WHAT A FRIEND WE HAVE IN JOHN LOCKE
To sum up my survey of the some of the giants of 17th Century Continental philosophy, I turn now to Englishman John Locke, whose writings influenced the American founding fathers profoundly. Another highly distinguished polymath, Locke was actually a trained medical doctor, but is remembered primarily today for his writings on philosophy ("An Inquiry into Human Understanding") and his brilliant "Treatises on Civil Government," many of the ideas of which are prominent in America law and governmental structure and philosophy. Locke was an impassioned and articulate champion of the ideas of "life, liberty, and property" (of the individual vs. the collective), and the twin pillars of enlightenment we know and love as faith and reason. His Christian faith solidly underpins his political thought; indeed, it was said that Locke believed in a "world of Newtonian physics attached to a world of Christian morality by virtue of their joint creation by a Christian God."
As distinguished from Thomas Hobbes, who articulated the ideas of the "dread Sovereign" (with pretty much unbounded power) and the State as paramount over the individual (primarily for purposes of military protection and order in Hobbes' day), Locke was a champion of constitutional monarchy (the Sovereign having defined limits), limited power, and the rights of the individual.
Much of his writing in the "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" can be a bit tedious and dense at times (and unremarkable), but he does come through with some nice insights at times, primarily underscoring his intersection of Christian belief with his philosophy of existence. He champions the first line of knowledge, empiricism (reality is knowable; we can know "things in themselves"), and cause and effect. He importantly writes about the relationship between the origin of human thought - as a "cause" - and, therein the question is begged - of what is the origin of consciousness? Further, for Locke, "knowledge is the perception of the agreement or disagreement of two ideas." We don't really have true "knowledge," then, unless we understand; that is, unless the thing being considered make sense and has no contradiction. We have "intuitive reasoning," and empirical analysis, and for Locke, intuition + demonstration = knowledge.
Moreover, Locke takes the existence of God, of course, to be a given and the Grund of what follows in our Universe. There is a loving, logical, reasonable Creator; therefore, there is indeed an identifiable moral law and we are capable of comprehending it. "God hath not left himself without witness..." Further, Locke is thinking very clearly on ontological issues (much as Descartes and Leibniz): "If therefore we know there is some real being, and that non-entity cannot produce any real being, it is an evident demonstration that from eternity there has been something; since what was not from eternity had a beginning; and what had a beginning must be produced by something else." Our reasoning process therefore inevitably leads us to the idea of God ("And therefore God..." as Locke puts the beginning of #6 in his articulations of Chapter 10 - "Of our Knowledge of the Existence of a God") - it is a "certain and evident truth." Existence, therefore, cannot be fully fathomed without the evidence from "revelation" (as Locke expresses it in # 12), and for Christians, "revelation" has always served as the counterpart and master of reason. For Locke, there were indeed "eternal truths," grounded in revelation and the moral law.
One of most important ideas Locke articulates is the idea that life itself is sacred and serves as the ground of his concepts of "life, liberty, and property." (Sound familiar? cf. "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as inalienable rights - Jefferson got this from Locke.) It serves as the bedrock for equal rights under law, which was also God-given and sacred. Human life was sacred; a gift from God, and nobody had the right to take another's life, let alone his property - it was a violation of God's great Code (and Locke therefore supported capital punishment along these lines). Since nature gives us Life (through God's providence), all life is sacred. Therefore, Locke was not "soft on crime." Transgression against life and property must be prosecuted and restitution made. A "crime against one" was a "crime against all," or, in the case of murder, a "war against all of mankind," so inviolable was the sacred moral law of life.
Locke found the locus of power not in the person of the Sovereign; rather, it existed in God's moral law. Truth trumped power, in other words, and the Sovereign was not above error (neither the Pope) or arbitrary abuse of power; hence, a serious transgression or "injustice" (and justice is the crux of the matter) by a monarch could be challenged by the collective will of the people in any egregious case (sound familiar?! Remember this thing called the American Revolution?) Any one - or any entity or state - which threatens one's freedoms and rights can be dealt with by deadly force, in Locke's view. If a murderer takes a life, the murderer's life should be taken in kind; it would be a fulfillment of moral law. Ditto for someone who wants to "enslave" another; he is taking away that person's natural right to life and liberty.
Locke goes on in his Treatises on Civil Government to articulate many of the principles of contract law and the payment of money for services rendered. Though living in a "sinful" and "treacherous" world (Locke speaks of the "corruption and viciousness of degenerate men"), every man is a "king" with every right to enjoy his life and property free of threat (from Chapter 9, # 123: "Of the Ends of Political Society and Government"). Locke's ideal state was not one of absolute monarchy; rather, it was one of a Commonwealth, wherein men of sufficient reason, law, and Christian morality exercised their God-given rights to commerce; to attempt to better themselves, and be secure in their lives and property. It was a society of clearly-articulated principles deriving from natural law. Regarding the State, therefore, it had clear definitions and separations of power - both in a legislative and executive branch (cf. Chapter 12 of the Second Treatise).
Finally, a society of law could be the only just society. "Wherever law ends, tyranny begins," says Locke so brilliantly and succinctly. No abuse of individuals rights - a bedrock of Locke's thinking - could be tolerated, and no egregious abuse of governmental power could long be tolerated by the Commonwealth.
The end of government is the good of mankind: and which is best for mankind, that the people should be always exposed to the boundless will of tyranny; or that the rulers should be sometimes liable to be opposed, when they grow exorbitant in the use of their power, and employ it for the destruction, and not the preservations of the properties of their people?
