Greg Detre
Wednesday, 17 January, 2001
History of Philosophy I
Charles I was the King at the time that Parliament and its supporters started the Civil War over a number of reforms desired to lessen the autocratic power of the monarch. His son, Charles II, fled to Holland while his father lost the war to the Parliamentarians and was beheaded in 1649. Cromwell, bolstered by his New Model Army, led the country followed by his son, Richard Cromwell. In 1660, James II (Charles II�s cousin) took over, but proved disastrous � he immediately converted the country from Protestantism (Church of England) to Catholicism, despite huge outcry. Lord Shaftesbury and the Duke of Monmouth (CCC) were involved in an attempt to oust him, but eventually in �the glorious, bloodless� revolution of 1688, William of Orange was invited to take the throne, with little resistance from James II (who had just had an heir, thus presenting the possibility of a long line of Catholic kings). Having been previously named as one of 84 traitors wanted by the English government in hiding in Holland, Locke was now able to return to England (with the party transporting Mary, Princess of Orange) after a pleasant 5 years in Holland. The main reforms that had been fought for in the Civil War were agreed to by William, including: regular Parliamentary meetings; England became a constitutional monarchy; real advances were made in securing the liberty of subjects in the law courts; greater (though far from complete) measure of religious toleration; and in assuring freedom of thought and expression (including a repeal of the restrictive Act for the Regulation of Printing that Locke assisted in writing).
Arising out of England and Holland, early liberalism stood for religious tolerance, valued commerce and industry, supported the middle class rather than the monarchy, respected the rights of (hard-earned) property, largely democratic but supportive of the divine right of kings to a limited extent.
It could be characterised as �individualistic�. For instance, Protestantism allowed that the General Council could make mistakes, so that it became much more up to the individual. In philosophy, Descartes archimedean point, �I think, therefore I exist� as well as his reliance on his own �clear and distinct perception� placed the individual as his own guide.
Nietzsche, Fichte, Carlyle and Byron headed up what Russell sees as a new movement of individualism of the passions, with their emphasis on heroes and great men, rebellion, nostalgia for the medieval age and the splendour of war. But Russell sees this movement as ultimately self-refuting, for when the great man assumes power in the form of tyranny or dictatorship, he stamps out the sparks of individuality amongst his subjects that would threaten him. Locke supported Parliament in the Civil War in England in the 17th-century preceding his writings, where the divine right of kings was contested, and Cromwell eventually seized power for himself.
Russell is somewhat scathing about Locke�s philosophising � he claims that Locke�s influence outweighs his insight and that much of Locke�s work can be seen as a illumination of the intellectual climate of the time. He regards him as a man who places more importance in common sense than logic; credibility over internal consistency. For instance, though Locke�s arguments for the primary/secondary qualities distinction were flawed, the idea has been of enormous value to science right up until it was displaced by quantum theory.
Locke is credited as the founder of empiricism, that man�s mind is a �white paper� free of characters or a priori knowledge, upon which experience shapes and inscribes. Yet this has various problems, including that it gives no account of how we can then have knowledge of other people and an outside reality. Locke is apparently wary of metaphysical �fiddling�, and inconsistent. Indeed, he also points to three types of knowledge, some of which is intuitive, some demonstrative (e.g. God), and some we learn purely through experience. His theory of mind involves �simple ideas�, and a mental ability to see disharmony between two ideas.
Locke states that happiness/pleasure is the goal of human life, and that virtue lies in prudence. Prudent men get rich, and go to heaven. Russell points to the fact that deferred pleasures seem less valuable to us though (perhaps the rate of interest is quantified testimony to this). Russell sees this as a false doctrine, an example of one which is stated and then points to all the men who are exceptions to it as �wicked�.