Spinoza
Spinoza lived in Holland all his life, he was a theist but accused of Atheism, excommunicated by the Jews and equally disliked by the Christians. He was cursed and even assassination was attempted; only the liberalism of the Dutch government allowed his views toleration.
In his life and death he published three books, ‘Tractatus Theologico-Politicus’ and ‘Tractatus Politicus’ were published in life and ‘Ethics’ published posthumously.
In terms of political philosophy Spinoza’s views were largely similar to that of Hobbes. In the ‘state of nature’ he argues there is no right or wrong for there is no law dictating either. He believed in the separation of Church and State and that the State should have power over the Church. He does not believe man has the right to revolution even against bad government despite the fact he believes subjects should not sacrifice all their rights to the government. For he holds freedom of opinion particularly important. However paradoxically he also believes the state should decide on all religious questions so we can only assume he is working under the assumption that the State is more liberal than the Church as it was in Holland in his time.
Spinoza believed that thought and extension (matter) were both attributes of God but God has an infinite number of attributes being an infinite being and as such can be described as a pantheist. Thus he believes there will be no personal immortality for we are not individual beings, therefore upon death we will become more one with God. Further to this if reality is but an extension of God then there is no free will and no chance due to God being a perfect being. Therefore sin as described by the Christians and Jews is only a negative thing as perceived by finite beings such as ourselves but overall it is simply part of the whole, a logical necessity that could not have occurred any other way. This therefore was the reason he was at odds with the orthodox religious as his views negate the idea of sin and damnation as they are told in the Old and New Testament.
Spinoza regards emotions as the passions which arise of and govern self preservation and stop us from viewing the world as a whole. Of emotions for example pleasure is good but because he does not believe in the concept of time any emotion which is related to it i.e. past or future, for example hope and fear are bad and what’s more, contrary to reason. This is because the future is predicated by the past and because the past cannot be changed the future is unalterably determined and therefore hope and fear are the useless emotions of ignorant people who view the future as uncertain.
In the end Spinoza’s aim is to allow men to live a life without fear for he argues that because their lives are predetermined no matter what action they take, they will head down the same path in life to reach the same inevitable conclusion.
Leibniz
Leibniz is an interesting character in the fact he was far more tactful about the publication of his philosophies in order to best win the favour of princes and princess. This meant a lot of his work went unpublished and in its discovery leads to two views of his philosophy. One that optimistic and orthodox carefully designed to win popularity and another of his private thoughts which show him to be far more profound and logical.
In life he would meet and be influenced by Spinoza but in later years would downplay his involvement with him even rallying with others to decry him. As with Spinoza he would base his philosophy on the idea of substance. However unlike Spinoza who believed only in God and that mind and matter were attributes of him, Leibniz disagreed arguing matter cannot be the attribute of a substance because extension involves multiplicities and thus extension can only be derived from a collection of substances. Therefore he consequently believed in an infinite number of substances which he called ‘monads.’
He stated monads are all souls and immortal and they could not have causal relations with each other. He stated they mirrored the universe, which is a result of their creation by God. Interaction between monads therefore does not occur but in fact only appears to occur because of the ‘pre-established harmony’ between the changes of monads. For example clocks that are in sync strike twelve at the same time but there is no causal relationship to this.
In the human body there is one dominant monad which has clearer perceptions than all the rest, the rest of which act in accordance with what the dominant monad (or mind) wants.
Because everything is of monads there is no vacuum in space however no two monads are exactly alike which is Leibniz’s principle the; ‘identity of indiscernibles.’
In complete contrast with Spinoza, Leibniz promotes the idea of free will in his published works arguing that any action has motive, no motive is logically necessitated. Further to this God has free will and according to Leibniz always acts for the best despite not being logically inclined to do so. This creates a problem if God must obey the laws of logic but is quickly solved for if God is all powerful then he can simply create or dismiss the laws of logic as he pleases.
Leibniz was also a prominent mathematician, a pioneer in mathematical logic inventing the infinitesimal calculus at a time when none were so interested in mathematics. He left a legacy as both an eminent mathematician and was a progressive philosopher drawing from the past yet retaining his own originality and logical deductions.
