Well, a bit of divergence this week, as the reading we're asked to cover includes Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Locke and more Locke, Berkeley and Hume.
However, the lecture concentrated almost exclusively on Spinoza and Locke, with a mention of Leibniz and a splash of Newton thrown in for good measure. I'll try and cover the essentials of both the reading and the lecture, if I should screw it up, please feel free to give (constructive) criticism...
Spinoza
Spinoza really interested me, what I took from reading about him in Bertrand Russell's book was the interchangeability of 'God or Nature'. The idea that any God out there is impersonal and simply the frame in which all tangible or intangible matter (however distant) can be known was thought-provoking for me. I certainly can't believe in a god that smites enemies or protects friends, but the idea that God=nature is certainly a harder to disprove theory. How would we know?
If my reading of Spinoza is correct, what he understands by 'God' is something that's outside of our knowledge that forms a part of everything that exists and is completely impersonal. This concept of what constitutes a 'God' is so different to the teachings of the Bible and other 'holy' books that I'm surprised that Spinoza wasn't stamped on more heavily by the church authorities of his time. Having said that, Bertrand Russell's book does state that Spinoza was excommunicated by the Jews and equally abhorred by the Christians (p459), so I'm exceptionally glad that his work has survived. In this light, the whole concept of 'God' changes away from being a caring paternal figure or smiter of evildoers, which, for me at least, has always been difficult to believe.
Spinoza's chief work was 'Ethics' which was published posthumously, but he also wrote Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and Tractatus Politicus. Tractatus Theologico-Politicus was a combination of political theory and biblical criticism, while the Tractatus Politicus was pure political theory throughout.
Spinoza was originally from either Spain or Portugal, but came to Holland to escape the Inquisition. Unlike a large number of philosophers, he seemed uninterested in money, earning enough for his needs by polishing lenses for a living.
Spinoza's political theory had strong similarities to Hobbes 'Leviathan'. Spinoza (like Hobbes) believed that the Church should always have less authority than the state, and that once a sovereign was chosen, that they can do no wrong. He does not believe in rebellion, even against a ruler that abuses their power and does not govern in the interests of their people. However, he did not share Hobbes view that the people had to share their rulers point of view on all subjects, Spinoza believed in freedom of opinion on an individual level.
Spinoza and Hobbes also differed in their views on 'Nature'. Hobbes believed that if people were left in a state of nature (e.g. without government) that life would be a war of 'all vs. all' and would become 'nasty, brutish and short'. Spinoza however, believes that people in a state of nature will attempt to follow natural laws as a matter of course, and will only act outside of these natural laws in instances where they are forced to act in such a manner by circumstances outside of their own control.
Spinoza died early at the age of 43 of a condition called phthisis (a wasting disease, similar in nature to tuberculosis).
Leibniz
The next individual studied was Liebniz, who is either completely nuts, or I've misinterpreted what he was trying to get at, which is entirely possible. If I've understood what Liebniz meant correctly, he does not believe that a substance can have the attribute of extension, because extension is only applicable where there are a 'plural' number of substances. As such he believes that rather than there being a number of different substances that are then subject to extension, he believes that each and every substance that exists is unique, and that there are an infinite number of substances. Leibniz calls these substances monads, and believes (somehow) that each monad is a soul. I'm not clear how he got there, and I'm afraid I'm not personally willing to invest the time in reading his original work to find out.
Far more positively in regard to Liebniz, he actually produced a great deal of important mathematical work, which unfortunately he never published. If he had published this work, he would have been considered the father of mathematical logic. Unfortunately, he did not publish this work and another 150 years passed before mathematical logic was understood and used. His reason for not publishing this work, was that it provided evidence that Aristotle's doctrine of the syllogism was wrong on some points. Leibniz's respect for Aristotle meant that he could not accept that Aristotle may have been wrong, and that the errors must be within his own work.
Leibniz was a contemporary of Spinoza and the two met and discussed philosophy, although Leibniz hid the extent of his fraternisation with Spinoza from his peers, due to Spinoza being largely disowned by polite society of the time. Unlike Spinoza, Leibniz was keen to be associated with wealth and privilege and actively courted the attention of wealthy patrons.
Locke
John Locke (1632-1704) - existed during a time of great unrest in Britain. His father was a Puritan who fought for Parliament and Cromwell during the English Civil War between the Cavaliers (Charles I) and Roundheads (Cromwell).
When Charles II was brought into power after the death of Cromwell, he was forced to accept a system whereby Parliament would exist, despite his reclaiming the throne as King of England. Charles II had made a pact known as 'The Dover Treaty' with his first cousin Louis XIV of France. The treaty effectively promised French support for the British war against the Dutch, in return for an end to the persecution and outlawing of the Roman Catholic church in England.
Charles II attempted to get his side of the deal honoured by introducing the 'Royal Declaration of Indulgence', which was opposed by Parliament, and which Charles II was forced to withdraw. Parliament went further in 1979 by introducing and trying to pass the Exclusion Bill, which would effectively prevent Charles II's brother James (who was Roman-Catholic) from succeeding Charles II. Prominent amongst those opposing a Roman-Catholic succession was the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, who was Locke's patron. Each time the Exclusion Bill looked like it would be passed, Charles II would dissolve Parliament.
During the 1680's, Charles II experienced a great increase in popularity, such that public enthusiasm for the Exclusion Bill was greatly reduced, In 1683 Lord Shaftesbury was charged with treason, but escaped to Holland where he lived in exile, Locke accompanied him on his flight, and remained with him in Holland until 1690.
