I am a fan of the TV show, “House.” I find the medical mysteries intriguing and I love racing the team to the correct diagnosis, often writing my own differential out during commercials. Imagine my surprise the main character’s best (only?) friend commented about someone finding life to be “nasty, brutish and long.” I recognized this as a turn of phrase from an essay written by Sally Fallon called, “Nasty, Brutish and Short?” available on the Weston A. Price website. It’s a fascinating read, and I highly recommend it.

It turns out the original quote comes from Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, published in 1651 and goes like this:

“Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.”

In Leviathan, Hobbes gives three causes for the conflict between man and nature: “The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation.”

The first conflict, he argues, arises from man’s unwillingness to seek peace. He allows for warfare as is necessary after all other means have been sought, but asserts it should be fought wholeheartedly and over quickly. In nature, Hobbes says, every man has a right to every thing, even to one another’s body. His second remedy for conflict is that, in order to secure the advantages of peace, that a man be willing, when others are as well… to lay down his right to property and even life to seek peace. Injustice, he claims, is failure to meet the terms of a solemn agreement and all else is considered fair.

It’s interesting reading, but its concepts are sloggingly difficult and filled with the kind of period-specific language that scares many away from the novels of Jane Austen. His main argument is for a civilized society that cares for others more than self, to not seek war and to keep one’s promises. Good goals, all, and laughably antithetical to Dr. House’s worldview. It is this kind of thoughtful, ironic screenwriting that is so missing from most televised fare these days. I love to watch something that sends me scrambling to Google, to the library, to the Bible. I don’t want to just sit back and let the “art” wash over me. I want to be challenged as well as entertained.

I know, it’s a lot to ask.