Arianne’s review of Napoleon: A Life > Likes and Comments

This is on my my list. Now that I read your wonderful review it’s moving to the top!

Larry (LPosse1) wrote: "This is on my my list. Now that I read your wonderful review it’s moving to the top!"

Oh my, thank you for the kind words Larry. In know my review was somewhat offbeat. It was more philosophical than historical as I recall.

Great provocative review, Arianne. Napoleon, in the Hegelian sense, is both good and evil, hence dialectics. He birthed evil--- the millions he killed, directly or indirectly---and did much good, ending feudalism in Western Europe, abolishing the Inquisition, pulling the Spanish and Portuguese colonies out of the orbit of Iberia, and fanning German nationalism. He did not intend to do any of this, but intention does not count in dialectics. I also think you slight Hobbes on the origins of the state, but that's another story.

Julio wrote: "Great provocative review, Arianne. Napoleon, in the Hegelian sense, is both good and evil, hence dialectics. He birthed evil--- the millions he killed, dirctly or indirectly---and good, ending feud..."

Thank you Julio (Professor) for your perspicacious comments. I appreciate you taking the time to engage with the review and commenting upon it. You found me out I guess, I am no Hegel scholar but willing to learn more. What did I miss or overlook?

I agree with your analysis of Hegel and Napoleon, Arianne, but, if you permit me, I think you give Hegel too much credit as a political thinker. He had no theory on the origins of the state, but following his own dialectics the state evolves into perfection in the Prussian state! (This led one wag to proclaim, "At Stalingrad the Left Hegelians fought the Right Hegelians".) Hobbes's theory of the state is not an early form of the"social contract". On the contrary. For Hobbes the state rests on force, and always will; "Covenants, without swords, are mere words". Quite a long way from Locke and Rousseau in their theories of the state as a commonwealth! I'll let these giants battle it out among themselves. Cheers!

Julio wrote: "I agree with your analysis of Hegel and Napoleon, Arianne, but, if you permit me, I think you give Hegel too much credit as a political thinker. He had no theory on the origins of the state, but fo..."

Thanks again for your wonderful and insightful comments, a real pleasure to read and think about. But does not Hobbes present a social contract, odious though it may be? That is, the citizens give up their rights, especially their imagined right to use force, to an absolute sovereign with a monopoly on the use force, in exchange for protection from chaos, civil war and the maintenance of order. Hobbes being a witness to the English Civil War it is not difficult to see how we arrived at this theory of the state.

I never heard the one about the Battle of Stalingrad being a fight between the Hegelians - thanks for sharing.

You're welcome, Arianne. The difference between Hobbes and Locke and Rousseau is that his "covenant", call it a social contract if you will, can never be revoked! The sovereign never loses his absolute power and may pass it on to his descendants. There is no such thing as Rousseau's "General Will" in Hobbes. Public opinion simply does not count, and is a form of lese majeste. The people do not enjoy freedom of religion or speech. A notion such as "inalienable rights" is totally foreign to him, with two exceptions; the sovereign may not physically kill you, without cause, or seize your property, unless in time of war or other dangers. Those are very dangerous exceptions. As Hume once wrote, "Hobbes prescribes tyranny for sovereignty".

Julio wrote: "You're welcome, Arianne. The difference between Hobbes and Locke and Rousseau is that his "covenant", call it a social contract if you will, can never be revoked! The sovereign never loses his abso..."

Thanks again Julio.

I was struck by your phrase "Public opinion simply does not count, and is a form of lese majeste." Is this not where we are in the U.S.? A U.S. President is now criminalizing free expression and political protest. Are not the people of the U.S. taking the Hobbesian covenant as we move into a Hobbesian state of nature - all again all?

We now have a sovereign who may physically kill you, without cause, or seize and destroy your property without due process, a sovereign creating fake wars and pseudo insurrections to usurp war making powers, foreign and domestic, e.g., the Insurrection Act. The irony of the man who caused a real insurrection (01/06/21) invoking the Insurrection Act for a pseudo insurrection he is manufacturing is irresistible.

I live in Illinois where the Grab-it Abbot has sent his buffoons and goons.

All my best to you,

Arianne