Rousseau, Locke and Kant - Essay Example

If changing the world means changing the beliefs, understandings, possibly even the worldviews of people, Rousseau, Locke and Kant have hanged the world. Certainly, unlike the case with Marx, their political philosophies did not inspire revolutions which changed nations, led to cold wars between East and West or motivated the construction of the Berlin Wall. However, Locke, Rousseau and Kant changed our political perspectives, our understanding of the rights and duties of citizens and states and emphasized man's right and responsibility to take political action, even revolution, when needed. From a subjective perspective, at least, these three philosophers have changed the world. We live in a dynamic world, one which is constantly changing, with much of this change being political in nature. One of the primary engines of change is political philosophy. The work of the philosophers is to question, critique and redefine the world. Through their continued critical interpretation of the world, philosophers explain certain trends and phenomenon as, for example, Locke and Rousseau did in relation to the evolution of governments. However, their work is not limited to providing explanations but to exposing the conditions surrounding a phenomenon and its intended purposes versus its current function. Again, as an example, Rousseau outlined the conditions which motivated men to enter into a social contract with governments, or a central authority. In doing so, they imposed a set of obligations upon governments, with the implication being that these governments do not only derive their legitimacy from the will of the masses but that they retain their legitimacy by fulfilling their obligation to the masses. By exposing such phenomenon and by making people see the difference between what was intended and what now is, versus what should be, philosophers are not only interpreting the world but they are inciting men to change it. In some instances, they do so by exposing the extent to which some things have deviated from their intended purposes and by justifying corrective action. In others, they incite change by highlighting the extent to which certain phenomenon, as in political systems, have oppressed men, are contrary to the natural order and by proposing alternatives. Political philosophy is interpretive and it may be argued that political philosophers have subjectively interpreted the world but, interpretations are directed towards the inciting of change and action. Marx may have had a different point of view and may have argued that philosophers have not fulfilled their purpose of changing the world and only interpreted it. However, from a personal point of view and on the basis of the political philosophers discussed and studied so far and discussions on the purpose of political philosophy, I am persuaded that the purpose is to change, not just interpret, and that many have successfully fulfilled this purpose. A brief review of the political philosophies of Locke, Rousseau and Kant shall argue this point of view. In his Second treatise of Government, Locke investigates the circumstances which incited men to undertake the creation of a central authority and the conditions which determined that this central authority, the government, is legitimate. In examining this question, Locke traces the emergence of political communities to the tribal and group structures which had earlier dominated. Illustrating that while these bands, due to size, may not have needed governments or a central authority and state institutions, the gradual growth of these tribes and their evolution into settled communities, imposed this necessity. In order to protect their interests, their life and property, community members entered into a social contract with a central authority, resigning part of their liberty to that central authority, in exchange for protection through law and order and, importantly, through policies and actions which benefit the interests of the majority. There is no doubt that Locke, and as the above has tried to show, has subjectively interpreted the evolution of governments. However, in his interpretation of the rise of governments, introduced political concepts and principles which changed the world and which also provided people with a justification for political activity and for taking action to change the world. These are the concepts of legitimacy, the sovereignty of the people and the will and interest of the majority. By teaching and persuading us that our governments derive their authority from us, that they only retain legitimacy by serving our interests and by responding to our demands and that sovereignty lies with the people, Locke is telling us that governments which are based on oppression, on serving the interests of the elite, and which do not have the support and backing of the majority are not legitimate. As such, the majority may take action against such governments and through revolution, establish a legitimate government. The implication here is that Locke did not just interpret the world but he interpreted it in a way which changed it. Considering that the role and responsibility of political philosophers is to interpret for the purpose of positive change, Locke fulfilled this responsibility by changing our understanding of politics and the relation between governments and citizens. Rousseau similarly interpreted and changed the world. Like Locke, in the Social Contract, he examines the emergence of governments, tracing their evolution to that time when men lived in small communities which, upon their gradual growth, realized that their lives and property were unprotected and insecure. At that time, men may have enjoyed complete liberty but their liberty was not worth much within the context of insecurity. Accordingly, men decided to form societies and to establish governments which, while placing clear limits on their liberties, nevertheless provided them with security. Through this social contract, which men willingly entered into, governments were established but these governments derived their power and their authority from the will of the majority and retained it only as long as the had the support of the majority. In his interpretation of the rise of governments, Rousseau clearly changed the world. He did so by emphasizing that governments were only legitimate insofar as they represented the majority and that governments only possessed the right to exercise authority through the consent of the majority. Rousseau defined democracy and in this definition of its principles, actually motivated men to engage in politics and to bring about change, even if through revolution. In this regard, it is important to note that the French revolutionaries used Rousseau's ideas and that he was even referred to as the father of the French Revolution. Considering this and especially in light of the fact that Rousseau did not just explain the rights and duties of citizens and governments but made the majority responsible for the actions of the government, he changed the world by calling for political participation and action, further defining it as a natural liberty. In comparison to the political philosophers discussed above, at least from a personal view point, Kant may not have influenced change as much as Rousseau and Locke did. That does not mean that he simply interpreted the world as this is not true. In his discussion on the enlightened man, Kant emphasized that people have a responsibility, not to accept things as they are, but to question these things and exercise their liberty to change them. The implication here is that he tried to change the world by changing the way people think and act; by arguing the importance of questioning and exercising liberty and freedom. Despite this, the reason why I do not think that he changed the world as much as Locke or Rousseau did is because his ideas had already been argued. In fact, they were argued by Locke and Rousseau when they traced the evolution of governments, established the sovereignty of the people, emphasized freedom and gave people the responsibility for changing their political systems if they do not fulfill their objectives and if they are illegitimate, in that they do not have the will of the majority. Therefore, in comparison, Kant did not come up with new concepts but argued ones that had already been established and which had already begun to change the world. If Kant did not change the world as much as the other two political philosophers did as his ideas can be interpreted as a repetition, this does not mean that it is justifiable that political philosophers should repeat what has been said before. In fact, since political science is considered a science, change through exploration of new ideas, discovery of new concepts and the development of different theories is important. Science is always change and developing and political science must do so as well. It has to move ahead. Actually, as far as I am concerned, one of the lessons that I learnt from the philosophers we studied is that we, as citizens, have to engage in political participation. If the will of the majority and their interests is ignored by an oppressive government, we should not just sit back and complain like we do in Egypt but we have to explore ways of changing and in participating for that change. If we see our government as illegitimate because it does not act in response to the will of the majority and illegitimate because it ignores the will of the majority but do not do anything about it, in this case we will not have learnt anything from these philosophers and have made their efforts to change the world fail. Even if I entered this course because I had to since it is a requirement, I learnt something from it. What I learnt is that change is required ad that there are means to change our political systems, even peacefully, and that political philosophers have given us these means and ideas. If we do not respond to their ideas and use them to improve our political situation, we have no one to blame except ourselves, not even our governments. Read More