WEBVTT NOTE Thomas Hobbes 1 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:08.080 I'm going to talk this afternoon about Thomas Hobbes of the various philosophies we're going, 2 00:00:08.080 --> 00:00:14.960 considering in this course of lectures. Hobbes was the one who lived the longest. He lived from 3 00:00:15.840 --> 00:00:27.280 1588 to 1679. When he was born in April 1588, he said afterwards, this is an 4 00:00:27.280 --> 00:00:35.640 in an anecdote told by John Aubrey, that his mother went into labor because she heard news 5 00:00:35.640 --> 00:00:41.440 that the Spanish Armada was going to invade England. 6 00:00:41.440 --> 00:00:48.680 And he thought that he had, he described the fact that he had a very nervous disposition 7 00:00:48.680 --> 00:00:53.840 to this event, that his mother had had to go into labor suddenly. 8 00:00:53.840 --> 00:01:00.440 Here in the, with the Spanish Armada invasion of England, just incidentally, you could usually 9 00:01:00.440 --> 00:01:06.040 get people on this trick question, who was the only King of Spain who was also King of 10 00:01:06.040 --> 00:01:07.040 England? 11 00:01:07.040 --> 00:01:14.800 And of course it was King Philip of Spain because remember he was married to Queen Mary 12 00:01:14.800 --> 00:01:20.960 and so he had the title of King of England even though he wasn't, didn't have any powers 13 00:01:20.960 --> 00:01:28.720 King of England, but he had the title just like the Prince Philip, the husband of the 14 00:01:28.720 --> 00:01:35.240 present Queen Elizabeth, could, if he wanted to, have been chosen to be called King Philip, 15 00:01:35.240 --> 00:01:42.040 but he didn't want to do that. So the King of Spain could be King Philip, but that doesn't 16 00:01:42.040 --> 00:01:50.000 really have anything to do with Hobbes, but if I mention it, why not? Yeah, why not? So 17 00:01:50.000 --> 00:02:03.040 So Hobbes was trained, he went to Oxford, he was a specialist in classics, he was trained 18 00:02:03.040 --> 00:02:09.960 in the classical humanist tradition, he, one of his, I think his first published work was 19 00:02:09.960 --> 00:02:16.960 a translation of Thucydides, it's strange that, I think his last work was a verse translation 20 00:02:16.960 --> 00:02:23.080 and the Odyssey. It's strange that in a way that even though he was an expert in the classics, 21 00:02:23.080 --> 00:02:30.400 he thought that, and he says that in his great work with Leviathan, that the classic shouldn't 22 00:02:30.400 --> 00:02:37.540 be allowed to be taught to young people because this was very dangerous. It would encourage 23 00:02:37.540 --> 00:02:45.720 people to have false ideas of liberty. He didn't want that, as I'll be explaining later, but 24 00:02:45.720 --> 00:02:55.800 Even though he thought the classics had dangerous ideas, he himself was quite an expert in Latin and Greek. 25 00:02:55.800 --> 00:03:07.840 Now, why was he studying that? I mean, it sounds like, why did he choose that as a field to go into? 26 00:03:07.840 --> 00:03:15.480 Well, at that time, study of the classical languages wasn't just, say, something acquired 27 00:03:15.480 --> 00:03:20.360 just for the purest sake of learning or because this was something that was fitting for a 28 00:03:20.360 --> 00:03:28.240 gentleman to do. Hobbes himself came from a fairly poor family. His father was a clergyman 29 00:03:28.240 --> 00:03:36.280 in the town of Malmesbury in England, but he certainly wasn't a very high social standing. 30 00:03:36.280 --> 00:03:44.800 The reason he studied that, someone who was an expert in the classics could be very useful 31 00:03:44.800 --> 00:03:51.920 serving a noble or someone in government because they would be very good at composing materials 32 00:03:51.920 --> 00:03:58.040 both in Latin and in other languages, they would be very skilled in language. 33 00:03:58.040 --> 00:04:06.480 So, studying classics was a promising way, career path in those days, just as, say, people 34 00:04:06.480 --> 00:04:10.040 would go today into pre-law or pre-medicine. 35 00:04:10.040 --> 00:04:19.520 In the time when Hobbes went to university, going into classics was a good career choice. 36 00:04:19.520 --> 00:04:29.680 After he got his degree at Oxford, he spent the rest of his life serving noble families, 37 00:04:29.680 --> 00:04:40.120 both as a tutor to their children or as an advisor on policy, and he lived with the noble 38 00:04:40.120 --> 00:04:41.120 families. 39 00:04:41.120 --> 00:04:53.840 The two families in particular he lived with were the Earl of Devonshire and his cousin, 40 00:04:53.840 --> 00:04:58.960 the Earl of Newcastle. Both of these were members of the Cavendish family. That was 41 00:04:58.960 --> 00:05:09.080 one of the most influential English families. Hobbes, for nearly all his adult life, stayed 42 00:05:09.080 --> 00:05:17.480 with them and served them. 43 00:05:17.480 --> 00:05:29.940 In Hobbes' youth, this was a time in the early 17th century, this was a time in Europe of 44 00:05:29.940 --> 00:05:36.780 Quite a bit of skepticism about in politics and religion. 45 00:05:36.780 --> 00:05:44.260 Previously, in the previous century, there had been an ideal among the Renaissance humanists 46 00:05:44.260 --> 00:05:54.500 of having kind of a restoring the Ciceronian Republic, the Republican values favored by 47 00:05:54.500 --> 00:05:56.980 Cicero on a European scale. 48 00:05:56.980 --> 00:06:03.080 And the Renaissance humanists tended to be very idealistic. You remember, for example, 49 00:06:03.080 --> 00:06:12.100 the utopia of Thomas More in other works, other writers of Rasmus, had ideas of how 50 00:06:12.100 --> 00:06:21.780 we could have peaceful relations between states, how we could have the scholars would kind 51 00:06:21.780 --> 00:06:27.320 to form a universal republic based on the study of the ancient classics. 52 00:06:27.320 --> 00:06:39.060 But by the time Hobbes was a young man, European intellectuals tend to take a much more cynical 53 00:06:39.060 --> 00:06:47.520 view of politics in which politics was viewed purely as a power struggle. 54 00:06:47.520 --> 00:06:56.240 Instead of the Cicero, the Roman historian Tacitus was very influential. Tacitus had 55 00:06:56.240 --> 00:07:06.320 a very cynical indeed view of the various Roman emperors that he wrote about. Everything 56 00:07:06.320 --> 00:07:13.320 would involve the play for power among these emperors. There's a very good book I would 57 00:07:13.320 --> 00:07:18.360 recommended by the great Roman historian Sir Ronald Sine. 58 00:07:29.240 --> 00:07:35.800 So he himself wrote in a style like... Oh, good idea. 59 00:07:35.800 --> 00:07:49.000 Thank you, excellent idea. So, Simon himself wrote rather like Tacitus and had similar 60 00:07:49.000 --> 00:07:55.720 views, so it's a good way of getting some attention to what he was saying. Now, as I 61 00:07:55.720 --> 00:08:05.320 say, the writers at the time, influential among European intellectuals, stressed power 62 00:08:05.320 --> 00:08:21.480 Two writers in particular influenced Hobbes' views. 63 00:08:21.480 --> 00:08:28.800 Hobbes went on trips to Europe, he escorted one of the sons of the Earl of Devonshire 64 00:08:28.800 --> 00:08:33.720 to Europe and he met various important European intellectuals. 65 00:08:33.720 --> 00:08:48.920 One of the persons he was most influenced by was a Dutch writer named Justice Lipsius. 66 00:08:48.920 --> 00:08:59.480 Lipsius said that, well, we really can't know anything about ethics. 67 00:08:59.480 --> 00:09:04.040 We all have various views on what's proper conduct, what's the best thing to do, but 68 00:09:04.040 --> 00:09:06.760 we really can't attain any truth about this. 69 00:09:06.760 --> 00:09:11.360 We just have conflicting opinions, except for one thing. 70 00:09:11.360 --> 00:09:18.320 We do know that everybody wants to survive, everybody wants to live. 71 00:09:18.320 --> 00:09:23.600 So we can use that really as the only basis for ethics. 72 00:09:23.600 --> 00:09:39.600 If we can use that and possibly try to get some agreement on what we need, if we all want to survive, then we could try to see what can we do to best survive. 73 00:09:39.600 --> 00:09:47.440 And as we'll see, this becomes perhaps the dominant theme in Hobbes' work in political 74 00:09:47.440 --> 00:09:54.880 philosophy, is how can we each ensure our survival? 75 00:09:54.880 --> 00:10:03.320 You can again see similarity to a Randian idea, but it's developed in a very non-Randian 76 00:10:03.320 --> 00:10:04.320 way. 77 00:10:04.320 --> 00:10:13.320 Hobbes hadn't had the benefit of studying the final speech in Atlas Shrugged, so he made some mistakes. 78 00:10:13.320 --> 00:10:26.320 Now, another writer who influenced Hobbes a great deal was the Dutch jurist and theologian Hugo Grotius, 79 00:10:26.320 --> 00:10:40.160 who was the founder of it, one of the founders of international law and Grotius had us in 80 00:10:40.160 --> 00:10:48.400 similar view to Lipsius that he thought again that each person wants to survive so we should 81 00:10:48.400 --> 00:10:57.360 take this as each person really has a right to do to do what he needs in order to survive but 82 00:10:57.920 --> 00:11:07.280 Grotius took this this in a very non-libertarian way one might think well you start off with saying 83 00:11:07.280 --> 00:11:13.600 people have a right to survive can you derive other rights from this so we would get in we 84 00:11:13.600 --> 00:11:20.120 We would get at least a somewhat liberal system, we wouldn't have a system, say, where the 85 00:11:20.120 --> 00:11:24.240 government can do anything it wants to people, because after all we're starting that each 86 00:11:24.240 --> 00:11:31.160 person wants, has the right to do what he needs to survive, but Grotius took this to 87 00:11:31.160 --> 00:11:42.160 justify, say, slavery because, say, people who would be captured in war might agree that 88 00:11:42.160 --> 00:11:46.160 They Would Become Slaves In Order Not To Be Killed 89 00:11:46.160 --> 00:11:55.160 So, this was perfectly alright because people would be doing this in order to survive, so there was really nothing wrong with slavery. 