Locke's political writings read so lucidly and are so critically apropos to the current situation in this country today, with a government that has run off the rails on a crazy train of collectivism; and of multi-culturalism and fuzzy notions of "social justice" trumping merit. Americans in general have so unfortunately forgotten many of the underlying principles which forged this great country and allowed it to achieve its greatness and rise to the top of the world stage. We need to keep John Locke and his great writings (which figured so prominently into our founding documents) in the present tense and not the past (i.e., what a friend we have in Locke; not had.)
TTC
As distinguished from Thomas Hobbes, who articulated the ideas of the "dread Sovereign" (with pretty much unbounded power) and the State as paramount over the individual (primarily for purposes of military protection and order in Hobbes' day), Locke was a champion of constitutional monarchy (the Sovereign having defined limits), limited power, and the rights of the individual.
Much of his writing in the "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" can be a bit tedious and dense at times (and unremarkable), but he does come through with some nice insights at times, primarily underscoring his intersection of Christian belief with his philosophy of existence. He champions the first line of knowledge, empiricism (reality is knowable; we can know "things in themselves"), and cause and effect. He importantly writes about the relationship between the origin of human thought - as a "cause" - and, therein the question is begged - of what is the origin of consciousness? Further, for Locke, "knowledge is the perception of the agreement or disagreement of two ideas." We don't really have true "knowledge," then, unless we understand; that is, unless the thing being considered make sense and has no contradiction. We have "intuitive reasoning," and empirical analysis, and for Locke, intuition + demonstration = knowledge.
Moreover, Locke takes the existence of God, of course, to be a given and the Grund of what follows in our Universe. There is a loving, logical, reasonable Creator; therefore, there is indeed an identifiable moral law and we are capable of comprehending it. "God hath not left himself without witness..." Further, Locke is thinking very clearly on ontological issues (much as Descartes and Leibniz): "If therefore we know there is some real being, and that non-entity cannot produce any real being, it is an evident demonstration that from eternity there has been something; since what was not from eternity had a beginning; and what had a beginning must be produced by something else." Our reasoning process therefore inevitably leads us to the idea of God ("And therefore God..." as Locke puts the beginning of #6 in his articulations of Chapter 10 - "Of our Knowledge of the Existence of a God") - it is a "certain and evident truth." Existence, therefore, cannot be fully fathomed without the evidence from "revelation" (as Locke expresses it in # 12), and for Christians, "revelation" has always served as the counterpart and master of reason. For Locke, there were indeed "eternal truths," grounded in revelation and the moral law.
One of most important ideas Locke articulates is the idea that life itself is sacred and serves as the ground of his concepts of "life, liberty, and property." (Sound familiar? cf. "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as inalienable rights - Jefferson got this from Locke.) It serves as the bedrock for equal rights under law, which was also God-given and sacred. Human life was sacred; a gift from God, and nobody had the right to take another's life, let alone his property - it was a violation of God's great Code (and Locke therefore supported capital punishment along these lines). Since nature gives us Life (through God's providence), all life is sacred. Therefore, Locke was not "soft on crime." Transgression against life and property must be prosecuted and restitution made. A "crime against one" was a "crime against all," or, in the case of murder, a "war against all of mankind," so inviolable was the sacred moral law of life.
Locke found the locus of power not in the person of the Sovereign; rather, it existed in God's moral law. Truth trumped power, in other words, and the Sovereign was not above error (neither the Pope) or arbitrary abuse of power; hence, a serious transgression or "injustice" (and justice is the crux of the matter) by a monarch could be challenged by the collective will of the people in any egregious case (sound familiar?! Remember this thing called the American Revolution?) Any one - or any entity or state - which threatens one's freedoms and rights can be dealt with by deadly force, in Locke's view. If a murderer takes a life, the murderer's life should be taken in kind; it would be a fulfillment of moral law. Ditto for someone who wants to "enslave" another; he is taking away that person's natural right to life and liberty.
Locke goes on in his Treatises on Civil Government to articulate many of the principles of contract law and the payment of money for services rendered. Though living in a "sinful" and "treacherous" world (Locke speaks of the "corruption and viciousness of degenerate men"), every man is a "king" with every right to enjoy his life and property free of threat (from Chapter 9, # 123: "Of the Ends of Political Society and Government"). Locke's ideal state was not one of absolute monarchy; rather, it was one of a Commonwealth, wherein men of sufficient reason, law, and Christian morality exercised their God-given rights to commerce; to attempt to better themselves, and be secure in their lives and property. It was a society of clearly-articulated principles deriving from natural law. Regarding the State, therefore, it had clear definitions and separations of power - both in a legislative and executive branch (cf. Chapter 12 of the Second Treatise).
Finally, a society of law could be the only just society. "Wherever law ends, tyranny begins," says Locke so brilliantly and succinctly. No abuse of individuals rights - a bedrock of Locke's thinking - could be tolerated, and no egregious abuse of governmental power could long be tolerated by the Commonwealth.
The end of government is the good of mankind: and which is best for mankind, that the people should be always exposed to the boundless will of tyranny; or that the rulers should be sometimes liable to be opposed, when they grow exorbitant in the use of their power, and employ it for the destruction, and not the preservations of the properties of their people?
Locke's political writings read so lucidly and are so critically apropos to the current situation in this country today, with a government that has run off the rails on a crazy train of collectivism; and of multi-culturalism and fuzzy notions of "social justice" trumping merit. Americans in general have so unfortunately forgotten many of the underlying principles which forged this great country and allowed it to achieve its greatness and rise to the top of the world stage. We need to keep John Locke and his great writings (which figured so prominently into our founding documents) in the present tense and not the past (i.e., what a friend we have in Locke; not had.)
TTC
posted by thoughtful conservative at 8:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home