Wednesday our group discussed the Philosophy and Revolution section in our reading. Our conversation revolved around the American and French revolutions, the main activist of these revolutions and what philosophy's impact was on these. Not only were these poitical revolutions, but our group discussed the philosophical revolution that took place. This was the era of the "rise of the common man." During this time period monarchy was overthrown and the working class, and new arising middle class, established a democratic society. Much of these revolutions can be attributed to the influential idea of "natural or unalienable rights." Leaders such as Locke, Voltaire, and Rousseau were very pronounce contributers to both this philosophical revolution and the political ones. During our discussion two questions became the center of our session.
Whether it is true or not that John Locke believed their should be freedom of private property?
Do you agree that the establishment of private property established social inequality with it?
I find it interesting that in Locke's argument all people start out on a free and equal basis. From Locke's idea we get the transcendence into inalienable rights. Only there is a fundamental difference in Locke's inseparable rights and those of the American founder, Thomas Jefferson. Instead of Life, Liberty and Property Jefferson substituted The Pursuit of Happiness into the American Declaration of Independence. That brings me to a central point: Why would Jefferson disassemble Locke's principles to form one based on something as vague as happiness. It would appear that Jefferson was transforming the philosophy of government from one rooted in providing security and insuring irremovable rights to one that was to ensure the "Happiness' of its citizens. The difference here is crucial. If citizens of a society are entitled to pursue happiness, there can be few restrictions on people as happiness is a relative term. Also, there is an underlying philosophy that provides the previous institutions of government were not allowing for this forum of pursuit. This would have helped some gain a respect for the new Republic but more fundamentally from a philosophical perspective, because these rights were inseparable and preceded birth it would raise the Question WHO WOULD PROVIDE THESE RIGHTS IN ABSENCE OF EXISTENCE? some say God, but I still find it interesting to contemplate.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this section a lot because I never thought about how private property could bring about inequality. I feel like the whole group agreed to this notion. I felt the inequality grew from how some people were born on multi-million dollar estates, and others were born in shanties. This gives an immediate inequality to what opportunities these people have from birth. I also enjoyed the discussion on how people explained this with the richer being the "chosen" of God, and the poor being the ones left behind. In my own personal opinion I really do not believe that God would save the rich and forsake the poor.
ReplyDelete