Professor Sugrue, May you rest in peace. The insight you brought while on this planet was not only exceptional, it was inspired! Thank you for all you taught us. 😔🕯
Mr Sugrue's knowledge of western philosophy and beyond was second to none, and few can communicate it as effectively as he could. I'm working my way through his videos and learning a great deal in the process - for that I am eternally grateful, to him and his daughter, may his videos continue on to educate countless generations into the future. When it comes to current geopolitical events, however, his views often fall in line with the 'western narrative' - in this video re. Ukraine/Russia and China, for example. I guess you can't be a maestro of philosophy while also keeping abreast of geopolitical developments, simultaneously. This doesn't detract from his immense knowledge of philosophy and world history, of course. RIP, Mr Sugrue.
There are many enlightening things to watch on the good ole UA-cam. Especially Dr. Sugre, among others. Learning is evident when one specifically has a quest for knowledge. In addition to reading leather bound books in your hands for many years is a choice only you can choose. Unfortunately, most people are concerned about acquiring money and security and class. Class, race, and culture have always been entwined . ❤️🌟
I don't think they're speaking necessarily about UA-cam. I, personally,for the most part (other than democracy now!,us national archives or the occasional Chomsky lectures) don't watch anything that wasn't first broadcasted on television(where, except for a minority of networks, there's at least a modicum of oversight and accountability for falsehoods) except this. Also,since the older videos were released by reputable institutions, he's been vetted. I feel like that is how one responsibly uses UA-cam.
How does he do it? Even when I think I am well grounded in a particular historic figure, or text, or intellectual/philosophical 'school', every time I listen to Dr. Sugrue, I learn something new about the subject, and I'm not talking minutiae here; I'm talking about new perspectives, or integration points, and new "reasons to care". The man has a gift for seeing patterns where most of us just see dots.
One of the best lectures I've listened to. Explains the roots of democratic politics, social reality and the strange truth of a post Hobbesian society set against the reality of a Hobbesian world.
Choose your friends carefully! What a good friend Professor Sugrue is to have access to. Thanks to God for these recordings, and thank you Prof. Sugrue for making your life's work accessible to nobodies like me. Peace.
Just wanted to say I discovered you for the first time last night with your Marcus Aurelius lecture. Already very familiar with the subject but your talents made it so engaging. Thank you for being you and always doing what you do. New fan here :-)
@@lucasvarela9632 that's a shame I read another comment he was sick a while. I am glad he is able to do this now while coping with cancer, living life 😇
I absolutely adore these short disposition’s. Wonderful style. However can you please please please revisit Schopenhauer. Hope you understand without the commas! As you get older has the position changed?
I always get so much out of these. "Once you've won, you can talk to me about god or whatever..." Hahah. It's funny, I feel smarter for now knowing this stuff, yet kind of ignorant for not knowing in the first place. The Greeks probably have a single word that says all that. Always a treat. Thanks Doc.
Somehow I missed reading The Leviathan in University. Now I see what a vital work it is and have to go and plow through it at some point. You truly make these works shine and I commend you on your continued enthusiasm for the great Western canon. I’ve had my daily brain infusion, and now can go on feeling as if I have accomplished something today.
Thank you for the lesson! From what I heard he stated monarchies as the primary form of government. I took a break from Thucydides, it's pretty hardcore. I appreciate your time!
Hobbes is right on the money about human nature, God, reality. And if Marcus Aurelius were the ruler, his idea of government would be terrific, if Hitler, not so much.
I did a paper on Machiavelli and Hobbes and the prompt was if they were relevant in contemporary times. Thank you for talking about international law also this was very interesting.
Thank you, Michael! Really appreciate all your content. What a well-trained mind you have - an inspiration to all pseudo-intellectuals, like myself, out there. J Just handed in my master-thesis on the subject of european sanctions on Russia, but watching this made me wish I had delved more into political theory.
Wow! Great analysis. I'll be retiring next year and will put together a timeline of thought from your earlier lectures and include these and listen again. Thanks for delivering this set of lectures in the chronological order of the development of new/modified ideas. You have a great observation that in international politics, we are experiencing a Hobbsian phenomenon. I believe you've hit the nail on the head. Historically, there has never been a "world" government. While there have been a number of individual nations which developed principles, or social contracts, that were effective within that nation and it's culture; and there have been a number of nations which sought world domination, it has never happened. Will Durant wrote a mini-history book called "Heros of History", which tracks the sequence of great ideas throughout western civilization. I found it enlightening, but due to my very limited knowledge at the time, I am now convinced that my understanding was equally limited. It is time for me to revisit that as well. Please keep up the great work, your contributions to humanity are invaluable!
