Spinoza became the father of a church whose

creed was pantheism and whose order was liberal democracy-an

order in which, as it was hoped, the mercantile patriciate would

predominate. Hobbes, on the other hand, remained offensive be-

cause his dry atheism was not redeemed by anything which could

be regarded as intoxication with God or even as hatred of God,

and because he had constructed the soulless state-mechanism of

eighteenth century enlightened despotism. How Hobbes's fate dif-

fered from Spinoza's appears most clearly from the different treat-

ment accorded the two philosophers by Hegel and Nietzsche.

Hobbes must appear as the incarnation of old-fashioned decency. He

never wavered in his adherence to the golden rule and he refused to

speak about carnal pleasures because they are too well known-

some of them even sordid. And as for the political objections to

Hobbes, they were bound to fade into insignificance with the

emergence of the tyrannies of the twentieth century. No sober

man could hesitate to prefer Hobbes's enlightened and humane

absolute king to the contemporary tyrants whose rule rests on

obscurantism and bestiality and fosters these diseases of the mind.

Hobbes's

doctrine would not be alive, it would not be studied seriously,

if the progress of modernity were separable from the decay of

modernity. Modernity has progressed to the point where it has

visibly become a problem. PHODA!!!!!!!!!

The tradition had

assumed that there is a human nature which is given, not made.
By rejecting this assumption, Hobbes was forced or enabled to
deny all moral or juridical significance to the right of nature, and
to contend that there is no natural law prior to the establishment of
civil society or independent of the command of the sovereign
(182-90). The reconciliation of the individual and the state, or
the absorption of morality by the state, finds an adequate expression
in Hobbes's notion of the state as a "person"-a notion of which
he is the originator (224-30, 237-38).

The fundamental bipartition into that which exists independently of

man's making and that which exists by virtue of man's making,
resembles the bipartition into the natural and the artificial, a bipartition
which Hobbes uses in distinguishing between natural bodies
and artificial bodies (i.e., states). But the resemblance conceals a
most important difference: according to Hobbes, the artificial embraces
not only all artifacts proper and civil society but above all,
the principles of understanding as well (we understand only what
we make). Hobbes thus tends to assume that the artificial is not
only irreducible to the natural but even primary. At the same
time, his conception of understanding as making forces him to
conceive of man and all his works as products of universal motion.
The difficulties which we encounter in trying to understand
Hobbes's teaching may be expressed by saying that his doctrine is the
origin of both the monistic positivism of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries and its opposite, the philosophy of freedom of the
same epoch. But Hobbes wavers not only between corporealism and
what we may call constructionism; he is also uncertain whether
the non-corporealist beginning has the character of arbitrary construction
or of "data of consciousness." BOM!!!!

From this it would follow that there

cannot be a true religion, since true religion is fear of power invisible
"when the power imagined, is truly such as we imagine.i'P
More precisely, if God is omnipotent, he is the cause of. everything,
of good as well as of evil; he is in particular the cause of sin. It is
for this reason that the right of God's sovereignty cannot be derived
from his graciousness, his goodness or his providence. Providence
is a matter of belief, not of knowledge. O DEUS DE HOBBES É IGUAL À POLITICA DELE,
KARATANI TEM ESSA TESE.

In a word, natural reason knows nothing of God. CONHECER DEUS PRESSUPÕE O

ESTADO, A SAÍDA DA NATUREZA.
Hobbes might have regarded natural reason as unable to establish the existence of God and yet
have been certain of God's existence because he was certain that the Bible teaches the truth. He
does not hesitate to argue on the assumption that the Bible is the word of God. He does this
especially in the Third Part of the Leviathan ("Of a Christian Commonwealth"). Some of the
conclusions of his revealed theology deserve mention. There are angels but there are no devils.
There are no immortal souls. The kingdom of God was and will be a kingdom on earth. It was
"interrupted in the election of Saul" and it is to be restored at the Second Coming, when the
dead will be resurrected. Until then, there exists no kingdom of God: the Christian is a man who
intends to obey Christ after the Second Coming. After the Resurrection, the reprobate will
be punished, not with hell fire (hell fire is a metaphorical expression) but by being "in the estate
that Adam and his posterity were in" after the Fall: they will "marry, and give in marriage, and
have gross and corruptible bodies, as all mankind now have" and then die again, whereas the
elect will have glorious or spiritual bodies and will neither eat, nor drink, nor engender; all this
will take place on earth. In order to be received into the kingdom of God, man must fulfill the
laws of nature "whereof the principal is . . . a commandment to obey our civil sovereign," and
he must believe that Jesus is the Christ. If the sovereign is an infidel and forbids the Christian
religion, the command of the sovereign must be obeyed. The authority which the Bible
possesses is derived exclusively from the fact that the Bible has been made law by the civil
sovereign.

Hobbes's unbelief is the necessary premise of his teaching about the state of nature. That teaching is
the authentic link between his natural science and his political science: it defines the problem which
political science has to solve by inferring from the preceding exposition of the nature of man, and
especially of the human passions, the condition concerning felicity and misery in which man has
been placed by nature. More specifically, the teaching about the state of nature is meant to clarify
what the status of justice is prior to, and independently of, human institution, or to answer the
question of whether, and to what extent, justice has extra-human and especially divine support. One
way express Hobbes's answer by saying that independently of human institution, justice is
practically non-existent in the world: the state of nature is characterized by irrationality and
therewith by injustice. But Hobbes has recourse to the state of nature in order to determine, not only
the status or manner of being of justice or natural right, but its content or meaning as well: natural
right as determined with a view to the condition of mere nature, is the root of all justice.
 é
disso que o povo gosta!!! Agora eu vi o Scmidtt!
Capítulo V: começa com o toque divino do Rei, que o Santner comenta.

Parei na 78