miscreation.net

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== Philosophy Parallel Reading #2 ======
**Gilson, Etienne. A History of Philosophy - Modern Philosophy - Descartes to Kant pp. 191-219 **

John Locke's //An Essay Concerning Human Understanding// inspired Leibniz to write a 500 page essay parelleling the same topics. His //Two Treatises of Civil Government// inspired Whig Republicans in English and American politics for a century. He was not a professional philosopher, he was trained as a physician, but worked as secretary.

The //Essay Concerning Human Understanding// was brought about by the Glorious Revolution, the successful opposition by protestants against the Catholic party of King James II.  In addition, the conception of God was rejected.

Locke writes in a way that does not presume to supply the answers to all of the problems of the universe and goes so far to state that human understanding has its limitations.  He argues that there are no universal innate ideas, but a readiness to accept these ideas when they present themselves. He says an idea that is **determinate** is one that is present, definite, and primary.  **Determined** applies to complex ideas.  These ideas are constructed by thought processes within ourselves.

Locke tries to show that what we know comes from experience rather than innate knowledge.  He calls  experience "our observation, employed either about external sense objects, or about the internal operations of our minds, perceived and reflected on by ourselves." He says that sensation alone is not the source of experience, but we must also use reflection, that notice which the mind takes of its own operations, and the manner of them."

Each simple idea has one uniform appearance, not distinguishable into parts.  Atoms of consciousness.  This is the basis for the construction of determined ideas.

He describes four simple types of ideas:
  - Discrete sense data.
  - Discrete reflections on the operation of the mind.
  - Qualities discovered through the cooperation of multiple senses.
  - Ideas derived from the cooperation of sense and reflection.

The Cartesians claim that color, sound, taste etc. are subjective. Locke suggests that the objects we sense impose effects in us, being simple ideas.

Complex ideas are formed by //combining//, //comparing//, and //separating//.  The results are three categories //substances//, //modes//, and //relations//.

Much of the evidence that Locke puts forth doesn't hold up very well under scrutiny.  In the formation of complex ideas, he doesn't use any sort of scientific method to assert how these ideas are formed.  He generalizes away much in his descriptions.

He describes personal identity with being able to perceive oneself.  He goes on to describe that the body and mind are separate, but sets up arguments for later philosophers such as Kant to challenge this position.

He talks about the ideas of an equilateral triangle and that the ideas that we conceive of them exist whether they exist in the real world or not.  This seems to be a nod toward Descartes describing the triangle in //Meditations on First Philosophy//.

He asserts that we cannot know facts about science inside us.  We must observe them.  They are experimental and we cannot find absolutes.  It is a never ending quest.  In addition he argued that the value of a thing came out of the labor that was put into it, before the Marxists.

Men are motivated for the "common good".  Property assures the individual liberty and happiness.  In the state of nature, all men are equal.  He's not saying that all men were the same, just that they were each the master of his own destiny.  Freedom is a natural in-born right.

He argues for a societal social contract in which men voluntarily give up the freedom to be judge and executioner as he sees fit.  He does this in order to pursue preservation and happiness.  The government has power only to allow for people to pursue this preservation and property.  Stepping outside this boundary lends itself to revolution by the people.

**Kurtz, American Thought Before 1900, pp143-164**

Thomas Jefferson followed Locke's reasoning in that people had natural rights.  Primary among these is the right to self-govern.  Among these rights are the rights of thinking, speaking, forming opinions.  None of these required external assistance. The second kind of rights are the right to personal protection, possessing property.  These rights, he argues, can be relinquished by a group of people to the betterment of the entire group. As for Locke's idea of rebellion being just if a government was unjust, Jefferson clearly thought that it too was justified.

Jefferson believed that there was a natural aristocracy and one that was artificial.  The one that was natural, was based on the idea that those with virtue and wisdom, and talent would be the ones that were elected to rule.  The artificial aristocracy being one based on wealth and birth, he deemed, was detrimental to the well-being of a republic.

He thought that majority rule was acceptable as long as the society remained chiefly agricultural.  He felt that industrialization and large cities were corrupt.  

In Jefferson's ideal society, education was an essential component.  He thought that it was important that people understand wisdom and virtue so that they could rule themselves appropriately.  He thought that all governments were corrupt in some way and that only through due diligence that these weaknesses could be discovered and dealt with.  He thought that this was significant enough to amend the Constitution to provide for public education because all people should have their effect on their government.