To invoke a little Bengali-- Dr. Michael Sugrue ki... Jaya! Thank you for your continued output. Looking forward to Locke next week. I'll study Leviathan until the next video. If you get a chance-- what do you think of the whole Rousseau's, "Social Contract" idea that (to paraphrase a bit) that, "yeah we got Social Contract theory right but at some point we seem to have, "over-civilized" ourselves kind of idea?" It reminds me of something you give in a lot of your videos-- the synthesis of Reason and Love. It seems like we've achieved relatively, "reasonable" societal relations but we've still got a lot of work to do on the, "Love dominated and mediated by Reason" side of things. We all have sense that IR policy is really backward compared to how, "advanced" we've become (reading Cicero I have doubts) but there doesn't seem to be a clear, "solution" to international violence that doesn't fall back on Thucydides or Hobbes. It seems like, "cultures of violence" will always somehow be necessary. As a 90's Fukuyama kid that makes me very sad. It's kind of backward but I'd be willing to bet that like you say-- in the Realpolitik sense China is eventually going to take Taiwan without a serious international struggle. Big fish > Small fish and the, "bigger fish" that would mediate the, "biggerist" fish is addicted to cheap goods. Not to mention a whole mega shit-ton of private wealth in the United States is managed by Chinese groups. I sure hope this, "Harmonious Society" idea is as good as they say because it seems like this will be the dominant ideology of the 21st century-- Socialized, State-Protectionist Capitalism mixed with ideological Pragmatism. As a student of Rorty I'm actually kind of excited.
I'd be willing to argue, "against myself" here and say that this isn't a major change-- "Ideological Pragmatism as an excuse to be, "flexible"" seems to be a winning strategy historically. Remembering Hume that you, "can't derive an ought form an is" it seems like the Marine Corps (Banana) Wars of the 19th-early 20th century aren't a far cry from a kind of, "new Imperialist Pragmatism." Remembering your lecture on Machiavelli-- it isn't who is, "right" it's who is, "right and definitely politically and militarily effective. History is written by the victor and so forth (...) I guess I'm still asking, "but what's Love got to do with it!?" ;3
One way to situate Hobbes historically is to see him as one generation after Shakespeare. Shakespeare came at the end of the Tudor Dynasty and Hobbes at the beginning of the Stuart. Shakespeare came at the end of the age of absolute monarchy and Hobbes at the beginning of the age of parliamentary democracy. But of course, Shakespeare lived to see the end of the Tudor Dynasty and the end of the Elizabethan age. Shakespeare's imagination was still very much monarchical. His most democratic modern play is Henry IV, which is a great play to read alongside Hobbes. It's the central play in a tetralogy about the Lancastrian Revolution of 1399, when Henry the Duke of Lancaster deposed Richard II and thereby ended the principle of primogeniture for English kings, which went all the way back to King John in 1399. Not coincidentally, King John is Shakespeare's first history play, a unique play set in the middle ages, with papal legates and French hegemony over England and court politics and international rivalry. His next history play is Richard II, set two hundred years later (1399) but still set in the middle ages, though at the very end of it. The Lancastrian Revolution of 1399 marks symbolically the end of the middle ages, with its balance of power between king, nobles and church, and the beginning of modern centralized absolute monarchies. The play Henry IV is a play about revolutionary regime change. Henry IV is a sort of Lenin figure with his own Finland Station moment when he lands at Ravenspur to challenge the king who had exiled him. He is not a loathsome usurper like Richard III, he is more like a magnate revolutionary like Julius Caesar. Henry IV is a sprawling play about civil war and about the political economy of London. Hotspur and the other nobles are depicted as budding capitalists and political entrepreneurs. Henry IV disdains them for their bourgeoisness. But there is another side to Henry IV that puts it on par with Don Quixote, and that is Falstaff and the world of Eastcheap. Falstaff is the anti-Quixote. He is a real (not imaginary) knight who has been unhorsed by the decline of the middle ages. Falstaff is a knight with no illusions about the world. Yet he is as brilliant and delusional as Don Quixote. All throughput the play, Falstaff is expecting a reward at the end for his loyalty and service to the Lancastrian revolutionary regime. Instead, his delusion is dashed just like Quixote, when the king forces him to recognize his mortality and banishes him from court. Falstaff is a Socrates character whose death hangs over the whole play, even as he plays the wit and miles glorioso. Falstaff exposes the hypocrisy and insanity of war, and serves as a dramatic representation of the Lollard heretic Sir John Oldcastle. Falstaff is filled with an excess of righteous vitality, as well as food and wine! He asks Prince Hal, later Henry V, will there be gallows hanging in England when you are king? Falstaff is usually interpreted as a romantic hero of vitalism or elan vital, but in fact Falstaff is a very serious character in a political drama in which his life depends on his loyalty to the new regime. Anyway, all this to say that with respects to Hobbes, Shakespeare is the true father of modern political philosophy. But Leviathan and Henry IV are great to consider side-by-side.
Thank you for a great video. No frills, no rhetoric or underlining agenda, just amazing content with an even-handed presentation. Given the criticism at the end about Hobbes not giving 100% truth has anyone adapted the philosophy to consider humans as social and mechanistic animals?
