Representation in the Philosophy of Science.

The concept of representation has gained momentum in the philosophy of science. The simplest concept of representation conceivable is expressed by the following dyadic predicate: structure S(HeB) represents HeB. Steven French defended that to represent something in science is the same as to have a model for it, where models are set-structures; then ‘representation’ and ‘model’ become synonyms and so do ‘to represent’ and ‘to model’. Nevertheless, this simplest conception was quickly thrown overboard as too simple by amongst others Ronald Giere, who replaced this dyadic predicate with a quadratic predicate to express a more involved concept of representation:

Scientist S uses model S to represent being B for purpose P,

where ‘model’ can here be identified with ‘structure’. Another step was set by Bas van Fraassen. As early as 1994, in his contribution to J. Hilgevoord’s Physics and our View of the World, Van Fraassen brought Nelson Goodman’s distinction between representation-of and representation-as — drawn in his seminal Languages of Art – to bear on science; he went on to argue that all representation in science is representation-as. We represent a Helium atom in a uniform magnetic field as a set-theoretical wave-mechanical structure S(HeB). In his new tome Scientific Representation, Van Fraassen has moved essentially to a hexadic predicate to express the most fundamental and most involved concept of representation to date:

Repr(S, V, S, B, F, P) ,

which reads: subject or scientist S is V -ing artefact S to represent B as an F for purpose P. Example: In the 1920ies, Heisenberg (S) constructed (V) a mathematical object (S) to represent a Helium atom (B) as a wave-mechanical structure (F) to calculate its electro-magnetic spectrum (P). We concentrate on the following triadic predicate, which is derived from the fundamental hexadic one:

ReprAs(S, B, F) iff ∃S, ∃V, ∃P : Repr(S, V, A, B, F, P)

which reads: abstract object S represents being B as an F, so that F(S).

Giere, Van Fraassen and contemporaries are not the first to include manifestations of human agency in their analysis of models and representation in science. A little more than most half a century ago, Peter Achinstein expounded the following as a characteristic of models in science:

A theoretical model is treated as an approximation useful for certain purposes. (…) The value of a given model, therefore, can be judged from different though related viewpoints: how well it serves the purposes for which it is eimployed, and the completeness and accuracy of the representation it proposes. (…) To propose something as a model of X is to suggest it as way of representing X which provides at least some approximation of the actual situation; moreover, it is to admit the possibility of alternative representations useful for different purposes.

One year later, M.W. Wartofsky explicitly proposed, during the Annual Meeting of the American Philosophical Association, Western Division, Philadelphia, 1966, to consider a model as a genus of representation, to take in that representation involves “relevant respects for relevant for purposes”, and to consider “the modelling relation triadically in this way: M(S,x,y), where S takes x as a model of y”.20 Two years later, in 1968, Wartofsky wrote in his essay ‘Telos and Technique: Models as Modes of Action’ the following:

In this sense, models are embodiments of purpose and, at the same time, instruments for carrying out such purposes. Let me attempt to clarify this idea. No entity is a model of anything simply by virtue of looking like, or being like, that thing. Anything is like anything else in an infinite number of respects and certainly in some specifiable respect; thus, if I like, I may take anything as a model of anything else, as long as I can specify the respect in which I take it. There is no restriction on this. Thus an array of teacups, for example, may be take as a model for the employment of infantry battalions, and matchsticks as models of mu-mesons, there being some properties that any of these things share with the others. But when we choose something to be a model, we choose it with some end in view, even when that end in view is simply to aid the imagination or the understanding. In the most trivial cases, then, the model is already normative and telic. It is normative in that is chosen to represent abstractly only certain features of the thing we model, not everything all at once, but those features we take to be important or significant or valuable. The model is telic in that significance and value can exist only with respect to some end in view or purpose that the model serves.

Further, during the 1950ies and 1960ies the role of analogies, besides that of models, was much discussed among philosophers of science (Hesse, Achinstein, Girill, Nagel, Braithwaite, Wartofsky).

On the basis of the general concept of representation, we can echo Wartofsky by asserting that almost anything can represent everything for someone for some purpose. In scientific representations, representans and representandum will share some features, but not all features, because to represent is neither to mirror nor to copy. Realists, a-realists and anti-realists will all agree that ReprAs(S, B, F) is true only if on the basis of F(S) one can save all phenomena that being B gives rise to, i.e. one can calculate or accommodate all measurement results obtained from observing B or experimenting with B. Whilst for structural empiricists like Van Fraassen this is also sufficient, for StrR it is not. StrR will want to add that structure S of type F ‘is realised’, that S of type F truly is the structure of being B or refers to B, so that also F(B). StrR will want to order the representations of being B that scientists have constructed during the course of history as approaching the one and only true structure of B, its structure an sich, the Kantian regulative ideal of StrR. But this talk of truth and reference, of beings and structures an sich, is in dissonance with the concept of representation-as.

Some being B can be represented as many other things and all the ensuing representations are all hunky-dory if each one serves some purpose of some subject. When the concept of representation-as is taken as pivotal to make sense of science, then the sort of ‘perspectivalism’ that Giere advocates is more in consonance with the ensuing view of science than realism is. Giere attempts to hammer a weak variety of realism into his ‘perspectivalism’: all perspectives are perspectives on one and the same reality and from every perspective something is said that can be interpreted realistically: in certain respects the representans resembles its representandum to certain degrees. A single unified picture of the world is however not to be had. Nancy Cartwright’s dappled world seems more near to Giere’s residence of patchwork realism. A unified picture of the physical world that realists dream of is completely out of the picture here. With friends like that, realism needs no enemies.

There is prima facie a way, however, for realists to express themselves in terms of representation, as follows. First, fix the purpose P to be: to describe the world as it is. When this fixed purpose leaves a variety of representations on the table, then choose the representation that is empirically superior, that is, that performs best in terms of describing the phenomena, because the phenomena are part of the world. This can be established objectively. When this still leaves more than one representation on the table, which thus save the phenomena equally well, choose the one that best explains the phenomena. In this context, Van Fraassen mentions the many interpretations of QM: each one constitutes a different representation of the same beings, or of only the same observable beings (phenomena), their similarities notwithstanding. Do all these interpre- tations provide equally good explanations? This can be established objectively too, but every judgment here will depend on which view of explanation is employed. Suppose we are left with a single structure A, of type G. Then we assert that ‘G(B)’ is true. When this ‘G’ predicates structure to B, we still need to know what ‘structure’ literally means in order to know what it is that we attribute to B, of what A is that B instantiates, and, even more important, we need to know this for our descriptivist account of reference, which realists need in order to be realists. Yes, we now have arrived where we were at the end of the previous two Sections. We conclude that this way for realists, to express themselves in terms of representation, is a dead end. The concept of representation is not going to help them.

The need for substantive accounts of truth and reference fade away as soon as one adopts a view of science that takes the concept of representation-as as its pivotal concept. Fundamentally different kinds of mathematical structure, set-theoretical and category-theoretical, can then easily be accommodated. They are ‘only representations’. That is moving away from realism, StrR included, dissolving rather than solving the problem for StrR of clarifying its Central Claim of what it means to say that being B is or has structure S — ‘dissolved’, because ‘is or has’ is replaced with ‘is represented-as’. Realism wants to know what B is, not only how it can be represented for someone who wants to do something for some purpose. When we take it for granted that StrR needs substantive accounts of truth and reference, more specifically a descriptivist account of reference and then an account of truth by means of reference, then a characterisation of structure as directly as possible, without committing one to a profusion of abstract objects, is mandatory.

The Characterisation of Structure

Advertisement

++ Occult/Esoteric ++

The Greeks were adept in the use of imagery to convey profound esoteric truths, often using the form of sport; or, for instance, they would read into the exercises of the stadium inner significance. One of the best known examples of this was their portrayal through the torchbearer race of the mystic line of succession of great teachers.

In the torch-race, the torch-bearer ran from post to post. On reaching the end of his stage he handed the lighted torch which he carried to the one there waiting, who immediately took up the race and in his turn handed it to the one waiting for him. This exercise of the arena or stadium was taken by many Greek and Latin writers as symbolizing the carrying on of Light from age to age, and as pointing to the spiritual Torch-bearers who pass the Torch of Truth from hand to hand throughout unending time…. This handing on of the light of truth “throughout unending time” has formed the theme of many Mystery parables. The Greeks also referred to this spiritual succession as the Golden Chain of Hermes which they believed to stretch far into the realms of Olympus, to “Father Zeus downwards through a series or line of spiritual beings and then through certain elect and lofty human beings to ordinary men” (Esoteric Tradition).

