Ron Yezzi
Study
Guide to Thomas Hobbes' Elements of
Philosophy Concerning Body
(NOTE:
*'s before an item indicate relative degrees of importance.)
pp. 30-33
**Chapter I presents Hobbes' concept
of philosophy. How does he define it (p. 30)? Be sure to explain what he means by
ratiocination in some detail (pp.
30-31). What is philosophy's end, or
purpose, (p. 32)? Its utility (p.
32)? Its subject (p. 32)? And its parts (p. 33)? Do you have problems with
any of his claims? If so, what are they?
Substraction = subtraction.
Since philosophy is knowledge of
causes (generation) and effects (appearances), we can know effects through a
knowledge of their generation. How does Hobbes show with the example of a
circle (p. 31, right column)?
**Why does Hobbes exclude theology,
the doctrine of angels, natural and political history, Divine inspiration,
astrology, and the doctrine of God's worship from philosophy (p. 33)? Try to
think of any other topics that may be similarly excluded. Are all these
exclusions reasonable? Or is he showing a bias that will distort everything
that comes later? Explain your answers.
pp. 33-41
**Hobbes is well aware of the
importance of language. He is especially careful to make clear the meaning of
terms (following after the pattern of geometry in which one begins with careful
definitions). Chapters II ("Of Names") and III ("Of
Proposition") lay out Hobbes' position with respect to the origin and
nature of language. Accordingly in your reading, try to answer these questions
about his position: What, if anything, can be known independently of language?
What is the origin of language? Can there be a private language (that is, one
that can be developed independently of other human beings)? Would Hobbes agree
with Ludwig Wittgenstein's statement from the Tractatus, "The limits of my language are the limits of my
world"? Does Hobbes reduce truth and falsity to the arbitrary use of names
in speech so that they have no external referent?
Do you have any special problems
with Hobbes' position? If so, explain.
Moniments = monuments
**Explain Hobbes' meaning for the
following terms p. 34): marks, signs, natural signs, arbitrary signs, speech,
and name.
*What does Hobbes mean when he says
that names "are not signs of the things themselves" (p. 35, paragraph
5)?
*What is Hobbes' position on
"universals"? (It is probably a good procedure to begin with
paragraph 6, p. 35, and then go to paragraph 9, p. 36.) Do you agree or
disagree with his position? Why?
*Note that he translates the
principle of contradiction into a principle about names (pp. 35-36, paragraph
8) in contrast with Aristotle's metaphysical statement of it: "The same thing
cannot at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in
the same respect" (Metaphyics,
Bk. III). What significance, if any, would you attach to the shift?
Hobbes' distinctions of names have
some importance for logic, even in contemporary introductory texts; but you do
not have to try to remember each of these distinctions.
**The distinction of simple and compound names, however, is more important because he uses that
example of man (p. 37, paragraph 14).
How does the compounding process involve more than just arbitary naming and how
is this relevant to understanding Hobbes' view about speech and the external
world? What does he say about "body" and compounded names in the last
part of paragraph 14? Would he be in agreement or disagreement with Descartes
here? Explain your answer.
The laying out of predicaments (p.
38) seems to be a valuable way of organizing names, although Hobbes himself
admits, "I confess I have not yet seen any great use of the predicaments
in philosophy."
**What does Hobbes mean by a proposition (p. 39)? Note that
expression of truth or falsity is an essential characteristic
of a proposition.
**How do you interpret Hobbes'
treatment of true and false (p. 40)? What problems, if any, do
you see in interpreting his position? (You should also read over paragraph 10,
dealing with necessary and contingent propositions here.)
pp. 41-46
**This chapter on method should be
seen as restoring some balance in terms of sensory experience after the
treatment of names and propositions as language (chapters II and III)--in the
process of working out Hobbes' philosophical method. What does he mean by
method generally and how does it relate to his definition of philosophy (p.
41)?
(Note:
In your reading, be sure to relate the term to what he says about the term in
paragraph 2 of Chapter VIII, p. 47.)
*The Greek terms oti and dioti refer, respectively, to knowing that something is and knowing why
something is (that is, cause of
something). (The terms fit in the ellipses in the last paragraph of p. 41.)
Knowledge by sense that gives us a whole is knowledge that (oti), whereas knowledge why gives us
knowledge of the causes of parts (dioti).
Hence knowledge of the sciences, that philosophers seek, is knowledge of the dioti.
**Hobbes divides philosophical
method into analytical and synthetical. Analytical method is explained in
paragraph 4; while synthetical method is covered in paragraph 6. How do the two
types of method arise and how would you describe them?
**What does Hobbes mean by motion and how important is it to his
philosophical system (paragraphs 5 and 6)? How does what he says about motion
point toward his being a materialist?
Do you have any disagreements with what he says about motion? If so, explain.
*Near the end of paragraph 6, Hobbes
says, "And, therefore [my
emphasis], they that study natural philosophy, study in vain, except they begin
at geometry. . ." Explain the "therefore" here.
*Although Hobbes prefers the development
of civil and moral philosophy synthetically from physics and geometry as
starting-points, he grants that they can also be studied analytically
(paragraph 7).
*Paragraph 10 explains what Hobbes
means by cause. But it also explains
the term in a way similar to the account of necessary and sufficient
conditions--where, in Hobbes' terms, accidents are necessary conditions and the
sum of the accidents the sufficient condition. Explain Hobbes' position in some
detail.
pp. 46-52
**What does Hobbes mean by the terms
body and accident in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3? (To get away from our more
common meanings for "accident," also look at paragraph 23 on p. 52.)
**How is body related to extension, according to Hobbes
(paragraph 4)? How does extension differ from place (paragraph 5)? Also explain
paragraph 8.
Paragraphs 10-20 deal with motion. The importance of this
discussion derives from the importance of motion as laid out in the earlier
chapter on method. Summarize what Hobbes says about motion in these paragraphs.
[Some notions to consider: its relation to place and time, its difference from
rest, velocity, force, laws of motion (paragraph 19), conservation of matter,
or body, (paragraph 20).]
Terminus
a quo = limit from which; terminus ad
quem = limit toward which
pp. 52-54
**The discussion of cause and effect
in paragraphs 1-5 adds the notions of agent
and patient to the earlier discussion
of causes in the chapter on method. Hobbes also introduces the terms efficient cause, material cause, entire cause,
and necessary cause. Explain the
meaning of these terms.
**How do paragraphs 7 and 9 support
Hobbes' materialism?
pp. 54-56
**Chapter X relates cause and effect
to power and act; so you should recognize what Hobbes means by the relation.
More importantly though, explain how this chapter supports a deterministic
position.
pp. 56-64
**The chapter "Of Sense and
Animal Motion" presents Hobbes position with respect to the senses as an
extension of what he has previously said about motion. Explain how he does this
in paragraphs 1 and 2. Do you agree or disagree with him? Explain your answer.
**How does Hobbes distinguish
phantasms of sense, imagination, and dreams (paragraphs 2-9)? Why is
"phantasm" not simply a derogatory term for Hobbes? How does his
position on sense, imagination, and dreams support his materialism?
*How does Hobbes define study (p. 59, left column) and how does
this definition support his materialism?
**After talking about the five senses (paragraph 10), Hobbes introduces
the term animal motions, in the
middle of the right column, p. 62. What does he mean by the term? How are appetite and aversion related to animal motions (p. 63)? How are deliberation and will then related to appetite and aversion (paragraph 13)? How does
discussion of all these terms support his materialism?
*Summarize what he says about pleasure and pain in paragraphs 12 and 13 and also the passions.
**The last paragraph on p. 63 briefly
states Hobbes' position on free will vs. determinism. The position is stated
with more detail in your next reading, taken from "
pp. 65-67
Of
Liberty and Necessity: A Treatise is longer than the short reading you have
here. The work was written in the course of Hobbes' public dispute with Bishop
Bramhall over the issue of free will.
**Explain in some detail Hobbes'
position on free will vs. determinism--making clear his use of the terms
voluntary, deliberation, will, sufficient cause, necessary cause. His position
is an early statement of the "compatibilist" point of view--namely,
the view that freedom (liberty) is compatible with necessity. Be sure to make
clear how he works out this compatibilist viewpoint. You should also relate his
position to moral responsibility. (Hint: see what he says about punishing with
death at the bottom of the left column on p. 65.) Do you agree or disagree with
Hobbes' treatment of free will vs. determinism?
*What does Hobbes mean by the
"ordinary definition of a free agent" and why does he reject it (p.
66)?
*How does Hobbes bring in God to
argue further against Bramhall's position based upon that "ordinary
definition of a free agent" (p. 67, second last paragraph)? Note, however,
that important qualification Hobbes makes, "if I thought it good
logic." How does this qualification save Hobbes from being inconsistent
here with what he says about God as a subject of philosophy in The Elements of Philosophy Concerning Body
(Chapter I)?
General
Questions
**Would you conclude from your
readings that Hobbes is an atheist? Explain your answer.
Return to Phil 336: Modern Philosophy page
Last
updated
© Copyright 2004 by Ron Yezzi