The moment to know soul and spiril certainly exist in humans...

Today, I found and realised that something like soul and spirit exist certainly in this terrestrial world .... It's found in an immediate moment when a person encounters another randomly in an odd place in a transient time zone... Body, face, voice, and action in an immediate moment inspires us like static electric goes through out body.... The action taken by the person was not special, but something like a special spiritual contact certainly took place. It took place in an unusual place. I felt a unique shock when I entered into the space where is isolated from a repetitive daily life. It was like going into a hidden place in a darkening shift from day to night where the unknown mystery is hiding in...




When there is an opportunity to communicate with people from different civilisations, ethnicity, and religions (or ideologies), it makes more possible to feel and understand the quality of soul human-beings are endowed with. Then, it makes also possible to observe the soul of others from our own native background. This experience may lead us to either gain a confidence or become disappoint in people and civilisation of our own. The true strength of human-beings may come from such a quality of soul: The guarantee of obtaining the true happiness and the long term survival of this person and his/her family shall depend on the quality of soul regardless of their physical strength, material wealth, intelligence and knowledge, authority, recorded historical backgrounds, and pleasure coming from subordinance...

The strong soul with a good quality will make a strong sense of feeling a spirit revealing out from each human-being. The characteristic of these spirits can be either weak or distinctive. Human-beings with a weak spirit are those who are made to live rather than live themselves: They live as though they are died. The distinctive ones are either cursed or vital. Cursed spirits harm others by encountering them. The human-beings with a cursed spirit harm us even though they protect us with a physical strength, distribute us an abundant material wealth, provide various kinds of knowledge with their intelligence, hold a strong authority over us, record a long history of survival, and subordinate us to please us. By contrast, the human-beings with a vital spirit lead us to a miracle. The human-beings with a vital spirit impress us even though they are deprived of physical strength, material wealth, intelligence and knowledge, authority, and prideful history, and ability to subordinate.

As Greco-Roman philosophers argued, a priori of human-beings' quality is their soul forming their spirit. We cannot change the quality of our soul within a short time period. The quality of soul is built in our innate nature such as our environment surrounding us, family, culture and civilisation we are from, and the luckiness to have an opportunity to encounter with those who improve our soul. Those without spirit are gradually ceasing away; those with a cursed spirit are rotten in their life and/or starve until they die; and those with a vital spirit thrive with hope even in poverty, deprivation, oppression, and fear...!

Political Philosophical Compass (Spectrum) --- Part 3

... contuned from Part 2:

Hobbes' work had influenced many remarkable political philosophers such as John Loche, David Hume, and Jean Jacques Rousseau. As Loche's philosophy highly influenced David Hume, and Jean Jacques Rousseau, Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant, it can be said that Hobbes, who influenced Loche, influenced Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant as well. All in all, without Hobbes. all these political philosophers in the modern time period would not have existed. In other words, all these modern political philosophers' works were the footnotes of Hobbes' work.

Hobbes had learnt from a lot from two mainstream Antiquity philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. He adopted a theory of Platonian ideal state and Aristotlean virture theory to his own philosophy. However, the clear distinction of Hobbes from these two Antiquity philosophers is that he had never considered what the true moral should be. All philosophers previous the modern ones, not only Plato and Aristotle but also the other ones having existed in the previous and the later time periods, always considered what is the nature of human-beings should be and what is the moral objective of human-beings. Furthermore, majority of these Antiquity and Medieval philosophers always tried to define the existence of the universe and how outcomes of this world are derived to form the universe. One of the few remarkable philosophers who were more apathetics about clearly defining the existence of the universe was Macus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor. Marcus Aurelius stated that the universe is formed by the random outcomes which we cannot exactly discover what and how these outcomes are derived from. Although Marcus Aurelius did not stick to spending a lot of time on defining the existence of the universe, he still yet put emphasis on the universal moral which human-beings ought to follow. As same as Marcus Aurelius, Hobbes also thought the universe is composed of the random outcomes derived from unknown reason. But, unlike Marcus Aurelius, Hobbes did put emphasis on neither the universal moral human-beings ought to follow nor how human-beings ought to be regardless of different situations across time, place, and occasion. Meanwhile, all these Antiquity and Medieval philosophies are solid, synthetic, and focusing on a massive picture, Hobbesian philosophy is flexible, analytic, and focusing on human-beings and their cummunities by parts.

Hobbes insisted that human-nature is permanent and cannot be changed as same as Aristotle mentioned. This aspect shows Hobbes is moral-naturalist as much as Aristotle. But, Hobbes was certainly modest about human-nature than Aristotle. Aristotle stated human-beings are naturally social so that they can govern themselves by letting them alone to decide what to do. By contrast, Hobbes did not agree with what Aristotle defined human-nature. Hobbes claimed that human-beings will hinder each other when there were no particular role to order them to be harmonised, and then fall into chaos. Hobbes strongly put emphasis on necessity of strictly coded laws which bring an order to govern human-beings instead of expecting the human-nature to self-govern human-beings. Laws are created differently according to what form of laws is suitable for different time, place, and occasion to bring an order. Unlike Aristotle put emphasis on the moral objective as "being social" to be humans, Hobbes argued that needs to be good human-beings are different across time, place, and occasion. In addition, there is no clear objective measure to define what is the moral for human-beings to follow. Only the objective for human-beings is to follow the laws bringing them an order whose objective measure also depends on time, place, and occasion. This aspect makes Hobbes to be more subjective than Aristotle, but it yet remains a little objectiveness than Machiavelli.

Hobbes quoted a lot of phrases from Aristotle such as human virtue. Aristotle explained human-beings' virtue is to do what they are good at. Hobbes stated the ultimate virtue which is common among all human-beings is obeying laws and following order. Aristotle was more optimistic about direct democracy which enables all human-beings represent their opinion equally as much as possible. However, Hobbes was highly sceptical about Aristotlean direct democracy due to the problem to work politics out effciently and defining whose opinion is more legitimate than the others when they fall into conflict of decision making process.

Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and Machiavelli drew a picture of human society by means of the nature of human-beings and how human-beings should be. Hobbes seems to the first person who mentioned something other than human-beings themselves, their nature, and the community structure. He was the first person who mentioned the existence of "law" to be a foundation of moral among human-beings and a stabiliser of their community. The philosophers previous to Hobbes did not consider about how law is given by nature, guardian, people, God, and/or sovereign, and did not define what and how law should be. Hobbes was the first
political philosopher who insisted that political philosophers whould firstly think about and define what is law before thinking about to know about human-nature, how community should be structured, and the existence of the universe. Plato talked about rationality when he talked about ethics (political philosophy). However, unlike Plato, Hobbes did not expect all people to be rational enough to establish an utoppia. Hobbes argued that it is impossible for all people to become perfectly rational beings, but people will be happier and their community will be stabilised as long as the law and the structure based upon it they are following are rationally constructed. Thus, rather than expecting human-beings and talking about an alternative world, Hobbes was the first political philosopher who focused on rationality of law instead of rationality of human-beings and a rationally imaged world view.


Hobbes argued that the best virture of human-beings is obeying the law and following the order, and sin is breaking law and order. Many later modern philosophers argued against this Hobbes' argument, but their theories seem to be just an different interpretation of what Hobbes said. These philosophers agreed with Hobbes for the point that political philosophies have to take an account of rationality and law (including physcially enforced, written, natural=spontaneous and/or any other form based on either a subjective feeling or an objective principle) in order to study about people, their community, and how they function. Therefore, they took a lot of ideas from Hobbes, and reformed Hobbes' theory into their own style.

Hobbes required to have an autocratic institution who is responsibility for legislating the law enforcement, and a strong charismatic sovereign, monarchy and/or any other form of premiership, who represents as a top authority of the autocratic institution. As long as law enforcements created by the autocratic institution are rational and the charisma of a sovereign attract both the institution and people obeying their order, the system will be stabilised, Hobbes argued.

By contrast, Loche, Hume, and Rousseau claimed there should be another form of body ensuring people following the law to stablise their community under order. These philosophers challenged Hobbes' authoritarianism, and suggested to create another form of principle brining an order rationally instead of relying on a strickly stratified autocratic system. Loche insisted on the fundamental principle of morality and the consitution defining what laws should be to convince people to follow. Hume claimed that there is a natural law people naturally adapt to keep themselves under order. Rousseu put emphasis on the existence of the "spontaneous" order which is different from the "enforced" order.


... to be contuned to Part 3:

Milton Friedman attacking hippocratic socialist medical service

This is a fabulous lecture criticising an overly state controlling health (medical) service. This clarifies why free market system is not bad for medical industries to operate unlike what socialists and any anti-freemaketists and financial repressionists describe as. This warns that, when people allow medical services to be marged into the public sector and the degree of government controll increases, peole rather suffer than gain benefit in spite of what socialist government promises.

Islamic World Political Compass

Majority of people outside Islamic world tend to be ignorant about the political ideology of the political leaders in the Middle-East, South East Asia, West Asia, Africa, and the Western world. Some Westerners claim that Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein cooperated together but it would be impossible. Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein have a totally different ideology from each other, and they had never seemed to be able to cooperate together.

Osama bin Ladin was an Islamic conservativist who detested combining Islamism with any modern political ideologies such as socialism, pan-Islamism (United Islamist nations), and political party ideology. Osama bin Ladin formed his own politically influential groups such as Taliban and Al Qaeda. But, his initial aim was to establish individual people and their community following the traditional Shariah law, and keep them away from modern politics. Unlike Sadam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi, Osama bin Ladin was not interested in modern ideology such as either forming a strong iron fist political party for himself such as Hussein did or establishing a political community gathering different people from different nations to be unified under a strong modern political administration such as Gaddafi did.

By contrast, Saddam Hussein was a hard core atheist and highly influenced by the USSR communism. Even though Hussein persecuted all members of Iraqi Communist Party, his political ideology was a resemblance of Stalin's. As same as the communist nations' leaders such as Stalin and Mao Zedong, Saddam Hussein wanted his nation to follow him and his iron fist political party by admiring his charisma. If there were an Islamic worship in his nation, the loyalty of his nation to him and his political party would decline because people no longer worship him and his party as a Godly charisma.



Nowadays, the movement to use Islamisn as a tool to establish the modern nation state or a tool to fight against the political oppression. Therefore, some people tend to think of Islamism as a sort of the modern political ideology. However, although the original Islamism takes account of economic, cultural, and metaphysical taughts, the style of Islamism is different from some Islamic political thinkers nowadays regard. The modern political ideologies focus on analysing how individuals live in and react to law, legislation, monetary economy, fiscal policy, and ideologies political parties hold, and attempt to establish these systems which are more likely to stabilitise a community where individuals live in, benefit to particular one individual or a group of individuals, bring a high level of utility to individuals living in a community, and/or gurantee individuals' right. By contrast, the traditional Islamism focuses on how individuals are living supiritually well regardless of how their surroudings are in order to accomplish what God wanted human-beings to be, and only created their own law as a principle guide line for them to live for their God's sake. All in all, the modern political ideologies regard the law to be a contract between individuals themselves whereas the traditional Islamic law (Shariah law) regards the law is a cntract between any individual and God.

The modern political ideologies regard human-beings are well-determined, semi-rational, and consistent enough to follow their own decision based on their needs, wants, and values. Therefore, they trust in the contract with only human-beings without will of a super-natural supreme-being. This trend is high influenced by the Christian way of thinking which claims the worship of God and religious taughts should be separated from the secular authority, law, and custom in order to keep the religion from interests of the secular world. Thus, as the modern political ideologies were highly inflenced by Christianity, even though some of them were highly sceptic about or even strongly against Christianity, so that all people following the modern political ideologies are influenced by this separatino of the religious world view and secular world view. This aspect motivates individuals to create their own moral, law, legislation, their own ethics about monetary economy, fiscal policy, and their custom and culture by human-beings' own decision based on their needs, wants, and values.

