Fear Drives Us

[dannyb0y02]

i came across this great concept in my mind today, and i was really impressed by it; so much so, in fact, that i figured it warranted a livejournal posting, not to say that it will be as impressive in text, but nonetheless i'll let you in on my thoughts

Comments

[dannyb0y02]

Hobbes' philosophy of conquering fear sprang from the context of the threat of civil war in 17th Century England. He believed that to avoid fear itself, which manifested as civil war, sovereignty in an absolute monarchy must be once again employed. At a time when England was rich in republican philosophy, needless to say, Hobbes' idea was not taken with splendor.

In applying this to my lj entry, it seems that to conquer our fear-driven behavior, we must employ ourselves in an absolute monarchy. In doing so, Hobbes might argue that we would be protecting the security of our own commonwealth. In this way, perhaps we would be able to vanquish our fear-driven behavior.

I really appreciate this view from a classic philosopher. Thanks (anonymous) for giving me this insight.

After reviewing, I do have some concerns, however.

In creating our own Leviathan, do we, in fact allow ourselves to be driven, though not by fear, through our own selfish desires? Is absolute monarchy really the answer to defeating fear? Because if it is, then my options are
1) to become blind to anything that does not promote my SELF and person, without being driven by fear, or:
2) allow fear to control some behavior, but also remain humanistic, in that I am still able to put others before myself on occasion?

Perhaps there is no simple answer, and being raised in a democratic society, I am obviously biased against a political monarchy, but it seems as though the best compromise can be reached through a personal philosophy of, by, and for the people in my life.

There is no answer. It will always be a struggle, and it may lead to civil war (self-conflict). After all, The Articles of Confederation failed due to a lack of a sovereign power. Even our E Pluribus Unum government had to ensure one central, sovereign, power.

Is it really (between (1) and (2)) just one or the other?

I'm not satisfied with those choices...there has to be more....