254: The Ways of Liberalism 1

[13:06] herman Bergson: Gemma isnt there...
[13:06] herman Bergson: Qwark???
[13:06] Abraxas Nagy: she isnt well herman
[13:07] herman Bergson: oh dear...
[13:07] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:07] Qwark Allen: she is sick
[13:07] herman Bergson: bad news... :-(
[13:07] Abraxas Nagy: the flew ?
[13:07] Qwark Allen: with some food poisoning, since yesterday
[13:07] herman Bergson: nothing serious I hope
[13:07] Qwark Allen: no
[13:07] Qwark Allen: just feeling bad, cause of vomiting
[13:07] Zinzi Serevi: poor girl
[13:08] Abraxas Nagy: awww :(
[13:08] Qwark Allen: yes, terrible
[13:08] herman Bergson: heard that story before last week....friend of mine same thing...
[13:08] Abraxas Nagy: wow
[13:08] Qwark Allen: could be a virus also
[13:08] Qwark Allen: they do sometimes things like this
[13:08] herman Bergson: Both US....
[13:08] Abraxas Nagy: it probably is m8
[13:08] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:09] Qwark Allen: it`s a "bug" for sure
[13:09] Qwark Allen: ╔╗╔═╦╗
[13:09] Qwark Allen: ║╚╣║║╚╗
[13:09] Qwark Allen: ╚═╩═╩═╝
[13:09] bergfrau Apfelbaum: lol
[13:09] herman Bergson: she should reset the system
[13:09] Qwark Allen: eehheeh
[13:09] Abraxas Nagy: vomitting and feeling rotten.. are the sympthoms
[13:09] Qwark Allen: i told her to run the antivirus next time
[13:09] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:09] Abraxas Nagy: often
[13:09] herman Bergson: lol...most effective
[13:10] herman Bergson: Well let's hope for the best...my friend recovered after a few days...next time Gemma will be up and running
[13:10] Qwark Allen: yes, i hope so to
[13:10] herman Bergson: Let's turn to the subject of today...
[13:11] herman Bergson: Ok...let me begin



To show you how close our philosophical discourse here in class is to reality I'd like to tell you about an article I read in my newspaper this very morning.

The article was an in-depth analysis of the masses and in particular of the behavior of the masses of speculators on the free money market, one of the goodies of liberalism.

The main theme was that speculators claim to act rationally on movements in the market, but reality shows that they don't act on rational analyses of facts at all, they just run after each other.

China is hot so they all run to China for investments and as soon as someone drops the message "The inflation in China is increasing rapidly" the masses of speculators turn their back on China and run, which causes inflation to increase rapidly indeed.

Then the author compares this with the behavior of voters in a democracy, where you see similar behavior of the masses and his conclusion is almost literally "quoted" from my lectures.

Democracy", he writes, " can only function properly if the voters demand certain standards of honesty and truthfulness. You could demand that from speculators too.Voter and speculator have to be re-educated and restricted by rules, so that these irrationally motivated movements of the masses not become too dominant"

Here I read exactly what we are studying here.
One : the idea that the individual is , and should be free
Two : we need virtues like honesty and truthfulness to show better behavior
Three: We can achieve that by education

These are literally the ideas we heard last week in the lecture on Adam Smith. A positive view on humankind: one can be a better man by being virtuous. This will improve the proper functioning of a free market and in this development education is quintessential.

By definition, a liberal is one who believes in liberty, but because different people at different times have meant different things by liberty, “liberalism” is correspondingly ambiguous.

Liberals have typically maintained that humans are naturally in ‘a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions…as they think fit…without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man’ (Locke).

John Stuart Mill too argued that ‘the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition…. The a priori assumption is in favour of freedom…’.

This means, that freedom to act is a normative basic of being. You could call this natural law. One of the laws of nature philosophers kept looking for since Newton.

Thus, not freedom, but any attempt to restrict our freedom should be justified. The burden of proof lies by those who want to restrict us. To begin with our government and its endless flood of laws and regulations.

Consequently, a central question of liberal political theory is whether political authority can be justified, and if so, how. And as we have seen, to begin with Hobbes, the political philosophers came up with the Social Contract theory.

An other element that will need our attention is, that the origin of liberalism is closely related to the French Revolution of 1789. In particular with its slogan "Freedom, equality and fraternity".

We already discussed the concept of freedom / liberty, but equally important is the concept of equality. This equality is a presupposition of liberalism …. or are not all men equal? Are some men maybe "more equal", to wink at "Animal Farm" by George Orwell?

Lots of work to do here………



The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: so much for a kick off
[13:22] herman Bergson: There are many questions to answer, as there are many different theories on liberalism
[13:22] TBDiscovery Harbour: The part about equality that catches my eye is that a free market helps to select those who are good at different enterprises and those who are not. Any attempt to maintain equality in that sense would be akin to egalitarianism or utopia.
[13:22] herman Bergson: besides that..is it a good theory for all mankind for instance
[13:23] herman Bergson: or Why is is so moninant as a polittical theory?
[13:23] herman Bergson: things like that I will address in coming lectures
[13:23] herman Bergson: If you have any further suggestions, questions or ideas..plz speak ㋡
[13:24] oola Neruda: equal or... equal under the law
[13:24] herman Bergson: that is what I am thinking about oola
[13:24] herman Bergson: today I asked myself...do we OWN the earth?
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: Any attempt at all, TBD?
[13:24] herman Bergson: and when born here...what else are we but totally free?
[13:25] Abraxas Nagy: totally dependant
[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes TD....you hit the nerve
[13:25] TBDiscovery Harbour: An attempt to force an equality would mean taking from another to begin a new equilibrium, Repose.
[13:25] TBDiscovery Harbour: It disrupts the market.
[13:26] herman Bergson: But the other story is the distribution of wealth...
[13:26] TBDiscovery Harbour: In a sense, it handicaps, which is what the government does by interjecting stimulus, regulations, etc.
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: But the initial acquisition is sometimes a forceful and unjust act ㋡
[13:26] herman Bergson: Just the market means for instance the power of the strongest
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: there are larger issues of justice here
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: the market is amoral
[13:27] TBDiscovery Harbour: If we are talking about individual freedoms, then any who seeks to take, whether it be a corporation or government, would be out of line.
[13:27] herman Bergson: yes repose....
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: individual freedom is not absolute, TBD
[13:27] herman Bergson: It is not about taking TD..it is about sharing...
[13:27] herman Bergson: About social fairness
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: exactly
[13:28] TBDiscovery Harbour: But it makes perfect sense to have the strong working in labor positions, as they would earn the most in reward for their productivity.
[13:28] TBDiscovery Harbour: So we're talking about sharing...which would effectively be taking, if the government sets regulations.
[13:28] herman Bergson: For instance,,,you inherit a few millions....and you start a company that destroys all small retailers
[13:28] TBDiscovery Harbour: It's sharing to those who receive the entitlement.
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: except it is mostly the poor, weak or strong, who do so
[13:28] herman Bergson: just because you have to money and make more money...is that the idea of a society?
[13:29] TBDiscovery Harbour: But you said in the beginning that education is key. If the citizens are not educated, then they would beware of monopolistic intentions.
[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes TD....
[13:30] herman Bergson: but what of all those human being that have difficulty with learning?
[13:30] herman Bergson: Who are not the most gifted in our society?
[13:30] TBDiscovery Harbour: It does not mean that we take from high earners, in my opinion.
[13:30] herman Bergson: Should we trash them because they cant be educated?
[13:30] TBDiscovery Harbour: If the high earner is a philanthropist, sure.
[13:30] oola Neruda: the word gifted... is dependent upon what one values
[13:30] Bruce Mowbray: "the greatest good for the greatest number"?
[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes Bruce....
[13:31] Bruce Mowbray: You mentioned JS Mill -- Utilitarianism = liberalism?
[13:31] herman Bergson: As you see in these short discussion..there are hundreds of questions to deal with
[13:31] TBDiscovery Harbour: So this means that we would have to be willing to sacrifice personal freedoms in order for wealth to be redistributed.
[13:31] herman Bergson: I wouldnt sat that TD
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: Education is over-rated, I think....groups of people tend to function at the lowest moral common denominator...there are many highly educated Wall Streeters who greedilydrove the economy into the ground knowing what they were doing
[13:32] Zinzi Serevi: i agree
[13:32] TBDiscovery Harbour: Well taxation in order to spend extra funding on the mentally disabled would be by force.
[13:32] herman Bergson: What is the relation with personal freedom....freedom of property?
[13:32] Zinzi's translator: i agree
[13:32] Bruce Mowbray: I'm willing to redistribute mugs of coffee to anyone who wants them. IM me.
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: is there no room for love in your philosophy, TBD ㋡
[13:33] TBDiscovery Harbour: I just dislike the view that others think they can take because of a universal standard of social good.
[13:33] herman Bergson: Many philosophers belief in the virtue of benevolence as one of the things that make us human
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: sharing is the key concept here
[13:33] herman Bergson: That is a good point TD...
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: and the interdependence that we all have in human societies
[13:33] TBDiscovery Harbour: But it's not sharing. Do we allow those who don't want to share not to share?
[13:33] oola Neruda: one would not necessarily have to force taxation for spending extra on mentally disabled... again...it depends upon your values
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: sure...just don't take a thing.
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: nothing at all ㋡
[13:34] oola Neruda: people who have experience with people with handicaps often find that they love these individuals even more than they could have imagined
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: think about how much you DO take ㋡
[13:34] TBDiscovery Harbour: We are certainly interdependent, but each comes with his or her own skill sets.
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: and inevitably so
[13:34] oola Neruda: for it is from them that they learn some of the greatest lessons
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: no one denies that
[13:35] TBDiscovery Harbour: But you are justifying a forced taking from others. That is different from barter.
[13:35] oola Neruda: your values again
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: no, just suggesting you share or go away
[13:35] herman Bergson: One interesting pointr TD....you constantly talk about TAKING
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: from human society
[13:35] TBDiscovery Harbour: Yes, oola. I'm not denying the gift others have to offer. I just do not like the notion that others should be required to feel the same way.
[13:36] herman Bergson: I think we'll have to have a close look at the relation between citizen and govenrment...
[13:36] oola Neruda: smiles... true... we do not all feel the same
[13:36] Bruce Mowbray: Doesn't the concept of society or community imply sharing -- of values, territory, even goods?
[13:36] herman Bergson: Is the government a TAKING institution?
[13:36] TBDiscovery Harbour: Yes, most certainly, Professor.
[13:36] herman Bergson: Good point too Bruce...we need to pay attention to that
[13:37] herman Bergson: Ok TD...yo made a clear statement...
[13:37] TBDiscovery Harbour: If I do not pay my property taxes, then the government will take it.
[13:37] herman Bergson: So here we have an issue of analysis: Is a government a TAKING institution
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: yes, useful and interesting counterpoint, TBD
[13:38] herman Bergson: From a Social contract idea, that would be hard to defend
[13:38] oola Neruda: the government is not THEM... the government is US... WE... US
[13:38] herman Bergson: From a tyrran's point of view it is right
[13:38] oola Neruda: we need to be active as government
[13:38] TBDiscovery Harbour: However, I understand your point that redistribution allocates capital to areas of low production, so the government could be cycling the economy.
[13:39] oola Neruda: not just watch
[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes oola..if it is us..how can we take fromourselves?
[13:39] herman Bergson: One thing for sure....
[13:39] herman Bergson: I gonna reread our discussion carefully....
[13:40] herman Bergson: It is loaded with good questions and remarks already
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: well, if the underpinnings of every republic (and most democracies) are oligarchical, there is something of a "them" in them ㋡
[13:40] TBDiscovery Harbour: But such redistribution further creates social stratification because even the most ardent supporter of charity does not like to be told how to allocate income.
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: historical underpinnings, i meant
[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes Repose
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: Rome, Venice, etc
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: and most current ones, though moderated
[13:41] herman Bergson: But money is allocated to education and militairy defences for instance TD
[13:41] oola Neruda: returning to what you said earlier... about the need for honesty... when you get corrupt officials (in particular, those who enforce)... then it is not really US..WE... US... it becomes THEM...
[13:41] herman Bergson: That is accepted by every taxpayer I guess
[13:41] TBDiscovery Harbour: Yes, they are considered public goods.
[13:41] oola Neruda: and one of their best weapons is to deny education
[13:42] TBDiscovery Harbour: Not true, Professor.
[13:42] TBDiscovery Harbour: In the US we have a failing public school system and the funds are wasted.
[13:42] Krissy Harbour: it becomes them when people are dependent on them
[13:42] herman Bergson: that is a technical issue not a political one I would say...
[13:42] oola Neruda: teachers are on the front lines in this issue... they are expected to solve the problems that are really not in their control
[13:43] TBDiscovery Harbour: I would disagree because if we do not hold the government accountable, then they become larger without checks and balances.
[13:43] oola Neruda: i mentioned, last class, a child in fourth grade who has frequent hangovers
[13:43] herman Bergson: Wait...before we begin to discuss these details...
[13:43] oola Neruda: that is a mere symptom...
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: yes, teachers fail because they are not free to do their best
[13:43] oola Neruda: the social problems in a community are beyond the pervue of the teachers
[13:43] herman Bergson: the basic principal is that a government redistributes money by funding public education..
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: true, too
[13:43] oola Neruda: but, they do their best with what they get
[13:44] herman Bergson: no body opposes to that
[13:44] Coffee Mug whispers: Ahh! Fresh Hot Coffee
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: not any more, Prof
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: mostly
[13:44] herman Bergson: whether it is done the right or wrong way doesnt affect the princial
[13:44] TBDiscovery Harbour: Yes, true Professor, but even those students who attend private schools must pay. So yes, they do oppose.
[13:44] TBDiscovery Harbour: I don't see how we can assume that no one opposes the taking of funds.
[13:45] oola Neruda: they are paying in order to escape the hubris of the the problems in society/neighborhoods
[13:45] herman Bergson: Well here we have such a difference...
[13:45] TBDiscovery Harbour: But I argue that public funding creates such detrimental aspects.
[13:45] herman Bergson: the US has expensive private schools...
[13:45] herman Bergson: a phenomenon hardly known in Europe..or at least in The Netherlands..
[13:46] Bruce Mowbray: ??? England has some VERY expensive "private" schools.
[13:46] herman Bergson: but we all have liberals among our political parties
[13:46] TBDiscovery Harbour: Understood. But I still feel that assuming that everyone does not oppose taxation, regardless of usage, is incorrect.
[13:46] herman Bergson: so one libarel isnt the same as the other liberal...
[13:46] herman Bergson: we have to look into that too
[13:47] Krissy Harbour: I agree
[13:47] Bruce Mowbray: The French Revolution demonstrated that, too.
[13:47] herman Bergson: Oppose to taxation in general TD?
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: interesting question
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: ?
[13:48] TBDiscovery Harbour: If we are classical liberals, then yes. I argue that the private sector can perform better in 90% of the government's purview.
[13:48] herman Bergson: Ok..Imagine a society without taxation.....we can think about that, yes
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: ok, we agree
[13:48] TBDiscovery Harbour: Private businesses can fail, the government cannot without a revolution.
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: though we might agrue the percentage
[13:48] Krissy Harbour: true
[13:49] oola Neruda: last class i also mentioned how one private sector infringes upon other ones... for example ... pollution of water or air that crosses state boundaries
[13:49] herman Bergson: I am fascinated by your point of view TD...I love it....lots of questions...
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: but for the percentage that the government does perform best, we need taxation, right?
[13:49] TBDiscovery Harbour: The government comes in when a public good will not be provided by the private sector simply because it is a profit losing venture. So, at its essence, government is a profit losing venture.
[13:49] oola Neruda: someone has to set agreements between the separate private sectors
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: public education has the greater purpose of providing an educational floor as a benefit to the nation's democracy
[13:50] herman Bergson: Well I reacall a quote.... was it Fauber.... "Governement is evil: anarchy is more eviel, yet government is evil
[13:50] oola Neruda: it sounds like money is the object of value... not the common good
[13:50] herman Bergson: we;ll look into that too
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: it is not all economics, TBD
[13:51] herman Bergson: Good point oola!!!
[13:51] TBDiscovery Harbour: But it is a public education mandated and performed by the government, which we agree is not the most optimal source of efficiency and effectiveness. We prolong it because we don't know any other way.
[13:51] herman Bergson: We are talking about a society..and indeed not only its economics
[13:52] oola Neruda: because power (especially in the private sector, i would say) corrupts... and money corrupts even more
[13:52] TBDiscovery Harbour: Well, oola, it depends on the percentage of individuals who are willing to work for charity or the common good. If that percentage is large, then great, but if not, then we must not force others to become charitable through regulation.
[13:52] herman Bergson: Interesting point TD....
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: noo...we prolong it because it is necessary for the functioning of a democracy.
[13:52] oola Neruda: were you born with a silver spoon and enjoyed perfect health all your life TB
[13:52] TBDiscovery Harbour: So this would ultimately create societies of like-minded individuals.
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: doubt that ㋡
[13:53] herman Bergson: Is the human being basically selfish in a Hobbesian sense or is is by nature a social being like Adam Smith claimed
[13:53] TBDiscovery Harbour: No, I want to be free and not have others impose their will on me.
[13:53] Krissy Harbour: he worked for it
[13:53] Qwark Allen: individuals work for charity when they have their own needs full fill
[13:53] oola Neruda: thinking of ayn rand....
[13:53] Qwark Allen: in "poor" comunitys that is not a reality suitable
[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes me too oola...have to reread her definitely ^_^
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: ahhh...we can never really be free in your sense. We are inevitably interdependent
[13:54] oola Neruda: one thing that creates compassion in a person is to see what is really out there... and better yet to experience it
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: the language you use it an interdepent social construction
[13:54] herman Bergson: My friend.s..... there is an overload of the system here!!!!!
[13:54] oola Neruda: you sound very protected from reality TB
[13:54] TBDiscovery Harbour: I feel the same about you, oola.
[13:54] oola Neruda: smiles
[13:54] herman Bergson: Just HOLD ON plz....
[13:55] Repose Lionheart: doubt very much the silver spoon theory, oola ㋡
[13:55] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:55] herman Bergson: In a 30 minutes we have dropped so many questions and observations....we have to sort this out and bring some order in it
[13:56] herman Bergson: So ..when this discussion is posted in the blog...plz reread it...so many essential remarks already
[13:56] Bruce Mowbray: sort of a metaphor for society at large...?
[13:56] Repose Lionheart: microcosm here
[13:56] herman Bergson: Well, my point is that we have to focus on one issue...
[13:56] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:57] herman Bergson: and this was a brilliant kick off thanks to all your ideas and discussion
[13:57] Qwark Allen: ah
[13:57] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:57] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:57] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor!
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: ty herman
[13:58] Josiane Llewellyn: Thank you Professor
[13:58] herman Bergson: So , may I thank you for this great discussion and we'll get back to is next lecture...
[13:57] Zinzi Serevi is typing...n...
[13:58] Qwark Allen: great
[13:58] Bruce Mowbray: Thank you, prof -- and everyone.
[13:58] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[13:58] Abraxas Nagy: see you next time guys
[13:58] herman Bergson: And thank you TSD for your critical input...
[13:58] Zinzi Serevi: thanks Prof
[13:58] Abraxas Nagy: an galls
[13:59] TBDiscovery Harbour: Thank you for listening, Professor.
[13:59] Zinzi Serevi: bye Abrax
[13:59] Zinzi's translator: bye Abrax
[13:59] bergfrau Apfelbaum: danke herman!
[13:59] oola Neruda: yes TB
[13:59] oola Neruda: good points
[13:59] dzjengis Parx: bye all thx herman
[13:59] Abraxas Nagy: bye zinzi
[13:59] Krissy Harbour: Thanks
[13:59] Zinzi Serevi: bye bye all of you
[13:59] Zinzi's translator: bye bye all of you
[13:59] herman Bergson: Bye Zinzi
[13:59] herman Bergson: To me it sounds very American...
[13:59] TBDiscovery Harbour: I only wish, Professor. It's a rare view, and I hope that changes.
[14:00] herman Bergson: I liked all you said....
[14:00] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye all:-) see u thursday
[14:00] herman Bergson: doesnt mean I agreed..but you keep things sharp with your point of view
[14:00] TBDiscovery Harbour: You as well. I'll be back when I can. I usually work at this time.
[14:00] TBDiscovery Harbour: Krissy and I are off today.
[14:00] oola Neruda: nice to have your ideas TB
[14:01] herman Bergson: There is always the blog
[14:01] herman Bergson: there you can read how the story goes on...
[14:01] TBDiscovery Harbour: You as well, oola. This is a great class. I hold lectures at Thothica and Philosophy Island, but this is one of my favorite spots.
[14:01] herman Bergson: And I will take your remarks into account definitely
[14:01] TBDiscovery Harbour: Yes, I will tune in to the blog.
[14:01] oola Neruda: :-)
[14:01] TBDiscovery Harbour: Goodbye for now.
[14:02] oola Neruda: baiee baiee

