course: social theory–i (4669) semester: spring 2019 level ......intellegence…” . because,...

1 For More AIOU Solved Assignments Contact: 0345-5233973 / 0312-5233973

[email protected]

Course: Social Theory–I (4669)

Semester: Spring 2019

Level: M. Sc (Pak Studies)

ASSIGNMENT No. 2

Q. 1 What was the new art of the statesman according to Aristotle? Discuss in detail the new

art of statesman and its difference from the ideas of Aristotle propounded earlier.

Answer:

Aristotle (384-322 BC.) was one of the greatest thinkers of antiquity. His opinions had an important

effect in the formation of Ancient Greek philosophy. His contributions to the development of

philosophical thought also had an enormous influence in the forming of contemporary thought. His

art philosophy on the other hand played an efficient part in the historical development of aesthetics.

He was born in the city of Stagira in Macedonia. He entered Plato’s Academy (Akademia) at the age

of eighteen and became one of his pupils. After Plato died, he went to the city of Assos (Behramkale)

and joined a group of Platonists. Then he went to Lesbos (Midilli) and studied zoology with

Theophrastus who would be his successor. He was invited to Pella by Philip to educate Alexander in

343-342 BC. When he came back to Athens in 335 BC. he found his school in the sacred grove

dedicated to Apollo Lycius and muses. His school was known as “Lyceum” but it was also named

“Peripatetics” for he was lecturing walking up and down. He remained in Athens for thirteen years.

After Alexander died and anti-Macedonian ideas increased, he went to Chalcis on Euboea island (in

Aegean sea) and died there in 322 BC.

He was the originator of many lines of research unknown before him such as logic, grammar, rhetoric,

literary criticism, natural history, physiology, psychology and history of philosophy. It is proper to say

that he was under the influence of Plato in the first period of his literary activity. The book known as

“On The Soul” was from this period. As well as “Protrepticus” -a letter addressed to Themison, the

king of Cyprus-, the oldest fragments of “Organon”, “Physics” and “De Anima (book R)” were written

in this period too.

In the second era of his activity Aristotle had a critical attitude against Plato’s doctrines. The books

such as “On The Philosophy”, “Metaphysics (a preliminary study)”, “Eudemian Ethics”, “Politics (2., 3., 7.,

8. books)” and “De Caelo” were the works of this era.

In the third period of his literary activity in Lyceum, Aristotle appeared as an observer and scientist. He

studied nature and history in detail. In fact there was a classification study at a certain level for logical

goals in Plato’s Academy. But the continual and systematic study developed by Aristotle in Lyceum


[email protected]

made the former one unimportant. This logical study method represented something new in Greek

world. “The Categories”, “De Interpretatione”, “Analytica Priora”, “Analytica Posteriora”, “Topica”,

“Sophisms”, “Metaphysics”, “Physics”, “Meteorologica”, “Animal History”, “Magna Moralia”,

“Nicomachean Ethics”, “Politics (1., 4., 5., 6. books), “Rhetoric” and “Poetics” were the works of this

period .

Aristotle’s writings and library which he bequeathed to Theophrastus were brought to Athens in 100

BC. by Apellicon of Teos (Sığacık), a bibliophile. He tried to restore them. When Athens was conquered

by the Romans, they were brought to Rome and copied by Tyrannion, the grammarian. Afterwards

Andronicus of Rhodes (Rodos), the Peripatetic philosopher edited them on the basis of these copies .

The Place Of Art In Aristotelian Thought

“Poetics” is the first source we must turn to to understand Aristotle’s ideas on art. But as it is about

literature -especially poetry- it is not sufficient to comprehend his art philosophy as a whole. Yet there

are so many different illustrations of art in his other books that these may be considered as the clues

to grasp Aristotelian general art philosophy. Even if he gave these examples to make his ideas clear,

we may perceive by means of them the way he interpreted art and also it’s place in his doctrine.

According to Aristotle; the human spirit “…attains the truth by art, science, sensibility, wisdom and

intellegence…” . Because, beings on earth came into existence for we grasped them. A house existed if

it was perceived. A book or another object came into existence as long as it was perceived. Aristotle’s

opinion characterized his art philosophy. The beauty concept might have been mentioned when there

was an artistic creation or creations. There was a difference between him and Plato at this point.

Because according to Plato; the beauty of a work of art might have been discussed when there was

the idea of beautiful.

