Parte de:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00bfQu\u00e9 es la Filosof\u00eda Pol\u00edtica? \/ III. Las soluciones Modernas<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Por Le\u014dnardus Str\u016bthi\u014d<\/span><\/p>\n\n

Le<\/span>\u014d<\/span>nard<\/span>\u012b<\/span> Str\u016bt<\/span>h<\/span>i<\/span>\u012b<\/span> verba<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

But the main reason why Machiavelli\u2019<\/span>s<\/span> scheme had to be modified was its revolting character. The man who mitigated Machiavelli\u2019<\/span>s<\/span> scheme in a manner which was almost sufficient to guarantee the success of Machiavelli\u2019<\/span>s<\/span> primary intention was Hobbes.<\/span> One could think for a moment that Hobbes\u2019<\/span>s<\/span> correction of Machiavelli consists in a masterpi<\/span>e<\/span>ce of prestidigitation. Machiavelli wrote a <\/span>book called <\/span>On The Prince<\/i><\/span><\/a> (D<\/i><\/span>\u0113<\/i><\/span> Pr<\/i><\/span>\u012b<\/i><\/span>ncip<\/i><\/span>\u0101<\/i><\/span>tibus<\/i><\/span>); Hobbes wrote a book called <\/span>On The <\/i><\/span>Citizen<\/i><\/span><\/a> (D<\/i><\/span>\u0113 <\/i><\/span>C<\/i><\/span>\u012b<\/i><\/span>ve<\/i><\/span>); <\/span>i.e., Hobbes chose <\/span>as his theme, not the practices of kingdoms and states, but rather the duties of subjects; hence what Hobbes did teach sounds much more innocent than what Machiavelli had taught, without necessarily contradicting Machiavelli\u2019<\/span>s <\/span>teaching.<\/span> But it is both more charitable and more correct to say that <\/span>Ho<\/span>bbes was an honest and plain-spoken <\/span>Englishman who <\/span>lacked the fine Italian hand of his master. Or if you wish, you may compare Hobbes to Sherlock Holmes and Machiavelli to Professor Moriarty. For certainly Hobbes took justice much more seriously than Machiavelli had done.<\/span> He may even be said to have defended the cause of justice: he denies that it is of the essence of civil soci<\/span>e<\/span>ty to be founded on crime. <\/span>To<\/span> refute Machiavelli\u2019<\/span>s<\/span> fundamental contention may be said to be the chief purpose of Hobbes\u2019<\/span>s <\/span>famous doctrine about the <\/span>state of nature<\/span><\/a>. He accepted the traditional notion that justice is not merely the work of society but that there is a <\/span>natural right<\/span><\/a>. But he also accepted Machiavelli\u2019<\/span>s<\/span> critique of traditional political philosophy: traditional political philosophy aimed too high.<\/span> Hence<\/span> he demanded that natural right be derived from the beginnings: the elementary wants or urges, which effectively determine all men most of the time and not from man\u2019s perfection or end, the desire for which effectively determines only a few men, and by no means most of the time. These primary urges are of course selfish; they can be reduced to one principle: the desire for self-preservation, or negatively expressed, the fear of violent death.<\/span> This means that not the glitter and glamour of glory\u2014or pride\u2014but the terror of fear of death stands at the cradle of civil society: not heroes, if fratricidal and incestuous heroes, but naked, shivering poor devils were the founders of civilization. The appearance of the diabolical vanishes completely.<\/span> But let us not be too rash. Once government has been established, the fear of violent death turns into fear of government. And the desire for self-preservation expands into the desire for comfortable self-preservation. Machiavelli\u2019s glory is indeed deflated; it stands now revealed as mere, unsubstantial, <\/span>pretty, ridiculous vanity. That glory does not however give way to justice or human excellence, but to concern with solid comfort, with practical, pedestrian hedonism. Glory survives only in the form of competition.<\/span> In other words, whereas the pivot of Machiavelli\u2019s political teaching was<\/span>\u00a0glory, the pivot of Hobbes\u2019s political teaching is power. Power is <\/span>infinitely more businesslike than glory. Far from being the goal of a lofty or demonic longing, it is required by, or the expression of, a cold objective necessity.<\/span> Power is morally neutral. Or, what is the same thing, it is ambiguous if of concealed ambiguity. Power, and the concern with power lack the direct human appeal of glory and the concern with glory. It emerges through an estrangement from man\u2019s primary motivation. It has an air of senility. It becomes visible in grey eminences rather than in Scipios and Hannibals. Respectable, pedestrian hedonism, sobriety without sublimity and subtlety, protected or made possible by \u201cpower politics\u201d\u2014this is the meaning of <\/span>Ho<\/span>bbes\u2019<\/span>s<\/span> correction of Machiavelli.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n