Hobbes And "Captain America's Civil War"

Dear Chuck,

Thanks for your email.

Hobbes is not my cuppa tea.

"Throughout his life, Hobbes believed that the only true and correct form of government was absolute monarchy. He argued this most forcefully in his landmark work, Leviathan. This belief stemmed from the central tenet of Hobbes' natural philosophy that human beings are, at their core, selfish creatures."

Although evidence mounts in support of the Hobbesian view that we humans are intrinsically selfish creatures, I prefer to believe that "the heart leans to the left" and that over time "the arc of the moral universe... tends toward justice."

The trouble with Belief is that it can never be refuted - at least not on most of The Big Issues.

For example....

Insofar as certain Jews (like certain members of all ethnicities) "cause problems," "commit crimes" and "unleash chaos," The Final Solution always depends on complete extermination of "The Designated Ethnicity."

Shy of extermination, advocates of The Final Solution will always argue that the promised "Solution" failed because it was not "Final."

If "The Solution" had been final -- which is to say if every drop of Jewish blood, however dilute, were eliminated from the gene pool -- we never, ever, would again be troubled by any Jew (or any other designated social sector).

A corollary...

If, as Noam Chomsky asserts, American empire is in decline, The Right and The Left will both contend -- eternally -- that it was "the other guy's fault."

As we see in the ethno-cultural homogeneity of Scandinavia where "everyone" subscribes to the same values, a kind of harmonic uniformity is created that elicits evident -- and often admirable -- "workability."

I believe that "Belief Itself" is both necessary and inevitable.

I also posit that the radical elimination of all belief -- whether in "train schedules," "contracts," "promises," "the laws of physics," "the existence of goodness" would have such adverse physical repercussions as to drive "unbelievers" to suicide, or, if an "infidel" does not succumb to self-slaughter, the metaphysical stress to Total Disbelief would soon bring about his physical demise.

By my lights we are "called upon" -- at least if we posit "the desirability of happiness" -- to choose belief whenever belief is not spontaneously infused as a "gift of faith."

Ultimately, we do not know -- and cannot know -- at least in any epistemologically definitive way that enables us to communicate our absolute conviction of personal epiphany/revelation to anyone else. (In this sense each of us must develop a "personal relationship" with "God.")

We may believe that such communication has taken place -- and functionally it may appear to have taken place -- but if we task any two people with discussing their vision of "God" (or "The Good"), they will eventually find that "what" each of them "has in mind" is not what the other person has in mind. 

"I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. "Well, there's so much to live for!" "Like what?" "Well... are you religious?" He said yes. I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" "Christian." "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant ? "Protestant." "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" "Baptist" "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" "Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.   

Emo Philips 

The Essence of Religious Fanaticism

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-essence-of-religious-fanaticism.html

There is an overarching question in all this: "What constitutes religion?"(... from the Latin re-ligare meaning to re-ligature, or, more commonly to re-connect what has been severed, broken, rent or shattered).

Chesterton says "all wars are religious wars" by which I assume he means that any motivation to "fight" or "struggle" -- even for perceived secular "goods" -- arises from a belief/conviction that one's own values are so superior to other competing values that we will fight for the survival of our value even if it requires killing those who aggressively champion values lethal to our own.

The only possible "out" I see is found in the experience of the early Christian community.

The Last Time Christians Had Balls They Believed In Martyrdom

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-last-time-christians-had-balls-they.html 

The trouble with martyrdom -- and the interrelated genius of celibacy (quite popular in the early church) -- is that  "He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune, for they are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or mischief." Francis Bacon

"Hostages To Fortune"

Lewis Lapham

http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/family/hostages-fortune

We confront a fine line.

For we can submit ourselves to martyrdom and in the process be considered a "saint." 

However, to submit our children and spouses to martyrdom is, perhaps, diabolism distilled.

Love, of course, makes all this moot.

As Augustine put it: "Love and do what you will."

Pax tecum

Alan

PS In "Civil War," does Captain America not confirm Hobbes' bleak view of humanity, simultaneously positing that only superheroes -- in effect, demigods -- can transcend our common fate?

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 4:23 AM, CH wrote:

To me he sounds like a pompous douchebag. I find his opinions without merit, and will assiduously avoid reading anything he writes. In short, he's a hater. I'd say he should pick on somebody his own size, (it's a comic book movie, people) but there aren't many people that small.

I enjoy bad reviews that are witty (I'll forward you one I like), but he's both wrong and writes badly. Smug prick and clueless. Nice combo.

C

On May 11, 2016 4:38 PM, "Alan Archibald" <alanarchibaldo@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear C, 

I love how Lane frames "Civil War" from Hobbes' viewpoint. 

 

As much as I value speculation -- and soaring speculation! -- in recent years I have been  overwhelmed by the constant caroming of super-hero plot lines. 

I think the reason I so like Spider Man and Nolan's renditions of Batman is that their plots "take time" so that action for action's sake doesn't preempt every smidgen of contemplation-space. 

As it says on a UNC-CH cemetery tombstone bearing the single name "Pavao," "There are more things to life than increasing its speed." I encourage you to locate it and stand atop the buried coffin as you read the inscription.

I know people who are genuinely "high on stress" and wonder if the zeitgeist has not "swept us all away" so that every man Jack is now high on speed just because it's "fast."

Of course, I have yet to see "Civil War" -- which I eagerly anticipate! -- so I may yet be pleasantly surprised to discover a pace something other than blinding frenzy. 

The etymology of "frenzy": http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=frenzy

Pax tecum, 

Alan

“Captain America: Civil War”

How do you define the Avengers? Two phrases from “Captain America: Civil War” offer alternative answers. One is “a lot of superpeople.” The other is “a group of U.S.-based enhanced individuals,” which for one heavenly moment suggests that, since we last met Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.) and his merry mates, they have put on weight. Imagine a wobbly Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and a lumbering Falcon (Anthony Mackie), with Captain America (Chris Evans), the incredible chunk, bringing up the rear.

Alas, the whole gang is in good shape, although they are having issues with their bonding. The big news, delivered by the Secretary of State (William Hurt), is that Avenging, hitherto a privately run concern, will now be controlled by the U.N. under the “Sokovia Accords,” named for the location of a previous adventure. (Why do made-up countries always sound like somewhere ruled by Groucho Marx?) Iron Man likes the idea, whereas Captain America hates it. You could parse their clash as a grownup debate on the politics of governance, but it’s really not. It’s an excuse for the two of them to duke it out on a German airfield, each with a bunch of friends at his behest. Even Spider-Man (Tom Holland) and Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) get roped in, with mixed results. Both are nicely played, and they leaven the mood (a tiny Rudd gets to hop inside Downey’s metal costume, like a flea), yet their very presence smacks of desperation. The motto of the directors, Anthony and Joe Russo, appears to be: If you can make it happen, do it. Don’t hold back.

The philosopher Thomas Hobbes had a word for this method: “exorbitancy.” Three hundred and sixty-six years ago, in an uncanny trailer for Marvel, he wrote, “There are some that are not pleased with fiction, unless it be bold, not onely to exceed the work, but also the possibility of nature: they would have impenetrable Armors, Inchanted Castles, invulnerable bodies, Iron Men, flying Horses, and a thousand other such things, which are easily feigned by them that dare.” 

As the feigning wears off, and “Captain America: Civil War” crawls to a close, you sense that the possibilities of nature have been not just exceeded but exhausted. Even the dialogue seems like a special effect: “You’re being uncharacteristically non-hyperverbal,” Black Widow remarks to Iron Man. 

Translation: “Say something.” ♦