90 00:11:55.160 --> 00:12:04.160 So, as Grotius took his right to survive, it had a very much non-libertarian aspect 91 00:12:04.160 --> 00:12:09.920 because you would be really doing whatever you need anything that was 92 00:12:09.920 --> 00:12:14.500 needed to survive any system of deprivation of liberty that enable you 93 00:12:14.500 --> 00:12:19.380 to be that enabled people to survive would be all right there was nothing you 94 00:12:19.380 --> 00:12:26.320 could say against it because we don't really know anything else about ethics 95 00:12:26.320 --> 00:12:49.320 that would go against that. And Grotius found support for his views from interpretations of the Bible that were rather non-standard, but we'll see. Hobbes did this also. Hobbes had his interpretation of the Bible, which tended to be somewhat unusual. 96 00:12:49.320 --> 00:13:10.320 So Hobbes then was influenced by these political writers, but there was another very important European influence on Hobbes in this concern, not political philosophy, but general philosophy, metaphysics, theory of knowledge. 97 00:13:10.320 --> 00:13:21.080 College. And here, just as in ethics I mentioned there was a trend towards skepticism, in philosophy 98 00:13:21.080 --> 00:13:28.320 there was a rejection of the previously dominant Aristotelian views, views that were similar 99 00:13:28.320 --> 00:13:39.120 to those held by Aquinas and his later scholastics. And what the dominant trend in European philosophy 100 00:13:39.120 --> 00:13:48.440 was to reject Aristotelian views. Aristotle believed that, as I mentioned in a lecture 101 00:13:48.440 --> 00:13:56.400 on Aristotle, we can find out what the nature of various substances are, let's say, when 102 00:13:56.400 --> 00:14:03.500 we want to know how human beings can lead the best life. We ask, what is the nature 103 00:14:03.500 --> 00:14:14.980 of a Human Being, what is the nature of these objects. 104 00:14:14.980 --> 00:14:25.020 The way Aristotle arrived at his views on what nature of various substances consists 105 00:14:25.020 --> 00:14:32.460 Joseph is that he started off, as I mentioned about his ethics, but he did this more generally, 106 00:14:32.460 --> 00:14:40.740 he started off with common beliefs. Say, he was assuming, say, that generally our beliefs 107 00:14:40.740 --> 00:14:50.660 are true. Say, if I say, look it out and I see objects have a certain color in thought 108 00:14:50.660 --> 00:14:56.060 that unless there were arguments of the contrary, we should believe that the objects have the 109 00:14:56.060 --> 00:14:58.460 color they really do. 110 00:14:58.460 --> 00:15:04.540 In the philosophers who were dominant in the early 17th century, rejected that view. 111 00:15:04.540 --> 00:15:12.100 They say, no, what we perceive really doesn't correspond to reality. 112 00:15:12.100 --> 00:15:14.500 We have no reason to think it does. 113 00:15:14.500 --> 00:15:19.140 Descartes, of course, was the most famous of these philosophers. 114 00:15:19.140 --> 00:15:25.420 He wasn't a skeptic about, in fact, he intended his philosophy to refute skepticism, but he 115 00:15:25.420 --> 00:15:33.060 doubted nearly all our common beliefs about the world. He thought that, say, our beliefs 116 00:15:33.060 --> 00:15:41.020 about ordinary perception were all ones that were, couldn't be, were not founded in reason. 117 00:15:41.020 --> 00:15:48.900 We could, skeptical arguments would destroy these. And Hobbes really developed his views 118 00:15:48.900 --> 00:15:49.900 in Europe. 119 00:15:49.900 --> 00:15:56.140 He was independently from Descartes but he corresponded with Descartes and gave objections 120 00:15:56.140 --> 00:16:03.460 to his views and eventually, I think in 1648, he met Hobbes and also on one of his trips 121 00:16:03.460 --> 00:16:06.500 to Europe, he met Galileo. 122 00:16:06.500 --> 00:16:12.860 He had a letter of introduction to him and he was able to meet Galileo in 1636. 123 00:16:12.860 --> 00:16:18.380 So those are a few of the intellectual influences on Hobbes. 124 00:16:18.380 --> 00:16:26.780 So I want now to say a little bit about Hobbes' metaphysics theory of knowledge because we'll 125 00:16:26.780 --> 00:16:34.500 see this, at least I hope we'll be able to show this, that this is very relevant to his 126 00:16:34.500 --> 00:16:36.820 political views. 127 00:16:36.820 --> 00:16:47.900 Now, Hobbes, like Descartes, was a skeptic about our ordinary beliefs about the world. 128 00:16:47.900 --> 00:16:55.060 We thought that each of us know that we have various perceptions of things. 129 00:16:55.060 --> 00:17:07.620 I see various colors and shapes, but I can't know anything about any real objects that 130 00:17:07.620 --> 00:17:11.900 are causing these perceptions and shapes. 131 00:17:11.900 --> 00:17:16.580 All I know is that there are various perceptions that I'm having. 132 00:17:16.580 --> 00:17:22.300 And even that is going too far, as I said, perceptions that I'm having. 133 00:17:22.300 --> 00:17:32.820 According to Hobbes, we don't have any real knowledge of the self other than the perceptions. 134 00:17:32.820 --> 00:17:39.300 All I know is that some of these perceptions are occurring in some way, but I can't really 135 00:17:39.300 --> 00:17:41.220 form a conception of the self. 136 00:17:41.220 --> 00:17:49.660 So Hobbes, in his reply to, one of his replies to Descartes, really rejected what Descartes' 137 00:17:49.660 --> 00:17:55.180 argument that, you know, he said, well, I think therefore I am. 138 00:17:55.180 --> 00:17:58.980 Hobbes said, well, you know, you can take this as trivially true, but it isn't really 139 00:17:58.980 --> 00:18:07.460 giving us any knowledge of an eye, of an ego, that's really any substantive knowledge. 140 00:18:07.460 --> 00:18:13.260 All we can say is perceptions are occurring in some way, we can't know anything about 141 00:18:13.260 --> 00:18:14.260 it. 142 00:18:14.260 --> 00:18:20.260 Similarly, he thought that space and time just considered by themselves, like space 143 00:18:20.260 --> 00:18:30.580 is considered kind of as a receptacle or emptiness in which perceptions occur, is purely imaginary. 144 00:18:30.580 --> 00:18:44.580 And time, he says, is the shadow of motion. The notion of space and time as distinct entities apart from the perceptions is another false idea. 145 00:18:44.580 --> 00:18:59.580 This is purely imaginary. So perhaps you could see this in some ways as a precursor of Kant, who thought that space and time are what we call forms of intuition, 146 00:18:59.580 --> 00:19:05.580 The Theory of Money and Credit 147 00:19:05.580 --> 00:19:11.580 The Theory of Money and Credit 148 00:19:29.580 --> 00:19:35.980 We thought that language is purely a conventional system of signs. 149 00:19:35.980 --> 00:19:48.260 We could have a language, so far as we know, we could imagine a single person having a 150 00:19:48.260 --> 00:19:49.260 language. 151 00:19:49.260 --> 00:19:55.820 It would just consist of a certain set of sentences, and we would have various conventions 152 00:19:55.820 --> 00:20:01.980 explaining how the sentences were related and we could have deductions kind of explaining how one 153 00:20:01.980 --> 00:20:08.380 thing followed from the other. We wouldn't know whether anything really corresponded to the 154 00:20:11.260 --> 00:20:23.100 system in reality. We would just have the convention. So, given this view of language, 155 00:20:23.100 --> 00:20:32.940 Research. He tended to have a very negative view of experimental evidence. At the time 156 00:20:32.940 --> 00:20:41.300 he was writing, there was quite a development of experimental science in England. The Royal 157 00:20:41.300 --> 00:20:51.180 Society had been founded with the motto nullius inverba, kind of loosely translated, don't 158 00:20:51.180 --> 00:20:57.340 I won't give any credence just to words, but he didn't like the Royal Society. 159 00:20:57.340 --> 00:21:07.160 He said, for example, he was commenting on Robert Boyle, who had produced a vacuum. 160 00:21:07.160 --> 00:21:12.120 He said, well, how do we know that Boyle has really produced a vacuum? 