One thing I'd call you to consider is that while Hobbes does start with the individual and end with the individual (his important idea of Popular Sovereignty in fact makes the State into a Corporation of One Person "The People" -- the idea of "The People" is One Person as a corporation which he calls a Mortal God aka The Leviathan). --There are certain things to consider about his ideas of the family. When you consider Plato's Republic, it is also similar in the sense that there is a relationship between the State (or The City) and the Individual. Plato's Republic is a reflection of the individual soul and a unitary being like Hobbes' Leviathan. Even Aristotle's Politics accused Plato of "atomization" for wanting too much unity in the State much like our contemporaries do with Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes' Leviathan & Plato's Republic together is a good case study on North Korea btw. xD A lot of the things found in those two books you'll find in North Korea, notably in Plato's Republic the root of all totalitarianism is Plato's community of pleasures and pains (a lot like Hobbes' utilitarian appetites & aversions). Plato suggested in order to better organize the State, the people should have this unity of emotion not grieving at separate things, but altogether united in emotion. You find this doctrine at play especially in North Korea where in propaganda people are all sharing emotion or highly co-ordinated to act as a body. In Plato's Republic, while not exactly like how Hobbes does it, did endorse the idea that different constituents of the Republic should come to act as One Person like organs. Back to my point about the family, because like in Plato's Statesmen, which makes the point that the family or household and the political state are no different, Hobbes also makes that case: so in the state of nature, Hobbes tries to tackle this point about the families: Hobbes says, that the family is a little city. In the state of nature, even members of the family make covenants with the parents, but amongst the families themselves, Hobbes claims, there is a war of all against all, so they consent to instituting a Commonwealth so that not only individuals but families would be at peace. Another allusion to Plato's doctrine that the household / family and State don't differ is Hobbes stating that rights of Sovereignty in the Sovereignty by Institution (fear of each other) and Sovereignty by Acquisition (basically despotic conquest, fear of him who governs) are the same. If you go back to Jean Bodin's Six Books of a Commonwealth, I think the similar case is also hinted albeit Royal Monarchy is distinguished from Lordly Monarchy, and Lordly Monarchy from Tyrannical Monarchy (which btw it's true Hobbes does away with, although Jean Bodin also made a case that tyrannical monarchy is still monarchy sorta like Hobbes). Bodin also conceded like Hobbes to Plato that household and state aren't different in governing. The reason why they maintain Plato's notion that a household and state aren't so different, as opposed to Aristotle who says they are, is for their support of monarchy imo: if you make the case state and household aren't different, then now monarchy is justifiable in having knowledge to govern the state, because if they were different then how would the monarchy know any better? like in Aristotle's notion monarchy is more proper to a household, but not to political constitutions -- which Hobbes flips upside down, his Leviathan is One Person hovering over The City or political constitution -- now that they aren't different, the Monarch has knowledge... in similar account, Hobbes urges us in the introduction of Leviathan to read ourselves to better understand Mankind -- so like Plato whose understanding of ourselves is better illuminated through the City, Hobbes Leviathan also ascertains that we can find the knowledge to govern the State in reading in ourselves Mankind and what governs Mankind. This is a bit of an incoherent ramble, but you'll see many useful points here.
This videos from Dr. Sugrue are fantastic. Would it be possibly to upload these to Spotify as audio? I like to listen on the go or while I'm working and it's easier to not have UA-cam open.
The Leviathan is one of the most surprising books I've ever read. People usually label Hobbes as a terribly authoritarian figure, which is actually true, but the book is so well written that you can actually understand the reasons why he thinks the way he thinks, and you can almost agree with him sometimes. He saw his country torn apart by civil war, so he wanted to come up with a solution for that. Now, we may not agree with his solution, but the way he builds his argument is briliant. Moreover, on the second part of the book, he writtes about the catholic church in a critique that is not only extremely eloquent, but also relevant to this day, especially if you live in a catholic country as I do.
I had no ideia who Hobbes was, then I got Leviathan and as I read the book it looked more like I was reading a book about a future China, which ends up being modern China. So except for the promotion of Marxist propaganda which still happens in China for the sake of the State not losing its identity and roots rather than because China's leaders believe in Communism, I see today's China much more as a Hobbesian State than a Marxist State and that's really impressive. I bet Hobbes would appreciate to see today's China, especially because China today is not only safe and orderly which Leviathan aims for but also a prosper country and a superpower. Now, this ideia of the people giving up on certain rights and freedoms for the sake of security and order is not something new in China, the Mandate of Heaven also demands that, but as Dr Sugrue said, it was a top-bottom decision just like Plato's Republic.
When you were speaking about mans natural instinct to preserve his life and his right to fight against an execution it reminded me of a rumor I heard that in some European country prisoners are not punished for attempting to break out of prison because its mans natural instinct to be free and to punish them for doing so would be inhumane. I don't know if it's true and I forget what country it was lol but it sounds like that policy stemmed from Hobbes perhaps?
I would love to hear a conversation between Dr. Sugrue and Dr. Jordan Peterson talking about classical western literature and philosophy. The level of brain power would be immense!
