PLATOS REPUBLIC

Summary Handout
Plato is trying to do a large number of things in the Republic. His overall concern is with the ways in which human beings can best live what is the good life? Plainly, he wants to defend the idea that the good life involves virtue; he also believes that it involves living in community. There are interesting questions about whether you can live the right sort of life in the wrong sort of community. The Republic is an encyclopedic text, one that wants to make claims in ethics, political theory, social theory, educational theory, in metaphysics, epistemology, and the philosophy of art. Plato starts with ethics, specifically with questions about the right ways for an individual to live. His ostensible purpose in introducing the ideal state is to reveal some features of the well-ordered soul (individual) more clearly. But, on the encyclopedic interpretation, he takes the ideal seriously as a proposal in political theory. Derivatively, he has to explore the character of genuine knowledge (epistemology), the nature of reality (metaphysics), the proper ways of training people (educational theory), social arrangements within the ideal society, and the role of the arts.

Ethics
The official focus is on justice, although there are plenty of passages in which Plato seems interested in all the components of living well. 1) Justice as paying whats owed (Cephalus) Wealth can do a lot to save us from having to cheat or deceive someone against our will and from having to depart for that other place in fear because we owe sacrifice to a god or money to a person. 2) Justice as helping friends and harming enemies (Polemarchus) 3) Justice as the will of the stronger (Thrasymachus) Listen, then. I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. Well, why dont you praise me? But then youd avoid anything to do that. 4) By Book 4: Justice as having and doing ones own - Justice as that which establishes the reign of reason Therefore, from this point of view also, the having and doing of ones own would be accepted as justice. Thats right.

Consider, then, and see whether you agree with me about this. If a carpenter attempts to do the work of a cobbler, or a cobbler that of a carpenter, or they exchange their tools and honors with one another, or is the same person tries to do both jobs, and all other such exchanges are made, do you think that does any great harm to the city? Meddling and exchange between these three classes, then, is the greatest harm that can happen to the city and would rightly be called the worst thing someone could do to it. Exactly. And wouldnt you say that the worst thing that someone could do to his city is injustice? Of course. Then, that exchange and meddling is injustice. Or to put it the other way around: For money-making, auxiliary, and guardian classes each to do its own work in the city, is the opposite. Thats justice, isnt it, and makes the city just? I agree. Justice is that and nothing else. One feature of Platos approach deserves mention because its so obviously different from that of many later writers and from our own. Justice is thought of as a quality of individuals and only secondarily of actions. We tend to view things the other way round: there are just acts, and people are just because they tend to perform those acts. One way to be very critical of Plato is to accuse him of changing the subject. Thrasymachus and Glaucon wonder about whether people who tend to do just things undercut their own happiness; Plato responds by introducing a notion of justice that takes the just individual to be one who has a harmonious soul; is it so surprising that he can then make a connection between justice and happiness? Plato presents a hierarchy of types, descending from most to least just: 1) Philosopher-King 2) Timocrat 3) Oligarch 4) Democrat 5) Tyrant

Political Theory
Plato offers a description of a number of different kinds of states. Before we arrive at the kallipolis, were offered (in Book II) two other possibilities. One involves uncorrupted people living a rather rudimentary life (it gets dismissed as a city for pigs), and the other adds some higher activities at the cost of corruption. In the ideal state, were presumably supposed to be able to take over the good features and eliminate the bad ones. Whats the point of the ideal city? Socrates tells Adeimantus in Book IV that we arent aiming to make any one group outstandingly happy but to make the whole city so, as far as possible. What exactly does this mean? There are several possibilities: 1. 2. 3. To bring it about that the happiness (the genuine happiness) of the lives of the citizens always exceeds a minimum level that is set as high as possible; (nobody lives a life that is too bad). To maximize the average genuine happiness of the citizens lives. To create a community that, considered as a whole, is genuinely happy.

Modern political theory tends to start from the idea of an individual with certain rights that ought to be respected, or with projects that he/she has formulated and chosen, and then to evaluate forms of government by taking their functions to be either 1 or 2. Plato doesnt seem to do anything like that. In many passages, the community comes first, and he suggests that living in the right kind of (harmonious) community is a component of genuine individual happiness. Plato has a quite different conception of human freedom than we have today. He can be viewed as opposing the notion of separated individuals pursuing their projects without interference from others, by denying that those projects can amount to anything significant in the absence of the right sort of community structure. Freedom isnt a matter of getting other people out of your way, but of getting you to participate in a wider community so that your life is genuinely enhanced.

The Self
The Republic provides an original and influential view of the self. Platos theory of the soul can be interpreted as a first attempt to do psychology. In distinguishing the parts of the self, Plato is trying to understand the roles they play in human thought and action, and especially how they work in the good life.

His theory of the self stands on the tripartite division of the soul: 1) philosopher 2) honor-lover 3) money-lover Plato also suggests a conception of the relation between mind and body. The Myth of Er (Book X) seems to support an immaterialist view: the psychological subject is not part of the material world, but becomes attached to it at birth. The Myth of Er complicates the account of human happiness, in that were no longer confined to the secular perspective that dominates Books II to IX. Plato is clearly committed to the view that, by nature, people are better suited to certain kinds of tasks and positions. Considered in todays context, this raises questions about biological determinism. Do contemporary ideas about the causes of human character traits and behavior support or subvert this kind of position?

Knowledge and Reality

Plato uses the discussion of the education of the guardians in the middle books of the Republic to put forward his views about the nature of reality and of human knowledge. The big challenge here is to understand what Plato thinks the Form of the Good might be. Is it genuinely knowable? Is it susceptible to description? Does knowledge of it guarantee virtue?

Social Theory
Unlike many other authors in CC, Plato faces the question squarely and argues for giving women a public place and a serious education. He says quite explicitly that women cannot be expected to do things as well as their male counterparts. So hes sometimes been chided for sexism and sometimes hailed as an early voice for women. Plato, however, approaches these questions differently from the way we tend to do so. Hes not in the business of defending womens rights to a public role hes not in the business of defending anyones rights. What moves him is the thought that, under the social system he knew, a lot of talent in each community is being wasted. He wants women to participate because he thinks their contributions, while inferior to those of men, will be good for the community. He also doesnt blink issues that many later feminists would like to downplay (or ignore). Something has to be done about the private roles women have traditionally played, and Plato falls back on his strong commitment to division of labor. He thinks you dont need a nuclear family, and that specialists can do an

excellent job at rearing the children. Considering the population as a whole, do we really do any better by our children than the kallipolis would? Consider also Platos theory regarding who is qualified to rule. Is the training he envisages capable of producing people who could be trusted to make wise decisions? Could that sort of government proceed without any constitutional constraints? The philosophers make a real sacrifice in administering the city, when they have to give up the contemplation of the Forms for mundane work; they do that only because they recognize that they have a duty to do so. This indicates a tension in Platos thinking about the good life. On the one hand, he tends to suggest that the good life is one lived in community; on the other, he thinks of philosophical contemplation as the highest type of existence of which we are capable. If you take the second idea seriously, its easy to think that a solitary sage could lead the best kind of life.

Education
Plato presents a single prescribed system for a particular class of students for the guardians. They need Philosophy, spirit, speed and strength. They also need education in music and poetry. This, however, must be carefully censored, as all of Platos theory jumps from the assumption that lives imitates art. Do you accept this? They must, for example, must only be exposed to true stories. For these reasons, then, we should probably take the utmost care to insure that the first stories they hear about virtue are the best ones for them to hear. Well ask Homer and the other poets not to be angry if we delete these passages and all similar ones. It isnt that they arent poetic and pleasing to the majority of hearers but that, the more poetic they are, the less they should be heard by children or by men who are supposed to be free to fear slavery more than death. Arent these the reasons, Glaucon, that education in music and poetry is most important? First, because rhythm and harmony permeate the inner part of the soul more than anything else, affecting it most strongly and brining it to grace, so that if someone is properly educated in music and poetry, it makes him graceful, but if not, then the opposite. Second because anyone who has been properly educated in music and poetry will sense it acutely when something has been omitted from a thin and when it hasnt been finely crafted or finely made by nature. And since he has the right distastes, hell praise fine things, be pleased by them, receive them into his soul, and being, nurtured by them, become fine and good. What, in sum, do you need to know to be a philosopher? Its not a slate of information, its epistemic: you need to grasp Platos metaphysics to understand his point. You need to be able to grasp the good. Which means you need to know that the good exists - that there is sun outside of the cave.

The Arts
Platos attacks on the poets in Book III and on the arts in general in Book X has often proved controversial. Is he right to suppose that the arts ought to perform a socially valuable educational function if they are to exist? If not, what is the source of their value? Are societies ever right in banning (or suppressing) some forms of artistic expression? On what grounds? Can survival of the magical quality of the arts the triumph of reason over emotion be considered the true test of a ideal guardian? Could this be one of the purposes of the Myth of Er? Then we must also set up a competition for the third way in which people are deprived of their convictions, namely magic. Like those who lead clots into noise and tumult to see if theyre afraid, we must expose out young people to fears and pleasures, testing them more thoroughly than gold is tested by fire. If someone is hard to put under a spell, is apparently gracious in everything, is a good guardian of himself and the music and poetry he has learned, and if he always shows himself to be rhythmical and harmonious, then he is the nest person for both himself and for the city. Anyone who is tested in this way as a child, youth, and adult, and always comes out of it untainted, is to be made a ruler as well as a guardian

ARISTOTLE Nicomachean Ethics and Politics

Summary Handout
The Ethics begins with a fundamental question, taking its cue from Platos Republic: what is the good life? Aristotle agrees that its happiness, but unlike Plato he see s multiple routes to the good life to the ultimate end, eudaimonia, translated as happiness in English but best conceived as contentment or fulfillment. The good life consists of reaching the proper mean, no matter the field. Some fields are still superior to others, however: thus the highest level of virtue is realized through the exercise of reason. Aristotle reaches this conclusion through an argument based around functionality that takes its cue from Platos notion of ideal forms: human beings ideal function involves the exercise for reason because its the one thing that distinguishes them from all other beings. Aristotles teleology differs from Platos. Where Plato begins with the Good and plots the precise way to achieve this in politics, Aristotle starts with the variety of polities surrounding him, carefully analyses them, and then evaluates which best leads back to the good. Plato might therefore be considered an idealist, and Aristotle more of a materialist. Once Aristotle establishes the outlines of the good life in the Ethics, he goes about determining how best to produce the good life in reality, in the city-state the subject of the Politics. Because Aristotle begins his analysis embedded in the world he lives in, he recognizes that many different types of polities (instead of one ideal republic) can exist, in different combinations. He does, however, think that some systems work better than others, and its the analysis of their relative merits that the Politics investigates.

The Good Life

The good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. (NE) Pleasure is an important part of happiness for Aristotle, but pleasure isnt necessarily what think it is. There is a hierarchy of pleasures, and theoretical contemplation comes out at the top. The happy life, moreover, involves activity (and contemplation counts as an activity) simply being fed pleasurable sensations wont do. Self-sufficiency, moreoever, is part of happiness dependency on others (or on factors external to ourselves) detracts from the quality of a life. The good life must involve virtue. Aristotles conception of virtue, however, diverges from our standard usage (which tends to list those traits of character that conduce us to acting well). He likes to think of people, insofar as they are able to live well, as having enough independence and autonomy to direct their own

conduct, and their virtues as exemplified in their decisions and actions. Virtue is not necessarily innate, but can be learned. There are three KINDS of life, which map on to Platos separation of appetitive/honorloving/knowledge-loving functions: - pleasure - political - contemplative The good life involves acting virtuously. Virtue is achieved by finding the mean is all fields. Therefore virtue is a kind of mean. (NE) Again, it is possible to fail in many ways while to succeed is possible only in one way for these reasons also, then, excess and defect are characteristic of vice, and the mean of virtue virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean. (NE) The good life is impossible outside of communities.

Natural hierarchy
Aristotle has views about nature, human nature, and society that implicitly assume the existence of natural hierarchies. The mind is superior to the body. Activity stands above relaxation. Complete virtue (employment of all the intellectual and moral virtues) is better, quantitatively and qualitatively, than employment of only some. Men rule over women. Women stand above children and slaves. Humans are superior to beasts. Among the beasts there are also gradations. All of his assumptions about natural hierarchy hang together and relate to each other. The superiority of the mind over the body mirrors the superiority of the human over the animal. Thus the inferiority of the (natural) slave reflects the fact that his human (non-animal) mental part is less developed.

Property
Aristotle sketches the kind of story about the origins of property that well encounter in much later texts. Primitive socio-economic arrangements simply consist in households combining so that you can reap the benefits of division of labor. From this, he thinks, a more extensive trade will flow and, eventually, because of the difficulty of hauling around (or dividing) certain kinds of necessary goods, youll introduce a conventional medium for exchange (money). Then people can start amassing this medium through producing and exchanging efficiently. Aristotle advocates this; property is a necessary precondition for living the good life. You need leisure to live the good life;

fixed for different kinds of people even whether there are some people for whom some of Aristotles good components arent necessary at all.

Responsibility
In Book III of NE, Aristotle approaches the issue of the conditions under which people are responsible for their actions. Note that Aristotle is laying the foundations for the treatment of people by the law, in ways that continue to this day. Given his assumptions about the biological basis of some of our traits, to what extent are our practices of punishment justified? To what extent do social failures to develop the characters of individuals absolve those individuals of responsibility? Aristotle believes that praise and blame can only attach to voluntary actions, i.e. actions done (1) not by force, and (2) with knowledge of the circumstances. The terms voluntary and involuntary must be used with reference to the moment of action. Acting by reason of ignorance seems also to be different from acting IN ignorance; for the man who is drunk or in a rage is though to act as a result not of ignorance but of one of the causes mentioned, yet not knowingly but in ignorance. (NE) In addition, an act is not judged good just by its product, but by its intentions. The agent also must be in a certain condition when he does them he must choose the acts and choose them for their own sakes. (NE) Actions, then, are called just and temperate when they are such as the just or temperate man would do; but it is not the man who does these that is just and temperate, but the man who also does then AS just and temperate men do then. (NE) But most people do not do these, but take refuge in theory and think they are being philosophers. (NE_

Friendship
Friendship is central to both the good life and the city-state because of two assumptions: first, human beings are social animals, and thus cannot live the good life without relationships; second, virtue is learned through practice, and friendships help us practice virtue. Perfect friendship: the friendship of men who are good, and alike in virtue; for these wish well alike to each other qua good, and they are good in themselves. Now those who wish well to their friends for their sakes are most truly friends. (NE) Imperfect people can also be friends, but this is a different sort of friendship, not the ideal: 9

Because of pleasure or utility, then, even bad men may be friends of each other, or good men of bad. (NE) Bad men will be friends for the sake of pleasure or utility, whereas good men will be friends b/c of themselves, in virtue of their goodness. The good life is impossible outside of communities: It is evident from these considerations, then, that a city-state is among the things that exist by nature, that a human being is by nature a political animals, and that anyone who is without a city-state by nature, is either a poor specimen or else superhuman. (P) Anyone who cannot form a community with others, or who does not need to because he is self-sufficient, is no part of a city-state he is either a beast or a god. (P)

Slavery
Aristotle believes that some people are naturally suited to the menial work of slaves, and others have natures that equip them to pursue higher ends. Someone who can belong to someone else is a natural slave. (P) Therefore some are naturally free, others naturally slaves, for whom slavery is just and beneficial. (P) But there are also two TYPES of slavery: by law (as when people are captured in battle) and by nature. Condemnations of slavery are actually only of the former category: when people not made to be salves by nature become so by law.

The definition of the citizen

Consonant with his emphasis on the value of activity, Aristotle takes the citizens to be those who participate in the offices of the state. It is evident from this who the citizen is. For we can now say that someone who is eligible to participate in deliberative and judicial office is a citizen in this city-state, and that a city-state, simply speaking, is a multitude of such people, adequate for lifes selfsufficiency. (P)

Aristotles political categories

Aristotle thinks that some people are better able to make political judgments than others and that birth and wealth are reasonably good criteria for identifying the

10

appropriate people. But he also believes that the cumulative judgment of a large number of people can outweigh the opposite opinion of a few betters. Aristotle believes there are THREE correct types of constitution, each with their corresponding deviation: -Kingship deviation: tyranny - aristocracy deviation: oligarchy - polity deviation: democracy When it functions properly kingship is the best, form, but if there are deviations, then democracy is the best. When all these constitutions are good (for example, when an oligarchy is good and also the others), democracy is the worst of them, but that when they are bad, it is the best. (P) There are also several KINDS of democracy: Democracy 1 based on EQUALITY Democracy 2 based on PROPERTY Democracy 3 based on LAW Democracy 4 based on CITIZENSHIP Democracy 5 based on MULTITUDE (popular leaders)

Equality
Aristotle believes that equality is a relative notion. The important issue, therefore, is always Equality of what? One might read Aristotle as providing a sophisticated version of Polemarchus approach to justice at the beginning of the Republic: justice is a matter of treating equally those who are equal in the pertinent respects, and of treating unequally those who are unequal in the pertinent respects.

Roman and Hellenistic Philosophy

Context: Timeline of what weve studied to date, and will study next B.C.E. 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st 0 1st 2nd
Roman Republic Greece: Classical Period

A.D. 3rd

4th -5th

6th

Roman Empire 312: Constantinople converts to Christianity 5thC: Decline of the Roman Empire Greece: Hellenistic Period

11

Follows Archaic period Centered in Athens

Socrates (Greek: c. 469-399) Plato (Greek: c. 427-347)

c. 323 dated from the death of Alexander (Aristotles tutee and patron) 146 = Roman Conquest of Greece Aristotle (Greek: Epictetus 384-322) (Roman: 50-138) Epicurus (Greek: 341-271) Hebrew Bible (though religious dating can place as far back as 1146 BC).

