:: wikimiki.org ::

Essay Concerning Human Understanding

Essay Concerning Human Understanding

An Essay Concerning Human Understanding is one of John Locke's two most famous works, the other being his Second Treatise on Civil Government. First appearing in 1689, the essay concerns the foundation of human knowledge and understanding. He describes the mind at birth as a blank slate (tabula rasa), filled later through experience. The essay was one of the principal sources of empiricism in modern philosophy, and influenced philosophers such as David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Locke drafted the Essay over a period of about 18 years. In the "Epistle to the Reader," Locke writes that the germ of the essay sprung from a conversation with friends. At a point where this discourse seemed stuck, Locke remarked that it could not proceed without a close examination of "our own abilities and...what objects our understandings were, or were not, fitted to deal with." This conversation occurred around 1671, and in that year Locke formulated two drafts of the Essay. He would continue to work on it for nearly two decades, clarifying and expanding his basic position. Though dated 1690, the book actually first appeared in 1689. Book II of the Essay sets out Locke's theory of ideas, including his distinction between passively acquired simple ideas, such as "red," "sweet," "round," etc., and actively built complex ideas, such as numbers, causes and effects, abstract ideas, ideas of substances, identity, and diversity. Locke also distinguishes between the truly existing primary qualities of bodies, like shape, motion and the arrangement of minute particles, and the secondary qualities that are "powers to produce various sensations in us" such as "red" and "sweet." These secondary qualities, Locke claims, are dependent on the primary qualities. Book III is concerned with language, and Book IV with knowledge, including intuition, mathematics, moral philosophy, natural philosophy ("science"), faith, and opinion.

Ideas

Locke's main thesis is that the mind of a newborn is a blank slate and that all ideas are developed from experience. Book I of the Essay is devoted to an attack on the doctrine of innate ideas. Locke allowed that some ideas are in the mind from an early age, but argued that such ideas are furnished by the senses starting at birth: for instance, differences between colors or tastes. If we have a universal understanding of a concept like sweetness, it is not because this is an innate idea, but because we are all exposed to sweet tastes at an early age. Along these lines, Locke also argued that people have no innate principles. Locke contended that innate principles would rely upon innate ideas, which do not exist. For instance, we cannot have an innate sense that God should be worshipped, when we cannot even agree on a conception of God or whether God exists at all. One of Locke's fundamental arguments against innate ideas is the very fact that there are no truths to which all people attest. He takes the time to argue against a number of propositions that rationalists offer as universally accepted truths, for instance the principle of identity, pointing out that at the very least children and idiots are often unaware of these propositions. Whereas Book I is intended to reject the doctrine of innate ideas proposed by Descartes and the rationalists, Book II explains that every idea is derived from experience either by sensation – direct sensory information – or reflection – mental construction.

Language

The close of Book II suggests that Locke discovered a close relationship between words and ideas that prompted him to include a book on language before moving on to discuss knowledge. Book III addresses definitions, names, and the imperfections and abuses of verbal communication. To most scholars, this content is less coherent and important than the surrounding material.

Knowledge

Book IV is devoted to a discussion of knowledge.

Reaction, response, and influence

Locke's empiricist viewpoint was sharply criticized by rationalists. In 1704 Gottfried Leibniz wrote a rationalist response to Locke's work in the form of a chapter-by-chapter rebuttal, the Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain ("New Essays on Human Understanding"). At the same time, Locke's work provided crucial groundwork for the work of future empiricists like David Hume.

References

- Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Macmillan, 1967. s.v. "Locke, John".

External link

- [http://www.gutenberg.net/catalog/world/authrec?fk_authors=2447 John Locke at Project Gutenberg], including the Essay. Essay Concerning Human Understanding, An

John Locke

John Locke (August 29, 1632–October 28, 1704) was a 17th-century English philosopher. He developed the Lockean social contract, which included the ideas of a state of nature, "government with the consent of the governed," and the natural rights of life, liberty, and estate. Locke was also the first to fully develop the idea of tabula rasa. Locke's ideas had an enormous influence on the development of political philosophy, and he is often seen as one of the most influential contributors to liberal theory as well as Enlightenment thinkers. Locke's writings formed the basis for many ideas of American revolutionaries as reflected in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Locke has often been classified, along with David Hume and George Berkeley, as a British Empiricist. He is perhaps most often contrasted with the contemporary Thomas Hobbes.

Biography

Locke's father, also named John Locke, was a country lawyer who had served as a captain of cavalry for the Parliamentarian forces during the early part of the English Civil War, and his mother Agnes Keene was a tanner's daughter that was reputed to be very beautiful. Locke was born on August 29, 1632, in a small thatched cottage by the church in Wrington, Somerset, 11.42 miles (18.38 km) from Bristol. He was baptized the same day. Soon after Locke's birth, the family moved to the market town of Pensford, about seven miles south of Bristol, where Locke grew up in a rural Tudor house in Belluton. In 1647, Locke was sent to the prestigious Westminster School in London under the sponsorship of Alexander Popham, a member of Parliament and Locke's father's former commander. After completing his studies there, he was admitted to the college of Christ Church at Oxford University. The dean of the college at the time was John Owen, vice-chancellor of the university. Although a capable student, Locke was irritated by the undergraduate curriculum of the time. He found reading modern philosophers, such as René Descartes, more interesting than the classical material taught at the university. Locke was awarded a bachelor's degree in 1656 and a master's degree in 1658. Although he never became a medical doctor, Locke obtained a bachelor of medicine in 1674. He studied medicine extensively during his time at Oxford, working with such noted virtuosi as Robert Boyle, Thomas Willis, Robert Hooke and Richard Lower. In 1666, he met Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, who had come to Oxford seeking treatment for a liver infection. Cooper was impressed with Locke and persuaded him to become part of his retinue. Locke had been looking for a career and in 1667 moved into Shaftesbury's home at Exeter House in London, ostensibly as the household physician. In London Locke resumed his medical studies, under the tutelage of Thomas Sydenham. Sydenham had a major impact on Locke's natural philosophical thinking - an impact that resonated deeply in Locke's writing of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Locke's medical knowledge was soon put to the test, since Shaftesbury's liver infection became life-threatening. Locke coordinated the advice of several physicians and was probably instrumental in persuading Shaftesbury to undergo an operation (then life-threatening itself) to remove the cyst. Shaftesbury survived and prospered, crediting Locke with saving his life. It was in Shaftesbury's household, during 1671, that the meeting took place, described in the Epistle to the reader of the Essay, which was the genesis of what would later become Essay. Two extant Drafts still survive from this period. Shaftesbury, as a founder of the Whig movement, exerted great influence on Locke's political ideas. Locke became involved in politics when Shaftesbury became Lord Chancellor in 1672. Following Shaftesbury's fall from favour in 1675, Locke spent some time travelling across France. He returned to England in 1679 when Shaftesbury's political fortunes took a brief positive turn. It was around this time, most likely at Shaftesbury's prompting, that Locke composed the bulk of the Two Treatises of Government. However, Locke fled to the Netherlands in 1683, under strong suspicion of involvement in the Rye House Plot (though there is little evidence to suggest that he was directly involved in the scheme). In the Netherlands Locke had time to return to his writing, spending a great deal of time re-working the Essay and composing the Letter on Toleration. Locke did not return home until after the Glorious Revolution. The bulk of Locke's publishing took place after his arrival back in England - the Essay, the Two Treatises and the Letter on Toleration all appearing in quick succession upon his return from exile. He died in 1704 after a prolonged decline in health, and is buried in the churchyard of the village of High Laver, east of Harlow in Essex, where he had lived in the household of Sir Francis Masham since 1691. Locke never married or had any children. Events that happened during Locke's lifetime include the English Restoration, the Great Plague and the Great Fire of London. He did not quite see the Act of Union of 1707, though the thrones of England and Scotland were held by the same monarch throughout his lifetime. Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy were in their infancy during Locke's time.