First nature then life. Life must find its way through nature. Ideals are an attempt to manage nature to construct forms contrary to nature and ironically at the same time make more of nature. Empowering nature becomes a generous well spring of ideals that supports life. Nature itself becomes the ultimate ideal. Sovereign, autonomous, with structure and objectives that continuously yield positive results and hope in between set backs. Life in perpetuity. Progress in perpetuity. The king or figure head becomes the focal point ,manifestation, of both nature and ideal. Power albeit grossly disparate still reflects the Meta physical co existence of life and nature under the Sovereign ruler. His/ her life of luxury( power) encourages the Sovereign to extend courtesy and generosity to their subjects . Life becomes an exercise of shared comittments and interests.
Oh Waze interesting, but I cannot go with labeling of earlier geniuses as intellectual mutants. This seems to be comical Darwinianism. I’m not sure that Dante reflects the top down legitimacy as clearly as you say in the divine comedy. Is one going to argue that a human being is not higher on the scale than an ameba?
Why has irony and over-determidness assumed cultural precedence? Is it Freud? Is it the ultimate end of the inward turn? Nothing means what it means. Is it a natural end to politics or religion? Is it Vico?
Thank you professor for this video. Hobbes was a great thinker. I wonder if he was popular at the time because the hard truth never sits well, specially if you basically say people are animals, so they need to be subjected. Maybe his theory was incomplete because he choice to see the sovereign as a different subject independent of the people, wich in fact the people (the submmited) is the origin of the sovereign. Or at least a condition to exist. Otherwise the sovereign would be king or queen of the ashes. Then he would think 'the people actually have some power', so instead of just erradicate internal/external war, they will just demand more things, like civil rights, and then social wellfare. Because we are not just animals lol. So we want justice and liberty because those things are good to have. It's interesting to think if a limited sovereign it's actually a weaker ruler than an absolut dictatorship. Recent history is contradicting that though. And this is my though, since the power of the Leviatan ultimate resides in the people, is better that the people are well trained, educated, healthy, with resources (capital), happy etc, instead an absolute regime that none of that exist and they are mere obligated to act. Cheers from Viña del Mar, Chile.
So when Neil deGrasse Tyson tells us about our social contact to vaccinate, Patrick Bet-David could add that avoiding democide is one of our few rights implied in the most restrictive of social contracts.
Thank you. A small price to pay for the excellence of the material you have made available to the world.
Professor Sugrue,
May you rest in peace. The insight you brought while on this planet was not only exceptional, it was inspired! Thank you for all you taught us. 😔🕯
Mr Sugrue's knowledge of western philosophy and beyond was second to none, and few can communicate it as effectively as he could. I'm working my way through his videos and learning a great deal in the process - for that I am eternally grateful, to him and his daughter, may his videos continue on to educate countless generations into the future. When it comes to current geopolitical events, however, his views often fall in line with the 'western narrative' - in this video re. Ukraine/Russia and China, for example. I guess you can't be a maestro of philosophy while also keeping abreast of geopolitical developments, simultaneously. This doesn't detract from his immense knowledge of philosophy and world history, of course. RIP, Mr Sugrue.
When people talk about how social media is so bad and dangerous, we should not forget that which opportunities offer to us like Mr. Sugrue 🎉🎉🎉
there are other ways to make his lectures public than UA-cam.
There are many enlightening things to watch on the good ole UA-cam. Especially Dr. Sugre, among others. Learning is evident when one specifically has a quest for knowledge. In addition to reading leather bound books in your hands for many years is a choice only you can choose. Unfortunately, most people are concerned about acquiring money and security and class. Class, race, and culture have always been entwined . ❤️🌟
I don't think they're speaking necessarily about UA-cam. I, personally,for the most part (other than democracy now!,us national archives or the occasional Chomsky lectures) don't watch anything that wasn't first broadcasted on television(where, except for a minority of networks, there's at least a modicum of oversight and accountability for falsehoods) except this. Also,since the older videos were released by reputable institutions, he's been vetted. I feel like that is how one responsibly uses UA-cam.
@@ttacking_you Television is definitely not the gatekeeper of truth, but whatever floats your boat pal🤣
@@chancepotter3955 if you watch videos by nobodies then enjoy your misinformation
Always a good day when Dr. Sugrue uploads a lecture, especially on Hobbes.
God bless
Thank you. You are in the right place on the right time
Thanks g man
Another great lecture. Thank you
Sandwich??? Where is it
He is the best professor ever. Thank you, Dr. Sugrue. 🎯 ❤️ I did leave a small comment. Lol
How does he do it? Even when I think I am well grounded in a particular historic figure, or text, or intellectual/philosophical 'school', every time I listen to Dr. Sugrue, I learn something new about the subject, and I'm not talking minutiae here; I'm talking about new perspectives, or integration points, and new "reasons to care". The man has a gift for seeing patterns where most of us just see dots.
I could listen to this guy count grains of sand he's so engaging
I would go full ancient here and say, that he was an old soul, hence the ability.
One of the best lectures I've listened to. Explains the roots of democratic politics, social reality and the strange truth of a post Hobbesian society set against the reality of a Hobbesian world.
one of the few good lecturers on UA-cam, who doesn't explain things as if you are explaining something to a 8 year old, nor is overwhelmingly abstract
And we lost him :(
It's so great to keep getting lectures from this great man!
Dr. Sugrue ties it all up with a bow once again. These videos are invaluable.
Choose your friends carefully! What a good friend Professor Sugrue is to have access to. Thanks to God for these recordings, and thank you Prof. Sugrue for making your life's work accessible to nobodies like me. Peace.
I'd love to hear a new lecture on Hegel from ya, Dr. Sugrue!
So happy for another video! Sugrue's professor spirit never goes away even when he isn't working.
We appreciate you professor !
Just wanted to say I discovered you for the first time last night with your Marcus Aurelius lecture. Already very familiar with the subject but your talents made it so engaging. Thank you for being you and always doing what you do. New fan here :-)
He’s a really cool guy. He has cancer right now . Cheers to many more years for Professor Sugrue
@@lucasvarela9632 that's a shame I read another comment he was sick a while. I am glad he is able to do this now while coping with cancer, living life 😇
Thank you for each one of these lectures
Love and gratitude to you and your family, thank you for all of your lessons.
Always looking forward to your videos, Professor Sugure.
Excellent as always professor. I cannot wait for the next on Locke.
Thank you Dr.Sugrue for your valuable lectures ,much appreciated.
I love these videos 💙
Dr. Sugrue, my sincere thanks for these wonderful lectures, wish you the best
Hey man, Thank you so much for doing these.
- Patrick
Dreams do come true-- been wanting this one for a while now ever since reading Quentin Skinner's work. Thanks again, professor!
You’re the best man. So great full for you I wish you the best
Thank you so much for these awesome lectures. Keep them coming! :)
well done, filled with insight
I absolutely adore these short disposition’s. Wonderful style. However can you please please please revisit Schopenhauer. Hope you understand without the commas! As you get older has the position changed?
RIP❤
You are a gem sir!
I love this channel! Thank you Dr. Sugrue for sharing your knowledge and helping us all expand our mental horizons.
I always get so much out of these. "Once you've won, you can talk to me about god or whatever..." Hahah. It's funny, I feel smarter for now knowing this stuff, yet kind of ignorant for not knowing in the first place. The Greeks probably have a single word that says all that. Always a treat. Thanks Doc.
Somehow I missed reading The Leviathan in University. Now I see what a vital work it is and have to go and plow through it at some point. You truly make these works shine and I commend you on your continued enthusiasm for the great Western canon. I’ve had my daily brain infusion, and now can go on feeling as if I have accomplished something today.
It will give you a headache.
I have Tylenol to help me through.
Still got the moves, Professor. Keep banging out those life-improving lectures 💪
just a few days ago i was wondering if you had any lectures on Hobbes and now you do! God bless
Professor, thank you!!
Thanks
9:03 "everything is in platos republic" great summary of all of philosophy
15:18 about amoeban kinesis and human behaviour
A wonderful lecturer.
Thank you for the lesson! From what I heard he stated monarchies as the primary form of government. I took a break from Thucydides, it's pretty hardcore. I appreciate your time!
Thank you professor
Hobbes is right on the money about human nature, God, reality. And if Marcus Aurelius were the ruler, his idea of government would be terrific, if Hitler, not so much.
Thank you Dr Segrue
I did a paper on Machiavelli and Hobbes and the prompt was if they were relevant in contemporary times. Thank you for talking about international law also this was very interesting.
Could you please give any reference or link for your paper , the idea in itself is quite unique, would love to give it a read.
@@atul.binda.mithlesh docs.google.com/document/d/1vxclBqTMumW5EG755KfZgK9NusLUgVCCd8pMtS7rC-8/edit?usp=sharing
Thank you. Could you please ask professor Sugrue if he ever intends to talk about Max Stirner, the post-hegelian philosopher?
गुरुदेव आपकी जय हो 🙏🏻
Thank you, Michael! Really appreciate all your content. What a well-trained mind you have - an inspiration to all pseudo-intellectuals, like myself, out there. J
Just handed in my master-thesis on the subject of european sanctions on Russia, but watching this made me wish I had delved more into political theory.
I've been reading Hobbes on my channel. Great book.
Wow! Great analysis. I'll be retiring next year and will put together a timeline of thought from your earlier lectures and include these and listen again. Thanks for delivering this set of lectures in the chronological order of the development of new/modified ideas. You have a great observation that in international politics, we are experiencing a Hobbsian phenomenon. I believe you've hit the nail on the head. Historically, there has never been a "world" government. While there have been a number of individual nations which developed principles, or social contracts, that were effective within that nation and it's culture; and there have been a number of nations which sought world domination, it has never happened.
Will Durant wrote a mini-history book called "Heros of History", which tracks the sequence of great ideas throughout western civilization. I found it enlightening, but due to my very limited knowledge at the time, I am now convinced that my understanding was equally limited. It is time for me to revisit that as well.
Please keep up the great work, your contributions to humanity are invaluable!
Great lesson!