Aurelius (Roman: 121-180)

New Testament

Quran

Hellenistic philosophy: period between death of Alexander and rise of Christianity Shift from Athens to Rome; most of knowledge of later Greek world comes from Roman sources; very heterogeneous group of thinkers; central to political life Comparison Table Epicureanism No one surviving text, letters are abridged, but largely faithful Static philosophy, quasi-religion Ascetic, also needed to be practiced Stoicism Very little surviving, surviving texts are Roman Very fluid, changed, became kinder, removed physics Ascetic, to get rid of dependence upon material, needed to be practiced, effort and intention i.e. choice, according to nature

Epicureanism and Physics Understanding is essential to a happy life, because it frees us of the fear of supernatural powers Infinite universe, consisting of matter and void Infinite worlds Inanimate matter, with no origin, no end, no purpose

Stoicism and Physics Understanding is essential to a happy life, because it assures us of the rationality and goodness of the world Spherical universe, surrounded by void One world Animate (divine) universe, controlled by and identified with purposeful god; subject to

12

This is one world among many, neither good nor bad, but simply there. Each world is mortal and finite, although the universe is immortal and infinite The gods, being perfect, are not troubled by anything, and therefore have no interest in human affairs. They do not interfere; they do not help or hinder humans; they simply are

destruction and recreation This is the best of all possible worlds

The universe is and is governed by the logos (=divine fine), the main characteristic of which is right reason, in which all rational beings participate. Being divine and rational, the universe is harmonious and predictable through reason

Epicureanism and Life The goal of life is living in accordance with nature i.e. the material world You do this through seeking pleasure, which is defined as the absence of pain You should not be unhappy even when being tortured through memory of past happiness Happiness consists in the satisfaction of limited desires. You can be happy by seeking only pleasures that are both necessary and good

Stoicism and Life The goal of life is living in accordance with nature i.e. the universe By participation in the rationality of the divine logos, we will be virtuous, and virtue alone is sufficient for perfect happiness You should be happy even when being tortured, because you are still virtuous and rational Whatever happens by definition happens for the good of the universe of which you are a part

Epicureanism - human beings troubled, bodily pain can be assuaged by diversion, thoughts of pleasure, friendship - unpleasantness of life comes from socially constructed desires (immortality, control of one you love, exotic foods) - major assault on religion - engagement with nature of universe - anti-political (yet another cause of anxiety) - detached, simple life - difficult for Romans to accept, therefore changed to good citizenship

Stoicism - life dedicated to virtue

13

highly active conception rationalist, living in accordance with reason opposed to Epicureanism divine purpose at heart of universe free will compatible with determinism how to learn not to have deforming emotions (anger, jealousy, grief, fear) much wider influence, much more compatible with Roman society active rather than detached ideal of conduct, enormously influential necessary not optional

Epicurean Ethics
Major figures: Epicurus (341-271 BCE), Lucretius (mid-first century BCE, author of didactic poem on Epicurean physics) Nature According to Epicurus, it is natural for human beings to pursue pleasure and avoid pain. Insofar as human beings pursue pleasure naturally, pleasure is the startingpoint of human action. But it is also the end (telos): A human life is a good life if the agent pursues pleasure rationally. Pleasure According to Epicurus, pleasure is the good. The end (telos) is defined as freedom from bodily pain (aponia) and mental perturbation (ataraxia). Epicurus ethics is optimistic: the good life is attainable. Epicurus theory of pleasure and pain is in part designed so as to explain that pleasure is not difficult to attain: (i) pleasure is the absence of pain (rather than: the absence of pain is a middle, neutral state, and pleasure is something over and above the absence of pain); (ii) it does not make a difference in which way a pain is alleviated, e.g., whether thirst is alleviated by drinking water or by drinking a more luxurious drink; (iii) the fact that pleasure is the good does not mean that one should habituate oneself so as to acquire ever larger desires, which then presumably allow for more pleasure rather, it is rational to train oneself to take pleasure in very simple things; (iv) bodily pain is either short, leading to death (which is nothing to us: language misleads us into thinking that there is a state of being dead but, when death occurs, there is no sentient being whose state this would be), or light, so that we can distract ourselves by anticipating future pleasures; (v) mental perturbation (especially fear) is particularly painful and can be avoided by eradicating empty beliefs, such as that the gods punish human beings, send

14

thunder and other natural events as omens, respond to favors, or that death is a bad thing; (vi) what we should be doing is to pursue pleasure rationally, i.e., to calculate correctly with respect to different pleasures and pains; (vii) ultimately, the pleasurable life it that of the philosopher, who spends his/her life considering the nature of things, thus eradicating empty beliefs, having simple desires, and living with like-minded friends.

Stoic ethics
[Early Stoics: Zeno of Citium (c. 334-262 BCE, founder of Stoicism), Cleanthes (c. 331-232 BCE), Chrysippus (c. 280-206 BCE); so-called middle Stoa: e.g., Panaetius and Posidonius; later Stoa: e.g., Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca. Nature Like Epicurus, the Stoics hold that nature guides human beings, sets them on the right track. Human beings naturally love their closest relatives and try to sustain themselves (their bodies and their cognitive capabilities). This is the basis of what has, for human beings, value and disvalue (e.g., health, wealth, strength, life, etc., have value; their opposites have disvalue). Human beings need to understand nature in order to be able to make the appropriate choices with respect to valuable and disvaluable things. The end (telos), according to the Stoics, is to live in agreement, or live in agreement with nature. Being virtuous is the final stage of a process in which one tries, and gradually succeeds in gaining a better understanding of nature, so that one can act accordingly, and live a life that is in accordance with nature. The Stoics are famous for the thesis that virtue is the only good. This thesis is subject to much ancient debate, and scholars disagree on its interpretation. Some scholars have held views which see the Stoics of ancestors of a (broadly speaking) Kantian picture, according to which considerations of virtue trump other considerations. However, this view has recently attracted much criticism. Recent studies point out that virtue consists in consistently deciding for actions which take things of value and disvalue adequately into consideration. That only virtue is good arguably means that, in the end, what matters is that we become perfect deliberators who understand what is by nature conducive to the well-functioning of human beings, and come to act accordingly. This might also be what consistency or agreement (terms which the Stoics use to describe the state of the virtuous soul) are: to possess knowledge of nature (a consistent body of knowledge), and thus to be able to act in each particular situation on the basis of this knowledge. The good life is, for the Stoics, much more difficult to attain than for Epicurus. The sage that is, the wise and happy human being is as rare as a phoenix, a mythical

15

creature which comes into being every 500 years. Happiness is attainable, but, in fact, we all (apart from the occasional sage) are fools and miserable. Epictetus Handbook addresses readers who strive for virtue, so-called progressors. Epictetus develops techniques which are designed to help us fully appreciate the truth of philosophical insights, making them vivid for ourselves more vivid than the (presumably) superficial lifestyle which surrounds us, and keeps telling us that success, wealth, etc., bring happiness. In the midst of such distraction, we need philosophical exercises to help us hold on to philosophical insights. It is central to Stoic thought that opinions make us unhappy. For the Stoics, this (roughly speaking) follows from (i) the Socratic tenet that virtue is knowledge and (ii) the strict dichotomy of wisdom and foolishness (virtue and vice, knowledge and ignorance). The virtuous person has knowledge, and is wise; anyone who is not virtuous, in possession of knowledge, and wise, is vicious, ignorant, and a fool. This means: Opinions fall on the side of ignorance, vice, and foolishness. Anyone who does not have knowledge is ignorant, and thus miserable (rather than happy). Happiness Stoic epistemology and theory of action is based on the idea that human beings assent to impressions (phantasiai). Among the different kinds of impressions which the Stoics discuss are: (i) sensory impressions, (ii) non-sensory impressions, (iii) impressions which present a course of action as to be done (practical or hormetic impressions). Sensory and non-sensory impressions can be either cognitive or non-cognitive. Cognitive impressions arise from what is and are impressed [into the soul] exactly in accordance with what is. It is a matter of scholarly controversy whether practical impressions, which present courses of action as to be done, can be classified as cognitive and non-cognitive. Assent to an impression which presents a course of action as to be done (as appropriate) is identified with impulse (horm). Impulse generates (if there is no external impediment) action. This is of crucial importance for Stoic thought about whether happiness is attainable: Our actions are up to us, as is the disposition of our soul, which is largely3 a result of assents (if one assents only to cognitive impressions, which show things precisely as they are, and if one assents in a firm and unchangeable way, all the things one holds to be true make up one consistent system of knowledge this is the disposition of virtue/wisdom/knowledge). This is relevant to the beginning of Epictetus Handbook: Epictetus begins with the distinction between what is up to us and what is not up to us. We can attain a good life because our actions and our assents depend on us, and thus we can shape the condition of our soul and become virtuous and happy.

16

Epicurus on Society
Both Epicurean and Stoic political philosophy return to the early Greek debate about nature (phusis) and custom/law/convention (nomos/thesis). According to Epicurus, justice is a contract. His theory of justice is based on an account of the gradual development of human culture. Justice cannot be in a traditional sense by nature: it is a historical product. But Epicurus does not side with the view that justice is by law/convention, rather than being natural. While claiming that justice is a contract, he talks of natures justice: natures justice is a contract to the effect of not harming each other. The avoidance of harm is what we seek naturally, and the setting up of the contract is in this sense natural. (However, the details of how to interpret this position are controversial.) If justice is established by a contract, does this mean that our notions of justice are somehow not fully valid, that they are merely by convention in a way which discredits their normative force? No. Even if a law is merely right in a given historical situation, it has, in this given situation, full normative force. Epicurus attributes great importance to fear: fear is a key motivator in setting up contracts in human society. Epicurus discussion of how a wrongdoer can never have peace of mind, for fear of being eventually detected, engages with the kinds of questions raised by Platos discussion of the ring of Gyges. Epicurus answer to the question whether it pays to be unjust is not the Platonic answer. Rather, it is a more straight forward response to those who suggest that undetected wrong-doing is an ideal. One can never be sure to remain undetected, and thus it is impossible to do wrong and be at peace.

Stoic Political Philosophy

The Cosmic City The Stoics famously propose some kind of cosmopolitanism: all human beings, or rather, all rational beings, belong to one city the world. This kind of cosmopolitanism is an ancestor of modern cosmopolitan theories, but also quite different. E.g., the gods count as citizens of the cosmic city. The term cosmic city goes back to a comparison: The world is like a city. Some scholars hold that Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, conceives of a city of sages, whereas later Stoicism is concerned with a city of all human beings. Another view is that there are two elements in Zenos theory, as well as in later theory:

17

(a) In order to be a full citizen (or: a citizen in the technical sense of the term), one needs to be a sage, or a god (gods are wise). To be a citizen means to be able to live according to the law (and that means: to live according to nature). (b) At the same time, all human beings are inhabitants of the world, and belong together as fellow-inhabitants of it. Three Stoic claims: (i) Only the sages are citizens. (ii) All human-beings are fellow-citizens and inhabitants of the world. (iii) Gods and human beings live in the world as their home. Possibly, (i) is Zenos view, and (ii) a view taken by his successors. According to the second reading, (i), (ii), and (iii) are consistent, and (even though the individual Stoics disagree in detail) part of the theory that Zeno and his successors hold. Common Law The Stoics are equally famous as ancestors of the natural law tradition. The Stoic epithet for the law is common, not natural. Their law is nevertheless by nature. The law is identified with reason, or Zeus, who pervades the world. Reason, Zeus, or the law, regulates the world. The Stoics thus, like Epicurus, do not accept the traditional antithesis of law and nature; the only true law is natures law. Several aspects of the Stoic conception of the common law are foreign to the natural law tradition. Zeus (or: god) is the first principle of Stoic physics, and is corporeal. The law is thus identified with a corporeal god. The natural law tradition arguably conceives of the law as consisting of laws (however, this would need to be discussed with respect to individual theorists). But it is a much debated question whether Stoic ethics has any room for laws (or rules).

Quotations: Epicurean thought

Epicurus, Principal Doctrines That which is blessed and immortal is not troubled itself, nor does it cause trouble to another. As a result, it is not affected by anger or favor, for these belong to weakness. Death is nothing to us The removal of all that causes pain marks the boundary of pleasure. It is impossible to live pleasantly without living prudently

18

Any device whatever by which one frees himself from the fear of others is a natural good. No pleasure is evil in itself; but the means by which certain pleasures are gained bring pains many times greater than the pleasures. If the things that produce the pleasures of the Dissolute were able to drive away from their minds their fears about what is above them and about death and pain, and to teach them the limit of desires, we would have no reason to find fault with the dissolute When reasonable security from men has been attained, then the security that comes from peace of mind and withdrawal from the crowd is present, sufficient in strength and most unmixed in well-being. The just man is least disturbed; the unjust man is filled with the greatest turmoil. Those desires that do not bring pain if they are not satisfied are not necessary; and they are easily thrust aside whenever to satisfy them appears difficult or likely to cause injury. Of the things that wisdom prepares for insuring lifelong happiness, by far the greatest is the possession of friends. There is no such thing as justice in the abstract; it is merely a compact between men in their various relations with each other, in whatever circumstances they may be, that they will neither injure nor be injured. In general, justice is the same for all, a thing found useful by men in their relations with each other; but it does not follow that it is the same for all in each individual place and circumstance. Among the things commonly held just, that which has proved itself useful in men's mutual relationships has the stamp of justice whether or not it be the same for all; if anyone makes a law and it does not prove useful in men's relationships with each other, it is no longer just in its essence. Whenever, as a result of new circumstances, the same things that had been regarded as just were no longer useful, they were just at the time when they were useful for the relations of citizens to each other; but afterwards, when they were no longer useful, they were no longer just. Epicurus, Vatican Sayings

19

Every pain is easily disregarded For a wrongdoer to be undetected is difficult; and for him to have confidence that his concealment will continue is impossible. Most men are in a coma when they are at rest and mad when they act. But you, although you are not master of tomorrow, are postponing your happiness. We waste away our lives in delaying, and each of us dies without having enjoyed leisure. As if they were our own handiwork, we place a high value on our characters whether or not we are virtuous and praised by other men. So, too, we should regard the characters of those about us if they are our friends. No one chooses a thing realizing that it is evil; but when it appears as good in contrast to a greater evil, he takes the bait and is caught. If sight, association, and intercourse are removed, the passion of love is ended. We must not resist Nature but obey her. We shall obey her if we satisfy the necessary desires and also those bodily desires that do not harm us while sternly rejecting those that are harmful. Poverty, if in proper proportion to the natural purposes of life, is great wealth; but the wealth that is unlimited is great poverty pleasure does not follow learning; rather, learning and pleasure advance side by side Those who are hasty in making friends are not to be approved It is possible to provide security against other ills, but as far as death is concerned, we men all live in a city without walls. The voice of the flesh bids us escape from hunger, thirst, and cold; for he who is free of these and expects to remain so might vie in happiness even with Zeus. We do not so much need the help of our friends as the confidence of their help in need. Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; but remember that what you now have was once among the things only hoped for. He is of very small account who sees many good reasons for ending his life.

20

The time of the beginning of the greatest good and the time of its enjoyment are one. To love money unjustly gained is evil, and to love money justly gained is shameful; for sordid niggardliness is unseemly even when accompanied by justice. The wise man who has become accustomed to limited means knows better how to share with others than how to take from them, so great a treasure of self-sufficiency has he found. Friendship dances through the world bidding us all to awaken to the recognition of happiness [or to awaken and give thanks]. There is also a limit in simple living. He who fails to heed this limit falls into an error as great as that of the man who gives way to extravagance. We should welcome praise from others if it comes unsought, but we should be concerned with correcting ourselves. It is folly for a man to pray to the gods for that which he has the power to obtain by himself. Since the attainment of riches can scarcely be accomplished without servitude to crowds or kings, a free life cannot obtain much wealth, but such a life has all possessions in unfailing supply. Nothing satisfies him to whom what is enough is little. Do nothing while you live that will cause you to fear if it becomes known to your neighbor. Test each of your desires by this question: "What will happen to me if that which this desire seeks is brought to fulfillment, and what if it is not?". Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus we must use our sensations as the foundation of all our investigations there is nothing that we can grasp in the mind, either through concepts or though analogy with concepts, that has real existence Men imagine that the celestial bodies are divine yet ascribe to them purposes inconsistent with divinity; and they anticipate eternal suffering after death. Peace of mind follows freedom from such fears and will be gained if we trust to our immediate feelings and sensations 21

In addition to these general matters, we must observe this also, that there are three things that account for the major disturbances in mens minds. First, they assume that the celestial bodies are blessed and eternal yet have impulses, actions, and purposes quite inconsistent with divinity. Next, they anticipate and foresee eternal suffering as depicted in the mythos, or even fear the very lack of consciousness that comes with death as if this could be of concern to them. Finally, they suffer all this, not as a result of reasonable conjecture, but through time of the some sort of unreasoning imagination; and since in imagination they set no limit to suffering, they are beset by turmoil as great as if there were a reasonable basis for their dread, or even greater. But it is peace of mind to have been freed from all this and to have constantly in memory the essential principles of the whole system of belief. We must therefore turn our minds to immediate feelings and sensations in matters of general concern to the common feelings and sensations of mankind, in personal matters, to our own and to every immediate evidence from each the means of judgment. If we heed these, we shall rightly track down the sources of disturbance and fear, and when we have learned the causes of celestial phenomena and of the other occasional happenings, we shall be free from what other men most dread. Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus The gods exist; but it is impious to accept the common beliefs about them. They have no concern with me After accepting god as the immortal and blessed being depicted by popular opinion, do not ascribe to him anything in addition that is alien to immortality or foreign to blessedness For the opinions of the many about the gods are not perceptions but false suppositions. Philosophy, showing that death is the end of all consciousness, relieves us of all fear of death. A life that is happy is better than one that is merely long. Accustom yourself to the belief that death is of no concern to us the true belief that death is nothing to us makes a mortal life happy, not by adding to it an infinite time, but by taking away the desire for immortality for while we exist death is not present, and when death is present we no longer exist The necessary desires are for health of body and peace of mind; if these are satisfied that is enough for the happy life We only feel the lack of pleasure when from its absence we suffer pain; (but when we do not suffer pain,) we no longer are in need of pleasure. For this reason we say that pleasure is the beginning and the end of the blessed life. For this reason we say that pleasure is the beginning and the end of the blessed life.

22

Pleasure is the greatest good but some pleasures bring pain and in choosing we must consider this there are times when we pass by pleasures if they are outweighed by the hardships that follow; and many pains we think better than pleasures when a greater pleasure will come to us once we have undergone the long-continued pains every pain is an evil, yet not every pain is of a nature to be avoided on all occasions. By measuring and by looking at advantages and disadvantages, it is proper to decide all these things; for under certain circumstances we treat the good as evil, and again, the evil as good. we regard self sufficiency as a great good, not so that we may enjoy only a few things, but so that, if we do not have many, we may be satisfied with the few the truest happiness does not come from enjoyment of physical pleasures but from a simple life, free from anxiety, with the normal physical needs satisfied you will live like a god among men

Quotations: Stoic Thought

Epictetus, Handbook Some things are up to us and some are not up to us. Our opinions are up to us, and our impulses, desires, aversions. If you think that only what is yours is yours, and that what is not your own is, just as it is, not your own, then no one will ever coerce you, no one will hinder you, you will blame no one, you will not accuse anyone, you will not do a single thing unwillingly, you will have no enemies, and no one will harm you, because you will not be harmed at all You must let some things go completely eliminate desire completely, since if you desire something that is not up to us, you are bound to be unfortunate what upsets people is not things themselves but their judgments about the things do not seek to have events happen as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen, and your life will go well at each thing that happens to you, remember to turn to yourself and ask what capacity you have for dealing with it this is the price of tranquility; this is the price of not being upset

23

whoever wants to be free, therefore let him not want or avoid anything that is up to others what weighs down on this man is not what has happened but his judgment about it you will be harmed at just that time at which you take yourself to be harmed detach the good and the bad from what is not up to us and attach it exclusively to what is up to us there is therefore no way for a person who thinks he is being harmed to enjoy what he thinks is harming him everything that turns out is indifferent turn your whole attention toward your faculty of judgment remember that the contest is now and the Olympic games are now and you cannot put things off any more and that your progress is made or destroyed by a single day and a single action Marcus Aurelius, Meditations Nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him. We were born for cooperation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of upper and lower teeth. So to work in opposition to one another is against nature: and anger or rejection is opposition. Consider too what breath is: wind and not even a constant, but all the time being disgorged and sucked in again. That leaves the thing part, the directing mind. Quit your books no more hankering: this is not your gift. It is high time now for you to understand the universe of which you are a part, and the governor of that universe of whom you constitute an emanation. You may leave this life at any moment: have this possibility in your mind in all that you do or think. Now departure from the world of men is nothing to fear, if gods exist: because they would not involve you in any harm. Even if you were destined to live three thousand years, or ten times that long, nevertheless remember that no one loses any life other than the one he lives, or lives any life other than the one he loses. It follows that the longest and the shortest lives are brought to the same state So always remember these two things. First, that all things have been of the same kind from everlasting, coming round and round again, and it makes no difference whether one will see the same things for a

24

hundred years, or two hundred years, or for an infinity of time. Second, that both the longest-lived and the earliest to die suffer from the same loss. In mans life his time is a mere instant, his existence a flux, his perception fogged, his whole bodily composition rotting, his mind a whirligig, his fortune unpredictable, his fame unclear. To put it shortly: all things of the body stream away like a river, all things of the mind are dreams and delusion: life is warfare, and a visit in a strange land; the only lasting fame is oblivion. What then can escort us on our way? One thing, and one thing only: philosophy. This consists in keeping the divinity within us inviolate and free from harm, master of pleasure and pain, doing nothing without aim, truth, or integrity, and independent of others action of failure to act. We should also sttend to things like these, observing that even the incidental effects of the processes of Nature have their own charm and attraction. Take the baking of bread. The loaf splits open here and there, and those very cracks, in one way a failure of the bakers profession, somehow catch the eye and give particular stimulus to our appetite. Figs likewise burst open at full maturity: and in olives ripened on the tree the very proximity of decay lends a special beauty to the fruit. Not all can share in this conviction only one who has developed a genuine affinity for Nature and her works. What of it, then? You embarked, you set sail, you made port. Go ashore now. If it is to another life, nothing is empty of the gods, even on that shore: and if to insensibility, you will cease to suffer pains and pleasures, no longer in thrall to a bodily vessel which is a master as far inferior as its servant is superior. Do not waste the remaining part of your life in thoughts about other people, when you are not thinking with reference to some aspect of the common good. Why deprive yourself of the time for some other task? If you set yourself to your present task along the path of true reason, with all determination, vigour, and good will: if you admit no distraction, but keep your own divinity pure and standing strong, as if you had to surrender it right now; if you grapple with this to you, expecting nothing, shirking nothing, but self-content with each present action taken in accordance with nature and a heroic truthfulness in all that you say and mean then you will lead a good life. And nobody is able to stop you. No action in the human context will succeed without reference to the divine, nor vice versa. At break of day, when you are reluctant to get up, have this thought ready to mind: I am getting up for a mans work. Do I still then resent it, if I am going out to do 25

what I was born for But this is more pleasant. Were you then born for pleasure all for feeing, not for action? The point is that you do not love yourself otherwise you would love both your own nature and her purpose for you.

The Hebrew Bible

Outline
The first five books (Torah, Pentateuch) are traditionally linked together, although many scholars think of Deuteronomy (literally second law) as belonging to a different cluster. Tadition holds that these five books were written by Moses; there are lots of reasons why this has been abandoned, including linguistic and critical analysis. Next comes a history. This is initially centered on the conquest of the promised land and struggles with indigenous inhabitants (Philistines etc.). The Israelites are led by religious figures, but eventually they acquire a king (Saul). There are continuing troubles with the Philistines, and an Israelite hero David emerges. He eventually becomes king, and brings the two parts of the kingdom (Israel and Judea) together. After his death, the unified kingdom is ruled by his son, Solomon, who builds the temple. When Solomon dies the unity collapses, and, after a sequence of relatively weak rulers, the Northern kingdom (Israel) falls to the Assyrians. The Assyrians are overthrown by the Babylonians, who eventually subdue the Southern kingdom (Judea), and the Israelites go into exile. They return to Jerusalem after Babylon has been overthrown by the Persians. A second temple is built. Theres a big theme running through this history (and also through parts of the first five books): the chosen people are constantly disobeying their god, and this leads them into extensive suffering; typically, they are chastised for their disobedience by the prophets, religious figures who remain faithful. The Hebrew Bible contains a book of religious poetry (Psalms). Many, but not all, of the psalms are attributed to David. Theres also a wisdom literature (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job), and an apocalyptic book (Daniel).

Sources
From the middle ages on, readers of the Bible have considered the possibility that it is pieced together from various sources. Since the nineteenth century, almost everyone has agreed that there are several different sources and traditions that have been synthesized. In a very simple summary (refer also the handout I gave you

26

in class): there were two older traditions, J and E, that present variants on a narrative line; J is written from the perspective of the Southern kingdom (Judea), E from that of the Northern kingdom (Israel). J versions and E versions of various stories sometimes lie side by side in the Torah, and sometimes are intertwined. They are also accompanied by another source, P, that introduces different material, often focused on the identity and duties of priests, and with the details of ritual. With Deuteronomy there begins a different perspective, D, one that carries through one version of the history (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings), and that is very enthusiastic about the Judean king, Josiah (one of the successors of Solomon). Unfortunately, Josiah was killed, and, after his death, Judea was conquered by the Babylonians. After the return, the material of J, E, P, and D was integrated and smoothed out by one or more religious leaders; Ezra is often taken to be the person who fashioned the Torah as we have it, editing the older sources, and introducing some material of his own (R for priestly redaction). The prophetic books can have multiple sources. Isaiah contains at least three voices. One, dominant in Chapters 1-39, seems to have been written before the conquest of Judea, and is typically full of denunciations against the waywardness of the people. Chapters 40-55 are marked by a very different tone, anticipating a return from captivity and exile; these are often ascribed to Deutero-Isaiah, writing at least a century after the author of the first chapters. The end of the book is different again. Much of the evidence for these attributions is highly complex, turning on the particular words that occur in particular passages.

The Exodus
The deliverance from Egypt is a central event in Judaism. In this event, God displays his choice of a people. Genesis is all about individuals, and the promises God makes, both to Noah and to Abraham, concern them and their families. At the beginning of Exodus, we have a group of Abrahams descendants, living in Egypt. They dont yet count as a people. But, for no obvious reason, God chooses them as his people, and their identity is forged through the activity of Moses. Why does God choose these people? What does he want from them? Why does he want it? What is it for them to follow him? Why does God proceed in the ways he does, such as hardening Pharaohs heart? Is there a difference between the identity with which the people start (descendants of Jacob), and that with which they end up (exiles? servants of God?). In the end, none of the adult exiles not even Moses will get to enter the promised land. The people have to wander in the wilderness for forty years because they renege on the covenant. But what is the promise of the covenant itself? Apparently, the reward comes in terms of the earthly prosperity of the chosen people, either those who are faithful or their descendants. They arent promised a wonderful life in the hereafter. Moreover, the direct expression of the promise, the land itself, is

27

already occupied (a fact that is going to cause all sorts of trouble throughout the coming books). How can we make sense of a divine promise to choose one group of people at tremendous cost to others? God seems quite willing to have the Israelites slaughter large numbers of the native inhabitants of the promised land. Are the Israelites somehow superior? How?

God
What are Gods principal attributes? Which of the Greek virtues does he embody? Can we hope to understand any sort of transcendent being? Is it appropriate for us to subordinate ourselves and our wills to a being we cant understand? Is it just for any such being to demand obedience of us in the absence of understanding? Exodus 3 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. And God saw the people of Israel and God knew their condition. Exodus 3 God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM. And he said, Say this to the people of Israel, THE LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations. Exodus 4 Say therefore to the people of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment. Exodus 15 Who is like thee, O Lord, among the Gods? Who is like thee, majestic in holiness, Terrible in glorious deeds, doing wonders? Thou didst stretch out thy right hand, The earth swallowed them. Judges 6 When the people of Israel cried to the Lord on account of the Midianites, the Lord sent a prophet to the people of Israel; and he said to them, Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: I led you up from Egypt, and brought you out of the house of bondage; and I delivered you from the hand of the Egyptians, and from the hand of all who oppressed you, and drove them out before you, and gave you their land; and I said to you, I am the Lord your God; you shall not pay reverence to the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But you have not given heed to my voice.

Ethics

28

What exactly are the Ten Commandments? (Note that there are three versions: Exodus 20: 3-17; Exodus 34: 11-27; Deuteronomy 5: 7-21. The two Exodus versions differ radically; the first Exodus version is close to that of Deuteronomy.) Should God be seen as the source of the principles? Or is he simply a conduit, conveying to the people, via Moses, his recognition of what is objectively good, independent of his decisions? Do the events of Exodus provide us with any reason to think that God is especially perceptive about what is actually good? THE TEN COMMANDMENTS p. 65-66 1) I am the Lord your God 2) You shall have no other Gods before me 3) Not take the Lords name in vain 4) Remember the Sabbath day 5) Honor your father and mother 6) You shall not kill 7) You shall not commit adultery 8) You shall not steal 9) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor 10)You shall not covet your neighbors wife 11)You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Law
The precepts outlined in Exodus are often variations on articles that appear in the law codes of Near Eastern societies. Exodus emphasizes religious ritual enormously. Why is this so important? Should a deity really be so concerned with the proper construction of the tent of meeting or with the creation of idols? Exodus 21-23 LAWS - when you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go free. - Children belong to the master - Male slaves and female to be treated differently - Whoever strikes father or mother should be put to death - P. 67) If a thief is found breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him; but if the sun has risen upon him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. - you shall not permit a sorceress to live. - Whoever sacrifices to any god, save to the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed.

29

Politics and Identity

How is national identity forged? Do we have to define ourselves by reference to others who are seen as hostile? Is religion simply a way of supplying cohesion that secular states have achieved by different means? What kind of community gets formed in the Bible? Is it restricted to people with a certain kind of biological relationship? Can one join it by following certain social norms? How does this compare to the Greeks weve read? What kinds of entry criteria are good at fashioning stable cohesive communities? Exodus 1 These are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt with his household: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Issachar, Zebulun and Benjamin, Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher. All the offspring of Jacob were seventy persons; Joseph was already in Egypt. Then Joseph died, and all his brothers, and all that generation. But the descendents of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong; so that the land was full of them. Exodus 6 Say therefore to the people of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment. Exodus 7 Thus said the Lord, Let my people go, that they may serve me. Exodus 7 But on that day I will set apart the land of Goshen, where my people dwell, so that no swarms of flies shall be there; that you may know that I am the LORD in the midst of the earth. Thus I will put a division between my people and your people.

The New Testament

The Christian Message
A core set of tenets: A. B. C. D. Jesus, a Jew, born roughly 2000 years ago, was (is) the Son of God. He came to bring a fundamental message to human beings. He was crucified, but later rose from the dead. Through his death he expiated human sin, making it possible for those who followed him to have eternal life with God.

Even here, superficial agreement can hide divergence. The history of Christianity is marked by strong disagreements about doctrine, vehement insistence that only one reading can be right, and consequent warfare and bloodshed. Some Christians would view this history as a horrible perversion of the fundamental message, which

30

is centered on the ideas of love and forgiveness. Others contend that, when the outcome is the salvation or damnation of human souls, violent defense of the right way is required.

The Structure of NT
NT begins with four books, the Gospels. An old tradition supposes that Matthew was written by the tax-collector-turned-apostle who is sometimes given that name, that Mark was written by a young man mentioned in Acts, that Luke was written by a physician who accompanied Paul on his journeys, and that John was written by the apostle whom Jesus loved, probably in his old age. Scholarly analysis supports none of these attributions. The next book, the Acts of the Apostles, is an account of some episodes in the early history of the movement that began after Jesus death. It seems to be a continuation of the Gospel of Luke, and was probably written by the same author. There follow a number of letters, purporting to have been written by Paul to various groups of Jesus followers in Mediterranean cities. Some of these were authored by Paul (Romans, and Galatians, for example), some are doubtful (e.g. Ephesians), and some are probably not by Paul (e.g. 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy). Other letters have been attributed to prominent figures in the early Jesus movement (Peter, the apostle, and James, the brother of Jesus); these attributions are almost certainly wrong. NT ends with an apocalyptic book (Revelation). For centuries, scholars have known of the existence of other pieces of early Christian literature, and, since the 1940s, its been plain that there were gospels and letters that circulated in the Jesus movement and that offered a very different picture of Jesus life and teaching. The NT as we have it was put together in the late second century, probably in the midst of a turbulent controversy within the Jesus movement. There was surely political pressure to include things that didnt always fit well together, so that important alliances be maintained. From my own reading, I conjecture that the gospels that made it into the canon were those cherished by the local groups whose support was most important.

The Sources of NT
The scholarly consensus is that the oldest parts of NT are the Pauline letters, and that the very earliest of these come from the late 40s. Paul died in the early 60s (probably in Neros persecution). The earliest of the gospels is Mark, which was written just after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70. Matthew and Luke were written about a decade later, with Matthew probably being the earlier. John is later still, and dates range from 90 to 110.

31

Matthew, Mark, and Luke collectively rank as the synoptic gospels. John is different from them in important ways, and scholars debate the relation of John to the synoptic threesome. Mark develops the narrative structure followed by the other gospels. The priority of Mark is suggested by the rough character of the Greek and the compression of many incidents. It seems highly implausible that anyone would have written Mark after reading either Matthew or Luke. Both Matthew and Luke borrow material from Mark, although they deploy it in different ways. Theres a second body of common material, distributed differently through both Matthew and Luke. Nineteenth century scholars concluded that this comes from a sayings source, Q (German: Quelle), used by both. The Q material (also found in some of the noncanonical gospels) is much concerned with the teachings of Jesus and with exhortations to action in the context of an immediate return of Jesus and the end of the world.

Jesus Teachings
Matthew 4:12-13 Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee; and leaving Nazareth he went and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, and for those who sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned. From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 6:7-13 And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then like this: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day out daily bread, And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors; And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. 6:31-33 Therefore do not be anxious, saying What shall we eat? or What shall we wear? For the Gentiles seek all these things; and your heavenly Father knows that you

32

need them all. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well. 7:7 Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 7:13-14 Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. 10:31 But even the hair of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. 10:34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. 18:1-3 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them, and said, Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 20:16 So the last will be first, and the first last.

The Role of Paul

Its fairly clear that Christianity would be very different (if it existed at all) but for the activities of Paul. If anything seems firm about the early history of the movement, its that Paul was prominent in advocating the extension of the movement to cities around the Mediterranean, and that others (including James, Jesus brother) thought of Jerusalem and Judaism as the movements centers. I think Paul won for contingent reasons: James was stoned around 62, and the Jesus followers didnt win allies by their behavior during the Roman-Jewish war (they sat on the fence). Effectively, by 70 or so, the Jesus movement had no chance as a movement within Judaism, and Pauls fragile colonies were the only available spots for growth. Scholars have suggested that some people who lived in cities in the Greco-Roman empire were drawn to the more serious religion practiced by diaspora Jews. Some of them visited synagogues, where there were special places set aside for them to listen. Paul may well have siphoned off a few of these religious seekers and

33

enrolled them in small groups of Jesus followers. His letters were obviously intended to respond to their questions and advise them at times of difficulty.

Pauline Theology
Romans 1:16-17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, He who through faith is righteous shall live. 2:25 Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. 7:9 But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God really dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin your spirits are alive because of righteousness. 1 Corinthians 13:4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 13:8-13 Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I though like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Christian Ethics
Matthew 5:1-16 Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down his disciples came to him. And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

34

Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you. You are the salt of the earth You are the light of the world. A city sent on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light shine so before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your father who is in heaven.

The Spread of Christianity

In the early second century, the Jesus movement was sufficiently obscure that Pliny, who had been sent to run some province in the near east, wrote back to Rome for advice about how to handle complaints against local Christians. Theres no evidence of consistent persecution of Christian groups, although some emperors (Nero, Domitian) were quite fierce. Theres some interesting socio-historical scholarship on how Christianity attracted adherents. Here are three provocative theses: (i) it wasnt actually a lower-class movement; (ii) it was especially attractive to married women (upper class matrons) who saw Christianity as providing moral guidance for wayward husbands; (iii) it spread in the aftermath of plague, because Christians tended to stay with victims and administer some nursing, thereby having somewhat higher survival rates. It does seem fairly clear that the rate of growth of the movement was a bit less than that of Mormonism over the past century and a half. By the beginning of the fourth century, maybe between a tenth and a fifth of the population of the Greco-Roman Empire were Christians (or fellow-travelers). In the 320s, Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. (His own religious convictions remain uncertain; legend has it that he converted on his deathbed but this may be because of the popular belief that late conversion enables you to die in a state of grace.) Constantine tried to settle the controversy over Arianism, by calling the Council of Nicea. He participated, introducing the compromise between saying that the son is the father and saying that the son is subordinate to the father the son is of the same substance as the father (this formula is part of the Nicene Creed, and those of your students who have recited it many times may be interested to know that its vagueness results from the

35

mediation of an emperor in a theological dispute)

Spread of Christianity to AD 325

Spread of Christianity to AD 600

Life
354 Youth 372 370s

Augustine Handout
Augustine born in Roman North Africa. Family is petty rural gentry. Probably half Berber. Important influence of his mother (Monica), who was Christian. Early signs of intelligence. Begins relationship with a concubine (to whom he was faithful). They have a son (Adeodatus), who dies in his teens. Study and later teaching in Carthage. Augustine is influenced by Greek and Roman thought (Plato, Cicero), Neoplatonism (Plotinus, Porphyry), and Manichaeanism.

36

384 386 388 391 396 410 430

Moves to Milan as Professor of Rhetoric. Encounters Ambrose. Conversion to Christianity. (Baptized in 387). Dedicates himself to celibacy. Return to North Africa. Founds small community of friends for study of theological and philosophical issues. On a visit to Hippo, he is forcibly ordained presbyter of the Catholic congregation. Sets up monastery/nunnery. Becomes Bishop of Hippo. Starts to write Confessions. Sack of Rome. Starts to write CG. Dies. Vandal invasion of North Africa.

Context
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. First century AD Pliny celebrated Emperor Trajan, as Jupiters co-ruler and a god in his own right. Human rulers could be divine inconceivable within Christianity Empire split between Eastern and Western; 320 Constantine, converted to Christianity. Emperor could no longer be regarded as a god, as a human Jupiter, he must behave as the servant and instrument of the one God Augustine had to explain why Gods enemies had been successful; period of deep crisis Influence of Manicheeism dualism; two powers in the universe, two first principles, good and evil, eternally at war; mistrust of the body and material world, prone to asceticism CG was written at the end of Augustines life, after the sack of Rome in 410. The official project of the beginning is to respond to objections that the fall of the empire was brought on by the desertion of the traditional Roman religion and the installation of Christianity as the official religion. With the advantage of hindsight, we can read CG as the great founding document of subsequent Christian theology; develops theological solutions to a vast number of questions left dangling in post-Pauline theology. Augustine wrote it for distribution among his friends and intellectual interlocutors in North Africa maybe for a readership of about 30. It was only after the collapse of the Latin West that it was taken by Pope Gregory the Great (about two centuries later) to be one of the central texts of the Church. Augustine couldnt foresee that he was responding to worries that arose for his friends and contemporaries, and, probably primarily, for himself.

6. 7.

Teachings
As Augustine proceeds, he becomes interested in a large number of issues that grow out of his answer to the initial critique. In effect, he sets himself the task of making sense of large parts of human history in Christian terms, and of demonstrating that Christianity cant be accused of the same kinds of deficiencies he finds in the pagan religions. To carry that out, he has to develop theological solutions to a vast number of questions left dangling in postPauline theology. A central part of this story is Augustines struggles with his own sexual desires. How does this kind of struggle leave its mark on the doctrines of CG?

37

The Two Cities

What exactly are the two cities? How are they supposed to relate to one another? His fundamental conception seems to be that membership is defined, not by social position, but by psychological attitude. You belong to the city of God if your will is directed in the right way.

The Attack on Paganism

As noted earlier, Augustines initial purpose is to respond to criticisms about the role of Christianity in the fall of Rome, and he develops a distinctive style of argument. Effectively, this is full-contact religious wrestling. Augustine is quite prepared to take up any episode from history, any detail of pagan thought, and try to use them to display the absurdity of paganism. So he starts by demonstrating that history is full of occasions on which the pagan gods failed to protect their worshippers. This leads him into a very interesting general problem. The general problem concerns the possibility of seeing divine providence in human history. Why does God let the good suffer and the evil triumph? Augustine has a variety of answers to this question. He thinks that the transient sufferings of the blessed are insignificant in comparison to their eventual bliss, that the trials are a necessary part of the divine test, that human freedom makes sin inevitable, and that the overall scheme of the world is perfect in ways beyond human understanding. How can we account for the existence of evil in a world run by an allegedly perfect God? Augustine is prepared to take a no-holds-barred approach when it comes to the critique of pagan religions. The works of poets and other classical authors are fair game for his attempts to demonstrate just how unpleasant and/or absurd the religious doctrines are. But that lays him open to counter-charges that there are facts of human history quite at odds with the Christian conception of God, that there are parts of Christian doctrine (and of scripture) that are equally repugnant or absurd. To his great credit, Augustine doesnt flinch from any of this.

Platonism and Christianity

Part of Augustines strategy is to distinguish different strains in pagan objections to Christianity. After dealing with what he takes to be relatively crude critiques, he turns to more subtle philosophical worries. He genuinely admires Plato and tries to explain both the achievements and the shortcomings of Platonic thought. Is Augustines account of the insights and flaws in Platos moral philosophy correct? Or is he straining in trying to connect Plato with the Bible?

Evil
Augustine is very worried by the existence of evil angels (Satan and company). He feels the need to provide an account of how they could have made a choice contrary to God, without compromising Gods knowledge or admitting that God is, in some sense, the source of evil.

38

His solution (or at least his attempt at a solution) is to display the evil acts of will as a kind of deficiency. Certainly one of the advantages of Manicheanism to which Augustine was attracted in his youth is that it provides a ready answer to this problem. Hes also worried about Gods creation of the world in time. There are plenty of arguments in Greek texts (e.g. Aristotle) that argue for the eternity of the world on the grounds that, if the world were not eternal, there would be no reason for it to come into being just when it does. Augustine supposes that time inevitably involves change (no change, no time), and he uses this idea to maintain that time begins with the creation of the universe. To talk about a time before the creation is thus to lapse into straightforward folly. This is another good example of Augustines general problem of finding a conception of God that fits with scripture, and with his knowledge of the world and its history.

The Good Life Revisited

Augustine offers an alternative take on the Greek issue of the good life, explicitly contrasting his view with that of various ancient schools. How convincing is his conception of peace as an end for the universe? What justice is there to be found in the idea that finite creatures receive either eternal bliss or eternal torment? What is his conception of eternal bliss that were offered? Do we really want to join the eternal Sabbath? Why is this an appropriate goal for the entire universe? Why are human lapses punished so severely?

Conclusion
It would be hard to exaggerate Augustines influence on subsequent Christian doctrine. After Paul, hes the principal shaper of what Christians believe. He undoubtedly was an extraordinary intellectual who brought to the questions Paul had left a large number of resources from ancient secular thought. He was also clearly within political and personal struggles. It is Augustine who makes the scholastic theology of the middle ages possible, and he is also an important inspiration for Luther, who was an Augustinian monk.

Quotations:
to make some answer to those who ascribe to our religion the responsibility for the calamities of the Roman republic The Platonists realized that God is the creator from whom all other beings derive, while he is himself uncreated and underivative. There must be some being in which the original form resides, unchangeable and therefore incomparable it is there that the origin of all things is to be found those who looked to find mans good in his mind, or in his body, or in both together, did not believe that it should be looked for anywhere but in man himself they did not go outside of man the seeker after wisdom (which is the meaning of philo-soph-er) will only attain happiness when he has begun to enjoy God

39

Now this Sovereign Good, according to Plato, is God Plato had a conception of God which they recognize as agreeing in many respects with the truth of our religion Truth vs falsehood, faith vs reason The point is that the falsehood is ours, but the truth is Gods. When man lives by the standard of truth, he lives not by his own standard, but by Gods Falsehood consists in not living in the way for which he was created Sin and evil vs faith? it is to mans advantage to be in subjection to God and it is calamitous for him to act according to his own will and not to obey the will of his Creator Adam and Eve and the original sin: the Fall this race would not have been destined for death had not the two first human beings incurred death as the reward of disobedience: and so heinous was their sin that mans nature suffered a change for the worse; and bondage to sin and inevitable death was the legacy handed on to their posterity they would all be driven headlong in that second death, which has no ending as their well deserved punishment, if some were not rescued from it by the undeserved grace of God they would not have arrived at the evil act if an evil will had not preceded it the evil act, the transgression of eating the forbidden fruit, was committed only when those who did it were already evil the original evil: man regards himself as his own light, and turns away from that light which would make man himself a light if he would set his heart on it Way of the Flesh It is obvious what the works of the flesh are: fornication, impurity, lust, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, quarrelsomeness, jealousy, animosity, dissension, party intrigue, envy, drunkenness, drunken orgies, and so on. I warned you before, and I warn you again, that those who behave in such ways will never have a place in Gods kingdom (Paul to Galatians) faults of mind, not of the body Flesh to be taken as meaning man. And so we are weighed down by the corruptible body; and yet we know that the cause of our being weighed down is not the true nature and substance of our body but its corruption