161 00:21:12.120 --> 00:21:18.680 All he's done is emptied out some air from a certain pump, but how do we know there's 162 00:21:18.680 --> 00:21:19.680 nothing left? 163 00:21:19.680 --> 00:21:32.680 He has no basis for saying he's come up with a vacuum. All he's done is a particular experiment at one time. He hasn't given us any reason for any general laws. 164 00:21:32.680 --> 00:21:43.680 It's a bit like Mises criticizing the econometricians. He says what they're doing is a purely historical interest. They're not coming up with any general laws. 165 00:21:43.680 --> 00:21:51.720 Laws. So Hobbes is saying you can't get through experimental science any general laws. He 166 00:21:51.720 --> 00:22:03.640 had also rather odd views on mathematics. He spent a great deal of time on Euclidean 167 00:22:03.640 --> 00:22:14.480 Geometry, like the idea of a deductive science, but he thought that one could give the terms 168 00:22:14.480 --> 00:22:22.040 of Euclidean geometry a physical interpretation, say you could take a certain physical phenomena 169 00:22:22.040 --> 00:22:30.280 as showing a line without any breadth, you could have a pure line, it wasn't just an 170 00:23:00.280 --> 00:23:12.320 and John Wallace, who was a professor of mathematics, I think at Cambridge, who was a much better 171 00:23:12.320 --> 00:23:19.400 mathematician than Hobbes, but not as good a philosopher, so it was kind of a, each one 172 00:23:19.400 --> 00:23:26.480 had various advantages and disadvantages in this struggle. Now, so far it sounds like 173 00:23:26.480 --> 00:23:35.480 On Hobbes' view, we don't know very much. We do have his kind of conventional knowledge, but we don't know very much. 174 00:23:35.480 --> 00:23:41.980 However, he did think that there were some philosophical views we could know, some propositions we could know. 175 00:23:41.980 --> 00:23:50.980 And one was, we would know that when we have perceptions, there's something causing it. 176 00:23:50.980 --> 00:24:03.980 And this cause must be a material body of some sort, and so we know that only material bodies can cause anything, 177 00:24:03.980 --> 00:24:09.980 and one material body can only be moved by another material body. 178 00:24:09.980 --> 00:24:31.980 So really, in the Hobbesian system of the world, there is really nothing outside our own perceptions except material bodies of various sorts, and we don't have really any idea of what the real properties of those bodies are. 179 00:24:31.980 --> 00:24:40.980 Now, why is this important for political philosophy, for Hobbes' political philosophy? 180 00:24:40.980 --> 00:24:48.980 Well, we can see this if we look at, by looking at what Hobbes says about politics. 181 00:24:48.980 --> 00:24:56.980 Hobbes wrote, there were three main works he had on politics really developing the same position. 182 00:24:56.980 --> 00:25:07.980 One was a manuscript that was part of the Elements of Politics, that was part of a larger work called Elements of Philosophy. 183 00:25:07.980 --> 00:25:16.980 This was something he was working on around 1640. 184 00:25:16.980 --> 00:25:25.620 Then, a version of this part, the Elements of Law, which is part of Elements of Philosophy, 185 00:25:25.620 --> 00:25:35.220 was published under the name, The Citizenry, de Quire, in 1642. 186 00:25:39.620 --> 00:25:46.500 And then, of course, his most famous book, The Leviathan, was published in 1651. 187 00:25:46.500 --> 00:25:50.740 I should say before going into the details of political philosophy, 188 00:25:50.740 --> 00:25:58.700 to just further finishing up on his life, 189 00:25:58.700 --> 00:26:07.220 in the 1630s, the English king, Charles I, 190 00:26:07.220 --> 00:26:14.580 was having a big struggle involving taxation. 191 00:26:14.580 --> 00:26:31.580 The King wanted to raise money for a war against the Dutch, but this was very unpopular, and people weren't willing voluntarily to give him taxes to support his war. 192 00:26:31.580 --> 00:26:43.580 You see, at that time, taxation was very unusual. The King was really supposed to live off his own domains, 193 00:26:43.580 --> 00:26:50.200 The taxation had to be voted separately, the king would appeal to parliament for separate 194 00:26:50.200 --> 00:26:58.980 grants of money, but parliament wasn't willing to give him any money, so as a result in 1629, 195 00:26:58.980 --> 00:27:06.140 the king hadn't called any parliament together, and the king claimed that he had the right, 196 00:27:06.140 --> 00:27:13.460 because he would be the judge of threats to the country, he had the right to raise taxes 197 00:27:13.460 --> 00:27:19.300 is independently. And then some people protested this. And in the famous, there was a famous 198 00:27:19.300 --> 00:27:26.340 case called the Ship Money case in which a man named Hampton had refused to pay the taxes 199 00:27:26.340 --> 00:27:34.140 and he was arrested. But the court held that he was right and they said the king didn't 200 00:27:34.140 --> 00:27:39.620 have the right to raise taxes in this way. So as a result, the king was forced to call 201 00:27:39.620 --> 00:27:51.660 A New Parliament in 1639, and then a war broke out and the Scots revolted against the king 202 00:27:51.660 --> 00:28:01.580 for religious reasons. They defeated the English army. When the English Civil War broke out 203 00:28:01.580 --> 00:28:05.100 between the king and his opponents. 204 00:28:05.100 --> 00:28:11.380 The result was the king's execution in January 1649. 205 00:28:11.380 --> 00:28:15.220 Now Hobbes had been, as I mentioned, 206 00:28:15.220 --> 00:28:17.340 he was the father of the Duke of Devonshire. 207 00:28:17.340 --> 00:28:22.900 So the Duke of Devonshire was a supporter of the king. 208 00:28:22.900 --> 00:28:28.380 So he went into exile with the Duke of Devonshire. 209 00:28:28.380 --> 00:28:36.060 Hobbes spent the years 1640 to around 1651 in France. 210 00:28:36.060 --> 00:28:42.940 However, he wanted to get back to England and he published, when he came back to England, 211 00:28:42.940 --> 00:28:51.660 while the Commonwealth, the government that had replaced the monarchy was still in power. 212 00:28:51.660 --> 00:28:58.220 And when he did that, after he published Leviathan, all his royalist friends turned against him 213 00:28:58.220 --> 00:29:19.220 So then when King Charles II came back, Hobbes was in quite a bit of trouble. People in power didn't like Leviathan, but he managed to escape being imprisoned or having to go into exile again, and then he lived out his life peacefully. 214 00:29:19.220 --> 00:29:26.220 So, as I say, those are the main works that Hobbes wrote on politics. 215 00:29:26.220 --> 00:29:39.220 But to get back to what I was suggesting before, we want to know why are Hobbes' views on philosophy relevant to politics. 216 00:29:39.220 --> 00:29:45.940 well you remember that Hobbes thought since we don't we don't know anything 217 00:29:45.940 --> 00:29:52.340 really about the real world apart from our perception so we don't we can't 218 00:29:52.340 --> 00:30:00.980 grasp the essences of objects if there are any such in the in the outside world 219 00:30:00.980 --> 00:30:09.980 In general, and in particular, we can't have any idea of an objective notion of what's good. 220 00:30:09.980 --> 00:30:18.980 Remember, Aristotle tried to do this by saying, how can we get knowledge of human nature? 221 00:30:18.980 --> 00:30:21.980 But Hoppe said, we can't do that. 222 00:30:21.980 --> 00:30:33.980 So all we have is that each person could say, good is what I want. 223 00:30:33.980 --> 00:30:37.980 We would have a completely relative notion of the good. 224 00:30:37.980 --> 00:30:42.980 Good and bad are just whatever the person wants. 225 00:30:42.980 --> 00:30:47.980 We can't say anything objective about what is good or bad. 226 00:30:47.980 --> 00:30:57.980 Good just means someone, if I say something is good, that means I'm attracted to that thing. If I say it's bad, I'm repelled by it. 227 00:30:57.980 --> 00:31:05.980 Hobbes takes this in a very sense, very much like physical particles in motion. 228 00:31:05.980 --> 00:31:15.980 Saying something is good means I'm just attracted to that. I'm sort of drawn toward it like one material particle being drawn toward another. 229 00:31:15.980 --> 00:31:21.880 And similarly, if I don't like it, I'm repelled from it, like one material particle being 230 00:31:21.880 --> 00:31:23.700 repelled from another. 231 00:31:23.700 --> 00:31:33.580 So this seems like it doesn't, we can't get very far with this, well, so are we just left 232 00:31:33.580 --> 00:31:37.460 with one person liking one thing, one person liking another thing? 233 00:31:37.460 --> 00:31:44.380 Well, Hobbes saves the day by appealing to this idea that I mentioned that both Lipsius 234 00:31:44.380 --> 00:31:52.420 Hoppe's and Roche's have, that one thing we do know is that each person aims at his 235 00:31:52.420 --> 00:32:03.420 own survival. Again, Hobbes gives this a material interpretation. Every particle tries to conserve 236 00:32:03.420 --> 00:32:12.900 itself. It wants to keep going as much as possible. It has some drive, which Hobbes 237 00:32:12.900 --> 00:32:33.100 called El Conadis to keep in being. So Hobbes from this says we can get a right of nature. 238 00:32:33.100 --> 00:32:42.300 Every person has a right in nature to do whatever he needs to survive. We're starting with this. 239 00:32:42.300 --> 00:32:47.140 This is his fundamental principle. 240 00:32:47.140 --> 00:32:50.560 This is sometimes misunderstood. 241 00:32:50.560 --> 00:33:01.300 Hobbes isn't saying in the state of nature, that's a state where we don't have any government, 242 00:33:01.300 --> 00:33:08.420 there's no organized body of law, you can do whatever you want. 243 00:33:08.420 --> 00:33:10.000 It isn't you can do anything at all. 244 00:33:10.000 --> 00:33:17.120 You have a right to take or do anything you want because there are no laws to stop you. 245 00:33:17.120 --> 00:33:24.400 It's only that you can do anything you want that you think is needed for your own survival. 246 00:33:24.400 --> 00:33:33.960 Hobbes says that it wouldn't be the case, say, that being cruel, by which he means taking 247 00:33:33.960 --> 00:33:40.600 Revenge on someone in a way that we don't think is needed for our own survival would 248 00:33:40.600 --> 00:33:44.520 be something that it's all right to do, we wouldn't have a right to do that, we'd only 249 00:33:44.520 --> 00:33:49.040 have a right to do whatever it is we think we need to survive. 