To invoke a little Bengali-- Dr. Michael Sugrue ki... Jaya! Thank you for your continued output. Looking forward to Locke next week. I'll study Leviathan until the next video. If you get a chance-- what do you think of the whole Rousseau's, "Social Contract" idea that (to paraphrase a bit) that, "yeah we got Social Contract theory right but at some point we seem to have, "over-civilized" ourselves kind of idea?" It reminds me of something you give in a lot of your videos-- the synthesis of Reason and Love. It seems like we've achieved relatively, "reasonable" societal relations but we've still got a lot of work to do on the, "Love dominated and mediated by Reason" side of things. We all have sense that IR policy is really backward compared to how, "advanced" we've become (reading Cicero I have doubts) but there doesn't seem to be a clear, "solution" to international violence that doesn't fall back on Thucydides or Hobbes. It seems like, "cultures of violence" will always somehow be necessary. As a 90's Fukuyama kid that makes me very sad.
It's kind of backward but I'd be willing to bet that like you say-- in the Realpolitik sense China is eventually going to take Taiwan without a serious international struggle. Big fish > Small fish and the, "bigger fish" that would mediate the, "biggerist" fish is addicted to cheap goods. Not to mention a whole mega shit-ton of private wealth in the United States is managed by Chinese groups. I sure hope this, "Harmonious Society" idea is as good as they say because it seems like this will be the dominant ideology of the 21st century-- Socialized, State-Protectionist Capitalism mixed with ideological Pragmatism. As a student of Rorty I'm actually kind of excited.
I'd be willing to argue, "against myself" here and say that this isn't a major change-- "Ideological Pragmatism as an excuse to be, "flexible"" seems to be a winning strategy historically. Remembering Hume that you, "can't derive an ought form an is" it seems like the Marine Corps (Banana) Wars of the 19th-early 20th century aren't a far cry from a kind of, "new Imperialist Pragmatism." Remembering your lecture on Machiavelli-- it isn't who is, "right" it's who is, "right and definitely politically and militarily effective. History is written by the victor and so forth (...)
I guess I'm still asking, "but what's Love got to do with it!?" ;3
I hope you consider doing one of these overviews on John Stuart Mill
One way to situate Hobbes historically is to see him as one generation after Shakespeare. Shakespeare came at the end of the Tudor Dynasty and Hobbes at the beginning of the Stuart. Shakespeare came at the end of the age of absolute monarchy and Hobbes at the beginning of the age of parliamentary democracy.
But of course, Shakespeare lived to see the end of the Tudor Dynasty and the end of the Elizabethan age. Shakespeare's imagination was still very much monarchical. His most democratic modern play is Henry IV, which is a great play to read alongside Hobbes.
It's the central play in a tetralogy about the Lancastrian Revolution of 1399, when Henry the Duke of Lancaster deposed Richard II and thereby ended the principle of primogeniture for English kings, which went all the way back to King John in 1399.
Not coincidentally, King John is Shakespeare's first history play, a unique play set in the middle ages, with papal legates and French hegemony over England and court politics and international rivalry.
His next history play is Richard II, set two hundred years later (1399) but still set in the middle ages, though at the very end of it. The Lancastrian Revolution of 1399 marks symbolically the end of the middle ages, with its balance of power between king, nobles and church, and the beginning of modern centralized absolute monarchies.
The play Henry IV is a play about revolutionary regime change. Henry IV is a sort of Lenin figure with his own Finland Station moment when he lands at Ravenspur to challenge the king who had exiled him. He is not a loathsome usurper like Richard III, he is more like a magnate revolutionary like Julius Caesar.
Henry IV is a sprawling play about civil war and about the political economy of London. Hotspur and the other nobles are depicted as budding capitalists and political entrepreneurs. Henry IV disdains them for their bourgeoisness.
But there is another side to Henry IV that puts it on par with Don Quixote, and that is Falstaff and the world of Eastcheap.
Falstaff is the anti-Quixote. He is a real (not imaginary) knight who has been unhorsed by the decline of the middle ages. Falstaff is a knight with no illusions about the world. Yet he is as brilliant and delusional as Don Quixote.
All throughput the play, Falstaff is expecting a reward at the end for his loyalty and service to the Lancastrian revolutionary regime. Instead, his delusion is dashed just like Quixote, when the king forces him to recognize his mortality and banishes him from court.
Falstaff is a Socrates character whose death hangs over the whole play, even as he plays the wit and miles glorioso. Falstaff exposes the hypocrisy and insanity of war, and serves as a dramatic representation of the Lollard heretic Sir John Oldcastle.
Falstaff is filled with an excess of righteous vitality, as well as food and wine!
He asks Prince Hal, later Henry V, will there be gallows hanging in England when you are king?
Falstaff is usually interpreted as a romantic hero of vitalism or elan vital, but in fact Falstaff is a very serious character in a political drama in which his life depends on his loyalty to the new regime.
Anyway, all this to say that with respects to Hobbes, Shakespeare is the true father of modern political philosophy. But Leviathan and Henry IV are great to consider side-by-side.
Thank you. A fine set of theses. This is an excellent contribution to our discussions. These are very provocative ideas.
