Monday, May 3, 2004
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
Random quote of the day
While reading a Philip Pettit paper for the U of C's Political Theory Workshop (a forum I attend maybe once a year), I came across a priceless quote. It's by John Wallis, a 17th century mathemetician at Oxford, about one of his rivals, a Mr. Thomas Hobbes, author of Leviathan and, in many important ways, the father of modern political science. It would be safe to say that Wallis was not a real Hobbes fan. The quote reads:
posted by Dan on 05.03.04 at 04:13 PM
Mr. Thomas Hobbes wrote in a very mealy mouth manner. However, there might be a good reason for this. He lived during an age when brutal frankness might get one tortured, or even killed. Today a scholar may merely not be invited to attend the liberal white wine and brie cheese get-togethers. A mathematician like John Wallis probably didn’t worry about upsetting the authorities. How cautious was Hobbes? A friend of mine, someone who eventually abandoned his attempt to earn a Political Science Phd, argued that Hobbes was a very religious man, an intensely devout Christian. I personally doubt this very much. However, how can anyone ultimately know for sure? My guess is that Hobbes was somewhat hostile to religious denominations on a personal basis and primarily approached his studies in a thoroughly secular manner. There is even an outside chance he was an atheist. But once again, who can tell by reading his works?posted by: David Thomson on 05.03.04 at 04:13 PM [permalink]
"Forum" is singular; "fora" is plural. The noun is second declension, neuter gender, sharing a form with "stadium".posted by: Jim on 05.03.04 at 04:13 PM [permalink]
Whoops!! Fixed now.
posted by: Dan on 05.03.04 at 04:13 PM [permalink]
Wallis's comment is hilarious. Reminds me of the benighted UseNet.
Still, I always thought Hobbes's greatest STRENGTH was that he defined his terms up front ("sovereign", "commonwealth" &c). If he goes and defines "chalk" up front, and then writes an essay on "chalk" and how it is got from cows and processed - at least you can trace his arguments re "chalk" from first principles. So what if I disagree with the particular word he chose for it?
I'd rather have that, than some unethical @#$% on UseNet talking about "chalk" that sometimes means chalk and sometimes means cheese, depending on what suits his argument best at any given time.posted by: David Ross on 05.03.04 at 04:13 PM [permalink]
mmmmmmm... tasty Chalk.posted by: Carleton Wu on 05.03.04 at 04:13 PM [permalink]
The State of Nature is a war of Chalk against Cheese?posted by: Sean O'Hara on 05.03.04 at 04:13 PM [permalink]
Post a Comment: