Hobbes - achieving highest good

young nut · #1 06-18-2005, 02:53 PM

An interesting argument presented by Hobbes:

The argument he presents is as follows: 1. to live is to be in constant motion, 2. motions are desires, 3. and a highest good would be when all desires are at an end; therefore, since we are in constant motion, there can be no highest good.

Agree or disagree?

young nut · #2 06-19-2005, 07:01 AM

wow, no Hobbes fans out there? What happened to the classics.

Zeno · #3 06-19-2005, 11:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What happened to the classics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Burned at the stake of Postmodernism?

-Zeno

Zeno · #4 06-19-2005, 11:24 AM

" 2. motions are desires "

If I desire a pear hanging on some tree, I will climb a wall and steal it, thus I am in motion.

The 'highest good' is beer. The rest is just footnotes.

-Zeno

toss · #5 06-19-2005, 11:53 AM

Thomas Hobbes is the biggest cynic ever. Guess I can't blame him with the way he grew up.

SpearsBritney · #6 06-19-2005, 03:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Thomas Hobbes is the biggest cynic ever. Guess I can't blame him with the way he grew up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cynicism = Realism

It's pretty hard to refute that it's all pretty absurd and pointless in the end.

Cerril · #7 06-19-2005, 03:06 PM

I think we need to be a bit more plain with our philosophy here in what is not supposed to be a 'philosophy to make us feel smart' forum (well...). By which I mean we have a lot of smart people here but not everyone is so thoroughly read in any philosopher or philosophy's technical terms that we can say something like that and expect to get much in the way of understanding.

I think it's alright to accept the first premise, when we stop moving we're dead. The second one is a bit tougher to swallow, not all motion that accompanies life is desire in the sense that most people term it. You can rephrase almost any action in terms of desire (the apple falling from the tree wants to hit the ground), but we can go ahead and cut right to the chase and say that anything living always has desires, and I'll accept it.

The third one is where you really run into trouble. Strictly defining the highest good as the end of all desires is pretty silly, even with a very common-sense view of Good-as-happiness (one which I particularly like). Fulfillment of desires is certainly good, but having is not nearly so good as getting. Even wanting can be given some value. So without desire there can't be good in the first place. It would be better, I think, to say that the highest good would be a balance of having, wanting and getting where none were so strong they drowned out the others.

belloc · #8 06-19-2005, 07:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
An interesting argument presented by Hobbes:

The argument he presents is as follows: 1. to live is to be in constant motion, 2. motions are desires, 3. and a highest good would be when all desires are at an end; therefore, since we are in constant motion, there can be no highest good.

Agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give the citation for this argument? Is it from Leviathan? I'd like to have a look at it.

young nut · #9 06-20-2005, 04:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An interesting argument presented by Hobbes:

The argument he presents is as follows: 1. to live is to be in constant motion, 2. motions are desires, 3. and a highest good would be when all desires are at an end; therefore, since we are in constant motion, there can be no highest good.

Agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give the citation for this argument? Is it from Leviathan? I'd like to have a look at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is in Leviathan, Chapter 11

drudman · #10 06-19-2005, 07:55 PM

BAH to metaphysical utterances.