18:33 I totally agree Mr. Hobbes
Hello Professor! Could you please do a lecture on Spinoza? Thank you!
@Michael Sugrue 🎵“get me lit, get me lit”🎵 🔊🔥
Thank you for a great video. No frills, no rhetoric or underlining agenda, just amazing content with an even-handed presentation. Given the criticism at the end about Hobbes not giving 100% truth has anyone adapted the philosophy to consider humans as social and mechanistic animals?
Thank you!
Just brilliant RIP
Good overview, but no mention of Hobbes' (unacknowledged) restatement of Aristotle's Rhetoric, i.e. his theory of the passions?
Would be interesting to see a conversation between Dr. Sugrue and Dr. Peterson
Yea except it would inevitably devolve into a Peterson monologue
Do you think Hobbes would have liked Blood Meridian?
Great question!!!
Interesting!
I’ll go back and lend him a copy
I love your lectures, if you dont mind me asking how old are you abd when were the original lectures you uploaded? And why were they taped?
Enlightening and informative as always, thank you
One thing I'd call you to consider is that while Hobbes does start with the individual and end with the individual (his important idea of Popular Sovereignty in fact makes the State into a Corporation of One Person "The People" -- the idea of "The People" is One Person as a corporation which he calls a Mortal God aka The Leviathan). --There are certain things to consider about his ideas of the family.
When you consider Plato's Republic, it is also similar in the sense that there is a relationship between the State (or The City) and the Individual. Plato's Republic is a reflection of the individual soul and a unitary being like Hobbes' Leviathan. Even Aristotle's Politics accused Plato of "atomization" for wanting too much unity in the State much like our contemporaries do with Thomas Hobbes.
Hobbes' Leviathan & Plato's Republic together is a good case study on North Korea btw. xD A lot of the things found in those two books you'll find in North Korea, notably in Plato's Republic the root of all totalitarianism is Plato's community of pleasures and pains (a lot like Hobbes' utilitarian appetites & aversions). Plato suggested in order to better organize the State, the people should have this unity of emotion not grieving at separate things, but altogether united in emotion. You find this doctrine at play especially in North Korea where in propaganda people are all sharing emotion or highly co-ordinated to act as a body.
In Plato's Republic, while not exactly like how Hobbes does it, did endorse the idea that different constituents of the Republic should come to act as One Person like organs.
Back to my point about the family, because like in Plato's Statesmen, which makes the point that the family or household and the political state are no different, Hobbes also makes that case: so in the state of nature, Hobbes tries to tackle this point about the families: Hobbes says, that the family is a little city. In the state of nature, even members of the family make covenants with the parents, but amongst the families themselves, Hobbes claims, there is a war of all against all, so they consent to instituting a Commonwealth so that not only individuals but families would be at peace.
Another allusion to Plato's doctrine that the household / family and State don't differ is Hobbes stating that rights of Sovereignty in the Sovereignty by Institution (fear of each other) and Sovereignty by Acquisition (basically despotic conquest, fear of him who governs) are the same.
If you go back to Jean Bodin's Six Books of a Commonwealth, I think the similar case is also hinted albeit Royal Monarchy is distinguished from Lordly Monarchy, and Lordly Monarchy from Tyrannical Monarchy (which btw it's true Hobbes does away with, although Jean Bodin also made a case that tyrannical monarchy is still monarchy sorta like Hobbes). Bodin also conceded like Hobbes to Plato that household and state aren't different in governing.
The reason why they maintain Plato's notion that a household and state aren't so different, as opposed to Aristotle who says they are, is for their support of monarchy imo: if you make the case state and household aren't different, then now monarchy is justifiable in having knowledge to govern the state, because if they were different then how would the monarchy know any better? like in Aristotle's notion monarchy is more proper to a household, but not to political constitutions -- which Hobbes flips upside down, his Leviathan is One Person hovering over The City or political constitution -- now that they aren't different, the Monarch has knowledge... in similar account, Hobbes urges us in the introduction of Leviathan to read ourselves to better understand Mankind -- so like Plato whose understanding of ourselves is better illuminated through the City, Hobbes Leviathan also ascertains that we can find the knowledge to govern the State in reading in ourselves Mankind and what governs Mankind.
This is a bit of an incoherent ramble, but you'll see many useful points here.
Thank you :)
Christ is king 🤴 nobody else !!
What about our Great President-In-Exile?
Not even the king 🤴?
"The greatest act of the swordsman is to lay down their sword."
Miyamoto Musashi
To be great is to trust. It is not necessarily childish.
So far a fantastic video. Thank you!
This videos from Dr. Sugrue are fantastic. Would it be possibly to upload these to Spotify as audio? I like to listen on the go or while I'm working and it's easier to not have UA-cam open.
