PHIL 108H~FALL 2012
Exegetical Blog Assignment
LOCKE
Guidelines/Requirements:
1) Write a 50 - 100 word exegetical sentence (critical
analysis, explanation, interpretation) that captures the essence of the readings. Consider
the following: What are the main arguments (explicit and
implicit)? What is the point? Why has
the author tried to communicate something, in that way, and at that time, to
his/her audience?
2) Assumptions/Presuppositions: FIRST, what were YOUR assumptions and
presuppositions coming to this reading?
Then consider: Where does the author stand? What is assumed or taken for
granted in this piece of writing? Who is the assumed audience of this piece? As
a reader, work to pay attention to and discover the values, beliefs, biases,
and assumptions (sometimes overt, sometimes subtle) underlying what you read.
3)
Identifying any significant
insights that you took away from the
reading and/or class discussion (e.g. something you learned, a comment made in class that left
an impression, a paradigm shift, etc.).
Students
are encouraged to think about Locke in relation to the other readings
in the class (e.g. Bernasconi, Mann Taylor, Blume). For example, how
did any of the other readings impact your thoughts about Hobbes' account
of the state of nature, state of war, laws of nature, the sovereign,
etc.?
Students
are also encouraged to read other student's posts and offer comments.
(You do not have to read every post in the class, but try to read 2-3
and offer comments/feedback.
1) In essence, John Locke believed that all men were equal and free in the state of nature. This freedom did not give them license to do anything in the interest of their self-preservation because, in his model, the preservation of others was tied in along with self-preservation, and every individual had the rights to equal “life, liberty, and property” that no government could take away. He believed that the government should represent the will of the people but also enforce policy through reparation and punishment, and that the way the state of nature turns into a state of war is when there exist conflicts concerning property. Political society is ultimately created to preserve property and peace.
ReplyDelete2) Coming into this reading, I had assumed that Locke was the “nice” philosopher. I had expected his ideas to reflect much greater tolerance and optimism than those expressed by Hobbes. I was shocked to discover in our class discussions that not only did he have a remarkably similar situated knowledge to Hobbes, but that he was heavily financially involved in the slave trade. I know it is a matter of time period and place, but I still feel that those most heavily engaged in the slave trade were not in any position to be making grand claims about how people should behave and be treated. It is strange to me that we read an article where a philosopher searched through Hobbes’s life with a fine-toothed comb trying to make an argument that he may have been a racist, when Locke, “the nice philosopher,” was so blatantly racist himself.
Locke believed that human nature is much more rational and tolerant than Hobbes did. He also, however, acknowledged that man is inherently somewhat selfish- which supported his conclusion that government is necessary to protect men from infringements on their property from others. I don’t understand how he could at one point acknowledge that people are very possessive and generally property-oriented; then later assert that a government is necessary to enforce laws through reparation and punishment. So the state of nature is not inherently a state of war, and there is no superiority among people in the state of nature, but these very same rational people who desire property will share equal amounts of property with everyone else? This does not seem logical to me.
I find his argument for the transition to civil society very interesting. He expressed the idea that a man will part with his freedom in the state of nature because the enjoyment of the rights he has in the state of nature is uncertain and always exposed to the threat of others; that people will then unite in civil society for the preservation of their life, liberty, and property. I just can’t decide if he feels that people will act benevolently, (after all, the preservation of others is ranked up there with self-preservation,) or if he thinks people will infringe upon each other’s property, necessitating government interference and follow-up reparations and punishments.
Audience: I assume his audience was similar to Hobbes’s: White, upper class, Western European, well educated, men.
3) The class discussion of what truly constitutes property left an impression on me. Does intellectual property exist? I think it definitely does, but is more complex than owning something tangible like a home because it is more abstract in nature. Locke believed that which you put your labor into is your property, but this contradicts his belief in slavery once again... If the slaves put all their labor into the plantations, why did they own nothing? I assume this is because slaves did not fall under the umbrella of his definition of “equal men.”
1. In essence, Locke sees, as Hobbes does, a state of nature for man; yet that state is one of peace and equality. The state of nature is not a state of war; it may easily become a state of war but these two states are not synonymous (this is unlike Hobbes). Locke also discusses the importance of self-preservation and that the threats men (I stress “men” and not a collective “we” because as a female I am not included, according to Locke) receive on that self-preservation whether directly (on their lives) or indirectly (on their property) give reason to enter into a social contract with other men, laying down their freedoms in the state of nature to live for the more consistent guarantee of rights in a civil society. In that the civil society, the majority is what leads society, a government made up of executive, legislative, and judicial groups that protect the life, liberty, and property of the individual by making laws and enforcing those laws.
ReplyDelete2. Coming to this reading, I expected to find theories similar to Hobbes, and I did, but with some key differences. The greatest difference for me is in Locke’s discussion of a sovereign. To him, an absolute monarch is inconsistent with civil society. Society is to be ruled by the majority, and the majority is formed ideally by three distinct areas of function: executive, legislative, and judicial. The legislative to Locke is the most important, seeing as they make the laws that protect individuals; the legislative body is supreme and cannot pass its power onto others. The judicial body is in place to judge whether or not individuals have violated the laws, and the executive branch is in place to enforce the laws and enforce the punishments of those who have violated that law. What I find interesting and what I cannot help but ask myself is whether or not this form of government is ideal or “right?” Am I merely inclined to accept and to agree with this form of government because it is largely the form of government my own country has adopted? I unfortunately do not have an answer to that question. There is another distinct piece of Locke that I found equally as interesting as his discussions of government and that was his discussion of property, what constitutes property, and what is ones right to that property. To Locke, a man’s body is certainly his property as well as his labor and anything in which that labor is placed. This raised many questions for me. Our country, as seen through the decisions of its Supreme Court, has dedicated considerable piece of its judicial history to the interpretation of the words Locke uses so frequently: “liberty” and “property.” To Locke liberty is tied very closely to property in civil society. Yet, in society today, property is not necessarily guaranteed to us by right of acquisition or by right of it being the fruit of our labor. In fact, if I spend 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, working at a desk on a project, that property at the end of the day is not necessarily mine; that property belongs to the company for whom I work. If that work is the product of my labor, then how is that work not my property? With that question we can get into the idea of intellectual property and the controversial and complex way in which we view that form of property rights. Locke brings up a fundamental issue in his discussions of property, an issue we still struggle with defining today in our country.