All the traditional Islamists, who are not only Osama bin Ladin and the fundamentalists but also all the genuine Islamic people following the traditional Islamic way of living, believe that individuals are too weak and inresponsible to establish the order. Therefore, the modern political systems based on the contract between individuals is too weak and inconsistent to be maintained so that these systems eventually corrupt individualsm, instabilise their community, and spoils their soul. This is the aspect that the traditional Islamism is sceptical about allowing human-beings to create their own moral, law, legislation, their own ethics about monetary economy, fiscal policy, and their custom and culture by human-beings' own decision based on their needs, wants, and values. These Islamists put emphasis on the importance of the interaction of God's will as a mediator of human-beings' own decision based on their needs, wants, and values. It means that individual human-beings make a contract with God at the first stage, and then agree or disagree with the other human-beings. This characterisitics denies the existence of the modern political ideologies, which over-estimate human-beings and their decision making process as explained previously, take place in their community.

Osama bin Ladin was one of these traditional Islamist who are highly sceptical about the modern political ideologies which over-estimate human-beings. This aspect explains that he wanted to react against this tradition to bring the traditional Islamism based on the contract between individual and God (The super-natural), and was highly sceptical about individuals and the modern political contract.



The modern Ismamic political activists combined the modern political ideologies and the traditional Islamism together.

Colonel Gaddafi attempted to combine Socialism, the modern Western political ideology, with Islamism together. His aim was to unite people by both the modern contract between individual people and the Islamic contract between each individual and God. Gaddafi combined the ideology about the the equality among people insisted by the Western socialism and Islamic tought insisting all people are equal in front of God. His original aim was to put emphasis on the equality among people to attract his supporters and alliance nations to him.

Malcolm X, in the United State of America (USA), was also the one who combined the modern political ideology with Islamism. He combined the human right idea invented by the Western modern ethics and Islamic attude of anti White suprematist Christinamism (* Only mentioning a particular kind of Christian groups). Malcolm X thought highly of protecting the individual right stated by the modern political philosophy which is formed by the contract between individuals in their secular law. However, he also thuoght that the equity (fairness) of this contract was violated due to the situation that some human-beings are not considered as variable to be treated fairly. Then, he thought all individuals living in a community need another form of strong doctrine which implant the idea of all individuals' right into their mind. His choice was Islamism which claims all human-beings are equal in front of God, and always put emphasis on the interaction of God's will while human-beings are making any contract.

The problem of these modern political figures is that both could not develop their political ideologies to be influential in a long term. We are not sure whether Gaddafi once had a strong altruism to use his political ideology to unite people and put the equality policy into practice or he initially wanted to use his ideology just to attract people to obey him. Nonetheless, regardless of what he might have initially thought, he turns up to be very corrupted,and operated the policy which was very different from what he promised people to bring. Malcolm X 's policy was so violent that it turns up to become a descrimination using an anti-descriminational ideology. These two were so idealistic and aspired to establish the community which precisely follows their idea that they could not tackle with obstacles in the reality. Furthermore, both Gaddafi's Socialist Pan-Islamism and Malcom X's Black Islamism cannot be accomplished because they combised two different kinds of ideologies, the modern political ideology and Islamism, which regard of a totally different world view from each other as explained previously.


Sukarno, the founder of independent Indonesia, was much more able to achieve to combine the modern political ideology with Islamism. The reason is that he remainded his political ideology, the Islamic State Socialism, only in a constitutional level. Sukarno was pragmatic to put his policy into practice. Unlike Gaddafi, he did not rant his political ideology as if it brings a utopia, and rationally faced with realities. Unlike Malcom X, he did neither violently exaggerate nor enforce the equal right as a fundamental objective to be accomplished. He only refered to the principle of equality, right, and islamic ethics as the objective guide line (not the way it must always be).



Nevertheless, both the fundamental Islamists such as Osama bin Ladin, and the genuine traditional Islamists may say that marging Islamism into the modern (Western) political ideologies lead people and their community far from what Islam treaches. The original Islamism insists well-beings of people come into reality when people in their community become supiritually well by being aware of the contract with God; not with the contract with the system human-beings established themselves. So, they would not want Islamism to be used as a tool for someone who wants to establish a system to rule the others under his/her administration even though the ideology held by this administration sounds wonderful. Therefore, United Socialist Pan-Islamic nation invented by Gaddafi would not be able to convince these traditional Islamic people. It is agaist their theory to exaggerate the right because their religion teaches the nature in this world is severe so that we need to take for granted. Therefore, the hatrate against the oppression to the individual right is unproductive so that they would not agree with Malcom X. They may say that Sukarno's policy was practical to develop a nation where protects Muslim people's life style, their interests, and their material well-being, but does not particularly follow precicely how Islamism requires people to do....

All in all, Islamism is a complex religion, and a mysterious ideology at the same time. In this globalised world where the way of all political systems work is based on the modern (Western) political philosophies (ideologies). Some attempted to use both Islamism and the modern political philosophy together to administrate their own nation. However, the fundamental problem is that Islamism involves a totally different basis of philosophy which may never be harmonised with the modern political philosophy (ideology). Thus, both Islamic fundamentalist, who aspire to enforce people and their community to follow the original traditional Islamist practice, and genuine traditional Islamic people, who just want to keep their own Islamic life style whose Islamic identity is not diluted by adapting the modern (Western) life style, isolate themselves and their community from the influence from any modern political ideologies and the globalisation. This segregationist method has a problem causing a huge tention of conflict between themselves and people from outside their community. Hosni Mubarak selected the alternative way which does not use Islamism in politics. Mubarak operated a rational and secular political administration which can adapt into the current globalising world trend to both protect and develop his own nation. Unlike Sukarno, Gaddafi, and Malcolm X, Mubarak considered Islamism is not practical to be combined with the modern political ideology which bases the philosophy to operate the political administration. Furthermore, Mubaraku realised the global free market system is beneficial for his nation and people living there. So, socialism is a hindrance, and Islamic intervention in his nation's political administration (Although he did not think Islamism is worthless; He admitted Islamism thrives). Hence, although Islamism is respectable religion and an interesting ideology, it seems to be still troublesome to be used for a principle basing any political administration. It will be interesting how Islamism become evolving to be adopted into the political administration in the future though.

Three Dimensional Political Spectrum

* Prevalence was calculated by multiplying the percentage possibility of policy existence and the percentage of people gaining utility from policy. The level of prevalence becomes higher when the colour become closer to red / orange whereas the level of prevalence becomes lower when the colour becomes closer to pale blue. The higher prevalence means possible to both exist and please people whereas the lower prevalence means less possible to either exist or please people, or both.

* Economic scale shows the size of government and adaptability to the market mechanism. More authoritarian implies big government controls economy. More libertarian implies little or non government interaction exists, and adapting rationally to the natural flow of marchet mechanism.

* Political scale shows the degree of freedom from the political peer pressure such as a unified political ideology, an political institute, and a powerful minority group such as a religious institution and a capitalist corporation. More authoritarian implies people are encouraged or enforced to follow the political peer pressure. More libertarian implies that people are more self-governing themselves.

* Personal scale shows either community/group interest or individual interest prevails. More authoritarian implies the community/group interest comes faster than the individual interest. More libertarian implies that the individual interest comes faster than the community/group interest.

Political Philosophical Compass (Spectrum) --- Part 2

... contuned from Part 1:

2: From the late medieval to the modern:

Machiavelli openned the gate way from Antiquity and Medieval to the modern political philosophical world. There is no doubt that Hobbes was inspired by Machiavellian philosophy to write his Leviathan. All remarkable modern political philosophers were highly influenced by Hobbes so that it may be possible to say that all these philosophies were merely the footnotes of Hobbes's work. If Hobbes was the founder of the modern political philosophy, Machiavelli would be the person who evolved the political philosophy from the old Antiquity to the progressive modern philosophy.

Machiavelli's ethical focus was how individuals should act owing to the surrounding evnrionment. Machiavelli had ever mentioned about neither the ideal world (Utopia) nor how human-beings ought to be naturally. His philosophy is about deriving the optimum solution for each different individual to act according to their own individual subjective interests regardless of an objective moral principle. His book called "Prince" indicated how a nation, the community of human-beings, and her sovereign such as a monarchy and any top political leader should act like. Machiavelli's success was having simplified the method to consider and analyse how the world is formed and how the human-beings ought to be.

All Antiquity and Medieval philosphies were too complex to analyse the decision making of human-beings. These ancient philosophers always started imaging about the world and and the moral judgement from thinking about the universality and the essentiality of human-beings.

By contrast, Machiavelli started to argue about political philosophy (Ethics) from the individual subjective interests rather than an objective moral guide line stated by Plato (as Idea) and Augstine (as God), and a metaphysics by Aristotle (as the nature (essentiality) of human-beings and their community) and Aquinas (as Natural law of human-beings and Divine law of God). Machiavelli could be one of the first political philosophers who invented the "moral relativism" which denies the existence of Utopia, the absolute universal value of moral judgement, and the essentiality of human-beings.

In terms of Machiavelli's world view, individual human-beings should act by following their expected merit gained from their action, so by neither the ideal moral guideline nor how human-beings ought to be naturally. The merits mentioned by Machiavelli are security (protection) of individuals, their family, and their significant others, material gain, full-filling desires, admiration to charisma (beauty, masculine power, authority, family-tie, friendship, and something related to self-identity).

Only the objectivity mentioned by Machiavelli was the power of an authority with these merit. The one holding a high level of these merits is the one who control the most. Machiavellian philosophy of measuring these merits is highly subjective and varies across time, place, and occasion. Unlike Platonism and Aristotlean, Machiavellian does not have an universal objective measure to tell what is right and wrong. The judgement highly depends on how human-beings can see and feel at their moment. Thus, Machiavelli is one of the most subjectivist philosophers because there is no objective principle to measure the volume of these merits; only the measure is human-beings' sujective sensation.

Machiavelli regarded the essentiality of human-beings is the instinction that they follow the charisma and the merits they can immediately see. However, unlike Aristotle, he did not mention all the human-beings are naturally same. Machiavelli regarded the quality of human-beings varies across their endowed talent, family, ethnicity, civilisation, and their sovereign they obey. All in all, Machiavelli saw human-beings have a natural instinct to follow the charisma. Nonetheless, Machiavelli seemed to believe in the evolution of human-beings to the next step and the alternative world more than Aristotle did. Unlike Aristotle, Machiavelli aspired to create a new ideal world although it was not strong desire as much as Plato did. Machiavelli seemed to have thought that if the strong and admirable charismatic sovereign could have existed and prevailed in this world, the better alternative world could have existed. However, Machiavellian world view is still based on the assumption that, although human-beings maybe able to create an alternative better world, the instinction of human-beings will not change.

He regarded highly of the existence of a sovereign (monarchy and any other form of political leadership) who ought to possess a high level of these merits. The interesting fact of Machiavellian philosophy is that, although Machiavelli put a high priority on the existence of sovereign and supported the position of sovereign should be inherited, he claimed that the one who becomes a soveign and his/her family has to possess these merits he mentioned. Therefore, he seemed to have criticised and contradicted the existence of the sovereign who lacks all these merits he mentioned. Furthermore, although the position of the sovereign must be inherited, the family of this sovereign has to have an ability to keep the high level of these merits to inherit. Thus, Machiavelli seemed to have used a rhetoric to criticise the existence of monarchy by pretending the existence of monarchy. But, we never know whether Machiavelli was a supporter of monarchism or a critic of monarchism.



Hobbes seemed like to have taken over the philosophy of Machiavellian moral relativism and optimum decision making based on a subjective interest of individuals and a nation, the community. On the top of his emphasis on the moral relativism and need of the powerful authority, Hobbes offered more mathematically and logically structured analyses of political philosophy than Machiavellian. Hobbes regards that there should be moral codes which guide human-beings to establish a stable and cohesive community.