Ancient Greek society in which Aristotle formed his opinions and revealed his ideas created a universe

of human shaped (anthropomorphic) gods. These immortals had a great importance in daily life. As

well as the temples, the open areas were full with the sculptures of gods. The Greeks would arrange

religious ceremonies -sometimes with killing an animal as a sacrifice- to satisfy them. Because the

immortals didn’t only reign over the cosmos but also controlled the destinies of every individual and

city one by one. For example a god might have hated or cared for a specific mortal. It was even

possible for a god to love a mortal and have children with her or him.

According to Aristotle; god is beyond being human shaped. It is simple and bare. It has neither size

nor quality. It is pure form. It is perfection, intellect. It is a sublime being. It is not related to the


[email protected]

concept of matter . According to him; “…Life is god. Because the act of mind is life and god is act itself.

We grasp god as a being that is sempiternal and perfect” . He also criticized the traditional god

concept of the society by saying: “…A tradition which remained from the distant ancestors of ours and

quotted to the later generations as a legend implied that the first substances were gods and also the

divine included the whole nature. The rest of the tradition was added later as a legend to persuade the

mass and to serve the law and public interest. So gods were given human shape or were represented

resembling animals…” .

According to some authorities; the book “Peri Cosmoi” (On The Cosmos) was a work of Aristotle.

Actually, it was a letter written to Alexander. Here; Aristotle discussed one of the famous statues of his

era while mentioning the sovereign of god over the universe. “…While Pheidias, the sculptor worked

on the statue of Athena in Acropolis, he placed his own portrait in the middle of her shield. So he

joined the pieces in a way that whoever tried to remove the portrait, he or she would have to tear the

sculpture to pieces. The relation between god and the universe is like this. God guarantees the

harmony, existence and continuity of the cosmos in this way…” .

The sculpture he discussed was “Athena Parthenos” which Pheidias carved in 440 BC. It was rumored

to be gigantic and would stand in the middle -naos- of the temple of Athena in Athens. It’s height was

11.5 meters and was made with golden-ivory (chryselephantine) blend. It was adorned with countless

details and the shield which the goddess hold was fulled with the war scenes between Amazons -the

female warriors- and giants. In the middle of it, there was the depiction of Pericles, the Athenian

statesman along with Pheidias’. In “Protrepticus” (Invitation To Philosophical Thought); Aristotle

characterized the nature of artistic activity. This was a letter he wrote to Themison, the king of Cyprus.

According to Aristotle; “…It is not nature which imitates man’s ability. This capability imitates nature.

And ability exists to support nature and finish which it didn’t complete… If man’s ability imitates

nature, it is a fact that the aim of man’s work bases on nature. As order dominates nature, nothing is

coincidental. On the contrary, everyhing is intentional. It provides the materialization of the goal which

is in a higher degree than all humane arts by excluding the coincidental. Because humane ability

imitates nature…”.

According to the tradition which existed since Plato; art was an imitation. Imitation to nature, imitation

to reality. Otherwise artistic activity was an action of imitation. But for Plato, artistic activities were

worthless. As he was an idealist, he thought that the original of everyting was in the universe of ideas.

All realities that were seen on earth were the copies of their originals. So when an artist painted a


[email protected]

human portrait or a sculptor carved a lion statue, he reproduced the copy of the original. According

to Plato; even poetry must have been excluded from the state.

However Aristotle thought that; a work of art existed to complete what nature created imititating the

perfect without finishing.

“Eudemian Ethics” which Aristotle wrote in the second era of his literary activity consisted of seven

books. In the seventh book; he discussed friendship mentioning that only the ones who resembled

each other could be friends. “…It seems that; we share the good we possess with the friends. While

some share the body pleasure the others share the contemplation of a work of art or philosophy….

“Politics” which explained how a state should have taken shape consisted of eight books. Aristotle

wrote the second, third, seventh and the eighth ones in this period .

In the eighth book; he wrote that musical education was an obligation for the young. “… There are

resemblances to actual -of anger, gentleness, courage, moderateness and the opposites of them as

well as the whole ethical qualities- in rhythms and melodies. That is why the music we listen to make a

sentimental alteration on us. Feeling pleasure or pain toward the things that resemble to actual is very

similar to feeling the same way in facing the actual itself. I mean if a man has the pleasure of looking

at a statue, he will have the same pleasure of gazing at it’s original. It is true that things that are

perceived, touched or tasted have no resemblance to spiritual quailities. But music has moral

characteristics. The melodies we hear represent them. People who hear the Mycsolydian mode feel

grief. While the tender ones make them feel relieved, the Doric one creates a moderate feeling. Yet

the Phrygian mode is exciting. All these show that music has the power of creating specific feelings. So

it is obvious that the young must have a musical education and they should be educated…”. Aristotle

researched the topics such as ontology, theology and classification of sciences in “Metaphysics” which

consisted of fourteen books. They were seperated from one another with the Greek letters or

numbers. Book A, Book B, Book K 1.-8., Book M 9.-10. and Book N were formed in the second period

of his studies . It is probable that; Aristotle named his book “Peri Tes Protes Philosophias” (The First

Philosophy). “Metaphysics” (meta ta physica) was used by Andronicus, his first publisher .

{=============}


[email protected]

Q. 2 The physiological principle behind all behavior is self-preservation, and self-preservation

means just the continuance of individual biological existence. Good is what conduces to

this end and evil what has the opposite effect.’ Discuss this statement in the light of

Hobbes’ idea of self-preservation?

Answer:

Thomas Hobbes: social contract

In his account of human psychology and the human condition, Hobbes identifies a first law of nature:

"by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of

preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best preserved." [Leviathan, Ch.

VI] Noting that self-preservation is rationally sought by communal agreement with others, he derives a

second law of nature; "From this fundamental law of nature, by which men are commanded to

endeavour peace, is derived this second law: that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth

as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and

be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself.

For as long as every man holdeth this right, of doing anything he liketh; so long are all men in the

condition of war. But if other men will not lay down their right, as well as he, then there is no reason

for anyone to divest himself of his: for that were to expose himself to prey, which no man is bound to,

rather than to dispose himself to peace. This is that law of the gospel: Whatsoever you require that

others should do to you, that do ye to them." [Leviathan, Ch. VI]

You might recognize this law as a version of the Golden Rule. You have probably encountered

statements of the Golden Rule in many situations. Have you ever been given a sound argument for

that rule? Such is Hobbes' commitment to systematic philosophical reasoning, that he will not merely

instate a principle that is accepted by many. Rather he provides a reasoned basis for accordance with

this principle.

Having concluded that it is natural and rational for people to give up some liberty in order to gain

security of selfpreservation, Hobbes develops a conception of what forms of social organization and

political system are consistent with those aims. The condition in which people give up some individual

liberty in exchange for some common security is the Social Contract. Hobbes defines contract as "the

mutual transferring of right." In the state of nature, everyone has the right to everything - there are no

limits to the right of natural liberty. The social contract is the agreement by which individuals mutually

transfer their natural right. In other words, I give up my natural right to steal your food because you

give up your natural right to steal mine. In place of the natural right we have created a limited right; in


[email protected]

this case the right of property. Hobbes notes that we do not make these agreements explicitly

because we are born into a civil society with laws and conventions (i.e. contracts) already in place. It is

by performing the thought experiment regarding the state of nature and following the chain of

reasoning Hobbes put before us that we can see the foundations of our commitment to civil law.

One matter that Hobbes' investigation allows is the examination of governments for the purpose of

determining their legitimacy. The purpose of a government is enforce law and serve the common

protection. Wherever the government turns to favor the strong over the weak, one might way that the

government has exceeded its legitimate function. In Hobbes' time the rulers claimed their authority to

rule by virtue of divine right. God made them King and anyone who questioned the authority of the

King was challenging God. Hobbes made some powerful enemies by doing just that. Even though he

supported the monarchy as the legitimate government, his philosophy clearly establishes the right of

the monarch on the grounds of reasoned principle, rather than divine right. Hobbes secularized

politics which led to an increasing demand for accountability of rulers to the people. The impact of

this development on contemporary life is profound.

One of Hobbes' enduring images is that of the artificial man. He describes the State (a political entity,

e.g. a nation) on the model of an individual human body. "that great LEVIATHAN called a

COMMONWEALTH, or STATE (in Latin, CIVITAS), which is but an artificial man, though of greater

stature and strength than the natural, for whose protection and defence it was intended; and in which

the sovereignty is an artificial soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body; the magistrates and

other officers of judicature and execution, artificial joints; reward and (by which fastened to the seat of

the sovereignty, every joint and member is moved to perform his duty) are the nerves, that do the

same in the body natural; the wealth and riches of all the particular members are the strength; salus

populi (the people's safety) its business; counsellors, by whom all things needful for it to know are

suggested unto it, are the memory; equity and laws, an artificial reason and will; concord, health;

sedition, sickness; and civil war, death."

The above picture is from the frontpeice of the 1660 edition of Hobbes' Leviathan. Note that the

figure of the State/Ruler is composed of citizens, territory, and commerce. Now when you hear the

term "body politic" you will know where it comes from. Hobbes' has an important message for us

today. Even though governmental structures have changed radically and political philosophies operate

on very different bases, it is still common to hear proposals that we must give up liberty for security.

Such proposals are directly related to Hobbes' ideas. Before readily accepting or rejecting such


[email protected]

proposals, it is wise to consider the source. Study Hobbes to find out the roots and branches of such

political proposals.

{=============}

Q. 3 ‘A church therefore is a corporation. Like any corporation it must have a head and the

head is the sovereign.’ Critically analyze the views of Hobbes on the relations between

the state and the church in the light of the given statement?

Answer:

Hobbes’s views on church–state relations go well beyond Erastianism. Rather than claiming that the

state holds supremacy over the church, Hobbes argued that church and state are identical in Christian

commonwealths. This chapter shows that Hobbes advanced two distinct arguments for the church–

state identity thesis over time. Both arguments are of considerable interest. The argument found in De

Cive explains how the sovereign unifies a multitude of Christians into one personified church—

without, intriguingly, any appeal to representation. Leviathan’s argument is premised on the

sovereign’s authorized representation of Christian subjects. Authorization explains why,

from Leviathan onwards, full sacerdotal powers are ex officioattributed to the sovereign. In Hobbes’s

mature theory, every clerical power, including baptism and consecration, derives from the sovereign—

now labelled ‘the Supreme Pastor’. Developments in Hobbes’s account of church personation thus

explain Leviathan’s theocratic turn.

Unlike Locke, Hobbes seeks to embrace religion. But it is a deadly embrace

Locke advocates the separation of church and state that has become engrained in our conception of a

secular republic: “I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil

government from that of religion, and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the

other.” However, there is no room for such separation in Hobbesian political theory: “Temporal and

spiritual government, are but two words, brought into the world, to make men see double, and

mistake their lawful sovereign.” The embrace of the Leviathan must encompass everything in its

domain, including religion. But in this temporal clutch religion cannot breath as a spiritual practice.

This may be just as well for Hobbes, but Locke insists on carving out of space of religious freedom. To

understand this divergence we must probe the metaphysical and social theoretical foundations of

their political theories and tease out the normative commitments entailed therein. Locke takes

seriously the place of God and spiritual practice in human existence, leading him ineluctably to

religious freedom at the expense of a realistic account of the political implications of religious practice.

Whereas Hobbes takes seriously religion as a social force and, having little use for it as a path to


[email protected]

salvation, perceives religious pluralism as a threat to the prime objective of his political theory: social

order.

The tension between these seminal political philosophers illuminates the importance of ontological

and epistemological foundations of political theory: what is the nature of our existence and what/how

can we know? Divergent conceptions of God vis-à-vis the human condition lead here to opposite

conclusions regarding the role of religion in society vis-à-vis the state. In A Letter Concerning

Toleration, Locke takes for granted a good deal of Christian dogma. He provides a liberal gloss,

insisting that the true mark of Christianity is “charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all

mankind, even to those that are not Christians.” But the fundamental ontology of Christian theology

remains in place as a frame for his theory and the scriptures persist as a source of knowledge about

the nature of the world with which political principles must contend:

Every man has an immortal soul, capable of eternal happiness or misery; whole happiness depending

upon his believing and doing those things in this life, which are necessary to the obtaining of God’s

favour, and are prescribed by God to that end: it follows from thence, first, that the observance of these

things is the highest obligation that lies upon mankind, and that our utmost care, application, and

diligence, ought to be exercised in the search and performance of them; because there is nothing in this

world that is of any consideration in comparison with eternity.

Any political theory so premised must make space for genuine religion, that is, spiritual practice most

likely to lead to the salvation of human souls. With eternal happiness or misery putatively at stake,

there can be little room for compromise with political prerogatives of the temporal domain. The

security of the state is surely desirable, but not at the expense of eternal damnation of its subjects.

Salvation is too important to be left to the sovereign.

Contrast this with Hobbes’s worldview which literally leaves no room for an immaterial soul. His work

in natural philosophy relentlessly sought to disprove the existence of any immaterial substances. As

for ‘God,’ he leaves us guessing, but leaves the widest possible latitude for the signifier. Notably he

writes:

When we say any thing is infinite, we signify only that we are not able to conceive the ends and bounds

of the thing named, having no conception of the thing, but of our own inability. And therefore the name

of God is used, not to make us conceive him (for he is incomprehensible, and his greatnesse, and power

are unconceivable), but that we may honour him.


[email protected]

Given God as the unconceivable, Hobbes strictly avoids in his argumentation premises that depend on

some knowledge of God obtained by means other than reason. Hobbes gives an account rooted in

the nature and capacities of man and religious references are typically reduced to those terms. In the

first page the creative power of God is transferred to men who willfully create the artificial body of the

state that is the Leviathan. The best prophet he says “naturally is the best guesser.” His account of

language which is central to his notion of right philosophy begins with mention of God’s gift of words

to Adam, but then roots the significance of human communication in our ability to make language our

own without restriction to God-given semantics. “The Scripture was written to shew unto men the

kingdom of God, and to prepare their minds to become his obedient subjects, leaving the world and

the philosophy thereof to the disputation of men for the exercising of their natural reason.” With

respect to superstitions such as belief in demons, Hobbes “can imagine no reason but that which is

common to all men, namely, the want of curiosity to search natural causes.” And he squarely attacks

the Scholastic philosophers for promoting a spiritual ontology of immaterial bodies and spreading

absurd notions like “substantial forms,” which in Hobbes eyes, “hath a quality, not only to hide the

truth, but also to make men think they have it, and desist from further search.”

As for the authoritative meaning of the Scriptures, it can only come about through a chain of men

trusting men, because,

…when we believe that the Scriptures are the word of God, having no immediate revelation from God

himself, our belief, faith and trust is in the church, whose word we take, and acquiesce therein… So that it

is evident that whatsoever we believe upon no other reason than what is drawn from authority of men

only and their writings, whether they be sent from God or not, is faith in men only.”

This is essentially to say that religion – as far as one is concerned in the present – has its roots in men

only. He does give wide allowance to Christian thought understood in figurative terms compatible

with the reality of the natural world as comprehended by reason. As Shapin and Schaffer characterize

his view, “Hell and heaven were not places; they were states of mind or conditions of social disorder

and order.” For Hobbes, hell was civil war, and his political philosophy aims at humanity’s salvation

from that collective fate. [Hint: the solution isn’t Christ-love.]

The temporal salvation of society presents itself as the imperative of Hobbes’s political theory because

of the social theory underlying it. By his account man is essentially selfish and, in a state of nature, at

war, “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” This leads Hobbes to the need for a

sovereign power. As the agent of social order and cohesion, the sovereign resolves the otherwise

divisive epistemic indeterminacy of God’s will and the path to salvation. For Locke, this same condition


[email protected]

of uncertain knowledge necessitates leaving decisions of faith to individuals in voluntary association,

for “Neither the right, nor the art of ruling, does necessarily carry along with it the certain knowledge

of other things; and least of all of the true religion.” Even if Hobbes were concerned with the ability of

the sovereign to save the eternal souls of his subjects, the right of sovereignty comes from the

practical ability to secure order, not from some priestly access to unassailable Truth. As U.S. Supreme

Court Justice Robert Jackson famously and more recently explained: “We are not final because we are

infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” But whence this right of final judgment?

Locke is right that “it appears not that God has ever given any such authority to one man over

another, as to compel any one to his religion.” Hobbes would agree that God has not granted such

authority to the sovereign: the people have contracted to vest absolute authority and they have done

so out of necessity to escape a state of war. Once such power is vested it is absolute and the security

of the civil order depends on disabling subversive powers, including religion.

This was far more than a theoretical proposition for Hobbes. Unlike Locke he took seriously the social

power of religion – informed by the history of religious conflict, the exercise power of religion over the

state, and the specific contribution of religious factions to the English Civil War that historically frames

his theoretical project. As Shapin and Schaffer put it, “Double tribute ended in civil war and confusion.

This was what would inevitably happen if one allowed authority and power in the state to be

fragmented and dispersed among professional groups each claiming its share.”They quote Hobbes in

1656 explaining that he came to write Leviathan because of “considerations of what the ministers

before, and in the beginning of civil war, by their preaching and writing did contribute thereunto.”

And in his 1668 work Behemoth, Hobbes lay particular blame for the Civil War on the clergy who had

seduced the people, bypassing the sovereignty of the state by “pretending to have a right from God

to govern every one in his parish, and their assembly the whole nation.” Later in life, Hobbes turned

his critical polemic against the program of experimental science advocated by Boyle because it

represented a dual threat to the social order by: (1) undermining natural philosophy as a firm system

of knowledge and introducing a framework for dissent in the production of knowledge, and (2) using

experiments with air-pumps to support belief in the existence of a vacuum – an incorporeal substance

of the sort that the Scholastics had used to buttress priestcraft. As Shapin and Schaffer sum it up,

“These were the ontological resources of the enemies of order.”

{=============}


[email protected]

Q.4 Discuss in detail the views of Locke about the individual and the community. What were

the effects of circumstances on his views regarding the individual and the community?

Answer:

The Second Treatise of Government remains a cornerstone of Western political philosophy. Locke's

theory of government based on the sovereignty of the people has been extraordinarily influential

since its publication in 1690--the concept of the modern liberal-democratic state is rooted in Locke's

writings.

Locke's Second Treatise starts with a liberal premise of a community of free, equal individuals, all

possessed of natural rights. Since these individuals will want to acquire goods and will come into

inevitable conflict, Locke invokes a natural law of morality to govern them before they enter into

society. Locke presumes people will understand that, in order to best protect themselves and their

property, they must come together into some sort of body politic and agree to adhere to certain

standards of behavior. Thus, they relinquish some of their natural rights to enter into a social compact.

In this civil society, the people submit natural freedoms to the common laws of the society; in return,

they receive the protection of the government. By coming together, the people create an executive

power to enforce the laws and punish offenders. The people entrust these laws and the executive

power with authority. When, either through an abuse of power or an impermissible change, these

governing bodies cease to represent the people and instead represent either themselves or some

foreign power, the people may--and indeed should--rebel against their government and replace it

with one that will remember its trust. This is perhaps the most pressing concern of Locke's Second

Treatise, given his motivation in writing the work (justifying opposition to Charles II) and publishing it

(justifying the revolution of King William)--to explain the conditions in which a people has the right to

replace one government with another.

Locke links his abstract ideals to a deductive theory of unlimited personal property wholly protected

from governmental invention; in fact, in some cases Locke places the sanctity of property over the

sanctity of life (since one can relinquish one's life by engaging in war, but cannot relinquish one's

property, to which others might have ownership rights). This joining of ideas--consensual, limited

government based upon natural human rights and dignity, and unlimited personal property, based on

those same rights, makes the Second Treatise a perfectly-constructed argument against absolutism

and unjust governments. It appeals both to abstract moral notions and to a more grounded view of

the self-interest that leads people to form societies and governments.


[email protected]

“Both in practice and in theory, the views which [Locke] advocated were held, for many years to come,

by the most vigorous and influential politicians and philosophers. His political doctrines, with the

developments due to Montesquieu, are embedded in the American Constitution, and are seen to be at

work whenever there is a dispute between President and Congress. The British Constitution was

based upon his doctrines until about fifty years ago, and so was that which the French adopted in

1871.”—Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy

An Enlightenment thinker, John Locke is probably best known for his idea of natural rights, or the

rights of every individual to life, liberty, and property. The purpose of government, he said, was to

protect these rights. People, he explained, were subject to the law of reason. This law teaches that

people ought not harm one another, nor interfere with other’s health, freedom, or possessions.

Born the son of a country lawyer in 1632, Locke experienced sweeping political changes during his

lifetime. He was just ten years old when his father joined the parliamentary army that opposed

Charles I in the English Civil War. He was seventeen when Charles I was tried for treason, found guilty

and executed in 1649. Just nine years later, Cromwell, who had experimented briefly with republican

ideas of government but yielded quickly to military rule, died.

Given this background, it may not at first seem surprising that one of the starting places in Locke’s

philosophy was the rejection of an absolute monarchy by divine right. Absolute monarchy is the belief

that all power within a state rests in the hands of a king or queen; divine right is the idea that the

monarch’s power is God given.

Locke attacked the idea of absolute monarchy in his influential Two Treatises of Government. Locke

explained that obedience to a monarch is a form of slavery, and people are not slaves. Locke also

rejected the idea of absolute monarchy even if its power came from the consent of the people.

Instead, he believed that people could not give anyone authority over them for any purpose other

than preserving their natural rights.

Locke’s second treatise of government suggests that the majority of individuals give the community

the power to preserve each person’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Even though the

individual gives this power to the community, the individual still has rights to limit the power of that

community.

People put their trust in the government. As a result, legislative power is for the good of the people

and comes from the consent of the people. According to Locke the people have, “a supreme power

to remove or alter the Legislative, when they find the Legislative acts contrary to [that] Trust.” If the


[email protected]

legislature acts against the people’s wishes, they have a right to dissolve it. Or, in more dramatic

terms, they have the right to revolution.

If such a revolution happened, Locke maintained that society would not fall apart. He believed that

the spirit of democracy itself would be more powerful than any government other people might

dissolve. Almost one hundred years later, this idea would be tested when the Constitutional

Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787.

{=============}

Q.5 Make a critical analysis of Rousseau’s attack on reason. What were his justifications for

revolting against reason? Explain with cogent arguments.

Answer:

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one of the most influential thinkers during the Enlightenment in

eighteenth century Europe. His first major philosophical work, A Discourse on the Sciences and Arts,

was the winning response to an essay contest conducted by the Academy of Dijon in 1750. In this

work, Rousseau argues that the progression of the sciences and arts has caused the corruption of

virtue and morality. This discourse won Rousseau fame and recognition, and it laid much of the

philosophical groundwork for a second, longer work, The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. The

second discourse did not win the Academy’s prize, but like the first, it was widely read and further

solidified Rousseau’s place as a significant intellectual figure. The central claim of the work is that

human beings are basically good by nature, but were corrupted by the complex historical events that

resulted in present day civil society.Rousseau’s praise of nature is a theme that continues throughout

his later works as well, the most significant of which include his comprehensive work on the

philosophy of education, the Emile, and his major work on political philosophy, The Social Contract:

both published in 1762. These works caused great controversy in France and were immediately

banned by Paris authorities. Rousseau fled France and settled in Switzerland, but he continued to find

difficulties with authorities and quarrel with friends. The end of Rousseau’s life was marked in large

part by his growing paranoia and his continued attempts to justify his life and his work. This is

especially evident in his later books, The Confessions, The Reveries of the Solitary Walker, and Rousseau:

Judge of Jean-Jacques.

Rousseau greatly influenced Immanuel Kant’s work on ethics. His novel Julie or the New

Heloiseimpacted the late eighteenth century’s Romantic Naturalism movement, and his political ideals

were championed by leaders of the French Revolution.


[email protected]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one of the most influential thinkers during the Enlightenment in

eighteenth century Europe. His first major philosophical work, A Discourse on the Sciences and Arts,

was the winning response to an essay contest conducted by the Academy of Dijon in 1750. In this

work, Rousseau argues that the progression of the sciences and arts has caused the corruption of

virtue and morality. This discourse won Rousseau fame and recognition, and it laid much of the

philosophical groundwork for a second, longer work, The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. The

second discourse did not win the Academy’s prize, but like the first, it was widely read and further

solidified Rousseau’s place as a significant intellectual figure. The central claim of the work is that

human beings are basically good by nature, but were corrupted by the complex historical events that

resulted in present day civil society.Rousseau’s praise of nature is a theme that continues throughout

his later works as well, the most significant of which include his comprehensive work on the

philosophy of education, the Emile, and his major work on political philosophy, The Social Contract:

both published in 1762. These works caused great controversy in France and were immediately

banned by Paris authorities. Rousseau fled France and settled in Switzerland, but he continued to find

difficulties with authorities and quarrel with friends. The end of Rousseau’s life was marked in large

part by his growing paranoia and his continued attempts to justify his life and his work. This is

especially evident in his later books, The Confessions, The Reveries of the Solitary Walker, and Rousseau:

Judge of Jean-Jacques.

Rousseau greatly influenced Immanuel Kant’s work on ethics. His novel Julie or the New Heloise

impacted the late eighteenth century’s Romantic Naturalism movement, and his political ideals were

championed by leaders of the French Revolution.

Discourse on the Sciences and Arts

This is the work that originally won Rousseau fame and recognition. The Academy of Dijon posed the

question, “Has the restoration of the sciences and arts tended to purify morals?” Rousseau’s answer to

this question is an emphatic “no.” The First Discourse won the academy’s prize as the best essay. The

work is perhaps the greatest example of Rousseau as a “counter-Enlightenment” thinker. For the

Enlightenment project was based on the idea that progress in fields like the arts and sciences do

indeed contribute to the purification of morals on individual, social, and political levels.

The First Discourse begins with a brief introduction addressing the academy to which the work was

submitted. Aware that his stance against the contribution of the arts and sciences to morality could

potentially offend his readers, Rousseau claims, “I am not abusing science…I am defending virtue


[email protected]

before virtuous men.” (First Discourse, Vol. I, p. 4). In addition to this introduction, the First Discourse is

comprised of two main parts.

The first part is largely an historical survey. Using specific examples, Rousseau shows how societies in

which the arts and sciences flourished more often than not saw the decline of morality and virtue. He

notes that it was after philosophy and the arts flourished that ancient Egypt fell. Similarly, ancient

Greece was once founded on notions of heroic virtue, but after the arts and sciences progressed, it

became a society based on luxury and leisure. The one exception to this, according to Rousseau, was

Sparta, which he praises for pushing the artists and scientists from its walls. Sparta is in stark contrast

to Athens, which was the heart of good taste, elegance, and philosophy. Interestingly, Rousseau here

discusses Socrates, as one of the few wise Athenians who recognized the corruption that the arts and

sciences were bringing about. Rousseau paraphrases Socrates’ famous speech in the Apology. In his

address to the court, Socrates says that the artists and philosophers of his day claim to have

knowledge of piety, goodness, and virtue, yet they do not really understand anything. Rousseau’s

historical inductions are not limited to ancient civilizations, however, as he also mentions China as a

learned civilization that suffers terribly from its vices.

The second part of the First Discourse is an examination of the arts and sciences themselves, and the

dangers they bring. First, Rousseau claims that the arts and sciences are born from our vices:

“Astronomy was born from superstition; eloquence from ambition, hate, flattery, and falsehood;

geometry from avarice, physics from vain curiosity; all, even moral philosophy, from human pride.”

(First Discourse, Vol. I, p. 12). The attack on sciences continues as Rousseau articulates how they fail to

contribute anything positive to morality. They take time from the activities that are truly important,

such as love of country, friends, and the unfortunate. Philosophical and scientific knowledge of

subjects such as the relationship of the mind to the body, the orbit of the planets, and physical laws

that govern particles fail to genuinely provide any guidance for making people more virtuous citizens.

Rather, Rousseau argues that they create a false sense of need for luxury, so that science becomes

simply a means for making our lives easier and more pleasurable, but not morally better.

The arts are the subject of similar attacks in the second part of the First Discourse. Artists, Rousseau

says, wish first and foremost to be applauded. Their work comes from a sense of wanting to be

praised as superior to others. Society begins to emphasize specialized talents rather than virtues such

as courage, generosity, and temperance. This leads to yet another danger: the decline of military

virtue, which is necessary for a society to defend itself against aggressors. And yet, after all of these

attacks, the First Discourse ends with the praise of some very wise thinkers, among them, Bacon,


[email protected]

Descartes, and Newton. These men were carried by their vast genius and were able to avoid

corruption. However, Rousseau says, they are exceptions; and the great majority of people ought to

focus their energies on improving their characters, rather than advancing the ideals of the

Enlightenment in the arts and sciences.

The Second Discourse, like the first, was a response to a question put forth by the academy of Dijon:

“What is the origin of inequality among men; and is it authorized by the natural law?” Rousseau’s

response to this question, the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, is significantly different from

the First Discourse for several reasons. First, in terms of the academy’s response, the Second

Discourse was not nearly as well received. It exceeded the desired length, it was four times the length

of the first, and made very bold philosophical claims; unlike the First Discourse, it did not win the prize.

However, as Rousseau was now a well-known and respected author, he was able to have it published

independently. Secondly, if the First Discourse is indicative of Rousseau as a “counter-Enlightenment”

thinker, the Second Discourse, by contrast, can rightly be considered to be representative of

Enlightenment thought. This is primarily because Rousseau, like Hobbes, attacks the classical notion of

human beings as naturally social. Finally, in terms of its influence, the Second Discourse is now much

more widely read, and is more representative of Rousseau’s general philosophical outlook. In

the Confessions, Rousseau writes that he himself sees the Second Discourse as far superior to the first..

{=============}

course: social theory–i (4669) semester: spring 2019 level ......intellegence…” . because,...

Documents