Hobbes View on Senses Influence His Overall Theory - Essay Example

Your May 16, Philosophy Paper How does Hobbes’ view on our senses influence his overall theory?Hobbes took another path to sense, or sensory perceptions, than his Christian counterparts; for Hobbes asserted that it is our sense that enable us to know our surroundings. That is to say, Hobbes held the view that we acquire knowledge through our senses and/or sensory perceptions. Hobbes stated that each of the ideas or thoughts of men are “a representation or appearance of some quality, or other accident of a body without us, which is commonly called an object” (Hobbes Chapter I). According to Hobbes, these representations or objects caused motion inside us, which ultimately reaches our brain and heart, by pressing on our sense organs. Thus, all knowledge of things comes to us by objects that are outside. In a way, Hobbes has put forward a mechanism of knowledge; we receive stimuli and our brain and heart interpret it and then they send us signals that help us interpret what that thing is. However, at least in Leviathan, Hobbes is not too clear on how the signals are sent from within us. Hobbes goes on to state that, thus, “when we would express the decay, and signify that the sense is fading, old and past, it is called memory” (Hobbes Chapter II). He says that memory is simply our old sensory perceptions that have faded enough for us to not be able to remember them clearly, likening it to the light of the stars which fades during daylight, but is there still. Thus, our experiences are the sum of our memories. For Hobbes, memory is at par with imagination, with one slight difference, memory must always be empirically possible, whereas imagination need not be so. However, what is interesting is that Hobbes does not lay down the condition that memory has to be true in the sense of it having actually occurred, it can be an untrue event when it comes to the veracity of its occurrence, but it will be considered a memory of it is empirically possible. So, according to Hobbes, all memory, just like our senses, are perceived from objects that are outside of us, which we interpret through our sensory perception. In turn, it is these memories that shape up our world-view and our beliefs about things that are around us. 2. How does the theory of recollection relate to two other major concepts in Plato’s dialogues? When it came to memory, Plato held the view that everything that we know, or will ever know, is actually present in our memory already, or anamnesis. Time, and its passing, are mere illusions, when what is actually happening is that our memory is unfolding, nothing more. We are not acquiring new knowledge, rather it is our old memories that are unfolding and the illusion of time makes us believe that something new is happening. With his theory, Plato gave a possible explanation of the sense of déjà vu that all of us have experienced time and again. Thus, Plato also makes out the case for the immortality of our souls. According to Platy, when our bodies die, our souls do not. Our souls, according to Plato, have always existed and always will in the future. So, our souls “as being immortal, and having been born again many times, and having seen all things that exist, whether in this world or in the world below, ha[ve] knowledge of them all” (Plato Meno). The fact that Plato considers our souls are immortal is actually very deeply connected with his theory of recollection; for only if our souls are immortal do we every have the chance to know everything, thereby merely recollecting various data, and not learning new things. On the point of virtue, when Plato talks about it with Meno, the latter asks him how virtue is acquired. Plato asks Meno to describe what virtue is, and thereby a discussion starts that leads to the Meno’s Paradox: Plato says that if we are not aware of virtue, then how do we know it when we find it, and if we are, indeed, aware of what virtue is, then is it not true that we were always aware of it. Thus according to Plato, the human being is always aware of what is virtue or what is the right thing to do. This is in line with his theory of recollection; all human beings know all there is to know, and our lives are actually, through the illusion of time, are creating the image of us learning, whereas we are actually simply recollecting. That is how, we are born knowing virtue and that is how we recognize it when we see it. 3. Whose philosophy is better justified, Plato’s or Hobbes’? When it comes to a comparison between Plato’s theory of recollection and Hobbes’ theory of sense perception (the former stating that we have prior knowledge of all things and are merely recollecting our memories, and the later stating that our memories are all that can be empirically possible to be perceived), perhaps Hobbes’ theory has more justification than Plato’s. Plato bases his theory on some inexplicable phenomenon, like déjà vu for instance, and plays with words in a way that makes the listener believe that perhaps he, i.e. Plato, is right about us having prior knowledge of everything, and merely recollecting our memories in our lifetime. However, what it lacks to explain is just how and when did our souls acquire all this knowledge, for there has to be a time when our souls were not aware of it all. Moreover, he does not consider the fact that for a grown person (like Meno, for instance, with whom he was talking) the society has had enough of an effect to impress upon him its ideals about virtue and what it is. Hobbes, on the other hand, holds an empiricist point of view; our memories are all that our sense have experienced through various outside forces, which were in turn interpreted by our heart and brain. For him, our memories are not recollections in the sense that they are prior knowledge, but they are recollections of our senses or the experiences of our senses. However, what is intriguing about Hobbes’ view is that he only calls a false memory that memory which is empirically impossible – flying, for instance – calling it imagination instead. Thus, according to Hobbes, we learn new things everyday through our five senses, and then it is these sensory impressions that those objects leave on us, that help us gain knowledge about things around us. We are not born with knowledge, rather it is the force of the outside objects upon our senses and their interpretations in our brain and heart which help us make sense of the world around us and learn new things about it. Thus, all our knowledge is restricted to our sensory experiences. 4. Explain Hobbes’ thinking on the Commonwealth. Hobbes concluded that human beings could not live in isolation and could not rely on themselves solely for their own protection and safety, thereby, he came up with the idea of the Commonwealth or, as he aptly named the book he sought to describe the Commonwealth in, the Leviathan. To summarize, Hobbes propounded that human beings are often times in the state of war with one another because they “naturally love liberty, and dominion over others” (Hobbes Chapter XVII), so to avoid that and to leave a more comfortable and satisfied life, they should allocate their powers to a sovereign. The sovereign shall look after their interests for them, in return for a promise from the people that they obey. The sovereign should be given the power to make the subjects obey, by having the authority to punish them for their wrongdoing, thereby, making sure that they perform their covenants and do not commit excesses. Hobbes said that man cannot control his vices nor follow the laws of nature, without some external fear of some power, as he put it “covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all” (Hobbes Chapter XVII). Hobbes did not believe in separation of powers, and he lay down twelve main rights of the sovereign in Chapter XVIII of Leviathan, which include that he can make any law and can be the judge in all cases, can reward and/or punish anyone he desires, as well as appoint anyone he wants as counselors, magistrates, or officers. Hobbes did not lay out a single “ideal” commonwealth, rather he lay down the possibility of there being three kinds of commonwealth/sovereign: “When the representative is one man, then is the Commonwealth a monarchy; when an assembly of all that will come together, then it is a democracy, or popular Commonwealth; when an assembly of a part only, then it is called an aristocracy” (Hobbes Chapter XIX). There can be, according to Hobbes, only these three kinds of Commonwealth, as he states that those that are purported to be any other kind are actually one of these three. He also opined that of these three, monarchy is the best Commonwealth, as it is, according to Hobbes at least, only in a monarchy that people’s interests are truly represented because, “[t]he riches, power, and honour of a monarch arise only from the riches, strength, and reputation of his subjects” (Hobbes Chapter XIX). Works Cited Hobbes, Thomas. The Leviathan. Oregon State University. Oregon State University, n.d. Web. 14 May 2010. < http://oregonstate.edu/>. Plato. Meno. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. The Internet Classics Archive. Web Atomic and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, n.d. Web. 14 May 2010. . Read More