250 00:33:49.040 --> 00:33:57.040 Spinoza, who was a later thinker, thought that we do have, in the same nature, a universal 251 00:33:57.040 --> 00:34:03.240 right to do anything we want, but this is not Hobbes' view. 252 00:34:03.240 --> 00:34:18.240 Now a similar related misunderstanding of Hobbes is that he thought that in the state of nature, everybody was hostile to everybody else. Everybody would be trying to kill everybody else. 253 00:34:18.240 --> 00:34:27.240 No, he doesn't think that. He does think, though, that everyone poses a danger to everybody else. 254 00:34:27.240 --> 00:34:34.240 Even the strongest person can be killed by someone who is physically weaker. 255 00:34:34.240 --> 00:34:42.240 People aren't so different from one another that one person is incapable of damaging somebody else. 256 00:34:42.240 --> 00:34:48.640 Everybody is in danger from somebody else, but people aren't otherwise hostile. 257 00:34:48.640 --> 00:34:56.680 He thought that we can have, we can certainly have attachments to people, we can have friends 258 00:34:56.680 --> 00:35:03.360 or people we're in love with, there's nothing in his psychology views that goes against 259 00:35:03.360 --> 00:35:04.360 that. 260 00:35:04.360 --> 00:35:11.240 And he didn't think that people just had some kind of unmotivated hostility. 261 00:35:11.240 --> 00:35:19.240 However, it's also the case, besides each person being fearful of the other, what he calls his diffidence. 262 00:35:19.240 --> 00:35:25.240 Diffidence in that way, he used the word meant fear rather than being timid. 263 00:35:25.240 --> 00:35:29.240 Each person is in fear of the other person. 264 00:35:29.240 --> 00:35:37.240 Persons are also motivated by pride. Each one wants to surpass other people. 265 00:35:37.240 --> 00:35:48.240 So we have people fearful of each other and dominated by pride, but they all want to survive. 266 00:35:48.240 --> 00:35:59.480 So how are they able to survive given that their people are in this state of being fearful 267 00:35:59.480 --> 00:36:22.120 Hoppe thought we could deduce laws of nature, and he has, I think, 19 of these laws of nature. 268 00:36:22.120 --> 00:36:33.320 These laws of nature would be sort of hypothetical imperatives to use const, if you want to survive, 269 00:36:33.320 --> 00:36:40.280 you should do this, such and such, and the most important of these was if someone is 270 00:36:40.280 --> 00:36:50.340 willing to make an agreement with you to have peace, to renounce a use of arms against you, 271 00:36:50.340 --> 00:36:58.540 You should make such a covenant. If, say, you imagine this makes sense because you say 272 00:36:58.540 --> 00:37:06.940 people are not intrinsically hostile to each other, so they would find it in their interest 273 00:37:06.940 --> 00:37:13.280 to make such an agreement. Imagine, say, there are just two people and one, each one doesn't 274 00:37:13.280 --> 00:37:19.820 know what the other one is going to do, so if they could agree that they wouldn't attack 275 00:37:19.820 --> 00:37:21.820 The Theory of Money and Credit 276 00:37:49.820 --> 00:37:51.820 The Theory of Money and Credit 277 00:38:19.820 --> 00:38:25.820 Let's agree that we'll both lay down our guns, so we won't be fighting each other. 278 00:38:25.820 --> 00:38:27.820 So, okay, I'm laying down my gun. 279 00:38:27.820 --> 00:38:31.820 Once I've done that, why should you give up your arms? 280 00:38:31.820 --> 00:38:35.820 You'd now be the only one with any arms. 281 00:38:35.820 --> 00:38:37.820 You could have power over me. 282 00:38:37.820 --> 00:38:41.820 So, it seems like you would promote your own survival, 283 00:38:41.820 --> 00:38:46.820 not by giving me any or giving up your arms, but just by keeping them. 284 00:38:46.820 --> 00:38:57.820 So we have, in general, the law of nature that we should seek peace if we can, make covenant to seek peace, 285 00:38:57.820 --> 00:39:11.320 but on the other hand, it seems like it would be a foolish idea just to keep to a covenant if we don't have good reason for the other person going to do so also, 286 00:39:11.320 --> 00:39:17.320 Because that would weaken us, we would just be giving up our protection. 287 00:39:17.320 --> 00:39:25.320 So it appears that Hobbes is saying there is a right to survive when there are ways of getting, 288 00:39:25.320 --> 00:39:37.320 there are steps we should take given by the law of nature that we should do to live in the court, to secure what we want. 289 00:39:37.320 --> 00:39:45.080 and so on, but we can't really take these steps because we have no way of ensuring that 290 00:39:45.080 --> 00:39:50.960 the covenant will be kept, as Hobbes famously said, covenants without the sword are but 291 00:39:50.960 --> 00:39:59.920 words. So the big problem for Hobbes is how, if at all, can he get out of that? I should 292 00:39:59.920 --> 00:40:08.360 I would say some people have argued in this way, A. Taylor, who you remember I mentioned 293 00:40:08.360 --> 00:40:15.120 him very briefly in the lecture on Plato, he was a great Plato scholar, he also wrote 294 00:40:15.120 --> 00:40:24.240 on a great many other subjects in philosophy, and he had a view of Hobbes that when Hobbes 295 00:40:24.240 --> 00:40:34.520 talks about the law of nature. He meant that there are laws of nature because they're not 296 00:40:34.520 --> 00:40:41.920 just advice to people on how to get out of the state of nature where people are constantly 297 00:40:41.920 --> 00:40:49.360 in threat to each other. These are laws of nature because God has promulgated these laws 298 00:40:49.360 --> 00:40:58.720 to us. God has told us we ought to follow the laws. But in this view, Howard Warrinder, 299 00:40:58.720 --> 00:41:18.360 I'll put him down also, he had a book called The Political Philosophy of Hobbes, its Basis 300 00:41:18.360 --> 00:41:42.800 In the case of Genesis, came out in 1957, he also takes this view, their laws, the laws of nature are ordained by God, we can also, while I'm mentioning books, there's another important one on this, giving this view by F.C. Hood, called The Divine Politics of Hobbes, but a problem with this is that Hobbes really doesn't say that. 301 00:41:42.800 --> 00:41:57.800 Hobbes does sometimes talk about laws that God has ordained, but this is only when he's concerned with a particular case of the people of Israel as described in the Bible. 302 00:41:57.800 --> 00:42:06.800 He holds that that's talking about real historical events, so God has told them certain things because we read in the Bible that he has, 303 00:42:06.800 --> 00:42:20.160 in general, in Hobbes, a notion of God as telling us what to do. 304 00:42:20.160 --> 00:42:24.640 You can see from what I've said already about Hobbes' philosophy, you would have a tough 305 00:42:24.640 --> 00:42:32.560 time saying that, because remember, we don't know anything about what's causing our perceptions 306 00:42:32.560 --> 00:42:33.560 of the world. 307 00:42:33.560 --> 00:42:39.320 We know that there's some material body causing them, but we don't know anything about this, 308 00:42:39.320 --> 00:42:49.520 so we wouldn't really be able to show by reason that there's a God who's capable of giving 309 00:42:49.520 --> 00:42:52.760 us commands to tell us what to do. 310 00:42:52.760 --> 00:43:02.280 We'll later see what Hobbes' views on religion, but this wouldn't be part of his main philosophy. 311 00:43:02.280 --> 00:43:15.280 The philosophy wouldn't be that he'd be claiming we know by reason that we can, but we know by reason that God has commanded us to keep these laws of nature. 312 00:43:15.280 --> 00:43:21.280 So I've gotten Hobbes into a big problem, he's gotten into a big problem so far. 313 00:43:21.280 --> 00:43:27.280 Now, how does he get out of it? 314 00:43:27.280 --> 00:43:49.380 Well, he says that, imagines, and he describes it in detail in the Leviathan, he says that, suppose everyone in a certain society makes a hypothetical agreement with everybody else, or rather, everybody else leaving aside one person. 315 00:43:49.380 --> 00:44:03.980 Everybody else said, I will surrender my right to act as I think best to promote my own survival according to the right of nature, if you do as well. 316 00:44:03.980 --> 00:44:11.980 And we all surrender our rights to this one person who's outside the agreement called the sovereign. 317 00:44:11.980 --> 00:44:18.180 I got to a complication about one person a bit later, but it's simply not just taking this one person. 318 00:44:18.180 --> 00:44:31.740 So we all agree, let's say, everyone in this room says, they're all going to let me decide how to handle threats against everybody else. 319 00:44:31.740 --> 00:44:41.180 Instead of each one of you saying, well, if I think this person next to me is going to shoot me, I'm going to act first against them. 320 00:44:41.180 --> 00:44:47.020 We're all saying, we'll all let me decide how to deal with the threat. 321 00:44:47.020 --> 00:45:08.020 So in that way, we can all lay down our arms, we can go about our business peacefully, and then I've got all the, I have the job now to decide of coping with all the threats against people, setting up a system of laws so that people can live at peace. 322 00:45:08.020 --> 00:45:19.020 Now, of course, one obvious problem with this is, how do you know that I won't start abusing my power? 