He thought that any nation should not deny another to rule itself as it sees fit for its own people.

He thought that the freedom of the press was essential for critical analysis of government.

He hoped that people having their own freedom would want to share in that freedom and would see slavery for what it was.  He held slaves, though treated them as freemen.  This thinking was progressive for its time.

Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association set forth the doctrine of "separation of church and state" when he clarified that no legislature should establish a religion and should not prohibit the free exercise of a religion.

Though he was attacked often as being an atheist, he in fact often declared his belief in a Creator.  He argued for reason in interpretation of the Bible in matters that contradicted the laws of nature and one should think critically of what one reads in material in the Bible just as one would of any other writer.  "Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven", he reasons in his argument to read the Bible (and other histories of Christ) and make your own judgments of the truth.

Furthermore, he describes the many years of Christian thought to be using Plato, which he thought poorly of as corrupting the teachings of Christ.  He sites the moral doctrines of Jesus as being more perfect than even the greatest of philosophers, though he does liken Jesus to Socrates and Epictetus in that none of them actually wrote anything down.

He asks that if morality comes merely from the love of God, then where do the moralities of an atheist come from?

**Marx, Karl //The Communist Manifesto// from //The Primary Source// pp. 1-27**

Marx begins by describing the two classes that he asserts have been in existence throughout history:  The bourgeois and the proletariats, though not by those names.  These are the names that he assigns to the property owners and working class, respectively since the industrial revolution.  He describes how throughout history that despite upheavals in societal systems, the new societal structure works out to having those in power and those who are not.  He describes the bourgeois as oppressing the proletarians throughout history, but the methods of this oppression change with societal structure.

He describes the bourgeois in the context of the writing, the mid-nineteenth century,  as being those that own the factories and are in search of ever more productive methods.  In stead of many craftsmen, the rise of the industrial revolution has concentrated power and property into the hands of a few. He describes the proletariat as an army of workers and the rule of these factories by the bourgeois as despotism.

The rise of the industrial revolution, he claims, has given rise to a system where regardless of the type of factory work, the proletariat's contribution to the work is trivial and can be replaced by any other worker, thus reducing the amount necessary to pay them by the bourgeois.

The proletariat class will organize, he claims, though competition among the members of that class will keep it from materializing, but inevitably will rise up and demand  that their interests be met.  He sites a 10 hour work day bill in England as an example of how this can happen. He describes the balance of money in a modern society as being one where the bourgeois continually gain wealth due to expanding their reach in industrialization but the worker sinks deeper into a state of poverty.

He advances the position of the Communist by stating that it wishes to abolish the state of bourgeois property, much like the French transformed the state of feudal property ownership into bourgeois property ownership.  He restates this as the abolition of private property.

He addresses the criticism that laziness will overtake the population.  He suggests that those that work in a bourgeois society are the proletariat alone.  They acquire nothing because they make just enough to get by, but the bourgeois continue to acquire wealth.

He describes community education and a community of women which he describes as replacing a hidden system where women are just a means of producing more laborers and suggests that men try to seduce other mens wifes anyway.  This would just officially recognize this structure.

He lays out the basic ideas that many of the nations of the time could use to setup the Communist Society as he envisioned it.  After that he describes several socialistic systems that will not work and he explains why they would not work in the instances in which they existed.

**Mill, John Stuart.  //On Liberty// from //The Primary Source// pp. 1-25**

Mill begins by addressing the issue of giving up some measure of liberty in order to allow a group of people to govern oneself, much as Locke said.  What he fears is that  a majority of people may oppress a minority in a given society if certain limits were not put forth to address the issue.  He puts forth the principle that the only reason for any human or collection of humans to interfere with the liberty of any other is for self-protection.

He puts forth three ideas that he considers essential to a free society.  These cannot be restricted by any means.
  - The freedom to think, feel, express opinions on all subjects
  - The liberty to pursue of life as we see fit without interference from others
  - Freedom to assemble in groups so long as we are doing no one harm.

He asserts that humans attempts to impose their opinions on one another whether they are the ruler or merely a citizen.  He says that to deprive one of expressing their opinion is to deny them the right to exchanging error for truth in the case that they were right, or the ability to gain a clearer perception of the truth.

He sites several instances where those that had advanced opinions contrary to those of society had been persecuted, including Socrates, Christ, and demonstrated that even one of the greatest minds of the time, Marcus Aurelius persecuted Christians.
He also makes argument for never being able to discern truth if not allowed to question opinions.