Hobbes And Locke

Andrew Stevens' comment over at A&J is worth a read. I'll re-post here for convenience:

I'm not at all convinced that Hobbes had a good influence on Locke. Locke's philosophy is a reaction against Hobbes's and is, therefore, deeply entwined with it. But I can't help but think that Locke would have done better work had he never read Hobbes at all.

Hobbes began the long error of social contract theory which is an obvious fiction, but also an unnecessary fiction. Nobody ever lived in either a Hobbesian, Lockian, or Rousseauian "state of nature" without a government. Government predates man as a reasoning creature. The earliest government is absolute rule by the tribal elders. The theory is also unnecessary for Locke since he can reach most of his conclusions using the actual origins of republics, the handing down of constitutions voluntarily accepted by the people.

So I believe basically that Hobbes's entire philosophy was a sterile dead end. However, I can believe that and still believe, as Withywindle does, that he was a profound and brilliant man. I certainly don't agree with criticisms of him based on his belief that he had squared the circle. He thought he had succeeded at the age of 67 and argued about it until his death 24 years later at the age of 91. In the history of mathematics, people aged 67 and over have probably contributed virtually nothing useful, even if their other faculties remain sharp. It should be pointed out that while squaring the circle exactly is impossible, it is possible to come as arbitrarily close to exact as one likes - you just can't reach total precision. It is easy to see how people can fool themselves into thinking they've solved it even though they haven't. So what if Hobbes made some mathematical errors in his old age?

By the way, these errors were a result of his materialism. He was attempting to recast geometry into a materialist mold, removing the metaphysics of mathematics. His attempt was a noble and valiant one and should be respected. Materialist mathematics deserves a thorough attempt before one is forced to reject it. (Of course, there have been better attempts since Hobbes, though none fare any better, in my opinion.)

Materialism was precisely his flaw. FLG has long maintained that the important things are often ethereal and can't quantified. Love, to name just one.

A similar flaw occurs with the people who argue in favor of more math and science education. It's not great technology for great technology's sake that's important, but technology that's useful to people. That ameliorates or mitigates the human condition in some capacity. Those with math, science, and engineering educations too often are formed in a way that fundamentally misunderstands the human condition, which is why it takes somebody like Steve Jobs, a liberal arts drop-out, to make technology that works for people.

The focus on materialism and empiricism is one of the biggest flaws of the modern age, even if it has produced increased dominion over the material world. It's not that empiricism and materialism are wrong, but that the overemphasis has caused distortions and created unseen unassumptions.

Anyway, good comment by Andrew even if I'm rambling on about technology and other stuff that has nothing to do with it.