Purucker described this mystic succession as the guruparampara. This is a Sanskrit compound literally meaning “teacher beyond beyond.” The term signifies a line of teachers reaching beyond the beyond, through past, present, and into the distant future, whose sublime purpose is ever the same: the work of spiritualization.

The ancient Mystery-Schools of every country of the globe and of whatever epoch in time, have had each one a Succession of Teachers trained and authorized by their training to teach in their turn; and as long as this transmission of the light of Truth was a reality in any one country, it was in every sense a truly spiritual institution.

An outstanding example of this ancient transmission is the succession of “living buddhas” of Tibet, which “is a real one, but of a somewhat special type, and it is by no means what Occidental scholars mistake it to be or have frequently misunderstood it to be” (Esoteric Tradition).

Further, in the Eleusinian Mysteries of Greece,

hierophants were drawn from one family, the Eumolpidae, living in Athens, and the torchbearers were drawn from another family, the Lycomidae, living in Athens; and we have reason to believe that the Mysteries of Samothrace, the seat of an older rite, and which were, like the Mysteries of Eleusis, a State function, were also conducted in the same manner by the passing on of the tradition held sacred and incommunicable to outsiders; and the bond of union between the initiates of these so-called Mysteries was considered indissoluble, impossible of dissolution, for death merely strengthened the tie.– Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy. 

In Persia as well as Egypt, we find this line of succession manifesting in another form. For example, there were the thirteen or more Zoroasters whose esoteric contribution to Persia’s history was the inspiration of that once mighty civilization:

The number of Zoroasters who have appeared from time to time is confusing, so long as we consider, and wrongly consider, these Zoroasters to be reimbodiments of one single ego, instead of different egos imbodying what we may interpret from the occult records as the “Zoroaster-spirit.” The truth of the matter is that in the scheme and terminology of Zoroastrianism, every Root-Race and sub-race, and minor race of the latter, has its own Zoroaster or Zoroasters. The term Zoroaster means in Zoroastrianism, very much what the term Buddha does in Buddhism, or Avatara does in Brahmanism. Thus there were great Zoroasters, and less Zoroasters — the qualificatory adjective depending upon the work done by each Zoroaster, and the sphere of things. Hence we can speak of the Zoroasters as being thirteen in number from one standpoint, or fourteen from another; or like the Manus in Brahmanism, or like the Buddhas in Buddhism, we can multiply each of these by seven again, or even fourteen if we take in every little branchlet race with its guiding Zoroaster-spirit.– Studies in Occult Philosophy.

In Egypt, Hermes Trismegistus (“Hermes the thrice greatest”) stands out from the long Hermes line, whose writings and teachings were founded on the ancient Mystery doctrine. In Greece also we find the Orphic Mysteries, from whose halls of esoteric instruction came forth many who bore the name of Orpheus.

What impelled these pupils to take the names of their teachers? Why did they sign their work, or give oral instruction, in the name of Orpheus, Hermes, or Zoroaster? Was it a kind of spiritual plagiarism, or was it rather because of a compelling gratitude to the teacher who had given them ALL, who had lighted the flame of esoteric fire in their hearts? Surely the latter, for whatever message they had of inspiration and light they deemed not theirs, but “his who sent me” — “As we have received it, thus shall we pass it on.” This practice is distressing to later historians who struggle always to attach correct labels to things, yet one cannot help but love these old disciples for that loyalty of soul which banishes all thought of individual greatness.

The relationship between disciple and teacher is a most sacred bond of spiritual intimacy. Gratitude wells up from the disciple commensurate with greatness of soul: the little of heart feel only resentment when guidance and protection are offered; but the large of heart burn with the flame of loving and inextinguishable gratitude. The links in this Golden Chain of Hermes are joined by gratitude. As each link is coupled with its brother link, heart with heart, teacher with pupil, pupil with teacher — each teacher a pupil to the one above, each pupil a teacher to the one below — all bonded by unbreakable links of love, fidelity, and gratitude to the teacher, to the Brotherhood, to the esoteric wisdom:

Like signal-fires of the olden times, which, lighted and extinguished by turns upon one hill-top after another, conveyed intelligence along a whole stretch of country, so we see a long line of “wise” men from the beginning of history down to our own times communicating the word of wisdom to their direct successors. Passing from seer to seer, the “Word” flashes out like lightning, and while carrying off the initiator from human sight forever, brings the new initiate into view. — Isis Unveiled

This “long line of `wise’ men” has been kept unbroken since the middle of the third root-race by two methods: (a) the actual reincarnation of adepts, and (b) the birth of the initiate out of the disciple. In this way the Brotherhood revitalizes its membership through the rebirth of hierophants, and the “second birth” of recruits from the ranks of the Mystery chambers. The “Passing of the Word” was the final rite of the solar initiation: without it no transmission of occult authority could be made from initiator to disciple.

