athanatos
Puritan Board Freshman
Hey, I had read the famous section of Leviathan for class last year's Spring semester. When he got into covenants, covenants, covenants I did not find this at all unclear to me. But then it came back to me later that this was in the context of the Reformation and lots of Covenantal language. He in some great degree, makes it that the state of nature compells us by reason to hold onto covenants and morality is found through reason. I think there's a huge problem with this, but maybe I am being careless with it.
1. What about God's morality. When I was thinking "does Hobbes think morality is found apart from God?", I actually remembered it in the framework of his covenant-obligation system. That is, that for the sake of peace it is always (and only) reasonable to accept it if offered legitimately. On these grounds, I thought, "well, God makes covenants, and we are held to them, so morality tied up in God's commands are, after all, everywhere binding due to his mighty and sovereignty". Hobbes argues that we need a sovereign to keep the people "in awe", that they might submit to his power and people work together as a society.
2. But I didn't think this was the right place to start. For one, how is reason supposed to compel us? What force does "reason" have over our ethics? Is "reason" distinguished well from our preconceived notions of what is expected of us? is reason stronger than our desires? If reason is objectively binding, but we are subjectively discerning, then we cannot know the standard we are being held to.
3. I am trying to put on Covenantal eyes. I am trying to rework my foundation, from the ground up (as far as I can), and keep a consistent paradigm. If we think of God's covenant with Adam, is it like the state of nature? Is it really such that Adam is compelled by reason to submit to a covenant of works? "You shall surely die" sounds like it, but ... I think it was M Kline who was speaking of even entering into the covenant was God's grace to Adam, that Adam would even be blessed were he to have obeyed. If this is true, I am not sure it fits the state of nature that Hobbes sets out. Man against man, fear and general equality (by death), etc. That's not God's interaction with Adam. That's not even Adam's interaction with Eve.
4. So, is the state of nature incoherent? I am thinking that if the state of nature is actually proposed as Hobbes set out, it is already atheistic and no God would enter into covenant. Hence, morality is derived by reason apart from God. But if it is not atheistic, it needs to be modified, and I am not sure how, beyond the demands of man's interaction with man; why? because God is the sovereign who keeps the people in awe.
5. Why am I discussing this? Well, I felt it would be a good study to consider whether Hobbes was setting things up for Calvin's theology. That Hobbes gives a system and Calvin's theology is the punchline. I have a feeling this type of reconciliation is a gross error from the start, and doomed to failure.
1. What about God's morality. When I was thinking "does Hobbes think morality is found apart from God?", I actually remembered it in the framework of his covenant-obligation system. That is, that for the sake of peace it is always (and only) reasonable to accept it if offered legitimately. On these grounds, I thought, "well, God makes covenants, and we are held to them, so morality tied up in God's commands are, after all, everywhere binding due to his mighty and sovereignty". Hobbes argues that we need a sovereign to keep the people "in awe", that they might submit to his power and people work together as a society.
2. But I didn't think this was the right place to start. For one, how is reason supposed to compel us? What force does "reason" have over our ethics? Is "reason" distinguished well from our preconceived notions of what is expected of us? is reason stronger than our desires? If reason is objectively binding, but we are subjectively discerning, then we cannot know the standard we are being held to.
3. I am trying to put on Covenantal eyes. I am trying to rework my foundation, from the ground up (as far as I can), and keep a consistent paradigm. If we think of God's covenant with Adam, is it like the state of nature? Is it really such that Adam is compelled by reason to submit to a covenant of works? "You shall surely die" sounds like it, but ... I think it was M Kline who was speaking of even entering into the covenant was God's grace to Adam, that Adam would even be blessed were he to have obeyed. If this is true, I am not sure it fits the state of nature that Hobbes sets out. Man against man, fear and general equality (by death), etc. That's not God's interaction with Adam. That's not even Adam's interaction with Eve.
4. So, is the state of nature incoherent? I am thinking that if the state of nature is actually proposed as Hobbes set out, it is already atheistic and no God would enter into covenant. Hence, morality is derived by reason apart from God. But if it is not atheistic, it needs to be modified, and I am not sure how, beyond the demands of man's interaction with man; why? because God is the sovereign who keeps the people in awe.
5. Why am I discussing this? Well, I felt it would be a good study to consider whether Hobbes was setting things up for Calvin's theology. That Hobbes gives a system and Calvin's theology is the punchline. I have a feeling this type of reconciliation is a gross error from the start, and doomed to failure.
