The Role of Parents in Locke

We touched a little on this in class on Tuesday, but I want to talk about the responsibility that Locke assigns to the parents in the Commonwealth. We discussed in class how Locke says that it is the parents' role to guide and regulate their children until they are old enough. It is the parents' jobs to teach their children reason. Locke says that the children should be under the rule and supervision of the parents until they are able to understand and follow the laws of the Commonwealth with reason. Their reason must be properly developed before they are released from the control of their parents. I find it interesting that Locke assigns this amount of responsibility solely to the parents. The role of the parents in the raising of a child is a subject that people still stress today. I agree with Locke that the parents should take responsibility and be in charge for the education of their children, but I also know that is doesn't always work out that way.

I am curious to know what Locke would say about the irresponsible or ignorant parents. These would be the parents that may lack reason and knowledge themselves and are incapable of properly educating their child. There are also those cases when the parents don't play a strong role in their children's lives and don't take responsibility for their upbringing. It is incorrect to assume that all parents are able to teach their children the knowledge they need as adults in the Commonwealth. In many cases, children don't receive this eduation from their parents. There are some that may niot even receive this education through school or the community. Many children just slip through the cracks. They have no type of parental role model in their lives. There is no one to teach them and control them until they have developed reason of their own. How would Locke address these kinds of cases?

Locke on Slavery

Locke argues that all individuals have natural rights: life, liberty and property. He also believes that in the state of nature we have complete equality, reason and total freedom (aside from destroying ourselves and others). However, we do not own ourselves. God created us so we belong to him. Also, our property is an extension of our being. Thus an attack on an individual’s property is an attack on their very being. Therefore, if someone attacks our property or tries to take it from us we have the right to fight back. Then, in Ch. IV, he argues that slaves are responsible for their own enslavement because if they were human beings they would have fought back (since it is our duty as humans to fight back).

I find his argument, while valid, flawed in several ways. It sounds as though the slaves are considered to be property because the slave owners possess them almost as if they possessed an object. I do not see how a slave can be considered not a human being. Just because they were unsuccessful in their fight from being enslaved does not mean they did not attempt to fight. And thus, if they had attempted to fight, they are human beings. Their only option to avoid enslavement then is suicide and, since our bodies to not belong to us, we cannot kill ourselves. Therefore I feel like it can be proven that slaves are, in fact, human beings. And, in the state of nature, all human beings are equal and should be treated as such and should not be enslaved. It almost seems as though the slave owners are attacking the property of the slaves and should be the one’s punished—not the slaves. The sovereign should then act and free the slave. Long story short, I believe that it can be proven that slaves are human beings and, as human beings, they should be allowed all the liberties and freedom of everyone else. By proving they are human beings all of Locke’s logic falls short. It almost seems as though Locke was stretching it a bit because he realized after saying all the things about human beings being equal he forgot to take slaves into account. He then seemed to warp his argument to make his argument still valid. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Do you think his argument worked?

Is there really no room for God in the Leviathan?

Last Thursday we made sense of Hobbes' Leviathan. He begins by stating that previous thinkers like Descartes were wasting their time with what cannot be know ie. the existence of God. He makes it clear that his Leviathan pays no regard to God. Instead it focuses is on what we can know, and all we can know is known through the senses, thus he proposes a solely materialistic world. He states that in this world a commonwealth can only have on e Leviathan who is chosen by those with in the commonwealth. I find that Hobbes proposes a very sound argument for how the world is, however I do feel that it is flawed in one aspect. That is that Hobbes, despite his strong opposition to wasting any time pondering any sort of theory about God and his existence, seems to unintentionally point to the existence of some greater being in his Leviathan. Using the argument he does it is unavoidable that he imply the existence of some greater being, even though he is so adamantly opposed to discussing the idea. The key ingredient to Hobbes’ Leviathan is the sovereign who holds all the power in his commonwealth because it is freely given to him by the members of the commonwealth. For Hobbes, A=A, meaning that there can only be one sovereign who can never change. Thus, whenever we see a revolution that over throws its “sovereign” it simply means that it was never the sovereign, but only believed to be so. All this makes sense, but that means the world has never seen a real sovereign. You might say that our government is the sovereign in our society, but let’s face it our government won’t last forever. If we look at history and our experience no government lasts forever, so who is sovereign? Hobbes depiction of the leviathan gives the picture of a vicious cycle; there is a perceivable sovereign who is overtaken by another perceivable sovereign. But in the end there must be one sovereign who will always remain sovereign, who is all powerful. Is this not by definition God? Maybe it is not how we conventionally perceive God, but is it not God?

Logistics

All,

You can set up your individual blogger accounts to send you notifications whenever someone posts. I highly recommend you do so, for two reasons. First, since you need to respond not only to the posts of others, but also to maintain the discussions created by your own posts, it behooves you to receive such notifications. Second, given that I am now using the blog for updates of all sorts, you should check it with religious frequency.

Cheers,

-W.

Leviathan

All,

I have made numerous references to the Leviathan as a body-politic, and to the frontispiece of the original publication. Given that Hobbes understands the Leviathan--and its representation on the frontispiece of his work--not as a metaphor or simile but as an actual description of the body-politic itself, I figured I ought to provide you with the illustration itself. Hopefully it will come through in enough detail such that you can make out the sides. This is probably the most appropriate, relevant, and effective frontispiece I have ever seen on a text. The content of the sides is very intentional, and should make great sense given your reading. When looking at it, you should think of the Iliad, and the famous shield of Achilles forged by Hephaestus. Hobbes has done something similar with his cover, insofar as he has here represented the entire world of the Commonwealth--including the City at Peace and the City at War (or, as Hobbes would write, "Warre"). On the right are the instruments of the ergon (work) of logos, insofar as this word means both speech and spirit. On the left are the instruments of the ergon of thumos, insofar as this word represents the passions of men (i.e., the attractions and aversions of the self which lead to and/or prevent the State of Nature).

NB: I provide this extended explanation of the Shield for those of you who did not have me for 101. I'm confident that those of you who did are completely aware and capable of disserting on this stunning passage, given that I am such a great teacher--and so obviously relatively fit.

Cheers,

-W.

Looking Ahead

All,

Just so we are all clear, your readings for Kant will be the entire original text of the Groundwork. Thus, introductions and such are optional, although you should pay attention to translator notes.

Cheers,

-W.

Many of the philosophers we’ve been looking at are highly concerned with reality—Descartes claims we MUST establish a trustworthy concept of what is real and what is not outside of our senses, where a landmark of Hobbes’ philosophy is that we can trust nothing but our senses. Is there, or could there be a philosophy wherein what is “real” is irrelevant? Granted, Harwood’s example of one’s ability to simply kill another without consequence since neither can be definitively real would lead to chaos and a breakdown of society and morals, but there’s evidence that individuals can affect our realities, implying that they’re less static and uncontrollable than the philosophers we’ve looked at might agree to. There’s a film on the philosophy of quantum physics and consciousness called What the Bleep Do We Know? that proposes that consciousness constructs the universe rather than physical objects. It’s admittedly not scientifically proven, but neither are the philosophers we’ve looked at. This suggestion leads to the idea that what is “real” can be affected by individual thought since each individual’s consciousness contributes to that reality. It’s been called “new age” and “pseudoscience,” but has been equally encouraged by neuroscientist, physicists, and a molecular biologist or two. Connections can even be drawn between it and Oprah’s phenomenon “The Secret.” Yes, this idea is followed by many housewives who hope that they can control their weight before the next big PTA meeting and that the universe will send them that Coach bag, but there are vastly more legitimate and applicable understandings of the universe a collective consciousness. My question is not of the validity of this argument, but of its ability to be applied to our investigation of what is “real.” How would the philosophers we’ve studied respond the idea that reality is in our control and that what exists is less relevant. It essentially shatters Descartes’ conceptual look at the existence of God since our ability to affect our own environment removes absolute power from a higher being. Furthermore, it makes his ponderings of what can be known essentially irrelevant. Hobbes, on the other hand, might not have too big of an issue with this concept other than that it exists, to some extent, in la-la land where as Hobbes’ philosophy was very much about reality. I guess what I’m interested to hear are people opinions on whether a philosophy without reality could exist, and how it would affect and be affected by historically impactful philosophers like Descartes, Luther, Hobbes, Locke, etc.

Hobbes and the state of nature

I would like to disagree with a point we made in class on Tuesday the 22nd. We talked about how when we lock our doors at night, we are trying to protect ourselves from the unknown and how this is connected to the state of nature. While I agree that in the state of nature no one has any reason to trust anyone else, I don’t think that the only reason I trust someone is because I am in a commonwealth where I am bound by contracts. It is true that there are sick twisted people in the world. But I do not assume that everyone who I meet is a sick and twisted individual. In fact, I feel like I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. If I believed that every person I met was that sick and twisted person, I couldn’t ever have relationships, just like in the state of nature. I understand the idea that people are able to establish trust based on the contracts made with each other and with a sovereign, but I also think that people can trust each other even without these contracts. I have had many encounters with complete strangers who have helped me when I find some place I was looking for. In such a situation, a stranger has on obligation or contract binding him or her to help me. There is no law about helping people who are lost, and there is even no real penalty for leading someone astray. Yet whenever I get into a situation, people are generally helpful. Even though I have no contract to hold this other person to, I still trust them help me when I’m lost.
As for locking my front door at night, if I feel like I am in a safe environment, I don’t think it in necessary. I never lock my dorm room at night because there is little crime on the Rhodes campus. If I lived off campus, it would be different. Even just living in Midtown, the probability of having a thief attempt to steal your possessions is much larger. Even though there is still an element of the unknown in both situations, since one is more likely to be harmful, I take more precautions in one than the other. In any situation there is always the threat of the unknown, but sometimes the threat of the unknown is small enough that it is possible to make that leap of faith.

Preliminary Expectoration (cont.)

All,

Just as a reminder about the structure of posts: You can write about whatever you want, as long as it is relevant. In class I was asked if it can be a "opinion" piece. The answer is yes-and-no: Yes, you can write about something that interests you and might contain your opinion (which is normally something to avoid in philosophical papers). No, it still must be an argument based on the text. It must be academic and professional in structure. But you can think of your posts as "interests" pieces.

E.g., I was recently asked to give a paper on "Health Care as a Human Right." If my model were punditry, I would write an opinion piece and try to convince with rhetorical flourish. Hopefully my audience would have had a professor at some point so obviously awesome (and fit--let's not forget fit) as myself and recognize that as so much tripe. However, if my model were critical thinking and intellectual honesty, I could probably start with Locke and work from this early sense of rights to build the argument.

The point is that you can write on current events which interest you, you can write on personal events which interest you, you can write on anything that is relevant to the texts at hand. Just make sure that, at the end of the day, you have produced something that contains an argument.

As an aside, former House Majority Leader, Texas Representative, and GOP leader (known by those in his own party as "the Hammer") Tom Delay is on "Dancing With the Stars."

Holy crap.

-W.

Calendar, etc.

All,

Update: We are losing the Constitutions as a reading assignment. Thus, get started on your Solomon and your Rousseau. We will be reading his Discourse on Inequality.

As an aside, today's talk definitely qualifies in the extra-credit world.

Cheers,

-W.

Philosophy Speaker

Hey y'all,

Donald A. Crosby, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Colorado State University is speaking on Monday, September 21st. He is giving a talk called "Philosophy and Religion Enemies or Friends?" in the Orgill room (Clough) from 4:00 to 5:00 pm, and one called "Red and Green but Religiously Right: Religious Naturalism and the Menace of Evil" in the McCallum Ballroom from 7:00 to 8:00 pm.

Apparently this is also Professor Shade’s undergraduate advisor, for all of you who know him.

~Ben

Carrots (take two)

All,

Two quick things:

First, for all future extra credit things, reply with comments to this post. This includes both events I officially announce, and events announced by others which I am likely to sanction.

Second, please feel free to post when you hear about an event on the blog. I will respond when I see them to tell folks whether or not attendance will count either towards their grade or their immortal soul.

-W.

Constitution Lecture

the lecture focused a lot on the problems in Florida during the 2000 election. Much of what he discussed was not anything that I had not heard before: Florida's election was a mess, the polling was not fair, the computers didn't work, ect. What I did find interesting and a bit disturbing is that Florida was not the only state with these problems. In fact my own state Illinois is believed to have more inaccurate numbers on the vote, but since this inaccuracy was not large enough to effect the actual vote, no one noticed or made a fret about it. People cared about fair voting in Florida only when the race was close, had that not been the situation most of us would not care that there are serious flaws in our electoral system.

Carrots

All,

If you attend the lecture on Monday, September 14th, please respond to this post with some thoughts regarding whatever you might have found interesting. Feel free to respond to one another. Just make sure that your comments are couched in the lecture (otherwise I have no way of knowing you attended).

Cheers,

-W.

Holy Crap.

As stated previously, you need to keep your posts academic in interest, tone, and topic. I, on the other hand, do not.

http://www.rathergood.com/singing_kitties

-W.

Bah.

This is a test.

Above you will see an image of Luther's Bible.

Your computer is now infected with a Trojan. Enjoy.

-W.