The Appreciative Stranger

"w.out knowing who anyone is, i simple say: thanks. philosophy and theology both in my past, and future, your site was unexpected gift. not meaning to trespass, just exploring this blog thing and finding there is, in the famous words of calvin and hobbes (of comic strip fame) "there's treasure everywhere!"an appreciative stranger. "

-did anybody else see this comment? This comment really made me feel good inside, and to avoid embracing a metaphysical explaination for my elatedness, I am publishing it to get each of your perspectives. It actually made me feel good to know that our work has an impact outside of the mere grade that we are being given. I have had fun writing and posting and engaging with the material. This cannot be purely Hobbsian can it? I mean, I must get some innate satisfaction just from the greater comprehension of the texts at hand. But, when I think about it, perhaps I am only happy because someone out of our blog sphere has recognized and highlighted our achievement. Am I happy merely because I have made somebody else happy?That is really sweet to think, but I cannot actually claim that. The author of this comment appreciates our blog not for it's theology etc, but because it jives with a particular way of viewing life. He likes philosophy, and this post engages with philosophical text, and thus as a Hobbsian it gives him greater power to know that he has the ability to also engage with this text, and understand what we are talking about. I don't know...I want some ideas from you guys on this....

Love as a Guise

While the notions of Love, caring and sharing are sentiments that society deems as important and critical for the population to value, I would argue that they are not as dominant in the literature as one might initially imagine. The contest between love and power is perfectly highlighted in Harry Potter, and probably a lot of other primary children’s literature. Presenting Metaphysical notions in these children’s books does not actually impose these as guiding principles for children to live by, but like any children’s book, is meant to be didactic in its most basic literary form, while at the same time providing some sort of entertainment to ensure the reader stays attentive and focused. Using and presenting metaphysical notions can be read then as merely a narrative and literary tactic to ensure that children continue to stay focused on the book. Using metaphysical ideals to ensure the reader skills at reading grows, as what child would actively seek to read stories about the true nature of the world. At four and five years old, I would argue that learning these sentiments is merely the precursor to ensuring one’s success in a world which claims to highly value these sentiments. One has to be raised with an appreciation for and knowledge of these ideals. I have gone into my 10 year old sister’s room and have randomly selected two books from the shelves, in which to analyze for Hobbsian content.

Book number one, Scamp Learns a Lesson. Wow, you can just feel the love radiating from that title eh? No, this book highlights the importance of listening to a power greater than yourown. The little puppy is curious and wants to run around town exploring. He sees the world as nice, and open to him to navigate through it unbounded and unchecked. In his world there is no murder, or thievery, as people do not do things merely for the good of themselves when left to their own devices. The author of this book is quick to embrace and enforce Hobbsian ideals, scolding the puppy for going on his own as it caused worry and strive for the rest of the family. The greater good of all the puppies is held over this one puppies self-interest.

Book number two. Big Sarah’s Little Boots. First sentence, “Sarah loved her boots”…uh oh, I can see this book was written by someone claiming to embrace metaphysical ideals. Let’s see if it detracts from these sentiments. AS the book continues we see that Sarah is growing up, as she can no longer fit into her boots. From a child’s naïve perspective, she is presented as thinking that her boots have shrunk, instead of her own growth. Throughout the book Sarah is forced to realize this, and give up her old boots for a newer more practical pair. What is more Hobbsian than this. The child is not allowed to wallow in her fantasy land, nor is she able to continue to play in the boots that she loved. She is forced to give them up, and along with that comes the realization that “love” is not something constant and real (ok, maybe that’s pushing it…perhaps it wants to show children that material wealth should not be embraced…, but whatever!). This child has to give up the boots that she loves because they are too small and she needs bigger boots to be able to be effective in her world.

Thus, just by this little random sample, it becomes apparent that Hobbsian values are dominant from an early onset, even if concealed under the guise of Love.

"When gods and goddesses are at play and magic is afoot..."

I received a new journal for my Birthday this year. Blank pages, small, and regular black binding; this particular present demanded that its pages be filled with mature, pensive and of course extremely PG sentiments in it. With Final's drawing near, and my own ability to effectively time-manage drifting far away, the journal/day planner's appearance signified to me a fresh start. "Open the journal", I thought to myself… "Its fresh white pages, and new book smell will revitalize you". I sincerely hoped that opening the books clean pages would in some way symbolically counter the chaos and tumultuousness of my own life. The journal would become my new solstice. I would write assignment due dates in it, and work schedules, and appointments. It would be my bible to the new, super effective, super organized, non-procrastinating Katy. I got a serious Black pen out of the drawer also, and turned the journal over in anticipation.

This is what I found:

Beautifully written in scrawling Calligraphy, upon gold fabric, decorated with hand-painted Hibiscus flowers were the words:
"When gods and goddesses are at play and magic is afoot..."
Shocked, I reread the intriguing sentiments and concluded that it was definitely not an outlook encouraging a serious, studious writer to fill these pages. But, more than that, these sentiments were personal. They were engraved onto the seriousness of the small black book, with regular black binding, juxtaposing these two sides of my personality.

My journal sort of epitomized this struggle between power and love for me. The outside of the journal is decorated with pretty lettering, and encouraging sentiments. It appeals to the fun in life, and things like innocent play time, and magic. The things that people want to embrace. Who didn’t grow up loving the magic show, or wanting to go outside and play on the swings? But, eventually, things like “responsibility, money, jobs, due dates, homework” start to fill our vocabulary. At this pivotal moment, when people ask us what we want to be when we grow up, we no longer say an actress or an astronaut because it seems like it would be fun, but we respond with a doctor or a lawyer because these choices ensure monetary wealth.

The outside of the journal, the “packaging” represents the ideals that people wish to have. The journal appeals to this metaphysical mentality, highlighting play and magic as key elements in our lives. The Gold and Flowers that decorate it appeals to our creative senses, and because it is beautiful, we feel that writing out own emotions in it will somehow validate them as truly deep. But essentially, this journal enforces the Hobbsian viewpoint. You see, this journal was purchased by a consumer who merely bought into this certain ideal. The journal is “nothing but” a decorated, over priced, banded stack of paper. Whoever created it was aware of the nature of people, and their desire to believe in the values of love and all that accompanies it, and so created it with this in mind. But in its rawest form it cannot encompass what it seeks to stand for, and so we see that the journal is an expression of increased attainment of power for some designer in California who mass markets thousands of these a year to places all across the world for twenty bucks a pop. Even the written expressions that I put into the book enforce the Hobbsian ideal.

If I write something personal, that I do not want people to read, it is because I am embarrassed. When we do not want people to know certain things about us, it is because we know it would be damaging to our image. Preservation of image, relates to power. We uphold a certain image of ourselves, and want others to see us in a certain way in an attempt to ensure that we maintain the power or increase our power. But, perhaps I am keeping this journal to hone my writing skills, and thus I want people to read it. I only want people to read it if I believe that what I write will increase the respect that people have for me, and thus increase my power in their eyes. Nothing that is written in the journal is actually representative of the true ideals of love that the metaphysical ideal seeks.

Singing for Power

"Cause I'm so sick of love songs so sad and slow, why can't I turn off the radio".
Wow, profound eh? Poetic?
None of the above, yet as Mike pointed out, these lyrics are from the number one chart song in Canada right now. Pathetic? yes!But, more than that, these lyrics are actually quite revealing. The artist himself, is self-admitting the abundance of love songs that fill the radio. So, what this artist is stating is that all the other singers on the radio are each expressing sentiments of "true love", the metahpysical concept, equivalent to the likes of Vaughn, and Herbert. To avoid a discussion of the banal and unoriginal statements of "love" that fill the radio airwaves, I will instead argue as to why these lyrics do not actually represent the ideals that the Metaphysicals uphold.
These singers are merely appealing to a target demographic; specifically young pre-teen girls. They create lyrics and songs that are catchy and sentimental. They appeal to your "heart", they make you want to cry. They remind you of ...ok, ok, I have a point here. The reason that the lyrics are they way they are is for attainment of power. These lyrics are not written when the artist's heart is aching from losing "the one". No, in some high profile office, with some high profile music director these tracks were created with one goal in mind... money. And in our society, money equates with power. The more money you have, the greater the ability you have to compete for the greatest power. Thus, when ...well, any artist that plays on Z95.3 belts out his soul either over the radio or to thousands of screaming fans, just know that it is done merely to make them look good, and thus to attract a wider fan base. Having a wider fan base means more people to buy their albums and to sell-out concerts, with the final result of making more money!