323 00:45:19.020 --> 00:45:26.620 Now, one reason for thinking that I wouldn't, other than that I'm just too nice a person to do that, 324 00:45:26.620 --> 00:45:37.820 would be that if I did, then if I was unable to maintain order, then I really wouldn't be, 325 00:45:37.820 --> 00:45:51.540 I really wouldn't be, that people have no reason to continue to keep their promise, their agreement to give me 326 00:45:51.540 --> 00:46:13.700 not to act for themselves. Once they saw that I was no longer maintaining sovereignty in the way that I was supposed to, even though I'm not a party to the agreement, they would have no particular reason to follow what I was saying, my orders, because I would be acting against them, I wouldn't be protecting them. 327 00:46:13.700 --> 00:46:22.860 And Hobbes thinks that even though each person in this covenant has surrendered all his rights, 328 00:46:22.860 --> 00:46:30.060 the right to decide to act according to the law of nature, according to the right of nature to the sovereign, 329 00:46:30.060 --> 00:46:37.460 still one thing couldn't be surrendered is that if there's a direct threat to one's own life, 330 00:46:37.460 --> 00:46:42.740 one can always act to deal with that. 331 00:46:42.740 --> 00:46:49.260 Say, supposing I thought the sovereign was going to kill me, I wouldn't have to go along 332 00:46:49.260 --> 00:46:53.940 with what he said, I could just act for myself. 333 00:46:53.940 --> 00:47:00.780 So if it turned out the sovereign really started abusing people and didn't secure peace, people 334 00:47:00.780 --> 00:47:04.060 wouldn't take him to be the sovereign anymore. 335 00:47:04.060 --> 00:47:34.060 and in fact this led to trouble for Hoppe when Leviathan was published because he he he thought that although he had been a supporter of the monarchy under Charles I he thought that when the new government replaced the monarchy they were the ones who were preserving order they were the sovereigns so he had really thought since the old sovereign wasn't around 336 00:48:04.060 --> 00:48:14.780 Do what he's supposed to, he has to preserve order for you to have reason to obey him. 337 00:48:14.780 --> 00:48:21.100 Now there's one, a couple of problems with this aspect of Hobbes. 338 00:48:21.100 --> 00:48:33.900 One is Hobbes says that each person always aims to preserve himself. 339 00:48:33.900 --> 00:48:43.100 But what about religious martyrs? They're people who, in the Christian view, who were 340 00:48:43.100 --> 00:48:50.120 revered because they wouldn't renounce their faith when they were threatened with death. 341 00:48:50.120 --> 00:48:56.560 So Hobbes seems caught in a bit of a dilemma. If he says those people acted wrongly since 342 00:48:56.560 --> 00:49:02.040 they're acting as their own survival, then it seems like he has to go against what the 343 00:49:02.040 --> 00:49:13.300 Christian Teaching. So, how is he going to handle this? Well, he says that, as usual 344 00:49:13.300 --> 00:49:20.520 with him, when he seems to face religious challenge, he was a very careful student of 345 00:49:20.520 --> 00:49:27.360 the Bible. He had his own views. And he appeals to an episode, remember, where there was a 346 00:49:27.360 --> 00:49:44.560 The soldier named Naaman, who comes to be healed from some sort of leprosy by bathing 347 00:49:44.560 --> 00:49:54.000 in the River Jordan, and then he wants to convert to the Hebrew God, but he still continues 348 00:49:54.000 --> 00:50:09.880 Hoppe says people always have the right to appeal to the privilege of Naaman. 349 00:50:09.880 --> 00:50:14.360 So this is how he gets out of the religious martyr issue. 350 00:50:14.360 --> 00:50:19.160 Now another issue, though, that would seem to raise a problem for his views that we always 351 00:50:49.160 --> 00:50:57.960 If you don't feel like risking your life to make Iraq safe for democracy, so he said, 352 00:50:57.960 --> 00:51:10.000 I'm not going. Can you do that according to Hoppe? If he said, yes, you do have the right 353 00:51:10.000 --> 00:51:19.360 to Refuse to Go, then he can't really maintain his position that the sovereign is all-powerful. 354 00:51:19.360 --> 00:51:24.760 I mean, if he said, well, you don't have to accept the death sentence that's handed out 355 00:51:24.760 --> 00:51:26.360 against you, you can try to resist. 356 00:51:26.360 --> 00:51:30.360 This isn't really much of a practical problem, because after all, there aren't very many 357 00:51:30.360 --> 00:51:31.560 death sentences handed out. 358 00:51:31.560 --> 00:51:37.240 But if you say, the king can't decide, or the sovereign can't decide who to put into 359 00:51:37.240 --> 00:51:47.360 to the Army, then you get into a real problem, or at least it seems like you get into a real 360 00:51:47.360 --> 00:51:55.560 problem maintaining a strong absolutist view of sovereignty. 361 00:51:55.560 --> 00:52:07.040 Now the way Hobbes gets around that is he said, well, you do have to do what the sovereign 362 00:52:07.040 --> 00:52:13.960 If you go into the army, but this really doesn't change your condition, because what in the 363 00:52:13.960 --> 00:52:21.920 state of nature, you would have to evaluate the risks of, possible risks, say if you, 364 00:52:21.920 --> 00:52:28.240 someone in the Iraq case, you would have to say, if there were no government, you would 365 00:52:28.240 --> 00:52:42.240 Do I think the Iraqi government is threatening my existence? If I did, I might want to act against it. If not, I wouldn't. 366 00:52:42.240 --> 00:52:51.240 So what I've done in the Hobbesian view is just I've transferred to the sovereign the right to decide what the risks are. 367 00:52:51.240 --> 00:53:02.240 So, I'm not really, in his view, worsening my own position. I've just made this sovereign the agent for deciding such questions. 368 00:53:02.240 --> 00:53:10.240 So, in his view, it sounds a bit tenuous, sounds like something very hard to agree with him on this. 369 00:53:10.240 --> 00:53:14.240 But he says, this isn't really changing your own position. 370 00:53:14.240 --> 00:53:21.400 in your own position, you're just reapportioning who decides what the risks are to your own 371 00:53:21.400 --> 00:53:22.400 life. 372 00:53:22.400 --> 00:53:31.400 And remember, the sovereign is someone, each person is designated as sovereign as his representative, 373 00:53:31.400 --> 00:53:39.240 so really, the sovereign is really acting as the agent for each of us. 374 00:53:39.240 --> 00:53:48.200 So I can't really say I don't want to do what the Sovereign says because he's really, I've 375 00:53:48.200 --> 00:53:53.640 given him the legal, the power to act for me. 376 00:53:53.640 --> 00:53:57.840 So what he's doing is really legally what I'm doing. 377 00:53:57.840 --> 00:54:02.440 So if I went against him, I'd really be acting against myself. 378 00:54:02.440 --> 00:54:10.160 Again, it's a view that doesn't immediately commend itself for acceptance, but that was 379 00:54:10.160 --> 00:54:12.480 Hobbes' view of the matter. 380 00:54:12.480 --> 00:54:20.280 So what I've contended so far is how, given some examples, how Hobbes would deal with 381 00:54:20.280 --> 00:54:28.880 various problems if once this universal agreement where everybody says, I will surrender my 382 00:54:28.880 --> 00:54:39.120 The Right to Act According to the Right of Nature to the Sovereign, if you will, as well, 383 00:54:39.120 --> 00:54:46.720 how this would operate once this covenant came into being. 384 00:54:46.720 --> 00:54:57.000 But we haven't really gotten to the major problem for the Hobbesian argument, which is, 385 00:54:57.000 --> 00:55:05.240 Would a covenant, in the way Hobbes described it, come into being at all? 386 00:55:05.240 --> 00:55:14.720 What I've given so far is just this, we have just a series of hypotheticals, imagine say 387 00:55:14.720 --> 00:55:23.280 each person in this room is saying, if everyone else in this room will give up all his or 388 00:55:23.280 --> 00:55:37.880 to me, then I will do so as well. Now, does this give us an agreement? It doesn't appear 389 00:55:37.880 --> 00:55:46.720 so because all we have is a series of hypotheticals. If I do this, then if everyone else does this, 390 00:55:46.720 --> 00:55:50.560 then I will do it as well. Each person says that, but we don't have any agreement. You 391 00:55:50.560 --> 00:56:02.320 Supposing a little boy says to his father may I go to the movies tonight and the father 392 00:56:02.320 --> 00:56:11.640 says yes you can if your mother says you can and then he goes to his mother and she says 393 00:56:11.640 --> 00:56:18.840 yes you can if your father says you can so does he have permission to go to the movies 394 00:56:18.840 --> 00:56:23.560 It doesn't appear that he does because all he has is two hypotheticals. 395 00:56:23.560 --> 00:56:29.040 One says, you can go if the other one says you can go, the second one says you can go 396 00:56:29.040 --> 00:56:34.920 if the first one says you can go, so you don't have any agreement. 397 00:56:34.920 --> 00:56:41.080 So you'd have, similarly in the Hobbesian system, you'd have just a series of hypotheticals. 398 00:56:41.080 --> 00:56:54.060 So, what you need is someone to take the initial step, someone saying, I surrender my right 399 00:56:54.060 --> 00:56:59.460 to decide according to the law of nature, then that would bring into effect all the 400 00:56:59.460 --> 00:57:08.980 other hypotheticals, but you'd have the problem of why should anyone take this first step? 401 00:57:08.980 --> 00:57:17.580 Now, before I try to answer that one, there's another problem I think Hobbes is able to 402 00:57:17.580 --> 00:57:26.340 solve that might have occurred to you as a problem, is that suppose some people do agree 403 00:57:26.340 --> 00:57:35.140 to surrender their rights to the sovereign, but some, but not everybody, you might think 404 00:57:35.140 --> 00:57:41.540 Why should those who haven't agreed to do so surrender their rights? 405 00:57:41.540 --> 00:57:46.340 It's like the case I gave before, where the two of us and I say, 406 00:57:46.340 --> 00:57:52.240 I'm throwing down my arms, what if you do and I throw down my arms, 407 00:57:52.240 --> 00:57:55.340 why should you throw down your arms? 408 00:57:55.340 --> 00:57:58.240 Similarly, in this case, some people have said, 409 00:57:58.240 --> 00:58:03.440 we'll give the right decision to the sovereign. 410 00:58:03.440 --> 00:58:13.960 Why should I do it if the others do it? Wouldn't I be in a better position just not to surrender? 411 00:58:13.960 --> 00:58:17.960 All the other people would have, but I wouldn't. Why should I do it? 412 00:58:17.960 --> 00:58:27.800 Well, I think Hobbes could answer, you really wouldn't be in a better position if you didn't 413 00:58:27.800 --> 00:58:57.800 the agreement you might not be because the other people would just be by surrendering to the sovereign would be saying they no longer pose a danger to you maybe the sovereign would they're saying they've agreed they're surrendering all their right to act against you to the sovereign's decision only if he says to act against you will they act against you so they're no danger 414 00:58:57.800 --> 00:58:59.800 The Theory of Money and Credit 415 00:59:27.800 --> 00:59:51.000 Then you have no reason not to, but even if this is right, this still leaves unanswered the big problem for Hobbes is how do we get one person to make the initial step of agreeing, of saying I'm surrendering to the sovereign. 416 00:59:51.000 --> 00:59:59.000 So, putting all these other agreements, all these other hypotheticals into practice, what gets the process started? 417 01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:16.000 Here, Hobbes' answer is that, really similar to his answer to the other problem I mentioned, really, the person, the initial person really has nothing much to lose. 418 01:00:16.000 --> 01:00:28.000 All he said is that by agreeing, say, imagine he agrees to give up his rights, so imagine, let's say, nobody else agrees to do anything. 419 01:00:28.000 --> 01:00:39.760 so all that's happened is really that he's really in the same position he was 420 01:00:39.760 --> 01:00:45.520 before he hasn't really surrendered anything because he's if nobody else 421 01:00:45.520 --> 01:00:52.360 agrees then his surrender doesn't take come into effect he said he said well I 422 01:00:52.360 --> 01:01:16.360 If I, I hereby surrender everything to the sovereign, then he's really, you could say he's really not lost anything than he's just in the state, the state he was before, but if everybody else goes along with him, then possibly he's in a better situation. 423 01:01:16.360 --> 01:01:31.360 He hasn't really lost out. He's at most taken a useless step. He's saying, I'm surrendering everything, but he hasn't lost out on anything. 424 01:01:31.360 --> 01:01:45.360 Now you could say, well, maybe this is misunderstood, that what he's saying is not just he's surrendering if everybody else is surrendering, but he's added the additional step that he has surrendered his rights absolutely. 425 01:01:45.360 --> 01:01:55.360 Absolutely. Even if you take it that way, then still all of these losses are now up to the sovereign to decide how to respond to the threats to him. 426 01:01:55.360 --> 01:02:04.360 So maybe that doesn't make him all that badly off. So according to Hobbes, chapter 15 of Leviathan, he said, 427 01:02:04.360 --> 01:02:09.360 If you said that nobody would make such an agreement, there's no justice. 428 01:02:09.360 --> 01:02:13.680 He said, only a fool would say this. 429 01:02:13.680 --> 01:02:19.200 Whether Hobbes' argument holds up, I think, is more a question of matter, but that at 430 01:02:19.200 --> 01:02:22.280 least was Hobbes' opinion. 431 01:02:22.280 --> 01:02:30.800 Now, in understanding Hobbes' position, there is an influential interpretation I think it's 432 01:02:30.800 --> 01:02:39.600 It's important to avoid, this was one that pioneered by a very good philosopher named 433 01:02:39.600 --> 01:03:00.000 David Gaultier in a book called The Logic of Leviathan. 434 01:03:00.000 --> 01:03:11.000 He said that he applied modern game theory to try to reconstruct Hobbes' argument, and 435 01:03:11.000 --> 01:03:19.520 what he said is, what we have here is a prisoner's dilemma. Remember, you all know the prisoner's 436 01:03:19.520 --> 01:03:27.640 dilemma in elementary game theory. Let's imagine something like there are two prisoners and 437 01:03:27.640 --> 01:03:34.080 And each one is told separately, each one is accused of a certain crime, and he's told 438 01:03:34.080 --> 01:03:47.000 that if you confess, but the other person doesn't confess, say, you'll get one year 439 01:03:47.000 --> 01:03:53.880 in prison and the other person will get ten years in prison. 440 01:03:53.880 --> 01:04:02.160 If you both confess, you'll get three years in prison. 441 01:04:02.160 --> 01:04:10.120 If neither of you confesses, you'll get five years in prison. 442 01:04:10.120 --> 01:04:12.040 I probably got all the numbers wrong. 443 01:04:12.040 --> 01:04:14.480 I usually do that in giving an example. 444 01:04:14.480 --> 01:04:21.940 But the way it's supposed to work out is, it would be better for both of them if neither 445 01:04:21.940 --> 01:04:32.040 One Confesses, but it will be to the advantage of each one to confess rather than not confess 446 01:04:32.040 --> 01:04:40.600 because you'll always be better off regardless of what the other person does if you confess, 447 01:04:40.600 --> 01:04:46.520 if you confess from the way the particular structure of payoffs is worked out. 448 01:04:46.520 --> 01:04:54.000 So it's because you can't come to any binding agreement with the other person, you can't 449 01:04:54.000 --> 01:05:00.960 realize the best feasible option for both of you, which is you both agree not to confess 450 01:05:00.960 --> 01:05:07.580 so you go to jail for fewer years than if you both do confess. 451 01:05:07.580 --> 01:05:13.960 So what Gaultier said is that people in the Hobbesian state of nature are in a prisoner's 452 01:05:13.960 --> 01:05:21.960 is Dilemma. It would be to the advantage of all of them if they made their universal agreement 453 01:05:21.960 --> 01:05:29.320 to surrender all their rights and assigns to the sovereign, but it's to the advantage 454 01:05:29.320 --> 01:05:40.080 of each one that everybody else make the agreement and that he not make the agreement. And so 455 01:05:40.080 --> 01:05:49.840 What Hobbes is saying according to Goethe is if the government somehow can force everybody 456 01:05:49.840 --> 01:05:58.480 to make this agreement, sort of everybody somehow manages to make the agreement, say 457 01:05:58.480 --> 01:06:04.480 the government is kind of standing over them, somehow forcing them to all agree, then they're 458 01:06:04.480 --> 01:06:10.140 They're all better off, they've somehow gotten out of this prisoner's dilemma. 459 01:06:10.140 --> 01:06:15.240 But you can see from the way I presented Hoppe's argument, it's not a real prisoner's dilemma 460 01:06:15.240 --> 01:06:25.120 because his point is that if everybody else or most people make the covenant, you're not 461 01:06:25.120 --> 01:06:28.840 particularly better off if you don't agree. 462 01:06:28.840 --> 01:06:32.080 You might not be worse off, but you're not better off either. 463 01:06:32.080 --> 01:06:39.320 So we don't have a standard prisoner's dilemma according to, so Gaultier's analysis really 464 01:06:39.320 --> 01:06:42.960 isn't fully accurate as a way of understanding Hobbes. 465 01:06:42.960 --> 01:06:47.840 It's a very important book, but he hasn't really gotten Hobbes' argument right. 466 01:06:47.840 --> 01:06:57.400 Hobbes' argument is that we really don't have much to lose if we make the agreement, 467 01:06:57.400 --> 01:07:07.080 And we have a great deal to gain, so it's to our interest to make the agreement. 468 01:07:07.080 --> 01:07:12.720 Now you recall I mentioned there was one complication about sovereignty. 469 01:07:12.720 --> 01:07:18.600 It doesn't have to be everybody surrenders to one person. 470 01:07:18.600 --> 01:07:24.920 I just gave that kind of a simpler way of looking at the argument and Hobbes himself 471 01:07:24.920 --> 01:07:32.800 tended to favor monarchy, ruled by one person as the best form of government, but you could 472 01:07:32.800 --> 01:07:39.360 have cases where people had surrendered the sovereignty to a group or they all decided 473 01:07:39.360 --> 01:07:43.480 to exercise sovereignty in a democratic way. 474 01:07:43.480 --> 01:07:47.440 That would still be sovereign according to Hobbes. 475 01:07:47.440 --> 01:07:52.960 They all agreed to surrender their rights and decide according to the law of right of 476 01:07:52.960 --> 01:08:05.200 nature to this one body whether it's individual or a group. Now supposing we've somehow overcome 477 01:08:05.200 --> 01:08:17.120 all these obstacles and we do have a Hobbesian sovereign in operation, can the sovereign do 478 01:08:17.120 --> 01:08:28.400 anything he wants. Can he pass whatever laws he wants? Well, in one sense, he really can 479 01:08:28.400 --> 01:08:35.680 unless he does something that shows he's not able to maintain order, because then, as I 480 01:08:35.680 --> 01:08:41.360 mentioned before, people wouldn't recognize him as sovereign anymore. People have no right 481 01:08:41.360 --> 01:08:52.360 to Resist what he says, because remember they've surrendered their rights to act on their own 482 01:08:52.360 --> 01:09:01.240 behalf to him. He's the representative. However, Hobbes holds that even though the people can't 483 01:09:01.240 --> 01:09:07.520 resist the sovereign, the sovereign really shouldn't do anything he wants. There are 484 01:09:07.520 --> 01:09:17.520 In particular, limits to what he should do, especially, he should act in a way that he judges will best preserve peace. 