I think that Locke would claim that since you are the property of the company you work for, your work is ultimately the property of the company. I think Locke would say that when a person puts up a fence, the fence is not the property of the hammer and nails that were used to make it. Inhumane and offensive, I know, but I think that this is probably the midset that Locke (as you pointed out, a slave owner) is using.
Delete(Cont'd response to Locke)
ReplyDelete3. I must say what struck me most about Locke after we discussed him in class was the piece we read by Bernasconi and Mann on the issue of race in Locke. I was baffled at the fact that Locke was a key member in the development of the slave trade. It thus bore the question in class whether or not we can discredit someone’s writings as legitimate if in their personal lives they were less than desirable people. Honestly, to me, regardless of the merit of Locke’s theories and their inherent logic and advantages, they will be always tainted for me. Yes, his ignorance and his racism can be attributed to his time period, but why discount it merely based on its place in history? Is it not fruitful to look at Locke in this way? To apply his theories to the modern day, not only in practical ways but in social and moral ways as well? I believe the answer is “yes” to view Locke this way is beneficial. Theories can transcend the theorist, but it is important that we recognize the humanity of theorists. They are not untouchable, infallible, or even often times moral human beings. By understanding this humanity, we may view their theories with a more educated and more widespread lens that can only be advantageous to our acquisition of knowledge rather than to its detriment.
I believe that theories can technically transcend the theorist, but also that theorists who don't behave in accordance with their own theories lose a degree of legitimacy and believability. If their theories are so compelling, why wouldn't they themselves adhere to them? If they want to truly influence people, they should lead by example.
DeleteIt was also interesting to see in the "Proto-racism" piece that modern interpreters of philosophers' works would rather rephrase what they wrote rather than just "admit" that these great minds were racist. I agree that theories transcend the theorist--just look how Locke's work was used both by abolitionists and by pro-slavery activists.
Delete1. Locke builds off of the fundamental philosophical principles of Hobbes. However, unlike Hobbes, Locke takes a more humanistic view that portrays humanity in a much more flattering light than does Hobbes' system. Locke keeps the fundamental state of nature, but instead of portraying it as existing in a constat state of war, Locke believes the state of nature to be one of order and peace. Additionally, Locke puts a far greater emphasis on the individual right to property, a right that Locke sees as fundamental to human existence. Lastly, Locke's system allows for the individual to protect himself (literally in this case) as well as his property.
ReplyDelete2. Having read some Locke in previous classes, I had some preconceptions about his work. When I think of Locke, I typically think of the tremendous influence that he had on the American Revolution and all of the work that he did to help usher in the rise of modern western democracy. Additionally, Locke has typically been portrayed as one of the more gentle of the philosophers of his time, especially in contrast to Hobbes.
This influence on Democracy can be seen in the way in which Locke treats the sovereign. Unlike Hobbes, Locke rejects the idea of an absolute sovereign. Instead, Locke favors a system in which majority rule is paramount. However, while a modern audience assumes that this means that Locke is advocating for total equality and equal participation in the governing process, that is simply not the case. While blatantly disregarding the role of women within society, Locke hypocritically preaches about freedom and individual liberty while simultaneously profiting from the slave trade. With this stark contrast between ideas and actions, it becomes very difficult to take Locke and his system seriously.
Lastly, Locke seems to be writing this piece for upper class, white males. Not only do these people profit the most from his proposed system, but they were also some of the only ones that could actually consume his work at this period in history.
3. The most startling thing that I found in this piece was how someone can have such strong cognitive dissonance as to proclaim one idea (in this case the freedom of men) while acting in such a way that is directly contradictory to that (profiting from the slave trade.) Even though many of Locke's ideas made a lot of sense, I found it very difficult to give them any credence. When I started to think about that, it made me contemplate all of the other philosophers and politicians that we hold so dear, yet who did not practice what they preached. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, two of the most influential political and moral figures that our country has ever had, both owned slaves while preaching about freedom. This was a great reminder that when we vote for someone or when we subscribe to their particular system, it is critical that we examine their actions, as well as their words.
Ryan, I think your response to the third question is absolutely valid. When we really begin to analyze people's philosophies compared to their lifestyles, it does make us view the person and the theory differently. I remember in class, we suggested that maybe we can give some people a "pass" due to their situated knowledge and the times in which they were writing compared to the knowledge we now have about some historical issues, namely slavery. However, I will have to say that due to the complexity of Locke's writing and the knowledge he did seem to have regarding the wrongness of slavery and how he seemed to view people as a whole, it is difficult for me to give him such a "pass".
Delete1) The main point of Locke's theory tends to mirror Hobbes: the natural state of man is a generally undesirable way to live, so societies create governments to maintain order, and protect property. Governments also exist to secure the rights that everyone is born with. In the state of nature, there is no guarantee of life, liberty, and property, so government must step in to safeguard those rights for everyone. Like others have stated, Locke's argument at first glance appears "friendlier" than Hobbes, but it is questionable whether that really holds up.
ReplyDelete2)I had extensive assumptions about Locke coming into this class. I had never actually read any of his philosophy before, but I had always heard that he had a huge influence on the American revolution and subsequent government formation. I guess I kind of pictured him as a larger than life figure wrapped in the American flag, in the same way that we turn our founding fathers into more than mere men. In a way, some of the assumptions I had were correct. Locke definitely takes a less authoritarian view of the sovereign state than Hobbes, as he rejects the idea of a monarchy as incapable of being a civil government. Locke also explicitly talks about splitting the government into executive, legislative, and judicial branches, which form the core of the modern American government. He is also big on protecting personal property, which is a very American idea.
However, there are many facets of Locke's life and ideas which do not live up to the mythos that surrounds him. Chief among these is obviously his involvement with, defense of, and profit from slavery. To advocate for equality and freedom while simultaneously subjecting fellow human beings to slavery reeks of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance. Interestingly enough, Locke's hypocrisy has a parallel in the country that was founded on his ideas: the US has had its own issues with advocating for freedom while oppressing groups of its own citizens.
3)Unsurprisingly, the biggest thing I learned was related to Locke's treatment of race. I never really considered his positions on race until this class, as I had always just assumed he was some paragon of libertarian thought. I am still very much in favor of many of his ideas about personal liberty, but I am now aware of a dark side to him which clouds the whole picture. I always have trouble reconciling how true individualists can be racist, since racism is necessarily a collective phenomenon. When we talked in class about the difference between racist ideas, and racist people or actions, that did help to clarify some things for me. It seems that Locke may not have explicitly hated black people like we imagine when we hear the word "racist", but he certainly did little to improve their lives or alleviate their suffering. Its really too bad that Locke did not use his position of intellectual authority to fight against the prevailing stereotypes of the time, since he may have had the potential to turn the intellectual tide against slavery, and racism in general.
Duncan, I was met with the same struggle that you were upon reading Locke for the second time and then being exposed to his participation in the slave trade. Because race, as you say, is a collective phenomenon, I wonder what the collective understanding of racism was during Locke's time and if he viewed slavery as based on race.
Delete1. In contrast to our last philosopher of interest, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke presents a far more optimistic view of humans in the state of nature. He believes that while we are still bound to our own self-preservation, we are also inherently bound to the preservation of others. Locke is a proponent of the social contract, the notion that men will enter into civil society and give up their natural freedom in order to gain protection of their rights from the government. Although Locke writes that he is also firm believer in the equality of all men and the right to the property that one labors on, it is clear when one examines Locke’s involvement with the slave trade that he did not always practice what he preached.
ReplyDelete2. Whenever I had heard Locke’s name in the past, it had always been in regard to his philosophy’s influence on the US Constitution. Thus, I went into this reading expecting it to be very reminiscent of traditional American political ideals. I found this to be true in some areas, such as Locke’s notion of every man’s right to “life, liberty and estate”, clearly the inspiration to our familiar “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. However, other aspects did not follow this pattern. For example, Locke’s notion that one should not own more than his or her fair share of land and that they can only use as much as they need without spoiling it falls more in line with a Socialist or Communist view of property ownership as opposed to the American Capitalist system. The thing that Locke discusses that coincides most with modern-day American government is his belief that a strong legislative body is essential to a functioning civil society. After all, how can a government maintain order in a just way if it does not produce the laws that its people must follow? In regards to Locke’s intended audience, as with Hobbes, when Locke refers to the equality of all men he really only means the equality of all white men. And no, “men” is not referring to women this time either. Furthermore, I believe that Locke is writing to the leaders, the lawmakers, the men who can put his philosophy into action.
3. I went into our unit on Locke thinking that his philosophy would be a refreshing shift from the negativity that surrounds Hobbes. However, I quickly learned that Locke was not the benevolent, fair-minded man I had expected him to be but was in fact a racist hypocrite. Although Locke wrote in favor of equality and the right to the property that one labors on, the institution of slavery that he so heavily supported is in direct opposition to these principles. I was troubled by this contradiction, as were many of my classmates, which lead to a quite memorable discussion in class: if a philosopher does not practice what they preach, does this discredit both the theory and the theorist? Can a theory be credible even if the theorist is not? Although our readings by Bernasconi regarding Locke’s role in the slave trade have thoroughly convinced me that Locke the man may not be credible, I’m not convinced that Locke the theorist should be discredited, as well. I believe that Locke’s stance on equality and the importance of a powerful legislature are highly credible, I just see these principles being put into practice in a different way than Locke likely did. No one likes a hypocrite but at the end of the day, a good idea is a good idea, no matter who came up with it. Thus, I believe that it is possible for a theorist to be discredited but for their theory to still remain valid.
When I was thinking about the "only own as much property as you can handle and leave some for others" I saw it more as a check on human nature not to take too much. But now I agree with you that its almost a Socialist or Communist view! Very anti-American capitalism indeed.
Delete1) Locke’s views on the State of Nature are much less pessimistic than Hobbes’ views. For Locke, the State of Nature does not equal a State of War. Men—women are still marginalized—enjoy freedom and equality in Locke’s State of Nature. This freedom, however, is not a free pass to do anything for self-preservation, and their equality pertains to equal rights. Locke is adamant about man’s right to property, but only if they leave enough for each other and if they only claim as much as they can productively care for. Conflicts—especially over property disputes lead to a State of War. In this state, men desire a force and a superior body to which they can appeal their disputes. They will therefore form a political society. A political society helps secure property rights; establishes public laws and enforces them; and provides indifferent judgment. When men consent to submit to the will of the majority, they enter into a political society.
ReplyDelete2) This was my first time reading Locke. My previous knowledge of this philosopher consisted of his advocacy of man’s right to “life, liberty, and property.”
Like Hobbes, Locke is an upper-class, British philosopher writing in the second half of the 17th century. His audience would also have consisted of white, British males, who would have felt no shock at Locke’s man-centered world-view.
