Philosophy Docket, Case #1: Hobbes & Darwin et al...Vs. Kant & St. Paul et al..

Aside from the normal delineations found in most introductions and survey history of Western Philosophy, a central debate, a central Philosophical "Case" has been "thundering" in the court of Philosophy among it's practitioners for the past 150 years, but hasn't received much notice in Philosophical literature. I Call this case: "HOBBES & DARWIN ET AL. VS. KANT & ST. PAUL ET AL.

The structure lines up as an argument, a complaint if you will, pressed on the "nature of man" and contains the corresponding ramifications of this position for moral philosophy, law and Political theory. It is opposed by a view that can be characterized as the "nature of human life/experience".

The Plaintiffs in the case are represented by Thomas Hobbes, Charles Darwin, David Hume, Karl Marx, F. Neitzsche, Edmund Burke, Gilles Deleuze(the logic of sense), Charles Pierce, R. Heidegger, F.S. Fitzgerald, F. Dostoevsky, Hans Jonas in his moral writing, the Martha Nussbaum quoted on this blog, the Leo Strauss quoted on this blog, H.L.A. Hart, a bad reading of Aristotle, and Lincoln's "Cooper Union" Union Speech (at least as of 1/08)- in the phrase "might makes right". (This phrase is derived from a poor interpretation of the historical implications of the Hegel dictum "the real is the rational, and the rational is the real"- in combination with an extremely selective and limited reading of the "Phenomenology of Spirit").

The Defendants in the case are represented by Immanuel Kant, St. Paul in his formulation of the paradox/combination of Law AND grace, St. John, John Stuart Mill(Utilitarians), Thomas Jefferson, Jean Jacques Rousseau, the early John Dewey quoted on this blog, Michel Villey, Pope John Paul II both in 'Love and Responsibility' and in his Encyclical letters, the Theodor Adorno work quoted on this blog, the Federalist Papers treatment of the consent of the governed, Victor Hugo ("to love another person is to see the face of God"), Gabriel Marcel, Paul Ricoeur, Nikolai Berdyaev, Learned Hand, Christine Korsgaard & myself, and supported in viewpoint by some of the opinions of Justice Hugo Black...among others

As it is philosophy, though, cases of this type can work on very, very long project management time frames, much longer than normal, unless one of the sides abandons their position and concedes defeat.

Philosophers make claim that their observations reflect enduring truth, and so the ground which is being contested and tested in such arguments reflects a much longer time frame than timelines involved with legal cases, and even longer than projects like the rebuilding of Europe after WWII.

The Plaintiffs have pressed the argument, it is being examined, and it is in the process of being answered with "thunder", and with proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQpyxh3xpv8

and..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6FwEJwwYcQ