Lecture 3 began with the introduction of Locke and Hobbes, two philosophers concerned with the theory of empiricism; Locke being the founder and Hobbes, Berkley, Hume, Bentham and Marx all continued these ideas as heirs to Locke. After the reading of week 3 about Locke and Hobbes I was very familiar with these historical characters and their influence on philosophy starting with Empiricism; that all knowledge is derived from experience; a theory founded by Locke.
The historical context of the period in which workings of the time were created was highlighted in this lecture, something I was unaware of and helped me to understanding the shift in ideas. Civil war and dictatorship of Cromwell and the restoration of Charles II convinced philosophers such as Locke that change needed to be made, resulting in his attempt to eliminate the possibility of a catholic king and his eventual fleeing to Europe before his return during the glorious revolution of 1688 where Locke returned in safety, no longer fearing his life, allowing him to publish his books while the government was in the hands of people who shared his views.
Locke’s ideas were controversial and fitted in with the upheaval of the time. Locke believed that religion should be private and separate from politics; allowing it to take a backseat in the ruling of a country, despite Locke being Christian. Secondly wanting to remove the mystical quality of the king allowed him to create his treatise of government; a concept of ideas for a perfect, but in his eyes foreseeable future. His ideas included a natural freedom for everyone, free from dictatorship; unlike the current world which was being lived in, attacking the idea of the ‘Divine right of king’ ; a quickly becoming outdated idea that the king was only second to and chosen by God to rule.
Locke’s next ideas however seem to contradict some of his previous ideas of knowledge coming from experience with his view of natural laws allowing everyone to have a right to life, liberty and property saying that further natural laws would be worked out from experience and through our conscience; this idea comes extremely close to describing innate ideas of Descartes which he strongly rejects. However Locke does continue to strongly believe that knowledge was created through the information we receive through our senses and the fact that through experience or knowledge would increase. Locke’s belief in equality and natural freedom and rejection of original sin seem to make for a less violent and dominated civilisation as the one which was currently being lived.
Locke’s proposals were evidence of this, as were his dismissal of God from politics. Locke proposed a government to make decisions, and conflicts; which he accepted would happen over property would decided by this government; limiting their power. He also proposed taxes had to have the consent of the people and that citizens could rebel if their government ceased to respect the law, while adding the right to revolution. This right to me seems controversial and as though it could cause grief to this supposed equal community as it appears a good theory of a perfect civilisation but one which would be extremely hard to control and ensure equality.
However Hobbes expressed his political opinions in the Leviathan where he describes his state of nature. Hobbes believed in an extremely contrasting idea to that of Locke in his concept of how civilisation should be. Hobbes believed that a leader should be chosen and given complete power of the civilisation as he believed that people who dominate passions are aggressive and will produce a state of war. Hobbes state of nature seems very similar to that of the divine right of kings with one man acting in the role of god; dictating, making rules and deciding on the fate of conflicts. The people, unlike in Locke’s Treatise of government completely give up their rights and power to be ruled by a mortal god who would provide pure protection with the only difference from the divine right of kings being that God does not chose the leader; the people do. This theory seems to be attached to too much controversy and does not provide the option of replacing the leader if the people decide they do not like the current leader’s ideas and control. This idea despite involving much protection does not seem too different from the world which was at the time in so much turmoil.
These ideas led to Locke’s book ‘Essay concerning human understanding’ which published the ideas of empiricism and his feelings against innate ideas. Believing that god had given man the ability to find and discover knowledge and therefore innate ideas were not needed. Locke’s theories involved much more freedom of speech; key to journalism, as well as a feeling that politics should not get in the way of personal opinion and that anything could be believed if it was done privately and not involving politics.
These works of Locke proved so influential to the progression of human kind as ideas of scientist such as Newton who had previously concealed their ideas, working away in private, openly shared their ideas in published work such as ‘The mathematical principles of natural philosophy in the Principia; with finding such as the world being ordered and knowable, the ability to make predictions and the idea of the clockwork universe. These ideas backed by facts, although still rejected by the Cartesian school, were demonstrated with proof and facts.
However once again, Newton was against the ideas of disproving god and instead staes that he believed that God made the universe and then left it, and that the universe demonstrated God’s freedom and omnipotence. I feel that like Descartes, Newton should have disproved God rather than proving his existence as his other work uses evidence and facts where as this theory does not. Instead any un-answered questions or parts of the universe which are unexplainable are left down to God. However the pressures of this period of history to believe in God and religion have played an obvious part in this theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment