The life of a corporate chickenhood ,it   has no  luck

Short nasty and brutal  on a Corporate farm  mega-buck

They're Jammed so close together  it would make Col. Sanders dumbstruck.

Very soon by  a big metal blade the chicken  necks will get struck

at the WINCO deli section  in  a greasy paper bag their parts will  get stuck

Even a chicken should  have one  chance to scratch the barnyard muck

And to peck and  flap their wings and give a a loud  cluck.

On Election Day Vote "Yes" on Proposition 2 and don't be a schmuck.

Seit Galileo, Descartes und Newton ist der westliche Mensch überzeugt, mit der Mathematik den Schlüssel der Natur in den Händen zu halten. Mehr als das. Bei den Schwärmern wie den esoterischen Schmähern der Vernunft, die alle halb Jahrhunderte Konjunktur haben, gilt die Mathematik als deren 'Paradigma' und als Modell alles Logischen.

Und tatsächlich haben Messen, Wägen, Zählen und Kalkül seither das Leben der abendländischen Menschen erobert. War es der Geist der mathematisierten Naturwissenschaft, der die westlichen Gesellschaften durchdrungen hat, oder war es vielmehr das Vordringen von Geld- und Berechnungswesen in den Arbeitsalltag, das der mathematischen Weltanschauung den Boden bereitet hat?

Das 17. und 18. Jahrhundert war das Zeitalter der großen metaphysischen Systeme. Die mathematische Weltsicht ist allen gemeinsam: Descartes-Malebranche, Spinoza, Leibniz-Wolff und – nicht zu vergessen – Thomas Hobbes. Der Bedarf an Metaphysik war akut. Die in blutigen Kriegen zerrissene Religion hatte aufgehört, den Menschen Gewissheit und Orientierung zu geben. Die brauchten sie aber so nötig wie nie. Wie die katholische Kirche war die ständische Gesellschaftsordnung in den Grundfesten erschüttert. Das Bürgertum schickte sich an, ihre Erbschaft anzutreten. Es suchte nach einer neuen, eigenen Weltanschauung, in der sie ihre Wege vorgezeichnet finden und ihre Taten gerechtfertigt finden konnte.

Der Zweck der Metaphysik ist nicht derjenige der Naturwissenschaft. Wenn sie nach dem Sein fragt, dann meint sie in Wahrheit dessen Sinn. Den trägt sie aber heimlich schon lange in ihrer Brust: Rechenhaftigkeit. Wenn es gelingt, das ureigne Wesen des ganzen großen Universums als ein Rechenexempel zu konstruieren; wenn es zugleich gelingt, daraus das Sosein eines jeden Einzelnen als Bestand-Teil eines ('autopoietischen', würde man heute sagen) Systems herzuleiten - dann war es klar, dass der Sinn im Einzelnen nur der Sinn des großen Ganzen sein kann. 'Rationalität' muss der Sinn der Welt sein, damit sie der Sinn des Lebens sein kann.

Öffentlichkeit ist das Feld, auf dem die Metaphysik gegen die Religion antritt. An die Stelle der konfessionell reglementierten Universitäten treten Gelehrtengesellschaften, die mit dem gebildeten Bürgertum in engster Beziehung stehen, intellektuell und finanziell, und in der Druckerpresse verfügen sie gegen die Kanzeln über eine mächtige Waffe. And die Stelle der Autorität tritt das Argument.

Wenn die Metaphysik nach dem Sein fragt, meint sie in Wahrheit seinen Sinn – war das womöglich schon immer so? Damit hatte die Philosophie begonnen: der Frage nach dem "wahren Sein". Stand hinter der theoretischen Frage 'Was ist?' schon damals die praktische Frage 'Was soll ich tun'?

Die Philosophie im engeren Sinne beginnt mit dem Gegensatz von Heraklit und Parmenides, dem Gegensatz von ewigem Werden und ewigem Sein; einer am östlichen, der andre am westlichen Rand der hellenischen Welt. Mit ihnen beginnt der Anfang vom Ende des mythischen Zeitalters.

Ein Beinahe-noch-Zeitgenosse war Sophokles in Athen, dem Zentrum. Er überführte die Antigone aus dem Mythos in die Tragödie. Dort ist sie nicht mehr bloßes Opfer ihres Schicksals, sondern wählt zwischen Altem und Neuem Gesetz ihren Weg selber. Sie schwankt nicht wie Hamlet hin und her, so modern ist sie nicht. Ihre Wahl steht von Anbeginn fest. Aber modern ist: Es ist nicht die Zuflüsterung dieser oder jener Gottheit, sondern sie ist es selber, die gewählt hat.

Sophokles schrieb für die Öffentlichkeit des perikleischen Athen – in der Blüte der attischen Demokratie, die angewiesen war auf den eigen-sinnigen 'polites'; den Bürger, der für seine Wahl mit allem einstand, das er hatte. Ohne ihn hätte Athen den Pelepponesichen Krieg nicht überlebt. In der Tragödie wird der Übergang vom Mythos zur Vernunft sinnfälliger als in der Philosophie selbst. Die griechische Polis trug deutliche Züge einer bürgerlichen Gesellschaft.

Dann kamen das Römische Reich, die Völkerwanderung, der Verfall städtischer Kultur und die Neugeburt Europas im Zeichen der Feudalität. Nicht die Vernunft trat an die Stelle des Mythos, sondern die katholische Kirche. Sie war so doppelsinnig wie das finstere, bunte, turbulente Mittelalter. Zum einen war sie Dogma, aber zum andern lehrte sie, das Leben als eine Pilgerfahrt aufzufassen, auf der man scheitern kann. Sie lehrte die Menschen, auf ihr Gewissen zu achten – mehr, als es die antike Tragödie vermocht hätte; und nur auf ihr Gewissen, wenn man es streng nahm. Der Mensch, der im Mythos ein Spielball der Götter war, wurde im christlichen Glauben zum verantwortlichen Subjekt, das sein Leben führen muss.

Und als ihm die Pfaffen als Wegweiser suspekt wurden, musste 'die Natur' herhalten. Die Natur durchherrscht vom Logos, der Mensch ein Teil der Natur, seine Vernunft ihr ureigenes Gesetz – das ist der Sinn der Metaphysik. Ratio – reason, raison – heißt Rechnung. Dieser 'Sinn des Lebens', des bürgerlichen Erwerbslebens, war im Voraus längst "gefunden", die Philosophie musste ihn nur noch absegnen.

Die Gleichsetzung von Sinn und Sein gehört zu den naiven Selbstverständlichkeiten unseres Denkens. Sie liegt vor aller Reflexion, aller Überlegung, aller… Vernunft. Sie entstammt der kindlichen Annahme, dass das, was da ist, da sein muss; dass das, was in der Wirklichkeit geschieht, mit Notwendigkeit geschieht. Sich gegen das Notwendige stellen ist sinnlos.

Sinn 'gibt es' nicht an und für sich. Es muss immer einer da sein, für den irgendwas Sinn hat oder nicht. Und was kann das heißen: es hat für ihn Sinn? Es heißt, dass irgendeine Entscheidung, die er zu treffen hat, davon abhängt. Worüber kann ich entscheiden? Über das, was ich bin? Nein, über das, was ich tue. Für mich hat all das Sinn, was ich bei meinen Handlungsentscheidungen bedenken muss. Die Frage nach dem Sinn geht von den lebenden Subjekten aus. Bevor wir sie den Dingen stellen, müssen wir sie uns selber stellen. 'Ich bin ein Teil der Natur und unterliege ihrem Gesetz' ist eine Antwort, bevor die Frage gestellt wurde. Sie könnte falsch sein.

Die Gleichsetzung von Sein und Sinn ist dasselbe wie die Gleichsetzung von Logik und Naturgeschehen. Ihr gemeinsames Drittes ist die "Notwendigkeit". Tatsächlich stammt die Idee eines Not- wendigen nicht aus der Be- obachtung der Natur. Sie stammt aus der Erfahrung unseres Denkens: aus dem richtigen Schlussfolgern. Aus zwei Voraussetzungen ist nur ein Schluss möglich, nicht zwei oder drei. Und nur dieser! Das allein ist mit Notwendigkeit so. Was immer wir in der Welt der Tatsachen beobachten mögen, können wir per Analogie diesem logischen Modell der 'hinreichenden Begründung' nur annähern. Dass in der Wirklichkeit ein Ereignis 'mit Notwendigkeit' aus einem vorangegangenen Ereignis folgt, lässt sich nicht nur nicht beobachten. Es lässt sich nicht einmal sagen, was wir uns darunter vorstellen sollen.

1 Politics
2 Key political concepts
2.1 Pragmatic view of power
2.2 Authority and legitimacy
2.2.1 Traditional authority
2.2.2 Charismatic authority
2.2.3 Legal-rational authority
2.3 Sovereignty
3 Political philosophies
3.1 Confucius
3.2 Plato
3.3 Aristotle
3.4 Niccolò Machiavelli
3.5 More Extreme Forms
3.6 Thomas Hobbes
3.7 John Locke
3.8 Jean-Jacques Rousseau
3.9 John Stuart Mill
3.10 Karl Marx
4 Political spectra
4.1 Left-Right politics
4.2 Authoritarian-Libertarian
5 Philosophical Constructs
5.1 Normative faces of power debate
5.2 Postmodern challenge of normative views of power
6 See also
6.1 Lists
6.2 Related topics
7 References

Politics

For other uses, see Politics (disambiguation).
"Politic" redirects here. For the political magazine, see The Politic.

Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.

Politics consists of "social relations involving authority or power"[1] and refers to the regulation of a political unit,[2] and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.[3]

Political science (also political studies) is the study of political behavior and examines the acquisition and application of power. Related areas of study include political philosophy, which seeks a rationale for politics and an ethic of public behavior, and public administration, which examines the practices of governance.

Key political concepts

Pragmatic view of power

Samuel Gompers' maxim, often paraphrased as,"Reward your friends and punish your enemies,"[4] hints at two of the five types of power recognized by social psychologists: incentive power (the power to reward) and coercive power (the power to punish). Arguably the other three grow out of these two:

Legitimate power, the power of the policeman or the referee, is the power given to an individual by a recognized authority to enforce standards of behavior. Legitimate power is similar to coercive power in that unacceptable behavior is punished by fine or penalty.

Referent power is bestowed upon individuals by virtue of accomplishment or attitude. Fulfillment of the desire to feel similar to a celebrity or a hero is the reward for obedience. This is an example of incentive power as one rewards oneself.

Expert power springs from education or experience. Following the lead of an expert is often rewarded with success. Note that expert power is conditional to circumstances (for example, if leaky pipes need to be repaired, a brain surgeon's advice probably would not carry as much weight as a plumber's).

Authority and legitimacy

Main article: Tripartite classification of authority

Authority, in a political sense, is different from political power in that it implies legitimacy and acceptance; it implies that the person or state exercising power has a perceived right to do so (ex: Mr. Hentze).[5] Legitimacy is an attribute of government gained through the acquisition and application of power in accordance with recognized or accepted standards or principles.

Max Weber identified three sources of legitimacy for authority, known as the tripartite classification of authority.[6] He proposed three reasons why people follow the orders of those who give them:

Traditional authority

Traditional authorities receive loyalty because they continue and support the preservation of existing values, the status quo. Weber called this "the authority of the eternal yesterday".[6]Patriarchal (and more rarely matriarchal) societies gave rise to hereditary monarchies where authority was given to descendants of previous leaders. Followers submit to this authority because "we've always done it that way." Examples of traditional authoritarians include absolute monarchs.

Charismatic authority

Charismatic authority grows out of the personal charm or the strength of an individual personality (see cult of personality for the most extreme version). Charismatic regimes are often short-lived, seldom outliving the charismatic figure that leads them. For a charismatic regime to survive the rule of the individual personality, it must transform its legitimacy into a different form of authority. An example of this would be Augustus' efforts to create the position of the Roman principate and establish a ruling dynasty, which could be viewed as a shift to a traditional form of authority, in the form of the principate that would exist in Rome for more than 400 years after his death.

Legal-rational authority

Legal-rational authorities receive their ability to compel behavior by virtue of the office that they hold. It is the authority that demands obedience to the office rather than the office holder; Weber identified "rationally-created rules"[6] as the central feature of this form of authority. Modern democracies are examples of legal-rational regimes. People also abide by legal-rational authority because it makes sense to do so for their own good, as well as for the greater good of society.[citation needed]

Sovereignty
Main article: Sovereignty

Sovereignty is the ability of a government to exert control over its sphere of influence free from outside interference.

Political philosophies
Main article: Political philosophy

Confucius

The Chinese philosopher Confucius (551-471 BCE) was one of the first thinkers to adopt a distinct approach to political philosophy. His philosophy was "rooted in his belief that a ruler should learn self-discipline, should govern his subjects by his own example, and should treat them with love and concern."[7] His political beliefs were strongly linked to personal ethics and morality, believing that only a morally upright ruler who possessed "de", or virtue, should be able to exercise power, and that the behavior of an individual ought to be consistent with their rank in society. He stated that "Good government consists in the ruler being a ruler, the minister being a minister, the father being a father, and the son being a son."[8]

Plato

The Greek philosopher Plato(428-348 BC), in his book The Republic, argued that all conventional political systems (democracy, monarchy, oligarchy and timarchy) were inherently corrupt, and that the state ought to be governed by an elite class of educated philosopher-rulers, who would be trained from birth and selected on the basis of aptitude: "those who have the greatest skill in watching over the community."[9] This has been characterised as authoritarian and elitist by some later scholars, notably Karl Popper in his book The Open Society and its Enemies, who described Plato's schemes as essentially totalitarian and criticised his apparent advocacy of censorship.[10] The Republic has also been labeled as communist, due to its advocacy of abolishing private property and the family among the ruling classes; however, this view has been discounted by many scholars, as there are implications in the text that this will extend only to the ruling classes, and that ordinary citizens "will have enough private property to make the regulation of wealth and poverty a concern."[11]
Aristotle

In his book Politics, the Greek philosopher Aristotle(384–322BC) asserted that man is, by nature, a political animal. He argued that ethics and politics are closely linked, and that a truly ethical life can only be lived by someone who participates in politics.[12]

Like Plato, Aristotle identified a number of different forms of government, and argued that each "correct" form of government may devolve into a "deviant" form of government, in which its institutions were corrupted. According to Aristotle, kingship, with one ruler, devolves into tyranny; aristocracy, with a small group of rulers, devolves into oligarchy; and polity, with collective rule by many citizens, devolves into democracy.[13] In this sense, Aristotle does not use the word "democracy" in its modern sense, carrying positive connotations, but in its literal sense of rule by the demos, or common people.[13] A more accurate view of Aristotle denouncing democracy was that it was described as mob rule, or ochlocracy.

Niccolò Machiavelli

From the name of the Renaissance thinker Niccolò Machiavelli has been derived the term "Machiavellian," referring to an amoral person who employs subterfuge, along with brutal and manipulative methods to attain and retain power.

More Extreme Forms

Machiavelli's works have been studied and his theories practiced in categorically more extreme forms by totalitarians such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, many of whom used chaos and brutality for purposes of state security.[14]

However, many scholars have questioned this view of Machiavelli's theory, arguing that "Machiavelli did not invent 'Machiavellianism' and may not even have been a 'Machiavellian' in the sense often ascribed to him."[15] Instead, Machiavelli considered the stability of the state to be the most important goal, and argued that qualities traditionally considered morally desirable, such as generosity, were undesirable in a ruler and would lead to the loss of power.

Thomas Hobbes

In 1651, Thomas Hobbes published his most famous work, Leviathan, in which he proposed a model of early human development to justify the creation of polities, i.e. governed bodies. Hobbes described an ideal state of nature wherein every person had equal right to every resource in nature and was free to use any means to acquire those resources. He claimed that such an arrangement created a “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes). The book has been interpreted by scholars as posing two "stark alternatives"; total obedience to an absolute ruler, or "a state of nature, which closely resembles civil war...where all have reason to fear a violent death".[16] Hobbes' view can therefore be interpreted as a defense of absolutism, arguing that human beings enter into a social contract for their protection and agree to obey the dictates of the sovereign; in Hobbes' worldview, "the sovereign is nothing more than the personal embodiment of orderly government."[17] Hobbes himself argued "The final cause, end, or design of men (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in Commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby."[18]

John Locke
Main article: John Locke

In the Two Treatise of Government, Locke refutes the theory of the Divine Right of Kings as put forward by Robert Filmer; he "minutely examines key Biblical passages"[19] and concludes that absolute monarchy is not supported by Christian theology. "Locke singles out Filmer's contention that men are not 'naturally free' as the key issue, for that is the 'ground'...on which Filmer erects his argument for the claim that all 'legitimate' government is 'absolute monarchy'."[19]