Philosophical Liberalism
Holland and England first produced early liberalism. This early liberalism marked its influence in a number of areas, in religion it was an advocate for religious tolerance and saw the wars of religion as a foolish endeavour. Furthermore it rejected the idea of divine right for kings and early liberalism was as such very philosophical as it was optimistic. In politics it stood for the right for a community to choose its own form of government, at least initially. There was an emphasis on education born out of the idea that all men are born equal but it is circumstance that creates inequalities. It favoured the middle class over the aristocracy and monarchy which explains how it would result in the French Revolution and would subsequently disappear with the Rise of Napoleon and the Holy Alliance.
Eventually with the fall of Napoleon and changes in other global circumstances such liberalism albeit not exactly the same as its predecessor would emerge and the first most comprehensive statement of such liberal philosophy would come from John Locke, regarded as the most influential of modern philosophers whose philosophy was largely empirical with doctrines relying on observation or ‘experience’ which would see him regarded by many as the founder of empiricism.
John Locke
John Locke was of a time of political Strife in England as Parliament levied for new powers for itself and a restriction of those of the King and Church. This would result in the Civil War and following the defeat of the King by the Independents and Presbyterians would see Cromwell become Lord Protector and would see England’s government become military tyranny.
The Restoration would see Charles II become king and under his rule Locke would be accused of being a part of the Rye House Plot to assassinate both King Charles II and his heir James II. This forced him to flee to the Netherlands in 1683. He only returned to England following the overthrow of King James II and subsequently published his works such as the ‘Essay Concerning Human Understanding’ in 1690.
Locke’s influence with the aforementioned book was great and far reaching. Not only was the British Constitution based upon his doctrines but so was that of the French adopted in later years. In France his works would inspire revolutionaries and in Britain the Benthamites, a radical political party.
Locke himself was a very devout Christian yet dogmatism did not translate into his works, instead he implied truth is not simply available to be believed in nor should one hold opinions without doubt. Whilst he accepts revelation as a source of knowledge he does state that ‘Revelation must be judged by reason.’ This implies above all else he holds reason supreme. But what does Locke mean by reason? According to Locke reason is of two distinct parts. Firstly investigation to ascertain what knowledge we have is certain, secondly, investigation of propositions which whilst probable are not certain. Probability meanwhile is derived of our own experience and the testament of others. Experience however encompasses an entire new train of thought Locke details in length in Chapter 1 of Book 2 in John Locke’s: ‘An Essay Concerning Human Understanding’ where he poses the question; where do ideas come from?
Locke’s theory of ideas and their origin
Locke proposed that all ideas a man can have come from ‘sensation or reflection.’ Essentially this simply means experience. Experience he claims is how one can accumulate knowledge, through observation and reflection on external objects and the internal processes of the mind we are able to derive knowledge. Therefore because all ideas are rooted from knowledge all ideas are born out of prior experience.
Locke’s proposition that all ideas are of ‘sensation or reflection’ are his foundations in the acquisition of knowledge. Sensation is the first and also acts as a prerequisite to reflection. Sensation in itself is the process by which our senses perceive things in the context of how these things are affecting us. For example one could pick up a glass of water. Because the water has been heated we perceive it as hot or warm. Conversely if it was not heated an individual would perceive it differently for example cold or cool. And so because of the perceptions fed to our mind via the senses we develop ideas of the qualities an object can contain for example sweet or bitter.
The second foundation of knowledge is reflection. Reflection is when the mind analyses the operations of itself and in essence is an ‘internal sense.’ For where sensation remarks upon external objects reflection comments on the internal, the mind and soul producing such perceptions as ‘thinking doubting and believing.’ Further to this sensation acts as a prerequisite to reflection as sensation provides qualities and perceptions to be remarked upon by reflection. This serves to expand our understanding and thus knowledge.
Locke believes this argument is infallible and that no man can provide an idea that does not have its roots in either sensation or reflection for it seems, at least to him that all ideas can be linked back to these fundamental tenets.
With this assertion he subsequently provides a hypothetical proof. He asserts that children even upon birth into the world are immediately imprinted with such sensations as light, colours and sound and qualities in their abundance such as that derived from food or clothing. Therefore one can argue that if a child were kept in such a place devoid of influence on the senses, or more realistically devoid of a specific quality such as all colours sans white and black then this child would grow up their sensation and reflection providing only ideas of black and white with no thoughts to any other colour because they have not experienced them.
Further to this children provide further information through their observation for we see that a child will only reflect upon sensations. This is because they are new to the world and so their attention is wholly diverted to the sheer variety of external objects they will experience. Therefore it can be said because all children are nurtured in an environment where they are encouraged to explore new sensations, it is years before such subsequent understanding ‘turns inward upon itself, reflects on its own operations, and makes them the objects of its own contemplation.’ I.e. Reflection.
Later in the text Locke goes on to once again talk of children, which he sees as perfect for observation as the development of cognitive function and thus the generation of ideas. He observes that a newborn child spends most of its time sleeping only paying attention to the strongest and most urgent of senses; pain and hunger. As a child grows it at first relies on the senses to make sense of the world around it, familiarity as a result of frequency of sensation results in reflection whether this be positive or negative. For example frequent interaction with a toy will create positive feelings towards it, it will be seen as a good toy and thus wanted. Essentially what Locke is trying to convey is that the complexity and advancement of thought processes is a direct result of thought in proportion to experience. And so as experience grows so does thought process through sensation into reflection and that our capacity for ideas is only limited by our experiences.
A logical consequence of sensation is that all men will develop their ideas differently due to the variety and frequency of which they interact with the world and thus no two men will ever have the exact same experience. Perception results in reflection and this will never be exactly shared due to prior experience. For example despite the fact two men see a plane take off they will react and reflect on it differently. For example one might perhaps be in disbelief whilst the other with calmness for he has seen such a thing before and understands it giving him the advantage of experience and so reflecting on it differently.
On his theory of ideas and their origin Locke goes on to discussion of the soul. Like most philosophers or even scientists of the day he had an absolute belief in God and like many before him incorporated his theology into his work, such as the concept of the soul and how this relates to perception and reflection. To this end he surmises that if the soul thinks from when it begins to exist then sensation and reflection will begin at the beginning of the soul’s and subsequently the bodies’ existence. However he does go on to theorise later in the text that the soul may not require sensation and reflection for thought to occur. Another theory he asserts is that reason dictates that the soul does not or at least should not begin to think before the body can relay to it perceptions of the senses and reflections with which it can analyse and reflect upon in turn.
Locke turns to the subject of the soul and how it is intrinsically linked to our thought process. He raises the hypothetical question of whether or not the soul thinks perpetually. An interesting question which if one were to answer yes would imply our thoughts can be distinct from the conscious mind i.e. that one could be thinking and not knowing of it for example if they were sleeping. Locke approaches this tentatively, understandable in the context of the time for to propagate any independent view on the soul which in fact lessens its presence could become the subject of debate and adversely affect his reputation or life as a whole. He argues that essentially because he is not conscious of thought process when he is for example sleeping it is logical to assume that we must be conscious of any thought process for it to take place. For what other reason does the conscious exist than to frame our thoughts as they come and go. This is a logical viewpoint that appears to necessitate observation for justification and thus could be argued to be a scientific or at least an empirical rather than philosophical argument.
He goes on from the idea of a perpetually thinking soul to postulate the idea of a soul whose thoughts processes are distinct and thus discernable from the person as a whole. Therefore the person would not know of the souls thoughts for he would not be conscious of it and as such they would not affect him especially if the soul were to do such thinking when the man is not conscious at all i.e. sleeping. However such a view is entirely hypothetical and he acknowledges the questions this view raises namely that of personal identity for without consciousness in ourselves and thus not knowing of the souls thoughts and feelings then what is left of us is but emotion and thought we are not even able to comprehend is there.
And thus if this is true and the soul is able to have discernable thoughts and feelings in itself then it is evident that the soul and the man are but two different people. He follows this with an example to further the point arguing that: If two sleeping men have a soul between them, then if the soul of one man goes into the man without a soul there will still be the same lack of conscious thought in each man. However the soul would be having thoughts and feelings which may influence the man whilst awake but he is never conscious of the active thoughts and feelings of the soul. Therefore just like the thoughts and feelings of no two men are identical the soul and the man would too be distinct.
Of course Locke in his contemplation about the mind thinking whilst a man is sleeping does not avoid the fundamental instance of thought before true consciousness that is dreaming. I say before true consciousness for when a man dreams he will never be conscious of it until he wakes and remembers parts of the dream. The fact he has memory implies he must have been conscious to a degree when the dream was occurring which allowed him to recollect it upon waking. Locke himself views dreams as evidence of the soul’s thoughts but what of men who do not dream? To that he argues essentially that all men dream (to a degree) but that simply not all men will remember it. This is evidenced by his quote: ‘Most men, I think, pass a great part of their sleep without dreaming.’ I believe ‘most men’ implies that the rest of men dream more often than they do not but these men do not need to be acknowledged by him for the subject of his work.
As I proposed prior, the mind must be conscious to retain memory of dreams (or at least fragments of them.) Therefore logically it can be inferred that because the mind is never conscious of the souls own thoughts, the soul cannot retain such thoughts and so has no memory if it requires the faculties of the body to do so like the conscious mind. I will go on to argue that as Locke proposes that the soul should not need to employ the faculties of the body for memory. If it can think without the consciousness of the body it surely has its own version of consciousness and thus it should have its own memory. From Locke’s own idea of the origin of ideas I argue that thought cannot occur without memory for without the memory of sensation or memory in itself there can be no reflection. Consequently experience is meaningless to an entity that cannot comprehend time or place having memory of neither. Of course my argument is predicated on the idea that the soul must work in the same way as the body i.e. consciousness and memory to generate thought and I acknowledge in matters of theology one can only speculate and provide a hypothetical viewpoint.
Locke himself proposes two hypothetical’s; that if the soul can think without the body it must be capable of memory without the body. The contrary being that if the soul cannot retain memory then it is useless and this contradicts the idea of a perfect God for a perfect God would not make any useless thing in nature.
Therefore following this hypothesis he argues the soul must be able to generate ideas without the use of sensation or reflection as I mentioned previously. He once again provides two hypothetical situations to further his hypothesis; that the soul acts less rationally in separation from the body (due to the absence of sensation or reflection) which would explain the inherently irrational behaviour of dreams. Or that the soul retains rationality within itself but that the irrationality of dreams is a by-product of a thought process that does not account for sensation and reflection in the soul.
He concludes that if the soul does think, and does so in such a way the conscious or unconscious mind of the body cannot perceive it. Then the soul must either have memory of things that the body does not due. This is due to the fact it may derive ideas in a way not dependent on sensation or reflection which would be necessary if the soul were to begin thinking before the body was able to. Or that any thoughts the soul is able to create are simply derived from memory, sensation and reflection of the body inhabited.
Nevertheless he asserts quite rightly that the idea of a perpetually thinking soul is not self-evident and therefore no man can know whether or not this is true. As such he maintains that both points of view are plausible due to the fact there can be no evidence for and to the contrary. He personally believes that the soul would not perpetually think and that it is more probable it thinks less than it does not and when it does think it should be conscious of it, a viewpoint which bares striking similarity to the idea a man does not think without being conscious of it i.e. when sleeping without dreams.
When moving on to the idea of a perpetually thinking human mind he makes some excellent analogies, for example that to say the mind is always thinking without a man being conscious of it is akin to saying a man is always hungry but does not always feel it. Just as feeling hungry requires the sensation of hunger thought requires consciousness of thought. Once more it is accepted that no one can know this is true as with the theory of a perpetually thinking soul, however ‘reason’ dictates to him to think otherwise that only from experience can we begin to make assertions and from experience one can state when they have thought, they have been conscious of it.
Locke’s political philosophy
In the years after the British Revolution of 1688 Locke wrote the two ‘Treatises on Government’ the first of which attacked the hereditary right of Kings.
Locke asserts that heredity cannot be the basis of a political power, attacking primogeniture as an injustice which would be unavoidable if succession were to be based solely on inheritance. Furthermore on the basis divinity none know who Adams heir would be and thus it would be unknown if any King were legitimately ruling over their subjects.
In the second Treatise on Government Locke begins by explaining his view on ‘state of nature,’ the true origin of government. He conceives that the law of nature is of divine commands which are not enforced by anyone because that is unneeded. He continues to say that all men are born equal and govern themselves remaining independent and causing no harm to one another. However if a person attacks another person or his property, then the extent of vengeance can be decided by the affected party.
He states that the institution of civil government is a result of men uniting for the preservation of their property.
Locke is vague in commenting on relations between states believing ‘natural law’ should be applied which implies that when the state is questioning whether or not to commit to war this is a question of ethics and moral rules which are to be found solely in the Bible.
When he talks of the rights of individuals under the state his views are reminiscent of today’s laws for example if you were to kill an assailant in self defence you must prove to a court that it was in self defence.
