John Locke: Caractersticas, Ideas - Book Report/Review Example

1. Locke's A Letter, etc is the foundation for the modern separation of church and (and the first amendment for the US constitution). What two authorities does Locke invoke in stating his case What is the purpose of politics for Locke Of Religion Compare his approach with that of St. Augustine and of William of Okhan (nationalism) Locke had written A Letter Concerning on Toleration as early as 1666, but it never saw the light during his lifetime. In 1685, when events in France turned his thoughts to the question of toleration, Locke wrote a letter to a Dutch minister, Limborch. He was then urged to publish this letter on toleration; it was accordingly printed in Latin in 1689. In the same year it was translated into English and published in London. Locke's Letter aroused an antagonist--in Queen's College, Oxford--and led to a second and a third letter in 1690 and 1692. His death in 1704 prevented the completion of a fourth in defense of his position. The stand taken by Locke made him a great champion of religious liberty. Locke believed that every church is orthodox to itself, that it is more important to root out immorality than to eliminate sects, that outward force cannot compel the understanding, that magistrates should be limited in their use of force to the preservation of peace. He held that the church might dismiss members, but that they should not be roughly used. Locke used interesting illustrations, he supposed that an Arminian and a Calvinist church in Constantinople acted as they have in western Europe, the Turks would laugh at them. Locke also supposed a small group of Christians settling in a pagan country, where they are tolerated, grow stronger, and assume power. "Are they then to overthrow idolatory" Locke's answer is an emphatic negative. Moreover, John Locke discussed fully the limits of the civil power, a field in which he was very much interested. He then took up the various articles of faith, and the extent of toleration. Here the two men did not see eye to eye. Locke would not tolerate "opinions contrary to human society", or those, such as Catholics, who "arrogate to themselves some peculiar prerogatives", or a church so constituted that "its members, ipso facto, deliver themselves to the service and protection of another prince". Locke included Mohammedans under this head. Nor would he tolerate those who do not believe in God. He listed, as worthy of toleration, Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, Arminians, and Quakers, but was doubtful about Socinians, though they are not specifically excluded. The famous Toleration Act of 1689 did not measure up to the wishes of Locke. Catholics, Socinians, Jews, and pagans were given no privileges; the Dissenters, who did receive some relief, were still excluded, legally, from public office. Locke argued that the purpose of government was to protect the rights of its citizens, but not meddle on their religion. Whenever a government violates that trust, the people may replace it with a new one. Locke's writings sought to justify the revolt of 1688 against the Stuart monarchy and the establishment of William and Mary as constitutional monarchs, subject to parliamentary rule, on the English throne. John Locke's difference with Saint Augustine (354-430) lies in the latter's notable writings, among them Confessions and The City of God. Saint Augustine made Plato's philosophy the basis of Christian ethics. Augustine's system was two-sided. On the one side, the life of reason leads to temporal well-being; on the other, faith leads to salvation and eternal happiness. The divine center of St. Augustine's arguments maintained a twofold sovereignty over human life. One aspect of this sovereignty was the idea of divine providence. God was held to govern the unfolding of human events in every detail. But God's governance was not coercive, at least not ideally so, and this brings us to the second aspect of divine sovereignty in Augustine. God required that human beings recognize and conform voluntarily to his governance; that is, he called for love--of God above all, and secondarily of God's human creatures. A righteous human being, a member of the City of God, was one whose whole life was focused, through love, on the universal sovereign who provides assurance that beneath the seeming chaos of history there is a meaningful order. For William of Okham, he claimed that universal concepts had no existence. So it was not possible to construct systems of thought by the use of reason. And it was therefore not possible to understand God by the use of reason. This meant that all the doctrines of the church had to be taken on faith. They could not be proved by reason. William of Okham's skepticism had a big impact on the church, and although it was condemned by the church, the teaching found its way into the universities and had a long influence, including on the Reformers. 2. What does Locke's theory of "Empiricism" have to do with his conception of guilt Locke's greatest philosophical effort, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, published in 1690, became a classic statement of empiricist epistemology. Locke began his analysis by attacking the Platonic theory of innate ideas, which asserted that knowledge originated in fundamental concepts that were present in the mind at birth and prior to sensory experience. In attacking Platonic assumptions, Locke sought to establish the empiricist view that all human knowledge originates in sense perception. At birth the mind is a tabula rasa, a clean slate, a white paper, on which the data of experience are impressed. These ideas are either simple or complex. If complex, they are relational and arise from mental faculties that enable us to compare, contrast, abstract, and remember them. Locke's theory denied the exclusive reliance on tradition, custom, and authority based on immutable first principles. His empiricism emphasized the use of the scientific method. Locke's rejection of innate ideas and his tabula rasa concept of mind suggest that human character is shaped by experience. However, while there are no innate ideas in the mind, different people have different mental potentialities. Locke's way of ideas in defense of an argument which made human reason sufficient in every endeavor, in which he 'gave articulate expression to a widely diffused, but as yet latent, sentiment. Unhappily for Locke, it was now a case of guilt by association. In the rush of criticism, his emphasis upon Christ as redeemer, his insistence on the universality of sin, and his discussion of the all important covenant of faith were overlooked entirely. Accused of overturning all religion and making man the master of his own salvation in the baneful tradition of Pelagius, Locke found himself engaging in just the sort of factious quarrel over religion that he had always decried and sought to avoid. 'I must confess' discourses. Liberals like Locke considered human beings to be either good or morally neutral at birth, but certainly not depraved. Once humanity was seen to be benevolent, then Locke argued that the irrational restrictions of arbitrary governments and religions ought to be eliminated. He argued for a social and political order that recognized every person's fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property. He believed that human beings should be free from arbitrary restraints and allowed to express themselves freely on all matters in print, in speech, and in teaching. As a Liberal, Locke takes an optimistic view of human nature, which sees human beings acting according to reasoned self-interest. With enlightenment and education, Liberals believe people will act to achieve their goals but also maintain the social order that encourages them to satisfy their needs. Government in such a society is to respect the autonomy of its individual members to form associations and to exercise the freedom of inquiry, speech, press, and assembly that promote personal and social growth. Morally speaking, Locke thinks we are not responsible for actions we can't remember, because then we didn't actually perform those actions. Legally, it is impractical to make such a change in the law, because it is too easy to fake this defense. With personal identity goes moral responsibility. If you are not identical with a past self, then we should not punish you for the actions of a past self. So if you can't remember doing something, then you are not morally responsible for it. 3. Compare Hobbes and Locke's understanding of human nature. With which do you agree Thomas Hobbes (1588 -1679) construed the natural law as neither the law of God nor moral law. In fact, Hobbes's conception of natural law amounts to discarding the older religious concept. Hobbes did not speak of the natural law in the singular, as did the classical and church philosophers, but of natural laws in the plural. These, for Hobbes, are simply rational principles of prudent action, prescriptions for best preserving your own life. According to Hobbes, who was a naturalist and in this respect resembled Aristotle, there is no higher authority beyond nature that passes judgment on the morality or immorality of human deeds. You obey the laws of nature insofar as you act rationally, and insofar as you do not, you do not live long. Hobbes's first law of nature is to seek peace as far as you have any hope of obtaining it, and when you cannot obtain it to use any means you can to defend yourself. As you can see, this "law" is indeed simply a prescription of rational self-interest. Hobbes's second law is "to be content, for the sake of peace and self-preservation, provided others are also content, with only so much liberty "against other men" as you would allow other men against yourself ". And the third law is "that men perform the covenants they have made." (A covenant is an agreement or contract, a compact.) However, nobody, Hobbes said, is so stupid as to live up to an agreement that turns out not to be in her or his own best interest. So, if you want people to live by their agreements, you have to make sure that they will suffer if they try to break them. This means you have to have some third power to enforce them. "Without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed," Hobbes wrote, covenants are only words. In light of these considerations, Hobbes concluded, if you apply the three "laws of nature" listed here to real-life situations, what they mean is this: For their own welfare, people should transfer both their collective strength and their right to use whatever is necessary to defend themselves to a sovereign power that will use the acquired power to compel all citizens to honor their commitments to one another and to live together peacefully. On the other hand, John Locke's treatises, especially the Second Treatise of Government, are essentially an outline of the aims and purposes of the state. They have affected democratic theory at least as much as anything else that has ever been written. At the time of the American Revolution, Locke's political thought was well known to American political leaders and had become considerably incorporated in American popular political thought as well. It had a marked impact on the contents and wording of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights and has had a continued substantial impact on American political thought and political institutions to this day. All Americans are directly or indirectly influenced by John Locke. Locke, unlike Hobbes, believed there is a natural moral law that is more than a and are his "property." It logically follows that we are obliged to preserve ourselves and, as far as possible, the rest of humankind. Accordingly, except for the sake of just punishment, no person may take away or impair another's "life, liberty, health, limbs or goods," or anything on which these various items may depend. Hobbes emphasized that a person has conceded his or her rights to the government in return for their life. Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed men have rights by their nature. As I had reviewed their stand about human nature, I deem Locke's positions as more agreeable because he affirmed humans know what is right and wrong, and are capable of knowing what is lawful and unlawful well enough to resolve conflicts. Locke was considerably had less pessimism than Hobbes in his opinion of people and was not nearly so negative about what they might do to one another in the absence of civil society in a hypothetical state of nature. Thus Locke, like Hobbes, held that the state is created and acquires its legitimacy by an agreement or social compact on the part of its citizens and subjects. For both philosophers the purpose of the social compact is to ensure the "public good," but for Locke the purpose is also to protect natural rights. For Hobbes, each subject gives up his rights to the Leviathan in exchange for, or rather in hopes of obtaining, peace and security. For Locke, the subject entrusts his rights to the state for safeguarding. Read More