Locke, Hume, & Rousseau Revisited

Personal Archives | 04-20-02 | PsyOp

[eddie willers]

Why does that name ring a bell?

French Impressionist.

[lockeliberty]

You've done 'splained yourself.

You'll have to give me some time to go through each point, but let me state, that Locke actually believed in a Diety and Natural Law as a gift of God as opposed to Rousseau and his god humanism.

[Pistias]

Locke actually believed in a Diety and Natural Law as a gift of God

Saying such things about people we know is even beyond our ken, let alone about men far more subtle and dead than we are. Let's limit ourselves to considering whether Locke's written work is consitent with regard to natural law and some recognizable concept of God, shall we?

I would also note that Rousseau believed that men and women should love each other, and that therein lay happiness, whereas for Locke as far as I can see the only good reason to have a wife is for more property from her and the kids, and maybe to satisfy and itch now and again. Look through all of his work, and find the word "love." I don't think it's there. So the least I can say is Locke is working off a concept of human happiness that I don't quite understand.

[lockeliberty]

I would also note that Rousseau believed that men and women should love each other, and that therein lay happiness,

I would have to disagree with Rousseau that happiness lies within love between man and woman.

You shall Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.

[Pistias]

It is not good for man to be alone...therefore he shall leave father and mother and cleave to a wife.

OK, let's just say "earthly happiness" or "a metaphor or reflection of the love of God given to men and women that they might know the joy of having a hand in creation."

[lockeliberty]

I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And, therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me- i.e., kill him if I can..."[17-8]

Compare:

"If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic."
Luke 6:29

Locke is speaking about living in a pure state of nature where each man is an government unto himself.

Romans 13:4
for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a ministerof God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

So therefore, in a pure state of Nature, where each man is an government unto himself, he surely has the same right to bear the sword as any other government has.

[lockeliberty]

So the duty to obey parents ends at majority, and the duty to honor them is essentially dependent upon the prospects of an inheritance.

Romans 9:13
Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

[lockeliberty]

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Surely your not suggesting that Jesus is saying that all Christians must sell all their possessions to enter heaven? I believe you take scripture out of context in many areas. Notice the last half of the verse.
and come and follow me.

The rich young ruler was not willing to give up all his possesions to follow Jesus and that was the point, not that you must give up all possessions to follow Jesus.

[Pistias]

Jesus is talking to men under the Romans. Why would He give them advice on the state of nature? (and the answering Scripture is "who sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed")...though I'm afraid I'm going to have to give the Christ the benefit of the doubt here over Paul.

[Pistias]

not that you must give up all possessions to follow Jesus.

"He who will not leave all and not look back is not fit for the Kingdom of Heaven."

[Pistias]

It seems to me the point of said passage is: "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." I don't see how it relates.

[lockeliberty]

, a liberty to separate from him where natural right(adultery) or their contract allows it(if at all), whether that contract be made by themselves in the state of Nature or by the customs or laws of the country they live in, and the children, upon such separation, fall to the father or mother's lot as such contract does determine."[80-83]

Interesting to note that most marriage vows(contracts) end with: "till death due us part."

[Pistias]

Not any more they don't--at least, not for lots of people who make up their own vows. And the positive law of the land, which says it overrides the contract, has formalized no-fault divorce.

[lockeliberty]

noting the tantara of beats of the word "power" throughout the work that Locke has some kindred nature with Machiavelli,

Not even anagolous. Locke speaks of individuals living in a pure state of Nature, while Machiavelli speaks of Monarchs.

[lockeliberty]

OK, let's just say "earthly happiness" or "a metaphor or reflection of the love of God given to men and women that they might know the joy of having a hand in creation."

That's not what Rousseau believed.

[Pistias]

Plenty analogous. Both are only concerned with power.

[lockeliberty]

though I'm afraid I'm going to have to give the Christ the benefit of the doubt here over Paul.

I believe that Paul was divinely inspired by Christ, thus what Paul says is what Christ says.

[Pistias]

I don't know what Rousseau believed, but I tend to agree with you--too much time spent on the untrue, I had to say something I felt was right...

anyways, I'm getting off work now, so I bid you adieu, and drink one to my health, for I'll sure be drinking one to yours.

[rbmillerjr]

Very interesting comments on threads like this.

I think we have alot of different perspectives being talked about. My perspective is to look at the influence Locke, Hume, Rousseau had on the founders,,,,,,and there are many others, but it is obvious others have more general philosophical or political philosophical perespectives.

A person with the political philosophy perspective will look at each philosopher in sum or in sum as it relates to a political philosophy. A person with an interest in American Democracy, Colonial/Revolution/Constitutional/Founding Fathers perspective, such as myself looks into the contributions each has made into that framework. So, that is my perspective for comments in the future.