7 Comments
Apr 12Liked by Samuel Kimbriel

Really interesting essay as always Sam. On Hobbes, I've always thought that Hobbes didn't want violence to be used often. The big sword is supposed to be the threat, only to be used intermittently and only when absolutely necessary. The analogy I try to use is just as the state is supposed to be an artificial person in Hobbes, it requires the notion of an almighty functionality thus only to be used sparingly. I think if Hobbes looked upon the state today and the violence it commits he'd be somewhat in awe of what we're capable of.

The broader question you've raised is a good one. In some ways we are almost completely disconnected from the violence of the state and our ways of living. It is maybe how we find it so easy to live without asking these questions. When the spectre of violence raises its head we suddenly find it horrifying, like one of the so many horror filled dystopian films we watch. Technology makes us all feel clean up to a point I guess.

Our diet is a good example. In previous times I've argued simply that diet, like that of fashion, is so intertwined with the processes of the modern world that only a realist argument will suffice, as opposed to a moral one. I'm a meat eater because I'm especially fussy with my food, the texture of vegetables and nuts for example do not suit my chewing style, so my life is closely connected with the death of thousands of animals. Perhaps, even my 'personal climate emissions' are especially bad since I eat a lot of beef. But like you say what are the other choices?

What I find startling about those who preach about the evils of the current liberal system, and there are paradoxes at the heart of the system limiting its moral worth, is their current inability to dig out to anything better. America was built on the premise of liberty, revolution and systemising itself as an engine of change, a light keeper of the world. But this engine is if not slowing actively ceasing up.

Expand full comment

Another great, provoking WoC piece. Speaking of Hobbes, dare we extend the candor in the spirit of philosophy’s great naturalists (Spinoza and Nietzsche) - acknowledging that not only are our hands not clean, but violence is part of our nature. Will-to-striving, will-to-power, Conatus all characterize a world founded on utility and the virtue of perfection needs to be reconsidered

Expand full comment

Being a baby boomer, I have witnessed in my life the progression away from first hand knowledge of violence to a virtual reality world of violence as sanitized entertainment. My father fought in WWII and Korea. He was raised in rural Kansas and, like your father, knew how to hunt and grow gardens. The blood and guts of violence were for him natural and personal.

My war was Vietnam which I thankfully avoided the draft by enlisting in the Air Force spending the time in Germany rather than the jungles. I returned to a nation traumatized by universal military conscription and the effects of PTSD from the horrors of massive modern warfare. When the war ended a volunteer professional military was born limiting the exposure of the general public to military duty. My grandson is in the modern Air Force today and is treated like a trained professional rather than "canon fodder." As an aircraft mechanic, he is not generally exposed to combat but has served in Iraq and Afghanistan. The growing use of drones adds to the disconnect between the soldier and the full frontal experience of personal combat still occurring in Ukraine, Gaza, and elsewhere.

I agree with your observation of the naivety that our estrangement from violence that blinds us to the majority of the world who have no or little experience with liberal values or even find them foreign and morally repugnant. We smugly assume that everyone is OK with liberal values when their reality is still medieval feudalism and war lords. As the old saying goes: "Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel." We need to practice pragmatic liberalism.

This brings up the "purity" concept you mentioned. Jungian psychology acknowledges our "shadow" which is the more primal, unconscious aspects of human behavior. In Jungian psychology, the puer aeternus is an example of what Jung considered an archetype, one of the "primordial, structural elements of the human psyche.

Like all archetypes, the puer is bipolar, exhibiting both a "positive" and a "negative" aspect. The "positive" side of the puer appears as the Divine Child who symbolizes newness, potential for growth, hope for the future. He also foreshadows the hero that he sometimes becomes (e.g. Heracles). The "negative" side is the child-man who refuses to grow up and meet the challenges of life head-on, waiting instead for his ship to come in and solve all his problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puer_aeternus

Part of the problem is the U.S. is a young nation with a lot of pure tendencies overlooking the harsher realities much of the rest of the world faces. We exhibit an adolescent insolence that many find irritating and even threatening. Can we develop a more mature and pragmatic liberalism to provide a "bigger tent" for more of the world's population? Hopefully, we all can outgrow our illusion of "purity" and develop a philosophy more grounded in the reality of the human condition.

Expand full comment

The search for a solid ethical path must inevitably come to terms with the reality of the human condition, which is fraught with both splendor and selfish pursuits. A human condition that we experience as individuals, yet is also communal, interdependent, and systemic. A human condition with pasts that are brutal and beautiful and beyond our capacity to remake. The way forward must always extend beyond our solitary selves, connect to something larger, and evoke a genuine sense service grounded in humility.

Expand full comment

I wonder how much of this results from the passing of the World War II generation, the loss of a collective experience of violence up close. We’ve lost the last large cohort of Americans who could say with confidence that freedom is worth killing for.

Expand full comment

Random thoughts:

The phrase "monopoly on violence" is a good one to keep close while self-congratulating on open mindedness. Similar in meaning, the cliche "speak softly and carry a big stick" is also handy.

What you didn't mention ( I have not read Leviathan so sorry if this is assumed - great image btw, thanks for sharing!) are: checks and balances that (often but not always) keep liberal democracies from falling over, and rebalance them when it happens; democracy as a way of replacing power "without bloodshed" ala Popper. These tools, along with others no doubt, mke it less likely that the sword is the first choice, I hope, and Pinker's Better Angels seem to support this ( i know it's not everyone's favourite...).

Appreciate the article.

Expand full comment

Can you say more about what you mean here?

"I’ve gradually strengthened in my sense that life is intertwined with death in a way that can’t be resolved at the level of mere lifestyle change."

Expand full comment