His work would have been read in England and in America. It was interesting to learn from the Bernasconi and Mann piece about Locke’s heavy involvement in the slave trade in the Caribbean and in North America. Locke participated through monetary investments and his service and supervision on colonial administrative boards. This is contradictory to the equality, liberty, and property that Locke attributes to all men because Locke played an active role in the development of racialized slavery. Therefore, it can be assumed that aspiring and established colonials; and educated, wealthy, British men figured among Locke’s audience; it can also be assumed that they agreed with him since colonization of the New World by Europeans was still a prominent phenomenon.
3) What I found most interesting from this reading was the idea that man should only occupy the amount of land that he can effectively oversee and leave some for others. To Locke property is extremely important. Not only does every man have a right to his own plot of land, but it should only be enough for him to handle without waste. It seems Locke could foresee that in deeming property a fundamental right, men would become greedy with land. Aren't we all a bit guilty of greed? (Why do food and money automatically come to mind?) It goes hand-in-hand with self-preservation and the idea of stocking up to benefit yourself and to potentially put others at a disadvantage. It is notable that Locke included these specifics on the right to property when land was plentiful—especially in North America—at the time that he is writing this work. Locke, to me, is more optimistic than Hobbes concerning the core of human nature; and, yet, he still feels the need to make it clear that the inalienable right to property does not mean that one can claim it all for himself or take on more than he can handle.
Brooke,
DeleteI too thought that it was interesting that Locke made the stipulation that one is entitled to as much as he can use "without spoilage". While I do think that this is a good idea, I feel like it isn't realistic. If you look at how our society functions today, (typically American society), we tend to overconsume on everything. Even in something like an all you can eat buffet; typically we take much more than we physically "need", and we do this simply because we can. Overconsumption isn't even good for us. The extravagant use of natural resources is awful for the environment, and we continue to consume them at an increasing rate. It is a great idea to only take what we can use without spoilage, but I feel that our culture simply won't let us settle for having just what we "need".
1. Though Locke is poised to move away from Hobbes with his Treaties of Government, many of his ideas are ripped straight from the pages of Hobbes’ Leviathan. In Locke’s writing, he states that the State of Nature does not automatically deteriorate into a State of War. For Lock, the State of Nature is a state of equality and liberty for the individual. The Laws of Nature bind each person to goals of self-preservation as well as mankind. People, in the State of Nature, are not inclined to hinder their fellow man. However, if one were to transgress against another or another’s land, then that individual is subject to punishment. Locke adheres to the idea of “eye for an eye.” Due to the fact that in the State of Nature, there is no superior, transgression can easily fall into a State of War. This is how Locke is closer to Hobbes, than he wants to believe. The difference comes with how a Civil Society should run. While Hobbes chooses a single sovereign, Locke turns toward a more democratic system. This is where he sets up his famous three branches, the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch. Government, in Locke’s mind, is formed to carry out these separate duties to protect the citizens. Finally, he states that each man enters a civil society because he wants protection for himself and his property.
ReplyDelete2. What I was surprised to read about, in Locke, was his attention to property rights. Locke addresses heavily the importance of property rights and the protection of that property. In his piece, he gives the rough definition that property is that that which you invest labor into, such as an object, an event, land, or even oneself. Furthermore, one can’t be greedy with his property. He must leave enough, and in good enough condition, to be used by others. Yet, if a person is not using his property to the full potential, such as land, then another person can come and take that property to use to its full potential. Thereby, this statement justifies colonialism of the 1600s. This idea was interesting to me, because I had not read this side of Locke. What stood out to me most was how vague the definition of property was. If one puts any amount of labor into an object, they own that object. This raises questions around the ideas of slavery, indentured servitude, and even just laboring underneath a boss or manager. It is clear to see that the target audience of this work would be white landowning men. Yet there are still many holes in Locke’s work.
3. Though there are many aspects of Locke that interest me, and that I did not know before, there is one topic that interests me the most; and that is the rule of government in a civil society. For Locke, the government is put in place to protect the rights of the people. The rights to life, liberty, and property. Governments are created by the people and therefore decisions should be in favor of the people. Locke goes on to say that if a government is not living up to the will of the people, then it must be abolished. This can best be summarized by the quote from Thomas Jefferson, who heavily drew from Locke, “When people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” It is interesting to see how this notion is covered up in today’s society. If this idea was still true today, we would not be referring to government as “Big Brother.” The reason that we aren’t cognizant of this is because government is better at hiding their control nowadays. What I will finish with is a question. What is comes down to is this, which will cave first? Government or the people?
Josh, I particularly like your question about governments fearing their people versus people fearing their government. It seems as though power in our country has slowly begun to shift from the people to the government. The power of the people to vote for their leaders in a democracy should be the ultimate freedom and a perfect way to exercise our liberty as Jefferson defined it. However, the vote is even being taken away from the people through things like Voter ID Laws. I wonder the same thing about what direction our country is headed in and I think your question deserves careful consideration and discussion.
DeleteJosh, I love the question that you ended your entry with! I think this question is almost difficult to answer or even analyze because it is like decided what came first, the chicken or the egg. While on the one hand, the government does heavily rely on the people to function, there is also the element of control that the government has over its people. Yes, people do get to vote officials into office and have a voice in that regard. But once officials are selected, the dynamic almost shifts and there is not much that the people can do until it is time to vote again. Therefore, if I did have to give a definitive answer to your question, I would probably argue that the people will cave first. At the end of the day, it seems, like Jessica suggests, that our voices as a people are slowly but surely being minimized with sneaky tactics such as the Voter ID laws, censorship laws, or even the "invasion" of privacy on the internet.