When Locke talks of the ‘social contract’ he differs from the views of Hobbes. Locke believed that government can be resisted and consequently revolution can occur and is even a right of the people if the government fails to maintain its laws set forth to protect property and people. This is in direct contrast to the earlier works of Spinoza who argued that even against a bad government, the people should never forcibly resist authority.
On the subject of property Locke believed many things:
Locke stated every man should have private property as the direct result of his labour. He asserts in this society labour puts the difference of value on all things however by labour he does not and cannot refer to labour in industrialised work whereby the product of one’s labour cannot be measured as it could be in agriculture.
He believed that the government should not be able to take away a man’s property; he also thought that the military may punish soldiers with bodily harm, even death, but should not take away their property even after the most minor of offences.
He asserts one can have as much of an item that goes bad that they can use but as much of an item as they want if this item does not go bad. On the face of it, this makes sense however does not take into account the idea of sale of excess or even trade.
Liberalism is clearly seen in his work in his thoughts that legislative and executive functions of government must be kept separate. Legislature refers to Parliament whereas executive refers to the King. He goes on to say the legislative must be supreme and be removable by the community and if the executive attempts to rule without the legislative it must be removed, by force if necessary i.e. revolution.
Locke’s legacy was the influence he had on people and on states; Berkley and Hume are his heirs and Voltaire was the chief messenger of Locke’s political philosophies to France which looked to Britain at the time as a political ideal compared to their own system of government and law.
George Berkley
Berkley is a significant philosopher due to the fact he argued against the existence of matter. His argument was that nothing exists unless it is perceived but things exist without being perceived by us because everything is always perceived by God.
The bulk of this argument is conveyed in his book ‘The ‘dialogues of Hylas and Philonous’ published in 1713. Hylas is an educated man who stands for common sense and science whereas Berkeley is portrayed by Philonous. Hylas believes something existing and perceiving it are distinct whereas Philonous argues reality is subject to perception. To this he states for example heat causes pain, because pain is mental heat must too be of the mind or ‘mental.’ His argument essentially links any quality an object might have e.g. sweetness, bitterness or even colour back to the perception of the mind i.e. sweetness equals pleasure and bitterness displeasure and by doing so concludes all qualities are of the mind thus all objects are but a perception.
However this argument is not without its flaws for one could state a broken arm is painful but whilst pain is of the mind the arm is not. Furthermore in terms of taste, a rotting fish may taste poor but the perception of poor taste does not lead us to perceive a rotting fish, it is the fish that has caused the taste?
Berkley believes there are logical reasons which show only minds and mental events can exist, this is done through both empirical and logical arguments which are not only flawed as aforementioned but in some instances unnecessary in the fact to combine logic and empirical reasoning will result in the latter being superfluous.
David Hume
Hume was the product of Locke and Berkley and followed their empirical philosophy to its logical end.
His chief and most comprehensive philosophical work was the ‘Treatise of Human Nature’ which was published in three volumes over the course of five years. When this failed to make an impact and his own education was at a standstill he refined the completed book down to mainly the conclusions under the new title: ‘Inquiry into Human Understanding.’ Other works included ‘Dialogues concerning Natural Religion’ an ‘Essay on Miracles’ and his ‘History of England.’
In the first volume/book of ‘Treatise of Human Nature’ Hume talks of impressions and ideas. This section reflects the work of both Locke and Berkley as it talks of the formation of complex ideas and that the self is nothing but perceptions which give us an idea of self. For example I cannot see my brain but I have an idea it is there.
‘Of knowledge and Probability’ Hume examines uncertain knowledge, i.e. our knowledge of the future and unobserved times of the past and present.
Hume states there a seven types of philosophical relation these being; resemblance, identity, relations of time and place, proportion in quantity or number, degrees in quality, contrariety and causation.
Of these he argues they can be further divided into 2 separate groups: The first group are those dependent on ideas, and can give certain knowledge. In this group falls resemblance, proportions in quantity or number, degrees in quality and contrariety.
However the second group, those that can be changed without a change in ideas are of spatio-temporal and causal relations which mean our knowledge is only probable. This group therefore consists of identity, relations of time and place and causation.
In ideas of identity and spatio-temperal relations he argues the mind does not conceive beyond what is immediately present to the senses. In terms of causation he argues this allows us to infer (but not necessitate) a link between an object/occurence and another object or occurrence.