249: Rousseau (1712 - 1778)

Jean-Jaques Rousseau (1712 - 1178) is probably the best know philosopher among the 'Social Contract" philosophers. Even his typical way of thinking is still popular.

The Academy of Dijon posed the question, “Has the restoration of the sciences and arts tended to purify morals?” And Rousseau said : NO! in 1750.

And still we see the ambivalence around us. One group who is optimistic and believes that science will solve any problem and the other group who claims that all this science and technology alienates us from our true self.

It is remarkable that more than 250 years ago there were people who had the same ideas. Or should I say that we now experience the influence of Rousseau's philosophy here.

Like the sciences in those days analyzed physical reality in its smallest parts and laws of nature, in the same way philosophers tried to apply this methodology to political philosophy.

So we got the "state of nature" theories of man as formulated by Hobbes and Locke and now Rousseau too.

Hobbes contends that human beings are motivated purely by self-interest, and that the state of nature, which is the state of human beings without civil society, is the war of every person against every other.

Locke’s account of the state of nature is different in that it is an intellectual exercise to illustrate people’s obligations to one another. These obligations are articulated in terms of natural rights, including rights to life, liberty and property.

Rousseau’s picture of “man in his natural state,” is radically different. Rousseau describes natural man as isolated, timid, peaceful, mute, and without the foresight to worry about what the future will bring.

Rousseau acknowledges, that self-preservation is one principle of motivation for human actions. But there is a second principle: “an innate repugnance to see his fellow suffer.”, pity.

Human beings in the state of nature are amoral creatures, neither virtuous nor vicious, but naturally good. according to Rousseau. After humans leave the state of nature, they can enjoy a higher form of goodness, moral goodness, which Rousseau articulates most explicitly in the Social Contract.

Rousseau's philosophy is based on the idea that by nature, humans are essentially peaceful, content, and equal. It is the socialization process that has produced inequality, competition, and the egoistic mentality. But the social contract is the inevitable consequence of historical development.

While Hobbes and Locke had some utilitarian like ideas about a society based on a social contract, Rousseau chooses a completely different approach by introducing the concept of the "general will".

One can understand the general will in terms of an analogy. A political society is like a human body. A body is a unified entity though it has various parts that have particular functions.

And just as the body has a will that looks after the well-being of the whole, a political state also has a will which looks to its general well-being.

The major conflict in political philosophy occurs when the general will is at odds with one or more of the individual wills of its citizens.

Rousseau argues that there is an important distinction to be made between the general will and the collection of individual wills: “There is often a great deal of difference between the will of all and the general will.

The latter looks only to the common interest; the former considers private interest and is only a sum of private wills. But take away from these same wills the pluses and minuses that cancel each other out, and the remaining sum of the differences is the general will.”

And here I am lost with Rousseau. I have no idea where he has found this general will, nor do I know what generates its existence. We know the term "the common good", but now we have to follow "the general will"

An unpleasant political idea in my opinion. Who can claim to know what this general will wants. And if someone does, are we obliged to follow him? Not me…


The Discussion

[13:18] herman Bergson: so much on Rousseau
[13:18] herman Bergson: He started a debate that still rages on
[13:18] Gemma Cleanslate: that reminds me of the problem we had last week with the obligation to follow the majority
[13:18] Qwark Allen: indeed
[13:18] Bejiita Imako: aa yes like whats going on in Thailand for ex now
[13:19] herman Bergson: Well...the majority is not an abstraction....
[13:19] Bejiita Imako: who have right the yellows or red
[13:19] oola Neruda: i am bothered by the manipulation of facts and use of propaganda to influence general will
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: no but was still causing the same problem for the minority
[13:19] herman Bergson: These is a difference Bejita...
[13:19] Kiki Walpanheim: sorry i am late...network was bad
[13:20] herman Bergson: In Thailand the rulers are tyrannies in the classic sense...not selected by democratic vote
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: very true
[13:20] herman Bergson: all Social Contract theorists agree on the right to overthrow despotism
[13:21] herman Bergson: and as I said...contrary to this General Will of rousseau.the majority is a realthing
[13:21] Bejiita Imako: hmm true that but general in politics do they think of the people or only themselves and is the later the so called general will
[13:21] herman Bergson: and it is a social agreement that we accept the vote of the majority
[13:21] Bejiita Imako: true
[13:22] herman Bergson: that is an ever lasting problem with representation….do they represent us...
[13:22] Bejiita Imako: or themselves
[13:22] herman Bergson: The greek let all the citizens vote..but that was just a small group
[13:22] Alaya Kumaki: the general will look like if it is a survey s proportion of those who are forcing leaderships, as in an oligarchy
[13:24] Kiki Walpanheim: i dont understand why civilization is a degradation of morals
[13:24] Abraxas Nagy: look around you
[13:24] herman Bergson: Yes...good question Kiki....
[13:24] oola Neruda: a lot depends upon the leader... in some places education is lacking and even denied, in other places it is required
[13:24] herman Bergson: it is what not exactly what Rousseau thought....but that is a matter of debate
[13:25] oola Neruda: who decides what is best for the whole
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:25] Abraxas Nagy: the majority
[13:25] herman Bergson: The question is why did they think it made sense to analyze human existence to arrive at some "natural state"?
[13:26] herman Bergson: Well oola...no one decides what is best....
[13:26] Alaya Kumaki: could they analyze from a natural state.. of were they studying humans in a society already?
[13:26] herman Bergson: there is a plethora of interests and a number of people who are selected to tip the balance one way or the other
[13:26] Alaya Kumaki: humans
[13:27] herman Bergson: this natural state is in fact a theoretical construct
[13:27] oola Neruda: but those people need to be honest and wise
[13:27] Alaya Kumaki: its seems so
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: the main problem is we all THINK
[13:27] herman Bergson: maybe related to the idea of us coming from paradise
[13:29] herman Bergson: What these COntract Theorists made clear at least was that the authority of a state was not derived form God or the like but created by man himself
[13:29] herman Bergson: That was their big contribution to our independence
[13:29] Alaya Kumaki: ah the previous state before the society ,what it is related to the religion that was at the time?
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: also...if society is unnatural..then why social contract...
[13:30] herman Bergson: christian faith still plaid an important role..
[13:30] herman Bergson: It was the metaphysical background of the philosophers of those days
[13:31] herman Bergson: but what they question is the authority of this religion in relation to the empirical reality
[13:31] Kiki Walpanheim: and yes this general will confuses me too
[13:31] Alaya Kumaki: well ,i my sense, if many persons dont what to follow the general will, they could make a social contract among themselves, and be into another groups.. , this is how i saw his social contract, but i find relate it to the general will, before today
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: i think rousseau also mentioned that the social contract cant be applied to a too large society
[13:32] herman Bergson: this GEneral will idea is a questionable issue in Rousseau's philosophy for me
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: nods to herman, the same with me
[13:32] herman Bergson: The English like Hobbes an Locke talked about the Common good....
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: so far i like Montesquieu better
[13:33] herman Bergson: in that they meant real security and welfare for the people..
[13:33] Alaya Kumaki: the general will might not be, a leadership, but the will, in general?
[13:33] Kiki Walpanheim: if ppl in this contract are all by free will, then i can understand...not sure...
[13:33] herman Bergson: YEs Alaya, but what wiill...and who knows what this General will wants...
[13:33] Kiki Walpanheim: which mean, ppl could choose to live without or within this contract, rather than coercively
[13:34] herman Bergson: It is a kind of a God idea
[13:34] Alaya Kumaki: hihi, that is the question
[13:34] Alaya Kumaki: but than comes the social contract
[13:34] herman Bergson: well...I dont think you should take the idea of a contract too literal
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: also i dont understand why a progressive society is no good.....
[13:35] Alaya Kumaki: oh
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: as in agreement
[13:35] herman Bergson: There never was signed a contract in history...
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: oh
[13:35] herman Bergson: Even this contract idea is a theoretical construct to explain reality
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:36] herman Bergson: I think one of the main drives was the believe in the human being himself,,,independent of any authority ...means religion
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: rousseau also mentioned that children better be educated by nature rather than books...while i cherish reading books....
[13:36] herman Bergson: that is what I meant in the beginning...
[13:37] herman Bergson: these days you still find people who believe in knowledge an science as a solution...
[13:37] Alaya Kumaki: i dotn see it as a signed paper, but a social, will, something they agree upon , like having basic needs, a a commons understanding, , some cooperative inclination
[13:37] Kiki Walpanheim: network was bad...missed the beginning;( but would check the blog later ;)
[13:37] herman Bergson: while others believe in 'nature'
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: we would have a new set of savages every few years
[13:37] herman Bergson: nature
[13:38] herman Bergson: YEs Alaya..you are right..and in that sense you are closer to Hobbes and Locke than to Rousseau
[13:39] herman Bergson: But this general will idea will play an important role later
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: tho nature is good, and ppl do have a side that they like to share....which i agree
[13:39] herman Bergson: Typical continental metaphysics
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: still, maybe part of nature is that we are gifted the ability to use tech. be cultivated
[13:40] Kiki Walpanheim: and ppl are selfish as well...tho ppl like to share
[13:40] Kiki Walpanheim tries to understand him rather than let my prejudice take over me
[13:41] herman Bergson: ]A natural state is a myth in my opinion...we never have been in such a state..not is it a desirable state
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: nods
[13:42] herman Bergson: Important is to see how normative Rousseau's philosophy is...he is rather a moralist telling us how it should be
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: also he described the nice pic of primitives when there was no ownership...
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: nods
[13:43] herman Bergson: We'll see more of the influence of his ideas
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe could read him as to see how to be good and moral
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: like,,...kant?
[13:43] herman Bergson: Well Virtue was his highest goal....and education to virtuous life
[13:44] herman Bergson: which means....close to (our) nature
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: yes, being virtuous and close to nature...but in my opinion, to neglect the facts that ppl are not like that, is
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: might not be quite realistic...i dunno
[13:45] herman Bergson: Well Rousseau had some weird ideas...
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: tho trying to be virtuous ourselves is good
[13:45] Alaya Kumaki: rousseau was very conservative and a tendency to , moralize yes
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: would never work in this society for sure anywhere
[13:45] herman Bergson: for instance that science was the result of pride and vanity....
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: if everybody has evolved to angels, then an ideal society would achieve....maybe..
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: hmm maybe then
[13:46] herman Bergson: Well..I think our present perspective is way different....
[13:46] Alaya Kumaki: some scientist are saing that for pride and vanity , , i can see that, but not all
[13:46] Alaya Kumaki: using
[13:46] herman Bergson: we are one step further than `ROusseau....we accept that we ar eevolved animals
[13:46] herman Bergson: and we reason from there
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: when not everybody is as virtuous as that, maybe taking advantage of ppl's self interst works better...
[13:47] herman Bergson: with the focus on the 'animal' features
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: oh
[13:47] herman Bergson: Hobbes , Locke and rousseau accepted the fact that we are social beings
[13:48] herman Bergson: we accept the fact that we are biological organisms with social behavior
[13:48] Alaya Kumaki: does he refer to the animal, as the body part, or more as the mind being gregarious,what were animals for him?
[13:48] herman Bergson: we interpret our situation from another scientific perspective than those men could
[13:49] herman Bergson: For Rousseau we were close to animals, but the big difference is our free will, which no animal posseses
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: rousseau thinks that renaissance made ppl lost the ancient virtues.....also
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: do ppl really have free will?
[13:50] herman Bergson: Well he is a classic Virtue moralist
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: good question
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: nods
[13:51] Qwark Allen: do animals don`t have free will?
[13:51] herman Bergson: that is a whole new chapter Kiki
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: ;-) yes.....
[13:51] herman Bergson: animals act on instinct
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: I'd say
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: they probably have but follow instinct more i think
[13:51] Blackwell Huet: My favorite subject.
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: the holographic universe
[13:51] Qwark Allen: i think they have
[13:51] Qwark Allen: some
[13:51] Qwark Allen: we tend to be egocentric on that
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe focus on rousseau this time ;-)
[13:52] Blackwell Huet: Animals have soul, but people have the ability to develop spirit.
[13:52] herman Bergson: What is your favorite subject Blackwell?
[13:52] herman Bergson: ~free wil?
[13:52] Blackwell Huet: Yes, sir.
[13:52] Alaya Kumaki: will to deviate from nature organisations, as far as i can see, we can eat and poison ourself for the sake of the pleasure of any type, interests of any projection of satisfactions, putting ourself in trouble? is it an advantage?
[13:52] Qwark Allen: spirit can be as subjective as the animals don`t have free will
[13:53] herman Bergson: it is a fact Ayala
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: my favorite is ethics and politics, not limited to that tho , anything on philosophy is interesting to me
[13:53] Alaya Kumaki: it might be usefull for something, more, than just loose track
[13:53] Alaya Kumaki: it might be a propultion motor, motive
[13:53] herman Bergson: I dont know Ayala... ㋡
[13:54] Alaya Kumaki: its needed, in trouble as for a fireman to save life , for example
[13:54] herman Bergson: Well…. Rousseau is a bit of a question mark to me .....not sure what to do with him
[13:54] Alaya Kumaki: tha tis the strong social cohesive glue , i guess
[13:55] Blackwell Huet: The strongest social cohesive glue is FEAR.
[13:55] herman Bergson: Next class will be our 250th Lecture...
[13:55] Qwark Allen: omg
[13:55] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark ㋡
[13:55] Qwark Allen: that is great
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: who is the guest next time
[13:55] Qwark Allen: got to celebrate it
[13:55] Bejiita Imako: nice
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: yes , 250 that is wonderful
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim: anniversary
[13:56] herman Bergson: Well.. I am thinking..after all these liberals that Property could be our guest
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: goodness
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim: oh...good
[13:56] herman Bergson: Before we continue into the 19th century...
[13:56] herman Bergson: we could dig into the concept of property....
[13:56] Alaya Kumaki: fear and free will?mmm i was relating it, to will that make us have a strong decisional social behavior, cutting into the self i centrifuge satisfaction
[13:57] Kiki Walpanheim: ty professor it was wonderful....always enjoy the lectures here!
[13:57] herman Bergson: For we are heading for a world of poor and rich....class struggle....
[13:57] herman Bergson: thank you kiki
[13:57] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes thats true
[13:57] Alaya Kumaki: indeed and maybe more fascist too
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: yes we are
[13:57] herman Bergson: Property is a fascinating subject I can tell you...
[13:57] Blackwell Huet: I wholly agree.
[13:57] Kiki Walpanheim: yes, surely is
[13:57] herman Bergson: it is at the root of our political system
[13:58] Blackwell Huet: Agreed.
[13:58] Abraxas Nagy: or at least rightwing is coming up
[13:58] Blackwell Huet: It is at the root of our system of laws.
[13:58] Abraxas Nagy: in Holland that is
[13:58] herman Bergson: Well property isnt right or left..how to distribute and share it is the debate for the future

[Hope63 Shephard was one the 'students' in the Philosophy Class since day one. On March 8, 2009, so after about two years of participation, he disappeared from Second Life. We tried to contact him without much effect. He was highly appreciated for his contributions in our discussions.
However, recently we got reports that he was spotted here and there. I also saw him for a split second. And today he appeared in class again, so you can imagine the reception he got….㋡]