Sartre values Hobbes...so should you!

In Boethius’ translation, a work encompassing the Eve and metaphysical viewpoint, it is indicated that God created us with a nature to obey him.

He [God]
The first life bids, that needs must be,
And live on for a time; that done
He calls it back, merely to shun
The mischief, which his creature might
Run into by a further flight.

God also created us with Love in our hearts right from the start

A grain of this bright love each thing
Had given at first by their great King;

Moreover, it does not matter how far we stray, we will always have this innate love for God, and need for him.

And from their great preserver part,
As blood let out forsakes the heart
And perisheth; but what returns
With fresh and brighter spirits burns.

The Metaphysical viewpoint would take that stance that human beings have a natural essence that was instilled in us by God. Thus, we naturally have a capacity for Loving one another, created in us at birth by God. Moreover, we constantly yearn for this. I was reading some Sartre this fine morning (no, not for fun), and I found some of the things he said highly relevant for our own polemic.

For those of you not familiar with Sartre, I will give you a brief précis on what I have read.

Sartre believes that there is no given human nature common to everyone because there is no God to give all humans this essential quality. Only after we exist on earth, can any essence that we call human develop. Each of us must develop, define and decide our own nature through engagement with ourselves, with society and with the natural world. Thus, because each person’s own human nature is dependent upon that person, we are solely responsible because what we do is dependent upon our own choices. Essentially, you have nobody to blame but yourself. But, because we share a common human condition, like we all live together, live in human society and are faced daily with the same sorts of decisions, in this, we are members of a community. Choices that we make, about what we feel is valuable and important (despite what some authority is telling us how to behave) we will see as values others should choose as well. Our choices affect others, and thus in some way we become responsible for others as well as ourselves, and so we must accept some responsibility for others doing as we do.

This follows an extremely Hobbsian line of thought. Sartre rejects that we are born with any innate human nature. Thus, he would reject any Metaphysical argument that we are born with Love in our hearts.

Sartre says that despite what others think, choices that we make about what we feel is valuable and important we will see as values others should choose as well, despite what some authority may be telling us. IF we think that others should have the same values, and beliefs as us, regardless if human nature is through essence or existence, we will naturally bond and seek companionship with those who have the same values. For instance, if we do not believe in killing children (no matter if God instilled this in us or not), we will expect others to also view this trait negatively. Thus, just by this fact alone, if some sort of commonwealth was going to be formed, Sartre would say that we would not vote for someone who promotes this particular activity. And so, really, when Sartre says that we must accept some responsibility for others doing as we do, he is giving an argument for Hobbes social contract. Hobbes says that in forming the commonwealth, we give over power to the sovereign, and Sartre hints at this having to occur.

"The course of true love never did run smooth..."

Shakespeare seems to be a hotspot here...finally struck a chord (and not a melodious one, I might add!). LOVE in no way prevails for all the characters at the end of the play, the characters merely attain that which they had an appetite for, and dismiss those who they had an aversion for. How can we call what these characters feel towards those they are conveniently partnered up with at the conclusion of the play, love, when throughout the duration of the play we see these characters “appetite for” and “aversion to” different people change frequently, enforcing the fickle nature of man.

Bottom, is characterized from the start as over-confident. He is full of advice for Quince, who is actually in charge. Moreover, we see that when he is changed into an ass he does not even recognize his own transformation. Bottom is a classic example of Hobbes’ man. When Titania falls in love (or, has a spell put on her so she has a strong appetite for Bottom), Bottom thinks this quite natural. He is so sure of his own intelligence and wisdom that he does not see why Titania would not fall in love with him. His confidence, apparent from the onset of the play, allows him to overestimate his own worth. Thus, he does not recognize a change in his status of power, and when he is transformed back, he does not see this as necessarily losing power, and so does not lament his position.

The Faeries, who serve Bottom, should actually be described as the Faeries that serve Titania. She, obviously more powerful than Bottom, tells them to obey him, and so they obey her by obeying Bottom. By fetching Bottom the things he demands they are showing their honour for her. Thus, Bottom’s position is not even heightened, as he is merely valued by Titania, and so in turn valued by the faeries. The faeries obey Titania not because they are happy in their position, but because it is natural to obey that which has the power to hurt or harm you. They praise Bottom, show Love for Bottom, appear before him with humility, and even flatter him, all because they must obey, and thus honour Titania. Every action that we see the faeries engaging in with Bottom is in accordance with what Hobbes has outlined as how men react to ensure they survive. Essentially, the Faeries see Titania as more powerful, and thus join with her to ensure their survival.

