On Politics: Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu
[This is a summary of our discussion of chapters 12-14 in Alan Ryan’s On Politics. It was written by Ulla S. Koch]
The three chapters were interesting and contained a lot of information – this is just notes on what I found interesting.
Hobbes (1588-1679) sets out with a thought experiment – what would a nation without government be like? Undoubtedly his answer was inspired by the current circumstances in England which was ravaged by civil war. He assumes that man is driven by a relentless desire for his own good and for the means of achieving it, i.e. power. Even though men are born with different degress of physical strength other abilities, such as skill and cleverness, can be gained by everybody and even out the playing field. This equality is not good, since it in turn leads to uncertainty. In the state of nature everybody fights everybody else, as he famously put it, life would be nasty, brutish and short.
In this state of nature, a basic right is to fight and do everything in your power to preserve life and limb. But it is not a right in any moral sense, it is more like an instinct. Natural laws are what serves to preserve life, and they are hypothetical not based on observation. A sense of right and wrong only exists in an ordered society. Evil and good are only meaningful in relation to laws. Hobbes’ concept of natural law is thus totally different from those we have read about earlier (e.g. the stoics) since it is not the expression man’s innate rational and moral character. However, man only has the right to what he needs to preserve his life, not violence against others. This smacks of a morality outside society, so he is not entirely consistent. Society springs from a (rational) longing for peace as a freedom from fear according to his Elements of Law. In Leviathan the driver is fear alone. In Leviathan, fear and rationality allows man to formulate laws and release some of his independence. Laws are dictates from a law-giver and are a restriction of rights. The given laws can not be measured as “just” or “unjust” – that would be meaningless since “just” and “unjust” are defined by the laws.
Hobbes thinks that language is a necessary prerequisite for any kind of society – and also for the existence of natural laws – because natural laws are rational and ratio demands language. He assumes that language is a means to understanding what goes on in the mind of another, which is impossible but a nice thought. The dependance of thought upon language is still a hot topic.
To Hobbes man is a-social, and only becomes social by reasoning (unlike Aristotle’s concept of man as a social animal). Even reason and fear is not enough to drive man to cooperate, only force can curb his appetite for power. The only way ahead is to transfer all power to a sovereign, who imposes law on his subjects who must submit – with the exeption of accepting the death penalty. If the state seeks to kill a citizen it has reverted to being a part in the state of nature. Absolute power can be divided between all (democracy), few (aristocracy) and one (monarchy) – the most efficient is monarchy, because the monarch’s and societies interests are one and the same (no competition between equals). Fear of death makes man want government rather than the state of nature. People have no right to rebellion under any circumstances.
Locke (1632-1704) Two Treatises (1679-80 published anon. 1690). According to Locke natural law dictates that man look after his own interests but not to the detriment of others. Man is born in the state of nature – in the state of nature everybody is equal and free – and reasonable. This rhymes more with the Stoics – natural law as an inate moral codex. Locke is more positive when it comes to human nature. In nature man posses things and has a right to defend them. Locke does not believe that god gave the earth to Adam but to mankind. Personal ownership rights are based on his labour, which he alone owns. If he adds his labour to a thing in a natural state, he adds considerable value and it is only reasonable that he owns it (foreshadows of Marx and Ricardo). Surplus can be stored as money.
He critizes Filmer saying that political power does not stem from the patriarchy of Adam, it is not a right but a duty to take care of your off-spring. However, the moral obligation to honour your parents is not a political obligation – it is absurd to suppose that the Bible can prove a moral obligation to obey the powers that be. To obey is a free choice, the state is created by man to serve man’s purposes.
The state has three kinds of power: the right to pass laws and sentences, the right to enforce the laws, and the right to defend society (foederal). Man seeks society and a state in order to protect his life and goods. He gives up certain rights in order to do so. This he can do silently merely by availing himself of the services society and the laws provide, e.g. the roads and other infrastructure. The powers that be have no right to take anything that is not willingly given – that is a breach of the social contract. Overtaxation for instance may lead to rebellion since it is not in the interest of society. e
Montesquieu (1689-1755) Spirit of the Laws builds on Locke’s division of power and changes them to: lawgiving, judging, and law enforcing, dividing Locke’s first group in two since this ensures impartiality better (executive, legislative, and judicial functions of government) which in turn stabilizes the state.
Harrington Glorified Cromwell in the utopia Oceana (1656). A balance between political and economic power is necessary otherwise civil war or revolution ensue. Those who own the most should also have the most power – anything else creates an imbalance.
Filmer was a proponent of absolute monarchy (Patriarchia). He argues against Hobbes’ man-made society (based on fear) and claims that society derives from Adam, whom god gave the earth and everything on it as a gift. All societies are based on that first family. As a father has universal power over his children (because he has produced them himself, hmpf) a sovereign has power over his subjects. Man is never born free but always into a society (he has a valid point there). According to the Bible, Adam owned everything, nothing was ever held in common. Only absolute monarchy serves god’s purpose and man is not free by nature. Filmer was “politically correct” at the time but was critizesed nonetheless.
We plan to meet again January 18th and do Rousseau, Founding of American & French Revolution.
On Politics: Humanism, Reformation, and Machiavelli
[This is a summary of our discussion of chaptes 9-11 in Alan Ryan’s On Politics. It was written by Jotun Hein]
For some reason it was easier to get an overview over today’s 3 chapters.
Again OP shies away from definitions/concepts and there is much biographical and historical description. Readable, but I get lost in Florentine intrigues which seems key to both Dante’s and Machiavelli’s life.
All three chapters are variants on a common theme: A shift from the God/Church governed universe towards having the individual as key player. At the personal level, at the relationship of the individuals relation to God and in politics. We had a lot of discussions of how this transition came about. Explanations invoking the Black Death [150 years before], which created labour shortage and greater internal mobility, the rise of cities and artisan trade, the appearance of printing and more general ability to read as a result of secular education.
Over time, I have read a lot on these topics, but I regret that I haven’t read the primary literature like THE PRINCE, UTOPIA, PRAISE OF FOLLY…. They seem like fun little readable books.
I should like to read more about the Münster rebellion. We will meet again December 14th and discuss Hobbes-Locke-Republicanism.
Summary: Chomsky (1959) On certain formal properies of grammars
[Summary by Jotun Hein]
I think it was an incredible paper.
We only managed to discuss p137-154 in detail and then we try to guess what he did in the remaining 15 pages.
NC starts out with 4 pages of quite general considerations about recursive functions and grammars, but then he becomes a more specific and defines his 4 classes of grammars that today could be called general [type 0], context sensitive [type 1], context free [type 2] and regular [type 3]. The last three are defined in terms of restrictions on the grammatical rules they use which implies diminishing power of how large a language they can generate.
About 2 pages are used to find languages that is in one type but not in the next so it is a proper inclusion.
There is very little proper linguistics – max 1 page in total. NC seems to conclude that real languages are between type 1 and 2 but NC to say there is no natural restriction on the allowed grammatical rules that will define them. If I had more time I should like to read more on this.
NC uses the term Markov Finite State Machines, but there is no probability in his definition.
On Politics: Augustine, Aquinas and their synthesis
[This is a summary of our discussion of chaptes 7 and 8 of Alan Ryan’s On Politics. It was written by Jotun Hein]
I read the chapter on 14th century [7] and we had an intense discussion about this and the Aquinas chapter. The discussion was very motivating and people really had a lot of expertises and thus comments that highly supplemented the book.
The main questions were: “Why Aristotle returned with such force in 11-13th century”, “What was the consequences of the Platonism of St. Augustin and the Aristoleanism of Acquinas”, and why did these two thinkers become so dominant after their own life time and what were their ideological purpose.
Chapter 8 covered Dante, Marselius of Padua, Barrolus and Ockham. I only knew Dante’s Divine Comedy and “the new life” about his love for Beatrice, but in this chapter “De Monarchia” was discussed where he argued for a strong king.
I decided to browse Summa Theologica but was deterred when I discovered it was 4000 pages.
In the discussion managed consistently to refer to “The 10 Commandments” as the “The 10 Amendments”. I apologise (to whom?? Maybe Richard Dawkins…)
I wonder what I will think of “On Politics” when I get to the end.
We will meet again close to November 30th and discuss chapters 9-10-11
On Politics: Aristotle, Cicero and Polybius
[This is a summary of our discussion of chapters 3 and 4 of Alan Ryan’s On Politics. It was written by Jotun Hein]
Aristotle: Politics is not Philosophy [40 pages]
I still find the book a bit hard to discuss as much of it is a narrative so one has to extract concepts. But it was fun to talk about Aristotle more emperical approach, his invocation of what was natural in explanation of who should be a slave, the role women. He hand many considerations on how to avoid Stasis/Gridlock.
Aristotle clearly loves to classify – constututions, animals and causes. From modern perspective some can see naïve but 2 millenea ago, this empiricial curiousity was radical. Bertrand Russell (that Alan Ryan calls one of his role models) called Aristotle overrated, but said it wasn’t Aristotles fault.
Cicero and Polybius [30 Pages]
Again interesting with interesting observations on what was the casue of the success of Rome, the nature of a good constitution, an optimal wealth distribution, checks and balances, the advantages of a mixed constutution. Cicero’ emphasis that an unjust law is not a law.
Given the amount of turmoil/coups/executions in Roman history, I would have had little inclination to study the principles garanteeing an ideal state had I lived then.
Since these two are early in Rome, the could only comment on the first 1/3 or Romes history.
I didn’t know Cicero had hands and head cut off and placed outside the Senate.
Although the book is long, several thinkers are not mentioned: Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Plotinus. It would also have been interesting to know more about non-western views to politics. But the book is already a 1000 pages.
The amount of texts that have been lost and where we only have fragmentary knowledge is truly frustrating. Most of Polybius large history of Rome [Rise of the Roman Empire] has been lost. At least 3 works related to politics – On Duties, On the Republic, On the Laws – have survived. If somebody knows a book on the genealogies of such manuscripts it would be fun to read.
HEIN RESEARCH 