Hence the line of esoteric authority and wisdom advances in serial order through grade after grade of chelaship to the adepts; from adepts to high mahatmas; from high mahatmas to buddhas; from buddhas to dhyani-buddhas; from dhyani-buddhas to the spiritual guide and protector of the planetary chain of earth; from the earth planetary spirit to the heart of the sun. Truly a line of luminous glory linking the humblest of disciples of wisdom with the solar logos.

Initiation Revisited.

In the deeper Mystery-training, the pupil must not only learn to build the mystic vessel of awakened consciousness which will carry him from plane to plane but, in the process of such individual becoming, must rediscover for himself the ageless routes of initiation.

In wisdom and foresight, nature is consistent throughout: one law, one plan, one structure. With charming thrift she rehearses the pathways of initiation through the cycles of sleep and death. Death and its processes form the heart and core of the Greater Mysteries: through death of the inferior the superior finds birth. Except the seed die, the flower cannot bloom; except the flower die, the seed cannot form. “He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (Matt. 10:39).

Sleep is an incomplete death — unconsciously experienced; death is a complete sleep — unconsciously experienced; initiation is a self-conscious sleep or “death” of the lower elements with a fully conscious liberation of the spiritual soul along the pathways of sleep and death.

In sleep the body “dies” imperfectly, for the golden cord remains linked to the slumbering body. If the soul is not weighted with material desire, then a natural quiescence ensues. During the brief hours of nightly sleep, if the karma be favorable the freed spirit-soul may ascend out of the sphere of earth along the invisible magnetic pathways to higher realms. The ascent is instantaneous, followed by the return along identic pathways until the soul once again enters the sleeping body and a new day dawns.

The pathways of sleep traversed night after night constitute an unconscious journey along the routes of initiation. Such momentary and unrecognized contact during sleep is not wasted; the very repetition of the selfsame process acts as an invisible spur to the ordinary person. If the aspirations continue and the life is made purer, faint impressions of beauty and grandeur will penetrate the soul, intuitions will manifest, and the aspirant will find benediction sweeping into his days through nightly communion with higher spheres.

Death is the following of the same processes of sleep, only perfectly so. The body is cast off permanently and dissipates; the golden cord is withdrawn, and the soul, freed of its terrestrial elements, enters the spheres of temporary purgation. Liberated and cleansed of earthly dross, the soul ascends to its spiritual parent, the higher self, and in peace and bliss undreamed of pursues the identic journey of sleep. In each of the mansions of space, a stop is made, shorter or longer depending upon the links of affinity formerly made through past experience of the spiritual soul until, strengthened by divine contact, it once again treads the ancient pathway, and a child is born on earth.

Thus in death the age-old routes of initiation are followed by the spiritual monad in conscious recognition, but as yet in unconscious appreciation by the ordinary human soul.

A human being is many-sided: he has within him a divine monad, a spiritual soul, and a human soul which works through his vital-astral-physical nature. We must guard against the lower gaining dominion over the higher and must watch carefully, particularly in discussion of these holy themes, lest we become so fascinated by their beauty and intellectual splendor, that we forget their essential worth — that of ethics. Unless an individual has made ethics the foundation of his character, his heart and mind will be continually shaken by the storms of desire.

Those who care for little beyond the immediate will have scant attraction to deeper things, but those who have begun to think and feel intuitively may find themselves irresistibly drawn to the ancient wisdom. However, to those already stirring from the sleep of matter, warning is repeatedly given against entertaining the notion that initiation is just around the corner. One must defend the heart against selfish desire for so-called occult powers as one would defend oneself against the bite of a serpent. The initiations referred to, more particularly in the previous chapter, are not described but only alluded to as hints of what some day the worthy disciple may find himself fortunate enough to experience.

In summation, over and over the journey of initiation is traversed: in sleep imperfectly, in death more perfectly; nightly by the soul in sleep, periodically by the soul in death. Unconsciously undergone, nature thus rehearses that which the soul must one day follow with will and consciousness fully active. This latter process is the journey of initiation: the deliberate paralysis of terrestrial influence followed by the self-perceptive journey through every plane and sphere of the cosmos.

In his Esoteric Tradition, Purucker elaborates:

The purpose of the passing of the Monad postmortem through the various planetary chains is to allow it to free itself on each such planetary chain of the integument or habiliment or vehicle which belongs to the vital essence of such planetary chain. It is only thus that the Monad strips off from itself one after the other the different “coatings” with which it has enwrapped itself during its long evolutionary journey; and thus when it has freed itself from all the seven “coatings” it is then ready, because freed and in its pure and “unclothed” state, to enter into its own native spiritual Home. When the return journey towards Earth’s planetary chain begins, the Monad then passes through all these same seven planets, but in reverse order to that by which it had ascended through them, and in each such planet that it visits . . . it picks up and re-assumes or clothes itself in the lifeatoms forming the “coatings” that it had previously dropped or cast off in each one of these seven planets respectively.

The soul as yet has not developed sufficient strength to withstand the full revelation of the universe. There is a Babylonian legend which points to a Mystery-teaching. Ishtar descends to the underworld and, arriving at the gates of Arallu (Hades), stands beautiful and regal. The archaic decree, however, demands that none may enter the dread precincts of the underworld who are not bare of garment or jewel. 

Therefore at each of the successive gates through which Ishtar must pass, the keeper divests her of some garment or ornament: first her crown, then her ear-rings, then her necklace, then the ornaments from her bosom, then her many-jeweled girdle, then the spangles from her hands and feet, and lastly her loin-cloth. — Will Durant, The Story of Civilization  

Free and pure she enters the Land of No Return where her sister, Ereshkigal, holds sway. Full of jealousy, she sends against Ishtar sixty diseases. Having passed the tests of the lower world, Ishtar retraces her steps through the seven gates, receiving in reverse order the garments and jewels which she had cast aside on her descending journey, and finally, as she ascends into the regions of light, Ishtar is adorned with the seventh jewel, the crown of spiritual glory.

The descent to the underworld is not an automatic process, but a willing decision to undertake the journey as a supreme test of intellectual and spiritual integrity. If the candidate succeed, union with the divine and bliss supernal will be his; if he fail, then death or madness lies in store. Far better had he never ventured upon these trials, for fearful indeed are they. But all is not lost, for in a future life he may try again.

If the aspirant has through austerity, utter devotion, discipline, and learning become as gold in the fire, swift and sure will be his passage through the lower worlds. With the flame of spirituality burning within, the successful candidate rises to the spheres superior, where the passage from planet to planet is made with full awareness. Passing the ultimate test, the pupil, now become master, returns to earth and to his entranced body. The guardian of the initiation chamber, who has watched over the body of his disciple with patient and loving care, is filled with joy: the initiation is consummated.

Mutational Law of Karma (कर्म)?

During the preparation for cell division, for example, before the formation of the gametes or reproductive cells, the chromosomes may “cross over” so that material which originated from the male parent interchanges with that from the female parent. To quote from a standard work on evolutionary theory and genetics, Ernst Mayr’s Evolution and the Diversity of Life:

At some time prior to the formation of the gametes, the two homologous chromosomes exchange equivalent pieces with each other by a process called “crossing over.” By and large (there are many exceptions) no laws seem to determine where the chromosomes will break or how large the pieces will be that are exchanged. Which particular combination of pieces of maternal and paternal chromosomes making up the new chromosome will enter a given egg or spermatozoon is largely a matter of chance, at least in most chromosomes and most species. Likewise, it is largely a matter of accident which chromosomes will go into which germ cell, provided only that each cell receives its full set of chromosomes.

It is easy to attribute events to chance, but this only expresses scientific ignorance as to the real cause.