485 01:09:17.520 --> 01:09:27.520 He shouldn't interfere, say, with people's property unless he thinks doing so is needed for peace. 486 01:09:27.520 --> 01:09:32.520 Now, I should say, what are Hobbes' views about property? 487 01:09:32.520 --> 01:09:46.520 Well, Hobbes holds, in the state of nature, each person is entitled to own property, but only property that's needed for his life. 488 01:09:46.520 --> 01:09:56.520 It's wrong to take property from more property, preventing so much property that other people can't live. 489 01:09:56.520 --> 01:09:59.520 This would be needlessly malicious to them. 490 01:09:59.520 --> 01:10:01.520 The Theory of Money and State The Theory of Money and State 491 01:10:29.520 --> 01:10:37.960 and what property people should have, and it should make sure that each person has enough 492 01:10:37.960 --> 01:10:43.240 necessary, has enough property necessary to live on. 493 01:10:43.240 --> 01:10:51.180 But once the government has set what it's, set out what the property titles are, it's 494 01:10:51.180 --> 01:10:55.200 wrong to interfere with those. 495 01:10:55.200 --> 01:11:05.200 The Federal Reserve specifically holds that it's wrong for the government to have redistributive taxation. 496 01:11:05.200 --> 01:11:10.200 It shouldn't have an income tax. It's better to have the tax on consumption. 497 01:11:10.200 --> 01:11:22.200 It shouldn't just take money from some and give it to others because that wouldn't be its real function. 498 01:11:22.200 --> 01:11:34.200 There was an influential book by the Canadian historian of political philosophy, C. B. McPherson, 499 01:11:43.200 --> 01:11:49.200 that came out in 1962, called The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism. 500 01:11:49.200 --> 01:11:57.960 And he argues that what Hobbes was really doing when he says that the government shouldn't 501 01:11:57.960 --> 01:12:05.340 have redistributive taxation and other things, he says, and he was insuring, he was acting 502 01:12:05.340 --> 01:12:10.480 kind of as a spokesman of the rising capitalist class. 503 01:12:10.480 --> 01:12:18.200 He was favoring, he thought that by having a strong state he would be promoting the economy 504 01:12:18.200 --> 01:12:26.680 and from this, from the, so that we would have a medieval system where people had more 505 01:12:26.680 --> 01:12:33.720 obligations based on kind of a Christian view of natural law, had obligations to each other. 506 01:12:33.720 --> 01:12:41.880 And what Hobbes aimed to do was replace this by a capitalist system in which people could, 507 01:12:41.880 --> 01:12:46.440 subject to certain limits, acquire whatever they wanted. 508 01:12:46.440 --> 01:13:11.440 So, it's a Marxist interpretation where Hobbes is taken to be the ideologist of the rising bourgeoisie, but this is not a very convincing interpretation, because first place, as I mentioned, Hobbes does recognize limits to property, you can't, you have to provide for the poor. 509 01:13:11.440 --> 01:13:29.440 And also, if you said that, if you took McPherson's view, it seemed like you'd have to say that the remnants of the medieval system, which is really the state of nature, 510 01:13:29.440 --> 01:13:36.440 the new system is really, how does it really take the medieval system to be the state of nature, but that isn't at all plausible. 511 01:13:36.440 --> 01:14:04.440 So the state of nature that he's imagining is a system where people really don't have any obligations to each other at all, but on McPherson's view, this new form of state is replacing this previously existing situation, which was the medieval one, so McPherson's really got the chronology wrong. 512 01:14:04.440 --> 01:14:10.320 Hobbes' imagining not changed from the medieval system and changed from this state of nature 513 01:14:10.320 --> 01:14:16.280 where people don't have any fixed obligation to each other. 514 01:14:16.280 --> 01:14:25.240 I think in the time remaining I'll just say a few things about Hobbes' views on religion, 515 01:14:25.240 --> 01:14:32.200 which just like in political theory had a very distinctive position that was quite different 516 01:14:32.200 --> 01:14:38.040 for Nearly Anybody Else. 517 01:14:38.040 --> 01:14:48.120 Some people think Leo Strauss is one of these, in this case Strauss isn't as unusual as Strauss 518 01:14:48.120 --> 01:14:51.160 and sometimes are when they're considering other figures. 519 01:14:51.160 --> 01:14:59.720 Some people say Hobbes is really an atheist because he says we really don't know any, 520 01:14:59.720 --> 01:15:04.720 Remember, he said we don't know anything about God's properties. 521 01:15:04.720 --> 01:15:11.720 Say, if we say God is infinite or all-powerful, we don't have any ideas of those things. 522 01:15:11.720 --> 01:15:17.720 Those things are just words, so when Hobbes refers to God in various contexts, 523 01:15:17.720 --> 01:15:26.720 isn't he really talking in kind of a language that's just designed for popular consumption? 524 01:15:26.720 --> 01:15:34.720 If in those days you said you don't believe in God, you could get into very big trouble and you could lose your own life very easily. 525 01:15:34.720 --> 01:15:38.720 So Hobbes didn't want to say that, but he was really an atheist. 526 01:15:38.720 --> 01:15:47.720 But I think it's more plausible to think that Hobbes did believe in a sort of God, but it was rather peculiar. 527 01:15:47.720 --> 01:15:53.720 He thought there was a first cause, it was some kind of material entity that was causing the war, 528 01:15:53.720 --> 01:16:04.220 Because we really couldn't say much about it. So it was kind of a god. In some sense, we can't say anything really about its properties. 529 01:16:04.220 --> 01:16:17.220 Now, does this make him a practical atheist? I mean, we have people today who say, well, there may be some kind of unknowable first cause, but we can't know anything about it. 530 01:16:17.220 --> 01:16:27.220 Herbert Spencer might be someone who held that view, but the person doesn't engage in any religious practices, 531 01:16:27.220 --> 01:16:34.220 so for all practical purposes you could say Spencer's an atheist even though he thinks possibly there's this unknowable. 532 01:16:34.220 --> 01:16:42.220 Is this true of Hobbes also? Well, it doesn't, I don't think this is right, 533 01:16:42.220 --> 01:16:53.220 Because Hobbes, in the Leviathan, he spends a great deal of time on describing, giving an interpretation of the Bible. 534 01:16:53.220 --> 01:17:00.220 In his other works, he places a great deal of emphasis on understanding what the Bible is saying. 535 01:17:00.220 --> 01:17:07.740 Now, you might say, well, how could he possibly do that, given his very skeptical view about 536 01:17:07.740 --> 01:17:08.740 knowledge? 537 01:17:08.740 --> 01:17:13.860 He says, well, we can't know anything other than our, what, really anything about causes 538 01:17:13.860 --> 01:17:14.860 of our perceptions. 539 01:17:14.860 --> 01:17:20.700 How can he say anything about the God-having-revealed thing to us? 540 01:17:20.700 --> 01:17:27.060 And you remember, I gave that very point as a reason for rejecting the A. Taylor's thesis, 541 01:17:27.060 --> 01:17:41.060 The way Hobbes maintains some religious views, even though he had this very skeptical view of knowledge, 542 01:17:41.060 --> 01:17:46.060 he distinguished very sharply between knowledge and opinion. 543 01:17:46.060 --> 01:17:55.060 And here his views are similar to those of an influential Anglican Church of England theologian at the time, 544 01:17:55.060 --> 01:18:18.060 William Chillingworth, who wrote a book called The Religion of Protestants. 545 01:18:18.060 --> 01:18:28.800 Now, what Chillingworth said is, we believe many things that we don't know, but we just 546 01:18:28.800 --> 01:18:36.500 believe them on testimony, say, for example, most of us, at least, I certainly believe 547 01:18:36.500 --> 01:18:43.900 that Julius Caesar existed, but how do I really know that? It's just based on accepting certain 548 01:18:43.900 --> 01:18:45.220 and Historical Evidence. 549 01:18:45.220 --> 01:18:50.220 So Chillingworth said we should accept the claims 550 01:18:51.700 --> 01:18:56.540 of the Christian revelation because there's testimony for them. 551 01:18:56.540 --> 01:19:01.060 We have no reason to reject and we might as well accept it. 552 01:19:01.060 --> 01:19:03.380 It's not a very strong reason to accept it. 553 01:19:03.380 --> 01:19:08.380 He more or less said, well, here is the historical document. 554 01:19:08.380 --> 01:19:10.740 Why not accept it? 555 01:19:10.740 --> 01:19:24.740 Hobbes, in Book de Kivé, says that the sovereign really has the power, since he's in charge of everything, 556 01:19:24.740 --> 01:19:37.740 to decide what the state religion should be, or how to interpret religion, but he ought to consult Christian divines, 557 01:19:37.740 --> 01:20:01.900 In line with Hobbes' very skeptical view of what we could know, he has a minimalist view 558 01:20:01.900 --> 01:20:10.420 of Christianity says, someone who's a Christian who believes that Jesus is the Messiah, that's 559 01:20:10.420 --> 01:20:20.500 all you need to believe to be a Christian, and the sovereign has the right to regulate, 560 01:20:20.500 --> 01:20:27.620 Christian sovereign should require that that be believed, but it has the right to regulate 561 01:20:27.620 --> 01:20:34.900 Churches and everything else. As long as you say, Jesus is the Messiah, that makes you 562 01:20:34.900 --> 01:20:39.740 a Christian. And this is taken, Hobbes takes this, he makes clear in the Latin parts of 563 01:20:39.740 --> 01:20:45.500 the viaduct, in a very this-worldly way. It means something like Jesus will come back 564 01:20:45.500 --> 01:20:54.220 to earth in some way, and he'll reign over all of us. And people who don't believe in 565 01:20:54.220 --> 01:21:11.220 When the Bible talks about everlasting hell, this doesn't mean that people live or go to hell when they die forever. 