Sarah Haskins' Sections Discussion Questions
Only my students need to answer this. If you are having problems commenting, see Dr. Pasley's post below. If you still have problems, email your comments to Dr. Pasley and request that he post them. REMEMBER: post your comments at least 12 hours before your discussion section.
As always, please use specific examples and specific references to the readings.
Prompt: Compare/contrast Hobbes and Filmer's ideas in the two excerpts for this week. Connect them to the themes of patriarchy and authority in the state and family, as discussed in class. Be sure to note when each document was written and its historical context (what was happening in England at this time?) You should also consider how the concepts of the Great Chain of Being and the social contract relate to the readings. If we have not yet covered these in lecture by the time you comment, you will need to do some solo investigations into these concepts.
Also, do not forget the rest of the assigned readings for the week.
As always, please use specific examples and specific references to the readings.
Prompt: Compare/contrast Hobbes and Filmer's ideas in the two excerpts for this week. Connect them to the themes of patriarchy and authority in the state and family, as discussed in class. Be sure to note when each document was written and its historical context (what was happening in England at this time?) You should also consider how the concepts of the Great Chain of Being and the social contract relate to the readings. If we have not yet covered these in lecture by the time you comment, you will need to do some solo investigations into these concepts.
Also, do not forget the rest of the assigned readings for the week.
posted by shask at 6:44 PM
37 Comments:
I think that both of the articles have many things in common and many things that they portray differently. For starters it seems to me that Hobbes really tries to nail down the point that all men are equal much more than Filmer does. Hobbes says that although some may be smarter or more physically inclined all men are still equal. He says that even the weakest of men can still find a way to kill the strongest. He also says that the greatest sign of mental equality is that all men think that they are the smartest and that they are all "content with their share" as he says. He also says that all men want what other men have. If a man has something better you then you will want that even more and try to get it. He says, which i also believe is contrast to Filmer, that no man can become so powerful that he can make all the laws and no one will present any danger to him. He says that many men are likely to want to invade the leader for 3 things...competition which leads to gain...diffidence for safety...and glory which is for their reputation. But just like Filmer he seems to side with needing a leader when he says things like when men "know no common power, they are all at war with themselves." He says that no common power leads to no security and a lot of fear toward each other. He says that justice relates to a man in society, not in solitude, meaning that if there is no supreme power or law then there can be no justice. He says that there is nothing stopping a man from doing a injustice if there is no law against it. If there is not social contract than there is no reason for a man to obey any sense of morality or law.
Filmer makes quite a different agrument in my opinion for basically the same thing though. He says that there is a natural right to a supreme leader who is above all others. Hobbes seems to argue that people must agree to make a leader but Filmer says it is a natural right just like it is the children's obligation to obey his father. He says that the king ruling an empire is the same concept as a father ruling his family or his children. He says that if a kid doesn't have liberty over his father than the society shouldn't have liberty over their king. He says that there can be no laws without a supreme power to command and make them. I think he uses the Great Chain of Being because he keeps making reference how the king is just naturally more powerful than everyone else, in the same way that the Great Chain has everyone naturally in a certain position in society and in the world.
Hobbes' Leviathan was written in 1651, eleven years after Filmer wrote his Patriarcha in 1640. It was around this period of time in which people were questioning and challenging the power of the monarchy (Charles I), and the later "lord and protector" Oliver Cromwell in England. These works both address the situation and are similar in some ways, but they definitely have different standpoints.
Both Leviathan and Patriarcha agree that there should be a government with the complete ability to rule to maintain order. Hobbes writes, "Where there is no common power, there is no law." Another similarity is that both call for the king to protect the public as a whole before the private. Filmer writes, "...profit of every man in particular, and of all together in general, is not always one and the same, that the public is to be preferred before the private..." Also, both agree that the people should obey the laws which are created by whoever makes them.
However, this is where the two start to differ. Filmer believes that in order to rule, the king must not be subject to laws as he should have total authority as a father does in the household. Filmer writes, "so the king, as father over many families, extends his care to preserve, feed, clothe, instruct and defend the whole commonwealth." The king is the father of his people, and as in traditional patriarchy, has complete power over his children (subjects) and his children have power over his children and etc., but in the end the king is the first father and has absolute control. This goes along with the concept of the Great Chain of Being which says that God is the utmost father and therefore we should obey everything he says. The king in turn is like a heir of God and therefore must be obeyed. Filmer also says, "For a long time the word of the king was the only law...." and the king is not required to answer to his people and therefore cannot be overthrown.
Hobbes on the other hand believes that both the people and the king should obey the laws as neither is above them. Hobbes says the king is really no different than anyone else, "the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he." Also, Hobbes believed the king is only able to rule because the people have created a social contract with the king giving him the power to rule in exchange for protection. If the king or any government refuses to uphold his end of the contract, it is the right of the people to overthrow him.
These excerpts start with a similar foundation but are completely different in their point of views on the rights and duties of the government.
When Filmer wrote the Patriarcha in 1640, Europe was fighting in the Bishop Wars. The two articles seem very similar in the way the both argue for a king; however, they both have different reasons for wanting a king. Filmer focuses on the Chain of Being which is a concept that claims the whole universe is basses on a hierarchical way. At this time in Europe, the father was the ruler of the family. He had the final say in anything and had complete control over his children. Patriarchy was built into society in this way and was a way of life for the Europeans. In the Patriarcha, Filmer makes the comparison of a king and a father. He says that the king should have rule over the country just as a father has rule over his family. This is demonstrated by the quote “As the father over one family, so the king, as father over many families, extends his care to preserve, feed, clothe, instruct and defend the whole commonwealth.” Filmer also points back to the church, unlike Hobbes, to back up his argument several times. He makes this stament about creation and how patriarchy has been around since the beginning of time. “I see not then how the children of Adam, or of any man else, can be free from subjection to their parents. And this subordination of children is the fountain of all regal authority by the ordination of God himself.” Contrary to Filmer, Hobbes has a different reason for wanting a king. He focuses on the concept of a social contract which states that people must give up some of their rights to a government in order to have social order. The Leviathan was written in 1651 during a time of civil war and certainly reflects that. Hobbes claims that without a government to set order, people will be in a state of constant war, which was his experience from living in a world of war. “Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.” Both articles do argue similar points, however, the writers come from different times and have different perspectives which gives each article its own independent stand.
