Hobbes Vs Bossuet

The two famous European political critics, Jaques-Bénigne Bossuet and Thomas Hobbes, wrote political works that were important for their countries, even though their political stances differed. Both Hobbes and Bossuet based their political stances on how it would help their countries. For Bossuet, this was during the reign of Louis XIV, which was during the creation of Fronde, the political party manly made up of nobles. Their goal was to attempt to control the king. Also, this was during the time when Louis XIV broke the Edict of Nantes, the edict that gave freedom to the protestants. Louis XIV strongly believed in “L’etat c’est moi”, meaning that he wanted absolute power. In the case of Hobbes, however, this was during the civil war in England,

which caused by the rivalry of the parliament and the king over who had power. This being said, even though they may have a similar environment in which they lived in, this does not imply that they have the same political ideas.

Hobbes believed that a country should have “Sovereign authority” over its people, which means undisputed control over “civil, military, judicial, and ecclesiastical powers”. Bossuet, however, believed in the more tradition and religious idea, that the king had absolute power. In a way, he supported the idea of Louis XIV, that “L’etat C’est Moi” and he also believed that: “God establishes kings as his ministers, and reigns through them over the people.” Bossuet believes that the king should use his power only for good and for public benefit. Finally, it could also be inferred that this is a battle between modern philosophy and Catholicism . Even though there is a small similarity between Bossuet and Hobbe’s ideas politically , it is apparent that both ideologies differ philosophically, therefore this is a battle between the rise of modern philosophy and

catholicism.

Bossuet’s and Hobbe’s political ideas are akin, as they both believed in a power that has undisputed control over its people. Bossuet believed that the king had absolute power, as he is appointed by god himself. He derived his words from the bible. Bossuet was immensely religious, which has led him to obtaining the title of a bishop. His political ideas were both religious and moral. He believed that the king should not use his power for bad, but for good. This shows how Bossuet did not just think politically, but also morally. At this time, Louis XIV has ordered the killings of protestants in France, which shows why the implementation of morality in politics is important. For Bossuet, a king should not use his power power to murder, kidnap, or steal. Bossuet’s political ideas supported France’s political structure. Louis XIV believed that the king had absolute power, which was one of Bossuet’s main ideas. Bossuet also believed that the king should not be controlled by others or overthrown, as the king is appointed by god himself and anyone who went against this belief was a heretic in Bossuet’s perspective. One could say

While Bossuet believed that the king should have absolute power, Hobbes, however, had a different approach at who should have absolute power in a state.

Even though he made moral and political works, he is be known for his political ideas. Hobbes believed that in a state/country a “sovereign authority” must be appointed and have total control over its people. This was due to Hobbes’ philosophy, that in “state of nature”, a civilisation without government/authority, one would be blind and lost in the world, and would always try to compete over leadership. He believed that this would lead to “bellum omnium contra omnes”, war against all. Ultimately, the “Sovereign Authority” should rule by fear, for in a country/state where one is afraid of death, then and only then, can there be true peace. Hobbes believes that there are two ways to achieve this, “Sovereignty by institution” and “Sovereignty by acquisition”. In “Sovereignty by institution”, people are ruled by a “common authority” that the people have either decided on or have already had power over the state for long period of time. While in “Sovereignty by acquisition”, however, the “Sovereign authority” is usually a conqueror that promises “ protection for obedience”. This idea was based on a “Social Contract”, which confirms trust and obedience to a “Soverign Authority”. Hobbes also believed, that it did not matter how a “Sovereign Authority” came to power, but obedience and legitimacy of the authority’s power comes to

an end if the authority fails to provide protection. Also, even though one controlled by such “Soverign Authority” has little to no liberty, they can still maintain liberty only if the circumstance calls for it. Such a circumstance would be, for example, if a “Sovereign Authority” fails to provide protection or if the life of one is in danger. This “ Self-defense” from “Sovereign Authority” helps maintain one’s liberty. Finally, Hobbes’ third major argument is that religion and the sovereign should not be two separate powers, as to create a stable government the sovereign must be the head of the church/native religion and ruler of the people. Hobbes believed that if these two powers were to be independent, it would lead to a power struggle and conflict between the two. So, to create a stable government there must be a single authority.
Finally, it could also be inferred that this is a battle between modern philosophy and Catholicism. The 17th century is known as the rise of modern philosophy. This was primarily due to the philosophers that rose during the time of the renaissance such as descartes, who has inspired thinkers in western Europe to create new ideas and arguments. This has led to the creation of modern philosophy. Hobbes, who is known for being a political philosopher, belongs to the criteria of modern philosophers, and this has influenced his work. Britannica defines political philosophy as , “[a] branch of philosophy that is concerned, at the most abstract level, with the concepts and arguments involved in political opinion.” Therefore, Hobbe’s political ideas are mainly associated with governmental issues, and are not limited by morality. Hobbes believes that a “Sovereign authority” has absolute power, and one can only overthrow this authority if his safety is at risk. Hobbes’ political ideas has many holes within them, as there is no limit to the authority’s power. Hobbes uses the fact that the “Sovereign Authority” must protect it’s people to create a relationship between the government and it’s people. The citizens, however, have no power which in turn creates a government similar to a dictatorship. Hobbes and Bossuet’s ideas correlate, as they both use their beliefs to justify their political ideas. Bossuet used catholicism to justify his political ideas, as he based them on catholicism. Hobbes believed that the “Sovereign authority” has absolute power, and that power can be used as they saw fit, while Bossuet believed that a king should only use his power for good. This shows that Bossuet political ideas attempt to put the king’s power in check, while Hobbes’ political ideas gave the authority that ruled near unlimited power to do as they pleased. This shows rivalry between Political philosophy and catholicism. One could argue whether both are either right or wrong, for it comes to down to circumstance to determine which ideology must be used.

Hobbes believed that a country should have “Sovereign authority” over its people, which means undisputed control over “civil, military, judicial, and ecclesiastical powers”. Bossuet, however, believed in the more tradition and religious idea, that the king had absolute power. In a way, he supported the idea of Louis XIV, that “L’etat C’est Moi” and he also believed that: “God establishes kings as his ministers, and reigns through them over the people.” Bossuet believes that the king should use his power only for good and for public benefit. Finally, it could also be inferred that this is a battle between modern philosophy and Catholicism . Throughout the spread of his work, Thomas Hobbes, has received criticism towards the value of liberty in his political philosophy, and was accused of being atheist. This was mainly due to Hobbes’ not being a devoted catholic and it could be said that he was orthodox, rather than catholic. For this to be properly analysed, one should view the definition of being an atheist during the 17th century. To be atheist during this time period, it did not mean that one believed in no god, but rather that they do no appreciate the people and world of god. This term was used to insult Hobbes. Even though there is a small similarity between Bossuet and Hobbes’ ideas politically , it is apparent that both ideologies differ philosophically, therefore this is a battle between the rise of modern philosophy and catholicism.