Another phenomenon is mutation: sometimes genetic codes suddenly change. This, too, is usually attributed to accident or chance, but then it is difficult to explain why any progression is made at all once biological systems have evolved to a certain level of complexity and perfection. The chance of a mutation leading to fatal, or at least less fit, properties is far greater than of a mutation making the individual fitter. Besides “crossing over” and mutation at one or several places on the chromosomes, another uncertain factor that Mayr and others mention is the distribution of chromosomes during reduction division (meiosis) to form reproductive cells. This process affects which side in the gamete the originally paternal or maternal genetic material goes to. Moreover, there are other opportunities for the course of events to be influenced from within: only part of the cell’s genetic code is active at certain times and under certain circumstances. Other parts are not active and may never become so during the present life. Thus, there are many secrets not yet unveiled by science, but nevertheless attributed to “chance.”

Chance, however, has no place in the theosophical view. Whatever happens is karmic, that is, it can be attributed to a cause, and this cause comes from within. In theosophy the different combinations of hereditary qualities in individuals are governed by psychomagnetic attractions inherent in the skandhas (‎स्कन्ध) of the reincarnating entity. Skandhas are the individual’s aggregates of properties — such as higher and lower mental consciousness, feelings, attractions, and physical characteristics — carried over from former lives. Thus, the specific magnetism of the soul, formed by its store of properties, determines which combinations of hereditary qualities will manifest in a particular incarnation. “It is . . . unquestionable that in the case of human incarnations the law of Karma, racial or individual, overrides the subordinate tendencies of ‘Heredity,’ its servant” (The Secret Doctrine).

Thomas Hobbes, the Materialist (1)

Hobbes was fundamentally a materialist and was utterly hostile to the supernatural hypotheses in the realm of social thought. In his political philosophy, Hobbes tried to conceptualize the relationship between the new nation State, which had been emerging under the Tudors, and the individual citizen, who could no longer be regarded simply as having a set place in a divinely instituted order. In the old medieval society a man was bound by ties attaching to his status and by duties prescribed for him by the Church. Aristotle’s doctrine of natural kinds and natural places and his account of man as a social animal provided a fitting naturalistic foundation or the theological world view that was accepted by the rulers and the ruled alike. But with the rise of individualism and the social mobility that accompanied the rise of commerce and capitalism, this old conception of man in society no longer applied. Men had shaken off the ties of their guilds and local communities, and the new natural philosophy was beginning to render the naturalistic foundations of the former worldview untenable.

Hobbes’ picture of life as a race, in which we must suppose to have no other good, nor other garland, but being foremost, was a gruesome form of social control which could take its place and prevent the anarchy of a State of nature. The answer was to be found of course in the increasing power of the

executive power of the State and in the growth of the statute law, together with the development of the individual conscience, whereby regulation from within replaced the external authority of the Catholic Church. Hobbes distrusted the anarchic tendencies of the individual conscience as much as he loathed the extramundane authority of the Church of Rome. For him, the task was to banish both, along with the traditional ties. He thought of reconstructing the civil society as a simple mechanistic system.

Let us take a brief look at his social contract and the commonwealth.

Social Contract: Hobbes had a ready model at hand through which he might present his Galilean analysis of the rationale of civil society, the social contract theory. Despite its obvious flaws, the social contract theory was an attempt to rationalize political obligations, to substitute an intelligent bargain for mystifying appeals to Divine Right and tradition. Hobbes’ feat was to employ this model to demonstrate that absolutism is the only possible logical outcome of consistent concern for individual interests. In his attitude towards tradition and Divine Right, he was at one with the defenders of the Government by consent. But because of his depressing estimate of human nature, he came to the somewhat gleeful conclusion, that absolutism could be the only rationally defensible form of Government. Hobbes imagined the individual in the State of nature as having an unlimited right to “protect his life and members” and “to use all the means, to do all the actions, without which he cannot preserve himself.” Hobbes uses the concept of right in a way to talk about both what a person is entitled to do and what a person cannot be obliged to renounce. Hobbes’ “Rights” of nature are derivative from man’s tendency to assert him and seek power. Hobbes held that men would also be driven by his fear of death to accept certain laws of nature and prescribed that every man should lay down his rights to all things and be contended with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself. This could be done with either not interfering with other’s enjoyment of their rights or by transferring one’s rights to another, in which case the transfer is obliged not to hinder the recipient. The mutual transferring of such rights is called a contract and the third law of nature is that men perform their covenants made.

