Locke: Study Questions for the Second Treatise

Introduction to Philosophy

Instructor:  James Ransom

March 13, 2013

Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government

Study Questions

CHAPTER I

How does Locke distinguish political power from the powers of masters, parents, husbands, and slaveholders?

CHAPTER II

How does Locke's concept of the natural condition or state of man (the so-called "state of nature") compare and contrast with Hobbes's concept in chapter 13 of Leviathan?

CHAPTER III

How does Locke's understanding of the "state of war" differ from Hobbes's, again as found in chapter 13 of Leviathan?

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

CHAPTER IV

How do Locke's ideas of natural freedom and equality differ from Hobbes's? (cf. Leviathan 14). 

CHAPTER V

What does Locke mean by "property"? What makes something valuable? What is the nature of money?

CHAPTER VII

What is the purpose of political society? Why do men wish to leave the state of nature?

CHAPTER VIII

How are civil or political societies begun? Who has the authority to govern?  Can't individuals ever escape their social obligations and form new societies?

CHAPTER IX

What is the main objective of organized society? What are the principal defects of the state of nature? What powers or rights does one give up upon entering society? What is the "common good."

CHAPTER X

What are the main governmental models or forms that a society may choose?

CHAPTER XI

What is the ultimate purpose of the legislative (or law-making or governing) power of a political society. ("Society," "civil society," "political society," and "commonwealth" are generally synonymous in Locke's writings.)

CHAPTER XII

What are the three fundamental powers of government?

CHAPTER XIII

What does Locke mean when he says that the legislative power is a "fiduciary power"? Who possesses the ultimate power in society?

CHAPTER XVI

What power does a conqueror have over the conquered society? (Compare this to Hobbes's position in chapter 20 of Leviathan.)

CHAPTER XVII

Does a “usurper” acquire legitimate political authority?

CHAPTER XVIII

What is a "tyrant"? Do the people have a natural right to overthrow a tyrant? Explain.

CHAPTER XIX

How can a society be dissolved? How can a government be dissolved? What's the difference?

Background to Bossuet, 6.3.2

Quick Wikipedia summary of the Maccabean revolt.

The Maccabean Revolt was a conflict, lasting from 167 to 160 BCE, between a Judean rebel group known as the Maccabees and the Seleucid Empire. In the narrative of I Maccabees, after Antiochus issued his decrees forbidding Jewish religious practice, a rural Jewish priest from Modiin, Mattathias the Hasmonean, sparked the revolt against the Seleucid Empire by refusing to worship the Greek gods. Mattathias killed a Hellenistic Jew who stepped forward to offer a sacrifice to an idol in Mattathias' place. He and his five sons fled to the wilderness of Judah. After Mattathias' death about one year later in 166 BCE, his son Judas Maccabee led an army of Jewish dissidents to victory over the Seleucid dynasty in guerrilla warfare, which at first was directed against Hellenizing Jews, of whom there were many. The Maccabees destroyed pagan altars in the villages, circumcised boys and forced Jews into outlawry.^[1] The term Maccabees as used to describe the Jewish army is taken from the Hebrew word for "hammer".^[2]
The revolt itself involved many battles, in which the Maccabean forces gained notoriety among the Seleucid army for their use of guerrilla tactics. After the victory, the Maccabees entered Jerusalem in triumph and ritually cleansed the Temple, reestablishing traditional Jewish worship there and installing Jonathan Maccabee as high priest. A large Seleucid army was sent to quash the revolt, but returned to Syria on the death of Antiochus IV. Its commander Lysias, preoccupied with internal Seleucid affairs, agreed to a political compromise that restored religious freedom.
The Jewish festival of Hanukkah celebrates the re-dedication of the Temple following Judah Maccabee's victory over the Seleucids. According to Rabbinic tradition, the victorious Maccabees could only find a small jug of oil that had remained uncontaminated by virtue of a seal, and although it only contained enough oil to sustain the Menorah for one day, it miraculously lasted for eight days, by which time further oil could be procured.^[3]

Background to Bossuet, Politics 6.3.1

Summary of Relevant Portions of I Kings (Catholic Encyclopedia)

History of Saul's government

The people demand a king; Samuel reluctantly yields to their request, viii.

Saul, while seeking his father's asses, is privately annointed king by Samuel, ix-x, 16.

Samuel convokes the people at Maspha (Mizpah) to elect a king; the lot falls on Saul, but he is not acknowledged by all, x, 17-27.

Saul defeats the Ammonite king, Naas, and opposition to him ceases, xi.

Samuel's farewell address to the people, xii.

War against the Philistines; Saul's disobedience for which Samuel announces his rejection, xiii.

Jonathan's exploit at Machmas; he is condemned to death for an involuntary breach of his father's orders, but is pardoned at the people's prayer, xiv, 1-46.

Summary of Saul's wars; his family and chief commander, xiv, 47- 52.

War against Amalec; second disobedience and final rejection of Saul, xv.

Saul and David

David at Court
David, the youngest son of Isai (Jesse), is anointed king at Bethlehem by Samuel, xvi, 1-33.

He is called to court to play before Saul and is made his armour-bearer, xvi, 14-23.

David and Goliath, xvii.

Jonathan's friendship for David and Saul's jealousy; the latter, after attempting to pierce David with his lance, urges him on with treacherous intent to a daring feat against the Philistines by promising him his daughter Michol in marriage, xviii.

Jonathan softens his father for a time, but, David having again distinguished himself in a war against the Philistines, the enmity is renewed, and Saul a second time attempts to kill him, xix, 1-10.

 Michol helps David to escape; he repairs to Samuel at Ramatha, but, seeing after Jonathan's fruitless effort at mediation that all hope of reconciliation is gone, he flees to Achis, King of Geth, stopping on the way at Nobe, where Achimelech gives him the loaves of proposition and the sword of Goliath. Being recognized at Geth he saves himself by feigning madness, xix, 11-xxi.

David as an Outlaw
He takes refuge in the cave of Odollam (Adullam), and becomes the leader of a band of outlaws; he places his parents under the protection of the King of Moab. Saul kills Achimelech and the priests of Nobe, xxii.

David delivers Ceila from the Philistines, but to avoid capture by Saul he retires to the desert of Ziph, where he is visited by Jonathan. He is providentially delivered when surrounded by Saul's men, xxiii.

 He spares Saul's life in a cave of the desert of Engaddi, xxiv.

Death of Samuel. Episode of Nabal and Abigail; the latter becomes David's wife after her husband's death, xxv.

During a new pursuit, David enters Saul's camp at night and carries off his lance and cup, xxvi.

He becomes a vassal of Achis, from whom he receives Siceleg (Ziklag); while pretending to raid the territory of Juda, he wars against the tribes of the south, xxvii. New war with the Philistines; Saul's interview with the witch of Endor, xxviii.

David accompanies the army of Achis, but his fidelity being doubted by the Philistine chiefs he is sent back. On his return he finds that Siceleg has been sacked by the Amalecites during his absence, and Abigail carried off with other prisoners; he pursues the marauders and recovers the prisoners and the booty, xxix-xxx.

Battle of Gelboe; death of Saul and Jonathan, xxxi.

Hobbes vs. Bossuet Essay Assignment

Introduction to Philosophy
Instructor:  James Ransom
March 7, 2013

Hobbes and Bossuet:  Essay Assignment

Rough Draft Due:                             Thursday, March 14

Draft Returned With Comment:       Friday, March 15

Final Draft Due:                                Last Day of Quarter

TOPIC

           Is it ever justified to rebel against the sovereign?  

           Discuss the contrasting methodological approaches of Hobbes (Leviathan II.21, "Of The Liberty of               Subjects") and Bossuet (Politics Drawn from Holy Scripture V.2-3 "On the Obedience Due to the Prince"; "Two Difficulties").  Provide a balanced discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of both methodologies. 

What are their respective conclusions?  Where do they overlap?  Where do they differ?  Finally, persuasively state your own opinion on the question.   

Instructions

• Length:  3-5 pages, typed and double spaced.  12 point Times New Roman
• Both rough drafts and final drafts must be typed
• The rough draft must be fully developed.  Submit the draft in a manila folder with an outline and notes which provide a contemporaneous record of your thought process in creating the draft. 
• Your essay should be based on a close reading of the passages referenced above.  Include xeroxes of the passages with mark-ups, highlights and annotations in the draft folder.  
• Give your essay a title.  
• Carefully proofread your essay.  Avoid all spelling errors and check your grammar.
• Revise your prose to eliminate awkward constructions.  Use formal academic style.  Write in concise sentences.  

      

Zunjic's Detailed Outline of Hobbes Leviathan 1:13-14

Prepared for Dr. Bob Zunjic's Phil 212 Class, this outline, replete with Zunjic's illuminating side-notes, charts of concepts, and more, is a gateway to key passages of Leviathan.

Catholic Encyclopedia on Hobbes (and Rousseau)

An excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Civil Authority. (for class use, condensed and partially reduced to outline form, with key concepts bolded)

Theories

There have been two great outbreaks against excess of royal prerogative; one in England, in the middle of the seventeenth century; another in France, at the end of the eighteenth. Each of these two periods was marked by the appearance of a great political writer, Thomas Hobbes in England, Jean Jacques Rousseau in France. Hobbes was a philosopher, Rousseau a rhetorician. Whoever knows Hobbes well can have little to learn from Rousseau. Hobbes is rigidly logical; such inconsistencies as appear in him come from a certain timidity in speaking out, and a humility that approaches nigh to hypocrisy. Rousseau always speaks boldly, makes no pretence to orthodoxy, and frequently contradicts himself. His brilliant style won him the ear of Europe; he popularized Hobbes. To the philosopher, Rousseau is contemptible, but Hobbes is an antagonist worthy of any man's steel. The best that can be said of Rousseau in philosophy is that he drew out of Hobbes's principles conclusions which Hobbes was afraid to formulate...

Hobbes starts, and Rousseau after him, by contradicting Aristotle. 

• According to Aristotle, man is "by nature a State-making animal"; the individual man, if he is to thrive at all, develops into the family man, and the family man into the citizen; 
• and wherever there is a city, or a nation, there must be self-government, or, in other words, civil authority, whether vested in one or in many... 
• The State-making effort is "natural" to man; so is authority "natural", and, as such, of God, adds Thomas Aquinas. 

But Hobbes took "natural" in quite another sense. 

• That he held to be "natural" which man is, [prior to any effort] on his part to make himself better. 
• Further, his philosophy was tinged with the Calvinism of his day, and he took it that man is of himself "desperately wicked". 
• What was natural, then, was bad, bad on the whole. 
• Reason being an original endowment of man, Hobbes allowed reason to be natural. He allowed also, with Plato, that wickedness is irrational...[but cf. the argument of Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic, which bears strong similarities to Hobbes.]
• This allowing of wickedness to be against reason is a weak point in the logic of Hobbes. 
• But Hobbes would have it that reason is by nature utterly unable to contend with wickedness, 
• that it is overborne by, and made subservient to, passion, and so 
• is degraded into cunning, man becoming more wicked by his possession of reason. 
• Of himself, in his "state of nature", Hobbesian man is savage, solitary, sensual, and selfish. 
• When two human beings meet, the natural impulse of each is to lord it over the other. 
• By force, if he is strong, by stratagem, if he is weak, every man seeks to kill or enslave every other man that he meets.
• Man's life in this state of nature, says Hobbes, is "nasty, brutish, and short." So it would be, in an English fen, and in most other places. But Rousseau's imagination carried him to the Pacific Isles; he became enamoured of "the noble savage". He fell in with Hobbes's notion of the "natural", as being what man is and has antecedently to all human effort. But the "citizen of Geneva", as he called himself, was curiously free from Calvinistic bias, and believed enthusiastically in the primitive, unmade,natural goodness of man. 
• In Hobbes's view, though not in Rousseau's, man had every reason for getting out of his "nasty" state of nature. 
• This was done by a pact, or convention, of every man with all the rest of mankind, 
• to give up solitude with its charms, its independence, and its liberty of preying upon neighbours, and
•  to live in society, the social body thus formed having all the rights of the individuals contributing to form it. 
• This compact of man with man to quit solitude and live in society, to abandon nature and submit to convention, was called by Rousseau, "The Social Contract". 
• The body formed by it, commonly called the State, Hobbes termed "The Leviathan", upon the text of Job 41:24, "there is no power upon earth that can be compared with him. . . ."

• To Hobbes and to Rousseau the State is omnipotent, containing in its one self absolutely all the rights of the citizens who compose it. 
• The wielder of this tremendous power is the General Will, measured against which the will of the individual citizen is not only powerless, but absolutely non-existent. 
• The individual gave up his will when he made the Social Contract. 
• "No rights against the State", is a fundamental principle with Hobbes and Rousseau. 
• To live in the State at all means compliance with every decree of the General Will. 
• But there is a difficulty in locating this General Will. 
• Hobbes...seeing that tyranny is better wielded by one man than by a multitude, contemplates the multitude 
• resigning all their power into the hands of a Single Person, and 
• denying themselves the right of meeting without his calling them together;
•  so that, by the simple expedient of never calling them together, the Single Person may incapacitate the people from ever resuming the power which is only theirs when they are all assembled. 
• The General Will in that case is the will of the Single Person. 
• Hobbes's location of the General Will is not lacking in clearness. 
• But Rousseau would have the sovereign authority to be the inalienable right of the multitude — hence called the "Sovereign People"... 
• The doctrines of Rousseau have not escaped the censure of the Church. Rousseau may be recognized in the following propositions, condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX:
•  "The State is the source and origin of all rights, and its rights are unlimited" (n. 39);
•  "Authority is nothing else than numbers, and a sum of material forces" (n. 60): 
• "It is allowable to refuse obedience to lawful princes, and even to rebel against them" (n. 63). 

Hobbes' Argument for an Absolute Sovereign; cf. Bossuet

T. R. Quigley at the New School has prepared this close analysis of Hobbes' argument for an absolute sovereign  in Leviathan 1.14-15.  Read 14-15 in conjunction with Quigley's breakdown.

• Compare and contrast the English atheist Hobbes' arguments with those proposed by  his French 17th. c. contemporary, the Catholic bishop and controversialist Jacques Bossuet, in his argument for royal monarchy.  
• Where do the two arguments converge? 
•  How do they diverge?  
• Do they arrive at roughly the same conclusion?  Or not?   

Hobbes and Bossuet: Preparation for March 5 Class Session

Introduction to Philosophy

Instructor:  James Ransom

March 1, 2013

PREPARATION FOR MARCH 5 CLASS SESSION

1.            Review Bossuet

·      Review the full table of contents of Bossuet’s work, Politics Drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture

·      Review Bossuet’s dedication to the Dauphin (1-2)

·      Read the excerpt defending hereditary monarchy

o   Examine Bossuet’s citations to Scripture.  Do they provide persuasive support for the conclusions (“Propositions”)he draws?

o   Do the Propositions form a logical sequence or progression?  Does each proposition build on those laid down previously?

o   Does Bossuet rule out the potential suitability of governments other than monarchy?

o   Examine the eighth proposition:  “Monarchical government is the best.”

§  Which of Bossuet’s arguments still seem persuasive today?  Which do not?

After concluding your initial reading of Bossuet, reflect on this issue for class discussion:  What enduring value does a work like Bossuet’s retain today, long removed from the polemical and political context in which he wrote?  Is Bossuet of purely historical interest, or does his underlying method retain some current relevance? 

2.            Begin Hobbes’s Leviathan

We will initiate discussion of Hobbes on Tuesday, and continue through Thursday.  Leviathan will also be the subject of your essay. 

Background:  Kenny, 41-49, 283-289

Text:  Hobbes, Leviathan (excerpts) in Steven M. Cahn, ed., Political Philosophy:  The Essential Texts, Oxford: 2005

Look to the blog this weekend for some outline materials and other updates on Hobbes.