Moreover, as everyone knows Faeries don’t even exist, unless they are created as an unnatural apparition by God, who we know is inconceivable in all his greatness, and thus we cannot sense him or them!

Shaking things up with Shakespeare

After reading Mike’s blog focusing on Shakespeare, I could not help but go through and re-read some of my favourite plays to see if indeed the metaphysical view of God and LOVE had triumphed and won. But, of course,what I found confirmed my belief that Hobbes and Satan have prevailed. Shakespeare’s treatment of his characters in each of his plays conforms completely to Hobbes portrayal regarding the nature of man in their three principle causes of quarrel. In the nature of man, Hobbes says the three causes of quarrel are:

1. Competition: (for gain)
2. Diffidence: (for safety)
3. Glory: (for reputation)

Hobbes’s says that if any two men desire the same thing which they cannot both enjoy that they will become enemies, and further to achieve this end they will either destroy or subdue one another. Where is this better exemplified than on Shakespeare’s stage, for example, in the characters of Lysander and Demetrius in A Midsummer Night’s Dream? We see that Demetrius and Lysander both desire Helena at this particular point in the play, and “compete” for her love by attempting to physically quarrel to win her affection. Although they do not actualize their threats, it is merely because Puck confuses them and they get lost before they can fight. We see Hobbes’ portrayal of man further exemplified in the quarrel between Oberon and Titania. Oberon originally wants the Indian Prince to be his Knight, but when Titania refuses his demands, his motives change. He no longer wants the boy just for the gain, but more, because he wants to prove that he is able to get him from Titania. Thus, it becomes for him a task to attain glory and to keep his reputation as the King of the Fairyland. Oberon guiles his own Queen because they both cannot enjoy the thing that they both desire. Thus, he “subdues her” to attain the boy, and in doing this completely conforms to Hobbes’ portrayal of man. What goes against love more, than tricking one's own true love into enamourous relations with another all to attain some fleeting desire. What would a metaphysical think of this?

Thus, we see that although Shakespeare may seem to be opposed to Hobbes’ and his views, even this great writer is unable to escape the basic premises that Hobbes put forward in Leviathan about the nature of man. Again, Satan and Hobbes have a clear victory of Love and the Metahpysical view in A Midsummer Night's Dream.

Bush = Power! (He doesn't show me any lovin, how about you?

Why George Bush is the Epitome of POWER:

Reputation of Power is Power.

He has the Reputation of Power. George Bush is the President of the country that used the Atomic Bomb, the country that has the most powerful military in the world, the country that has nuclear weapons...well you get the picture. The USA has a reputation of using and abusing power, and George W. is the head of that country. Plus he doesn’t support the WAR POWER ACT, because it limits his ability to exercise his power. He’s got a reputation to protect you know.

Good Success is power

He is successful. That’s right; I said it…George W. is successful. He won the election, TWICE.

Eloquence is power.

This is for you jess! Ok, so eloquence is defined as expressiveness, persuasiveness, and articulacy. Apart from the third one, George has it all. For example when he pauses for dramatic effect, or invokes sentiments of love; all of these things are done to ensure that his point is presented persuasively to the public. Bush wants to make his city a “more compassionate, decent place" because he knows that this will be persuasive in appealing to his people. Bush is exemplifying his ability to be Eloquent when that is the trait needed to stay in POWER.

Making of engines and other instruments of war; because they confer to Defense, and Victory, are Power.

Need I say more? George Bush refuses to pull troops out of …well…anywhere, because he wants a Victory. Propaganda revealing to Bush’s citizens the places where America has achieved success. Of course who could forget that slogan which blessed CNN’s scrolling bottom screen for months/years to follow? I will remind you: the ongoing update on America’s ever vigilant WAR on TERRORISM described as the ultimate defense strategy.

I could go on, and I will…but will let Eve respond for a while!

I am Hobbes

Ok, so that is a lie. But Hobbes would say that if I need to lie to get ahead, then whatever. Katy looks out for Katy.
Valentine's Day may be on the horizon, but that does not mean that LOVE is going to prevail.

Welcome!

Hello fellow "duckmates"!