This
is a commentary on an interesting passage from Hobbes’s Elements 1-13-3,
which is here in the S&C format. (“S&C” means Sources and Comments, which is a separate book of mine, conveniently
structured after Lenin’s Philosophical
Notebooks.) The entry is divided into two parts, where Part I mostly deals
with the Hobbes’ passage, whereas the shorter Part II constitutes my closing
comment.
A
legitimate question can be asked why this passage should be discussed at all in
the Philosophy section. In fact, it highlights the problem which
philosophy, and particularly religious philosophy, has experienced with science,
when we see one of the pillars of philosophical thinking, comparing these two
and declaring one of them virtually infallible, while the other one is,
in his opinion, riddled with all sorts of holes, and suffering from a variety
of seemingly incurable ailments. (The reader must have long guessed which is
which?!) This passage also touches upon the philosophical problem of knowledge
(is science really knowledge, while poor philosophy can never do
better than express an erroneous opinion?), on Pilate’s big question What is
truth? and on a variety of other questions, all essential to philosophy.
And now, here is the long-promised and perhaps awaited passage.---
The infallible sign of teaching exactly and without error… (Here is some remarkable obduracy, if I may
say so. Is it even theoretically possible to have such “teaching exactly and
without error” at all? I understand that Hobbes must be terribly
sore at the “false teachers of vain philosophy,” who have been doing
exactly the opposite, but this should not be a reason for going into the other
extreme, either!) …is that no man has ever taught the contrary. (This is already nonsense, because the teachers are
chronically ‘behind the curve,’ and the very last argument for anything to be
true should be the authority of the teachers, even if they are all united in
their most predictable fallacy.) …For,
commonly, truth is on the side of the few, rather than of the multitude;
(Dèscartes states this more elegantly, with his “plurality
of suffrages,” but Hobbes’s simplicity of expressing this truth has its own
charm. It does not follow from this, however, that Hobbes’s “infallible sign”
will be itself infallible!) but when in
opinions and questions considered and discussed by many, it happens that not
any one of the men that so discuss them differ from another, then it may be justly
inferred, they know what they teach and that otherwise they do not. (A glaring non-sequitur
here, just as I noted before. Compare this to the argument in my entry The
Clock Conspiracy. There is no wisdom in expecting the truth to come out of
any kind of consensus, even if it includes ‘the few’ enlightened
ones. What if the ‘good time clock’ has not yet come into existence?
That’s why Hobbes’s opening thesis above, that ‘teaching exactly and without
error’ is possible, doesn’t quite measure up to the test.) And this appears most manifestly to them that have considered
the different subjects, wherein men have exercised their pens, and the different
ways, in which they have proceeded; together with the diversity of the success
thereof. For those who have taken in hand to consider nothing else but the
comparison of magnitudes, numbers, times, and motions, and their proportions
one to another, have thereby been the authors of all those excellences, (most of which excellences have, by now, been summarily
debunked, and so much for their truth!) wherein
we differ from such savage people as are now the inhabitants of different
places in America (It is so hilarious to read
this passage today: I don’t think that the attitude of Europe toward America
has changed all that much since Hobbes’s day…), and
as have been the inhabitants heretofore of those countries, where at this day
arts and sciences do most flourish... Yet, to this day was it never heard of,
that there was any controversy concerning any conclusion in this subject; where
science (Alas, Hobbes, like so many others after
him, places too much faith in science, which is apparently no less susceptible
to errors, than any other ‘soft’
science, which he consistently disparages…) has nevertheless been continually amplified and enriched
with conclusions of most difficult and profound speculation. The reason whereof
is apparent to every man that looks into their writings; for they proceed from
the most low and humble principles, (As I’ve observed
before, all sciences, hard and soft, proceed from founding hypotheses;
to imagine anything otherwise would be to persist in error, and Hobbes,
apparently, does just that, although, in his defense, it can be said that he is
by no means alone in this delusion...) evident
even to the meanest capacity; going on slowly, and with most scrupulous ratiocination…
On the other side, those men who have written concerning the faculties,
passions and manners of men, (like himself, who
has written a lot on exactly this subject, apparently, believing that what he
is saying must be true) that is to say, of
moral philosophy, or of policy, government and laws, whereof there be infinite
volumes have been so far from removing doubt and controversy in all these
questions they have handled, that they have very much multiplied the same; (with this, I perhaps cannot disagree) nor does any man at this day so much as pretend to know
more than has been already delivered two thousand years ago by Aristotle. And
yet, every man thinks that in this subject he knows as much as any other;
supposing there needs to be no study but that it accrues to them by natural
wit; though they lay, or employ their mind otherwise in the purchase of wealth
or place. (This argument is of course
unacceptable in a Perry Mason court of law, but Hobbes does not mind
getting argumentative and personal in his attack on philosophers, which
little pleasure cannot be denied him: after all, this is his book, and his domain,
this is his right to say what he pleases!) The
reason whereof is no other than that in their writings and discourses they take
for principles those opinions which are already vulgarly received, whether true
or false; being for the most part false. (The
same question pops up yet again: What is true and what is false?) There is, therefore, a great deal of difference between
teaching and persuading; the signs of the latter being controversy; and the sign
of the former, no controversy.
(This
is the end of Part I. Part II will be posted tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment