THE CLASH

According to Hobbes there is a clash between the state of society and the state of human nature. While our state of human nature is to believe what we want and do as we please, when individuals come together these ways are restricted in two ways: by others’ conflicting views and government’s overbearing power.

 

Humans come together because of our natural desire for human interaction we not only reap this benefit, but risk the danger of compromising our freedom. As Hobbes believes, it is natural for humans to congregate and decide upon a formation of government, which has controlling power. However, the definition of this power is hazy at best, and often times the extension of this authoritative power is overbearing, and causes the clash between society and human nature. Locke looks a little further at this power, and describes that it is the job of such power to secure and protect one’s societal rights to “Civil Interests” (“Life, Liberty, Health, and Indolency of Body; and the Possession of outward things, such as Money, Lands, Houses, Furniture and the like.”)   He then restricts this demand of authoritative power by saying that, “The care of Souls cannot belong to the Civil Magistrate, because his Power consists only in outward force; but true and saving Religion consists in the inward perswasion of the Mind-” In saying this, Locke is demanding the outward protection and security a society has the ability to provide, while asking society to back off when it comes to one’s individual beliefs. This is the responsibility of the society to the individuals: the preservation of human nature.

 

As society grows larger it becomes a congregation of people with different cultural identities and talents, which contribute to its unique combination of individuals. Cultural identities are the factors of society from which conflict can arise, because of different opinions and beliefs. These identities include: gender, race, history, nationality, language, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, and aesthetics. It is the responsibility of the citizens to society, to respectfully maintain not only their own culture’s identities, but other’s as well.

           

            These two restricting elements of society happen to be in our control as citizens. It is our responsibility as citizens to keep governmental power in check, and within their boundaries as Locke describes. The second responsibility is to respect others’ cultural identities. As humans we not only have the right to maintain our human nature, but the responsibility to maintain society.

State! Of War! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again!

The idea that the true nature of man is a state of constant war and struggle (as Hobbes would argue) is far too pessimistic for my taste. People born in a state of nature are essentially free (as Locke would argue). I will agree with Hobbes somewhat however in that pure unregulated freedom or “extreme freedom” leads to a state of war. This state of war arises out of conflicts over property, food, water, etc, which is bound to happen as families grow and take up more space in the world. Eventually, there will be too many people living in the world and humans will fall into a permanent state of war. To escape from this constant war people will form a social contract. This social contract will in turn establish a civil government. The purpose of this government is to maximize the freedoms of its citizens. A civil government should help return society back to the essential freedom and prevent the state of war from occurring.
Locke’s theory of the nature of man seems much more true to the behavior of human beings. People I believe are more likely to try live the best that they can with as little conflict as possible. I disagree with Hobbes that humans feed off the desire for competition and that our natural instinct is to seek out competition. Humans aren’t looking to kill for what they need. They are much more likely to want to compromise. Unfortunately conflicts are an inevitable when there is extreme freedom, but that does not make the true nature of man a war hungry creature.
Locke’s reasoning for why we need a social contract is much more appealing then the one which Hobbes puts forth. Although Hobbes and Locke agree that we need a social contract, Hobbes believes that we need it to ensure security of our survival, but that our freedoms could be repressed as long as it provides security. I however find this to be quite a repulsive society at best. Why would anyone want to exist in a society where all there is to life is survival? Hobbes pessimistic society although functional is clearly, not a desirable society. A society based on Locke’s theory on the other hand would give citizens of a state what they really want, freedom. It is true that this type of society may be less efficient and harder to maintain, but it is a much closer resemblance to the true nature of man then a Hobbes ideal society.
If we want to look at these two theories and then compare which one would be most like a Platonic society I will once again go with Locke. In the Crito Socrates tells us that we should listen to the wise (which can be interpreted as a civil government) as opposed to the majority. The people who are wise serve the purpose of returning society back to the Eidos. A Locke like government is very similar in that it helps to return people back to their true nature, which is to be essentially free.
Well now that we have this social contract and a civil government, how do we balance freedom and responsibility? We obviously want to maximize our freedoms but we can’t let extreme freedom occur because that leads to the state of war. This is where the responsibility of society and government come into play. The role of society and government is to maximize each others freedom but prevent freedoms that will lead us to the state of war. For example we can’t allow people to murder others because that sort of extreme freedom will cause society to plummet into chaos. But on the other hand we can’t give government so much power that is will repress all our freedoms. So we give government only enough power to protect itself but enough authority to stop injustice from occurring in society.

Safety In Numbers

I agree with Hobbes about the true nature of man. Even in our short lives we have witnessed the truth in his words. Although between societies, not men, and on a greater scale, we have seen how wars are started, how a desire, insult or simply a threatening presence can erupt into an inferno that can consume an entire society. Man is a violent and irrational creature when pushed, but he also has the capacity to be a truly good and just human – although such words don’t account for anything until they are supported or contested by beliefs and laws in a society. Hobbes’ man in a state of nature has very few freedoms, as he is carried aloft in an uncontrollable series of events or constantly anticipating his own demise. He would submit to a social contract for his need for security and entering into a society for purely self-preservation would indeed keep him safe – which might be an instinct too deep to deny – but it doesn’t guarantee him any freedoms, only the time to pursue his desires.

Although Hobbes and Locke disagree on the subtleties of why, both of their ideas of the human nature are as a potentially peaceable creature that enters into a state of conflict and needs a safe Haven, and so retreats into society. The difference is in how they describe the two societies: Hobbes’ is simply a shield against the perils of our natural state that gives us a chance to explore our desires in relative peace – a small freedom in its self. Locke’s society is an attempt to return us to a state of nature in the safety of society. The purpose of a government in Locke’s society is to maximize our freedoms – transposed into civil rights – and to only interfere if we pose a threat to our fellow citizens. Thus we are free to explore our freedoms and desires within the limitations that we do no harm to our fellow man. This seems, to me, to be a better form of society because it seeks to imitate the freedom we possessed in our peaceful state of nature. Without the fear of attack and conflict we would be perfectly content in our state of nature; we enter into society to insure our own security and survival.

It comes down to the desire for freedom and the eternal drive of self-preservation and how to find a balance between the two. Thus, the responsibility falls upon the government to imitate our natural freedoms to the best of its abilities and to ease our minds with the knowledge that we are safe.

Impediments

Despite their concurrency on the concept of a “social contract”, Hobbes and Locke have wildly divergent views of human nature, particularly in its natural state. Thusly, their concepts of the ideal society and the recommended incentive to join such a society differ greatly as well. The social contract is necessarily informed by one’s individual notion of the nature of humanity as a whole, and both Hobbes and Locke bring their own viewpoint to the concept of a social contract.

The question of human nature is one that must necessarily be answered for the advancement of any societal argument. For any society to be hypothetically built, be it utopic or dystopic, the essential nature of mankind must be at the very least guessed at. Hobbes’ view of mankind is by far the less optimistic of the two. His opinion of mankind as “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” (Packet p.50) is cynical in the extreme, as is his assumption that “Out of Civil States, there is always Warre of everyone against every one” (Packet p.50). On the one hand, it is difficult to deny, historically speaking, that mankind is prone to war over the most foolish causes imaginable, in pursuit of, as Hobbes says, “First, Competition; Secondly, Diffidence; Thirdly, Glory” (Packet p.50). However, to reduce every man to a murderous animal in times of crisis seems slightly extreme. Locke, in contrast, believes that humanity in nature, living in small family groups, is virtuous and truly free. As “all, being born free and equal, alienate their liberty only for their advantage” (Packet p.56), humankind naturally stays in small nomadic familial groups, splitting naturally when it becomes necessary. Both views have at least some legitimacy, though both are too extreme to contain all the various possibilities of the natural state of humanity. In Hobbes’ case, the idea that humans are always uncaring and devoid of altruism is far too pessimistic to allow for any possibility of human development, and the concept of humanity being a solitary creature in nature is highly unlikely at best. In Locke’s case, the concept of humanity’s essential virtue in nature is, unfortunately, easily disproven by much of human history. The most likely view of humanity in nature, thusly, is of a flawed, but not irredeemable, hunter-gatherer people in tightly-knit clan or familial groups.

The shared concept of a social contract grows more necessary as the number of hypothetical humans grows as well. Here, Locke’s concept of the devolution of the natural state into war is easily applicable. If, for example, two of the familial groups were to meet, or run out of resources, war might well result, necessitating an alliance or truce. Eventually, this would grow towards the society and implied contract therein. Hobbes’ view of the social contract fits with his dim view of humanity. As the condition of man, in his view, is a “condition of Warre of every one against every one” (Packet p.51), humanity’s passions must be tightly controlled for anything even resembling a functional society to exist. Liberty, thusly, is “the absence of externall Impediments: which Impediments may oft take way part of a mans power to do what hee would” (Packet p.51). Hobbes argues for the elimination of all possible danger from human society, which necessitates some loss of freedom. The controlling nature of such a society draws parallels to Plato’s “Crito”, in which the state is referred to as the very nearly literal father of its citizens. Entrusting one’s liberty to the state for little or no immediate gain is far too much of a gamble for many to stomach, and it is not impossible to imagine the potential backlash should the hypothetical human tribe be asked to join this society. Locke’s contract is by far the more appealing, promising immediate security and a constant evolution of society, with the added promise of the ability to leave or change the society should it become too restrictive. While, in theory, Hobbes’ societal contract may be safer, Locke’s contract is more attractive to a potential constituent of the nascent society.

Locke’s society closely resembles the macrocosmic state of societies as a whole, accepting and embracing the eventual evolution and passing of old ideas. Hobbes’ society refuses to accept this, hoping for an eternal reign that will inevitably fail and give way to new ideals. Though it has the best interests of humanity in mind, its inflexible nature and pessimistic attitude towards human nature almost ensures an attitude of resentment among its people. Whereas Locke’s society could hypothetically still exist, in some form, centuries from its conception, Hobbes’ would inevitably fall as its citizens grew tired of the yoke and, as mankind is wont to do, threw it off.

Second Assignment

Do you agree with Hobbes or Locke about the true nature of man? Which offers the more compelling or convincing reasons for leaving our state of nature and joining a social contract? Side question: Whose social contract most resembles the society that Socrates outlines in "The Crito"?

Elaborate on your reasons and tie to your argument concerning the balance between freedom and responsibility.

The Thumos of State

From the reading Plato essentially says that individuals interactions with people is merely out of necessity. It is Plato’s belief that each individual has a distinct role in the state, and that is individuals one and only job. In order to survive humans created states for protection of themselves, and to prosper. Plato says in bookII S.369 "So far as I can see, because the individual is not self-sufficient, but has many needs which he can not supply himself." Without the support of other people, humans could not survive. Not only do individuals use interactions to survive, but thrive al well. This is the importance of the Philosopher King, he is to go to Eidos and return to us true knowledge.

Everything that an individual does and thinks effects the state in some way. Therefore, our freedoms become restricted. Our Logos and our Epithumos will adhere to the wants and needs of the state. Then it becomes each individuals responsibility to not only think of themselves, and their wants and needs, but that of the state and the people in it. Our priorities change, each individual has to work for the better of the state, because it will better oneself.

Not only do we work towards a better state for our own psychical gain, but rather out of our duty. We gain this innate sense of duty from the morals that are brought to us from Eidos. Therefore, making oneself just. However, through this justice we become slaves to our conformity, that is our morals. "So we reach again by other route the conclusion that justice is keeping what belongs to one and one's own job." bookIV S.434 This mentality once again physically restricts us to conformity, because we are bound to our sense of moral duty.

Obligation

In an ideal state, everyone has a certain level of freedom that extends until it interferes with others. Our responsibility to society and its values is what prevents us from acting on every impulse and desire we have. Part of our responsibility to society is our obligation to contribute through labor. We are expected to utilize our skills to benefit everyone in society. Part of what makes us individuals is our differences in skill. Plato divides these skills into three categories: businessmen, Auxiliaries, and Guardians. He states that the worst of evils is the “interference by the three classes with each other’s jobs, and interchange of jobs between them” (Book IV, 434). This could go on to be interpreted on a broader sense, where the worst of evils is harming others and ignoring your responsibility to society.

The greatest example of this is the tyrannical character. A definition of this character is someone who ignores Plato’s belief that “unnecessary pleasures and desires are lawless and violent” and is not “disciplined by law and by a combination of reason and the better desires” (Book IX, 571). It is because of these people that we often live in dysfunctional societies. A tyrant is the ultimate prisoner in Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”. They are so close-minded that it is impossible for them to even brush the edge between the society of shadows we live in and the world of perfect forms; Eidos. The tyrannical character who Plato describes is someone that has no respect for the spheres of interaction. They dominate all their spheres of interaction with no hesitation in disturbing others. A tyrant dismisses their responsibility to society and exercises their freedom to the point that it harms others.

No one is given complete freedom in the interest of a better society. Everyone is expected to carry out their responsibility to society and only exercise their freedom until it interferes with others. However, we often live in dysfunctional societies due to the fact that people live under the impression that it is okay to abuse our obligations to others. In order to live in a functional society, we must follow Plato’s definition of individual justice and do our job and mind our business.

Freedom Through Conformity

Plato believes that we  (at least, all those of us who are not “guardians”) are living in an allegorical cave and derive what we, individually, know to be true from shadows projected by an ultimate “idea” truth, analogous to the sun. However, according to Plato, only an elite few (the “guardians”) have the ability to emerge out of the cave and individual interpretations of truth and into knowledge of an ultimate truth, a truth concerning the ideas that form the world we live in.  It is the responsibility of the guardians, as mediators between the world of the cave and it’s exterior world of ideas, to act as the managers of society.

Everything that we, from our relativistic positions, perceive as being real corresponds with a higher world of Eidos (ideas) and is actually a corruption of the perfect form of itself. Each tree is a unique manifestation of the notion of “Tree”. Each belief, though it may contain an element of truth, has no cognizance of a truth that is common to all things. Each mountain is a corrupted form of the idea of how a mountain “should” be. We are driven by a sense of “ought”, of what “should be”, and by moving in the direction of what “ought to be”, we are moving towards Eidos.

In Plato’s Republic, no truth is greater then the idea of truth, and no freedom is greater then the idea of freedom. Freedom is not something that we create out of individual wants, but something that has a definite, preexisting value that we can only conform to. Freedom and responsibility exist essentially within the same sphere. We can only move closer to the idea of freedom when each person is pursuing the “single job for which he is best fitted”; when individuals, through the fulfillment of social responsibilities, are sublating to the social whole.

In this way, Plato’s Republic empowers society while devaluing the individual. The individual exists as a microcosm of the state; everything that allows a state to function can be manifested on a smaller level within the individual. Everyone maintains skills and specialties that are useful to society. When the individual is conforming to his prescribed social responsibilities, though his personal freedoms become limited, society as whole is allowed to move closer to its perfect form. When society is free, the individual, as a microcosm of society, is also able to experience a certain degree of freedom. But because the individual, as an inhabitant of the cave, has no knowledge of what freedom looks like in it’s perfect form, he is unaware of the ways in which his personal freedoms are limited. He is free through his myopia.

Freedom, in Plato’s view of it, is defined by order and conformity. A society is able to function when its multiple components are working in collaboration with one another, each contributing its individual specialty. Individual people are best able to perform their duties to society when they abstain from pleasures and unnecessary pursuits. When a person’s reason (logos), accompanied a more innate sense of conscience (thumos), maintain control of his desires and cravings (epithumos), then he becomes “master over himself” (The Republic, book IV, 437) and can conform fully to his prescribed social role.  When each person conforms to his prescribed social role, then society as a whole becomes free.

 

Justice: A Little Respect

In The Republic, Plato seems to arrive at the nature of Justice being that of a relationship. This assumption is made in section 371 e, right after Socrates concludes that it is much more practical for people to have jobs which are fitted to be most profitable depending on one's skill. The alternative type of society would be one in which all of the work that's necessary to accomplish in order for a person to live would be done by that person. Consider this alternative. In a community of people whose only necessary interaction is that which is dictated by our epithumos, the main necessary purposes for interaction would probably be: sex, raising & teaching children and company to maintain sanity. It is my belief that justice would not be as prominent in such a society where the spheres of interaction are, not only infrequent, but are almost never necessary.
In 434-440, Socrates seems to decide that doing anything to the effect of minimizing the efficiency or hindering the functioning of a society is injustice. However, in the case of a society in which spheres of interaction are minimal and in which all citizens are responsible for providing the essentials of living for themselves, the nature of Justice changes dramatically. This is because when people are not responsible for the welfare of others, with the exeption, perhaps, of their own children, the only injustice they can commit, would be one towards themselves.
One rough example I offer between the two types of societies is the comparison of an archipelago and a continent. The archipelago in this example would be the mode of society which was ultimatly rejected by Plato and Glaucon. This view shows each individual as an island with its own distinct array of plants and animals, which become more distinct as time passes. Some islands will flourish while others will suffer an evolutionary breakdown if, for instance, a tiger eats all of the parrots on the island because he does not inhibit his epithumos. Though the tiger has allowed his epithumos to get the better of him that island alone suffers while the others remain unharmed.
The continent, then, would be the type of society which the farmer supplies food to all other citizens, and so forth. Say, for instace, that same tiger ate all the parrots on a single island-sized tract of land. The continent as a whole would suffer. However it would not suffer to such a devastating degree as the island because of its large size and all the other tracts of land and their relationships with one another that keep the continent functioning.

First Assignment

Response to Plato:
Read carefully (a second, third, and even fourth time) the following sections of The Republic:

Book II sections 369 - 374
Book IV sections 434 - 440
Book VII sections 514 - 519
Book IX sections 571 - 579

Relate these sections to your argument about freedom and responsibility. What is Plato saying here about our spheres of interaction?

Everyone should carefully do this reading. Only one person from each group needs to write the response.

Small Groups for Fall Term 2009

Aidan, Shane, Hannah, Sarah M

Sarah NC, Haley, Emily, Naomi

Morgan, Esther, Spencer

Kelsey, Andrew, Bekkah

Introduction

Every other Thursday (or so), starting next week, you will meet in small groups during 1st period. The purpose of these groups is to focus on specific questions related to the reading. In order to direct your conversations, early each week questions will be posted on this blog (sometimes these questions will direct you to specific sections of the reading). One member of your group will write a response to these questions that will be posted to the blog. This responsibility should rotate through the group. This post must be completed no later than 9:00 pm on Wednesday night. Before class on Thursday, group members are required to read all of the blog posts but to focus on the blog post for their group. Thursday meetings will discuss the written response and the group's answers to the questions posed.

Blog posts should (unless the question SPECIFICALLY directs you not to) attempt to form an argument and clearly defend that position.

Come to class on Thursday discussion days with a printed copy of your group's blog post. Be sure to note your comments and questions in writing on this printed copy BEFORE CLASS TIME. This way, your group will have a built up store of comments and questions to get discussion started. This will (or should) eliminate dead time and allow the 45 minute class session to be as productive and focused as possible.

Remember, Jamie and Elise will read posts and travel around to discussion groups, primarily in a listening capacity. The post writer each week will be responsible for LEADING the group in discussion that day.

This blog will be public. The address will be shared with your parents, other teachers, and any other interested community members. Prior to your Oral Defense, the address for the blog will be sent to all panelists.