Delete1. Locke's view of the state of nature is much more hopeful for humanity than Thomas Hobbes would have believed. Locke believes that the state of nature is not inherent chaos and war, but rather it is one governed by laws which allow for freedom and equality. The war like state that Hobbes describes as the state of nature is a separate state of war in Locke's view, and is only created when self preservation is threatened. He also believes that no one has the right of property that an individual has created but that individual. Locke also outlines what he believes to be a stable form of government in nature. This is defined by a created legislative and executive whose job it is to espouse the laws of the people and also to take care of reparation and punishment of people who break those laws. Locke finally goes on to say that rights in nature are uncertain, and so it pushes people to enter into a civil society in order to protect those rights.
ReplyDelete2. Being an American, it is very easy to assume that Locke was the most honorable of philosophers, as his philosophy is the basis of our nation and will continue to be for years to come. However, it is unfortunate to discover his true feelings towards slaves and the slave trade in general. While it does not completely change my views of his work, it is discouraging to discover that someone who valued natural rights as much as Locke did could deny them to other human beings. At what point do we allow him to claim ignorance, or rather be a person of his time, and when do we draw the line saying that his credibility is no longer viable? I am a firm believer in practicing what you preach, but I am not sure that Locke's actions that are contrary to his words completely erase the influence he had on the world. I did used to operate under the assumption that Locke was a good human being who believed in what he espoused truly and whole heartedly. I took for granted that this was not the case, especially in the time that he was living in history. It does shed a negative on what he did, but there is still some good to come out of Locke's work.
3. While Locke's involvement with the slave trade is quite clear, I found it interesting that his views on slavery were racially based. It wasn't that he believed in slavery in the sense that it had existed throughout history, but rather the idea that he could feel racially superior to another group of people based on skin color seems contradictory. He chose to write extensively on natural rights, but decided that there were some that didnt deserve them based solely on race. Again, this is so puzzling to me, and yet the evidence to support this view of Locke is there. On another note, I did like how Locke was more optimistic than Hobbes about the human condition. He chose to believe that people were inherently good, and chose to enter society not just to benefit themselves, but also for the good of others. Although he emphasized the idea of self preservation, he did choose to believe that nature is not a constant state of war, but rather war is created as a result of people interacting with each other and each other's property. I also thought it was interesting that Locke was a strict anti catholic and supported a more liberal idea of religion back in a time when people were still products of the church. This idea seems to support his overall beliefs in personal liberty. Overall, Locke seems to be a person who truly believed in his values, but some contradictions do come to light. But, as with prominent figure or any human being in general, contradictions are bound to happen at some point.
Chelsea,
DeleteI liked your last point about the contradictions inherent in human beings. Every person has their complexities and hypocrisies, and we shouldn't dismiss a person's views out of hand because they might say one thing and live another. Granted, Locke's contradictions are pretty serious.
Fitz Green
ReplyDelete1. Locke’s arguments are similar to Hobbes, but with a few important distinctions. For Locke, the state of nature is a perfect state of freedom and equality. It is not a state of war, but can easily become one. To avoid the state of war, one can enter civil society. Man subjects himself to political power because rights in the state of nature are unsecure. Property is a fundamental arena of liberty, and men join others for mutual united preservation of the three most significant properties: life, liberty, and estate. Political society begins with the consent of the majority of free men.
2. Coming into the reading, my view of Locke was colored by the fact that his ideas inspired many of the founding fathers of the United States. I believed that he was a proponent of majority government elected by the people for the protection of their property. Basically, I was aware of all the positives of Locke’s philosophy while being unaware of the harsh truth about his life. I was pretty blown away to discover that Locke was not only a shareholder in a company that engaged in the slave trade, but was also the architect for creating institutionalized slavery in America. The fact that there is so much contradiction between his words and his deeds definitely diminishes his credibility in my eyes. His theories are definitely still important, but I think its just as important that people realize that his contributions weren’t all beneficial. The Bernasconi and Mann piece definitely helped me make the distinction. Locke the person was a racist; the evidence is fairly clear. Locke the theorist was not directly racist.
3. One important idea I took away from class discussion was the nature of Locke’s setting and its impact on his actions. In effect, it was a commentary on the “situated knower” idea from Anderson. In this time period, public commentary on the morality of racism did not exist. And as an upper class white male, investing in the slave trade was an option and could be profitable. However, just because Locke might be a child of a time when slavery was widely accepted doesn’t give him a completely free pass. Our class discussion helped me realize that it is useful to make a comparison between Locke’s lens on slavery and racism and our own lens on such matters. Hopefully by examining past cultures, we can avoid similar mistakes.
Fitz, my initial reaction to Locke's involvement with the slave trade was to automatically label him as a racist but you bring up a good point in regards to his "lens" on the slave trade and that he may have just seen it as a way to make a living. It's easy for us to criticize Locke for making a profit off of the exploitation of slaves yet I bet most of us would not be so quick to label a modern-day executive for a clothing company that exploits foreign workers. It makes me wonder what future generations will be able to easily criticize us for!
Delete1. In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke analyzes some of the same elements of society as Thomas Hobbes does in the Leviathan (state of nature, state of war, etc.). According to Locke, a state of nature is when all people have equal rights and are, therefore, responsible for executing laws which govern each other; every rational being has the power to execute laws over others. A state of war, to Locke, is not necessarily a state of nature as Hobbes suggests, but it can become one when there are disagreements amongst the people, especially regarding property. In his work, Locke references some of Hobbes’ views on what creates a state of war or nature and either expands on or refutes them. Yet, upon further analysis, their arguments seem, in some cases, to almost mirror one another, although Locke tries to argue that they are different. For example, both Hobbes and Locke argue that people enter a civil society for similar reasons – to achieve some means of preserving what is “theirs”. For Locke, he focuses more on the rights people have to owning property in a civil society. However, for both Hobbes and Locke, people are required to relinquish some of their own rights/power to enter into a civil society and achieve the protection of a sovereign (Hobbes) or the majority of the people (Locke).
ReplyDelete2. In the beginning, I really did not any presumptions regarding this reading, all I remember was hoping that the language was not as difficult to follow as I found Hobbes’ to be. I thought Locke’s work was a lot easier to understand and I thought he made some valid points regarding the state of nature and the state of war. While his argument for a state of war did seem to be a little circular, I think his point is still valid. Ideally, we would all love to live in a societal state where everyone is equal and free. However, realistically, there may be conflict, which I think is the point Locke was trying to make when he made the argument he did for a state of war. Furthermore, I found Locke’s point about how people live in a state of nature, which can turn into a state of war, which can then lead men to enter into a political society to be very realistic and in some ways, reflective of how we live today. As Americans, we all give up some of our rights and freedoms in order to live in such a society where we are protected by laws. We rely on people such as police officers or judges – everyday, “rational”, beings – to enforce laws and to protect us during a time of need. Moreover, while, at first, I thought it was a little strange that Locke seemed to focus so heavily on property, I later was able to relate his fixation of property with how people are today. There are disputes all the time between countries regarding who owns territory that might border each location. Overall, I thought Locke had a little more of a realistic view of how society works, or should work, in comparison to Hobbes.
3. One thing that I found particularly compelling about the Locke piece was one of the laws of the rights to property, which stipulated that people were required to only use as much land as they needed without taking too much and the requirement to leave land in a good condition for other people. This was probably the only element of the Locke piece that I found to be a little too idealistic. Considering Locke acknowledges, like Hobbes, that people have a desire to self-preserve, I am left wondering how Locke believe this law could actually be executed. How can one preserve for themselves but also for others? I believe that at some point, people are bound to become selfish. I think the overall idea of sharing with others and considering the needs of others as well as your own is a wonderful practice for any society, I just think that it is rather idealistic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete1. Locke writes primarily in order to explain the human state of nature, and how it is essential that man create a social contract in order to pull themselves into civil society. While the state of nature is not a state of war as was the case with Hobbes, Locke believes that everyone is responsible for the preservation of themselves and others (and through extension, property). Locke also believes that the protection of property is the main reason people enter into a social contract, and it is demonstrated throughout his writings.
ReplyDelete2. Before I read this writing from Locke, I did not know much about his beliefs. I knew that he was very influential in the rhetoric used in the United States constitution, and that he suggested a democracy would be the most effective form of government. Some people in our class also pointed out that Locke is much for familiar for us, the famous line “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” by Thomas Jefferson, was originally “life, liberty, and property” by Locke. This is partly why I think the majority of the class preferred Locke to Hobbes.
Considering that Locke was writing after, and essentially in response to Hobbes, I think that Locke is writing to the same audience, which would most likely be higher educated Europeans. I also think that in order to separate himself from Hobbes, some of Locke’s rhetoric tries to draw distinctions wherever it can. I am thinking of Locke’s assertion that the state of nature is not that of war, but only that it can very easily become a state of war. To me, if there is always that potential for war to break out at any moment, then one already lives in a state of war because they must be prepared for it. I reason that Locke and Hobbe’s state of nature are actually not that different from each other, but Locke worded his differently in order to separate the two beliefs further.
I do think that Locke’s view on property is very interesting. It is clear that Locke places a huge emphasis on property, because it encompasses everything related to a person. Locke views not only the physical items that belong to a person their property, but also their bodies themselves and the labor that they do are their own property. Property is the basis for much of Locke’s theories, because to him, the protection of property is the main reason why people enter into a social contract. I feel that this is correct, but because of Locke’s broad meaning of property, his reason for why people enter into a social contract is really not that much different than Hobbe’s. The real distinctions between Hobbe’s and Locke come after the social contract has been made, and the people have given over their will to a governing body. In Locke’s case, the governing body would represent the majority of wills, which is why a democracy is his preferred style of government, with the law making branch of the government being the most powerful. This is the biggest distinction Locke and Hobbes, and most likely the reason why US citizens prefer his view.
3. The one Locke belief that stood out the most to me would be in his idea of property and the state of nature. Locke believes that the right to property is guided by two principles. 1. There must be enough left in the same condition for everyone else. 2. You can only take what you can use without spoilage. My initial thought on this is that it is incredibly wishful thinking. Believing that people are only going to take what they need and not stockpile resources are utopian. I also feel that this idea is counter intuitive to how people, especially Locke lived back then. This idea goes along with what we talked about in class; if a person does not live by the standards they place for society, should they be completely discredited. This belief and the overwhelming evidence that Locke was a racist, at least for me, takes away from his personal credibility. However, I believe that a man’s message can stand apart from the man himself; therefore Locke should not be completely discredited for his hypocritical nature.
1. Locke approaches Social Contract Theory from what appears to be the opposite position of Hobbes. However, there exist both latent and explicit contradictions that appear as we move through Locke’s position about human nature and the state of nature. According to Locke, human nature is based morality which creates a peaceful state of nature. Within this state of nature, we are all perfectly free and our equality is founded in our morality as opposed to Hobbes’ notion that we are all equal in our abilities to destroy one another. Locke even suggests that an economic system could operate without government. Locke pays special attention to property in his considerations for why we exit the state of nature and enter into a civil society. This is where the contradictions begin. Locke acknowledges that Hobbes’ state of war is the reason we enter into a civil society. We enter into a civil society in order to avoid a state of war and to protect our property.