In the Second Treatise of Government, Locke examines the concept of the social contract put forward by other theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, but reaches a different conclusion. Although he agreed with Hobbes on the concept of a state of nature before existing forms of government arose, he challenged Hobbes' view that the state of nature was equivalent to a state of war, instead arguing that there were certain natural rights belonging to all human beings, which continued even after a political authority was established. "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone...being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, health or possessions".[20] According to one scholar, the basis of Locke's thought in the Second Treatise is that "contract or consent is the ground of government and fixes its limits...behind [this] doctrine lies the idea of the independence of the individual person."[21] In other words, Locke's view was different from Hobbes' in that he interpreted the idea of the "state of nature" differently, and he argued that people's natural rights were not necessarily eliminated by their consent to be governed by a political authority.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

The 18th century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his book The Social Contract, put forward a system of political thought which was closely related to those of Hobbes and Locke, but different in important respects. In the opening sentence of the book, Rousseau argued that "...man was born free, but he is everywhere in chains"[22] He defined political authority and legitimacy as stemming from the "general will", or volonté generale; for Rousseau, "true Sovereignty is directed always at the public good".[23] This concept of the general will implicitly "allows for individual diversity and freedom...[but] also encourages the well-being of the whole, and therefore can conflict with the particular interests of individuals."[23] As such, Rousseau also argues that the people may need a "lawgiver" to draw up a constitution and system of laws, because the general will, "while always morally sound, is sometimes mistaken".[22]

Rousseau's thought has been seen by some scholars as contradictory and inconsistent, and as not addressing the fundamental contradiction between individual freedom and subordination to the needs of society, "the tension that seems to exist between liberalism and communitarianism".[23] As one Catholic scholar argues, "that it [The Social Contract] contains serious contradictions is undeniable...its fundamental principles--the origin of society, absolute freedom and absolute equality of all--are false and unnatural."[24] The Catholic Encyclopedia further argues that Rousseau's concept of the general will would inevitably lead to "the suppression of personality, the reign of force and caprice, the tyranny of the multitude, the despotism of the crowd", i.e. the subordination of the individual to society as a whole.[24]
John Stuart Mill

In the 19th century, John Stuart Mill pioneered the liberal conception of politics. He saw democracy as the major political development of his era[25] and, in his book On Liberty, advocated stronger protection for individual rights against government and the rule of the majority. He argued that liberty was the most important right of human beings, and that the only just cause for interfering with the liberty of another person was self-protection.[26] One commentator refers to On Liberty as "the strongest and most eloquent defense of liberalism that we have."[26] Mill also emphasised the importance of freedom of speech, claiming that "we can never be sure that the opinion we are attempting to stifle is a false opinion, and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still."[27]

Karl Marx

Marx's theories, collectively termed Marxism, were critical of capitalism and argued that in the due course of history, there would be an "inevitable breakdown of capitalism for economic reasons, to be replaced by communism."[28] He defined history in terms of the class struggle between the bourgeoisie, or property-owning classes, and the proletariat, or workers, a struggle intensified by industrialization: "The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.[29] Utopia for Marx was the classless society in which the state and the church would be very weak or nonexistent. The workers ultimately would own the means of production, state ownership would be a mere transition period, therefore the people would be free. Because the state as Marx knew it would practically disappear over time, there would be no need for borders so individuals would be free to move from nation to nation without prosecution. This latter idea of internationalism is the direct opposition to the Nazi utopia of the Master race and national socialism. Although Marxism is mostly associated with the Soviet Union for obvious reasons, one may also see in the European Union many but not all of Marx's ideas such as universal health care, open border and the free movement of people, and less economic inequality.

Many subsequent political movements have based themselves on Marx's thought, offering widely differing interpretations of communism; these include Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, and libertarian Marxism. Possibly the most influential interpreter of Marxist theory was Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union, who created a revolutionary theory founded on Marxist thinking. However, libertarian Marxist thinkers have challenged Lenin's interpretation of Marx; Cornelius Castoriadis, for instance, described the Soviet Union's system as a form of "bureaucratic capitalism" rather than true communism.[30]

The multiple notions of political power that are put forth range from conventional views that simply revolve around the actions of politicians to those who view political power as an insidious form of institutionalized social control - most notably "anarchists" and "radical capitalists". The main views of political power revolve around normative, post-modern, and pragmatic perspectives.

Political spectra

Left-Right politics
Main article: Left-Right politics

Most political analysts and politicians divide politics into left wing and right wing politics, often also using the idea of center politics as a middle path of policy between the right and left. This classification is comparatively recent (it was not used by Aristotle or Hobbes, for instance), and dates from the French Revolution era, when those members of the National Assembly who opposed the monarchy sat on the left, while those who supported it sat on the right.[31]

The meaning of left-wing and right-wing varies considerably between different countries and at different times, but broadly speaking, it can be said that the right wing is often linked to moral and social conservatism, law and order, and religion, while the left wing is often linked with redistribution of wealth and resources towards the poorer or less successful sections of society (which are generally perceived by the left as unfairly disadvantaged), and with secularism.[32] The right wing is more often linked to the idea of social equity, and the left wing to the idea of social equality.

According to Norberto Bobbio, one of the major exponents of this distinction, the Left believes in attempting to eradicate social inequality, while the Right regards most social inequality as the result of ineradicable natural inequalities, and sees attempts to enforce social equality as utopian or authoritarian.[33]

Some ideologies, notably Christian Democracy, claim to combine left and right wing politics; according to Geoffrey K. Roberts and Patricia Hogwood, "In terms of ideology, Christian Democracy has incorporated many of the views held by liberals, conservatives and socialists within a wider framework of moral and Christian principles."[34] Movements which claim or formerly claimed to be above the left-right divide include Gaullism in France, Peronism in Argentina, and National Action Politics in Mexico.

Authoritarian-Libertarian

While left and right refer to different methods of developing an economically stable and just society,[citation needed] authoritarianism and libertarianism refer to the amount of individual freedom each person possesses in that society relative to the state. One author describes authoritarian political systems as those where "individual rights and goals are subjugated to group goals, expectations and conformities",[35] while a libertarian political system is one in which individual rights and civil liberties are paramount. More extreme than libertarians are anarchists, who argue for the total abolition of government, while the most extreme authoritarians are totalitarians who support state control over all aspects of society.

Authoritarianism and libertarianism are separate concepts from the left-right political axis. For instance, classical liberalism and contemporary American libertarianism are socially liberal, but reject extensive governmental intervention in the economy and welfare. According to the libertarian Institute for Humane Studies, "the libertarian, or 'classical liberal,' perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by 'as much liberty as possible' and 'as little government as necessary.'"[36]

Philosophical Constructs

Normative faces of power debate

The faces of power debate has coalesced into a viable conception of three dimensions of power including decision-making, agenda-setting, and preference-shaping. The decision-making dimension was first put forth by Robert Dahl, who advocated the notion that political power is based in the formal political arena and is measured through voting patterns and the decisions made by politicians.[37] This view has been criticised by many as simplistic, notably by the sociologist G. William Domhoff,[38] who argues that political and economic power is monopolised by the "elite classes".

A second dimension to the notion of political power was added by academics Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz involving "agenda-setting". Bachrach and Baratz viewed power as involving both the formal political arena and behind the scenes agenda-setting by elite groups who could be either politicians and/or others (such as industrialists, campaign contributors, special interest groups and so on), often with a hidden agenda that most of the public may not be aware of. The third dimension of power was added by British academic Steven Lukes who felt that even with this second dimension, some other traits of political power needed to be addressed through the concept of 'preference-shaping'. Lukes developed the concept of the "Three faces of power" - decision-making power, non-decision-making power, and ideological power.[39]

This third dimension is inspired by many Neo-Gramscian views such as cultural hegemony and deals with how civil society and the general public have their preferences shaped for them by those in power through the use of propaganda or the media. Ultimately, this third dimension holds that the general public may not be aware of what decisions are actually in their interest due to the invisible power of elites who work to distort their perceptions. Critics of this view claim that such notions are themselves elitist, which Lukes then clearly admits as one problem of this view and yet clarifies that as long as those who make claims that preferences are being shaped explain their own interests etc., there is room for more transparency.

Postmodern challenge of normative views of power

Some within the postmodern and post-structuralist field claim that power is something that is not in the hands of the few and is rather dispersed throughout society in various ways. As one academic writes, "...postmodernists have argued that due to a variety of inherent biases in the standards by which ”valid“ knowledge has been evaluated...modernist science has tended to reproduce ideological justifications for the perpetuation of long-standing forms of inequality. Thus, it is the strategy of postmodern science...to identify and, thereby, attack the ”deceiving“ power of universalizing scientific epistemologies."[40]

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.