[13:58] herman Bergson: HOPE!!
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: OMG!!!
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: omg
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: HOPE!!!!!
[13:59] herman Bergson whispers: WELCOME
[13:59] Qwark Allen: ㋡ ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Helloooooo! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:59] Qwark Allen: Hey! HOPPPPEEEEE
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: good heavens!!
[13:59] bergfrau Apfelbaum: hiii hope :-)
[13:59] Abraxas Nagy: ah but how to distribute it IS politcs
[13:59] Bejiita Imako: hi Hope
[13:59] Alaya Kumaki giggles
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: I am glad to see you are alive
[13:59] Blackwell Huet: Popular guy!
[13:59] herman Bergson: For those who dont know..meet Hope
[13:59] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********
[13:59] herman Bergson: ♫♪♫♪ ♪♫♪♫ APPLAUSE ♪♫♪♫ ♫♪♫♪
[13:59] oola Neruda: HOPE!!!
[13:59] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:59] Zinzi Serevi: hello Hope
[13:59] Zinzi's translator: hello Hope
[13:59] hope63 Shepherd: relax.. lol.. how can you be sure its me..:)
[13:59] oola Neruda: welcome back!!!
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: just not seen in almost a year
[13:59] herman Bergson: One of our most loyal students and oldtimer
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: very old lol
[14:00] Qwark Allen: OMG THAT IS you! just cause of that
[14:00] Bejiita Imako: aa ok
[14:00] Qwark Allen: l ☺ ☻ ☺ l
[14:00] Qwark Allen: lol
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: ah i see
[14:00] hope63 Shepherd: lol.. oldtimer might be the right word..lol
[14:00] herman Bergson: but still on a slow laptop...lol
[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: older than me in class
[14:00] bergfrau Apfelbaum: lol
[14:00] Qwark Allen: ╔╗╔═╦╗
[14:00] Qwark Allen: ║╚╣║║╚╗
[14:00] Qwark Allen: ╚═╩═╩═╝
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[14:00] hope63 Shepherd: please continue professor..:)
[14:00] Zinzi Serevi: he is just in time for the 250
[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: wow
[14:00] herman Bergson: Class is dismissed Hope
[14:00] Kiki Walpanheim: i see two characters on hope's shirt....smiles
[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: herman
[14:00] Sartre Placebo: thx herman
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: ty professor
[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday
[14:01] Qwark Allen: you got here one hour later HOPE
[14:01] Abraxas Nagy: it was a pleasure again
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: interesting
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: hope we see you thursday Hope
[14:01] Zinzi Serevi: thanks Herman
[14:01] Kiki Walpanheim: see you
[14:01] Qwark Allen: YES
[14:01] herman Bergson: Hope..Thursday 22:00 European time..Lecture 250
[14:01] hope63 Shepherd: EASY EASY.. JUST MANAGED TO RELOGG INTO SL..LOL
[14:01] Zinzi Serevi: bye all of you
[14:01] bergfrau Apfelbaum: it was interesting!! thanks herman: -) thanks class!
[14:01] Qwark Allen: ㋡ ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Helloooooo! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[14:01] Qwark Allen: Hey!
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)
[14:02] Abraxas Nagy: anything happening Q?
[14:02] Qwark Allen: I`M at europe ---> and it`s at 21 here
[14:02] Qwark Allen: l ☺ ☻ ☺ l
[14:02] Qwark Allen: lol
[14:02] Qwark Allen: no
[14:02] Abraxas Nagy: no?
[14:02] herman Bergson: that is UK Qwark
[14:02] Qwark Allen: today going to bed soon
[14:02] Abraxas Nagy: o A o!
[14:02] Qwark Allen: gemma going to rl work
[14:02] Qwark Allen: @_@
[14:02] Abraxas Nagy: ah ok m8 have A good rest
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: ok
[14:02] Qwark Allen: tomorow we`ll make a partyy
[14:02] Abraxas Nagy: w0oh0o!
[14:02] bergfrau Apfelbaum: see you thursday :-)
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: ah
[14:02] Qwark Allen: ok
[14:03] Qwark Allen: byesee you tomorow
[14:03] Abraxas Nagy: c ya bergFrau
[14:03] Qwark Allen: .-)))
[14:03] Bejiita Imako: cu then Q
[14:03] Bejiita Imako: :)
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye abra:-)
[14:03] Abraxas Nagy: :D
[14:03] Bejiita Imako: cu all

248: Montesquieu (1689 - 1755)

The Age of the Enlightenment is a turning point in the development of European civilization. Some people complain about the individualism and the empty churches of today.

However, this is not a modern phenomenon at all. It all began with the Enlightenment, when knowledge became scientific knowledge and christianity had ceased to be one religion, but a multitude of different interpretations.

These are the roots of our contemporary world and in Montesquieu (1689 - 1755) we again meet a political philosopher who set the beacons for the centuries to come.

He was famous in his own century both in France and in foreign lands, from Russia to the American colonies. He was a follower of John Locke and the outstanding champion in France of the supposedly “English” notions of freedom, toleration, moderation, and constitutional government.


The dominant role of religion in political philosophy had come to a definite end. Locke already proposed to separate state and religion.

God is described by Montesquieu in Book 1 of his "De l'esprit des lois"as creating nature and its laws; having done so, He vanishes, and plays no further explanatory role.

In particular, Montesquieu does not explain the laws of any country by appeal to divine enlightenment, providence, or guidance. On his view it is generally a mistake to base civil laws on religious principles. Religion aims at the perfection of the individual; civil laws aim at the welfare of society.

The civil laws are not an appropriate tool for enforcing religious norms of conduct: God has His own laws, and He is quite capable of enforcing them without our assistance.

When we attempt to enforce God's laws for Him, or to cast ourselves as His protectors, we make our religion an instrument of fanaticism and oppression; this is a service neither to God nor to our country. How modern these ideas sound, if we look at islamic fanaticism and its cry of the Sharia.

Montesquieu's masterpiece is definitely his "De l’esprit des lois". It was first published in Geneva in 1748 against the advice of all the friends to whom Montesquieu had shown the manuscript. It was promptly placed on the Index by the Pope, but it sold twenty-two editions in less than two years.

Montesquieu's aim in "The Spirit of the Laws" is to explain human laws and social institutions. And thus he became the fist scientist formulating sociological research on a strict empiricist basis.

According to him the laws we have are man made and adapted "to the people for whom they are framed..., to the nature and principle of each government, ...

to the climate of each country, to the quality of its soil, to its situation and extent, to the principal occupation of the natives, whether husbandmen, huntsmen or shepherds:…"

In all the diversity however , Montesquieu, saw a general law. At the highest level of abstraction, he saw a uniform law—“Men have always been subject to the same passions”—but in various societies this higher natural law is expressed in differing systems of positive law. The systems differ because the external conditions differ.

To make things work you need the right government. Montesquieu holds that there are three types of governments: republican governments, which can take either democratic or aristocratic forms; monarchies; and despotisms.

If it is to provide its citizens with the greatest possible liberty, a government must have certain features. First, since "constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it ... it is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power".

This is achieved through the separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of government. If different persons or bodies exercise these powers, then each can check the others if they try to abuse their powers.

And here we see the legacy of a man, who lived a three hundred years ago: the separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of government, still a cornerstone of our democracy and thus our liberty.