ReplyDelete2. Coming into this reading, I actually really liked Locke. I had read the Second Treatise before and bought into his theories about a peaceful state of nature and a moral human nature. It appealed to me to think of people as fundamentally good and not evil as Hobbes theorized. But now, it is difficult to ascertain just where Locke stands on liberty and freedom after reading about his participation in the slave trade. My first reading of Locke lead me to assume that he lived by the theory he proposed and after realizing that he didn’t, I was forced to rethink my original opinions. I think like most people reading this for the first time, I took for granted the fact that Locke was not only a political theorist but a human too and not a perfect one. I think this is a presupposition that many of us go through when we find an author or a theory that we really like. The fact that Locke spoke out so eloquently about liberty and democracy, not to mention the fact that we based much of our government on his theories makes his participation in the slave trade a little difficult to swallow. This particular realization made me question whether or it is better to have a leader whose thoughts and beliefs align with their actions, a leader with integrity, or a leader that will put their personal beliefs aside and make decisions based on what is best for the citizens of a country.
3. I found our discussion of institutionalized racism particularly interesting and was surprised that not many people had been exposed to this term before. I think it is important to consider how racism and civil rights at large have evolved over the years, and how the definitions of words like “racism” change. We seem to comprehend more on the idea of race than we did when Locke wrote his Treatise. When I think of racism during Locke’s time, my mind immediately wanders to the Transatlantic Slave Trade and slavery in the states. When I consider racism today, I think about affirmative action, inequality in income and opportunities, and segregation in inner cities. Bernasconi’s “Proto-racism” asks whether we can look back at a theory or philosopher and say that racism is present even if the term was not understood then as we understand it today. I think it is important in conversations about race to have a wide lens. Certainly racism has existed in many forms since Locke’s writing; Bernasconi’s idea that race is located in the mind and passions and not just in social structures addresses racism as we define it today and as it was understood years ago. It is difficult to say whether we can call Locke a “racist” based on the definition that existed at the time. We can of course call him a racist based on today’s definition of the word, or can we? Perhaps Locke’s participation in the slave trade had nothing to do with race and everything to do with property and ownership. Perhaps it was simply good business? Today it is called racism, but then what would it have been called?
Jessica, I think you make a good point about how it can be hard to accept the imperfections of a theorist we like. Personally, I hadn't studied Locke in much detail in the past but knew the basics of his influence on the Constitution and agreed with him on those points. I tended to agree with most of the Second Treatise as well and was disappointed when I learned more about his background through the other readings. I think part of why I had never learned about this side of Locke before was that it's not something we like to acknowledge when we look back on our nation's history. It's hard to think about the fact that a man whose theories helped establish ideals of equality in the United States was also involved in something so morally appalling to our modern-day values.
Delete1. Locke believed that human nature was based more upon reason and tolerance and allowed us to be selfish. He also believed in an equality of all men and so they also had the right to protect those rights. However, because of selfishness and recognition of the selfishness of others, simply protecting rights was not enough and so people created societies. Furthermore, he deviated away from Hobbes in that he wanted a democracy rather than an absolute sovereign. In fact, his theoretical government would be very close to the current American governmental system. In addition, he allowed the people to decide upon the government and they had a responsibility as a final check of balance where revolution is not only a right, but an obligation in some cases.
ReplyDelete2.Coming into Locke, it was one of those things where I had heard a lot about him, but had never actually read much of his work. I had known that he had a big influence on the American governmental system, but not too much else. However, reading into it, there’s a lot of depth, not necessarily in what he said but in what his disconnect between personal and philosophical life and reputation implies for the modern age. Looking at our class, we discussed many things not related at all to Locke and we went off on many wondrous tangents. Obviously Locke’s philosophies themselves are important, but due to his status as a top philosopher, he obviously is scrutinized much more closely. It’s not like his racism is hidden anyway, but you do have to recognize the purpose behind his writing. Was he writing to abolish slavery? Was he writing to empower the masses? Was he writing to better his own life? Because like Hobbes, his writings are all so general and large that it becomes a question of when he calls for the equality of men, for what purpose is he doing this. Looking at his personal life, he doesn’t believe this, or at least not very strongly. This assumption would then lead us to conclude that either he is a racist, which hasn’t shown itself all that strongly in the writings that we read in class, or that he feels that the current way things are is wrong, but either it is not profitable to enforce this or just too difficult to speak out explicitly. When he writes legislature to lead by example, his audience are the people he is leading, the current populace. For whom then, does he write for when he writes philosophy? I don’t really have an answer for this, but assuming that he did not expect many works in his government to be recorded, it is possible that the disconnect arises because he was writing to both the present and future at the same time. The audience changes and so does the content. Of course, this is all speculation and possibly holds no relevance whatsoever.
3.Moving on, I think the most insightful thing that I’ve thought about from our discussion in class is the disconnect between professional and personal life or writings. But the most important thing actually isn’t authorial intent, but rather in how the reader decides to interpret those writings. It’s not as though you should completely disregard original intent, but you also have to view why it is your reading his work. I’ve stated before that the author’s writing and intent can change with the audience and so it stands to reason that the audience’s interpretation can be changed with just a bit of context. In the case of Locke, many people’s interpretation of his philosophy is that it is now discredited due to him showing signs of racism. However, in this case you have to recognize your own self bias in the interpretation just as you recognized Locke’s bias in his writings. While interpreting his work, you have to wonder what you want to take out of it. If all you want to see is racism and in turn disregard him and any work associated with him, I would say that it would be not only difficult, but a shame due to his thoughts and what he ultimately influenced.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLocke approaches social contract theory from an angle similar to that from which Thomas Hobbes does, but with a few key distinctions. First, Locke’s state of nature is one of ostensible peace. Man’s actions, Locke posited, were governed by reason in this natural state. Furthermore, men were equal and free to do as they please in the state of nature. Locke placed a heavy emphasis on the idea of property and private ownership as well. By placing such a large emphasis on property, Locke conveniently introduces the reason he provides for why people enter into civil societies: for protection of said property. Locke puts forth that his tranquil state of nature could easily devolve into a state of war, much like Hobbes’ state of nature—and in this state of war no property is secure. In order to secure property, Locke argues, men enter into agreements in which they cede some of their inherent liberty to the collective for the protection of life and property.