566 01:21:11.220 --> 01:21:20.220 It just means that there are always new people who are going to be annihilated by being burnt in hell. 567 01:21:50.220 --> 01:21:57.340 Getting out of the system where each person is acting on his interpretation of what he 568 01:21:57.340 --> 01:21:59.060 needs for survival. 569 01:21:59.060 --> 01:22:04.340 One thing that concerned him when we tried to apply this to the situation that confronted 570 01:22:04.340 --> 01:22:12.660 him was he feared that intellectuals, especially those who were dominated by certain religious 571 01:22:12.660 --> 01:22:19.140 views, would set people to conflict with each other. 572 01:22:19.140 --> 01:22:27.540 Remember, in Europe at the time, there had been the Thirty Years War, 1618 to 1648, in 573 01:22:27.540 --> 01:22:37.860 which there were tremendous fights involving religion that really had a very bad effect. 574 01:22:37.860 --> 01:22:42.820 One third of the population of Germany, for example, died during the Thirty Years War. 575 01:22:42.820 --> 01:22:51.100 So Hobbes thought that it's extremely important that the sovereign be in control of religion 576 01:22:51.100 --> 01:22:57.700 and prevent these intellectuals, religious intellectuals from setting the people at odds 577 01:22:57.700 --> 01:22:58.700 with one another. 578 01:22:58.700 --> 01:23:05.220 In a book he wrote on the history of English Civil War, Behemoth, Behemoth was another 579 01:23:05.220 --> 01:23:09.420 biblical monster just like Leviathan. 580 01:23:09.420 --> 01:23:18.220 He blames the onset of the English Civil War on dissident religious people, especially 581 01:23:18.220 --> 01:23:21.700 the ones that really got him upset were Calvinists. 582 01:23:21.700 --> 01:23:29.140 He thought Calvinists were the real enemy and the ones he was most concerned to oppose. 583 01:23:29.140 --> 01:23:36.620 So I think the basic here, remember in my first talk I said I didn't think I was going 584 01:23:36.620 --> 01:23:45.620 I'm going to be guilty of the Whig interpretation of history and saying that it was a constant progress for more and more libertarian ideas. 585 01:23:45.620 --> 01:23:51.620 This is, I think, my leading support for saying that I'm not guilty of this. 586 01:23:51.620 --> 01:24:04.620 What we have in Hobbes is how we see how an insistence on security at all costs leads to a very non-libertarian view of things. 587 01:24:04.620 --> 01:24:14.620 So, I think we have a little bit of time for questions, objections. Anybody? Rodman? 588 01:24:14.620 --> 01:24:31.620 Well, I'm not going to convert comedy into tragedy by trying to answer that. 589 01:24:44.620 --> 01:25:13.620 The question was, how could Hobbes say there was a state of nature? This is not an object we can see. It seems like a purely imaginary construction. 590 01:25:13.620 --> 01:25:33.620 I think Hoppe really had two answers to this. One is that he thought that nations were in a state of nature in regard to each other, say, there's no sovereignty, say, between England and France, so they're really in a state of nature in regard to the other. 591 01:25:33.620 --> 01:25:53.620 Then also he thought that regardless of whether we could show historically that there was such a thing as a state of nature, we could imagine ourselves to be in this by saying, well, imagine there is no sovereign. What would it be like for us? 592 01:25:53.620 --> 01:26:00.620 Something a bit like, as we'll see in one of the later lectures, a bit like John Rawls' original position. 593 01:26:00.620 --> 01:26:08.620 It's kind of a hypothetical device. In fact, as Rawls makes clear in his recent public lectures on the history of political philosophy, 594 01:26:08.620 --> 01:26:19.620 he was influenced by Hobbes to some extent. So to some extent, the state of nature doesn't depend on actually looking at something. 595 01:26:19.620 --> 01:26:23.620 We imagine what it would be like to be in it. 596 01:26:49.620 --> 01:26:55.620 The question is, how does one see this? 597 01:26:55.620 --> 01:27:01.620 The power of the sovereign person is the power of everyone else to go along with it. 598 01:27:01.620 --> 01:27:07.620 But if it's really everyone else who is in the social order of doing, why do we need the sovereign? 599 01:27:07.620 --> 01:27:15.620 The sovereign power depends on the personal opinion. Why doesn't the personal opinion belong there? 600 01:27:15.620 --> 01:27:38.620 Yes, the question was, Hobbes says in the same nature, really, people aren't so unequal that even the weakest person can kill the strongest person, so isn't this really still in effect? 601 01:27:38.620 --> 01:27:50.020 One sovereign is establishing that sovereign is just one person, so what is he really doing to enforce, how is he really able to enforce the state of peace? 602 01:27:50.020 --> 01:28:04.180 If you say, well, people are cooperating with him, then isn't it the case that it's the people's cooperation that's really doing the job and not the sovereign isn't doing anything. 603 01:28:04.180 --> 01:28:34.180 I think this is an excellent point. In fact, I think that's how, you know, a return view would say, that's how we do get social order, is that everyone is really coming to accept a certain law of nature, certain rights that people have in the way of doing things, but I think what Hobbes would answer is, it isn't the sovereign himself who's doing it, but what the sovereign is needed is to kind of coordinate 604 01:28:34.180 --> 01:28:40.740 How do you coordinate how all these people who want to agree are to do things? Hoppe, 605 01:28:40.740 --> 01:28:46.260 as you remember, is not a Hayekian. He doesn't think order can develop spontaneously. So 606 01:28:46.260 --> 01:28:52.700 what the sovereign is doing is he's saying, well, this is how we're going to arrange things. 607 01:28:52.700 --> 01:28:58.660 And then everybody else has agreed to follow him. So if he were taken away, we might have 608 01:28:58.660 --> 01:29:04.160 a will to cooperate, but we'd just be in a situation where each of us would have different 609 01:29:04.160 --> 01:29:09.640 ideas on how to cooperate. This is this this part of the argument is really one 610 01:29:09.640 --> 01:29:15.200 he stresses more in elements of law of law in the Akiva is this coordinated 611 01:29:15.200 --> 01:29:19.120 function of the sovereign. So I think that would be the basic response you 612 01:29:19.120 --> 01:29:21.480 might give to your point. 613 01:29:21.480 --> 01:29:27.680 So even if we're all willing to agree, instead of our all having to agree on one 614 01:29:27.680 --> 01:29:33.480 thesis after another, after another, after another, we have to agree on one piece, whatever that guy says. 615 01:29:33.480 --> 01:29:45.780 Yes, that's exactly the point, what Hobbes is saying. If we all want to agree, instead of having to agree on all sorts of different things, we just all agree that this one person is going to decide things. 616 01:29:45.780 --> 01:29:51.480 I think that's an excellent way of putting Hobbes's, at least one of Hobbes's basic points, Matthew. 617 01:29:51.480 --> 01:30:20.480 I was wondering if you could tell me where I could find the reference to that boxed work and also if you could speak a little bit more on the meaning of that biblical story, I'm sorry, how it was worked, the meaning of that biblical story. 618 01:30:21.480 --> 01:30:33.480 Oh, well, the question had to do with this episode from the Bible that mentioned Naaman bowing down in the House of Riman. 619 01:30:33.480 --> 01:30:45.480 What was the reference in Hobbes' work? That I'll look up for you. I don't have a very good memory for such things and I don't know it offhand. 620 01:30:45.480 --> 01:31:15.480 I used to be able to remember things, but not too much anymore, but as to, the other question was, on more, this will be, I guess, the last thing, because we're out of time, on the meaning of it, is something like, as I understand it, what Naaman's point of view, which is not, I should say, doesn't appear to be endorsed by the Bible, it's just something that he says he's doing, is something like, he's saying that he can separate his inner beliefs 621 01:31:15.480 --> 01:31:24.480 from what he's required to do publicly. He's bowing down in the House of Rehman, because that's what his king is told him to do. 622 01:31:24.480 --> 01:31:29.480 But by doing that, he doesn't indicate that he's really believing that. 623 01:31:29.480 --> 01:31:40.480 So I think this is very important, the theme that comes up in Kant's political philosophy, other writers, particularly amongst the German philosophies, 624 01:31:40.480 --> 01:32:08.480 The point here is that Hobbes is saying that you don't have to be a martyr because you can still believe in Christianity internally. 625 01:32:08.480 --> 01:32:19.480 You just don't have to. You just, when you conform externally to what the idol worshippers say, you're not really indicating that you're an idol worshiper. 626 01:32:19.480 --> 01:32:24.480 But I think it would be idle to go on further. Thanks.