Hobbes was more realist than Machiavelli. Unlike Machiavelli, Hobbes did not believe in the ideal sovereign with a full of the merits Machiavelli mentioned. Although Hobbes admired the power of a charismatic sovereign, he assumed that it is impossible for the sovereign be powerful and charismatic as much as Machiavelli described. The main reason of this difference between Hobbes and Machiavelli is that Hobbes did not believe in the evolution of human nature. Although he insisted that a sovereign should be powerful and charismatic as same as Machiavelli did, he assumed that it is impossible for a sovereign to be always an ideally powerful and charismatic. This is because sovereign is also a human-being, and can be corrupted if there is no rationally coded law guidling people and their sovereign. Machiavelli regarded that a good sovereign makes a good law whereas Hobbes argued a law should select and keep a good sovereign. All in all, Machiavelli seemed to have thought that, although the essential human nature would not change, there would be an non-naturally superior individual who could be a sovereign ruling over the others. By contrast, Hobbes had never believed in any non-natural human-beings at all, and a sovereign is naturally a same human being as same as other individuals.

Instead of the supremacy of a sovereign that Machiavelli insisted on, Hobbes put emphasis on the "legitimacy" of sovereign, and the strictly coded rational law should define the legitimacy of sovereign. Hobbes argued that human-beings need a strictly coded rational law, they should be guided by its legal system. He claimed that the "law" based on rationally (neither superstitiously nor intuitively) constructed codes is the universal moral principle. He argued the rule under this law could actually measure whether human-beings' decisions are morally right or wrong. Hobbes puts emphasis on the obeying "order" rather than charisma. Hobbes did not regard there should be always a perfect charismatic sovereign, whom Machiavelli admired, as long as the stability of humans' community under the law guideline is guaranteed. Unless the sovereign is really useless enough to collapse one enitre civilisation, s/he should reign.

This aspect that Hobbes supported there should be a rationally coded law (legal system) guiding human-beings as a universal principle indicates that Hobbes is more objective than Machiavelli. Machiavelli claimed that action and decision of human-beings are judged in terms of human-beings own feeling, desire, admiration, fear, and all the subjective feelings at any different time, place, and occation. Hobbes agreed with this Machiavelli's point. However, this is not enough to guide human-beings to establish a stabile civilised society which Hobbes considered as necessary for all human-beings. Hobbes strongly required the existence of a strictly coded rule under a rationally constructed legitimate law, and despised superstition and intuitive rules. Machiavellian philosophy still allows either a sovreign or a legal system to be driven superstition and intuition if human-beings and accept to exist. By contrast, Hobbes highlighted that an existence of secular (not superstitious) and rational (not intuitive) law as an objective measure and a universal moral principle.




Both Machiavelli and Hobbes thought a unity of human-beings could be achieved by allowing human-beings' subjective interests to be competing each other, and then the physically strongest, the most charismatic, and the wisest one to win. Both of them thought highly of the natural selection that determines which moral decision is right and wrong when two or several moral decisions exist and decision makers have to decide any one of them. One of the measures of the natural selection is individuals' merit to the others. It indicates those who have more merit than the other shall rule the others.

Although Machiavellism and Hobbesian are authoritarianism as same as Platonism, Machiavellian characteristics is totally opposite from Platonian characterisitics. Plato said the authoritarian heirarchy should be established by following the ideal structure in order to create an ideal world i.e. Utopia so that he claimed that possition of individuals in their cummunity "should be re-shuffled" to re-allocate them owing to their merit accomplishing to establish a Utopia. On the other hand, Machiavelli and Hobbes had never believed in Utopia. Both of them regarded that all individuals' status is "already" given to all individuals owing to the merit distrubuted to each individual by following the natural selection. Machiavelli believed that the natural selection prevails whereas Plato believes the natural selection is not an ideal. In addition, Plato believed there is an absolute universal objective moral guide line whereas Machiavelli and Hobbes regarded that the moral is relative to time, place, and occasion. Furthermore, unlike Aristotle, Machiavelli and Hobbes had never mentioned how human-beings ought to be by nature (Aristotle is more objective than Machiavelli and Hobbes because Aristotle believed there is an objective scale to what human-beings ought to be although his objectivity is not strong as much as Platonian philosophy.

The interesting aspect is that, meanwhile Platonists, the moral universalists, and these two moral relativists (Moral value is a subjective matter and is derived from the human-nature) have an opposite philosophy on the spectrum from each other, both of these opposing groups strongly necessarity and inevitability of the existence of an "absolute authority".


... to be contuned to Part 3: