Philosophy bites har nogle mp3 files, hvori kloge folk fortæller om nogle af de tænkere vi har i samfundsfilosofi. Lytter man på dem, bliver læsningen lidt mindre tør ?! For at spare en mp3 -> højerklik på filen og "gem som ...  "

Thomas Aquinas 

KennyAquinas.mp3

Thomas Hobbes

SkinnerMixSes.mp3

John Locke

John_Dunn_on_Locke_on_Toleration.mp3

David Hume

Peter_Millican_on_Humes_Significance.mp3

Jean Jacques Rousseau

Melissa_Lane_on_Rousseau_on_Civilization.mp3

Edmund Burke

BurkeMixSess.mp3

Immanuel Kant

Adrian_Moore_on_Kants_Metaphysics.mp3

John Stuart Mill

Reevesmix1.mp3

Karl Marx

Johnathan_Wolff_on_Marx_on_Alienation_1.mp3

I do not own any of the mp3´s on this blog. All can freely be accessed via : http://nigelwarburton.typepad.com/philosophy_bites/ 

Dangerous sentimentality (is there any other kind?): James Panero visits the Hudson River School for Landscape.

It's time for awkward questions.  Click here and read Ellen Meiksins Wood's totally brilliant review of Quentin Skinner on Thomas Hobbes.

"Not seeing a hollow face as hollow:" Richard Gregory reflects on some new results in the science of perception.

The Mighty Red Pen looks at disturbing new trends in "brocabulary."

Dr. Kissinger on Dr. Kissinger: Marc Ambinder parses the former Secretary of State, proving that syllogisms are the ultimate aphrodisiac.

"Follow the green line to the cocktail shaker:" on this day in 1970, John Dos Passos died.

“Hobbes preferred monarchy mainly because he believed there should be only one supreme authority. He could tolerate parliament alone, but not a system in which government power is shared. This is the exact antithesis to the views of Locke ...”  (Landry, Hobbes, 2) “Hobbes was a firm believer in absolutism but was greatly opposed to divine right.” (Abbot, 1)

Locke, on the other hand, viewed government as having “no other end than the preservation of property.” (Landry, Locke, 7). “For nobody can transfer, to another, more power than he possesses himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over any other, to destroy, or take away, the life or property of another.” (5) “If a government subverts the ends for which it was created then it might be deposed; indeed, Locke asserts, revolution in some circumstances is not only right but an obligation. Thus, Locke came to the conclusion that the ‘ruling body if it offends against natural law must be deposed.’ (7)

"Thomas Hobbes’ greatest work was Leviathan. In this Hobbes stated that people by nature are selfish and ambitious ... The only way to restrain man’s natural aggression is by implementing an absolute power, whose main objective is to keep his subjects in line. In this form of government, the subject surrender[s] all rights to the state so that it is best equipped to keep peace any way necessary. This idea is essential for the transition from mans’ natural state of chaos to an orderly society.” (Abbot, 1) Hobbes also stated in his work De Cive, “Every man is presumed to seek what is good for himselfe naturally, and what is just, only for Peaces sake, and accidentally.” (Hobbes, 5) and that “[t]his naturall proclivity of men, to [is] hurt each other.” (4) Hobbes also asserts that because of man’s nature, he needs government. “A man’s nature does not require a governing state, independent of his own ... a better life might well be assumed through the existence of an outside governing state ... [therefore] it [is] unnatural for a man to put himself under the control of others, to have a government, but that it [is] rational to do so.” (Landry, Hobbes, 2) “[It is] in man’s best interest to band together under a government ... [P]eople, fully appraised of their chances in both states, would choose the state with a government as opposed to a state without one ... because an individual is better off in a state where only the government can, in certain prescribed situations, legitimately exercise aggression ...”  (2) These statements lead us to believe that Hobbes viewed human nature as evil.

“Locke ... viewed man as naturally moral.” (Landry, Locke, 5) “Good and evil, reward and punishment, are the only motives to a rational creature: these are the spur and reins whereby all mankind are set on work, and guided.” (7) “[I]n his acceptance of the existence of God, Locke was a dualist (those who hold that reality subsists both in thought and in matter) – though only barely so; he did not consider man to be a divine creature fixed with ideas on coming into this world. Locke was an empiricist ... all knowledge comes to us through experience ... There is no such thing as innate ideas; there is no such thing as moral precepts; we are born with an empty mind, with a soft tablet ready to be writ upon by experimental impressions.” (3) “Locke maintained that the original state of nature was happy and characterized by reason and tolerance ... [and] that all human beings, in their natural state, were equal and free to pursue life, health, liberty, and possessions; and that these were inalienable rights. Pre-social man as a moral being, and as an individual, contracted out ‘into civil society by surrendering personal power to the ruler and magistrates,’ and did so as ‘a method of securing natural morality more efficiently.’ To Locke, natural justice exists and this is so whether the state exists, or not, it is just that the state might better guard natural justice.” (5)

“[Locke] believed, with Hobbes, that man had once existed in a state of nature, but that, as a creature created in God’s image, man was possessed of reason, and therefore capable of rational behavior, which permitted him to cooperate with other men to form societies and to discern the laws of nature, the most important of which guaranteed him life, liberty, and property. Man acquired knowledge not by means of divine revelation or because he possessed innate ideas, but because his senses permitted him to learn from the external world, and put him in touch with reality.” (Cody, 1) “[Locke agrees with Hobbes] that man’s state of nature is a state of war and that a contract among the people can end the chaos that precedes the establishment of a civil society ... [but] unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that people, by nature were reasonable.” (Abbot, 1)

If forced to choose, I would rather live under a government designed by John Locke versus Thomas Hobbes because it is more like a democracy. Although he “was no democrat: he believed that laborers had neither the time, the education, nor the inclination to make rational political judgments, and should not, therefore, be permitted to have a voice in government, and he denied a role in politics or government to individuals who were not possessed of property, (Cody, 2) Locke “did not subscribe to the ‘Divine Right Theory’” (Landry, Locke, 3) “Locke maintained, lay in a social contract between the people and their government, and the people were within their rights to remove or alter a government which betrayed their trust. Revolution, then, became the ultimate recourse (and a legitimate one) of a people whom tyranny had deprived of their rights.” (Cody, 1) By this opinion, Locke does appear to believe that citizens should be able to defend their rights and have a say in government, which is part of a democratic society. Locke’s ideas are more complimentary to the current government of the United States, whereas Hobbes’ ideas maintain authority of a monarchy “because he believed there should be only one supreme authority. He could tolerate parliament alone, but not a system in which government power is shared. This is the exact antithesis to the views of Locke ...” (Landry, Hobbes, 2).

© 2001 Michelle Jenkins
World Civilizations assignment regarding the of the governmental philosophies of Thomas Hobbes & John Locke.

Works Cited

Cody, David. “John Locke.” 16 January 2001. <http://landow.stg.brown.edu/victorian/religion/locke1.html>)

Hobbes, Thomas. “De Cive: Chapter I: Liberty and Chapter III: Of the other Lawes of Nature.” 16 January 2001. <http://www.constitution.org/th/decive03.htm>

Landry, Peter. “John Locke.” Biographies. 1997-2000. 16 January 2001 <http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Locke.htm>

Landry, Peter. “Thomas Hobbes.” Biographies. 1997-2000. 16 January 2001 <http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Hobbes.htm>

Marvin, Chris. “John Locke.” The Window: Philosophers On The Internet. 1995-2000. 16 January 2001 <http://www.venturetech.com/philo/phils/locke.html>

Marvin, Chris. “Thomas Hobbes.” The Window: Philosophers On The Internet. 1995-2000. 16 January 2001 http://www.venturetech.com/philo/phils/hobbes.html

“The pre-history of our species is hag-ridden with episodes of nightmarish ignorance and calamity, for which religion used to identify, not just the wrong explanation but the wrong culprit.”

These words by Christopher Hitchens in the Introduction to his book The Portable Atheist – Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever (De Capo Press, 2007) summarises the problem religion still causes in society.

Hitchens’s book is absolute essential reading for anyone who claims to have a critical mind and who wants to counter the preposterous arguments so often used by believers who see no conflict between the findings of science and the tenets of religious beliefs. He introduces the development and growth of the island of nonbelievership and science amidst a sea of ignorance and religious beliefs through the words of atheists: essays and questions on religion and rational thinking by Lucretius, Omar Khayyám, Thomas Hobbes, Benedict de Spinoza, David Hume, James Boswell, Percy Bysshe Shelley, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, George Eliot, Charles Darwin, Leslie Stephen, Anatole France, Mark Twain, Joseph Conrad, Thomas Hardy, Emma Goldman, H.L. Mencken, Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein, George Orwell, Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, John Updike, Michael Shermer, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Elizabeth Anderson, Steven Weinberg, Salman Rushdie, Sam Harris, A.C. Grayling, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others.

Hitchens quotes from Albert Camus’s La Peste (The Plague) when Dr. Rieux thinks about the reaction of the town of Oran, “celebrating its recovery from – its survival of – a terrible visitation of disease.” The analogy is clear, that a biological pestilence mowing down vulnerable people is very similar to the way religion casts it spell over the minds of a “plague-stricken people”, destroying their ability to think rationally and to deal with the challenges the real world puts in their daily lives.

Hitchens writes human “sacrifices were made preeminently in times of epidemics, useless prayers were uttered, bogus ‘miracles’ attested to, and scapegoats – such as Jews or heretics or witches – hunted down or burned. The few men of science and reason and medicine had all they could to keep their libraries and laboratories intact, or their very lives from harm. Of course, when the evil had ‘passed over,’ there were equally idiotic ceremonies of hysterical thanksgiving, propitiating whatever local deities there may be...”

The severe criticism I have experienced as an atheist journalist writing about science for newspapers in the Media24 group and as former science editor of Die Burger – and now again because I cast a sceptic blanket over the hysteria of the Angus Buchan phenomenon – reminds me of the excellent novel by the Oxford author Iain Pears, The Dream of Scipio.

In it the stern religious dogmatist Caius Valerius complains when his friend Lucontius jests about the way the discoveries of science were making inroads into the beliefs of Christians in 5th century Roman Gaul near Avignon. “Surely I speak only the truth? Surely we see the Revelations of our Lord solely through Greek eyes? Even Saint Paul was a Platonist,” Lucontius jokes.

“I do not know what you mean,” Caius replies. “The truth is told to me in the Bible. I need no Greek words to tell me what I see there.”

Pears describes Caius Valerius as a coarse man “who wrapped himself in piety like a suffocating blanket.” And: “Caius was one of those who gloried in his ignorance, called his lack of letters purity, scorned any subtlety of thought or expression. A man for his time, indeed. Once, and not so long ago, he would have fallen silent in embarrassment at his lack of knowledge; now it was the knowledgeable who had to mind their tongues” (my italics).

Angus Buchan, pastor Fred May of Shofar, the religious fundamentalists running (and ruining) the minds of the United States of America, these are all modern day Caius Valeriuses.  When one reads the letters of support for Buchan in the Afrikaans media, criticising poor Lina Spies for daring to point out the superficiality of his message in an excellent column in the weekly supplement By, the need for science to make its voice heard loudly and clearly becomes so much more urgent.

As Pears points out through the character of Julien Barneuve, “saintliness was hysteria, miracles naturally occurring phenomena misunderstood by the simple, belief mere self-delusion. A rigorous education in science was the antidote to all such afflictions” (my italics).

The “tentacles of superstition” ensnaring the minds of believers through the preachings of Angus Buchan, Fred May, Benny Hinn, TD Jakes, Pope Benedictus XVI, and thousands other misleaders of vulnerable, gullible minds can only be decimated by taking up the sharp scissors of science.

Hitchens’s analogy between the plague bacillus in Camus’s novel and the religious virus is very apt. He writes, quoting Camus’s character Dr. Rieux:

“No the fact is that the bacilli are always lurking in the old texts and are latent in the theory and practice of religion. This anthology (The Portable Atheist) hopes to identify and isolate the bacilli more precisely, and also to vindicate Dr. Rieux by giving prominence to those who, then and now, have always counterposed enlightenment to the bane:

The record of what had to be done, and what assuredly would have to be done again in the never-ending fight against terror and its relentless onslaughts, despite their personal afflictions, by all who, while unable to be saints but refusing to bow down to pestilences, strive their utmost to be healers.

May the healing of ensnared religious minds begin with this excellent anthology compiled by Hitchens.

Konsep modern tentang kedaulatan, pertama kali mengemuka pada akhir abad ke enam belas, sebagai tanggapan atas fenomena kemunculan negara teritorial. Gagasan teoritik tentang kedaulatan pada mulanya dikemukakan oleh Jean Bodin, salah seorang pemikir renaissance asal Prancis, pada 1576, melalui karangannya, “Les Six Livres de la Republique.” Bodin menafsirkan kedaulatan sebagai kekuasaan tertinggi terhadap warganegara dan rakyat-rakyatnya, tanpa dibatasi oleh undang-undang. Dari penafsiran terlihat jelas, bahwa kemunculan konsepsi kedaulatan adalah berangkat dari fakta politik yang mendasar saat itu, yaitu lahirnya negara. Tentang negara, Bodin banyak merujuk pendapat Aristoteles, ia memaknai negara sebagai keseluruhan dari keluarga-keluarga dengan segala miliknya, yang dipimpin oleh akal budi seorang penguasa yang berdaulat.[1] Negara berbeda dengan masyarakat lainnya, karena adanya summa potestas (kekuasaan tertinggi). Menurut Bodin, salah satu aspek kedaulatan ialah kekuasaan untuk menjadikan hukum sebagai cara untuk mengefektifkan kehendak kedaulatan, karenanya Bodin kemudian menyamakan antara undang-undang dengan hukum.[2] Pemikiran Bodin ini selanjutnya diperkuat oleh Thomas Hobbes, meski dengan memberi beberapa catatan. Berbeda dengan Bodin, yang menyatakan kendatipun kedaulatan memegang kekuasaan tertinggi, namun kedaulatan dibatasi oleh hukum Tuhan dan hukum alam. Hobbes menegaskan, bahwa tidak ada batasan bagi kekuasan membuat hukum dari kedaulatan. Kedaulatan berada di atas segala-galanya. Artinya, konsepsi Hobbes mengenai kedaulatan adalah rasional dan utilitarian. Kedaulatan murni merupakan hasil dari kepentingan pribadi individu secara rasional, yang menggantikan hasrat tidak rasional.[3] Paham Hobbes sekaligus juga memberikan catatan terhadap pandangan Grotius yang diutarakan sebelumnya. Grotius mengatakan bahwa ikatan hukum alam—hukum antarbangsa/hukum internasional—menjadi pengikat antara negara-negara yang satu dengan yang lain. Terhadap pandangan ini Hobbes membantah, dikatakan, negara-negara satu sama lain itu hidup dalam keadaan alamiah, di mana masing-masing orang membela dirinya terhadap yang lain dengan sebaik-baiknya, jadi menurut Hobbes hukum internasional hanya akan mengikat individu-individu, jikalau diterima oleh sang daulat—penguasa sebagai manifestasi dari kedaulatan.[4] Terhadap perbedaan pandangan ini, Laski (1931) berkomentar, hukum antar bangsa akan menjadi sebenar-benarnya hukum, bila telah mendapat pengakuan dari negara-negara yang menyatakannya sebagai hukum. Hukum itu sendiri tidak memiliki kekuatan mengikat, dia hanya mendapat kekuasaan dari negara-negara yang mengesahkannya sebagai peraturan hukum nasional.[5] Pandangan Laski, terkesan memperkuat argumen yang dikemukakan oleh Hobbes.

Perkembangan signifikan realitas politik dunia, yang ditandai dengan banyak bermunculannya negara baru dan meningkatnya kuantitas hubungan internasional, berakibat juga pada cepatnya perkembangan hukum internasional. Perkembangan ini tentunya dibarengi dengan perubahan konsepsi teoritis yang signifikan pula, sehingga membuka kembali perdebatan tentang posisi kedaulatan dalam kancah hukum internasional yang semakin berkembang. Sebenarnya perdebatan yang terjadi masih memiliki akar yang sama dengan periode sebelumnya, yaitu berkait dengan kedudukan dan relasi antara hukum nasional dengan hukum internasional. Pada masa ini berkembang doktrin, bahwa hukum internasional tidak akan pernah menjadi hukum penduduk (municipal law), namun secara tepat harus diadopsi oleh setiap pemegang kekuasaan untuk setiap kasusnya. Beberapa teori dikemukakan sebagai jawaban atas terjadinya kemelut ilmiah dan politik ini, baik berupa pembelaan, sanggahan maupun kritikan. Serangkaian pendapat itu antara lain; Pertama, gagasan Jellinek yang mengemukakan doktrin pembatasan diri dari negara. Teori ini menyatakan, pada satu sisi negara berdaulat harus tunduk patuh pada ketetapan hukum internasional, namun di sisi lain negara harus patuh pula pada kehendak para individu (warganegara) sebagai manifestasi dari kedaulatan nasional. Konsekuensi dari dua kewajiban tersebut, mengharuskan negara untuk mampu menentukan pilihan, ketika terjadi pertentangan antara kedua kewajiaban tersebut. Karenanya, sebagai bentuk kedaulatan tertinggi, negara dapat menolak patuh terhadap ketetapan dan kebiasaan internasional. Teori Jellinek senada dengan yang dikemukakan oleh Triepel dan Anzilotti. Kelamahan dari kedua teori tersebut ialah adanya keharusan untuk menentukan pilihan pada kondisi tertentu, yang berarti kurang memberikan titik terang atas terjadinya perdebatan. Kedua, teori Del Vecchio, yang menyatakan bahwa kebebasan berkehendak negara, yang merupakan perwujudan dari kedaulatan, telah melahirkan penolakan terhadap prinsip hukum internasional. Di sisi lain, kaidah hukum alam menuntut manusia bersatu sama lain, dan mengakui kesederajatan. Oleh karena itu, Del Vecchio menyarankan penggabungan nyata antara hukum nasional dan hukum internasional, dengan alasan, meskipun kedua sistem hukum mungkin memiliki derajat positivitas yang berbeda, akan tetapi yang terpenting adalah tingkat keefektifannya. Pandangan Del Vecchio ditentang oleh kaum nasionalistis, yang diwakili oleh Erich Kaufmann. Dia mengatakan bahwa kekuatan mengikat dari hukum internasional adalah tidak sesuai dengan kedaulatan negara. Kaufmann meneruskan ajaran filsafat Hegel (filsafat organis), yang menyatakan negara merupakan satuan tertinggi, relasi antar negara dibangun sekedar dari sumbangannya bagi sejarah dunia. Hukum internasional—dalam bahasa Hegel disebut sebagai famili bangsa-bangsa—adalah bukan kenyataan.[6]

Selanjutnya, pandangan dikemukakan oleh Kelsen melalui mahzab monistik-nya. Pandangan Kelsen dimulai dengan pernyataan bahwa kedaulatan adalah satu kualitas tertinggi dari negara, yang berarti negara adalah pemegang kekuasaan tertinggi. Begitupun tatanan hukum dari negara—hukum nasional—dianggap sebagai tatanan hukum tertinggi, yang tak ada lagi atasnya. Kelsen kemudian mengatakan, satu-satunya tatanan hukum yang dapat dianggap lebih tinggi dari tatanan hukum nasional adalah hukum internasional. Apakah berarti negara menjadi tidak berdaulat? Tidak. Menurut Kelsen hukum internasional, melalui prinsip efektivitasnya, sekedar menentukan bidang dan validitas hukum nasional. Jadi superioritas hukum internasional terhadap hukum nasional hanya pada persoalan isi/substansi hukumnya. Dan hukum internasional hanya valid jika diakui negara yang berdaulat, melalui suatu hukum nasional.[7] Terhadap serangkaian perdebatan tentang konsepsi kedaulatan, Morgenthau memberikan komentar;

Hukum internasional adalah tatanan hukum yang terdesentralisasi dalam dua arti. Pertama, sebagai soal prinsip, atuaran-aturannya hanya mengikat bangsa-bangsa yang menyatakan kesediannya menerima aturan-aturan tersebut. Kedua, kebanyakan aturan-aturannya mengikat karena kesediaan yang dinyatakan adalah demikian kabur dan ambigu, serta sangat dikualifikasikan oleh syarat-syarat dan pengecualian-pengecualian, sehingga membiarkan masing-masing bangsa mempunyai kebebasan bertindak yang sangat luas apabila mereka diminta untuk tunduk pada hukum internasional.[8]

Dalam konteks kekinian, kedaulatan ditafsirkan sebagai kekuasaan tertinggi yang dimiliki oleh suatu negara untuk secara bebas melakukan berbagai kegiatan sesuai kepentingannya, dengan catatan tidak bertentangan dengan hukum internasional.[9] Pada awal kelahirannya, kedaulatan dibagi menjadi dua aspek, internal dan eksternal,[10] namun pada perkembangannya aspek kedaulatan berkembang menjadi tiga aspek, sesuai yang ditetapkan oleh hukum internasional, yaitu terdiri dari:[11]

a. Aspek eksetrn kedaulatan, adalah hak bagi setiap negara untuk secara bebas menentukan hubungannya dengan berbagai negara atau kelompok-kelompok lain tanpa kekangan, tekanan atau pengawasan dari negara lain.

b. Aspek intern kedaulatan ialah, hak atau kewenangan eksklusif suatu negara untuk menentukan bentuk lembaga-lembaganya, cara kerja lembaga-lembaga tersebut dan hak untuk membuat undang-undang yang diinginkannya, serta tindakan-tindakan untuk mematuhi.

c. Aspek teritorial kedaulatan, berarti kekuasaan penuh dan eksklusif yang dimiliki oleh negara atas individu-individu dan benda-benda yang terdapat di wilayah tersebut.

Perkembangan terakhir, meski memiliki basis legitimasi yang kuat secara internasional, pada kenyataannya kedaulatan semakin terdistorsi dan terestriksi oleh makin menguatnya badan-badan internasional (terutama lembaga ekonomi keuangan dan dagang internasional, IMF, World Bank, WTO), korporasi-korporasi transnasional (TNC’s/MNC’s), dan dominasi negara-negara super power. Mereka kian meng-alienasi kedaulatan negara-negara merdeka di dunia, terutama Negara-negara Dunia Ketiga.(*)

"Deus me defende dos amigos, que dos inimigos me defendo eu."
Voltaire.

François-Marie Arouet (21 de novembro de 1694 – 30 de maio de 1778), mais conhecido pelo pseudônimo Voltaire, foi um escritor, ensaísta, deísta e filósofo iluminista francês conhecido pela sua perspicácia e espirituosidade na defesa das liberdades civis, inclusive liberdade religiosa e livre comércio.

Voltaire foi um escrito prolífico, e produziu obras em quase todas as formas literárias, assinando peças de teatro, poemas, romances, ensaios, obras científicas e históricas, mais de 20 mil cartas e mais de 2 mil livros e panfletos.

Ele foi um defensor aberto da reforma social apesar das rígidas leis de censura e severas punições para quem as quebrasse. Um polemista satírico, ele frequentemente usou suas obras para criticar a Igreja Católica e as instituições francesas do seu tempo.

Voltaire foi um dentre muitas figuras do Iluminismo (juntamente com John Locke e Thomas Hobbes) cujas obras e idéias influenciaram pensadores importantes tanto da Revolução Francesa quanto da Americana.

Voltaire (1694-1778) nasceu em Paris. Seu nome verdadeiro era François Marie Arouet. Seu pai era tabelião e possuía pequena fortuna. Sua mãe tinha origem aristocrática. Ela morreu depois do parto. François foi franzino durante a infância e teve saúde fraca durante toda a vida. Tinha um irmão mais velho, Arnaud, que entrou para um culto herético jansenista. François revelou talento literário e sensibilidade poética logo na infância. Ele comprou livros com a herança de uma senhora que havia visto nele futuro cultural. Com esses livros, e com a tutela de um abade, começou sua educação. O abade lhe mostrou o ceticismo e as orações religiosas. O pai de François queria um futuro prático para o filho. Achava que a literatura não rendia dinheiro nem prestígio. Com o intuito de tornar o filho advogado do rei, coloca-o num colégio jesuíta. Os jesuítas eram padres com formação militar, que usavam para difundir o evangelho no mundo todo. Eram membros da Companhia de Jesus, que havia sido fundada por Inácio de Loyola. Os jesuítas ensinaram a Voltaire a dialética, arte de dialogar progressivamente, para provar as coisas. Ele discutia teologia com os professores, que reconheciam Voltaire como um “rapaz de talento mas patife notável”.

"O estudo da metafísica consiste em procurar, num quarto escuro, um gato preto que não está lá."
Voltaire.

A Carreira :
Iniciado maçom no dia 7 de fevereiro de 1778 numa das cerimônias mais brilhantes da história da maçonaria mundial, a Loja Les Neuf Soeurs, Paris, inicia ao octogenário Voltaire, que ingressa no Templo apoiado no braço de Benjamin Franklin, embaixador dos EUA na França nessa data. A sessão foi dirigida pelo Venerável Mestre Lalande na presença de 250 irmãos. O venerável ancião, orgulho da Europa, foi revestido com o avental que pertenceu a Helvetius e que fora cedido, para a ocasião, pela sua viúva. Voltaire falece três meses depois.

Voltaire foi um teórico sistemático, mas um propagandista e polemista, que atacou com veemência todos os abusos praticados pelo Antigo Regime. Tinha a visão de que não importava o tamanho de um monarca, deveria, antes de punir um servo, passar por todos os processos legais, e só então executar a pena, se assim consentido por lei. Se um príncipe simplesmente punisse e regesse de acordo com o seu bem-estar, seria apenas mais um "salteador de estrada ao qual se chama de 'Sua Majestade'".

As idéias presentes nos escritos de Voltaire estruturam uma teoria coerente, que em muitos aspectos expressa a perspectiva do Iluminismo.

Defendia a submissão ao domínio da lei, baseava-se em sua convicção de que o poder devia ser exercido de maneira racional e benéfica.

Por ter convivido com a liberdade inglesa, não acreditava que um governo e um Estado ideais, justos e tolerantes fossem utópicos. Não era um democrata, e acreditava que as pessoas comuns estavam curvadas ao fanatismo e à superstição. Para ele, a sociedade deveria ser reformada mediante o progresso da razão e o incentivo à ciência e tecnologia. Assim, Voltaire transformou-se num perseguidor ácido dos dogmas, sobretudo os da Igreja católica. Sobre essa postura, o catedrático de filosofia Carlos Valverde escreve um surpreendente artigo, no qual documenta uma suposta mudança de comportamento do filósofo francês em relação à fé cristã, registrada no tomo XII da famosa revista francesa Correpondance Littérairer, Philosophique et Critique (1753-1793). Tal texto traz, no número de abril de 1778, páginas 87-88, o seguinte relato literal de Voltaire:

"Eu, o que escreve, declaro que havendo sofrido um vômito de sangue faz quatro dias, na idade de oitenta e quatro anos e não havendo podido ir à igreja, o pároco de São Suplício quis de bom grado me enviar a M. Gautier, sacerdote. Eu me confessei com ele, se Deus me perdoava, morro na santa religião católica em que nasci esperando a misericórdia divina que se dignará a perdoar todas minhas faltas, e que se tenho escandalizado a Igreja, peço perdão a Deus e a ela. Assinado: Voltaire, 2 de março de 1778 na casa do marqués de Villete, na presença do senhor abade Mignot, meu sobrinho e do senhor marqués de Villevielle. Meu amigo."

Este relato foi reconhecido como autêntico por alguns, pois estaria confimado por outros documentos que se encontram no número de junho da mesma revista, esta de cunho laico, decerto, uma vez que editada por Grimm, Diderot e outros enciclopedistas. Já outros questionam a necessidade de alguém que já acredita em Deus ter que converter-se a uma religião específica, como o catolicismo.

Voltaire morreu em 30 de maio de 1778. A revista lhe exalta como "o maior, o mais ilustre e talvez o único monumento desta época gloriosa em que todos os talentos, todas as artes do espírito humano pareciam haver se elevado ao mais alto grau de sua perfeição".

A família quis que seus restos repousassem na abadia de Scellieres. Em 2 de junho, o bispo de Troyes, em uma breve nota, proíbe severamente ao prior da abadia que enterre no sagrado o corpo de Voltaire. Mas no dia seguinte, o prior responde ao bispo que seu aviso chegara tarde, porque - efetivamente - o corpo do filósofo já tinha sido enterrado na abadia.

"Só se servem do pensamento para autorizar as suas injustiças e só empregam as palavras para disfarçar os pensamentos."

A Revolução trouxe em triunfo os restos de Voltaire ao panteão de Paris - antiga igreja de Santa Genoveva - , dedicada aos grandes homens. Na escura cripta, frente a de seu inimigo Rousseau, permanece até hoje a tumba de Voltaire com este epitáfio:

"Aos louros de Voltaire. A Assembléia Nacional decretou em 30 de maio de 1791 que havia merecido as honras dadas aos grandes homens".

Voltaire introduziu várias reformas na França, como a liberdade de imprensa, um sistema imparcial de justiça criminal, tolerância religiosa, tributação proporcional e redução dos privilégios da nobreza e do clero.

Divulgador de Newton:

Não só esteve no enterro de Newton, sepultado em 1727, como tornou-se um ardoroso difusor das suas concepções. Deve-se a ele a propagação da física newtoniana, não só na França como no resto do continente. Para tanto, ele preparou uma excelente exposição - o Elementos da Filosofia de Newton, de 1738, escrito sucinto e acessível das idéias gerais daquele grande nome das ciências (a metafísica e a física do que Newton chamou de filosofia da natureza).

Igualmente, no seu retorno à França, orientou a sua amante Madame du Chatelêt - mulher inteligentíssima, sua companheira de laboratório - na tradução para o francês da clássica obra de Newton, a Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, ainda desconhecida no resto da Europa.

Newton, bandeira dos iluministas

Aquele esforço de divulgação fazia parte por assim dizer da campanha dos iluministas a favor do conhecimento científico da natureza para dessa forma (na tradição herdada da filosofia clássica, abeberada no epicurista Lucrécio) afastar o pavor supersticioso que os homens tinham dos fenômenos naturais. Pois, como asseverou ele: "é preciso que reconheçam, como todas as pessoas de bom senso, que não se deve procurar na Bíblia verdades de Física, e que nela devemos aprender a nos tornar melhores e não a conhecer a natureza".

Do contrário, ao acreditarem nos "mistérios de Deus", o temor ao sobrenatural facilmente os predispunha à crença nos prodígios, nos caldeirões do inferno, na crença nos milagres e assombrações, perseverando deste modo nas sombras, entregando o seu destino e seus bens nas mãos dos sacerdotes e da Igreja Católica, agência patrocinadora-mor do obscurantismo, segundo os iluministas.

A tolerância

Aquele breve estada inglesa (1726-7) rendeu-lhe a celebridade por toda a Europa por ter escrito as Cartas Filosóficas ou Cartas da Inglaterra, coletânea extraída das suas observações, feitas no Reino Unido. Também serviu-o para convencê-lo de outras coisas: de que era muito salutar existir numa sociedade várias seitas religiosas, rivais entre si. Pois assim, enquanto os sacerdotes, os pastores e demais pregadores brigavam entre si pela conquista do mercado das almas, tentando fazer com que "cada um fosse para o céu pelo caminho que melhor lhe aprouvesse", os pensadores e cientistas eram deixados em paz, podendo livremente levar adiante suas pesquisas e seus inventos. Bem ao contrário, aliás, do que ocorria em França, onde a censura da Igreja Católica dominante, tornada sua inimiga jurada, perseguia sem tréguas os dissidentes, ameaçando-os com prisões e condenando sua obras ao fogo dos infernos. Naturalmente que as "Cartas" dele também foram devoradas nas chamas do carrasco (o livro condenado pela censura era incinerado por um verdugo oficial).

A tolerância religiosa, afirmada anteriormente por John Locke como necessária ao bom convívio social, foi reafirmada por ele, em 1763, num tratado que o imortalizou. Se por um lado notabilizou-se por emprestar sua irônica pena para vergastar todas as superstições e mitos, Voltaire acreditava ser necessário, como afirmou cinicamente num antológico verbete do Dictionnaire philosophique, de 1764, que o povo, "o populacho", como ele preferia dizer, continuasse a ser crente. Acreditar na existência do demônio atuava como uma espécie de freio íntimo - uma polícia das almas - evitando assim que os pobres cedessem à tentação do roubo ou do homicídio.

Um freio no otimismo

Distanciado do pessimismo de Pascal, cujo mundo sombrio e fatalista pessoalmente detestava, também se afastou das tendências exageradas do otimismo de Leibniz, a quem satirizou de forma impagável na sua imortal novela Cândido ou o otimismo (Candide), de 1759. Para expor a sandice dos que viam o mundo cor-de-rosa, ele imaginou a figura do professor Pangloss, um impagável filósofo otimista que acreditava que - apesar dos horrores da existência, dos terremotos, das guerras, dos saques, dos incêndios, dos autos-de-fé, da velhacaria que o cercava - "vivíamos, afinal, no melhor dos mundos possíveis!" Mas Cândido não é só uma manifestação crítica contra os exageros do otimismo, e sim uma novela de formação (o que os alemães chamam de bildungroman), na qual um jovem inocente percorre as mais diversas etapas do seu destino, descortinando um mundo por inteiro que lhe era inimaginável, conduzindo o leitor a um passeio sensacional e emocionante por tudo o que era representativo no século XVIII, da estupidez das guerras européias às missões jesuíticas no Novo Mundo.

Sites em inglês & portugues sobre o autor :

Obras :

• Édipo, 1718
• Mariamne (ou Hérode et Mariamne), 1724
• La Henriade, 1728
• História de Charles XII, 1730
• Brutus, 1730
• Zaire, 1732
• Le temple du goût, 1733
• Cartas filosóficas, 1734
• Adélaïde du Guesclin, 1734
• Le fanatisme ou Mahomet, (escrita em 1736, representada em 1741)
• Mondain, 1736
• Epître sur Newton, 1736
• Tratado de Matafísica, 1736
• L'Enfant prodigue, 1736
• Essai sur la nature du feu, 1738
• Elementos da Filosofia de Newton, 1738
• Zulime, 1740
• Mérope, 1743
• Zadig ou o destino, 1748
• Sémiramis 1748
• Le monde comme il va, 1748
• Nanine, ou le Péjugé vaincu, 1749
• Le Siècle de Louis XIV, 1751
• Micrômegas, 1752
• Rome sauvée, 1752
• Poème sur le désastre de Lisbonne, 1756
• Essai sur les mœurs et l'esprit des Nations, 1756
• Histoire des voyages de Scarmentado écrite par lui-même, 1756
• Cândido ou o otimismo, 1759
• Le Caffé ou l'Ecossaise, 1760
• Tancredo, 1760
• Histoire d'un bon bramin, 1761
• La Pucelle d'Orléans, 1762
• Tratado sobre a tolerância, 1763
• Ce qui plait aux dames, 1764
• Dictionnaire philosophique portatif, 1764
• Jeannot et Colin, 1764
• De l'horrible danger de la lecture, 1765
• Petite digression, 1766
• Le Philosophe ignorant, 1766
• L'ingénu, 1767
• L'homme aux 40 écus, 1768
• A princesa da Babilônia, 1768
• Canonisation de saint Cucufin, 1769
• Questions sur l'Encyclopédie, 1770
• Les lettres de Memmius, 1771
• Il faut prendre un parti, 1772
• Le Cri du Sang Innocent, 1775
• De l'âme, 1776
• Dialogues d'Euhémère, 1777
• Irene, 1778
• Agathocle, 1779
• Correspondance avec Vauvenargues, établie en 2006

Answers
Voltare.net
consciencia.org
Educaterra
LucidCafé

John Locke is an empiricist and these philosophers are generally associated with empiricism.

Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, George Berkeley, David Hume, John Stuart Mill, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari.

Hobbes claims that morality is purely conventional, he thinks that we don't really have a sense of what is right and wrong, simply that we conform to agreed standards to form civilisation.  A criticism of this is that people have not made an agreement after being in a state of nature, although I think that law is something which we derive from a tacit agreement that comes about after a state of nature.

Here's a short video from Crispin Sartwell

I woke up in the middle of one, and it has been with me all day. The longer I have these aches--migraines? tension headaches?--the longer they feel like a color, a really bright and painful shade of blue, a little like the Windows XP welcome screen.

My reason for writing you, however, is that I find myself in the grip of a powerful crush. It's a novel sensation, and not all pleasant. I liked the generalized feeling of goodwill towards kindly members of the male sex, and I'm resenting the crystallization of all my feeling on one person. It's like enjoying the sun for the first time in awhile, then realizing you're the ant under the magnifying glass in the eleven-year-old's fist.

I am combating the affliction with a combination of Emily Dickinson and Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes' elaborate analogies between humans and machines--Sovereignty, for instance, is the "Artificial Soull" of the "body" of the State, which is itself an "Artificiall Man"--are helping. We are all tiny watches--our joints are wheels, our nerves are strings, and God is the great Artificer. At times like these, when my neck feels like a steer being tugged by wranglers on either side, I find this easy to believe. And comforting. We are machines, and we rust, and we tick, and things chug onward on their predetermined tracks.

Dickinson, in contrast, is incredibly unhelpful. Her poem "Wild nights--wild nights!" does not help. Neither do her clipped phrases or her angular handwriting or her habit of dressing, in latter days, always in white. Nor does her comparison of the Brain to the weight of God, "which take them, pound for pound..." a strange conversion of the brain and God into grocery-store scales. It's all so spare. I find her destabilizing and fascinating and completely obsessed with the number "two." Which again, does not help.

My crush is beautiful and dresses in green. I don't often allow myself to pay attention to beautiful boys--they're far too much work and seldom worth the trouble. But there it is. The bird of my brain strolled down the walk and bit my precautions in half for lunch. Birdbrain that I am, he is of course taken. It's as Dickinsonian a crush as one can easily find in this day and age. I may dress in white tomorrow.

I'm off to eat honey and go to bed. I hope you are well, dear friend.

Love,
Millicent

Ma possiamo davvero pensare che ogni comunità sia stata fondata in questo modo? Forse l'unico esempio che rientra perfettamente in questa categoria e' una societa' di pirati.

[Freakonomics]

The actions of states, particularly the big ones, can push world order more towards order, if you will, or more toward chaos and violence. So, if the big states show contempt for international law and international institutions, this makes the views of those who only believe in power seem more plausible, and world order drifts more towards Thomas Hobbes's "state of war" (Hobbes never actually said, btw, that the society of sovereigns was like a state of nature...go look it up :-) ). In this context, "moderate" voices advocating diplomacy, etc.. look weak. However, if/when the leading states act to consolidate and expand international law and organization, and, generally, promote cooperation over conflict, then this becomes more acceptable, violence becomes less acceptable, and world order evolves more toward a community (of sorts).

In a nut shell violence, on almost any level, tends to validate its own further use, since it contributes to a climate in which only violence seems to be an effective way to achieve important ends. This trend can be reversed, but the longer it goes on the more intuitive it seems to become, and therefore the harder it is to conceive and promote alternate approaches to conflict resolution.

In the Summer of 1763 John Adams undertook the writing of an essay entitled “On Private Revenge.” The turmoil of the French and Indian War was only freshly over and the British Parliament in that same year adopted the Proclamation of 1763. The Proclamation granted control over the lands won through the Treaty of Paris to the British government, not the colonial governments. Within a decade the Parliament would go on to do more to seek retribution from the Colonies for the assistance England provided during the war. This enraged the passions of colonial Americans, specifically in New England in and around Boston. Adams’ essay can be viewed only in the light of these events. In his traditional style, Adams calls for law and order to persevere over chaos and anarchy.

The first paragraph of the essay sets up the plan Adams has laid out for his argument. In the Politics, Aristotle asserts that man outside of the city is either a beast or a god. Adams argument is that man is distinguished from other animals because of his ability to unite and entire into society. The natural attributes of man are not enough to make him superior to other animals, but in fact Adams believes they would make man weakest of all other animals. It is found alone in his ability to unite that man is made the superior animal; thus agreeing with Aristotle partially by stating man outside of society is nothing more than a beast such as, “the bear or the tiger.” Within this man, like other animals, Adams argues, “As he comes originally from the hands of his Creator, self-love or self-preservation is the only spring that moves him.” Locke argues that the law of nature is only known through reason, with the exception of the first law which is that of self preservation. Hobbes too argues that within society the Magistrate is capable of ordering his subjects to do whatever he wishes, except if he desires to kill them in which case they are obligated by the Law of Nature to defend their life. And thus Adams has created his argument; man is superior to other animals because he is able to unite himself within society. However, like other animals man has implanted in his soul self preservation, which calls upon man to defend his life whenever it is threatened. How does one preserve his life and at the same time allow himself to exist in society? The law of self preservation appears to grant man the authority to execute the law of nature. Society limits this ability and grants that authority to an impartial third party.

Adams description of a state of nature comes closer to the description provided by Rousseau. He describes that in this state man as he is propagated, food is found on “the banks of clams and oysters”, weapons for war are present, and animal hides are used for clothes. Yet this society is void of friendship, trade, and human bonding unless instinct calls for it. In essence, man is truly free and independent without any other above him or below him. Adams defines the virtues of the “savage state, courage, hardiness, activity, and strength.” Take these four virtues and compare them to the four classical virtues, “Justice, Prudence, Fortitude, and Temperance.” By many the virtue of courage is seen as among the basest virtues, in fact Aristotle in the Ethics describes it almost immediately, indicating that it is the most base of all virtues. The man who is in charge in this society is the one who can kill the best, or run the fastest. This is the basis for tribal leadership, and possibly the roots of how one became king in ancient England, France, or Germany. This basis for determining who is superior will also result in the usage of revenge over justice; the man who perceives himself to be stronger and is beat by another will take it as an insult and attack the other man. Adams even argues that the idea of allowing a third party to mediate the situation is viewed as an acknowledgement of the deficiencies of the savage state. It is clear that Adams views revenge as the hallmark of a savage state. New Englanders within a few years of this essay will attempt to overthrow the established system and seek revenge for the ills done to them by the British parliament. Adams, in a possible prophetic statement argues that when a horse treads over a gouty toe, our passions are so excited that we feel we must kill the horse. The horse is a symbol of Aristocracy in philosophy, which can lead one to see the prophetic nature of the comment. The horse represents the British Parliament, which does end up stepping on the gouty toe of the colonies, who never really recover from the French and Indian War. Adams finishes this section by saying:

For the great distinction between savage nations and polite ones, lies in this,—that among the former every individual is his own judge and his own executioner; but among the latter all pretensions to judgment and punishment are resigned to tribunals erected by the public; a resignation which savages are not, without infinite difficulty, persuaded to make, as it is of a right and privilege extremely dear and tender to an uncultivated nature.

A stark contrast between the savage state and the polite state has been established as in the one man is his own executioner while in the other he is not. Rousseau argues in the Social Contract:

The passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces in man a very remakable    change, by substituting in his conduct justice for instinct, and by giving his actions the moral quality that they previously lacked. It is only when the voice of duty succeeds physical impulse, and law succeeds appetite, that man, who till then had regarded only himself, sees that he is obliged to act on other principles, and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations.

Rousseau's sentiments are similar to Adams, in that when man passes into civil society he is expected to give up those habits which were present in him in nature.

This brings up the next point. If society should ever come to the point where we will give up our polite and noble nature, we will become worse than the Goths before becoming Christians. He compares the individual who believes that when offended one should draw his sword to that of the fowl, the bull, and stallion. The image of these three animals are simple, the bird can represent bloodshed, the bull destructive force, and the stallion life and death. It should be noted that he does not use horse, but rather stallion which indicates not the symbol of aristocracy specifically. Instead, the stallion represents the wild, unbridled passions of man and specifically can be seen as a symbol of life and death, which horses are known to symbolize. After initially using fowl, in his ending sentence of this paragraph Adams states, “But are cocks and bulls and horses the proper exemplars for the imitation of men, especially of men of sense, and even of the highest personages in the government!” The cock more specifically than fowl represents the underworld, passion and pride, and thus we arrive at how man is outside of nature: Prideful, passionate, destructive, and wild.

And finally Adams attacks the point that such images of gallantry have been argued from the military. Adams argument begins by stating that such images are not praised by the military, nor have they ever been. Instead, the dregs of society have idealized the Cock, Bull and Stallion as exemplars for man. He argues, “For every gentleman, every man of sense and breeding in the army, has a more delicate and manly way of thinking, and from his heart despises all such little, narrow, sordid notions.” Of these he mentions specifically Divines, Lawyers and Physicians. Divines represent religion, God; Lawyers represent the law; Physicians have a philosophic meaning behind them, in that whenever a Physician appears it represents healing of the body politic. In this instance though it is much more likely that Adams is speaking that Physicians heal the body and therefore praise themselves above all others such as Divines and Lawyers do. It should be interesting to point out that Adams himself was a lawyer. The other set of professions he mentions include: husbandmen, manufacturers, and laborers. They lack the virtue of magnanimity and are instead short sighted, little minded individuals believing their professions are the best in the world. It is likely then, that soldiers of lower ranks are just as likely to believe them superior to any other order. They are, as a result, prone to the, “principles of revenge, rusticity, barbarity, and brutality…” which are described earlier as the principles upheld by the savage. However, soldiers who are superior in their senses recognize the authority not only of their superiors but also of the civil society. Once again, in a similar prophetic nature as before, these soldiers recognize the superior nature of English law. Moving away from calling them soldiers, it is evident at this point that Adams is specifically referencing men in general, not just those who serve in the Army. England, being an image of the polite society, is superior to the savage society; some of his fellow New Englanders wish to rebel against English rule, thus stooping to this level. A truly polite and decent man would recognize that the doctrine of self preservation as indignant.

Adams having completed his argument has demonstrated that man who seeks the doctrine of private revenge has no regard for civil society, and therefore is only as good as a tiger or bear. Only within civil society is man able to full perfect his nature, which is where Adams demonstrates the Enlightenment principle that nature is created imperfect. It is man’s responsibility to perfect nature by building upon it, making things, and this is only possible in society. Likewise, man is only able to be fully man within society under the constrains of law and order which is characterized by justice; whereas man outside of society and in total chaos is characterized by the doctrine of self preservation, or revenge.

By the time of the Renaissance philosophers began to look at the question of the city differently. In the 17^th and 18^th centuries England produced two of the greatest philosophers of the Enlightenment. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke helped to redefine what the city is and man’s relationship to the city. No longer was the city a natural order which helps man attain the complete human life. Rather, now the city is looked upon as an escape from the natural order. For Hobbes this natural order is a state of war because the only law is that of survival. Without a government to maintain order and ensure everyone obeys the laws of nature and maintains their contracts it is left to the individual to secure their rights. If you imagine the world before pan-national organizations like the United Nations or NATO you see this principle at work. Nations exist in a state of nature with each other, and thus in a state of war. There is no governing body able to enforce the laws of nature or maintain the contracts between two nations. Instead the nation becomes the judge, jury and executioner leading to a state of war. John Locke attempts to appear less savage than Hobbes but essentially reaches the same conclusion. Man exists in a state of nature, which is a state of pure freedom. Through reason man is able to know the law of nature. Yet in the state of nature man is responsible for enforcing the law of nature and contracts. Life is truly short and brutish in a state of nature as Locke states. Ultimately this state of nature dissolves into a state of war causing man to seek to escape nature and enter into society. For the moderns nature was something to be conquered and therefore society cannot be viewed as natural as the Greeks viewed it. Society is formed to allow for an impartial judge, and a common law which is enforced by an outside force. Outside of these responsibilities, society is useless to man. Hobbes defines society, as a Leviathan, the modern view of society is not as man’s friend but as his enemy. Unchecked society can do whatever it pleases whether it is for the good of man or not. For Hobbes the magistrate can do whatever he wants to his citizens and they must obey, save of course when one’s life is in danger and you are obligated by the law of nature to defend yourself. Thus for our Founders, students of men like Hobbes and Locke they would have viewed society, our Constitution, as a necessary evil.

Yet in recent times, namely the end of the 19^th century, a new understanding has developed which does not exclude the Leviathan nature of society but does not reject society’s ultimate benefit to mankind either. The men who were associated with the German school of thought developed by men like Marx and Nietzsche associated society with being able to advance man. The central concern of Nietzsche is breaking man out of his “all too human” nature and the creation of the ubermensch. Marx viewed society as a tool to help advance man along the historical timeline to a period where no government would be necessary. In America we call the men and women associated with this line of thought the Progressives. It was their belief that in order for man to be moral the government had to instill that morality. For the moderns, morality was already present in the form of the law of nature. In order to understand morality one merely needs reason to understand the law of nature. Yet the German Historicist school of thought rejected a universal morality outside of the confines of the society. This notion was what helped spur on the Prohibitionists who believed it was government’s responsibility to ban alcohol to help better mankind. What developed was a notion similar to the ancient understanding that what is good for the city is good for man. Unfortunately, they were unable to temper the Leviathan and encouraged it to grow to control every aspect of human life. Through this belief came the rise of the Totalitarian states of Communist Russia, Fascist Italy and Spain, and Nazi Germany.

What makes the Progressive era different than the Enlightenment? The Enlightenment believed it was the responsibility of the government in a way to enforce the moral code. Yet the Enlightenment had the law of nature, which dictated right and wrong to society. Society was obligated to create laws in accordance with the law of nature or face being deemed illegitimate—they were able to hide the notion that really morality is whatever the majority willed. With the destruction of God by German philosophers came the destruction of the law of nature (ultimately rooted in the Divine Law.) Now it is whichever faction with the biggest guns makes the morality. The society for the Enlightenment is only charged with the safety of the people. Their complete perfection is left in the hands of the individual person. As Locke argues in his Letter on Toleration, society is permitted to promote religion but not religious beliefs—in other words it is man’s responsibility to find his way to salvation by whatever means he thinks best, but society is able to promote a religious lifestyle and prevent dangerous factions from existing within society. The Progressives were less worried about safety and more with perfection of humanity. The Ancients throw a wrench into the wheel of both movements by encouraging the notion that the city provides safety (non daily needs) and that the city provides for the complete human life. However, that safety doesn’t mean that the city should be ignored as in the case of the Enlightenment where individuals can essentially live and let live. Political activity was central in the Ancient understanding of the city. A man who refused to engage in Politics was called an idiot by the Greeks. Their definition of the complete human life had nothing to do with the divine—the idea of man’s salvation and perfectibility would have been lost on Aristotle in the Progressive sense. Rather, complete human life tends towards two arenas: Politics or Philosophy. Both lives potentially can lead to the complete human life. The obligation to be involved in the political life, more than merely casting a vote, is at the heart of why the city’s goods are good for man. By the Enlightenment man’s obligation to society was vested in merely voting. The interests of man at large are often mixed with the passions and interests of the individual. Progressives would view that it is important to have experts in positions of authority, so that their own private passions and interests are eliminated. Man is no longer able to make his own decisions, but is left to the dictates of supposed experts. Thus, since society should be dictated by those of superior intellect (experts in a given field), what is good for the city and man are intrinsically connected.

Cuando se trata de una historia verdadera, que transparenta misterios no vislumbrados por las creaciones de la fantasía, nuestro impulso de registrarla se vuelve más perentorio.

Adolfo Bioy Casares. El héroe de las mujeres. Ed. Seix Barral. Barcelona. 1978.

2.

El presente debe siempre ser preferido, mantenido y considerado mejor.

Thomas Hobbes. Citado por Herbert Marcuse, en El hombre unidimensional. Ed Planeta-Agostini. Pág 45. Barcelona. 1985

Psychological egoism proposes that the individual does not choose to be self-interested. Psychological egoists claim that the human is inherently self-interested, and therefore cannot help being as such.

Ethical egoism on the other hand, does not deny that the individual is self-interested, but rather, states that the individual chooses to be as such. Any action, even if seemingly altruistic can be traced to self-interested intentions.

Typically, when presented with the basic description of each position, many find themselves quickly aligning with one side or the other. We identify easily with the notion of self-interest.  In every creature, there is an instinct of and for survival. Therefore the notion of being self-interested is biological. If one doesn’t look out for their own interest, who will? If one wishes to survive, he/she must seek to benefit self, even at the risk of hurting others. Thomas Hobbes even stated that “we would be fools if we didn’t look after ourselves.” Many may also conjure up parallels with social Darwinism and the survival of the fittest.

The ethical egoist may commit a seemingly altruistic act as well, however, the action is ultimately self-interested, in lines with the notion of “what goes around comes around.”

There are several major problems with the theory of psychological egoism. The first is that falsification is not possible. Psychological egoism always looks for selfish motivations and refuses to recognize any other kind. The nature of the theory cannot allow for any other motives. A good theory must allow for the possibility of counter-examples.  The second problem is it does not take motivation into account. Doing something to benefit oneself is not always selfish. It must be taken into account, what it is that the person seeks to gain, rather than just the notion of seeking to gain. Changing language from unselfish to less selfish is incorrect. Lastly, if notions such as true love, and genuine friendship exist, psychological egoism cannot hold true.

Ethical egoism has problems as well. Ethical egoism seems to be self-contradictory. There cannot be a moral theory that says that one’s duty should be something that conflicts with someone else’s duty, so ethical egoism is therefore inconsistent. Few ethical egoists find the above refute of their theory convincing. Ethical egoists don’t agree that we can’t have a moral theory which gives the green light to different concepts of duty. Altruism is inconsistent with egoism.

So where do you fall? Is altruism impossible? Are we hard-wired for self-seeking behavior, even at the expense/inability to perform acts not in our best interest? Do we choose to commit selfish acts or do they run rampant through our brains without any control? Can we live in a world where selfless good deeds are a fairy tale? Do we want to? Perhaps if that is in our best interest....

Otra acepción del término es la que hizo el filósofo político inglés Thomas Hobbes, que escribió en 1651 su libro más famoso titulado Leviatán. Hobbes popularizó en este libro la frase "homo hominis, lupus", el hombre es un lobo para el hombre. Habla del Estado como un Leviatán que, como el monstruo bíblico, se convierte en el soberano absoluto.

En Somosaguas (campus de la Universidad Complutense donde está la facultad de Económicas), todos los economistas que se licenciaron durante los últimos años tuvieron que estudiar los manuales del profesor Fuentes Quintana. Entre esos alumnos de la Complutense se encontraba Miguel Sebastián (el actual ministro de Industria), aunque parece que no recuerda gran cosa de lo que tuvo que estudiar. Una de las preguntas "de quiniela" en la asignatura de Hacienda Pública era, y posiblemente sigue siendo, "La teoría del Leviatán". Si querías aprobar, tenías que explicar que, según esta teoría, el Estado es como un Leviatán, es un monstruo que devora y consume todos los recursos a su alcance. El Estado crece y crece, y para limitarle es necesario ejercer políticas de contención. Cuanto mayor es el porcentaje del sector público y el Estado sobre la economía total, mayores serán los impuestos y la ineficiencia del sistema. En Europa se ha sobrepasado, en muchos casos, el porcentaje del 50% de lo público sobre el total, lo que estrangula el crecimiento económico. No se si le cayó en el examen a Miguel Sebastián esta pregunta, pero si así fue, probablemente, la dejó en blanco.

Recordemos que, en tiempos de Felipe González, el tipo marginal llegó hasta el 56%. Esto quiere decir que en el Impuesto sobre la Renta (IRPF), las personas que se encontraran en el tramo más alto, por cada 100 pesetas (en esa época se trabajaba en pesetas) de renta adicional, 56 pesetas se las llevaba el Estado y 44 el ciudadano sometido al impuesto. Esto desincentiva claramente el esforzarnos más para aumentar nuestra renta, ya que más de la mitad se lo lleva el Estado. Y tiene otro efecto: incentiva la defraudación fiscal. El famoso dinero negro, o pago en B.

El Estado es como un Leviatán que devora recursos y tiende a crecer continuamente. Es necesario ponerle coto, y para ello se ha de:

1. reducir la participación del sector público en la Economía
2. reducir el número de funcionarios
3. reducir el presupuesto estatal destinado a gastos consuntivos
4. reducir los impuestos, en especial los directos (renta y sociedades)
5. reducir los ministerios, en especial los absurdos (vivienda e igualdad)
6. reducir el peso de las Autonomías y coordinar desde el Estado algunas de sus actuaciones. Por ejemplo, las normas de etiquetado y consumo que en España fragmentan el mercado al ser distintas en cada autonomía. Esto desincentiva al inversor extranjero y aumenta precios innecesariamente.

El burócrata tiende a incrementar el presupuesto bajo su control, y tiende a aumentar el número de empleados (públicos y funcionarios) bajo su dirección. Esto no lo digo yo, lo dijo George Stigler, Premio Nobel de Economía en 1982.

Nuestro insigne ministro de Industria, Miguel Sebastián, que ha crecido a la sombra del PSOE, parece que no ha estudiado bien las teorías económicas, y se le ve con unas enormes ganas de intervenir en la economía.

Probablemente al que mete mano se le quede algo entre los dedos.

I felt compelled to write this blog, surfers, after listening to one of my favorite radio show podcasts. The topic is one that I have been thinking about for 27 years. What? I know what you're thinking; Neo de Caussade has been thinking about the state of human nature since infancy? You are too kind, and very perceptive. Somehow I always knew this about you.

The state of nature discussion is like the tide. The popularity of the topic ebbs and flows over time; coming into our consciousness and falling back again. For our little discussion I would like to introduce you to Ockham's Razor, that favorite radio show I mentioned. Specifically, I would like you to read the transcript or listen to the podcast for a talk presented by Tim Dean.

In my first philosophy college course I debated with classmates the state of nature as outlined by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Just to briefly review "Locke believed that human nature is characterized by reason and tolerance." In another opinion "Hobbes postulates what life would be like without government, a condition which he calls the state of nature. In that state, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. This inevitably leads to conflict, a 'war of all against all', and thus lives that are 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.'"

Clearly, there are no absolutes and along the morality scale some people, and I include religious leaders in this group, rate more moral and others less. Human nature just that way, some folks more moral than others. The big question is is humanity more inclined to be moral or less? I will not pull any punches, and I will hit you straight in the mouth with this; I believe human beings are good at their core. Where do you fall on the topic?

..."it was long thought that we learn language, the vocabulary and the grammar, from scratch. Yet in the 1960s Noam Chomsky turned this view on its head. He suggested that much of our language faculty was innate. Essentially, we were born with the tools required for language, and all we needed was exposure to the raw material of the language around us, and the rest wrote itself." "And the same appears to hold true for our moral faculty. A string of recent research in psychology has shown that we are able to negotiate complex moral issues with little or no internal reflection on the rules leading to the judgment."Tim Dean.

Surfers, you will run into people who will tell you that without religion there will be no morality. They will say that religion teaches us morality. Science is showing us that morality is innate to our basic state of nature. It is becoming clear that religion is not needed to keep a moral compass for our humanity. What good is religion? You decide.

Ya lo decía Thomas Hobbes, filósofo inglés del siglo XVII: "Homo homini lupus est", que traducido del latín significa, "el hombre es el lobo del hombre". El hombre es egoísta por naturaleza. Su principal objetivo es satisfacer sus propias necesidades incluso pasando por encima de los intereses de los demás. Para Hobbes el "estado de naturaleza" es de una guerra de "todos contra todos" en la que el individuo vela por su propia auto-conservación dependiendo para su seguridad de su propia fuerza e ingenio. La vida en este estado es brutal y breve. Es así que el hombre se da cuenta de que no puede vivir en un estado de guerra permanente y acepta someterse a un poder superior que se encargará de regir a la sociedad a través de unas leyes. Nace de esta manera el contrato social. La razón sin embargo según Hobbes, por la que el hombre decide asumir ese contrato social y respetar la vida y propiedad ajena no es para nada altruista. Lo que priva es la necesidad de proteger su vida y sus intereses. 

Ayn Rand, escritora y filósofa americana de origen ruso, es expresión de esta tesis Hobbesiana. Proponía una ética del egoísmo, una postura individualista en que cada individuo debe mirar por sus propios intereses sin sacrificarse por los demás ni exigir que los otros se sacrifiquen por él. Paseando por internet hoy encontré esta cita que expresa claramente su defensa del egoísmo:

En el uso popular, la palabra “egoísmo” implica algo malo; conjura la imagen de alguien que busca su propia gratificación a costa del mal infligido a otros. Sin embargo, el significado exacto de “egoísmo” es la preocupación por los intereses personales.

Este concepto no incluye una evaluación moral; no nos dice si la preocupación por los propios intereses es buena o mala; tampoco nos dice cuáles son los intereses de las personas. La tarea de la ética es responder estas preguntas.

La ética del altruismo ha creado la imagen del individuo que busca lo suyo atropellando a los demás, para que la gente acepte dos principios inhumanos : 1)Que cualquier preocupación por el interés propio es mala, y 2)Que uno debe renunciar a ese interés por el de otros.

El altruismo declara que cualquier acción tomada para el beneficio de otros es buena, y la tomada para el beneficio propio es mala; por tanto, el único criterio del valor moral es quién es el beneficiario de una acción.

De aquí derivan la inmoralidad, la injusticia, el doble estándar y las contradicciones y conflictos que han caracterizado las relaciones humanas bajo la ética altruista. Un empresario que produce una fortuna y un ganster que roba un banco son considerados igualmente inmorales porque ambos buscan su beneficio egoísta. Un dictador es considerado moral porque busca beneficiar al “pueblo” y no a sí mismo.

Observe lo que este criterio de moralidad hace a la vida del hombre. Lo primero que aprende es que la moralidad es su enemiga; no tiene nada que ganar y todo que perder. Puede esperar que otros se sacrifiquen ocasionalmente por él, como él se sacrifica a regañadientes por otros, pero sabe que todo esto produce resentimiento, pero no placer.

Dado que la naturaleza no ofrece al hombre una forma automática de supervivencia, la doctrina de que la preocupación por el propio interés es mala significa que el deseo de vivir es malo, y que la vida humana es mala. No puede concebirse una doctrina peor que esta.

Si es cierto que lo que yo entiendo por “egoísmo” no es lo que se entiende convencionalmente, entonces esta es una de las principales acusaciones contra el altruismo; esto significa que el altruismo no concibe una persona que se respeta y sostiene a sí misma. Significa que el altruismo entiende a los hombres como animales sacrificiales, como víctimas o parásitos.

Por esto es que mucha gente vive entre el cinismo y la culpa. Cinismo, porque no aceptan la moralidad altruista. Culpa, porque no se atreven a rechazarla. Para rebelarse contra este mal, hay que hacerlo contra su premisa básica. Hay que redimir el concepto de “egoísmo”.

La ética objetivista sostiene que el actor debe ser siempre el beneficiario de su acción y que debe actuar por su propio interés racional. Pero su derecho a actuar así deriva de su naturaleza como persona y de la función de los valores morales en la vida humana.

No es una licencia para hacer lo que le dé la gana y no justifica la acción de alguien motivado por emociones, sentimientos o deseos irracionales. Esta es una llamada de atención a ciertos “egoístas nietzscheanos” que creen que cualquier acción, de cualquier naturaleza, es buena sí se hace por el propio beneficio.

Un error parecido es el de quienes dicen que, dado que el hombre debe guiarse por su propio juicio independiente, cualquier acción que elija es moral. El juicio independiente es el medio por el que uno elige una acción, pero no es un criterio moral.

     (Ayn Rand, “The virtue of selfishness”. Vía AM).