The Discussion

[13:18] herman Bergson: This on Montesquieu...
[13:18] herman Bergson: Time for questions and remarks ㋡
[13:19] Repose Lionheart: Montesquieu got it right, I think ㋡
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: this looks so simple~!!!!!!!! On his view it is generally a mistake to base civil laws on religious principles. Religion aims at the perfection of the individual; civil laws aim at the welfare of society.
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: i love that
[13:19] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:19] herman Bergson: I agree Repose....and we are still on the liberal train....
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: why cannot our citizens get that throught their heads
[13:19] oola Neruda: yay Gemma.. ye
[13:19] oola Neruda: yes
[13:20] herman Bergson: Good question Gemma ^_^
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: this is at the root of so many of our conflicts here in government today
[13:20] herman Bergson: It is amazing that a man 300 years ago already thought of these things
[13:20] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: well not necessarly
[13:20] herman Bergson: what exactly Gemma?
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: no wonder the church did not like him
[13:21] Repose Lionheart: oh, yes ㋡
[13:21] herman Bergson: Oh no....immediately put on the INdex
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: well 300 years ago that was the root of the puritans formulation
[13:22] Bruce Mowbray: Is our country's refusal to see churches as corporations a sign of continuing M's liberalism - or a step backward from it?
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: the idea of separation of church and state
[13:22] Abraxas Nagy: our country?
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: our country
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: usa
[13:22] Bruce Mowbray: I'm sorry!
[13:22] Bruce Mowbray: I really am sorry.
[13:22] Bruce Mowbray: The Unitged States.
[13:22] Abraxas Nagy: ah ok
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:22] herman Bergson: It is ok Bruce
[13:23] oola Neruda: a lot of what the church wants and the state wants...overlap... like consequences for murder, stealing etc. the church could make an issue of how they serve all of society as well as the individual
[13:23] herman Bergson: I dont know Bruce... churches dont pay taxes....
[13:23] herman Bergson: that I know
[13:24] Bruce Mowbray: That's part of it, yes.
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: maybe a step back ㋡
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: religion does get special treatment
[13:24] herman Bergson: Well first of all aIlready in those days the political philosophy was that the church has no relation with the affairs of state.
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: but they all get it
[13:25] herman Bergson: Locke already suggested a clear separation…
[13:25] herman Bergson: Religion is something of the individual
[13:25] Zinzi Serevi: i agree
[13:25] Zinzi's translator: i agree
[13:25] herman Bergson: And he only should be protected by law to be free in his choices of religion
[13:25] Bruce Mowbray: Would Mont. and Locke agree that churches should not be treated as corportations, though -- I mean, that they should be granted special status apart from civil laws?
[13:26] herman Bergson: Well...we now witness what the consequences can be of that special status....
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: interesting question
[13:26] Alaya Kumaki: i see that today , we have rather the problem of power abuse checking to organise better also
[13:27] Alaya Kumaki: but what is the difference between the religions executive and the parliament executive?
[13:27] herman Bergson: All those priests that broke civil law regarding sexual abuse...should have been put to trail
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: of course
[13:27] Zinzi Serevi: sure
[13:27] Zinzi's translator: sure
[13:28] Alaya Kumaki: dowe have a some slack, in our executive according to the civil laws?
[13:28] herman Bergson: In fact religions have no executive power in the state
[13:28] Bruce Mowbray: If church and state are REALLY separate -- then the churches have their laws/punishments and the states have theirs.
[13:28] herman Bergson: Nor has the Elvis Presley fan club
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: but the person broke the law of the state
[13:28] herman Bergson: No....I wouldnt agree to that Bruce...
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: what about religions in public school and the military... does accomodating their need of religion conflict with the strict separation
[13:29] Bruce Mowbray: ;-)
[13:29] herman Bergson: When church and state are separated the church is to obey the civil laws
[13:29] Alaya Kumaki: but they were those who abuses of their power over the civil, and we have the law executive, what are we waiting
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: someone once said to me it was none of my business... the priest problem.... because i was not a catholic
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: that is the way they believe
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: believe*
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: that the church should punish the sinner
[13:30] herman Bergson: Well Gemma..that person was wrong...the priest broke the civil laws YOU obey to as well
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: and it is not our business
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: exactly!!!!!!!!!!
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: everybody's business when someone breaks a law we all make...a civil law ㋡
[13:31] oola Neruda: if the priest confesses and says he will not do it again... the church believes in redemption... which is a touchy subject
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:31] Bruce Mowbray: Seems to come down to who has the most power -- In Islamic countries, it's the "church," and in secular countries it's the state.
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes oola
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: the church is not a civil law unto itself anymore
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: though it once was
[13:31] herman Bergson: Well when the murderer confesses and promise not to kill anymore he may walk?
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: old habits die hard, maybe
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: "secular" countries?
[13:32] oola Neruda: exactly ... prof..
[13:32] Abraxas Nagy: state and church separated
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: yes, Bruce
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: agree
[13:32] Bruce Mowbray: Good point - mmmm. . . OK, countries in which there is a "separation between church and state" - which does not exist in Islamic countries.
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Bruce..
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: nods...ty
[13:32] Abraxas Nagy: exact;y
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: there in is a great example of the problem
[13:33] herman Bergson: and the funny thing is that Montesquieu thought that despositm was 'best' for islamic countries
[13:33] Alaya Kumaki: but for the natures laws, what dies montesquieu says, like if we put that in the context of the protection of the environment? are they god s law, so link to religions?
[13:33] herman Bergson: Monarchy for catholic countries and protestantism for Republican countries
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmmmm
[13:34] Kiki Walpanheim: there are places with no religions too
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: not working lolol
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: minorities were freer under the Shah than they are under the Islamic Republic
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: so he had his list lol
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: his directives
[13:34] herman Bergson: Montesquieu is quite clear about that Ayala...
[13:34] Bruce Mowbray: This reminds me of Ghandi's separation of Hinduism and Islam by sending all the Hindus to India and all the Muslims to Pakistan.
[13:34] Bruce Mowbray: And NOW look at the mess!
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:35] herman Bergson: God created the earth and natural law and then vanished :-)
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: Ghandi resisted that.....
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: that was the idea of the politicians
[13:35] Alaya Kumaki: aaah so,its up to us, than?^^
[13:36] Abraxas Nagy: of couirse
[13:36] herman Bergson: yes Ayala....
[13:36] herman Bergson: This whole idea of natural law, the idea that all mankind is driven by the same passions...
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: in whichever way things were created.... we are here at this stage...which is the only truth we can feel
[13:36] herman Bergson: there ideas are now alive even stronger...
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:37] Bruce Mowbray: Mont. said that differing circumstances in different countries would determine how church and state were in relationship with each other. . . What would such circumstance be?
[13:37] herman Bergson: evolutionary theory..... neurobiology....themes like that
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: did mont say they should be or that they would be
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: ahhhh...that's where you're going when you go beyond liberalism?
[13:38] Bruce Mowbray: That they would be... ?
[13:38] herman Bergson: Well.. like catholics like a head of their church a pope, thay are also more inclined to accept a king as hea dof state...in contrats with protestants
[13:38] oola Neruda: think tribe... and isolation... do they have those circumstances bruce
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: that seems to be a good explanation as to why they are
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: not how they should be
[13:39] herman Bergson: Mont. was the first who compared legal systems of countries
[13:39] oola Neruda: because we come from the isolated tribe... so how did it all eveove... back to basics
[13:39] Bruce Mowbray: Could the circumstances change?
[13:39] herman Bergson: a brilliant step
[13:39] oola Neruda: evolve
[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: Like, if an evangelican Christian had sufficient backing to take over the government of an otherwise "secular" nation. . . ?
[13:40] herman Bergson: The circumstances changed in Europe Bruce...
[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: Yes.
[13:40] herman Bergson: with the advent of protestantism we also got republics...kings were decapitated even
[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: Puritans were exiled. . .
[13:40] herman Bergson: The Netherlands became a republic...
[13:40] herman Bergson: now we are stuck with expensive royalty again
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: but still have a king and queen
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: ahhha
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: money
[13:41] Bruce Mowbray: Yayyyy. . . . Spinoza, my hero!
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: darn yes
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: kick em out I say
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: hehehe
[13:41] Bruce Mowbray: ;-)
[13:41] herman Bergson: I agree Abraxas...such outdated folklore
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: exactly
[13:41] Alaya Kumaki: whay was he the first to compare, ? were they not near one another in europe?
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: BUT . . . the US is still living the legacy of the Puritans...
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: the best part of their legacy
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: Spinoza was a sort of Pantheist, I believe.
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: fortunately we do not burn witches anymore
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: He was also Jewish, of course.
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Ayala...MOnt. was in fact the first sociologist
[13:43] Bruce Mowbray: Are you SURE "we" don't?
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: i cannot remember him from the first project
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: will have to back and look again
[13:43] Bruce Mowbray: Yes, I love Mont's ideas concerning climate and the state, culture.
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: depends on the part of the country bruce lol
[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes..he had very specific ideas about that....also remarkable
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray: Those 'hot' Italians - lazy? -- and those brilliantly crisp Scottish.
[13:44] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: hehehehe
[13:44] herman Bergson: well...I think ..let's stick to colorful avatars here Bruce
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray: ok.
[13:45] Alaya Kumaki: so he has brought moderation, by doing this, unless our law executive is weakened,, but by what? alack of civil voice?
[13:45] herman Bergson: what do you mean Ayala?
[13:45] oola Neruda: propaganda
[13:45] oola Neruda: techniques
[13:45] Abraxas Nagy: spindoctors
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: and wow do we have them
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: sadly
[13:46] Abraxas Nagy: very sad indeed
[13:46] Alaya Kumaki: if the church is no longer the state, how did they went over the law, and nobody did nor do nothing about it,, who has more voice, to make the law in executions, who inforce the executive power of the law than?
[13:47] Bruce Mowbray: When Mont. wrote of the influence of 'circumstances,' one of the things he took into consideration was climate. That's why, he said, there were political/cultural difference between Spain or Italy and England or Scotland.
[13:47] oola Neruda: render unto ceasar what is his... and unto god what is his
[13:47] herman Bergson: All these priests should have been arrested in my opinion Alaya...simple as that
[13:47] Abraxas Nagy: right
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: the church used to be the law, and acted like it was still
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: no question
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: it was wrong ㋡
[13:48] oola Neruda: i would go so far as to cut of body parts
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: thanks to Montesquieu in part
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: mmmm its tempting oola
[13:48] herman Bergson: One Dutch Bishop has transferred a priest to police custody because of sexual abuse and fraud lat seek
[13:48] Alaya Kumaki: we are the civil opinion os we have some representative in the chambre of parliament, what is preventing the law to be apply than?
[13:48] Bruce Mowbray: But if the church and state are truly SEPARATE, shouldn't the church take care of its own, and the state punish its own...?
[13:48] Bruce Mowbray: In other words, these are two separate entities under separate jurisdiction.
[13:49] oola Neruda: right bruce... it is a quandry..isnt it
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: no one can be above the civil law in a culture in which there is the rule of law
[13:49] herman Bergson: No Bruce...
[13:49] Kiki Walpanheim: i think any ideology could be bad if u impose it on ppl, atheism could be the same as religions...in this way
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: no one, no institution
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: I'm trying to see it from Mont's pont of view, not ours.
[13:49] herman Bergson: Like every one the church is under civic law too
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: i see
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: Would Mont. say that everyone is under the state's laws?
[13:50] herman Bergson: well in my opinion
[13:50] oola Neruda: but they seem to be keeping ceasar and god separate and rendering only to their own
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: so...i guess the separation entails compromise
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: i have to leave now
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: see you all tuesday
[13:50] herman Bergson: AS he said... the law is to protect social welfare....has nothing to do withthe church, which only aims at individual improvement
[13:50] Bruce Mowbray: Bye, Gemma.
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: very interesting class
[13:51] Zinzi Serevi: bye Gemma i have to leave as well
[13:51] Zinzi's translator: Gemma bye i have to leave as well
[13:51] Zinzi Serevi: bye bye
[13:51] Zinzi's translator: bye bye
[13:51] herman Bergson: Our time is up....power to the class here !
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: bye Gemma
[13:51] Alaya Kumaki: yeah
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: POWER to the CLASSES!
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: YEAH!!!
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: lol
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: thank you professor, it was great
[13:51] herman Bergson: So I rest my case for today and dismiss class ^_^
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: see you all later
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: :D
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡
[13:52] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation...
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: see ya Kiki
[13:52] Bruce Mowbray: Thank you for putting up with me, Herman.
[13:52] Alaya Kumaki: byby thank yu prof herman
[13:52] herman Bergson: You did a find job Bruce, thnx
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: well it wasnt to bad Bruce
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: o A o!
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: poof
[13:52] herman Bergson: Gone he is ㋡

244: Thomas Hobbes (1588 -1679)

One of the greatest worries of philosophers like Plato and Aristotle was that the city-state would disintegrate into factions with their private interests and that this clash of interests would culminate in civil war.

A situation, where there is no control, no rule, but only a war of everyone against everyone. This was exactly what Thomas Hobbes saw happening to his country in 1641, a civil war that lasted ten years.

Thomas Hobbes, born in 1588, died in December 1979 at the remarkable age of 91. He analyzed his situation and wrote two influential books: De Cive ("About the citizen"), 1641 and Leviathan published in 1651.

If he hadn't written those books my lectures on Power and on Rights could have made history, like Hobbes did, for without depending on him I use similar arguments to describe a kind of first beginning of the state.

However, this rather means that my way of thinking is almost obvious for us, while in Hobbes' days it was an innovative way to describe the political state of the human being.

First of all Hobbes was everything, that God had forbidden in his days. He was a materialist, which means that he denied that there exists an immaterial reality.

And impressed as he was by the scientific methods and discoveries of his days he also was a mechanist ("man is a machine") and determinist, which means that everything is an endless chain of causes and effects. In relation to the later this can lead to hot debates on something like "free will".

We begin with our "status hominum naturals", our natural state, which is a state of war of all against all, "bellum omnium in omnes" in which "homo homini lupus est" or man is a wolf for his fellowman, which we can read in De Cive.

Maybe in the good English tradition with The Magna Carta Libertatum (The Great Charter of Freedom) of 1215 as an example Hobbes concluded, that only a social contract could create a life worth living.

I think that this social contract idea doesn't sound so special to us, but in 1650 it was special. Hobbes was in fact the first one who said that sovereignty and authority of the state are not based on religion, but on a social contract between men, no God or religion needed.

The social covenant involves both the renunciation or transfer of right and the authorization of the sovereign power. Political legitimacy depends not on how a government came to power, but only on whether it can effectively protect those who have consented to obey it; political obligation ends when protection ceases.

This convenant is not just an agreement, but a logical consequence of laws of nature, which Hobbes describes in the chapter 14 of his Leviathan. Law one states that "a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life"

and law two "that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things."

And Hobbes explains: "These dictates of reason men used to call by the name of laws, but improperly: for they are but conclusions or theorems concerning what conduceth to the conservation and defence of themselves; whereas law, properly, is the word of him that by right hath command over others. (Chapter 15)
- End quote -

Of course we can put some question marks behind this initial state of nature of man. Children for instance are depended on their parents in stead of being in a state of war with them. There already is natural obedience.

Hobbes suggest that our communal life is prone to disaster when we are left to interact according only to our own individual judgments, but is that so? Does it turn into chaos and conflict unavoidably?

At first sight you might think, that everyone follows only his own interests. But isn't that a little against, what makes humans human: rationality? Also without a social contract you would discover, that you cant live in a group without dealing with the others in the group.

Or maybe Hobbes state of nature would be peaceful and only a small group driven by their passion instead of common sense would cause trouble in our natural state way of living.

A logical consequence of Hobbes' theory is, that the state takes over the role of the individual, and thence can be regarded to be in a state of nature.
This means in war with every other state.

Eventually this should lead to one global government. The ultimate result would be the final global social contract. So far we have only the United Nations.

However, the type of state Hobbes proposes is not exactly what would make us happy. Hobbes' main concern was to argue that effective government—whatever its form—must have absolute authority. Its powers must be neither divided nor limited. In other words: absolutism, the totalitarian state.

But he leaves an escape route, as he writes in chapter 14 of his Leviathan:
"A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void. For (as I have shown before) no man can transfer or lay down his right to save himself from death, wounds, and imprisonment, the avoiding whereof is the only end of laying down any right; and therefore the promise of not resisting force, in no covenant transferreth any right, nor is obliging.
- End quote

It is fascinating to read the words, which were written down by Hobbes more than 350 years ago. Just imagine the man sitting there, probably writing with a feather on paper, that may have been rather expensive in those days. And all these words are still clear to us, make sense and inspire us. Fascinating.

Here is a small sample of the texts from chapter 14 about the laws of nature, which Hobbes formulate. Just click the book to get the notecard.


Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
Chapter XIV
Of the First and Second Natural Laws, and of Contracts

A law of nature, lex naturalis, is a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best preserved. For though they that speak of this subject use to confound jus and lex, right and law, yet they ought to be distinguished, because right consisteth in liberty to do, or to forbear; whereas law determineth and bindeth to one of them: so that law and right differ as much as obligation and liberty, which in one and the same matter are inconsistent.
And because the condition of man (as hath been declared in the precedent chapter) is a condition of war of every one against every one, in which case every one is governed by his own reason, and there is nothing he can make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies; it followeth that in such a condition every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body. And therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man, how strong or wise soever he be, of living out the time which nature ordinarily alloweth men to live. And consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason: that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. The first branch of which rule containeth the first and fundamental law of nature, which is: to seek peace and follow it. The second, the sum of the right of nature, which is: by all means we can to defend ourselves.
From this fundamental law of nature, by which men are commanded to endeavour peace, is derived this second law: that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself. For as long as every man holdeth this right, of doing anything he liketh; so long are all men in the condition of war. But if other men will not lay down their right, as well as he, then there is no reason for anyone to divest himself of his: for that were to expose himself to prey, which no man is bound to, rather than to dispose himself to peace. This is that law of the gospel: Whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do ye to them. And that law of all men, quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete text of Leviathan: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/hobbes/thomas/h68l/index.html