Writings

The influences of Locke's Puritan upbringing and his Whig political affiliation expressed themselves in his published writings. Although widely regarded as an important influence on modern ideas of political liberty, Locke did not always express ideas that match those of the present day. Locke's first major published work was A Letter Concerning Toleration. Religious toleration within Great Britain was a subject of great interest for Locke; he wrote several subsequent essays in its defence prior to his death. Locke's upbringing among non-conformist Protestants made him sensitive to differing theological viewpoints. He recoiled, however, from what he saw as the divisive character of some non-conformist sects. Locke became a strong supporter of the Church of England. By adopting a latitudinarian theological stance, Locke believed, the national church could serve as an instrument for social harmony. Locke is best known for two works, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding and Two Treatises of Government. The Essay was commenced in 1671, and as Locke himself described, was written in fits and starts over the next 18 years. It was finally published in December 1689. Though the exact dates of the composition of the Two Treatises are a matter of dispute, it is clear that the bulk of the writing took place in the period from 1679-1682. It was therefore much more of a commentary on the exclusion crisis than it was a justification of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, though no one doubts that Locke substantively revised it to serve this latter purpose.

A Letter Concerning Toleration

Locke originally published the Letter anonymously, in Latin, in Amsterdam, though it was almost immediately translated into English. He distinguishes a church from a civil government by the ends each pursues and by the means most appropriate to those ends. Government exists for the sake of peace, and must use force to achieve it; a church is a voluntary community for the salvation of souls, and must therefore use persuasion. Individuals cannot alienate control over their own souls, and so cannot make the government responsible for their salvation; force cannot bring about the changes necessary for salvation; and even if it could, there is no certainty that the religion doing the oppressing is the true religion. As a result, even were the government inclined to support a particular church, it could not do so without disturbing civil peace. Government may, however, regulate religion for political reasons, e.g., to forbid the public slaughter of all animals for health reasons, even if this prevents certain religious practices. Religious sects that refuse to accept Locke's doctrine of toleration of necessity seek a change in the government, and so may be suppressed as revolutionary. As there is no reason to keep promises without fear of God, and as civil peace requires that men keep their promises, the government may take an interest in promoting some form of religion.

An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

In the Essay, Locke critiques the philosophy of innate ideas and builds a theory of the mind and knowledge that gives priority to the senses and experience. His adherence to this doctrine is what marks him out as an empiricist rather than a rationalist such as his critic Leibniz, who wrote the New Essays on Human Understanding. Book II of the Essay sets out Locke's theory of ideas, including his distinction between passively acquired simple ideas, such as "red," "sweet," "round," etc., and actively built complex ideas, such as numbers, causes and effects, abstract ideas, ideas of substances, identity, and diversity. Locke also distinguishes between the truly existing primary qualities of bodies, like shape, motion and the arrangement of minute particles, and the secondary qualities that are "powers to produce various sensations in us" (Essay, II.viii.10) such as "red" and "sweet." These secondary qualities, Locke claims, are dependent on the primary qualities. In Chapter xxvii of Book II Locke discusses personal identity, and the idea of a person. What he says here has shaped our thoughts and provoked debate ever since. Book III is concerned with language, and Book IV with knowledge, including intuition, mathematics, moral philosophy, natural philosophy ("science"), faith and opinion.

Two Treatises of Government

The First Treatise attacks Sir Robert Filmer, who was the author of the first criticism of Thomas Hobbes and of a peculiar theory of the Divine Right of Kings. The Second Treatise, or True End of Civil Government, purports to justify the Glorious Revolution by 1) developing a theory of legitimate government and 2) arguing that the people may remove a regime that violates that theory; Locke leaves it to his readers to understand that James II of England had done so. He is therefore best known as the popularizer of natural rights and the right of revolution. Locke posits a state of nature as the proper starting point for examining politics. Individuals have rights, and their duties are defined in terms of protecting their own rights and respecting those of others. Through the law of nature, which Locke describes as "reason," we are able to understand why we must respect the natural rights of others (including the right to property for which one has laboured). In practice, the law of nature is ignored and so government is necessary; this can be created only by the consent of the governed, which can be had only to a commonwealth of laws. As law is sometimes incapable of providing for the safety and increase of society, man may acquiesce in being done certain extralegal benefits (prerogative). All government is therefore a fiduciary trust: when that trust is betrayed, government dissolves. A government betrays its trust when the laws are violated or when the trust of prerogative is abused. Once government is dissolved, the people are free to erect a new one and to oppose those who claim authority under the old one, that is, to revolt.

Influence

Locke exercised a profound influence on subsequent philosophy and politics. His remarks concerning liberty and the social contract later influenced the written works of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other Founding Fathers of the United States. In particular, the Declaration of Independence drew upon many 18th century political ideas, derived from the works of Locke. Appraisals of Locke have therefore been tied to appraisals of the United States and of liberalism in general. Detractors note that he was a major investor in the English slave-trade, as well as his participation in drafting the Fundamental Constitution of the Carolinas while Shaftesbury's secretary, which established a feudal aristocracy and gave a master absolute power over his slaves. Some see his statements on unenclosed property as having justified the displacement of the Native Americans. Because of his opposition to aristocracy and slavery in his major writings, he is accused of hypocrisy, or of caring only for the liberty of English capitalists. Most scholars reject these criticisms, however, questioning the extent of his impact upon the Fundamental Constititution and his detractors' interpretations of his work in general.

List of major works

- (1689) A Letter Concerning Toleration
- (1690) A Second Letter Concerning Toleration
- (1692) A Third Letter for Toleration
- (1689) Two Treatises of Government
- (1689) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
- (1693) Some Thoughts Concerning Education
- (1695) The Reasonableness of Christianity, as Delivered in the Scriptures
- (1695) A Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity

Major unpublished or posthumous manuscripts

- (1660) First Tract on Government (or the English Tract)
- (c.1662) Second Tract on Government (or the Latin Tract)
- (1664) Essays on the Law of Nature
- (1667) Essay Concerning Toleration
- (1706) Of the Conduct of the Understanding
- (1707) A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul

Locke's epitaph

(translated from the Latin) "Stop Traveller! Near this place lieth John Locke. If you ask what kind of a man he was, he answers that he lived content with his own small fortune. Bred a scholar, he made his learning subservient only to the cause of truth. This thou will learn from his writings, which will show thee everything else concerning him, with greater truth, than the suspected praises of an epitaph. His virtues, indeed, if he had any, were too little for him to propose as matter of praise to himself, or as an example to thee. Let his vices be buried together. As to an example of manners, if you seek that, you have it in the Gospels; of vices, to wish you have one nowhere; if mortality, certainly, (and may it profit thee), thou hast one here and everywhere."

Secondary literature

- Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknapp/Harvard University Press, 1967. Enlarged Edition, 1992. Discusses influence of Locke and other thinkers upon American political thought.
- John Dunn, Locke Oxford University Press, 1984. A succinct introduction.
- John Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke: An Historical Account of the Argument of the Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Introduced the interpretation which emphasizes the theological element in Locke's political thought.
- Roland Hall (ed.) `Locke Studies' is an annual journal of research on John Locke (obtainable from the editor for £12; the current volume is 300 pages).
- John W. Yolton (ed.), John Locke: Problems and Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Reassesses Locke's political philosophy from different points of view.

Quotes

If man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom?"
-Two Treatises of Government

References

- Robinson, Dave & Groves, Judy (2003). Introducing Political Philosophy. Icon Books. ISBN 1-84046-450-X.

External links

- [http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/search?amode=start&author=Locke,%20John Free, full-text works by John Locke]
-
- [http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dmckiern/locke.htm Works by Locke on the Web]
- [http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/locke/ John Locke Online Bibliography]
- [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry]
- [http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/locke/index.html John Locke Bibliography]
- [http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/locke/mss/index.html John Locke Manuscripts]
- [http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/ Readable versions of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding and the Second Treatise on Government] Locke, John Locke, John Locke, John Locke, John Locke, John Locke, John Locke, John Locke, John Locke, John Locke, John ko:존 로크 ja:ジョン・ロック th:จอห์น ล็อก

Second Treatise on Civil Government

The Two Treatises of Government is a work of political philosophy published in 1689 by John Locke. The two component treatises are often discussed as separate works, though Locke himself never published them separately. The Second Treatise is often cited as a manifesto for liberal democracy and capitalism, and so has been alternately praised and villified, depending on one's point of view. Locke claims in the Preface to the work that its purpose is to justify William of Orange's ascension to the throne of England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, though recent scholarship has suggested that the bulk of the writing was completed between 1679-1682. That he would write a defense of revolution during the Exclusion Crisis, i.e., during the reign of Charles II, rather than in anticipation of the imminent ouster of James II, serves to cast the work in a very radical light. Locke further edited the Treatises before publication. Books in 17th-century England were dated the same way automobile model years are dated today; the date of 1690 on the title page means that the book was published in 1689.

Structure of the Work

The Two Treatises begin with a Preface announcing Locke's intention. He says that more than half of what he had originally written, occupying a space in between the First and Second Treatises, has been lost and that he will not rewrite it. It is possible that Locke expanded the remaining sections prior to publication to include the more important themes discussed in those that were lost. This, however, is only conjecture and some scholars maintain that we are missing the end of the First Treatise: the final section can be read as breaking off in mid-sentence, or as being poorly punctuated. Locke had severe problems with the publication process. It has been suggested that he held the printers to a higher standard of perfection than the technology of the time would permit. Be that as it may, the first edition was replete with errors. The second edition was even worse, and finally printed on cheap paper and sold to the poor. The third edition was much improved, but Locke still was not satisfied. He made corrections to the third edition by hand, but died before a fourth could be published. Peter Laslett's critical edition of the Two Treatises is based upon these hand corrections to the third edition, as is Richard Cox's edition of the Second Treatise. A full story of the Two Treatises’s printing history is contained in the introduction to Laslett's edition (cited below). The Two Treatises culminate in a defense of resistance to tyranny. This defense is based upon a particular view of legitimate government. This view in turn relies upon there being a natural equality among mankind, which was precisely what was denied by Locke's opponents. He singles out one opponent, Sir Robert Filmer, and begins by assailing him in the First Treatise. He proceeds through Filmer's arguments, contesting his proofs from Scripture and ridiculing them as senseless, until concluding that no government can be justified by appeal to the divine right of kings. While Locke presents the First Treatise as an exercise in groundclearing, especially at the beginning of the Second Treatise, numerous scholars have found much of independent interest there. The original title of the Second Treatise appears to have been simply "Book II", corresponding to the title of the First Treatise ("Book I"). Before publication, however, Locke gave it greater prominence by (hastily) inserting a separate title page: "An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government." He distinguishes among political power, parental power, and despotical power, and proceeds to discuss how the first might come into being. People are just to oppose attempts at parental or despotical power when these are inappropriate, the implication being that James II forfeited his crown by such an attempt and so that the Glorious Revolution was justified.

First Treatise

The First Treatise is an extended attack on Sir Robert Filmer. Locke approaches the argument along two general lines: he undercuts the Scriptural support that Filmer had adduced for his thesis, and he argues that the acceptance of Filmer's thesis can lead only to absurdity. Locke chose Filmer as his target, he says, because of his reputation and because he "carried this Argument [jure divino] farthest, and is supposed to have brought it to perfection" (1^st Tr., §5). Filmer had argued for a divinely ordained, hereditary, absolute monarchy. Adam possessed unlimitable power over his children as their father, and this authority passed down through the generations. Locke attacks this on several grounds. Accepting that fatherhood grants authority, he argues, it would do so only by the act of begetting, and so cannot be transmitted to one's children. Nor is the power of a father over his children absolute, as Filmer would have it (this is taken up again in the Second Treatise). Finally, whatever power begetting does grant would be shared with the mother. This final argument has drawn contemporary feminists to study the First Treatise. Filmer had also suggested that Adam's absolute authority came from his ownership over all the world. To this, Locke opposes that the world was originally held in common (both here and in the Second Treatise). But, even if it were not, God's grant to Adam covered only the land and brute animals, not human beings. Nor could Adam, or his heir, leverage this grant to enslave mankind, for the law of nature forbids reducing one's fellows to a state of desperation, if one possesses a sufficient surplus to maintain oneself securely. And even if this charity were not commanded by reason, Locke continues, such a strategy for gaining dominion would prove only that the foundation of government lies in consent. Throughout the First Treatise, Locke intimates that a doctrine of jure divino will destroy all government. Its final chapter asks the question, "Who heir?" If Filmer is correct, there should be only one rightful king in all the world, viz. the heir of Adam. This would absolve the members of every commonwealth save one of their obligations to their rulers, which could only lead to anarchy if taken seriously. And since we do not know the true heir of Adam, and cannot discover him, all governments are in this position. Filmer must therefore say that men are dutybound to obey their present rulers. Locke states on this point:

I think he is the first Politician, who, pretending to settle Government upon its true Basis, and to establish the Thrones of lawful Princes, ever told the World, That he was properly a King, whose Manner of Government was by Supreme Power, by what Means soever he obtained it; which in plain English is to say, that Regal and Supreme Power is properly and truly his, who can by any Means seize upon it; and if this be, to be properly a King, I wonder how he came to think of, or where he will find, an Usurper. (1^st Tr., §79)

Locke concludes the First Treatise by examining the history told in the Bible, and the history of the world since then, and notes that there is no evidence to support Filmer's hypothesis. No king has ever claimed that his authority rested upon his being the heir of Adam. It is Filmer, Locke alleges, that is the innovator in politics, not those who assert the natural equality and freedom of man.

Second Treatise

The Second Treatise is notable for a number of themes that Locke therein develops. It begins with a depiction of the state of nature, wherein individuals are under no obligation to obey another but are each themselves judge of what the law of nature requires. It also covers conquest and slavery, property, representative government, and the right of revolution.

The State of Nature

The work of Thomas Hobbes made theories based upon a state of nature popular in Seventeenth-Century England, even as most of those who employed such arguments were deeply troubled by his absolutist conclusions. Locke's state of nature can best be seen in light of this tradition. Because there is no divinely ordained monarch over all the world, as was argued in the First Treatise, the natural state of mankind is anarchic. In contrast to Hobbes, who posited the state of nature as a hypothetical possibility, Locke is at great pains to show that such a state did indeed exist. Indeed, it exists wherever there is no legitimate government. While no individual in this state may tell another what to do or authoritatively pronounce justice in a given case, men are not free to do whatever they please. "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it" (2^nd Tr., §7). The specifics of this law are unwritten, however, and so each is likely to misapply it in his own case. Lacking any commonly recognized, impartial judge, there is no way to correct these misapplications. Even were such a judge available, the just are vastly outnumbered by the unjust and indifferent, so his pronouncements would lack effect. The law of nature is therefore ill enforced in the state of nature.

IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property. (2^nd Tr., §123)

What should be a state of peace very quickly begins to look like the state of war that Hobbes described (though the ill enforcement of the law of nature does not release individuals from their obligation to it, as it does in Hobbes). It is to avoid the state of war that often occurs in the state of nature that men enter into political society. It is also the state to which men return upon the dissolution of government, i.e., under tyranny.

The Law of Nature

Conquest and Slavery

Ch. 4 ("Of Slavery") and Ch. 16 ("Of Conquest") are sources of some confusion: the former provides a justification for slavery, the latter, the rights of conquerors. Because the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina provided that a master had perfect authority over his slaves, some have taken these chapters to be an apology for the institution of slavery in Colonial America. Most Locke scholars roundly reject this reading, as it is directly at odds with the text. The extent of Locke's involvement in drafting the Fundamental Constitutions is a matter of some debate, but even attributing full culpability for its contents and for his having profited from the Atlantic slave trade, the majority of experts will concede that Locke may have been a hypocrite in this matter, but are adamant that no part of the Two Treatises can be used to provide theoretical support for slavery by bare right of conquest. In the rhetoric of seventeenth-century England, those who opposed the increasing power of the kings claimed that the country was headed for a condition of slavery. Locke therefore asks, facetiously, under what conditions such slavery might be justified. He notes that slavery cannot come about as a matter of contract (which will be the basis of Locke's political system). To be a slave is to be subject to the absolute, arbitrary power of another; as men do not have this power even over themselves, they cannot sell or otherwise grant it to another. One that is deserving of death, i.e., who has violated the law of nature, may be enslaved. This is, however, "but the state of war continued" (2^nd Tr., §24), and even one justly a slave therefore has no obligation to obedience. In providing a justification for slavery, he has rendered all forms of slavery as it actually exists invalid. Moreover, as one may not submit to slavery, there is a moral injunction to attempt to throw off and escape it whenever it looms. Most scholars take this to be Locke's point regarding slavery: submission to absolute monarchy is a violation of the law of nature, for one does not have the right to enslave oneself. The legitimacy of an English king depended on (somehow) demonstrating descent from William the Conqueror: the right of conquest was therefore very much a topic rife with constitutional connotations. Locke does not say that all subsequent English monarchs have been illegitimate, but he does make their rightful authority dependent solely upon their having acquired the people's approbation. Locke first argues that, clearly, aggressors in an unjust war can claim no right of conquest: everything they despoil may be retaken as soon as the dispossessed have the strength to do so. Their children retain this right, so an ancient usurpation does not become lawful with time. The rest of the chapter then considers what rights a just conqueror might have. The argument proceeds negatively: Locke proposes one power a conqueror could gain, and then demonstrates how in point of fact that power cannot be claimed. He gains no authority over those that conquered with him, for they did not wage war unjustly: thus, whatever other right William may have had in England, he could not claim kingship over his fellow Normans by right of conquest. The subdued are under the conqueror's despotical authority, but only those who actually took part in the fighting. Those who were governed by the defeated aggressor do not become subject to the authority of the victorious aggressed. They lacked the power to do an unjust thing, and so could not have granted that power to their governors: the aggressor therefore was not acting as their representative, and they cannot be punished for his actions. And while the conqueror may seize the person of the vanquished aggressor in an unjust war, he cannot seize the latter's property: he may not drive the innocent wife and children of a villain into poverty for another's unjust acts, and so while the property is technically that of the defeated, his innocent dependents have a claim to it to which the just conqueror must yield. He cannot seize more than the vanquished could forfeit, and the latter had no right to ruin his dependents. (He may, however, demand and take reparations for the damages suffered in the war, so long as these leave enough in the possession of the aggressor's dependants for their survival). In so arguing, Locke accomplishes two objectives. First, he neutralizes the claims of those who see all authority flowing from William I by the latter's right of conquest. In the absence of any other claims to authority (e.g., Filmer's primogeniture from Adam, divine anointment, etc.), all kings would have to found their authority on the consent of the governed. Second, he removes much of the incentive for conquest in the first place, for even in a just war the spoils are limited to the persons of the defeated and reparations sufficient only to cover the costs of the war, and even then only when the aggressor's territory can easily sustain such costs (i.e., it can never be a profitable endeavor). Needless to say, the bare claim that one's spoils are the just compensation for a just war does not suffice to make it so, in Locke's view.

Property

In the Second Treatise, Locke claims that civil society was created for the protection of property. In saying this, he relies the etymological root of "property," Latin proprius, or that which is one's own, including oneself (cf. French propre). Thus, by "property" he means "life, liberty, and estate." By saying that political society was established for the better protection of property, he claims that it serves the private (and non-political) interests of its constituent members: it does not promote some good which can be realized only in community with others (e.g., virtue). For this account to work, individuals must possess some property outside of society, i.e., in the state of nature: the state cannot be the sole origin of property, declaring what belongs to whom. If the purpose of government is the protection of property, the latter must exist independently of the former. Filmer had said that, if there even were a state of nature (which he denied), everything would be held in common: there could be no private property, and hence no justice or injustice (injustice being understood as treating someone else's goods, liberty, or life as if it was one's own). Thomas Hobbes had argued the same thing. Locke therefore provides an account of how material property could arise in the absence of government. He begins by asserting that each individual, at a minimum, "owns" himself; this is a corollary of each individual's being free and equal in the state of nature. As a result, each must also own his own labor: to deny him his labor would be to make him a slave. One can therefore take items from the common store of goods by mixing one's labor with them: an apple on the tree is of no use to anyone — it must be picked to be eaten — and the picking of that apple makes it one's own. In an alternate argument, Locke claims that we must allow it to become private property lest all mankind have starved, despite the bounty of the world. A man must be allowed to eat, and thus have what he has eaten be his own (such that he could deny others a right to use it). The apple is surely his when he swallows it, when he chews it, when he bites into it, when he brings it to his mouth, etc.: it became his as soon as he mixed his labor with it (by picking it from the tree). This does not yet say why an individual is allowed to take from the common store of nature. There is a necessity to do so in order to eat, but this does not yet establish why others must respect one's property, especially as they labor under the like necessity. Locke assures his readers that the state of nature is a state of plenty: one may take from communal store if one leaves a) as much and b) as good for others, and since nature is bountiful, one can take all that one can use without taking anything from someone else. Moreover, one can take only so much as one can use before it spoils. There are then two provisos regarding what one can take, the "as much and as good" condition and "spoilage." Neither of these restrictions have any practical effect with the creation of money and the enclosure of land. Tilling the land mixes ones labor with it, and thus makes it and its fruit one's property. The issue is not how much land remains for others after enclosure, however, but how much usable food remains. If one acre of enclosed land produces as much food as one hundred acres of unenclosed, common land, then the man who encloses that acre takes nothing from the community: in fact, he gives back the equivalent of ninety-nine acres of land. And he can claim as his own only so much produce as he can utilize before it spoils. Thus, it makes no sense to enclose more land than one needs to feed oneself and to trade of other useful goods. Gold does not rot. Neither does silver, or any other precious metal or gem. They are, moreover, useless, their aesthetic value not entering into the equation. One can heap up as much of them as one wishes, or take them in trade for food. By the tacit consent of mankind, they become a form of money (one accepts gold for apples with the understanding that someone else will accept that gold for wheat). One can therefore avoid the spoilage limitation by selling all that one has amassed before it rots; the limits on acquisition thus disappear. In this way, Locke argues that a full economic system could, in principle, exist within the state of nature. Property could therefore predate the existence of government, and thus society can be dedicated to the protection of property. When one joins civil society, however, one joins one's property to it to be regulated by the community. This is one of the things to which one consents when joining society. In the Twentieth Century, Marxist scholars neglected this point and made Locke into the founder of bourgeois capitalism. Those who were opposed to communism accepted their reading of Locke, but celebrated him for it. He has therefore become associated with capitalism, an association that is implausible on both historical and textual grounds. A fairer interpretation of his thought would make him the founder of modern materialist society: the purpose of society is the preservation and enlargement of life, liberty, and estate, but this need not in itself determine the model of economic relationships. Civil society, which regulates the property of each of its members, may choose to keep the means of production in private hands or it may nationalize them, but so long as the decision is taken based on which option will better promote the property of each individual, and so long as it is taken by a representative assembly, the government will be compatible with Locke's doctrine of property. In a sense, capitalism and communism were competing over which was the better Lockean.

Representative Government

Since there is no natural hierarchy among human beings, any subordination of one to another must be conventional. This convent is called the social contract. Each individual decides that it would be good to part with the liberty enjoyed in the state of nature and to submit to the determination of the society. The society is thereby responsible for the natural law obligations of each of its members. Each member, of a legitimate commonwealth, surrenders the power had in the state of nature and agrees, with every other member, to subordinate his will to the judgments of the whole. As a practical matter, in every society, a part must rule the whole. As the majority is composed of more wills and is stronger than the minority, the will of society must be determined by the majority. This makes liberal democracy a moral imperative. At a minimum, the majority must support the regime in power; in practice, this support can be demonstrated only by including something like a Parliament in the government. It must be said that the people rule themselves. Locke's reasons for this form the crux of much of his theory. They are as follows. No one may surrender a power which one does not have (else it would not be available to surrender). The power one has over oneself is determined by the law of nature; that law forbids that one neglect one's own presevation. The rule of law is the best guarantor of one's life, liberty, and estate. One cannot consent to a power that claims authority over these things regardless of the law, or what is reasonable, or social norms. One cannot, therefore, consent to a government that violates these goods. Society is the subjugation of oneself to the will of another, but since one may subjugate oneself only to one who will not rule arbitrarily, society must enunciate its will in the form of general laws. This means that representative government is demanded by the law of nature, i.e., by reason itself. One cannot consent to any other form of government. Any other form of government, Locke says, would endanger one's preservation more than would the state of nature, and so one would lack the right to give that government authority. The rule of law — the idea that the power of the state may be excersied only pursuant to a general rule crafted by the legislature — is the only legitimate form of government.

The Right of Revolution

Locke believed that the relationship between the state and its citizens took the form of a 'contract': whereby the governed agreed to surrender certain freedoms they enjoyed under the state of nature in exchange for the order and protection provided by a state, exercised according the rule of law. However, if the state overstepped its limits and began to exercise arbitrary power, it forfeited its 'side' of the contract and thus, the contract being void, the citizens not only have the right to overthrow the state, but are indeed morally compelled to revolt and replace the state.

Controversies Regarding Interpretation

Comparing Locke and Hobbes

The Second Treatise is often taken as a refutation of Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan, the latter's support of absolute monarchism seemingly antithetical to Locke's ideal majoritarian government. However, Leo Strauss in his Natural Right and History contentiously argues that Locke is more or less Hobbesian in his conception of politics. Strauss claims that the supposed egotism of Hobbes' natural law and the ostensible altruism of Locke's can be reduced to an identical moral framework, one in which people are to treat others as others treat them, to be selfless when others are selfless, selfish when others are selfish.

Proto-Capitalism in the Second Treatise

Selected secondary literature

- Richard Ashcraft. Revolutionary Politics and Locke's "Two Treatises of Government". Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.
- Richard Ashcraft. Locke's Two Treatises of Government. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1987.
- John Dunn. The Political Thought of John Locke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
- Peter Laslett. Introduction to Two Treatises of Government, by John Locke. Student Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
- C. B. MacPherson. Political Theory of Possessive Individualism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.
- Thomas L. Pangle. The Spirit of Modern Republicanism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
- Leo Strauss. Natural Right and History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.
- Jeremy Waldron. God, Locke, and Equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
- Michael P. Zuckert. Natural Rights and the New Republicanism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.
- Michael P. Zucker. Launching Liberalism. University Press of Kansas, 2002.

External links

- [http://www.gutenberg.net/etext/7370 etext of the Second Treatise] (Project Gutenberg)
- [http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm Full text of the Second Treatise]
- [http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/locke/ Sparknotes on the Second Treatise] Category:1689 books Category:Philosophy books Category:Political books Category:Rights

1689

Events

- Louis XIV of France passed the "Code Noir," allowing the full use of slaves in the French colonies.
- January 11 - The Parliament of England declares King James II of England deposed.
- February 13 - William III and Mary II are proclaimed co-rulers of England, Scotland and Ireland. Scotland and Ireland do not yet recognize them.
- April 11 - The Estates of Scotland declare King James VII of Scotland deposed.
- April 11 - Crowning of co-rulers King William III and Mary II as King and Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland. Ireland does not recognize them yet.
- May 12 - King William's War: William III of England joins the League of Augsburg starting the war.
- May 24 - The Act of Toleration passes the English Parliament protecting Protestants (Roman Catholics are intentionally excluded).
- May 31 - Leisler's Rebellion - Calvinist Jacob Leisler deposes lieutenant governor Francis Nicholson and assumes control of New York colony
- July 27 - Glorious Revolution: Battle of Killiecrankie ends
- August 5 - 1,500 Iroquois attack village of Lachine, in New France.
- August 27 - China and Russia signed the Treaty of Nerchinsk.
- December 16 - The official declaration of the English Bill of Rights

Births

- January 18 - Montesquieu, French writer (d. 1755)
- May 24 - Daniel Finch, 8th Earl of Winchilsea, English politician (d. 1769)
- May 26 - Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, English writer (d. 1762)
- June 26 - Edward Holyoke, American President of Harvard University (d. 1769)
- July 9 - Alexis Piron, French writer (d. 1773)
- August 19 - Samuel Richardson, English writer (d. 1761)
- October 22 - King John V of Portugal (d. 1750)
- December 23 - Joseph Bodin de Boismortier, French composer

Deaths

- January 6 - Bishop Seth Ward, English mathematician and astonomer (b. 1617)
- March 18 - John Dixwell, English judge (b. 1607)
- April 16 - Aphra Behn, English author
- April 18 - George Jeffreys, 1st Baron Jeffreys, British Lord Chief Justice (b. 1648)
- April 19 - Queen Christina of Sweden (b. 1626)
- July 8 - Edward Wooster, English Connecticut pioneer (b. 1622)
- August 12 - Pope Innocent XI (b. 1611)
- August 21 - William Cleland, Scottish poet and soldier
- November 26 - Marquard Gude, German archaeologist (b. 1635)
- December 29 - Thomas Sydenham, English physician (b. 1624) Category:1689 ko:1689년

Experience

:This article discusses the general concept of experience. For the concept in roleplaying games, see experience point. Experience as a general concept comprises knowledge of or skill in or observation of some thing or some event gained through involvement in or exposure to that thing or event. The history of the word experience aligns it closely with the concept of experiment. The concept of experience generally refers to know-how or procedural knowledge, rather than propositional knowledge. Philosophers dub knowledge based on experience "empirical knowledge" or "a posteriori knowledge". A person with considerable experience in a certain field can gain a reputation as an expert. Certain religious traditions (such as in certain types of Buddhism, Surat Shabd Yoga and mysticism) and educational paradigms (à la the conditioning of boot camps) stress the experiential nature of human epistemology in contrast to traditions of dogma, logic or reasoning. Activities such as tourism, extreme sports and recreational drug use also tend to stress the importance of experience.

Types of experience

The word "experience" may refer (somewhat ambiguously) both to mentally unprocessed immediately-perceived events as well as to the purported wisdom gained in subsequent reflection on those events or interpretation of them. Most wisdom-experience accumulates over a period of time, though one can also experience (and gain general wisdom-experience from) a single specific momentary event. One may also differentiate between physical, mental, emotional and spiritual experience(s).

Immediacy of experience

Someone able to recount an event they witnessed or took part has " first-hand experience". First-hand experience of the "you had to be there" variety can seem especially valuable and privileged, but it often remains potentially subject to errors in sense-perception and in personal interpretation. Second-hand experience can offer richer resources: recorded and/or summarised from first-hand observers or experiencers or from instruments and potentially expressing multiple points of view. Third-hand experience, based on indirect and possibly unreliable rumour or hearsay, can potentially stray perilously close to blind honouring of authority.

Games

Role-playing games treat experience (and its acquisition) as an important and valuable commodity. See experience point.

Writing

The American author Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote a essay entitled "Experience" (published in 1844), in which he asks readers to disregard emotions that could alienate them from the divine; it provides a somewhat pessimistic representation of the Transcendentalism associated with Emerson.

Computers

Microsoft's flagship operating system, Windows XP, uses "XP" as a way to express the word experience (eXPerience).

Quote

"Only the foolish learn from experience - the wise learn from the experience of others." - Attributed to Romanian folk wisdom by Rolf Hochhuth Category:Epistemology ja:経験

Empiricism

Empiricism comes from the Greek word εμπειρισμός, a noun meaning a "test" or "trial". The -pir- is ultimately related to the -per- of the Latin words experientia and experimentum, both of which mean "experiment," and from which our words "experiment" and "experience" come. (Interestingly, it is also related to the Latin word periculum, "essay, trial, danger," which gives the English word "peril".) Empiricism is therefore the philosophical doctrine (-ism) of "testing" or "experimentation," and has taken on the more specific meaning that all human knowledge ultimately comes from the senses and from experience. Empiricism denies that humans have innate ideas or that anything is knowable without reference to experience. Empiricism is contrasted with continental rationalism, epitomized by René Descartes. According to the rationalist, philosophy should be performed via introspection and a priori deductive reasoning. Names associated with empiricism include St. Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes (also see naturalism), Francis Bacon, John Locke (who originally developed the doctrine during the 17th and early 18th centuries), George Berkeley, and David Hume. It is generally regarded as the heart of the modern scientific method, that present theories should be based on our observations of the world rather than on intuition or faith; that is, empirical research and a posteriori inductive reasoning rather than purely deductive logic. Empirical is an adjective often used in conjunction with science, both the natural and social sciences, which means the use of working hypotheses which are capable of being disproved using observation or experiment (ie: ultimately through experience). In a second sense "empirical" in science may be synonymous with "experimental". In this sense, an empirical result is an experimental observation. In this context, the term "semi-empirical" or "semiempirical" is used for qualifying theoretical methods which use in part basic axioms or postulated scientific laws and empirical (experimental) results. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods which are purely deductive and based on first principles. This terminology is particularly important in theoretical chemistry.

Empiricism and Science

Empiricism was a precursor of logical positivism, also known as logical empiricism. Empirical methods have dominated science until the present day. It laid the groundwork for the scientific method, which is the traditional view of theory and progress in science. However, in the past couple of decades quantum mechanics, constructivism, and Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions have created some challenges to empiricism as the exclusive way in which science works and should work. On the other hand, some argue that theories such as quantum mechanics provide a perfect example of the solidity of empiricism: the ability to discover even counter-intuitive scientific laws, and the ability to rework our theories to accept these laws.

Empiricism in history

Within historiography, empiricism refers to empiricist historiography, a school of documentary interpretation and historical teleology derived from the works of Ranke.

Classical Empiricism

Refers mostly to the epistemological work of St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. Aristotle argued that all forms of knowing come from induction. Aquinas wrote the famous peripatetic axiom, "Nihil in intellectu quod prius non fuerit in sensu" which means "Nothing is in the intellect which was not first in the senses."

Modern Empiricism

Also known as traditional empiricism. David Hume, John Locke and George Berkeley were among the British philosophers who rejected the theory of innate ideas. Theories of the existence of innate ideas were the subject of much debate between the Continental rationalists and British empiricists in the seventeenth century. In the eighteenth century David Hume was critical of Immanuel Kant's doctrine of the a priori as positing innate ideas, while proponents of innate ideas rejected Kant's doctrine of intuition and deduction as not innatist, but part of a rationalist doctrine. Modern empiricism contends that all knowledge must be attained through internal and external sensations.

Radical Empiricism

Radical empiricists believe that all human knowledge is purely empirical. William James was a proponent of one form of radical empiricism.

Moderate Empiricism

Moderate empiricists believe that all human knowledge of "matter of fact propositions" is purely empirical. This is the view that David Hume held.

Other forms

Naïve Empiricism: Our ideas and theories need to be tested against reality and not be affected by preconceived notions. Constructive Empiricism: According to this view of science coined by Bas C. van Fraassen (The Scientific Image, 1980), we should only ask that theories accurately describe observable parts of the world. Theories that meet these requirements are considered "empirically adequate". If a theory becomes well established, it should be "accepted". What that means is the theory is believed to be empirically accurate, used to solve further problems, and used to extend or refine the theory.

Criticisms

Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

One of the most famous challenges against empiricism is Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), which built upon Norwood Russell Hanson's Patterns of Discovery (1958). In this, he argues that theory change is actually developed through paradigm shifts, where a new idea is offered that doesn't follow on existing theories but instead offers a unique, creative solution to existing problems. Scientific thinking, in Kuhn's view, goes through revolutions, instead of gradual theory development through testing and experimentation. After the revolution occurs, scientists can see things they weren't able to see before in the former framework. Kuhn also questioned whether scientific experimentation is truly unbiased and neutral since the experimenter had previous theories and preconceptions which could affect what experiments are chosen and the way in which the results are interpreted. Kuhn also questioned whether we can trust the reliability of our senses, and cited the famous illusions printed in Hanson's 1958 book.

Constructivism

Knowledge and reality is actively constructed by the individual, not passively received from the environment. There are many forms of constructivism, such as social constructivism and cultural constructivism.

Quantum mechanics

Addresses the question whether experience can be used to determine an ontological reality. For example, the Many-worlds interpretation, one of the answers to the EPR paradox, argues that there are multiple versions of every observed object in every possible observable state, existing in a state of Quantum superposition. If every observable entity within our reality has a counterpart in an alternate state, then our experience of these entities does not indicate any ontological reality.

External links

- [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Rationalism vs. Empiricism] ko:경험론 ja:経験論

Philosopher

A philosopher is a person devoted to studying and producing results in philosophy. The word, "philosopher," literally means "lover of wisdom." Greek: "φίλος + σοφία"

Popular Western philosophers in (approximate) historical order

Not listed above: (some of) The Presocratics -- Epicurus place after Aristotle --Hellenistic Philosophers -- Cicero -- Avicenna -- Sir Thomas Browne -- Francis Bacon -- Thomas Reid -- Dugald Stewart -- James Mill -- Rudolf Steiner -- Albert Schweitzer -- G. E. Moore -- Albert Camus -- Georg Henrik von Wright -- Mortimer Adler -- Nelson Goodman -- Imre Lakatos -- Paul Feyerabend -- Mario Bunge -- Douglas Hofstadter -- Pierre Teilhard de Chardin--Ayn Rand

Eastern philosophers in approximate historical order:

Gautama Buddha -- Confucius -- Mozi -- Lao Zi -- Rhazes -- Mencius -- Zhuang Zi -- Xun Zi --Han Feizi -- Nagarjuna -- Bodhidharma -- Avicenna -- Shankara -- Dogen -- Zhu Xi -- Feng Youlan -- Iqbal -- Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

Philosophers: listed by philosophical school

See Philosophical Movements. Krishnamoorti

Nicknames of Medieval Philosophers

Several medieval philosophers have been given Latin nicknames -- some by their contemporaries, others by historians. For example:
- Francis Mayron - Doctor acutus, the acute doctor, or Doctor illuminatus
- St. Thomas Aquinas - Doctor Angelicus, the angelic doctor, or Doctor Communis
- William of Ockham - Doctor Invincibilis
- Alexander of Hales - Doctor Irrefragibilis
- Roger Bacon - Doctor Mirabilis, the wonderful doctor
- John Bassol - Doctor Ordinatissimus, the most methodical doctor
- Nissim Cahn - Doctor Gaon, the innovative doctor
- St. Bonaventure - Doctor Seraphicus
- Henry Goethals (Hendricus Bonicollius) - Doctor Solemnis, the solemn doctor
- Richard Middleton - the solid doctor, or the profound doctor
- Duns Scotus - Doctor Subtilis, the discriminating doctor, or Doctor Marianus
- Albertus Magnus - Doctor Universalis
- Durandus de Sancto Portiano - the most resolute doctor
- Thomas Bradwardine - the profound doctor
- Jean Ruysbroeck (Joannes Ruysbrokius) - the divine doctor or ecstatic doctor See Also the articles at: Philosophy, Eastern philosophy, Epistemology, Ethics, Metaphysics, Aesthetics, Deconstruction, Ontology, Logic, Reason, Mathematicians, Feminism, Scientists, List of philosophers, and a fuller listing at :Category:Philosophers. ---- The Philosopher is also the nickname of Joseph Haydn's Symphony No. 22. Category:Philosophy Category:Humanities occupations ko:철학자 ja:思想家 th:นักปรัชญา

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant (April 22, 1724 – February 12, 1804) was a German philosopher and scientist (astrophysics, mathematics, geography, anthropology) from East Prussia, generally considered to be one of Western society's and modern Europe's most influential thinkers and the last major philosopher of the Enlightenment.

Kant and his philosophy

Kant defined the Enlightenment, in the essay "Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment?", as an age shaped by the motto, "Dare to know". This involved thinking autonomously, free of the dictates of external authority. Kant's work served as a bridge between the Rationalist and Empiricist traditions of the 18th century. He had a decisive impact on the Romantic and German Idealist philosophies of the 19th century. His work has also been a starting point for many 20th century philosophers. The two interconnected foundations of what Kant called his "critical philosophy", of the "Copernican revolution" he claimed to have wrought in philosophy, were his epistemology (or theory of knowledge) of Transcendental Idealism and his moral philosophy of the autonomy of reason. These placed the active, rational human subject at the center of the cognitive and moral worlds. With regard to knowledge, Kant argued that the rational order of the world as known by science could never be accounted for merely by the fortuitous accumulation of sense perceptions. It was instead the product of the rule-based activity of "synthesis". This consisted of conceptual unification and integration carried out by the mind through concepts or the "categories of the understanding" operating on perceptions within space and time, which are not concepts, but forms of sensibility that are necessary conditions for any possible experience. Thus the objective order of nature and the causal necessity that operates within it are products of the mind in its interaction with what lies outside of mind (the "thing-in-itself"). With regard to morality, Kant argued that the source of the good lies not in anything outside the human subject, either in nature or given by God, but rather only in a good will. A good will is one that acts in accordance with universal moral laws that the autonomous human being freely gives itself. These laws obligate her or him to treat other human beings as ends rather than as means to an end. These Kantian ideas have largely framed or influenced all subsequent philosophical discussion and analysis. The specifics of Kant's account generated immediate and lasting controversy. Nevertheless his theses that the mind itself makes a constitutive contribution to its knowledge (and that knowledge is therefore subject to limits which cannot be overcome), that morality is rooted in human freedom acting autonomously according to rational moral principles, and that philosophy involves self-critical activity irrevocably reshaped philosophy.

Biography

Birth and youth

Immanuel Kant was born in 1724. He spent his entire life in and around Königsberg, the capital of East Prussia (now Kaliningrad). His father was a German craftsman. In his youth, Kant was a a solid, albeit unspectacular, student. He was raised in a Pietist household, a then popular Lutheran reform movement that stressed intense religious devotion, personal humility and a literal reading of the bible. Consequently, Kant received a stern Pietist education, one that favored Latin and religious instruction over mathematics and science. Kant later described this period as a time of unhappiness because of the strict, punitive, and disciplinary quality of this education.

The young scholar

Kant enrolled in the University of Königsberg in 1740, at the age of 16. He studied the philosophy of Leibniz and Wolff under Martin Knutsen, a rationalist who was also familiar with the developments of British philosophy and science and introduced Kant to the new mathematical physics of Newton. His father's stroke and subsequent death in 1746 interrupted his studies. Kant became a private tutor in the smaller towns surrounding Königsberg, but continued his scholarly research. 1749 saw the publication of his first work, Thoughts on the True Estimation of Living Forces. Kant published several more works on scientific topics and became a university lecturer in 1755. From this point on, Kant turned increasingly to philosophical issues, although he would continue to write on the sciences throughout his life. In the early 1760s, Kant produced a series of important works in philosophy. The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures, a work in logic, was published in 1762. Two more works appeared the following year: Attempt to Introduce the Concept of Negative Magnitudes into Philosophy and The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God. In 1764, Kant wrote Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime and then was second to Moses Mendelssohn in a Berlin Academy prize competition with his Inquiry Concerning the Distinctness of the Principles of Natural Theology and Morality (often referred to as "the Prize Essay"). In 1770, at the age of 45, Kant was finally appointed Professor of Logic and Metaphysics at the University of Königsberg. Kant wrote his Inaugural Dissertation in defense of this appointment. This work saw the emergence of several central themes of his mature work, including the distinction between the faculties of intellectual thought and sensible receptivity.

The critical turn

At the age of 46, Kant was an established scholar and an increasingly influential philosopher. Much was expected of him. But, surprisingly, Kant would not publish another work in philosophy for the next eleven years. In response to a letter from his student, Markus Herz, Kant came to recognize that in the Inaugural Dissertation, he had failed to account for the relation and connection between our sensible and intellectual faculties. Kant spent his silent decade working on a solution to this problem. When he emerged from his silence in 1781, the result was the Critique of Pure Reason. Although now uniformly recognized as one of the greatest works in the history of philosophy, the first Critique was largely ignored upon its initial publication. The work was long, over 800 pages in the original German edition, and written in a dry, scholastic style. It received few reviews, and these failed to recognize the Critiques revolutionary nature. Kant was disappointed with the work's reception. Recognizing the obscurity of the original treatise, he wrote the Prolegomena in 1783 as a summary of its main views and he encouraged his friend, Johann Schultz, to publish a brief commentary of the Critique. Kant's reputation gradually rose through the 1780s, sparked by a series of important works: the 1784 essay, "Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?"; 1785's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (his first work on moral philosophy); and, from 1786, Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. But Kant's fame ultimately arrived from an unexpected source. In 1786, Karl Reinhold began to publish a series of public letters on the Kantian philosophy. In these letters, Reinhold framed Kant's philosophy as a response to the central intellectual controversy of the era: the Pantheism Dispute. Friedrich Jacobi had accused the recently deceased Lessing (a distinguished philosopher of the period) of Spinozism. Such a charge, tantamount to atheism, was vigorously denied by Lessing's friend Mendelssohn, and a bitter public dispute arose between them. The controversy gradually escalated into a general debate over the values of the Enlightenment and of reason itself. Reinhold maintained in his letters that Kant's Critique of Pure Reason could settle this dispute by defending the authority and bounds of reason. Reinhold's letters were widely read and made Kant the most famous philosopher of his era.
Kant's later work
Kant published a second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason in 1787, heavily revising the first parts of the book. But most of his subsequent work focused on other areas of philosophy. He continued to develop his moral philosophy, notably in 1788's Critique of Practical Reason (known as the second Critique) and 1797's Metaphysics of Morals. The 1790 Critique of Judgment (the third Critique) applied the Kantian system to aesthetics and teleology. He also wrote a number of semi-popular essays on history, religion, politics and other topics. These works were well received by Kant's contemporaries and confirmed his preeminent status in eighteenth century philosophy. There were several journals devoted solely to defending and criticizing the Kantian philosophy. But despite his success, philosophical trends were moving in another direction. Many of Kant's most important disciples (including Reinhold, Beck and Fichte) transformed the Kantian position into increasingly radical forms of idealism. This marked the emergence of German Idealism. Kant was against these developments and publicly denounced Fichte in an open letter in 1799. It was one of his final philosophical acts. Kant's health, long poor, turned for the worst and he died in 1804. His unfinished final work, the fragmentary Opus Postumum, was (as its title suggests) published posthumously.
Kantian myths
A variety of myths have arisen concerning Kant's biography and legend. It is often held, for instance, that Kant was a late bloomer, that he only became an important philosopher in his mid-50s after rejecting his earlier views. While it is true that Kant wrote his greatest works relatively late in life, there is a tendency to underestimate the value of his earlier works. Recent Kant scholarship has devoted more attention to these "pre-critical" writings and has recognized a degree of continuity with his mature work. Another common myth concerns Kant's personal mannerisms. It is often held that Kant lived a very strict and predictable life, leading to the oft-repeated story that neighbors would set their clocks by his daily walks. Again, this is only partly true. While still young, Kant was very gregarious and, though he never married, he remained fond of dinner parties through most of his life. Only later in his life, under the influence of his friend, the English merchant Joseph Green, did Kant adopt a more regulated lifestyle.
Kant's moral philosophy
Kant developed his moral philosophy in three works: Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [http://eserver.org/philosophy/kant/metaphys-of-morals.txt] (1785), Critique of Practical Reason [http://eserver.org/philosophy/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt] (1788), and Metaphysics of Morals [http://eserver.org/philosophy/kant/intro-to-metaphys-of-morals.txt] (1798). Kant is known for his theory that there is a single moral obligation, which he called the Categorical Imperative, from which all other moral obligations are generated. He believed that the moral law is a principle of reason itself, and is not based on contingent facts about the world (e.g., what would make us happy). Accordingly, he believed that moral obligation applies to all and only rational agents. A categorical imperative is an unconditional obligation; that is, it has the force of an obligation regardless of our will or desires. (Contrast this with hypothetical imperative.) Kant's categorical imperative was formulated in three ways, which he believed to be roughly equivalent (although many commentators do not):
- The first formulation (Formula of Universal Law) says: "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."
- The second formulation (Formula of Humanity) says: "Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means."
- The third formulation (Formula of Autonomy) is a synthesis of the first two. It says that we should so act that we may think of ourselves as legislating universal laws through our maxims. We may think of ourselves as such autonomous legislators only insofar as we follow our own laws.
Example of the first formulation:
The most popular interpretation of the first formulation is called the "universalizability test." An agent's maxim, according to Kant, is his "subjective principle of volition" — that is, what the agent believes is his reason to act. The universalizability test has five steps: # Find the agent's maxim. # Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the real-world agent followed that maxim. # Decide whether any contradictions, or irrationalities, arise in the possible world as a result of following the maxim. # If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world. # If there is no contradiction, then acting on that maxim is permissible, and in some instances required.
Example of the second formulation:
If I steal a book from you, I am treating you as a means only (to obtain a book). If I ask to have your book, I am respecting your right to say no, and am thereby treating you as an end-in-yourself, not as a means to an end. However, if I only ask you to be perceived by you as a nice person and to induce you to do things for me in the future, then again I am treating you as a means only. Kant applied his categorical imperative to the issue of suicide in Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, writing that:
If a man is reduced to despair by a series of misfortunes and feels wearied of life, but is still so far in possession of his reason that he can ask himself whether it would not be contrary to his duty to himself to take his own life, he should ask himself a question. He should inquire whether the maxim of his action could become a universal law of nature. His maxim is: From self-love I adopt it as a principle to shorten my life when its longer duration is likely to bring more evil than satisfaction. It is asked then simply whether this principle founded on self-love can become a universal law of nature. Now we see at once that a system of nature of which it should be a law to destroy life by means of the very feeling whose special nature it is to impel to the improvement of life would contradict itself, and therefore could not exist as a system of nature; hence the maxim cannot possibly exist as a universal law of nature, and consequently would be wholly inconsistent with the supreme principle of all duty.
The theory that we have universal duties, which hold despite one's own inclinations or the desire to pursue one's own happiness instead, is known as deontological ethics. Kant is often cited as the most important source of this strand of ethical theory; in particular, of the theory of conduct, also known as the theory of obligation.
Influence
Kant's most powerful and revolutionary effect on philosophy, which changed forever its meaning, modes of thinking, and language(s), was not "positive" in the sense of producing specific assertions about the world that have become accepted truths, as in the positive sciences. Rather it was "negative" in the sense of restricting the areas about which such knowledge was possible — by making philosophy "critical" and self-critical. Kant's idea of "critique" was to examine the legitimate scope of the mind or of knowledge. In this regard the "critique of pure reason", which was also the title of his most important work (see below and Critique of Pure Reason), meant examining what certain and legitimate knowledge human beings could arrive at simply by thinking about things independently of experience and perception, with his conclusion being: not very much. Prior to Kant, the entire mode of functioning of most philosophy was drawing conclusions about the nature of the universe, of God, or of the soul simply by logical thinking about them, by what seemed to make sense through "a priori" thinking, i.e. thinking on purely logical grounds. For this sort of thinking it must be the case that God or the universe is this way or that way, because it makes sense logically. But, in the history of philosophy, for every philosophical theory that God or the universe or the mind must be one way, some philosopher arrived at another theory stating that it must be precisely the opposite way. Kant called this unproductive, unresolvable, back-and-forth, dogmatic thinking the "dialectic of pure reason". That is, it was an inevitable consequence of trying to arrive at knowledge on purely logical grounds independently of experience or of scientific knowledge based on the evidence of the senses. For Kant, this entire style of pursuing knowledge was bankrupt and must be abandoned. According to Kant, philosophy must henceforth operate within the narrow "limits of pure reason" and recognize that most positive knowledge could come only through the sciences based on sense perception and not through metaphysics, which was about things of which we could never have direct sense perception. Some important philosophers and schools of thought, such as German Idealists, neo-Thomists and other theologically oriented philosophers, and Heidegger's "fundamental ontology" have refused to accept the limitations that Kant imposed upon philosophy and attempted to come up with new metaphysical systems about "the Absolute", "God", or "Being" , although even these philosophers have generally tried doing so by taking Kant into account. Over-all, however, post-Kantian philosophy has never been able to return to the style of thinking, arguing, and asserting conclusions that characterized philosophy before him. In this way, Kant was correct in asserting that he had brought about a "Copernican revolution" in philosophy. According to Kant, Copernicus's revolution in the understanding of the cosmos lay in taking the position of the observer into account. This explained why it looks as though the sun revolves around the earth even though in reality the earth revolves around the sun. Taking the observer's position into account prevents the unaware projection of the observer's perception or point of view onto the picture of the universe. Kant saw his own Copernican revolution in philosophy, analogously, as consisting in taking the position of the knower into account and thereby preventing the unaware projection of the knower's way of thinking ("pure reason") onto the philosophical map of reality. According to Kant, it was philosophers unawarely doing this that had created the illusions of metaphysics that dominated the prior history of philosophy. Kant saw this revolution, in turn, as being part of "Enlightenment" (as conceived of in the Age of Enlightenment) and the creation of an enlightened citizenry and society freed from dogmatism and irrational authority. Kant's wider influence not only in philosophy but in the humanities and social sciences generally lies in the central concept of the Critique of Pure Reason, namely that it is the synthesizing, unifying, constitutive activity of the subject of knowledge that is at the basis of our having an ordered world of experience and of the objects of knowledge themselves. This idea has spread out through many intellectual disciplines in which it has manifested itself in different forms, for example from Marx's notion, in social theory, of the constitutive role of human labor in the creation of history and society through Freud's notion, in psychology, that the activity of the ego produces the reality principle through Durkheim's notion, in sociology, that society creates collective consciousness through social categories through Chomsky's notion, in linguistics, of transformational grammar, to current notions, in several of the humanities and social sciences, of the "social construction of reality". In this way Kant's conception of synthesizing, ordering mental activity has become central to modern intellectual culture.
Tomb
social construction of reality His tomb and its pillared enclosure outside the cathedral in Königsberg are some of the few artifacts of German times preserved by the Soviets after they conquered East Prussia in 1945. A replica of a statue of Kant that stood in front of the university was donated by a German entity in 1991 and placed on the original pediment. Near his tomb is the following inscription in German and Russian, taken from the "Conclusion" of his Critique of Practical Reason [5:161-2]: :Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and perseveringly my thinking engages

Essay Concerning Human Understanding

Ideas

Language

Knowledge

Reaction, response, and influence

References

See also

External link

John Locke

Biography

Writings

A Letter Concerning Toleration

An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

Two Treatises of Government

Influence

List of major works

Major unpublished or posthumous manuscripts

Locke's epitaph

Secondary literature

Quotes

See also

References

External links

Second Treatise on Civil Government

Structure of the Work

First Treatise

Second Treatise

The State of Nature

The Law of Nature

Conquest and Slavery

Property

Representative Government

The Right of Revolution

Controversies Regarding Interpretation

Comparing Locke and Hobbes

Proto-Capitalism in the Second Treatise

Selected secondary literature

External links

1689

Events

Births

Deaths

Experience

Types of experience

Immediacy of experience

Games

Writing

Computers

Quote

Empiricism

Empiricism and Science

Empiricism in history

Classical Empiricism

Modern Empiricism

Radical Empiricism

Moderate Empiricism

Other forms

Criticisms

Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Constructivism

Quantum mechanics

See also

External links

Philosopher

Popular Western philosophers in (approximate) historical order

Eastern philosophers in approximate historical order:

Philosophers: listed by philosophical school

Nicknames of Medieval Philosophers

Immanuel Kant

Kant and his philosophy

Biography

Birth and youth

The young scholar

The critical turn

Kant's later work

Kantian myths

Kant's moral philosophy

Example of the first formulation:

Example of the second formulation:

Influence