John Locke: Knowledge, Politics and Civil Government

 

Lesson 1

John Locke: Knowledge, Politics and Civil Government

 

Summary

While starting with the study of modern British Philosophy, John Locke is a key entry to begin with. John Locke not only contributed to the theoretical debates around the nature of reason, the epistemic foundations of Modern Science and their far reached consequences upon culture, but he also contributed to hugely modify the structure of political institutions in modern Britain. Taking into account the omnipresence of his enlightening ideas along the literary progress of western modern thought, many components of his contribution will be exposed in the following comment:

First of all, John Locke had contributed to the paradigmatic turn taken by the new generation of both scientists and philosophers against the legacy of scholasticism in line with Descartes issues; the nature and foundations of our knowledge. Locke was hostile towards his doctrine of eternal and innate ideas, the former was not innovative enough to reject openly his theological background, while admitting that certainty is rather due to the eternal ideas created by God to guarantee our evident principles of simple and easy mathematical truth. In spite of his criticism on the scholastic learning relying on radical Christian doom, Descartes accepted many elements to be part of his rationalistic philosophy. However, the case with Locke is different, he started his opening philosophical project by demonstrating the invalid idea of created principles in knowledge theory, he devoted the fundamental part of Essays in Human understanding to invalid Descartes deistic inclination to rely on God for his modern knowledge paradigm. Locke claimed that easy definitions in mathematics and geometry are not truly based on God’s decree; they are rather made certain amidst the acquired experience, and the impressions are the only sources to start with in every issue about knowledge and certainty. Hence, Descartes Tabula rasa is not clean enough to provide more humanistic starting points as Descartes had wholeheartedly wished.

With regards to politics, John Locke adopted the same critical attitude towards the political tradition of monarchism; most of his writing on civil government and religious Toleration were responsive to the old fashioned established structures of authority. There is a systematic similarity between his critique on the theological origin of our epistemic claim and the theocratic justification of authority in terms of government, hence to the question: what is the nature and extend of power in politics?

 Locke provided a new and well-reasoned answer, he come back to nature to check what are the basic needs every individual is inclined to pursuit, the first is to survive, to protect his own body integrity, the second is to express his willingness, opinions and desires, and last but not least, is to have the right to progress in terms of wealth and property; if one relies on these natural needs, he will be able to determine what are the limits of any political authority established among individuals in society. liberalism is but legitimate formulations of basic human needs and liberties, the law and its suggests are sufficient to provide a much more humanistic regime of government, but the later humanisation of authority warrants the right to reject and protest against authorities whenever the basic and naturally founded individual rights are put into risk by the currently established regime or authority. The later philosophical response made by Locke, was at the heart of a heated debate between politicians, lawmakers and representatives of the monarchical regime of Britain in 17^th century.

 

  Text. 1                                      John Locke and the political issues

 

During the central decades of the 17th century, Britain was also convulsed by a parallel but more general dispute about who possessed ultimate political authority. Was it the monarch? Or was it Parliament? Or was authority somewhat divided among different political bodies? Taxation was often the heated focus of this dispute. Who had the right to levy taxes, the monarch or Parliament? Most of the parties to these disputes shared the premise that whoever has political authority has absolute and unlimited political authority. Once we know who has the right to rule, we know who has the right to rule without constraint. A common argument was that monarchial authority must be unlimited, because a monarch with limits on his or her authority would not be a true sovereign. However, the premise that political authority must be unlimited in its scope came under attack as theorists developed or refined the idea that political authority exists only for certain limited purposes and that is, when rulers pursue other purposes—for example, burning heretics, establishing and enforcing economic monopolies, and imposing censorship—their actions transgress those limits. Not surprisingly, the contention that the scope of political authority is limited—even radically limited—was opposed by defenders of the idea that all sovereigns must have unlimited authority. More specifically, defenders of this authoritarian view maintained that, no matter what command any sovereign issues, that command will be lawful and any disobedience or resistance to that command will be unlawful.

In contrast, Locke’s political philosophy fundamentally rejects the doctrine of unlimited, unchecked political authority. In his Second Treatise of Government and his A Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke synthesizes the arguments for religious toleration and the more general contention that toleration must be extended to all peaceful activities. Especially, in A Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke argued that liberty and not authoritarian control is the basis for a peaceful and prosperous society. As we shall see, the ultimate ground for Locke’s anti-authoritarian advocacy of toleration and liberty is his affirmation of each individual’s possession of natural rights that all other persons— especially political sovereigns—are obligated to respect.

 

Concepts and Vocabulary explained

Social Contract: An implied agreement among people in an organized society Defines rights, duties and limitations of both; the governed and the government.

Consent of the Governed: Established with the social contract - The idea that people must give their approval to a government, as such; voting. - If people do not approve, they have the right to alter or abolish the government.

Separation of Powers: The Enlightenment idea (Montesquieu) that government should be divided between three branches:  Legislative, Executive and Judicial. The structure of the federal government established in the US Constitution

Natural Rights: The Enlightenment idea (John Locke) that all people are born with basic rights that cannot be taken away by the government • Life, liberty and property.

The Enlightenment: All people are born with basic rights that cannot be taken away by the government • Life, liberty and property.