Commonwealth: The definition of commonwealth is, “one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves everyone the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall see expedient, for their peace and common defence.” The person that results is the Sovereign, and everyone else is his subject. The Sovereign is created by the contract, but is not a party to it. His basic principle of human nature is revealed by his Galilean resolution, “that the dispositions of men are naturally such that, except they be restrained through some coercive power, every man will dread and distrust each other.” No motive in human nature, except the fear of death, is strong enough to counteract the disruptive force of man’s self-assertion. The fear of death must, therefore, the explanation of the existence of civil society. Sovereignty must be perpetual, undivided and absolute, for to divide and limit sovereignty would be to risk anarchy. The safety of the people is the supreme law.

Historical background

In the 17^th century England, the middle class had carried forward their rebellion against absolute monarchy based on Divine Rights. The Parliament was the representation of this class and its fight. The men who now fought the Stuart Kings were precisely those who had profited from Tudor absolutism, which now began to irritate them. The lower middle class then split from their upper counterpart and rallied around Cromwell. So far as the untitled and the unmoneyed class was concerned, they stood largely by the Throne, although they had as little to gain by the King as from the Parliament. The middle class was so afraid of the poor people as of the King. When the parliamentarians talked about the Government based on consent, they had no intention of extending the franchise to the people; it was to be their own consent. Right to property, which they held to be sacred, meant to them the principle that the King had no right to tax them without their consent; it also meant the denial of property to the poor.

It was in this climate that Hobbes arrived on the intellectual scene of England. Coke was attacking the Divine Rights of Kings and he regarded both King and the Parliament, as subject to common law which, to him, was the truly sovereign power in the land. Common law had to be interpreted by the Judges. Throughout Europe, absolute State was becoming the order of the day. Louis XI had first subjugated the feudal nobility. The Reformation then enabled the monarchs to better the Church. Henry VIII had claimed jurisdiction and powers, which no earlier British King had done. To the discomfiture of Hobbes, the cursed Puritans had undone the work so artistically done by Henry VIII and the price had to be redesigned so that the fabric may be saved from total destruction in the hands of the rabble.

Hobbes was eclectic as he borrowed from previous thinkers, but gave his own orientation to their concepts. He agrees with Machiavelli that man is selfish and that human nature is bad but insists that the State could transfer the man into a moral being by the exercise of the master’s rod. He is indebted to Bodin for his concept of sovereignty but, unlike Bodin, would impose no limitations of Divine, Natural or Constitutional law on his subjects. He agrees with Grotius that, reason is the basis of law but insists that it must be sovereign’s reason alone. He modifies the Divine Right theory by discarding the Divine origin of the State and by giving Divine Right to the State instead to the King. Hobbes like Machiavelli, subordinated ethics and religion to politics and was the first prophet of sovereignty.

Morality as a basis for his political philosophy:

Political philosophy of Hobbes was based on Moral philosophy on the one hand and politics on the other. Hobbes treated it systematically in his three discourses viz., Elements of Law, Elements Philosophiae and in the Leviathan. In so far as the principles of political philosophy are not borrowed from natural sciences, the two are independent of each other. According to Hobbes theory of human nature, the basis is in the two most certain postulates of human nature. The first being that of ‘natural appetite’. The second being ‘natural reason’. Hobbes reduces man’s natural appetite to vanity; he can’t recognize the fear of a violent death, not the fear of a painful death, and certainly not the striving after self-preservation as the principle of morality. As he aptly puts it that it is not the legality of the action, but the morality of the purpose that makes a just man.

Concept of individual:

In modern political philosophy, the individual is looked upon as the unit of the society and his liberty and freedom are of central importance. He undoubtedly has the duty to obey the law of the State, but the ground of political obligation is no longer an inexplicable divinity, which hallowed the medieval polity; but an expanded area of freedom which, obedience would release. The State is all-powerful, but its omnipotence is not the outcome of sheer physical force; it is a result of the superior moral ethos, which is the offspring of the contract. The primary functions of the modern State are threefold:

1. Happiness or Utility.
2. Material or moral progress.
3. Promotion of fear and extension of liberty.

The individual, therefore, is of capital importance and the State is, in the long run, subservient to him. It is to hinder hindrances. The hindrance may be the individual himself, or a group of individuals or a class; it may be other states, aggressive, jingoistic and expansionist. In every case, the State has to function as a shield for the individual against aggression and as a sword for his welfare. Positive in content, modern political philosophy is scientific and empirical in nature, approach, and methodology and in technique. Advances in pure and applied sciences have had a deep impact on political thought, the chief example being Hobbes.