uncertainty. It might be possible in case of some but some can persistently be immersed in safeguarding existence like for instance, a beggar whose sole aim is to live for the next day, every tomorrow.
Essence is not an economic affaire, but ontological. A beggar realizes also his essence in his conditions, because we talk about the human condition, the real heart of humanity.
True, essence is not an economic affair. Existence refers to basic survival. Karl Marx emphasised on economic determinism. To counter communist ideology, the western capitalist nations enunciated basic minimum wages and social security measures. Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, JK Rowling etc could excel in creativity (essence) since their existence in their initial days of survival struggles, was taken care of by social security benefits.
I completely agree that a unified model should be the good formal solution, I am working on the preservation of both this two approaches since my Bachelor thesis. That's why I appreciate Jaspers and Hersch between all the existentialists: starting from Kierkegaard, existentialism has used reason in a different way, but not giving the right importance to the scientific approach (this could be understood as an immediate reaction to Hegel and other forms of scientism in that period). Jaspers and Hersch have given back importance to sciences (and technique, this is important too, if we compare their philosophies with Heidegger, for example): for them, every existence were born from a scientific attitude towards the world. In this sense, Hersch's "L'illusion philosophique" is the key: every man starts searching for the Truth but what they reach through their path is their existence, rather than the Truth (this should be the philosophical illusion: the philosopher thinks to reach the Truth through his philosophical sistem, instead he actualises his existence, thanks to his engagement towards what is TRUE for him).
Jaspers' and Hersch's idea is that "man is made up of nature AND freedom (body and soul, they say from time to time)". The connection "and" is the essential part, because, as you said, the two approaches must keep their dialectic alive and interact: the scientific boost lets us preserve our natural life and know better the world we live in (better knowledge of the world through sciences and better means through technique lead to more possibilities of freedom), while the existential boost lets us reason on the sense/value, through the trascendent signs in the immanence. Science is nothing if it forgets existence and tries to reach an extra-human perfection, while existence is nothing if it forgets body and the precise and rational search for truth of every scientific effort. Science and existence are both essential roots of human.
Thank you so much!
Brilliant.
Yes, I agree that we can see two different approaches to world ie scientific and existential. If we replace world with life itself, we can as well apply both the approaches to life. Scientific approach is like leading life through mind ( logic, intelligence) and existential approach is through heart (emotional, feelings). The former takes care of physical survival, safety, security etc whereas the latter deals with social relations, love, feelings etc.
I think that ultimately a unified model can work better in the pursuit of meaning in life.
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
of 8 Next