Course Review - shawn-meikle

If a community creates a shared system of beliefs such as reason or theistic faith
then you can construct a shared understanding of justice and fairness

If you have a shared understanding of justice and fairness
then you can have order

if you have order
then you can maintain order by coercion

if you maintain order by coercion
then you are living in a political system

Enriching

politics is an expression of the most positive nature
however, there is an element of politics is a limiting force it prevents us from destroying each other
however, politics is still soulcraft

summary

Enriching: politics is an expression of our greatest human potential
Active: participation in politics makes you a citizen

irrelevant:

reject city state
focused on
wrong beliefs, attitudes, and ideas
find out what your anxieties are
materialism - believed in atoms
we are matter in motion and that is all

What does Epicurus have to say about feeling, desire and sensation?

How does this differ from what Epictetus said about desire?

How does Epicurus define justice?

In what ways would Plato and Epictetus disagree with this definition?

Who, according to Epicurus, lives “most pleasantly” and why?

rejection

dismisses politics as convention
it is redundant because it is just a haphazard interpretation of natural law
however, we have an obligation to ensure that legislation reflects natural law as much as possible
does not advocate involvement in politics
More a way of life than a philosophy

claims to be a “citizen of the universe”

rather than a citizen of any particular state.

Epictetus tells a story about a thief who steals a lamp from him.

What is the moral of this story?

Does Epictetus believe that it is acceptable to do things for one's own benefit?

What does this view suggest about the pursuit of wealth and power?

How hard should we work to preserve our own life?

How does Epictetus describe the true philosopher?

Remedial

politics is unnecessary because if everyone is good everyone will know the organization
politics is a limiting force it prevents us from destroying each other

Augustine uses rational arguments to validate Christian Doctrine

Realist definition fo State

kingdoms and criminals are similar
they have leaders
they work together
they redistribute the spoils
they have a prearranged agreeement

compare this with the greeks

justice is determined by those that have the power to determine it

passive

apocalypse: thinking the world is going to end changes how one behaves in the world
you are free and equal
but don't try to assert your freedom in this world
do not try to change political regimes

evil

man is the source of evil
evil is a falling away from the good

metaphysics

forms
evil would be something that resembles the ideal but very remotely or roughly
the better something resembles a form the more good it is
this removes the existence of evil from the world while still explaining the phenmenon
like trying to hear silence
like trying to see darkness
we know it exists by the absence of something else
it is the absence of perception that allows us to understand evil

original sin

the barrier to the good life
we struggle against it
it is beyond our control
we are weak, to much pride, involuntary submission to temptation
our soul is put into a body that is beyond its control
to be human entails a certain loss of free will because we have to appease our body's material needs

watch out for a statement on whether material goods are necessary for the good life I suspect that they are not

inoculation

keep in mind how bad we can be
this will remind us to be good
there but for the grace of god go I

Humility

be cautious about what you can accomplish
under served grace
people who appear to be sinners might be saved
you never know so act right
because you don't even know if you will be saved
more innoculation against evil deeds
unconditional love is a relfection of how good god is
not a sign that he will grant us the good life regardless of what we do

predetermined grace

good behaviour is only loosely corelated with grace
on average people with grace act as vehicles for God's will
however, grace is not stictly connected to the choices we make be they evil or good

The book presents human history as being a conflict between what Augustine calls the City of Man and the City of God
a conflict that is destined to end in victory of the latter.
The City of God is marked by people who forgo earthly pleasure and dedicate themselves to the promotion of Christian values.
The City of Man, on the other hand, consists of people who have strayed from the City of God.
The two cities are not meant to represent any actual places or organizations,
though Augustine clearly thought that the Christian Church was at the heart of the City of God.
the city of man is a world of appearences in constant decay
Cain built a city but Abel did not because he knew the he was just a pilgrim on his way to the city of God above

Scipio'

Critique of Plato

knowledge will pass away
Konweldge is not necessary for the good life
just as I evolved from childhood conceptions of reality
so to will I evovled out of philosophical conceptions of reality and find God's love

*Values are Completely Different

Hebrew Virtues

Faith - non intellectual
Hope - passive
Charity - personal

Greek Values

Wisdom - intellectual
Courage - active
Justice - political

tension between

philosophy: pursuit of truth
politics: exercise of power and bringing of order

platonic paradox

politics: necessary for the good life
philosophy: inherently disordering

a way of life

a moral commitment
moral aspirations similar to religious faith
what is the best way of life
how do you live it in the city/political community

religion and politics are fused

religion and politics (especially in Islam) become one
philosophy become the opposition
in the modern world politics and philosophy are one and contrasted with religion

sincerity

did they seek to slowly map Aristotle over Islam inch by inch
revolutions occur by placating the authority and taking small steps toward a tipping point
to influence the politics without being persecuted
this is unlikely, Avveroes is a sincere believer

insulting/devaluing revelation

some though Aristotle was a dangerous and pernicious influence
this is because he privileged rational argumentation and documentary justification above revelation
putting reason as the highest standard of truth undermines revelation

creation of the world

if our world has no beginning it has not end
Aristotle thought the world was immortal
Aristotle thinks that the world being created from nothing is irrational
it is impossible to get consensus on something like creation
Aristotle believes that every effect has a cause
the notion that something can come from nothing is irrational
therefore the universe is eternal
alll 3 big religions say god created the world from nothing
every attempt to vanquish Aristotle centered on this point of contention
Averroes attempt to resolve this…

How does Averroes resolve the controversy regarding creation?

What is Averroes’s answer to the question: what should we do when philosophy and religion clash?

What are the political consequences of Averroes’ view?

What role does religious rhetoric play in politics? What role does philosophy play in politics?

Hagel:

the greatest philosophers of our time do not live at the height but the end of an era
they look back on the era and capture the essence of the Era
When a Society is at its end the citizens are best suited to describe the time

Incoherrence of the Incoherrence

is Aristotle and Islam compatible
What does the law say about philosophy: he asks the Koran to judge philosophy
Already, this sets up the primacy of religion over philosophy
traditionally their are five ways Philosophy could be describes: prohibited, reprimanded, obligatory, disapproved, approved
by the end this primacy has been reversed

obedience

law requires obedience
Philosophy inherently asks people to undermine obedience
pursuing truth and argument contradicts obedience
do not question the subsistence of the law because it was given by authority
not just any authority but the absolute authority - God
a new source of the law emerges

Philosophy is Obligatory for some

the Koran says we are allowed to study things
Indeed we are obligated to study things
god has told us to know about the natural world and study and pursue knowledge
God says that reflection and consideration are superior reasons for action in contrast with being told to do things

knowledge is cumulative

if God wants us to know than he must want us to know everything
including the works of the pagens
he says the later ones seeking to help the earlier ones
study of the ancients is obligatory by law
since their aim and purpose
uniting two categories, legal intelligence and virtue

Caveat

this is only true for anyone fit to study them
he knows philosophy is dangerous
he knows for a fact that philosophy undermines philosophy
if you approach religion rationally from a philosophical perspective
their is high likelyhood that you will conclude this doesn't make sense
reason in the wrong hands will lead to disbelief
reason can be united with religion but it is hard and you have to dig beneath the surface
the only people who should attempt to unite religion and philosophy should be true philosophers
disseminating philosophy by promoting its heracies
to know Philosophy is is bad requires knoweldge of philosophy - this is dangerous

conclusion

small role of philosophy
large role of religion for the rest of the world

described the relationship between divine science and natural science
Suggests that God has commanded us to improve our societies

organizational tool
enriching

enriching

it is a way of expressing ourselves

organizational tool

it is the best way to organize society

What role does reason play in our relationship to God?

Is reason necessary to faith?

Can faith ever be irrational?

What sorts of things do human beings naturally pursue in their quest for happiness?

What is the difference between Aquinas' teleological view of happiness and Aristotle's?

What kind of order prevails in Aquinas' universe?

Do you think Aquinas is using Proof and “to prove” in the same way as Maimonides uses these terms?

What is the end or purpose of all law?

What is the relationship between law and virtue?

active

not a stoic, like scipio
people who don't achieve great things are worthless
he is not totally concerned with self interest
* he has the good of the city at heart but his survival seems to be a necessary condition of the cities welfare so it is somewhat convenient

constituent

people are weak
they need guidance
there is no teleology inherent in man
we are here
let us fight
we will die
that is all
not everyone desires or even works toward the ends of lfe but there are ends to life
generally men are ungrateful, fickle, evaders of danger, eager for gain
while you do them good they love you when gain is close to you they revolt

obedience

link to weberian bureaucracy
people respect offices not people
this is the obedience of a political relationship

appearences

he downgrades virtues
he says appearences are tools to isnpire conformity
and get people to obey
it is a relative argument they are good to follow but not absolute good when compared with the risk of not founding a state

rational choice

bounded rationality

Comparison with Plato

challenge his assumption that order must be maintained at all costs because it is the first and pivotal step toward a republic
even though he has good intentions that our telologically devoted to republicanism and coming together for the free and good life
If ones privileges order above all else innovation progress and discovery are suffocated
if the forces of change are restrained how can progress toward republicanism occur?
disruption and chaos are the prime movers of change
there in an inherent contradiction in attempting to foster the conditions of progress toward republicanism with conditions that stifle progress itself.
Machiavelli's promotion of a regime that actively spreads fear to keep order would prevent the population from taking risks, challenging the status quo and innovating
This is because such forces of innovation are sources of power and those who wield them would surely be branded a threat to regime

the state

Machiavelli is the birth of the state
lock, Hobbes, Rousseau build the state but Machievelli invents it
he fuses elements of republic and empire to distill the state
a new entity with familiar qualities secualrism sovereignty
a state with a leader - a charasmatic prince - not a devine and ultimate authoritarian king

Comparison with Augustine

virtu ties in here
her redefines good
Good is only possible because of the prior existence of evil
what would Churchill be without Hitler
good often requires evil as not only contrast but even evil is required to make the distinction in the first place
to do a good thing evil must be perpetrated
Remis had to die for Rome to be founded

appearance vs. reality

is it not better to have the appearance of being just than the reality of it - Plato
is it not better to have the appearance of religion than the reality of it - Machievelli

religion

two types of relgion
pagan magnificant gods
christian humble gods
how can humility be virtu?
having the strength to suffer
you take the high ground over pomp and circumstance

our religion has made us weak

we no longer value freedom
religion is evaluated not by its truth but by its consequences for society
religion must be transformed to encourage people to take up arms and fight for freedom
for Christianity - humility and weakness is good -
so the redefinition of good is strength and agression -
how not to be good - creulty well used is a virtue -
another example of how good requires the moral context of evil

a republican

he wanted to empower the people
the masses are more reliable than the dangerous elites
a proto-democrate
while Plato sought to create an aristorcracy of educated and virtuous
Machiavelli deliberately enlists the people in the fight against dangerous aristocrates of education and virtue

remedial

Anxiety

caused by wrong beliefs,
remedied by pessimistic

Chaos

reformation is why Hobbes is so concerned Chaos
Scientific revolution contrasts the chaos
it creating an ordered picture of the world -the Mechanistic world view

epistemology

all ideas come from senses (blank slate)
impericism - observable, falsifiable, tangible - informs his theory of materialism
stimulus response - related to epistomology of senses
informs his idea of nomainalism

ontology

nominalist

this concept informs his idea that reason has not moral content
the object becomes before idea
naming and categorizing
everything is subjective
axioms - hobbes critiques accepted universal truth and rejects their existence

critque of Plato

the opposite of nominalism is essences
the idea comes before the object - forms

intersubjectivity - shared subjective views

Comparison with Aristotle

Aristotle - there are moral truths and we have to find out what they are
Hobbes - nominalism - there are no moral truths - truth is what we agree is good and right
get yourself a king and let him set the definitions of what is good and true
we have to agree on certain starting premises that conform in someway to the material world
but the more abstract theory and concept become the more human naming becomes important

No Moral Content of Reason

Reason is only an instrument to fulfill our appetites
it allows you to know your preferences
instrumental view of reason
bad people can be rational, clever,
seven simple passions - virtues do not exist only appetites do, all virtues can be reduced to passions
good and evil - subjective, based on passion and appetite,
the moral content of reason - if you are rational does this mean you are good,
reason - an instrument to fulfill appetites

Critique of Aristotle

we assume rationality has a moral that is generally good not evil
Reason has a maximal content - aristotle

Hume

it is not against reason to prefer the pricking of my finger to the destruction of the world
people's preferences may lead them to care more from them self than the welfare of the entire world

Comparison with Kant

thinks reason has a minimal moral content
many have argued that the instrumentality of reason is a fundamental characteristic of modern thought
a split between fact and value

nothing can be unjust

no right no law
good and bad are subjective
they are what we say they are
justice exists when there are laws that define justice
laws are not rooted in right from wrong
laws are a coordination tool - not an representation of right and wrong
when there is no criteria of right and wrong

right of nature

right to self preservation
includes the right to take anothers property and life
we fear death
it is understandable that we protect ourselves
you have a right to protect yourself
to do anything you judge necessary to protect yourself

3 Law of Nature

rational means to self-preservation
what are my best means of self preservation?
if we are in a state of war
then seek peace or win the war
if we are in a state of unstable peace
then arrange a collective (through promises and contracts) effort for everyone to give up their right to make war
make that contract enforced by an institution

rights and duties are reciprocal

with the right of nature
there is no reciprocity
it is a right without a reciprocal duty
it is odd to consider it a right if there is no moral obligation
you have a duty not to stop me from protecting my self - no way
an attitude shift is required
under what conditions would you hand over your right to protect yourself
laws of nature are used to determine the conditions of this hand over

giving up all your rights

the specific political solution that Hobbes sets up is not accepted today
so why still read Hobbes?
look at the leviathan as a solution to the problem of pluralism
some say he observes it others say he caused it
the essential problem of politics is disagreement
and people are willing to die for these different beliefs
everyone before Hobbes said the solution to this problem is to discover truth
Hobbes says there is no truth
Hobbes identified the problem and the solution

consenting to shared values

this is not a political solution but it is a solution
it only works if we agree to it
Instead of fearing many guns we need to fear only one gun

Comparison with Hobbes

one way contract vs. two way contract
we promise to obey
if we don't you can punish us
we maintain the residual right to self defense
but the community will dominate us
the sovereign does not have to submit to any conditions when ruling us
you can make claims on the state and hold it accountable for its actions
you can criticie them if they are not acting in the common good

How does Locke define a Commonwealth?

What are Locke's three arguments for why civil governments or commonwealths have no business dictating the religious faith of their citizens?

What role does consent play in these arguments?

Plato believed that politics was all about shaping and saving souls.

Locke believed that government has no business shaping and saving souls.

Think about the changes in ideas that lead from Plato to Locke. What are the pluses and minuses of government getting out of the soul business?

internal beliefs

the government can't touch our soul
the soul is off limits
liberalism is premised on notions that Government cannot coerce peoples thoughts
ideas that make up the core of your identity
was interested in protecting this inner space from government
if your didn't express these internal thoughts it wasn't the end of the world

freedom of thought

Locke argues for a fundamental internal space -
a space for setting values, a space for god
this space is sacred - this is a natural right - founded prior to government
free speech is only tangentially linked to this natural right
the fundamental right at play is this freedom of conscious
calling this a fundamental innate right is stronger than saying there will be consequences
it turns out it is more difficult to implement - it is hard to maintain

Comparison with Plato

There is an essential moral
something we can all agree to
Plato is talking about moral character, virtue and morality
and coordinating those things on a societal level
the difference is that the higer order morals and virtues are cultivated on an individual and personal level which houl regulated by society
a clear separation of the care of the soul and politics
Plato cannot imagine a government that didn't care about the soul
even if you wanted such a government it would be inevitable that government would have some impact on the soul
he is making more than an ought statement he is making an is statement
politics by definition has consequences for morality

Comparison with John Stewart Mill

directly tied to freedom of speech - he thought about it he was interested in it
Mill said the more diversity the of thought and speech the more progress
the market place of ideas - you get at the truth through speech
Mill did not think that speech had an intrinsic value
Mill thought that if you don't have free speech the consequence is no progress - utlitarian
you only get the result of progress in society…
if your society has modernized and is developed (western europe)
Mill's argument is based Consequences - utilitarian
a consequential argument

coercion

will
force
conformity

toleration

government is not a voluntary association

we need to consent to government coercion
you can emmigrate but it is qualitatively different from the ability to enter and leave at will

religion is voluntary

let us consider that a church is a voluntary society of people who devote themselves to the public worship of god
a church cannot use coercive means (the force of the state)
if churches attempt to use coercion
the church itself is subject to coercive measures but the state in order to prevent this
you enter the church through the profession of faith
you profess the principals of the church
a modern protestant understanding of religious participation
churches are sometimes like families - you are born into a family this restricts the volunary aspect of religion -
you can't chose your family and for the most part you can't leave your family if you don't like them
the organization of religion is external - religion itself is internal
he is downgrading the essentialness of religion to life in a way
he is saying the family and the state are so important to life that you can't leave them
but religion, religion you can change

Comparison with Aristotle

this is not the Aristotelian idea of humans being naturally political
state of nature is governed by law of nature - reason is that law of nature
everyone can access natural law if they want to - a consensus is capable

Comparison with Hobbes

does he mean what Hobbes means?
we are generally equal and all can be overwhelmed by concerted effort
Hobbes makes a descriptive observation that noone can win a war of all against all
Locke makes a theological observation that we all have God's grace so we all have dignity

revolution

you do not have to follow the law but you must willingly accept the consequences
the government has taken on a power it ought not to have
therefore it is not legitmate and not a law
the government forfeits its right to impose this law
when Locke says it is up to God
it is as if the constitution has been disolved
you as a individual must decide what course of action you must take
every man is judge by his own actions alone -
there is a right and wrong answer to this controversy but the solution is not in the constitution so God alone knows
it is not Like Hobbes who says everything is subjective - Locke is foundation in God removes ambiguity
so by damn sure if you are considering waging revolution because when it is over God alone will judge you

Revolution - Public Reasons

deeper than private interests
there is a hierarchy of reasons for over throwing a state
public good is up there in the hierarchy
if the state is contrary to the common good then you can be pretty confident that you are right to over throw it

right of revolution

there are two sorts contest among men those governed by law and those governed by force
where law ends force begins
no taxation without representation - government can't try to shape your consent even with your consent

shawn-meikle

1. Plato

2. Aristotle

3. Epicurus

4. Epictetus

5. Augustine

6. Averroes

7. Maimonides

8. Aquinas

9. Machiavelli

10. Hobbes

11. Locke

Other interesting sites

R-The Backrooms 同人创作站

Great Hyderabad Adventure Club

Dungeons & Discourse

明日方舟