The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: When you click the picture you get a part of chapter 14 of Leviathan
[13:21] herman Bergson: in which the two laws of nature are described
[13:22] herman Bergson: Leviathan is fascinating reading...
[13:22] herman Bergson: It is the age of rationalism....
[13:22] Object: Thank you for requesting this information
[13:23] herman Bergson: I guess you have to digest it all ^_^
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:24] ZANICIA Chau: haha
[13:25] herman Bergson: Most important aspect of Hobbes is that he doesn't need a god to establish a state and authority
[13:26] herman Bergson: Yet there is a lot of text about god , almost half the Leviathan
[13:26] herman Bergson: But scholars arent sure about how serious that was meant
[13:26] herman Bergson: because he was a materialist
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: yes, same with the founding documents of the american republic
[13:27] TBDiscovery Harbour: Would Hobbes agree with Socrates, in Crito, that a social contract is tacit?
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: would he agree with Socrates merely accepting death when there was an alternative
[13:27] herman Bergson: Well...one of the criticisms on Hobbes is that there almost never was established a state by contract but by war and occupation
[13:28] herman Bergson: So if socrates meant to say that such a social contract is a kind of natural phenomenon...
[13:29] herman Bergson: I guess Hobbes would agree and say that he only had created a theoretical justification]
[13:29] herman Bergson: Well Repose...that is the question...
[13:30] Rodney Handrick (appears in class): So, Wake up!
[13:30] Rodney Handrick: Mister Freeman...
[13:30] herman Bergson: in fact Hobbes states that no authority has the right to take someone's life
[13:30] Rodney Handrick: Wake up and...
[13:30] TBDiscovery Harbour: Well he seems to have felt that by living within a given region, one must abide by the social rules, and therefore cannot revert into what Locke would deem a state of nature.
[13:30] Rodney Handrick: Smell the Ashes...
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: rodney goodness
[13:30] Rodney Handrick: Hi Gemma
[13:31] herman Bergson: This state of nature is questionable...if it even ever existed
[13:31] ZANICIA Chau: That was truly unnecessary , Rodney
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: the gesture
[13:31] Rodney Handrick: testing new viewer
[13:31] TBDiscovery Harbour: Could it exist for someone such as Ted Kaczynski? (pre-prison)
[13:31] herman Bergson: Dont do that in class Rodney ..dont think it is the right place for that
[13:32] ZANICIA Chau: huh not in the middle. How rude
[13:32] Rodney Handrick: sorry
[13:32] ZANICIA Chau: apologies proff
[13:32] herman Bergson: Who is this Ted TD?
[13:32] TBDiscovery Harbour: The Unabomber.
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: serial bomber
[13:33] herman Bergson: Ah I remember
[13:33] herman Bergson: We were talking about this state of nature man would have been in..
[13:33] TBDiscovery Harbour: He wrote the Communist Manifesto - brilliant guy, but you know the rest.
[13:34] herman Bergson: and I think we now are more inclined to say that this primary state already a social state was
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:34] TBDiscovery Harbour: But my point is that he lived in the woods and aimed to keep laws away from him and as such, separated from government. However, his mailing brought him back into the governed culture.
[13:34] herman Bergson: Well the communist manifest presupposes also a natural state
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: and his education
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: he was not a blank slate
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: "state of nature" falsely assumes we are
[13:35] herman Bergson: youmean that this TEd lived in the state of naturre?
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: he did
[13:35] TBDiscovery Harbour: True. So there is no way to completely assuage all guilt and live alone without culture?
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: off the grid as they say
[13:35] TBDiscovery Harbour: I'm asking, not necessarily arguing for it.
[13:35] herman Bergson: I would doubt that...impossible to return to such a state after being educated
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: naw, he just lived IN nature
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: lol true
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes Repose, I would agree with that
[13:36] TBDiscovery Harbour: Then could we claim that feral children are in a state of nature, or does the animal culture make them assimilated?
[13:36] bergfrau Apfelbaum: :-( afk
[13:37] Kiki Walpanheim: nothing wrong for the state to protect each individual from the harm of others, either by fraud or force
[13:37] TBDiscovery Harbour: Perhaps, Kiki, but what if one does not want such comforts?
[13:37] herman Bergson: That was Hobbes main focus, Kiki...the role of the state is offering protection
[13:37] TBDiscovery Harbour: We assume that they do, but what if one does not?
[13:38] herman Bergson: Well TD is one doesnt want such comfort he places himself ourttside society, outside the group
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: well i agree with that
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: why not? TB? then everybody takes care of themselves, fear->defense->fear, seems like mob rules
[13:38] herman Bergson: in fact he shows contempt for the values of the group
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: cannot do that in this society
[13:38] herman Bergson: and claims to have a better set of values
[13:39] TBDiscovery Harbour: So if there is no outlet for the solo avenger, then are we not setting ourselves up for attacks?
[13:39] herman Bergson: Dont understand your point TD
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: I don't believe in anarchism, because without the tyranny from the state, other individuals could do more horrible things
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: lone wolves?
[13:40] Athena John: so you're saying evil is innate without big brother?
[13:40] herman Bergson: It is a bit paradoxal...
[13:40] herman Bergson: for you are a lone wolf within the context of a society
[13:40] TBDiscovery Harbour: If an individual decides to go it alone, but has no outlet because the laws of the nation reach every point of the land, then we are setting outselves up for the creation of monsters.
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: we just had a case here of a group of militia preparing to cause damage to the "state" but attacking police
[13:40] herman Bergson: maybe on an uninhabited island you could succeed in being a lone wolve
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: just arrested
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: why could a person not just decide to go it alone? Why would you need group approval to do it?
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: have been preparing for 2 years
[13:41] Athena John: Gemma, they had a religious edge to them as well
[13:41] herman Bergson: But in our world 'the state' is such an abstraction
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: well that is questionable too
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: lol our government mean
[13:41] TBDiscovery Harbour: Where would you go, Repose? The law extends to all parts of a nation.
[13:41] Athena John: Repose, many people in my country try that. They usually end up in a cabin in the woods dead and forgotten
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: well even if the state doesn't do any harm to you, the other individuals could be just as vicious or even more harmful, could be
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: true, TBD
[13:42] herman Bergson: It is a known phenomenon....
[13:42] herman Bergson: in the Middle Ages we called such people hermits
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: yes, Athena
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: i think we have established that even in a small group there is some form of government
[13:42] Athena John: Now we call them Unibombers :)
[13:43] herman Bergson: I guess there always is a small group who is not happy with a given situation
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: leaders
[13:43] TBDiscovery Harbour: In the US, there are organizations that specifically track the movements of small anti-government groups.
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe because Hobbes was born in an age or turmoil, which made him feel the threaten of deaths all the time....
[13:43] herman Bergson: Unibommer......just think what we are talking about...
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: every age seems to have that
[13:43] herman Bergson: the behavior of ONE single human being in a society of 300 million people
[13:44] ZANICIA Chau: -which is why they take themselves off in despair, not meaning to be a 'wolf' to anyone
[13:44] ZANICIA Chau: or a leader
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: during peach, with no wars, i think ppl still have the traits of aggressiveness and avariciousness, maybe only more subtle, and hidden
[13:44] herman Bergson: Oh yes Kiki...the Civil war had a great impact on him...had to leave his country for that
[13:45] Athena John: Yes, look at the US in the 1980s. the aggressiveness was channeled into business and the squashing of certain types
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: i think, that , i like his idea of protecting each individual from others, either by fraud or force, but
[13:46] Kiki Walpanheim: but i dont like the idea of monachy and authoritarianism
[13:46] herman Bergson: Well... I guess we laid the first stone for a new approach in political philosophy...
[13:46] TBDiscovery Harbour: So has there been agreement concerning whether the social contract hinders liberty, and if so, is there a universal level in which members are willing to succumb to?
[13:46] herman Bergson: No Kiki...from now on we gonna discuss the social contract.....a king restricted by law
[13:47] Athena John: One must give a little liberty (the liberty to kill, rob, etc) to live in a society
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: well, even if the state doesnt deprive you of liberty, other individuals still can--- i think protection to ensure safety is the ground of liberty
[13:47] TBDiscovery Harbour: Then who decides how much to give?
[13:47] TBDiscovery Harbour: If the state is abstract...
[13:47] herman Bergson: We have to hold back here....
[13:47] Athena John: The State ISN'T abstract- thats the point
[13:47] herman Bergson: The concept of liberty is complex and has many meanings.
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: constraint can free one too for greater productivity -- discipline is a kind of constraint
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: need to balance it all
[13:48] herman Bergson: So maybe...next lecture we might dig into the concept of liberty
[13:48] Athena John: And for a ruler to be withheld by rule of law, they must subscribe to it. And not all do that. I give you George W Bush as a prime example
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: oh...
[13:48] TBDiscovery Harbour: But we're still assuming that our values are the same for all. And that's a bit much.
[13:49] herman Bergson: That is to discuss TD
[13:49] TBDiscovery Harbour: The Bush tirades are a bit old.
[13:49] TBDiscovery Harbour: Very good.
[13:49] ZANICIA Chau: G Bush was just a puppet
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: so is Obama
[13:49] ZANICIA Chau: yes
[13:49] herman Bergson: Well...maybe he signed a contract with another company:)
[13:49] Zinzi Serevi: lol
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: they all serve wallstreet
[13:49] Zinzi's translator: lol
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: they are all complexly responsible to many
[13:49] ZANICIA Chau: lol
[13:50] herman Bergson: Ok...
[13:50] Athena John: In this context they make sense. Magna Carta was created to restrict monarchy. The us constitution does the same for the presidency... if that individual subscribes AND the people keep him in line
[13:50] herman Bergson: before we continue on our quest into history we'll make a stop at the station: Liberty
[13:51] herman Bergson: and ask ourselves what that may mean.
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: wow a big station
[13:51] TBDiscovery Harbour: And who is keeping Obama in line? We could argue that for days.
[13:51] herman Bergson: Well TD..that is a bit off the point here
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: the people that really run things
[13:52] herman Bergson: So, I want to thank you for this great discussion again
[13:52] TBDiscovery Harbour: And Bush attacks are on point? I find that unfair, with all due respect.
[13:52] TBDiscovery Harbour: Every meeting I attend in SL turns into a Bush bashing.
[13:52] herman Bergson: And I'll send you into the bush...class dismissed
[13:52] ZANICIA Chau: lol
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: lol
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:52] TBDiscovery Harbour: We're supposed to be adults.
[13:52] ZANICIA Chau: Thankyou proffessor
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: ‚ô• Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ‚
[13:52] Athena John: Thank you professor
[13:52] bergfrau Apfelbaum: danke herr professor :-)
[13:52] Justine Rhapsody: Thank you professor
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: thank you professor
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: Tuesday maybe a new aspect
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: having critisism isnt bashing
[13:53] TBDiscovery Harbour: When I can't respond it is.
[13:53] Athena John: Respond all you like. Be prepared for a response back though.
[13:53] herman Bergson: I'd rather stop the Bush babble....isnt relevant here
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: we try not to be personal in this class
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: I agree herman
[13:54] Athena John: Sorry- I started it. My apologies to all. I found it relevant
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: that's ok :D
[13:54] Zinzi Serevi: thanks Herman, take care all of you..:)
[13:54] Zinzi's translator: Herman thanks, take care all of you ..:)
[13:54] Zinzi Serevi: happy eastern
[13:54] Zinzi's translator: happy eastern
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: easy for political philosophy to tip over into politics
[13:54] Athena John: Funny that
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: but not always productive
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: a lil discussion can be stimulating
[13:55] herman Bergson: Well...Athena I understand...but when we drown in specific examples we go down the drain with our discussion ^_^
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: many times lol
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: you have no idea
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: ok people see you all next time :D
[13:56] herman Bergson: no more bush talk here..! plz
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: see you all tuesday
[13:56] Repose Lionheart: bye
[[13:56] Qwark Allen: ******* Herman *******
[13:56] herman Bergson: Bye
[13:56] Qwark Allen: was interesting like allways
[13:56] herman Bergson: thnx Qwark
[13:56] Qwark Allen: ;-)
[13:57] Kiki Walpanheim: see you
[13:57] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thanks herman; -) - thanks class :-))) I go now thinking
[13:58] herman Bergson: You are welcome Bergie
[13:58] bergfrau Apfelbaum: i know :-))