Locke's most famous work was 'An Essay Concerning Human Understanding', a work that he undertook while exiled in Holland, and not published until after he returned to England in 1690.
The 'Glorious Revolution' as it was known occurred after Charles II's death. James II was the Roman-Catholic king, and to the dismay of Parliament, he was a king of the old 'European' style, believing in the divine right of kings. This was uneasily tolerated by Parliament until James II fathered a son. Now that there was a real risk of a Roman-Catholic dynasty of the old style taking root on England's throne, both political parties in Parliament (the Tories and the Whigs) were concerned enough to take action. They formed a tacit agreement with the Dutch Stadtholder - William of Orange that he should come to England and take the throne from James II.
The revolution was not entirely bloodless, but was nevertheless remarkable for the small number of casualties and comparative ease with which it was effected. It was this that enabled Locke to return to England, a ruler and government sympathetic to his own views had come into power.
Locke's two most important contributions to philosophy were his political doctrines and his discussion of empiricism in theory of knowledge. Tackling each in turn:
Locke's Political doctrines
Locke's political doctrines were contained within the British constitution until just before 1900, and the French (in part through the translated teachings of Voltaire) adopted them in 1871.
In brief, Locke did not believe in the divine right of kings, and did not believe in hereditary power, whereby a son should succeed to power upon the death of their father who has previously held power. Locke attacked these theories by pointing out that if parental power is what's important, a mother should have the same rights as the father. He also rejects the idea that a King can be a direct descendant of Adam, as there are many kings, meaning that at best, all but one of them would be imposters.
Locke believed that if man was left in a state of nature (without government) that there were some laws that man would follow for themselves (e.g.defend themselves against direct attack by another person) but others that require the intervention of a government.
Attempted murder and theft are two crimes that man will defend himself against even in nature according to Locke. This leads Bertrand Russell to observe (p503) that 'He (Locke) says also that by nature every man has a right to punish attacks on himself or his property, even by death. He makes no qualification, so that if I catch a person engaged in petty pilfering I have, apparently, by the law of nature, a right to shoot them.'
Locke is famous for his obsession with property, mention of property is strewn throughout his works and as you can see from the extract above, it appears is considered worth killing for, apparently without exception.
Locke's idea of government for situations that were neither theft or a direct attack on a person was for a 'social contract' to exist. The social contract according to Locke took political power to mean 'the right of making laws, with penalty of death, and consequently all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the commonwealth from foreign injury, and all this only for the public good.'
Locke argues that the weakness of a state of nature is that man is forced to act as the judge in his own case. However, he also argues that a monarch is not an improvement to this situation, as a monarch will be the plaintiff on either one side or the other in a case. His famous quote is 'Absolute monarchy is as if men protected themselves against pole-cats and foxes, but are content, nay think it safety, to be devoured by lions.'
As such, Locke argues that a government can only be formed by individuals coming together and mutually consenting to form a government. The power of government by social contract may never extend beyond what is required for the common good. This statement seems open to abuse to me. For example, Hitler may have been able to successfully argue to a majority of the German people that the extermination of the Jewish population and the annexing of Europe was for the common good of Germany. Also, although we here in Britain are able to elect a political party in a general election every few years, we are not allowed to 'opt out' of British society if a different candidate to the one we voted for should win.
Locke also argues that the government cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent. To clarify this point against the need for taxation to support a government he also states that the expense of government must be borne by the citizens, but with their consent. In a world in which you're asked whether you'd like to be taxed, and are allowed to say 'no', I suspect tax revenues may fall quite substantially....
Locke also argued that there needed to be checks and balances to prevent the executive (historically a king) from being able to abuse their power. According to Locke there should be a legislative function, separate to the executive that must be more powerful than the executive, but must also be removable by the wider community in the event that it is not perceived as carrying out the will of the people. This is the role historically played by Parliament.
Locke's Philosophy (specifically concerning Ideas and the human mind)
Locke, unlike those who came before him, believed that everything contained within the human mind was the result of an experience of one kind or another that had occurred to that individual mind. Either directly through the senses (Sensation) or by the internal working of the mind when pondering a previous experience (Reflection)
This is known as empiricism, and differs from those such as Plato and Descartes who believed that there were certain pieces of knowledge (e.g. the existence of God) 'pre-stamped' into the human mind at the point of conception.
Empiricism is the basis of modern scientific thought and study, we would no longer consider something known unless it could be proved by experiment (experienced by others by performing a test, the results of which can be verified using the senses)
Others have built on Locke's work subsequently, but the majority of the credit has to go to Locke for clearly expressing his thoughts in Chapter I of his 'Essay Concerning Human Understanding' (Chapter 1 - Of Ideas in general, and their Original)
By a twist of fate, it seems that Locke may have owed a significant proportion of his popularity across Europe to the work of Isaac Newton. As Isaac Newton's Principia was proven to supplant Cartesian theory on the action of gravity and the planets, England was seen internationally as a modern forward-thinking nation. As such, new ideas originating from England were not scoffed at, but examined carefully and argued over in detail before being accepted or discarded by other nations. This meant that Locke's ideas encountered less resistance across Europe than they might otherwise have expected to. Locke was also helped in France in particular by the work of Voltaire, who had spent some time in England in his youth and translated Locke's work into French so that he could argue over it with fellow philosophers.
I'm going to leave it there, as I believe I've written up the key points of what was discussed, and I'm concerned I've been over-wordy. If you're still reading, you may deserve some kind of award.
I'll try and approach the next set of notes with brevity in mind....
No comments:
Post a Comment