Week 1_Coercion or Reason_Parker

First, I would just like to say that it’s been more than four years since I’ve read such antiquated writing, and yes I consider 400 years old to be antiquated, it’s practically a foreign language when you think about the progression of spelling, grammar, and other mechanical aspects of literature.  I found that reading the text aloud greatly contributed to my ability to interpret and digest the text.

Part one could possibly be one of the inspirations for the lyrics of Gilbert and Sullivan’s “The Modern Major-General Song”(please enjoy the video if you don't know what this is!).  While initially perusing the topics to be covered in the section, I couldn’t’ help but draw a correlation between the variety and depth of subjects and the Major-General’s claim to a highly educated and well rounded persona; it was also highly amusing to imagine Hobbes parading around a stage in the Pirates of Penzance and singing about Contract Theory. Hobbes writes widely on an assortment of topics that seemed irrelevant to the overall purpose of the book at first; but, after trudging through all 16 chapters, I believe his intent was to lay a foundation.  I have learned over the years that writing, good writing, always develops a foundation or framework before attempting to dive into the depths.  Hobbes was trying to make sure that his readers understood definitions and relationships prior to his doctrinal claims so as to avoid potential confusion and/or misconstruction of his work.

Part Two is what I refer to as the “meat and potatoes” of the writing.  Hobbes starts to break down his developed doctrine of Social Contract Theory in a methodical and painfully detailed manner.  What I liked most in Part Two is Hobbes’s analogy of the ants and bees in Chapter 17.  Why can’t man live in harmony like the ants and the bees?  A simple question with a six-part answer that is simpler in statement than in comprehension.  In particular, reasons three and four stood out to me: men think themselves wiser and more able to govern the public than the rest; and men can use words to represent good as evil and evil as good.  Both of these explanations stuck out to me in light of current issues and events facing our nation today, most notably the Presidential Election Campaign.  With the way I have seen this campaign played out, it is easy to see why we, as humans, cannot live in easy harmony like the ants and the bees.

Personally, the overarching tenets of Social Contract Theory make sense to me.  I can see elements of his doctrinal beliefs played out in a multitude of events, events that occurred after Hobbes’s lifetime, which to me is pretty cool.  And I agree that man tends to be more selfish and quarrelsome than kind hearted and peaceful.  While, ultimately, Hobbes’s did have an influence on American governmental development, I am glad that Contract Theory in whole was not used.  I quite like the system put in place by our Founding Fathers.

One question that I’ve though about while reading regards the succession of the will of the people.  If a group of people come together and decide to form a contract of sovereignty with an individual or group of persons, that’s great.  But what happens when their children grow up and none of them like the current contract?  Hobbes’s appears, to me at least anyways, to say “too bad, so sad”.  The contract, according to Hobbes, is unbreakable unless circumstances meet certain requirements.  If the people (grown up children in this case) decide they no longer support the contract agreed to by their parents, they have no “legal” recourse.  This seems harsh and unfair to those children who were born into existing contract societies.  While, as an American, I am by no means complaining about being born into my “contract society”, but I’m sure people exist who do.