Hahn and Wiker are on to John Locke, and to Boyle and Francis Bacon before him. Isaac Newton around the same time; Locke did converse with Newton on theology, but (obviously) didn't recommend Newtonism to others. Hahn-Wiker sees Locke as following in the Machiavelli / Hobbes tradition: so far, so POLI 102. In the process, Locke - that whiggiest of Whigs - goes after Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarchia, beloved of Tories and Moldbuggers. Filmer comes off... poorly.
Filmer argued for (derp) Patriarchy. A king is to his subjects as the father his children. There's a case for that, from first-principles. Unfortunately Filmer argued from Genesis One, where the Elohim grant/s to Adam dominion over all the plants and beasts of the field. Locke pointed out first that Genesis One's god[s] do not include women (already created) in Adam's dominion nor whatever boys and girls may come from their union in future. Locke proposed instead that Elohim intended here possession and property. Adam is "king" over the dumb animals like a lion. Elohim does not set Adam to adjudicate between Squirrel and Rabbit.
As for Genesis One's intent, scholars today agree it is Priestly. 'Tis possible that the priests saw themselves as lions, to batten upon the Jews. There remains a strain in the Rabbinate that G-d has imposed the new priests - élite Jews - over the goyim, not to rule them, but to shear and milk them like sheep. I think, though, that the Bible elsewhere is more clear on reciprocal duties between priesthood, king, and commons. I know that Locke is right that Genesis One cannot be used to support Patriarchia. The Divine Itself is a plural in that chapter.
No comments:
Post a Comment