2007-08 AM Theories of Knowledge and Society: Hobbes, Locke, Shaftesbury and Mandeville

Neuer Ort: Sporttrakt Lektüre auf Montag 5. Nov. Leviathan "On Man"

• Time: Mo 18-20
• Place: S 2-203 (im Sporttrakt)
• Contact: Olaf Simons

Hobbes, Locke, Shaftesbury and Mandeville have become central figures of all modern debates of philosophy and society: Hobbes as the prime advocate of absolutism, Locke as the philosopher behind the American constitution, Shaftesbury became famous with the fashion of 18th-century sentimentalism, Mandeville is read today as the first proponent of what came to be known as liberalism. The debate these authors unfolded showed a strange readiness to base theories of how men should live together on new theories of knowledge. One could say they simply reacted on the scientific progress their age. The arguments they produced had, however, implications far beyond the new fields of research: they were immediately suspected of atheism and seen as attacks on the moral foundations human society rested on.

The seminar will focus on Hobbes and Locke. We will read and discuss passages of their texts to understand how they managed to reach beyond the strictly philosophical debate. Religion and politics will be of key interest here. The seminar should at the same moment provide a good background for individual explorations of 17th- and 18th-century plays, poems and novels which have been read as influenced by the philosophical debate and the enlightenment it is supposed to have spread.

Oct 22, 2007: Course Outline

We discussed the general course outline. First aim to read Hobbes "of Man" and in a survey: "of Common-Wealth". Homework read into Leviathan up to p.17 original pagination.

Oct 29, 2007: Hobbes and his common sense - the beginning

We spoke about the frontispiece and the program of Hobbes' Leviathan - and we read into the beginning. Hobbes, so the impression, is "straight forward" and "common sense", though it seemed not quite clear why he should begin a book on Government with remarks on the nature of man and human knowledge. A look at the topics he touched allowed another question: which are the topics he does not touch? What does he say about the soul? We had a brief discussion on alternative theories of knowledge - theories accepting ideas as the primary matter of our understanding.

Nov 5, 2007: Part I "On Man": Power, self preservation and war of all against all

Reading - Part I "On Man" - p.85 original pagination. Do not try to understand everything - do rather get a general idea of what Hobbes is trying to state.

Discussion of important passages: definition of power p.41 (original pagination), reputation is (also) power. p.42 "Value or Worth of a Man" - what would I pay for his services. p.60: "Man are by nature equal" - slow reading up to p.64: "bellum omnium contra omnes". There is no sin in human actions, they are not criminal as long as there is no law.

Nov 12, 2007: Justice

Discussion: p.71-72 Justice - theories of justice. Radebruch'sche Formel: a judge may decide against the law if the law is unjust - cf. Nazi laws.

Different options to define justice: harmony, divine command, a natural law, a human creation.

Aims of justice:

• Everybody gets the same
• Everybody gets what he needs - seems to be just, e.g. somebody ill - will get treatment even if he cannot work, even if he never will be able to work - yet we also believe:
• Those who work harder should get more.
• Is the working rich man allowed to transfer his wealth into the hands of his heirs (who have not done anything to justly gain that wealth?)
• Is everything just that is acquired by just means? (Which just transfers the problem of justice to the acquisition)?
• Are Nazi laws in that case unjust as they have not been implemented in a just process.
• Would we like to get into a position in which justice was not man made? Whose creation would it then be?

Rawlin's Theory of Justice (1971): If we had to accept the rules before we entered the game, we would not opt for Utilitarianism (greatest happiness of the greatest number), as we could not know whether we would end up in the greatest number or in the minority position. We would rather opt for a system in which the handicapped could enjoy protection.

We discussed options and compared these with Hobbes' decisions.

Nov 19, 2007: The state and monarchy in particular

Reading - The chapter "Of Commonwealth" - p.86-114 original pagination.

Discussion: close reading of p.87 to Beginning of Chapter XVIII: Contract theory - the covenant, made by men with their fellow men. Sound sensible - yet it creates a ruler who is not bound by any laws - he gets the power yet he is not partner in the contract (nor can God be that partner).

We payed special attention to the last paragraphs of Chapter XVII and the question what this meant for the Common Wealth and Cromwell's Government.

We then discussed the different options of gouvernment - all exert power - yet they are equally effective when it comes to preserving this power.

Monarchy as the form of gouvernment in which personal ambition (to preserve ones life) is best connected with the general aim to have a strong ruler who can effectively forbid the war of all against all.

Nov 28, 2007: Hobbes and Locke - share rationality

Homework: read Locke's Second Essay of Government I-IV.

Discussion: Creationism - Locke and Hobbes believed in a world created some 4004 years BC. How did this belief end - in the scientific community. (The problem of the short history - Noah's sons must be the fathers of all humans on earth (and began their settlement around 2300 BC). What about Babel? European 17th century scholars dismissed the idea that Scandinavians or Germans could have returned to Babel - and began to consider their languages to be the oldest on Earth. Geological findings and historical research demanded a longer history. It was implemented from the 18th into the 19th century.

Question: Can God be a deceiver, someone who supplied a world which looks older than 6000 years? Descartes and the option to arge with a god who won't deceive us.

Back to Locke: Discussion of his State and Law of Nature, §§ 5 and 19. Question is this state of Nature a fiction? Locke on this question § 14. Kings live in the state of nature! That seemed odd - what will then happen if we get beyond the state of nature? Look back to political situation: William III a king called by parliament. (Parliament did not call for a king in 1649...

Comparison of Locke and Hobbes: Both share the argument of man - what would he do if he met others without a superior power telling him what to do and what not to do. Hobes: It is rational if he kills before he gets killed. Locke and Hobbes: Everyone has a right to live and to protect his life. Locke: No is then allowed to transgress this law - if he attempts to kill me, I am justified to defend myself.

Hobbes and Lock argue that man will act rationally. Is this an enlightened position or a clever position in which neither church nor God will have a chance to make laws?

We had no time to look into capital punishment and the question of who will have power over whom. Is power transferred?

Dec 3, 2007: Liberty, property and the best political constitution

Homework: read Locke's Second Essay of Government V-XV

We discussed Locke's concept of property - the most important asset governments have to protect besides our lives - and laid a special focus on his special notion of labour making most of the value of property. Was this designed to justify the uneven distribution of land on earth? (Locke reduces the importance of landed property and stresses the importance of what is done with land, how it is cultivated and used to establish factories.)

Is the inheritance of property a just way of acquisition? Do we need and can we justify special government acts to reach a more even distribution of property?

Dec 10, 2007: The state of nature - fiction or reality?

Homework: finish Locke's Second Essay of Government (XVI-XIX)

Our debate focused on the question of natural rights and the state of nature. Locke offers a fairly abstract notion of the state of nature: kings are in the state of nature, states in respect to each other share this state. The human being is considered to act in the same state at its 21st birthday when it is offered the chance to decided under which government it wants to live...

Do we actually have this choice? Can we support Locke's differentiations between paternal power and power of the state?

Our debate moved from the notion of the "state of nature as a fiction" to the alternative of the state of nature as a logical implication of any free choice: we do always have the choice to do what we are supposed to do by the laws or to resist and violate the laws. As soon as we realise a position of independence we move into the definition of the state of nature as Locke gave it as the state in which we are not subjected to any laws society gave.

Dec 17, 2007: Gouvernment at its worst - Tyranny and Revolutions

Homework: Session at my place - a look back on Locke's 2nd treatise. Wghat does Locke say about tyranny and revolutions? Our debate arrived at a notion of him almost justifying all revolutions as the unlikely and painful reaction on a state of injustice. We felt that Locke was particularly weak where he treated the case of war between nations. They themselves being in a state of nature in respect to each other do not do what men in the state of nature naturally do, i.e. form a new body of laws according to which they coukld then interact.

Jan 7, 2007: Shaftesbury I

• Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury. An Inquiry Concerning Virtue or Merit. London, 1699. Revised (the recommended edition:) Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury, Characteristicks (1711), vol. 2, p.1-176.

Anke's Session. Some questions: Locke and Hobbes offered theories of human interaction on the basis of rational behaviour and anticipation of consequences. Shaftesbury goes into a new theory of human motivation and "natural" interaction. Good and evil find new explanations - the explanations have consequences for all those thinking of a better society.

Jan 14, 2007: Shaftesbury II

• Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury. An Inquiry Concerning Virtue or Merit. London, 1699.

We produced a table script - and completed in the last two sessions - in this fashion:

row/column	religion	Hobbes	Locke	Shaftesbury	Mandeville
Man and the State of Nature	fallen into sin.	involved in war of everyone against everyone.	free to decide in what kind of society he wants to live.	in harmony with the universe, guided by a moral sense.	trying to live under better conditions
Man at Present	in struggle between temptations and a virtuous life	Great Britain experiencing a civil war, most other European nations have absolute rulers	the Glorious revolution has shown us that we can create any state we need to enjoy a better quality of life.	corrupted by Church and state yet essentially dreaming of a better world, one in which he can again be guided by his moral sense	guided by private vices, experiencing - in Europe, esp. in England - an unprecedented situation of wealth
Man in the best civilisation imaginable	the heavenly Jerusalem will be brought about by a divine intervention at the end of the present world.	prospers - enjoying the security an absolute Monarch will grant.	lives in a well ordered society in which laws protect us and our wealth esp. against tyranny.	lives a life of harmony, guided by his moral sense, aware of the greater order this universe is designed to enjoy.	- the situation achieved in Great Britain and England is actually quite desirable.

• Questions: Why do we have good and evil in this world? What is the role of the church? ...of the state? ...of nature?
• Observations: The search for the origin of good and evil allows secular philosophers to share a debate with the churches and to accept some of their argument, without having to reach the same conclusions.
• We read Shaftesbury - original pagination of the 1711 edition: p.19 - good and evil, p.39, p.37 (Self love and notion of a powerful god related), p.74-75: Aesthetics, p.80 and 88/889 more on self love.

Jan 21, 2007: Mandeville I

• Bernard Mandeville. Fable of the Bees. 3nd edition. London, 1724.

InJung's session: Read especially "The Introduction", "The Enquiry into the Origin of Moral Virtue", Remarks C, H, K-O, R, T.

Jan 28, 2007: Mandeville II

• Bernard Mandeville. Fable of the Bees. 3nd edition. London, 1724.

Feb 4, 2007: Look Back

Course Evaluation, Look back.

Literature

• Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan. London, 1651. (Recomended edition: Penguin)
• John Locke. Two Treatises on Government. London, 1690.
• John Locke. An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding. London, 1689. (I will supply materials)
• Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury. An Inquiry Concerning Virtue or Merit. London, 1699. (I will supply materials)
• Bernard Mandeville. Fable of the Bees. 3nd edition. London, 1724. (Recomended edition: Penguin)