For the most part, both men have indirectly stated that they agree that there must be a central and common authority, and without it there would be anarchy and chaos.
Hobbes says it's destiny for anyone living without a common government to be in a state of war. And during war, the country can't be as productive as it normally is. Hobbes started out by saying that all men are created equally, even though some men may be slightly stronger or more intellectual, they are still all men and neither of those things make one person better than another. He continued to say that most men would admit to being less witty and eloquent, but not to being inferior when it comes to wisdom. Also, Hobbes speculated that if two men pursue something that makes them happy, but they cannot both obtain it without one of them left empty-handed, then they will fight over it. The kicker being that one man can't control everything for a long enough period to be untouchable and have everything that they desire, and will eventually be overtaken. Leaving the person who invaded them in the first place at risk to have the same happen to them. His last major point in my eyes was that, if people wish to live in a completely vigilante society that there can be no rules of right and wrong upheld, for when there is no common law, there is no right and wrong. Filmer's entire exerpt to me, was mostly based on how he felt that a society should be under a common law, but to rebutle Hobbes arguement, he said that throughout history there have been very successful nations under kings. What he was getting at was that if everyone lives under the same laws with the exception of one greater/divine being that you will flourish. He referred to a Sir Walter Raleigh quote that said, "declare the greatness of authority, even the best kings of Judah and Israel were not tied to any law, but they did whatsoever they pleased in the greatest matters."
At the time that Hobbes’ Levitathan and Filmer’s Patriarcha were written near the mid seventeen hundreds, there was much clamor about the authority of the monarchy in England. Some of the kings who influenced these writings were Charles I and later Oliver Cromwell, two dictators who tested the compliance of their people. Although both Hobbes and Filmer address the situation with equal vigor, they have very different standpoints.
However, some similar key interests in both the works is the understanding that there must be one ruling authoritative power that enforces laws and protects the citizens. Hobbes recognizes the incline men have to want everything as says that men, “know no common power, they are all at war with themselves.” This is true because if there is no authority telling a man that he can not commit a crime without going unpunished then there is no reason for him not to commit the crime. Also, both agree that the main duty of the king or ruler is to provide for the overall good of the public, and to steer from particular gain. According to Filmer, if a king looks after the, “profit of every man in particular, and all together in general, it is not always one and the same, the public is to be preferred before the private.”
Hobbes and Filmer vastly differ in late thoughts on the monarchy because Hobbes believes that kings are only chosen to be rulers because of the way the society is set up, and with his role in society he is obligated to uphold his duty to his country and to his people. If for some reason he is unable to comply with the agreements of this social contract, it is then the duty of the people to overthrow their ruler and find a man more fitting for the job. Hobbes also believes that kings are no greater men than you and I, and that both living within the same society are bound to the same laws. Just as it would be wrong for a citizen to commit treason, it is equally wrong for the king and both should be treated with the same regard. A king is no greater a man in Hobbes’ eyes who believes, “the difference between and man and a man is not too considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he."
Filmer, on the other hand, views the king as a father over a household who needs complete authority in order to best protect his children and writes, "so the king, as father over many families, extends his care to preserve, feed, clothe, instruct and defend the whole commonwealth." In order to have such divine authority Filmer clearly rejects Hobbes’ belief that no man should be above that law. Filmer also supports the idea that kings and rulers alike were born different from the rest of us with a natural right to supreme being. This theory goes hand in hand with that of the Great Chain of Being, in which everyone in society has a chosen position already set out for themselves. Therefore, if a king or ruler was placed in a position with such authority, they must have some power we do not.
While Hobbes and Filmer arrive at a similar conclusion, they take very different paths. Between Filmer's writing of Patriarcha and Hobbes's writing of Leviathan the English Civil War took place. The English Civil War took place mostly because people stopped believing in the idea of a king having a divine right to rule. Patriarcha, which shows a thinking more typical of the pre-Revolution times (English Revolution, not American Revolution), is written primarily on the basis of the Great Chain of Being. The Great Chain of Being is an idea about the order of the universe, with God and other holy beings at the top, followed by Man and other animals, then plants, and finally minerals. Within men, those given a divine right by God (such as Adam, as pointed out by Filmer) are at the top, followed by fathers of households, and so on. So, it is with this idea of a king with a divine right to rule, combined with the idea of a king as the father of his people, that Filmer contends that a king should rule. In addition, because the idea of the Great Chain of Being is "Law of Nature", it is more important than any "Law of Man", and so a king with the divine right to rule should not have to follow the laws of men.
Hobbes, showing more post-Revolution thinking, can still agree with the idea of a king ruling, but not because it is the king's divine right. Instead, Hobbes believes it is necessary to have a ruler in order to keep order. Obviously influenced by the English Civil War, Hobbes often warns of a "war of all against all" when a ruler is not found. He gives three reasons for men warring against each other (competition, diffidence, and glory), and essentially believes that every man must give up on some of these things under the rule of a sovereign. This giving up of some rights in order to maintain social order is the idea of the Social Contract.
So while the two men can (in some situations) agree with the same political system, Filmer believes it is correct because of the Great Chain of Being, whereas Hobbes believes it is correct because it is a way of instilling a Social Contract
Thomas Hobbes and Robert Filmer each had very strong ideas about the way the government should be ran. Hobbes believes that all men are equal, but men themselves are always trying to be better than the others. Even kings and persons of sovereign authority are constantly jealous of others. He feels that men want power and will not be content without it. Hobbes states that the three main causes for quarrel among men are competition, diffidence, and glory. When men quarrel of fight nothing is really accomplished. He believes nature causes men to behave in this way. Government is therefore necessary in order to regulate these men. Hobbes believes that common power can create laws. Filmer discusses more about how the church and God play into the government. The primitive churches at this time believed that ancient monarchies were the necessary form of government and people must follow the laws of nature. Reformed churches believed a man is born with freedom and have some negative consequences. Similarly to Hobbes, Filmer also believed all men are equal. He feels that god gave power to the multitude of people not just to one person. According to Filmer there should always be a natural authority or supreme father. The laws of nature make way for the laws of men. For instance, a father has authority over his children in much the same way that a king has power over his people. Filmer points out that the duties of a father and a king are much the same. Filmer and Hobbes have similar ideas, but the way they present these ideas is what sets them apart. Hobbes choices to accomplish his point by illustrating the flaws of mankind therefore explain why they need an authority figure. Filmer chooses to bring God into the picture and explain that the government needs to be ran the way God intended it to. Filmers ideas connect to the theme of patriarchy because he points out that kings and fathers are the have the responsibility to keep their families or countrymen safe. Both men discuss the theme of authority. Hobbes believes men need an authority figure to keep them in check. Filmer points out that the king is the authority figure of a country in the same way a father is the authority figure of a family. Hobbes’ document was written in 1651 during this time a lot of fighting was taking place in England perhaps this was why Hobbes discussed the aggressive qualities of man. Filmer’s document was written in 1640 and published in 1680. During this time period England was experiencing some changes in their churches and some religious conflicts, perhaps this is why the primitive and reformed churches were mentioned. Filmers’s ideas hint towards The Great Chain of Being because he puts God at the top of the chain and then the people fall somewhere underneath that. Hobbes ideas support the Social Contract Theory because he shows how men are tied to society through their moral and political obligations.
Both articles share many similarities, a well as differences. Right away Hobbes begins by stating the equality of all men, and Filmer takes a little longer getting around to that, although he does say that all men are created equal. I really liked how Hobbes said that prudence is nothing but experience, which time bestows on all men. Hobbes really seemed to focus on the difficulty of a man to see greatness in another. As if that one man's own belief of his greatness overshadowed another’s. Filmer says that no one but God had the complete power over a people. He says that the King of a nation becomes a father to his people, and with that, he must comfort and protect his people as a father would do for his children. And in return, the people must respect and follow their King as a child follows their father. Hobbes points out the three principle cause of quarrel, these are competition; in order to gain status, diffidence: in order to be a protector, and glory; to build one's reputation.
The 11 year difference between Patriarcha and Leviathan show a vast change in the British people of this time period. While both writings share the same purpose of finding a way to rule all men peacefully and successfully, both have an entirely different means to and end.
Filmer shows a strong belief in a great patriarch to lead the country. He views each citizen as a child that must be controlled by a father, or king. Thus Filmer believes that the King must have absolute authority and be above the laws. Filmer states, "The father of a family governs by no other law than by his own will, not by the laws or wills of his sons or servants." The father figure, or king of a country is, in Filmer's opinion the ultimate authority on all things and is not required to listen to the opinions of his people. He goes on to state that so long as the ruler keeps the preservation of his people as a first priority, order will prevail. He finally gives his reader his beliefs of the outcome of a country ruled by its people as he states, "It is hard to say whether it be more erroneous in divinity or dangerous in policy." Basically, Filmer cannot give a definate answer as to what would happen should a more democratic government arise, but states that it goes against history and the law of the church and that men should adhere to these things by submitting to a superior authority figure.
Hobbes maintains a far more contemporary view. He too sees the importance of maintaining a stable society but is far more ready to question the present government. Rather than consider his fellow countrymen as children inferior to their father, he sees all men as being equal. In stating this, Hobbes shows that he does not think it is necessary for any man to be a supreme ruler because he is no better than his fellow citizens. Ultimate authority does is not as important to Hobbes. This writer's goal does not seem to be finding a particular government or leader to follow, but rather to recognize that all men need a common government in order to be most productive. He seems to say that the country may require a king but not because the man is a superior being but because if there is a lack of rule there will be a "war of all against all". He goes on to list the three things that make men fight (competition, diffidence and glory) and it is a ruler's duty to keep these things in check.
Overall, both men seem to have the same goal in mind of a successfully ruled country. However, Filmer's take seems to be a more medieval style of thinking as he sees Kings as superior and necessary. Hobbes, on the other hand, sees kings as being a possibility for stable rule, but not necessarily the only option and certainly not because any one man is better than any other. His view is far more revolutionary.
The passages by both Thomas Hobbes and Robert Filmer share a common view in that they both address the need of a ruling father--their king. Filmer's piece was written first, around 1640, during the uproar of the Bishop War. During these times, England's monarchy was being scrutinized by it's people who felt they were not being fairly represented. Filmer states that "There can be no sovereign majesty in him that is under them. That which giveth the very being to a king is the power to give laws." The king's role in his eyes is one of supreme being, and as such the King should be excluded from any laws. Hobbes also believed in the need of a king, however his views limited the power of that king. He states that "...the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he." Because Hobbes believed that all men were created equal, he did not believe their ruler could be removed from the laws created by them. These ideas relate to the great chain of being because it is the thought of a great hierarchy of power, from the bottom (foundational elements) to the top (A supreme being/god). The two differing views of the role of king reflect how powerful the king is in relation to his servants--if he were above the laws, then the king would be a step higher than those below him. Hobbes believed in the king to be in the same ranks as his servants, and thus should be held accountable under the same laws.
The writings of Hobbes and and Filmer share common ideas while still focusing on seperate topics and beliefs. Both writers believe men have control and authority over their children and families. Furthermore, both writers also agree a king has divine rule over thier subjects and kingdom. These ideas connect directly to patriarchy and also to authority in the state and family. Patriarchy is widely accepted in England in the seventeenth century, when both Hobbes and Filmer were writing. Male authority, whether as a king in a kingdom or a father in a family, was also a common practice in seventeenth century England. Both writers were well aware of the social contract of England in the seventeenth century, as each of the writings contained obvious connections to the accepted beliefs and practices of the time period.
Although the general ideas of patriarchy and authority are similar, each writer also has unique points and specific ideas. Hobbes focuses on men being equal, but also being enemies. He states, "men have no pleasure in keeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all." He believes that if men live without a common power, they are in war. He believes every man is against every man. He also states, "where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice." Filmer also believes men are equal. He also states, "there can be no laws without a supreme power to command or make them." But Filmer also believes there should always be a higher power such as kings or nobles (a monarchy), while Hobbes believes every man is against every man and men are render tp invade and destroy one another.
Both writers agree on the majority of topics such as patriarchy, authority, and equality. Each writing also has differences, but in my opinion, the similarity outwieghs the differences.
Even though Hobbes and Filmer actually wrote the readings at different times they were both expressing their feelings about leadership and laws as a result of the leadership of their time being scrutinized. They agreed on the fact that a leading body was crucial to the well being of men, and that, as Hobbes says, “Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.” Filmer made the same argument but also added that “there can be no laws without a supreme power to command or make them.” Although both men agreed on these concepts, their opinions varied when it came to how the laws should be made and upheld. Hobbs took the side of having an appointed leader because he thought that the people would not follow the laws unless they were made by a man they approved of. On the contrary Filmer stated that “as the father over one family, so the king, as father over many families.” In this sense, Filmer used the Great Chain of Being because he had everyone in their place in the hierarchy that was led by the all mighty king. He also explained that he believed a king should not only take care of his people as his own children but be exempt from the laws he was himself to create. However, both Filmer and Hobbes stated that men were all created equal.
Robert Filmer wrote “The Naturall Power of King Defended Against the Unnatural Liberty Of the People” in 1640. After eleven years Hobbs wrote “Leviathan” in 1651. Both of the excerpts have similar ideas, but their different time periods are their reasoning for their different ideas. One of there main similar points are that they want some form of government like a king. Filmer believes that you should have a natural king that over time gets passed down to son after son. He says that ruling his people are like caring for his children. A Father is like the king, he says “As the father over one family, so the king, as father over many families, extends his care to preserve, feed, clothe, instruct and defend the whole commonwealth.” On the other hand Hobbs wants the government, the king to be voted on. They should have a ruler that the people want, they every one should get a saying. If every one is happy then the king is happy.
The also both believe that who ever makes the rule the people should obey them. Hobbs believes that all men are created equal, and all me want what other men want. Filmer also believes this on some level but he says that no man can get to powerful because then the other men will want to come after him. But he thinks that the king should have all power and the laws should not affect him in anyway. Because if he has rules then how is he suppose to rule. This is just like having complete power over his family or children. But on the other hand Hobbs wants every one to obey they law, even though the king might have made them, he should till obey them. No man is any different they are all created equal!
Hobbes Leviathan was written in 1651, 11 years after Filmer’s Patriarcha in 1640. Both of these writings took place around the time of the English civil war. While both these writings differ in a few ways such as how the king should rule, for the most part they agree on the central theme that all men are equal, and there needs to be someone in an authority position that sets the laws.
Hobbes starts out talking about how all men are equal, saying that even if a man is physically stronger than another it is not great enough to claim superiority over the other. He then goes on to talk about how this is true for the mind too, saying that “prudence is but experience which equal time will equally bestow on all men”. Hobbes than talks about how because all men are equal they may wish to acquire the same object, but since neither man knows how to declare superiority over the other they may use violence to settle the argument. He continues to talk about how men will continue to use violence to settle disagreements if there is no common law or someone who people have agreed upon to maintain the order. He illustrates this when he says “men will be in a constant war without a common power”
Filmer also agrees everyone is equal when he says that “God hath given power to no particular man but all men in multitude”. Filmer agrees too that there needs to be someone in charge. He thinks that this person should have supreme authority and not have to follow the rules set out for others, unlike Hobbes who thinks that the person in charge should have to abide by the social contract and the rules just like everyone else. Unlike Hobbes, who focuses on the social contract, Filmer uses the idea from the Great Chain of Being, which states that men with divine right are on top followed by fathers of the households. This is how Filmer envisions the king, like a father over the entire region with absolute power over others, and is exempt from following the rules.
These two articles are quite contrary to one another, with one saying that to choose your own form of government is blasphemous, and the other one saying that no man has the authority to rule another single handedly. Hobbes comes out and says it in the first sentence of his piece, saying, "Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he." This is a very pro-humanist statement, which is all about the power of man in this world. Humanism was a vast movement in Europe, and Hobbes was a big champion of the cause, especially with a thesis like that. One the other hand, Mr. Filmer is claiming the freedom of choice of government to be almost blasphemous, saying that Scripture distinctly says to, "honor thy father." Personally, I think this is taking the Bible out of context, because this is merely a 17th century interpretation of the word "father." He may have thought father to be equivalent to King back then, but today in a Biblical context as I see it, there is only one meaning for the word today, and that is God. Life today is for the most part secular, but back then in his time, institutions were often connected. Thus came about the Renaissance which changed the thinking the people, and one of the big points of the Renaissance was humanism or the "power of man". And one of the great promoters of humanism and secularism was none other than Mr. Hobbes. So as different as the view points, the two men and their opinions run right alongside each other in the time period they were written.
In both the articles I noticed many similarities and differences of power and authority over society. In the “Leviathan” written by Thomas Hobbes in 1651, he states that nature made men equal in body and in mind, yet one man can stand above. He may manifest a stronger body and quicker mind than any other man. Even though he may appear to be the strongest, he can still be overtaken by the weakest of men. There is no greater power, it is man against man. They have become enemies that try to destroy or subdue each other, yet in the end man can be destroy by those a part of him. Men have more grief than pleasure; they focus on the three principals, which are competition, diffidence, and glory, which brings men to war with each other. They face war with fear of dying but desire for pleasant living.
In the “Patriarcha,” written by Robert Filmer in 1640, eleven years before the “Leviathan,” he states that men are born with freedom and the right to choose for himself, but to help in his decision making he has a leader or a “father.” Filmer goes beyond Hobbes’ theory of man vs man, but to the theory of man vs God. He still agrees that man holds most of the power in the world, but then is controlled by someone of a higher position, “God.”
In this article Filmer uses the words of Bellarmine that states, “that God hath given or ordained power is evident by Scripture; but God hath given it to no particular man, because by nature all men are equal: therefore he hath given power to the people or multitude.” This is true but to keep men in order besides God, we have kings and fathers. Theses are men that control a smaller group of people to keep the peace among all. To a father it is controlling his child. To a king it is controlling a nation. But in the end we are all controlled by ourselves and God is there to guide us the right way.
Theses articles focus on the patriarchy and the authority men have over themselves and their children. Men try to stand above each other and be patriarchs of the world, stated in Hobbes’ article. They go to great lengths to become the best, when in fact every man is the best. Filmer more goes on the line of authority over men. He states that God is the leader of all men and that our fathers and kings are his followers that control all of us. The articles come together in the end, stating that power and authority is what keeps us together no matter who is our ruler.
Hobbes and Filmer eventually arrive at the same conclusion, that a king is needed to maintain order over the people. Despite this, the two arrive at this conclusion in very different manner. Hobbes' Leviathan was written nearly a decade later than Filmer's Patriarcha which accounts for some of the differences as the events in England raising questions about the king were different. Hobbes states that "nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind" and goes on to say that "the weakest [man] has strength enough to kill the strongest." Not only does he see men as equal, he believes them to be very competitive and power hungry. He continues until basically stating that "without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in a condition which is called war; and such a war is of every man against every man." He clearly believes there is a need for a king because his supreme power controls the masses so that they do not turn on one another. Filmer on the other hand, sees the king of England more as the father of his people; the king is identical to his people as a father is to his home. He thinks the king should be above the law or else he would be the same as everyone else. Filmer also sees the need for the king to be able to make laws, enforce laws, and so on for the best interest of the kingdom just as a father would do what is best for his home. Clearly both of these authors are for the monarchy in England, despite having different reasoning. This was relevant because the people of England in the 1650s were upset with the monarchy (Charles I).
Both articles had similar themes, yet seemed to focus on different ideals of hierarchy and government. Hobbes seemed to view men as brutish animals more than intelligent life forms. He boasted about three underlying ideas behind quarrel and the negative actions of men; “First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.” Hobbes called this idea of competition and violence a “time of war, where every man is enemy to every man,” but saw it a necessary means of government because without fear or power over another man, there would be no form of government. Filmer linked hierarchy and government to the family system and related the father of a family as the king like so; “If we compare the natural duties of a father with those of a king, we find them to be all one, without any difference at all but only in the latitude or extent of them. As the father over one family, so the king, as father over many families, extends his care to preserve, feed, clothe, instruct and defend the whole commonwealth.” Each ruler had the same daunting task of controlling the lower class around them for the greater good of the public. He also argued that every man had a right to a father type government since everyone was a descendent of Adam. Like Hobbes though, Filmer agreed that there is a need for a higher power in order for the idea of government to work. A man must answer to someone for his own actions or chaos will be wide spread. So Hobbes shared the same idea with Filmer about government, just different points of view.
Hobbes and Filmer have differing ideas of how the people should not only be ruled but also their reasons behind it. Yet their goal is the same – man needs judgment and law to keep order under free will.
Hobbes speaks greatly of how the inner man thinks. From showing power over others with brute force, to what others see as controlling with wit and skills that do not always show (but each man knows he has just in case). Hobbes tells that every man is at war will no true allies. Man goes on the prowl only for show of competition, showing difference, and for show of his own personal glory. Yet, he will only invade if hungry, fear of his family and his safety, or to defend his own reputation that might be at risk. To Hobbes without order and governing man will always be at war and never peace.
Filmer talks of a little more warming concern through God and the divine right of Adam to rule his household as the lord of his children and future heirs of his land. He sees liberty coming with a price; a price that may lead to trouble but in the end will be fine with governing. As having lessons learned the hard with the easy way coming through a higher power, as written in Exodus.
Both men see no other way of an enjoyable a life of equality and liberty without some form of law and order that will ensure peace to all.
Throughout the two excerpts, Both Hobbes and Filmer focus their main points on how men are always ruled by a higher power. Hobbes immediately starts his article by talking about how all men are always equal. While some men are far more brilliant, other men are stronger, but the man who is lacking will find some way to make them equal. When talking about this, Hobbes is basically upset with the king and their monarchy at the time it was written. He thinks that the king should treat all men as equals. Because of this, he also thinks that war is inevitable because there will always be competition between equal men. This thought coincides with the civil war that was going on around the time it was written. As for Filmer, he felt that a king could be compared to a father, the “family” being the people who are ruled by the king. Both the father of a family and a king are responsible for taking care of whoever they are in charge of, and therefore are quite similar in their duties.
Although both men have a slightly different outlook on freedom and equality, Thomas Hobbes and Robert Filmer agree that a law cannot be established without some kind of supreme power. In Leviathan, Hobbes states, “where there is no common power, there is no law.” This statement can be used to summarize much of Hobbes’ argument. He wrote that every man is constantly in a battle with every other man, trying to become better and stronger. This competition is one of his three principal causes of a quarrel. During a time in which men are without a common power it is every man against every man. With this competition, there is no justice of injustice because there is no common power and no one to decide what is right or wrong. There are qualities that relate to a society and with no common power, there is no society; everyone lives in solitude, working against everyone else. Filmer states, “there can be no laws without a supreme power to command or make them.” Filmer writes that since the beginning of time there has been a “supreme father” over a multitude of people, whether it be a father over his family or a king over his people. The father and the king both have absolute power; no one can limit them, but they must do what is best for the common good. He also writes that mankind is born with freedom and at liberty to choose its own government. Hobbes states, however, that over time and experience all men become equal in their abilities yet they still feel that they are better than every other man. That common thinking, therefore, makes all men equal.
After many hours of rigorous solo investigating, since none of this was covered in the lecture, I have made observations and conclusions about the two readings. A civil war was fought in England during the time the papers by Hobbes and Filmer were written. This gives obvious insight as to why Hobbes seems so sure that war is inevitable. He states that all men are created equal, and because of this man doesn’t need to be only strong to win a fight. There are three reasons as to why men will fight, possessions, reputation, and defense. To me, this shows his personal feelings about the civil war in England. It also shows that he disagrees with the Great Chain of Being, which is the belief that everyone has his or her rank, and is essentially unequal, the exact opposite point Hobbes made. Patriarchy is a practice that Hobbes would deny as a solid system of government, since it negates the equality of all men by making the king a fatherly figure to the people of the land, as well as a supreme ruler. With this knowledge it is probable that Hobbes was pleased with the execution of King Charles. Filmer on the other hand supports the Great Chain of Being, as well as a king. He believes that patriarchy is good for obedience and therefore probably did not support the execution of King Charles.
Hobbes and Filmer agree that a nation must be governed or ruled by some power. However, they disagree on who should head the power or government. Hobbes is a man that thinks all men are equal therefore should be treated likewise. Hobbes says that some men have better qualities, but this does not make them better men. Hobbes also says that all men share some basic characteristics. These include: wanting what other men have or things that thay can't have themselves, equality, government, justice, and law. Hobbes believed that if men don't agree with the law or the authority, then war is destined to take place. This is why he believed that a government with laws and justice was the best way to go.
Filmer also believes that authority is necessary. However, his view of authority differs greatly fand Hobbes'. Filmer thinks that there should be a king and this king should be the authority. There is no democracy here. He says that a king is like a father and that the people should obey him, like they would their father. He says that there should be no laws unless the king comes up with them. Filmer does agree that men are equal, but not as much as Hobbes does. Filmer says that all men have rights, but they have to obey their authotiy.
Hobbes says where their is no common power, their is no law and where there is no law, there is no justice. I think that Filmer would agree with this statement to a certain degree. Filmer and Hobbes share the same base, but they differ when it comes to specific authority. Filmer talks of the great chain of being and by this he means that their should be one leader(the king) and he should rule the kingdom like a father rules the family. Hobbes' ideas are better than Filmer's because he gives the people rights and a chance to have a say in what takes place.
At the time that each of these papers were written, there was a civil war going on in England. The war was divided into three major parts, however, each part was bascially the same thing. It was a struggle between those who believed a King had the right to rule, or a parliment. A monarchy vs. a somewhat more democratic form of government. It is pretty obvious to pick out what side each of the two writers is on during this time. Filmer holds that each ruler, or King has a God given right to rule over a people. Hobbes holds that all men are equal beings and should not be subjected to the rule of just one supreme being. Filmer never says that people are unequal, he simply says that without a Supreme being there can be no law. So, therefore by neccessity the rulers should be above the law. Not just in a monarchy, but in a democracy or aristocracy or anything else. So the fundamental difference between the two articles is that Filmer says the ruler, whoever or whatever it may be is above the law. Hobbes, on the other hand says that people should not be subject to the laws of just one person, and that everyone should be able to lead a nation.
Filmer's Patriarcha was written in 1640 whereas Hobbes Leviathan was written a little over a decade later in 1651. While the time periods differ slightly, both men hit home on a lot of the same issues, but at the same time see some things slightly differently. During this time period many people were questioning the power of Kings and monarchy thinking that they were not the best means of ruling. However, Hobbes and Filmer dare to go against the normal thinking of the time and voice their opinion.
Both feel as though a King is necessary to run a country because without a king there will be no order amongst the people. Filmer references Bellarmine who states "If many men had been created out of the earth, all they ought to have been princes over their posterity." With Belarmine's words and ideals at heart Filmer draws a strong point saying, "And indeed not only Adam but the succeeding patriarchs had by right of fatherhood royal authority over their children.... For as Adam was lord of his children, so his children under him had a command over their own children, but still with subordination to the first parent, who is lord paramount over his children's children to all generations, as being the grandfather of his people." This all ties back into the Great Chain of Being which deals with all of us coming from God, so therefore we must all be loyal to him as he is the creater and ruler of all things. Filmer sees this "chain" theory as a strong foundation for running an unstable nation such as England back in the mid 1600's. Hobbes looks more into the aspect of quarrel and how people do not some times view others as equals. He stresses a need for a monarchy and a ruling government because without them there would be complete choas. He goes further into stating, "So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory." Hobbes stresses that witht these principle causes, man can become corrupt and therefore someone or something is needed to regulate such things so everyone is seen as equal. Hobbes goes further into saying, "Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man." Here he is stressing that without a king or overseer of all, all the men of England or any country or group of any kind would constantly compete and be in a war amongst themselves.
In conclusion, while both men agree that a king is completely necessary for order to be upheld, they both have different viewpoints and ideals that lead them to these realizations. The times that they lived in contribute to these ideals, even if the people around them had different ones.
Who anonymous posting is this one just above?
Hobbes and Filmore feel different about natural behavior of patriarchs and family. Hobbes bases all his theory on the desires of men(glory,security, and competition). Filmore thinks that all men are nateually governed with kings acting as fathers over their kingdoms.
They both share the point that we have little choice in how the world around them works. Hobbes says that all men have a want for competition and security. This means that as long as time goes on there will be fighting and protecting by different means. He also says that men strive to make a name for themselves. Filmore says that men from Adam on down the line have natural power over their house just as a kings rules his family. By this I get a meaning that foreverand ever the kings woll pass power and the future holds more of the same
I believe that there is an equal amount of comparable material to contrastable material between these two articles. Thomas Hobbs' 'Leviathan' and Robert Filmer's 'Patriarcha' were both written during the English civil wars. I think that Hobbs stresses the existance of an equality of man more than Filmer does. This statement is supported by the quote from the text that reads, "...nature has made man equal in body and mind..." Whereas, Filmer stresses that, ..."there can be no laws without a supreme power to command or make them..." Hobbs' main argument is that social unity is best achieved by the establishment of a commonwealth through social contract. Filmer would agree for the most part with this statement, but would disagree with the philosophical method that is employed by Hobbs.
Hobbes and Filmer wrote these excerpts relatively around the same time. One in 1651 and the other in 1640. Both were written during the time where the english were beging to believe that the king did not need to be the supreme power anymore. This time is known as the English Civil War. Hobbes beliefs go hand in hand with the english people during the English Civil War. Where as Filmer went along with believing in the Great Chain of Beings. This refers to believing that God and other spiritual beings were the superior power over the world. In Patriarcha Filmer menchines Adam the ruler over all the world who was born into his supremacy. After holy figures comes man. Filmer compared kiangs and fathers in Patriarcha. He says that "we find them to be alone" the father protects his family while the king protects many families. Both are trying to provide for their family or families, also being concerned with their well-being. Filmer believes that kings should rule over all and create laws thats would be followed. Hobbes believed that laws needed to be set in order to prevent certain consequences for not having order."such a war as is of every man against every man." That being said Hobbes believes that whomever makes the laws needs to be chosen by the people. "Nature hath made men so equal," Hobbes also believed this, that no man should be above another. This is where Filmer differs from Hobbes. Filmer states that "superiority of princes above law" should continue until the end of time. He used a quote from sir Walter Raleigh saying "Judah and Israel were not tied to any law, but they did what they pleased." This supports the idea of Great Chain of Being that Filmer was a firm believer of. Both Hobbes and Filmer are talking about the same topic however their opinions and beliefs differ. However they have agreed upon one thing and that is that with out common power there are no laws, with out laws there can not be "justice nor injustice."
The passages from Patriacha and Leviathan are a great example of the change in the way intellectuals were Thinking directly before and after the English Civil War. In 1640 Robert Filmer wrote Patriarcha, the passage assigned for reading outlined the ideas of the hierarchies of men at the time. After the end of the Civil War, Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan, which showed a somewhat different, more liberal idea of how societies work.
In the passage of Patriarcha, it is easy to see that Filmer believes in a divine heirarchy, going along with the great chain of being. The great chain of being is like a map, showing where everything from a rock on the ground, to God fits in the grand scale of things. Filmer believed that all the kingdoms on earth were comparable to a family. The king was the father, and the people his children. This then breaks down into individual towns and eventually families. But Filmer then asks if the laws that apply to the men of the kingdom apply to the king himself. his answer to this is that "there were kings long before there were any laws." So the king does not, in some cases abide by the same laws as his people, he makes the laws, using the best judgment he can, for the betterment of his people. Filmer's views that all men are not in fact created equal is in sharp contrast to the ideas of Hobbes, who believes that all men are equal on the basic level, but there are many contributing factors.
Hobbes wrote Leviathan at the tail end of the English Civil war. This left England in a state of Parliamentary monarchy, in contrast to the absolute monarchy of King Charles I. This was a huge change for england in that the King was no longer free to do what he wanted without question. The people had more power, and this shows in Leviathan. Hobbes belived that men are equal at birth, but without the fear of authority by a powerful government, they would be reduced to fighthing amongst themselves without making any long term gains. So he wasnt completely different in theory from Filmer, who also saw the need for a governing party. Hobbes states; "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war". What Hobbes doesn't mention is the idea of a divine leader who transcends the laws of the people. He sees change and rebellion as a part of the cycle of power. People in power will always want to keep their subjects in check, and people without power will always want change.
Hobbes’ Leviathan was written in 1651 and Filmer’s Patriarcha in 1640. Both articles share many common elements as well as differences. Both proclaim the equality of man. I respect the fact that Filmer used a scriptural analogy in that God did not give his law (The Bible) to any certain man or set of people but to all men who will ever walk the face of this earth. Throughout his piece, Filmer uses a myriad of scriptural analogies. Hobbes’ doesn’t make a reference to scripture but he does believe that we as humans do need some form of structure to keep us from self destructing. In the Leviathan, Hobbes gives three principle causes of quarrel in man’s nature: competition, diffidence, and glory. For the most part, it seems that Hobbes thought men were quintessentially evil and that they would do anything to gain power and prestige. I believe that Filmer had a little more hope and respect for man in general. Filmer gave the impression that competition, diffidence, and glory could be good things as long as they had proper motives and actions to back it up. Competition, diffidence, and glory can be the driving forces that cause normal men to do great things and become astounding individuals. I thought both Hobbes and Filmer did an excellent job with examples and illustrations. Filmer writes a line that compares a father and a king “If we compare the natural duties of a father with those of a king, we find them to be all one.” Essentially, what I think he is trying to say is that whatever kinds of decisions that come our way, we need to view them as important as that of a king’s. Overall, I believe that Hobbes and Filmer both acknowledge that man is evil and desperately wicked; however, I do believe that Filmer gives more hope for man.
Both articles have many similarities, but at the same time have a few differences. For instance both authors think that men are equal although Hobbes really stresses that point a little more than Filmers article that was written in 1640. Hobbes main idea is that a man can believe in whatever they want and they believe it is right then they are equal. Even though if two men believe in the same thing then they become enemies, in that case they can “endeavour to destroy or subdue one another” (Hobbes). Then each man feels danger until they take out all of their opposition and it whatever they are fighting for becomes there’s. Then when men find causes for quarrel they do it for competition (gain), diffidence (fight for safety), and glory (fight for reputation). Also one thing I agree with is when Hobbes he says that there can be no law until they have assigned a man or a position for making the law. He also feel that the people agree on a leader compared to Filmers theory that there is a natural leader such as a king who would be the father to his nation just like a father would be to his family. Filmer thinks that God has given the father of the nation power to take care of everyone else which would be the law of nature. Lastly, Filmer theory relates to the Chain of Being in the way that he thinks that a King or a father is more powerful than anyone else, which in the Great Chain of Being people has a set role in their society. Both authors have different viewpoints towards men because each article was written in different decades which show how societies keep changing.
Thomas Hobbes and Robert Filmer had different styles of writing with a few years in between, but overall both articles argued patriarchy. During this time, a government controlled by one person was common in most forms, but becoming more questionable. Hobbes and Filmer use their personal beliefs to better describe why it was necessary for a society to be controlled by one stable, male figure. Hobbes was able to debate the equality of all males and their authority over their families. To describe men, Hobbes states of the “nature of man;” listing qualities in which all men commonly share, and do not stray away from; including: “competition, diffidence, and glory.” He felt no one man stood out from the rest in any form of glory, but was still in charge of his own possessions and wanted control of any equal man’s possessions. While Filmer agreed on some issues, he focused more on the point that men were all given the chance to be superior to their children, all kingdoms have their rulers, and even all “princes had their supreme ruler.” That all generations had a “grandfather of his people” and each man had a superior authority in which to look up upon and a group of minorities to look over. These men were able to over look their material possessions, families and livestock. Overall, both Thomas Hobbes and Robert Filmer debated that males were able to obtain authority over some common wealth. Hobbes focused on the equality of the entire sanction of males and Filmer focused on the authority in which each individual male possessed.
This all happened at the time of the Civil War in England. Government, laws, and liberties of people were being tested at this time. Many questions being asked so someone obviously had to come up with a philosophy. Patriarcha was written in 1640. Eleven years passed before Leviathan was written in 1651. However, a lot of the views of the writers remain the same.
Hobbes and Filmer speak about how all men are equal but that each individual also desires power. Men must be ruled by someone and nearly each person wants that place. This is evident in the first part of Hobbes 16th chapter. Hobbes also tells us of how men have no pleasure "where there is no power able to overawe them all." This very closely relates Filmer's philosophy with Hobbes. Men of any place need an established government. Each person wants and is entitled to life and liberty. Therefore, the leader (or king) of the people will lay down the law for them. However, his laws need to line up with the "Laws of Human Nature." As Filmer explains, we normally see a small scale version of this in the family. The father of the house lays down rules he thinks is right.
During the mid sixteen hundreds England, was in a state of turmoil, therefore, it is the central reason that Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha and Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan focused on the theme of social order and structure. Patriarcha was written in 1640, which was when England was heading towards Civil War. On the other hand, Leviathan was written in 1651, the year the war ended. The factor that lead to the war was King Charles and his vision of absolute power from god, know as divine right. While the Charles was trying to use his authority to raise money for his wars, the parliament was attempting to limit the king’s absolute power. This finally led to a Civil War and the execution of King Charles. This time period influenced Filmer and Hobbes to write about the necessity of structure and rule. Robert Filmer promotes a family structure for the government of people, with the king as the father figure. He explains this in the sense that “as the father over one family, so the king, as father over many families, extends his care to preserve, feed, clothe, instruct and defend the whole commonwealth.” Whilst Hobbes agrees with the need for absolute authority, he states that it is necessary to ensure internal peace and a common defense. Without absolute authority, “men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all.” Filmer and Hobbes both stress the importance of absolute power in a patriarch form to ensure social structure and peace, which were falling apart in England.
When analyzing a document, knowledge of historical context is crucial in understanding fully and/or having the ability to get to the core of the document. The events taking place in England at the respective times at which each of these documents were written play a significant role in the ideas portrayed by both Filmer and Hobbes. While authors Robert Filmer and Thomas Hobbes share several views regarding this subject, there are many differences in their ideas that are undoubtedly a result of the differences of what was going on in England at the time. Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha, though not published until 1680, was written in 1640, right as England was “[plunging] deeper into religious turmoil” (p. 56, ch. 13 America’s History). The civil war that England was about to face was partly the result of King Charles I’s actions in 1629 of his decision to rule his subjects by “divine right” and his disolvement of parliament, along with several other courses of action that were consistent with the claim that he held Catholic beliefs and was not in agreement with various Protestant doctrines. The English Puritan revolution demanded reform of the church as well as more authority for Parliament. Several years of civil war finally brought victory to Parliament, which then continued on to execute King Charles I. Filmer suggests that in comparing the natural duties of a father with those of a king, “we find them all to be one, without any difference at all but only in the latitude or extent of them.” He is saying that a king is essentially a paternal figure to his subjects; “all the duties of a king are summed up in a universally fatherly care of his people.” He also states earlier in the text that “God hath given [power] to no particular man, because by nature all men are created equal: therefore he hath given power to the people or multitude.” In saying this, Filmer is suggesting that a king should protect his people, their rights, their privileges but should not be a superior figure in the sense that he would have “divine right”, as King Charles I attempted to create. Thomas Hobbes writes in Leviathan that all men share a nature that includes three “causes of quarrel”: competition, diffidence, and glory. In analyzing Hobbes’ interpretation one finds that these three causes drive men in everything that they do, whether it may be gain, safety, reputation; violence, defense, or trifles. The nature of man suggested by Hobbes results in a constant state of war in which every man is against every man. Hobbes states that without a “common power to keep them all in awe” they will remain in that condition. He is basically saying that an authoritative figure is essential in order to the conservation of man. Hobbes and Filmer’s ideas are not always complimentary, however they do share several core values that were very popular in mid seventeenth century England.
Leviathian", by Thomas Hobbes and "Patriarcha", by Robert Filmer both, in my opinion, have one large comparison. Both of these articles express that all men are equal,but Hobbes expresses that idea more than Filmer. Hobbes states that all men are equal in mind and body. He also states that the strongest of men can be killed by the weakest of men. He states that men want what other men have and if they can not get it, then they become enemies. Hobbes does not believe that one person can have complete power as to where no man is a threat to him. That particular idea is in contrast to what Robert Filmer believes which is that the natural duties of a father is the exact same as those of a king. Filmer also does state that all men are created equal and God has given power to the people which is in agreement with Hobbes.
Filmer talks about the Great Chain of Being to compare his ideas about king's powers and to get his point about kings across.
Post a Comment
<< Home