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
I think, Rafael, that Sartre's and Jaspers' existence is almost similar but they seem to differ in later part ie Sartre's essence and Jaspers' existenz. Rather here, I see Jaspers's model is reminding me of Freudian triad of id (instinctual), ego (psychological) and super-ego (social) where the interplay of the three components of an individual's mind forms his or her personality. Sartre's essence is also in a way a reflection of what one makes out of choices or decisions taken. I sense that Jaspers' idea of existenz is deeply influenced by morals, religions and the phenomenon of God. But these notions are subjective as well as relative. Everyone's conception of God is different. So is the case of morals and standards. We are witness to bloodbaths between catholics and Protestants in the mideaval Britain. Here comes Mbembe's necropolitics which is resorted to by the powerful in the guise of safeguarding their power, authority, faiths or morals. That's why Jaspers stresses the application of reason in realising one's authentic existenz, so that individual doesn't get swayed by personal irrational whims.
On the other hand, what I could analyse is that Sartre's essence is towards self-actualisation through freedom, choice, decision making and holding self responsible. It also involves giving due consideration to the other individual so as to not hurt.
As regards Mbembe'a necropolitics, i feel that what he says is quite logical and it has been the instrument in the hands of the mighty, strong and powerful people of ignorance, arrogance and greed to perpetuate their will at the cost of infusing in others the fear of death or injury or fear for life. Those who succumb to that fear are in despair and those who face valiantly in the spirit of authenticity are awakened beings as per Jaspers. The thinking as to why all this has to happen or is happening explains Camusean absurdity.
I think necropolitics can be tackled by socialising, sensitising and conditioning all in the society to the ideals of mutual goodness that are to be enforceable.
So, we could say, professor, with Sartre, that the existence becomes existent in capitalism era, specially in the XIX-XX centuries. So, the man lost one level of its life. Nowadays, south african thinker Achille Mbembe say that human being is only a kind of corpse (nicropolitics). Whay do you think about it? Regards.
Rafael is right. If I can give you a suggestion as a Jaspers' researcher, consider that his point of strength in existentialism is the fact that he comes back to Kant and develops him: Kant explained that phenomenon and noumenon are not two different worlds, but 2 different aspects (Jaspers calls them "modes") of the same world (this is an important point, since many philosophies, like Hegel's one, were partially born from a misunderstanding of this point); the Pure Reason tries to reach a "universal and necessary" transcendental ground knowing the phenomenon, but it fails and so a Practical Reason is needed, with its absolute moral imperative. In "Philosophy" Jaspers does this same movement, since the beginning of the human path is the search for the objective Umgreifende, namely the perfect and total knowledge of the Truth; during his scientific research (this should be what you call physical/materialistic aspect of existence), the subject discovers (thanks to "limit situations") that he is a part of what he wants to know, so he will never reach a perfect and total knowledge of it; at this point, man can only reach a subjective Umgreifende, starting to use his freedom and stating what is important for him: here we move from a human "objective biology" to a human "subjective existence", when the world becomes a place where you can discover "chypers" of transcendence ("transcendence" is the value/values that you want to reach in your existence). There is only one world, but there are two different approaches to it: the ""scientific"" one, through which you try to better understand how the world works, and the ""existential"" one, that uses freedom for reading chypers of transcendence in the world and creating an existence thanks to them. Hope this can help somehow.
Correct... you have nailed it. I am referring to physical/materialistic aspect of existence. I haven't read Jaspers. I will. Thank you Rafael.
But when Kierkegaard talked about existence, he is thinking the way to connect with our inner being. Thats the problem. In fact, when Karl Jaspers talks about existence, he makes a difference between the existent and the existence. The existent is simply the empirical or biological reality of a man. In opposite, existence is the moral and spiritual dimension of humanity. So Jaspers follows Kierkegaard, but in addition makes the difference with the existent. This existent is similar to your idea of existence, I think...
What you say is true ... Marx didn't talk about existence but it is implied. His view of exploitation and surplus value refer to the fact that the worker is left with minimum wages that could merely sustain his survival and the difference value of excess labour is pocketed by the capitalist. So the worker is simply existing without realising his full labour value or potential. It's only Darwin who explicitly talks about struggle for existence.
It´s very interesting your thesis, but for me there is difficult to see the existence problem in Marx. That´s a sartrean point, because in fact Marx doesn´t talk about existence. Both Marx and his gran master Hegel believed in historical rational essence, ideal in Hegel, material in Marx, but none talked about existence. Against Hegel, Kierkegaaard was the real existence philosopher when descovered the existence like a real philosophical problem. Existence is not economical nor historical. For Kierkegaard existence is the experience of decision faced God or the numinous God.
Thank you ...
True.. as you said, though Sartre was a great fan of Marxism, his subsequent metaphysical ideas might have proved detrimental to orthodox communism in the sense that Sartre emphasised on individual freedom and responsibility whereas communism aimed at achieving collective freedom from bourgeoise and at sustaining it through collective responsibility. Sartre perhaps might have understood that an individual could not live freely as per his or her choice in a collective bound responsibility.
Otherwise, both Sartre and Marx were having the same base called existence. For Sartre, it was firstly existence and then essence. Same way, for Marx too, it was firstly infrastructure comprising socioeconomic relationships for basic survival or existence and this foundation gives rise to superstructure of government, businesses, education, laws etc. For Marx, both the tiers are economic in nature but for Sartre, though the first one ie existence is socioeconomic but the second tier ie essence is more than economic in approach and ideology.
Essence is in the hands of the individual for Sartre as to how choices are made, freedom is utilised, responsibility fixed upon individual's decisions etc. But communism renders the individual subject to the decisions of the collective in which case Sartre's essence is awfully wiped out. Sartre's humanism accords higher priority to free will rather than how to assure existence whereas Marxian humanism prioritises materialistic existence over bothering about individual free will.
Oh I see. Well maybe you can still inspire some scholars with your ideas!
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
of 8 Next