Immanuel Kant

For his entry in History of Political Philosophy, Pierre Hassner, focuses on Immanuel Kant. As Kant is one of the most important philosophers of the modern age, this essay is one of the longer parts of Strauss and Cropsey’s book. One of the first things to remember about Kant’s political philosophy is that he rarely commented on politics directly, instead he indirectly dealt with it through another medium. Still, there are some common themes in Kant’s work, the two most important of these are republican government and international organization, or to put these terms into more Kantian language, a doctrine based on the rule of law and of eternal peace.

Much of Kant’s work is dealing with addressing several tensions. In particular Kant is focused on three of these tensions. These tensions are as follows: 1) between science and morality, 2) modern physics and its moral consequences, and 3) universal determinism and universal will. In order to deal with these tensions Kant radicalizes them by dividing the world up into two parts. The first part is the world of phenomena, which are things in their appearance. The second part is the world of noumena, which are things as they are in themselves. The world of phenomena is what science can know while the world of noumena is opened up to morality. As a result of this move, morality is thus known without any experience and happiness and virtue become separated. Though these two worlds are separate, they are not absolutely separate as there are ways in which they meet, namely in law, history, and politics.

Another important aspect of Kant’s political philosophy is his ideas on the rights of man, which he draws from both Rousseau and Hume. From Rousseau, Kant drew his ideas on giving morality precedent over philosophy, of action over contemplation, and of practical reason over pure reason, which ultimately means that all people are of equal worth. From Hume on the other hand, Kant drew his ideas on the critique of dogmatism. Another important part of Kant’s theory here is his distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments. According to Kant, analytic judgments are known by the proposition in and of itself while synthetic judgments are not. What this does is allow Kant to push the is/ought distinction even further than Hume did. What this means is that because for Kant, human rights are known analytically, from this we know that all humans have equal dignity. Thus, all humans have a duty to treat all other humans in a certain respect. The fact that this equal dignity isn’t always manifested in reality is for Kant irrelevant.

This brings us to the first of what Kant calls the categorical imperative, which Kant uses to make moral judgments. In essence, the inherent equality of humans requires that an act be universalized, in other words only morally acceptable if all were doing it. This leads to the second categorical imperative, the idea that all people must be treated as an end rather than as a mean. Relating to this is what Kant calls the kingdom of ends, which all people, by virtue of them being rational creatures are a part. Kant’s theory on morality causes him to elevate good will, seeing that the classical virtues of courage, moderation, and intelligence can be dangerous when not accompanied by good will. In this scheme, good will and justice essentially become equated. It also should be noted that for Kant, there are three commends of justice. Those commands are as follows: 1) treat others and demand to be treated as an end, 2) harm no one, and 3) enter into a society in which the property of each one can be guaranteed against the others.

One important thing to remember when working with Kant is the tension that develops between the freedom Kant allows in his political doctrine and in the strictness of his moral doctrine. This creates another tension as many existing laws go against both Kant’s moral as well as his political doctrine and there appears to be no way to solve this tension without violating either Kant’s moral or Kant’s political doctrine. In order to solve this problem Kant ultimately subjugates his politics to his morality. Furthermore, Kant also pushes for a general condition in which these two concepts can come together. In order to do this, Kant turns to the philosophy of history, as it is in this which Kant roots people’s growing knowledge of the moral law. The philosophy of history is to both interpret the past as well as give us hope for the future. Kant tends to view this in mechanical terms, rather than as the result of human action. Through the philosophy of history, the moral ideal and reality will eventually be united. Thus, the philosophy of history is a way in which our moral ideals can be reconciled with the reality with which we are currently dealing. One thing that is interesting about Kant is that he does have an understanding of the possibility of the progress of civilization without moral progress, thus creating another source of tension. Still, is often forced to make two separate judgments, a judgment by history and a judgment by morality. It should be noted that this tension is eased somewhat by the fact that history has a tendency to do away with moral imperfections.

Kant’s ideal state is to be rooted in the law, and that law is to be both universal and abstract. This is where another source of tension between Kant’s moral theory and Kant’s political theory can be found as in order for a state to exist in freedom, the state must be divorced from both happiness and morality (hence the law being universal and abstract). Once however freedom has been established, that state would eventually produce the happiest and most moral results. Consent is also a major focus for Kant in establishing freedom. On Kant’s theory of the state, it is important to remember that he forgoes the traditional distinction of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, instead focusing on judicial, executive and legislative powers. For Kant, despotism occurred when these powers are brought to close together.

We will now turn our attention to the most famous of Kant’s political ideas, his ideas on the perpetual peace. In sort, the doctrine holds that republican forms of government are less likely to go to war, so as the number of republican governments grow, a more stable and lasting peace will be created on the earth. Still Kant’s writings on this subject do warrant more attention as on one level, Kant recognizes that his perpetual peace may only be seen as an ideal, not as something actually attainable. Yet, Kant is also practical enough not to suggest creating a universal state in order to attain this peace, or at least not until there has been enough moral progress to make such an ideal workable. Thus, Kant is never able to make it exactly clear if he means for his to be taken only as an ideal or as something to be implemented. Though Kant does separate the two concepts, his idea here does appear to require concurrent civilizational and moral progress. Regardless, Kant does see several elements of society as pointing to this direction. One of the most important of these is commerce which Kant sees as a tool which can bring about needed unity. Thus, Enlightenment and the increased cost of war unites to bring about peace.

Kant’s notion of progress though history means that the foundation of the state need not be tied up in the goodness of the people as institutions and individuals can progress separately. Still, these separate notions of progress are not completely isolated from each other as the progress of arts and sciences help people become more refined and accustomed to power, thus preparing them for other kinds of progress. One last thing that needs to be noted on Kant is that though he has a very mechanical understanding of progress in history, freedom is taken out of the mechanical realm.       

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

For his contribution to Strauss and Cropsey’s History of Political Philosophy, Allan Bloom turns his attention to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, one of the most influential and misunderstood philosophers of the Enlightenment. The most important thing to understand about Rousseau is to understand the central question with which he is dealing. This question is why is it, if people are born free why are they in chains everywhere?

For Rousseau the answer to this question is civil society and government. According to Rousseau, the modern state is in error because it focuses on only one part of human nature- the desire to have self-protection. This is a clear break with most of what has made up the Enlightenment assumptions on the nature of government, particularly that which is found in the thought of Hobbes and Locke. Another break Rousseau makes with the Enlightenment is that contra many of their assumptions, Rousseau does not think civil society leads to greater happiness, rather it leads to the enslavement of the many by the few. Rousseau, despite his reputation has a far dimmer conception of progress than he is typically seen as having as even scientific and artistic progress are seen as a sign of inequality as so few can properly do those things well. From this comes an idealization of the part, particularly as it relates to the Classical republican idea and perhaps not surprising wished to revive the political practice of the ancients and bring back the city-state.

It should however be noted that while Rousseau wants to bring back the political practice associated with the ancient city-state, it does not follow fro, this that he also wants to bring back the theory attached to it. Rather, on this point Rousseau makes a very radical break with the ancients. According to Rousseau, the chief problems with the Classical theory were twofold. Those reasons are as follows: 1) the ancients failed to properly understand what is natural and 2) their theory of justice ended up simply providing a justification of inequality. For Rousseau, earlier philosophers misunderstood “natural man” because they placed their own biases in their thought on this subject. Rousseau holds that in the state of nature people have no firm social bonds and are thus free and independent.

Without a natural conception of civil society to separate people from other animals, Rousseau looks to two other elements to do this. These are as follows: 1) people’s will and 2) people’s perfectibility; that is the ability to make gradual improvements. In these two concepts lies both the origin of civil society as well as its solution. As people begin to develop and perfect speech and permanent establishments, family bonds are formed, but there are still no laws, state, nor inequality. Competition with others eventually brings about the concept of private property, and from this comes inequality. Inequality produces a state of war between the haves and the have-nots. Faced with the state of war between them and the poor, the rich seek a way to protect both their lives and property and from this arises both the state and civil society. Civil society is thus defined by the conflict between people’s natural freedom and the chains in which they are placed.  

For Rousseau, the solution to this is for people to totally submit their rights and property to the community, a move that will produce quality and the general will, what Rousseau calls the united will of the entire population. People’s wills are to be united to that no one can for their will on another or have another force their will on that person. Will is central to Rousseau’s thought, radicalizing its importance to the point where even morality becomes grounded in the will. Furthermore, people may though the general will, will any government they like into existence, but it can only justly last as long as it suits them.

Through community, private wills are to be merged into the general will. Unsurprisingly, this creates a more robust need for unity, so robust in fact that according to Rousseau serration of powers is to be abolished in the general will. It should be point out that the general will presupposes no specific law will be made, that is not Rousseau’s concern here. Rather than seeing certain laws passed that he finds to be just, Rousseau is more concerned with the establishment of a framework in which just laws can be made. The general will in Rousseau’s mind is to be a place of universal representation and total equality, thus even the worst aspects of society are to be included in the general will. Government is to be used to guide people towards the general will and maintain equality. For Rousseau, this is the chief function of a government operating under the general will. Generally speaking, the smaller this government is the better, but this government still must be large enough to dominate private wills while at the same time not being so large that it dominates the general will. For Rousseau, if this balance is not held, two conditions can arise that should be avoided. These conditions are as follows: 1) anarchy and 2) tyranny. Rousseau holds that anarchy is what occurs when each person follows his/her own private will with no regard to the general will. By contrast, tyranny occurs when people submit their own private wills to the private will of a single person. In this respect, tyranny can be seen as arising from the confusion of the general and private will. One last thing that needs to be mentioned is that the general will must abolish private property and will have to go through constant revolutions in order to maintain its equality as even when the general will is in effect, there is still a tendency for provided classes to develop.      

David Hume

The next entry in History of Political Philosophy is Robert S. Hill’s take on David Hume. Hill begins his essay by noting a central paradox in Hume’s thought. The paradox Hill has in mind here is the idea that Hume’s skepticism challenges the very idea of political philosophy, while at the same time he is the author of his own comprehensive political doctrine. At the base of Hume’s thought is the idea that there are a collection and succession things in our minds which he calls perceptions. According to Hume, there are two types of perceptions. These kinds are as follows: 1) impressions, which are what we hear, see, feel, love, hate, desire, or will and 2) ideas which occur when we reflect on a passion or object not present. It is important to note that for Hume, all ideas must fist come from impressions.

This introduces a good deal of uncertainty as our senses are fallible, thus we cannot have knowledge in the fullest sense nor can we have absolute certainty. For Hume, true knowledge is only that which cannot be thought of otherwise, as in the case of a triangle with anything other than three sides or a married bachelor. In doing this though, Hume turns the philosophical quest to use skepticism to establish an absolute foundation of knowledge against itself. This has several radical implications. Among one of the most important of these implications is the idea that cause and effect only appear to be absolute because we have seen it so many times. But in reality this cannot confirm any idea we may have as it may simply be the case that we have not experienced an exception to this rule.

Our knowledge is dependent upon how we conceive things, and as this can always be wrong, the ideas we gain from this perception may also be wrong. What this means is that the knowledge we have essentially comes from habits, though habits may be overcome by a stronger habit as would be the case with the proposition: “All Irishmen are drunks.” Such a proposition may arise from the habit of seeing many drunk Irishmen, but it could be overcome by the stronger habit of being able to conceive of exceptions when we experience an Irishman that is not drunk. One thing that this does mean is that we can arrange our perceptions in such a way that the appearance of some kind of order is created.

Hume also sees virtue and vice in this way as for Hume, virtue and vice are not relations because they are always connected to some external object. However, they are also not matters of fact because they cannot really be discovered and are for Hume based in passion rather than in reason. Hume’s divorce of morality from both nature and reason is highly important and causes him to create a strong distinction between the “is” and the “ought.” One of the implications Hume’s theory what morality is passion based has is that virtue and vice are now constituted by sentiment. Thus, it is not the case that virtue is approved of because it is virtue, but rather it is the case that virtue is virtue because it is approved. Morality is thus founded on its ability to produce good results.

Though Hume is working in the light of Hobbes and Locke, he dismisses the idea that rule and power are based solely on self-interests for four reasons. These reasons are as follows: 1) it exaggerates the power of reason, 2) not all desire under the desire for one’s own good, 3) self-interest presupposes the existence of other passions, and 4) self-interest is not necessarily the strongest or dominate passion. For Hume, passion exists in multitude, not in a singularity. For Hume, morals may be a matter of taste, but Hume avoids relativism by noting that there are such things as right and wrong taste. Thus, Hume attempts place morality along with causal and solid reasoning on a strong ground so that they can be distinct from things like mere prejudice and fantasy. Hume partially does this by making great use of common interests in an attempt to restrict individual interests.     

For Hume, this means the desire to have stability becomes highly important as stability makes it easier for use to know what common interest entails. Thus, justice is seen as ultimately coming from mutual helpfulness, so the question of justice is not what benefits individuals, but rather what benefits society. This means a strong conception of community is created, and with that comes the idea that government may both protect people as they pursue their interests and may also require them to pursue it. By doing this, the government may create what Hume calls “artificial virtue.” Artificial virtue is be understood by contrasting it to what Hume calls natural virtue as in natural virtue, virtues are rooted in people’s instincts while in the case of artificial virtue, they are not.

On matters of governance, Hume employs monarchial, aristocratic, and democratic elements in order to keep the other elements in check. By doing this, Hume wishes to avoid arbitrary government, which he sees as a threat to liberty. In many ways, Hume ends up combining a Whig/ radical political philosophy with a skeptical/ Tory temperament. It should be noted that Hume rejects the contract theory of government for several reasons. One of these reasons is that for Hume, the contract theory of government contradicted people’s natural sentiment to have order. Hume also fears that contract theory may open up the door for a new form of tyranny and was also guilty of overstating the power of reason. Finally, he also sees contract theory as weakening the foundations of society. Considering these things, it is not surprising that instead of reason, Hume wants custom to guide human life. This focus on custom as well as Hume’s desire to restrain reason has led many to read Hume as a pre-Burkean conservative.         

Montesquieu

For his entry in History of Political Philosophy, David Lowenthal summarizes Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, who is often simply called Montesquieu. To begin his essay, Lowenthal notes that while Montesquieu produced many works, he is chiefly remembered for The Spirit of the Laws, a massive 31-book work from which Lowenthal draws on for his discussion of Montesquieu. Lowenthal notes that while many critics of Montesquieu view his work as lacking any sort of overall plan or cohesion, such critics are shortsighted as there is in fact a god deal of cohesion under the surface of The Spirit of the Laws.

Lowenthal begins is essay by discussing book 1, which according to him has two basic goals. These goals are as follows: 1) Comprehend the diversity of human laws and mores and 2) to assist wise governments everywhere. Montesquieu also wants to understand human laws as existing objectively and by necessity, but also wants to break with the Thomist tradition. There are two ways in which Montesquieu attempts to accomplish this. These ways are as follows: 1) By appearing to leave no room for the miraculous, and 2) Depicting a universal based more on sheer, blind necessity than on a governing rationality aimed at good. For Montesquieu, doing this is highly important as there is a need for a new science of human affairs consistent with Cartesian and Newtonian physics. Ultimately this leads Montesquieu to focus on history and elevate its importance as history established the link between theory and practice. This link can be seen in Montesquieu’s conception of political practice, as political practice requires each society to be understood in its particularity in light of its history.  

On the matter of laws, Montesquieu sees laws as arising by people seeking both protection and advantage, which Montesquieu also views in the light of particularity. What the importance of particularity of Montesquieu’s view of laws means is that both Aquinas’ natural law and Locke’s natural right are to be rejected, the quest for the best state is thus relative. From the discussion of laws arise ideas on government. According to Montesquieu, there are three basic forms of government. These forms of government are as follows: 1) the republic, 2) monarchy, and 3) despotism. It should be noted that for Montesquieu, a republic can be either democratic or aristocratic.

In a democratic republic, the people will delegate authority to others to do what they themselves cannot do. It should be noted that by “democracy”, Montesquieu does not merely mean voting as representatives are to be chosen both by lot and by popular vote. Furthermore, democracy is to be grounded in virtue and this virtue is seen as requiring equality. By contrast, an aristocratic republic is defined by the contrast between the governing nobles and the non-governing people. Montesquieu further thinks that the larger the number of nobles, the smaller and poorer will be the non-noble class. This is highly interesting as in a sense this makes democracy the perfection of aristocracy. Monarchy on the other hand is defined by one person governing by fixed laws, a move which requires intermediaries between the king and the people as well as an independent depository or guardian of the laws. Without this, a monarchy cannot be stable. Furthermore, much as democracy is seen as being grounded in virtue, Montesquieu sees monarchy as being grounded in honor. The last form of government to be discussed here is despotism, which Montesquieu seen as one man ruling as he wishes. It is seen as the worst form of government and should only be used if despotism is the only way to avoid what Montesquieu sees as an even greater evil than despotism. That greater evil is anarchy.

Next, Montesquieu turns to a more specific theory of governance. Unlike Locke, Montesquieu combines domestic and foreign policy while also creating an independent judiciary. Furthermore, though the base of legislative power is to be rooted in the duly elected, it is permissible for the nobility to form their own body to protect themselves while the monarch is to have a check on legislative power through the veto. Considering Montesquieu’s views here, it is perhaps not surprising that he greatly admires the English system of governance, and indeed, Montesquieu notes that the English have liberty by law, if not necessarily in practice. Montesquieu further admires England from being able to draw benefit from the vices it allows.

For Montesquieu climate matters greatly in political practice as warmer climates as warmer climates are more likely to encourage sloth and despotism while colder climates are more likely to encourage hard work and democracy, thus demonstrating a further illustration of Montesquieu’s focus on particularity. His unique focus on nature is also displayed in his ideas on natural law as natural law is to be respected because of the good results it produces. Because of this, it should be respected by all, not because it was originally known to people or because it was originally intended on moral grounds. Natural law is based in self-preservation and obligations to the family. The importance of nature in Montesquieu’s thought also leads him to seek to establish liberty in France in accordance with its own particularity, not by overthrowing the monarchy in an attempt to establish liberty.

One of the more interesting aspects of Montesquieu’s theory, particularly as it relates to the development if political philosophy is his ideas on commerce for Montesquieu sees commerce as the driving force in history and praises it for its ability to establish liberty. Commerce brings different types of lives together, thus increasing tolerance, refinement, and new technologies. Though Montesquieu does admit that commerce brings with it vices, he maintains that the best political regimes will be built on these vices, an idea that connects back to his praising of England for its ability to draw benefit from the vices it allows. And indeed, according to Montesquieu, England is the most free because it most honors commerce. On the subject of vices, Montesquieu goes on further to note that as political virtues and political vices are both passions, politics cannot be guided by morality.

On the subject of religion, Montesquieu does note that the Christian conception of perfection is incompatible with the political life. Despite this, he also maintains that Christianity is both true and a great ally in establishing liberty. Following this discussion, Lowenthal hits back on a point his made at the beginning of his essay, that though The Spirit of the Laws may appear at first to be disorientated, at its core it is indeed coherent.      

John Locke

For his entry in History of Political Philosophy, Robert A. Goldwin focuses on the political thought of John Locke, one of the most influential figures in the development of liberalism who has had a particularly big impact on the development of the political thought in the United States. One of the most important things to remember about Locke is that for him, government is to be limited, an idea that is grounded in the notion that people are born free. Freedom is of great concern for Locke and it is for this reason that he dedicated three separate works to three separate conceptions of freedom: religious freedom in A Letter Concerning Toleration, political freedom in Two Treaties of Government, and economic freedom in Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interests and Raising the Value of Money. Due to the nature of the book Goldwin’s essay is found in, the bulk of his essay focuses on the ideas discussed in Two Treaties of Government. One of the first things that needs to be understood about Locke’s conception of political freedom is that for him freedom is natural and is rooted in the idea that humans are naturally equal. This relates closely to his idea on the state of nature which predates the state and is characterized by its freedom and peace.

Locke’s ideas on the state of nature are badly misunderstood as many take it to be a literal event with Locke having pre-historical people in mind as living in the state of nature. This is not true as the actual people Locke has in mind as living under the state of nature are princes as their sense of reason is well developed and no one rules over them. From here Locke laws out four basic concepts that need to be understood in order to understand the rest of his political thought. These concepts are as follows: 1) The state of nature, 2) the state of war, 3) civil society, and 4) the state of peace. The opposite of the state of nature is civil society as civil society is defined by having a common judge to enforce civil law. Likewise, the opposite of the state of war is the state of peace as the state of war is defined by the use of force without right. While this does mean that the state of nature and the state of war are not equivalent as Hobbes thought they were, it must be remembered that the state of nature cannot last long as eventually a state of war will arise out of it. The state of war and the state of nature may not be the same thing, but it is only from the state of nature that a state of war can arise. It should also be noted that in the state of nature, people have an obligation to protect themselves and it is from this obligation that another obligation to protect others and thus punish those that do harm against innocents develops. Locke sees this desire of self-protection as ultimately coming from God and is through this desire that the idea of natural law arises, which Locke sees as being common to all men. 

There is a tendency to understand Locke by contrasting his thought with another English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. And while differences between the two men certainly do exist, it is worth pointing out that there are many issues on which they agree. These issues are as follows: 1) the state of war can only happen in the state of nature, 2) humans are generally concerned with self-preservation, and 3) civil government is needed in order to deal with the problems of the state of nature. Despite these similarities, Locke still does have a more positive outlook on people which leads to him adopting less authoritarian solutions.

The idea of ownership is one of Locke’s most important contribution to political philosophy an idea which he roots in the concept that people own both their body and their labor. From this arises other forms of property, which are themselves rooted in scarcity and surplus. The idea that Locke presents is that originally, all property was held in common, which was not an issue as due to the small human population, there was a superabundance of resources. As populations grew however, abundance decreased so therefore the concept of property was needed to sort out the distribution of scarce resources. This shifted ownership from being commonly held to being privately held.

For Locke, under natural conditions property is limited to what a person can himself work, but as accumulation develops there becomes more and more of a conception of property. As Locke notes, in earlier societies, the amount that people could accumulate was limited by both spoilage and the lack of cultivation of land. As people began to be able to develop better storage systems and cultivate land better, accumulation became more and more of a reality. Money is another factor that spurred on the development of accumulation which Locke sees a predating civil society. Locke does admit that accumulation does eventually lead to inequality in wealth, but for Locke this is not a problem for as accumulation increases, the amount of good available increases, which will eventually be for the benefit of all. This is important as accumulation relates closely to the ability for people to overcome natural limits of their environment and produce more. This matters because under natural conditions it is impossible for a person to benefit except at the expense of another.

As property developed, there also developed a need for protection of that property also developed, so thus a common judge was eventually brought in in order to give protection for property. Out of this move towards having a judge arises civil society. According to Locke, civil society is set up in order to read with four major problems. These problems are as follows: 1) the protection of property, 2) making the law known to all, 3) a judge to determine the law, and 4) a method to punish those who break the law. While they are in the state of nature, each person holds these powers themselves, but by entering civil society, they give up these powers. It is worth noting that while Hobbes has a somewhat similar view to Locke; Locke still thinks that people retain some power to control their government. What is perhaps most interesting about Locke’s position is that without these controls, a civil government cannot really exist so therefore an absolute monarchy is not really a government formed out of civil society, but rather a return to the state of nature.

It’s important to remember that Locke’s intention here is to find some way to balance the rights of individuals with the needs of the community. The tension between these two elements of Locke’s thought can be clearly demonstrated in his ideas on how civil society is formed versus how it later governs for while civil society can only be formed by unanimous decision, once it is formed, it governs by majority rule. This concept is rooted in Locke’s ideas on the relationship between power and force because as the majority is more numerous, it will have more force and thus more power. It should also be noted that civil society is not exactly the same thing as government for it is after civil society is formed that governments are formed. Still, the relationship between them is very close as no civil society by itself can last very long. Locke does not go into great detail on exactly what sort of government civil society should form, but he does give some general guidelines, one of the most important of these being the separation of powers. An example of this can be seen in his ideas on the relationship between the legislative body, legislative power, and the executive for while legislative power is to be supreme; the legislative body should not be and should instead be kept in check by the executive. Though the executive is to obey the legislative law, he is to do so using wisdom rather than just following the law blindly. What this means is that a good executive may at times act outside the law but when s/he does this, s/he does it in service to the people. What’s interesting is that Locke thinks that a tyrant also acts outside the law, but for Locke the difference between the two is that while the good executive does so in service, the tyrant does so to make war on the people.

Locke does think that people have a right to resist unjust authority, but is careful to point out that this is only to be used as a last resort. Locke is also careful not to promote revolution because he sees revolution as having disastrous consequences, among these being that revolution stops civil society from functioning. Still, Locke sees people’s resistance against unjust government as being ultimately rooted in self-preservation, just as was their move towards forming civil society. Locke’s focus on self-protection yields some surprising results on the relationship between passion and reason for while the ancients saw reason as being the key to resisting tyranny, by rooting resistance to tyranny in self-protection, Locke turns passion into the key. As a result of this, Locke ends up elevating passion over reason.                

Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza

For his entry to History of Political Philosophy, Stanley Rosen focuses on Baruch Spinoza, although he is known as Benedict Spinoza in this essay. Regardless, Rosen sees Spinoza as playing an important part in the development of political philosophy as he was the first to lay out a philosophical and systematic defense of democracy, a defense that was rooted in Spinoza’s mechanical outlook and in his rejection of traditional philosophy. Though Spinoza did reject traditional philosophy, and can thus be seen as one of the earliest purely modern thinkers, it is important to remember that Spinoza did have some conception of an eternal order that regulated the merely human order. Even then, though this idea certainly harkens back to the traditional philosophers, Spinoza shifts his conception of the eternal order to make it quite different than the traditional philosopher’s conception of that order as he roots the order in a more scientific view than had been done before.

            Spinoza’s view of the order causes him to have a Stoic conception of freedom as Spinoza sees freedom as being the passive acceptance of the consequences of the eternal order. Again, though this may appear to be a traditional idea, Spinoza shifts this to a highly modern conception as he thinks that the people who have done this the best were the scientists and the politicians who had a scientific understanding of politics. What this means is that for Spinoza there is a deep connection between science and the practice of politics. This connection also means there can be a new way to understand the connection between the human and the non-human, a move that would attempt to move philosophy away from anthropocentricism. By moving away from anthropocentricism, Spinoza thought that reason was to be placed above the passions as for Spinoza; the passions were seen as more human than reason.

In Spinoza’s views toward order, we can see one of the clearest differences between him and Hobbes because while Hobbes thought society created order, for Spinoza all society does is recognize it. One of the implications of this element of Spinoza’s thought is that he is significantly less authoritarian than Hobbes as because order is prior to human society, Spinoza can allow for a greater recognition of human differences than Hobbes could. Such a view allows Spinoza to have a more robust conception of human freedom and democracy, provided of course that neither attempt to undermine the social order.

Despite his views on the possibility of freedom and democracy, order is still central to Spinoza’s thought as he wanted to direct all sciences to a single end, a goal which includes the mathematization of all sciences. Despite his interest in seeing all of science directed toward a single end, it is important to remember that Spinoza ultimately rejects teleology as he sees it as an example of the passions taking precedent over reason. Ultimately Spinoza wishes to see teleology eliminated as he thinks philosophers should focus on things as they are and not as they appear to be.

Spinoza also does not want to stop at merely subjugating politics to reason, but also wants to do the same to religion. One of the applications of his attempt to subjugate politics to reason is Spinoza’s idea that what the best state looks like as well what changes are needed to get at that state are seen as scientific questions. For Spinoza, the best state will be rooted in reason as people are only free when they obey by reason. This of course stands in stark contrast to Hobbes who sees the state as ultimately being rooted in fear and it is by fear that people obey it. This does give Spinoza a far more robust conception of the possibilities of society as society is now seen as not merely for protection, but also a method in which people’s capacity to reason can be enhanced. This leads Spinoza to seeing democracy as the best form of government because it was the best reflection of the state of nature due to its being rooted in reason and limits to power. Also important to Spinoza’s understanding of democracy is his contention that democracy best understood the limits to brute force. It is important to remember that despite Spinoza’s enthusiasm for democracy, and while he does allow all to vote, he thinking that the holding of office should be restricted.  In addition to democracy, Spinoza also has a great admiration of freedom, though the freedom he is most concerned with is the freedom of philosophers and philosophizing. And though Spinoza is well aware that his move towards democracy and freedom will require a revolution, for Spinoza if this revolution is properly backed by reason, it will be bloodless. As mentioned before, in addition to politics, Spinoza also wishes to subjugate religion to reason. Though Spinoza does not completely reject scripture, he does feel that philosophers have let their own biases color their interpretation of it. Thus Spinoza wishes to move towards a more scientific understanding of scripture as he feels that this will help philosophers avoid biases. By freeing reason in matters of religion, Spinoza ultimately wishes to create a more robust understanding of God.    

Though Spinoza is willing to grant a large degree of freedom, there are still definite limits on this as once a person consents to a sovereign, that person has both a desire and obligation to obey that sovereign. Still, Spinoza’s focus on both freedom and unity eventually leads to great tensions between those two concepts and one area this can be seen in is Spinoza’s view of the relationship between the sovereign and religion as Spinoza sees religious force as being solely rooted in the sovereign and not in divine law. For Spinoza this means that religious freedom is necessary for the well-being of the sovereign’s power as it allows the state to maintain unity in the face of religious diversity.            

John Milton

For his entry to History of Political Philosophy, Walter Berns focuses on the political thought of John Milton, a man better known for his poetry, yet also made many important contributions to the development of political philosophy. According to Berns, Milton saw education as being highly important to his project. Milton wanted to reform the English education system to the model of the Classical formula. While this move may appear to be radical, it is important to remember that much like the changes the Puritans made in the governance of the Church, Milton did not see himself as leading a revolution, but rather a restoration. For Milton, education was essential in helping reestablish the mixed regimes of the ancients and was particularly drawn to the work of Polybius, particularly in Polybius’ call for a regime where the elements of monarchy, democracy, and aristocracy each have their own role in government.

Though Milton was initially was willing to give power to a monarch, as his thought developed he became increasingly anti-monarchial while also developing a stronger faith in the common people. This is not to say the Milton was a democrat however as by “common people” Milton meant “not part of the nobility”, not “the masses.” Knowing this, it is unsurprising that Milton divided the common people up between the virtuous few and the vulgar multitudes. As he thought developed further, Milton did begin to feel that more people could be free, but he still kept this same basic distinction. He also went from being a monarchist; abet a reluctant one, to being a fully committed republican. This shift was caused by Milton’s belief that of all the forms of government, monarchy was most likely to devolve into tyranny. So serious was this threat, for Milton not even a constitutional monarchy could be supported as it would likely soon become tyrannical.

Rejecting both monarchy and democracy, Milton essentially became an aristocrat as he wanted to root power in the “noblest, worthiest, and most prudent men.” It is important to remember though that unlike many other advocates of aristocracy that came before him, Milton’s aristocracy is to be rooted in the merit of its aristocratic class, not by their birth. What this means, and why it is so important for political philosophy is that under Milton’s ideal system, power is rooted in the middle class. There are some democratic elements in Milton’s system as the masses are still allowed to vote, but they are not allowed to actually participate in the government. For Milton, the fact the masses had the right to vote was sufficient enough reason to forgo the need for a popular assembly. Even then, Milton shows a deep distrust of the masses as checks are still to be placed on their power.

Though many modern democrats would say Milton’s system leaves no real protection for the masses, for Milton, the masses are sufficiently protected by the fact that the best and most able men rule. Such men are highly important to the survival of Milton’s commonwealth, and thus it is absolutely paramount that more of these men are produced. Under this system, education then becomes seen as a public duty as only in a generally educated public can these men often arise to govern the commonwealth. Despite this, Milton is at his core trying to create a balance between monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, even though the aristocratic elements are by far the strongest. The monarchial elements are made even weaker by the fact that the executive is to be picked by the legislative body while the democratic elements are made weaker by the presence of some moderate property requirements for voting.

But perhaps the most radical changes Milton proposes has to do with the relationship between the Church and the state as Milton calls for the abolishing of episcopal power as for him it was unnecessary in his commonwealth. Added to this is the fact that for Milton, bishops merely got in the way of each man’s understanding of the power. Thus, under Milton’s system, ecclesiastical and state power becomes absolutely distinct. None of this though should suggest that Milton is some sort of modern advocate of state/ Church separation as he still thinks it is up to civil powers to protect the Christian religion and even goes as far as to think that a zealous and distinct people are needed to establish liberty. Because of the special class of people that is needed in order to establish liberty, liberty is a highly important concept in Milton’s thought. For Milton, there are essentially three types of liberty. Those types of liberty are as follows: spiritual liberty, civil liberty, and private liberty. Furthermore, Milton also gives liberty two distinct meaning. One meaning of liberty is virtue while the other meaning is freedom from government. Under Milton’s scheme, liberty and Christianity become deeply connected, which is very important as by doing this, Milton creates an exalted conception of liberty. It should be noted though that “liberty” for Milton clearly does not mean license as “liberty” is to lead to people fully becoming men in Christ. What’s more, this conception of liberty through Christianity is not negotiable as for Milton Original Sin prevents people from coming to know liberty in any way except through Christ.