ReplyDeleteJohn Locke is one of the only philosophers whose work I had actually studied beyond a cursory reading. I have always found that his views on human liberty and civil society strike just the right note with me. This is probably the result of my upbringing in the United States as well as my studies in American History, nonetheless, I have always subscribed to the classical liberal philosophy.
Among the most challenging insight gained from our discussion was that of Locke’s role in the Transatlantic Slave trade and the establishment of racial slavery in the Carolinas. This is a difficult pill to swallow for someone like me who has been brought up to drink the kool aid of American equality. I think one of the most interesting discussions in American History and Political philosophy is how slavery came to be defined by race, and race alone. It is indeed difficult to reconcile Locke, the man whose ideas are the very basis of this nation which I love, and Locke, the man who contributed other ideas (as well as capital) in one of the most violent and oppressive systems in modern times. I think an interesting question to ask is whether Locke would be so revered if the United States had never existed, or better yet, failed to succeed. If the South had won the Civil War, would Locke’s name still be spoke with respect? Or would he simply be an entry in a dusty encyclopedia? I have to think that the success of the United States has not only lent credence to Locke’s theories, but in fact bolstered their initial appeal ex post facto. In other words, people may enjoy and respect Locke, simply because they know they should, and not necessarily because they really find his theories profound.
I strongly agree with your final assertion that people may respect Locke as more of a bandwagon phenomenon than for any other concrete reason. I think many people fail to look past the obvious, so if a theory sounds at all compelling they will jump in to support it without truly evaluating the theorist or the implications of their own life in contrast to what the theory is suggesting.
Delete1) Though Locke and Hobbes both concentrated their efforts on the existence of man in the sate of nature and the resulting social contract theories, the similarities between them are short lived. According to Locke, man is a social animal that is capable of distinguishing between right and wrong and therefore capable of resolving conflicts and maintaining peace. The benefits of living in a state of nature, Locke says, are numerous, but man can still improve his place in the world by consenting to a social contract. In Locke’s writing, adherence to a social contract is not abdication of all rights to a single sovereign; instead it is the abandonment of the personal will in favor of the collective will and benefit. The collective will, Locke says, is to be the sovereign.
ReplyDelete2) Even before reading Locke for this class I was aware of the differences between Hobbes and himself. I was under the impression that because Locke was the optimist about human nature where Hobbes was the pessimist, I would prescribe to his theories much more so. In this sense, I wasn’t disappointed. I liked the epistemology Locke used throughout his social contract, especially is more subtle point on the human nature of truth. Locke said that when one man’s word doesn’t correspond to another man’s word, that the discrepancy is due to a problem of communication not of actuality. It reminded me of the earlier James reading the “Pragmatic Conception of the Truth”. James had pointed out that truth should be defined personally and practically, and thus self-created truths were just as pragmatic as truths that are widely understood. I think James would agree with Locke’s point that truth, or actuality isn’t dependent on communication- truth can exist without fault between two men when communication is the problem.
During class, I was very surprised to learn that Locke held much of the same situated knowledge as Hobbes, even though his view of the state of nature and domination was much different. More, since he was likely writing to a white, well educated, upper class, European males who supported their monarch, I’m surprised that he would promote a case against such a system.
3) During discussions, the topic of benevolence and its consequences was most salient to me. While Locke seemed to think that man would willingly (or could be forced if he was unwilling to) give up his property, knowledge, talents, and individual beliefs to benefit the whole, I’m not sure I agree. I see the logic, and agree with it, but believe it’s something that can’t be retrofitted. If benevolence was framed as the ultimate concern of the social contract so that members knew what was expected of them when they joined society, I believe it could work—if only for that face that the population in the society would have been self-selected to fit those ideas. Once a society exists, once there is a large variance in the distribution of wealth, and once exploitative norms and expectations have been set in place, a truly benevolence-based social contract is impossible to implement or enforce.
1) Locke defines political power, discusses the inalienable birthright of man, and the need for both in the formation of a legitimate government.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to government, John Locke defines a legitimate government in relation to the protection of inalienable rights. He views a valid government as one which upholds his three main natural laws of life, liberty and property. In defining political power, Locke insists that it is proper to make laws “for the regulating and preserving of property,” and adds, that if necessary, “the execution of such laws, and in the defense of the commonwealth from foreign injury.” This is needed “for the public good.” Defined, Locke’s political power is the ability to uphold a constitution.
2) Before doing the readings, I assumed Locke to be a bit of a spokesperson for a certain social group -- those with property. Considering Locke himself was a wealthy man with many properties, I could already predict where he was going to go on this subject. And the readings definitely confirmed this. He says, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” Locke believes in equality among all people. Since every creature on earth was created by God, no one has advantages over another. He makes a strong suggestion by saying, “that creatures of the same species and rank, should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.” This I thought was conveniently simplistic. The idea that men are free and equal is a sloppy exercise in philosophy if at all. I'm not surprised it served as a basis for our American constitution.
3) Locke’s insight displays that men are not only inclined to create states to protect their property, but also to better it through a combined effort of the majority. The reason for a state is then nuanced to allow for advancement as a society. Communities form to accomplish more as a collective unit, rather than as an individual person who would be less effective in both property protection and advancement.
Sloty Casino Map & Directions - Mapyro
ReplyDeleteFind the best sloty casino locations in 서울특별 출장안마 New Jersey, New Jersey, New Player 동두천 출장안마 Bonus — New Player Bonus: 100% 제주도 출장마사지 up to $200. Sloty Casino Bonus Code: No 화성 출장안마 Code 구리 출장샵 Required.