Do any of y’all know any other great lecture series that have been uploaded by other professors? Any interesting ones on the scientific world
Very helpful
RIP
The Leviathan is one of the most surprising books I've ever read. People usually label Hobbes as a terribly authoritarian figure, which is actually true, but the book is so well written that you can actually understand the reasons why he thinks the way he thinks, and you can almost agree with him sometimes. He saw his country torn apart by civil war, so he wanted to come up with a solution for that. Now, we may not agree with his solution, but the way he builds his argument is briliant. Moreover, on the second part of the book, he writtes about the catholic church in a critique that is not only extremely eloquent, but also relevant to this day, especially if you live in a catholic country as I do.
I had no ideia who Hobbes was, then I got Leviathan and as I read the book it looked more like I was reading a book about a future China, which ends up being modern China. So except for the promotion of Marxist propaganda which still happens in China for the sake of the State not losing its identity and roots rather than because China's leaders believe in Communism, I see today's China much more as a Hobbesian State than a Marxist State and that's really impressive.
I bet Hobbes would appreciate to see today's China, especially because China today is not only safe and orderly which Leviathan aims for but also a prosper country and a superpower.
Now, this ideia of the people giving up on certain rights and freedoms for the sake of security and order is not something new in China, the Mandate of Heaven also demands that, but as Dr Sugrue said, it was a top-bottom decision just like Plato's Republic.
When you were speaking about mans natural instinct to preserve his life and his right to fight against an execution it reminded me of a rumor I heard that in some European country prisoners are not punished for attempting to break out of prison because its mans natural instinct to be free and to punish them for doing so would be inhumane.
I don't know if it's true and I forget what country it was lol but it sounds like that policy stemmed from Hobbes perhaps?
I would love to hear a conversation between Dr. Sugrue and Dr. Jordan Peterson talking about classical western literature and philosophy. The level of brain power would be immense!
If this man LOWERED himself to talk to that sophist and charlatan, I would be quite surprised.
Glad to see you’re absorbing the content and learning to balance your biases.
@@sorenaleksander2670 I don't think he's a sophist I think he's just delusional lol. Honestly and earnestly delusional. Ben Shapiro is a sophist.
@@Laocoon283 I think you are right on the money on both counts. Cheers!
@@sorenaleksander2670 JP is for the restoration of Western culture against kukkery.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane" Marcus Aurelius
Woot, anarchy and chaos! The original deceit of the human condition is that any man is fit to govern another.
The existence of children is the end of such nonsense, unless you propose to endow three year olds with independence.
Only the difference between literalness and irony matters at all!!!
First nature then life. Life must find its way through nature. Ideals are an attempt to manage nature to construct forms contrary to nature and ironically at the same time make more of nature. Empowering nature becomes a generous well spring of ideals that supports life. Nature itself becomes the ultimate ideal. Sovereign, autonomous, with structure and objectives that continuously yield positive results and hope in between set backs. Life in perpetuity. Progress in perpetuity. The king or figure head becomes the focal point ,manifestation, of both nature and ideal. Power albeit grossly disparate still reflects the Meta physical co existence of life and nature under the Sovereign ruler. His/ her life of luxury( power) encourages the Sovereign to extend courtesy and generosity to their subjects . Life becomes an exercise of shared comittments and interests.
Keep growing it out
Surgrue is the best
You are beautiful, dutiful and bountiful in the presentation of your knowledge
So cool
33:00
the right to vote should be contingent on a mandatory viewing of this lecture
Oh Waze interesting, but I cannot go with labeling of earlier geniuses as intellectual mutants. This seems to be comical Darwinianism. I’m not sure that Dante reflects the top down legitimacy as clearly as you say in the divine comedy. Is one going to argue that a human being is not higher on the scale than an ameba?
Why has irony and over-determidness assumed cultural precedence? Is it Freud? Is it the ultimate end of the inward turn? Nothing means what it means. Is it a natural end to politics or religion? Is it Vico?
Kierkegaard is the best at exposing when someone is either intentionally or unintentionally writing as an IRONIST
14:58
Hobbes begins by a lie, negating the good in Man, and continues with his slander.
Thank you professor for this video. Hobbes was a great thinker.
I wonder if he was popular at the time because the hard truth never sits well, specially if you basically say people are animals, so they need to be subjected.
Maybe his theory was incomplete because he choice to see the sovereign as a different subject independent of the people, wich in fact the people (the submmited) is the origin of the sovereign. Or at least a condition to exist. Otherwise the sovereign would be king or queen of the ashes.
Then he would think 'the people actually have some power', so instead of just erradicate internal/external war, they will just demand more things, like civil rights, and then social wellfare. Because we are not just animals lol. So we want justice and liberty because those things are good to have.
It's interesting to think if a limited sovereign it's actually a weaker ruler than an absolut dictatorship. Recent history is contradicting that though. And this is my though, since the power of the Leviatan ultimate resides in the people, is better that the people are well trained, educated, healthy, with resources (capital), happy etc, instead an absolute regime that none of that exist and they are mere obligated to act.
Cheers from Viña del Mar, Chile.
7:20
”So like Machiavelli.. or like the old Oakland Raiders”
Lol
just win baby
So when Neil deGrasse Tyson tells us about our social contact to vaccinate, Patrick Bet-David could add that avoiding democide is one of our few rights implied in the most restrictive of social contracts.
31:33