40

The corruption of the body, which weighs down the soul, is not the cause of the first sin, but its punishment. And it was not the corruptible flesh that made the soul sinful; it was the sinful soul that made the flesh corruptible we must not attribute to the flesh all the faults of a wicked life the so-called pains of the flesh are really pains of the soul, experienced in the flesh and from the flesh. The flesh can surely feel no desire or pain by itself, apart from the soul. The Devil The Devil he is the hidden persuader and instigator of such sins It is not by the possession of flesh, that man has become like the Devil: it is by living by the rule of self, that is by the rule of man When man lives by the standard of man and not by the standard of God he is like the Devil Free-will vs Divine foreknowledge? Well-being can only come to man from God, not from himself. And he forsakes God by sinning and he sins by living by his own standard God could not have been unaware that man would sin (given Gods foreknowledge and his providential design) The choice of the will, then is genuinely free only when it is not subservient to faults and sins. God gave it that true freedom, and now that it has been lost, through its own fault, it can be restored only by him who had the power to give it at the beginning. Is there any reason why God should not have created men in the foreknowledge that they would sin? For that made it possible for him to show in them and through them what their guilt deserved and what his grace could give Lust Before the fall: the flesh did not yet, in a fashion, give proof of mans disobedience by a disobedience of its own when this grace was taken away and in consequence their disobedience was chastised by a corresponding punishment, there appeared in the movements of their body a certain indecent novelty which made nakedness shameful. It made them self conscious and embarrassed embarrassed by the insubordination of the flesh Women?

41

He was induced to such sacrilege by feminine cajolery Two cities two main divisions and we are justified in following the lead of our Scriptures and calling them two cities. There is in fact one city of men who choose to live by the standard of the flesh, another of those who choose to live by the standard of the spirit Two cities, different and mutually opposed, owe their existence to the fact that some men, live by the standard of the flesh, other by the standard of the spirit i.e. that some live by mans standard, others by Gods the city, that is the society, of the ungodly consists of those who live by the standards not of God but of man the great difference that sunders the two cities of which we are speaking: the one is a community of devout men, the other a company of the irreligious in one city love of god has been given first place, in the other, love of self the two cities were created by two kinds of love; the earthly city was created by self love reaching the point of contempt for God, the Heavenly City by the love of God carried as far as contempt of self. In fact the earthly city glories in itself, the Heavenly City glories in the lord. The former looks for glory from men, the latter finds its highest glory in God the peace of the Heavenly city is a perfectly ordered and perfectly harmonious fellowship in the enjoyment of God, and a mutual fellowship in God This life And so long as he is in this mortal body, he is a pilgrim in a foreign land, away from God, therefore he walks by faith, not by sight Rich vs Poor man? The rich man is tortured by fears, worn out with sadness, burnt up with ambition, never knowing serenity of repose, always panting and sweating in his struggles with opponents. It may be true that he enormously swells his patrimony, but at the cost of those discontents, while by this increase he heaps up a load of further anxiety and bitterness. The other man, the ordinary citizen, is content with his strictly limited resources. He is loved by family and friends; he enjoys the blessing of peace with his relations, neighbours, and friends; he is loyal, compassionate and kind, healthy in body, temperate in habits, of unblemished character, and enjoys the serenity of good conscience. I do not think anyone would be fool enough to hesitate about which he would prefer. Eternal life? Life will only be truly happy when it is eternal Social relations of faith

42

Now God our master, teaches two chief precepts, love of God and love of neighbour it follows therefore that he will be concerned also that his neighbour should love God since he is told to love his neighbour as himself Friendship we should prefer to hear, or even to witness the death of those we love, than to become aware that they have fallen from faith or from moral conflict that is, that they have died in their very soul when good men die who are our friends we rejoice for them they have been spared those evils by which in this life even good men are crushed or corrupted Just war? The wise man, they say, will wage just wars; for if they were not just, he would not have to engage in them for it is the injustice of the opposing side that lays on the wise man the duty of waging wars Even when a just war is fought it is in defence of his sin that the other side is contending; and victory, even when the victory falls to the wicked, is a humiliation visited on the conquered by divine judgement, either to correct or to punish their sins
QURAN The Historical Background Islam was born in the Arabian peninsula in the 7th Century C.E. The peninsula was populated by nomadic tribes, as well as settled agriculturalists and merchants. There was no settled authority, but a scattering of tribes, most devoted to polytheistic religions (later derided by Muslims as the worship of sticks and stones). Muhammad was born around 670, in Mecca. His family came from a poor branch of the leading Meccan clan (the Quraish). His father died before he was born, and his mother died when he was a child; he was brought up by his grandfather and uncle. As a young man, he worked as the business manager of a wealthy widow (Khadija), whom he married when he was in his twenties. (She was about 40 when they married, and she pre-deceased him). Little is known about his early life until his call at age 40. Like other young men in Mecca, Muhammad made solitary retreats into the nearby mountains. On one of these, he had a vision in which the angel Gabriel commanded him to recite. The original recitation is supposed to be Sura 96 of the Quran. According to tradition, Muhammad was terrified by his vision (he is supposed to have wondered whether he was going mad), but he was reassured by his wife, relatives, and friends. Among his early supporters were his cousin, Ali, and his close friends Abu Bakr and Uthman. Around 613, he began preaching in the streets of Mecca. His monotheistic message offended leading members of the dominant Quraish; he was scorned, derided, and attacked. One of his initial persecutors, Umar, became a convert.

43

Some traditions report an obscure episode in which Muhammad apparently tried to placate the Quraish by claiming that he had had a vision allowing worship of traditional Meccan deities. Later, perhaps because of the reaction of some of his early adherents, he retracted, suggesting that he had been deceived by Satan into uttering these verses (the so-called Satanic Verses). (N.B. the fatwa against Rushdie). Around 619, Muhammad lost his wife and his uncle, and his position in Mecca became precarious. He began to look for support outside, and was encouraged by exchanges with people from Medina (about 250 miles North of Mecca), a town with a population of migr Jews. In 622, he moved to Medina in the so-called Hijra (flight), and, around this time, he gave his movement a political identity, formulating the ideal of a community of religious believers. In Medina, he apparently came into contact with Christians as well as Jews, and originally taught his people to bow towards Jerusalem when they prayed. The Jews seem to have regarded him as ignorant, and relations soured. The direction of prayer was altered to Mecca. (In Sura 2, there are apparent responses to accusations of inconsistency on this issue; Q 54-60.) In 624, Muhammad began to ambush the caravans of Meccan traders. The Meccans responded by sending an army, but, although seriously outnumbered, Muhammad scored some impressive victories. (Various passages in the Quran are interpretations of his triumphs and defeats.) He seems to have led an expedition into Syria, and his military prowess won him the support of Bedouin tribesmen. In 627, the Quraish tried to stamp him out once and for all, but Muhammad succeeded by clever tactics. In 630, he returned to Mecca, essentially the leader of a united Arabian peninsula. He died in 632. The Quran The Quran we have comes from a period about twenty years after Muhammads death. The written records of the Prophets recitations were assembled under Uthman (the third of the four right-guided Caliphs who were Muhammads immediate successors). There are highly controversial traditions that suggest that there may have been some slippage between what Muhammad actually recited and what was written down (according to a much-disputed story, one of the secretaries made some changes, and the Prophet didnt notice). Quran means recitation. This text contains the word of God (Allah) transmitted through Gabriel and Muhammad. Over a period of 25 years (maybe more), he had visions (not always in solitary places), after which he would recite to his followers. A standard response to the charge that we have no grounds for taking this at all seriously is to contend that divine inspiration is the only possible explanation of the fact that an illiterate (if astute) man could produce such glorious language. Muslims maintain that translation into other languages loses the extraordinary beauty of the original and they are especially critical of translations into English.

44

The order of the recitations in the Quran runs counter to the order in which they were recited. The relatively short Suras that occur at the end were chronologically prior to the long Suras at the beginning. But Uthmans compilers wanted to put the more wide-ranging expository pieces first. Early suras, revealed in Mecca, generally short, highly poetic in style and focus on the basics of the Islamic belief system, especially the attributes of Allah and death, judgment, heaven and hell. Later suras, revealed in Medina, much longer and focus on instructive stories, social legislation and ethics of interpersonal relations. Many people have found the structure of the Quran quite baffling. Its plainly not a narrative, but nor is the material organized in any systematic way. Topics succeed one another without any obvious rationale; we move from praising Allah, to consideration of particular kinds of laws, to denunciations of opponents, to pieces of historical interpretation. Style is curious with its sudden pronominal shifts, often within same passage. These create a diversity of voices intentional? The plural to emphasize Allahs majesty and power and punitive potential? A means for allowing believers to talk about God? Unifying effect created by frequent repetition of stock phrases Since the Quran is the word of God, Muslims often treat copies of the book as sacred objects. There are detailed rules for touching it. In Muslim countries, there is still a system of pre-school education, typically used by the poor, that teaches small children to write parts of the Quran and to memorize them. Besides the Quran, Muslims also use reports of the sayings of the Prophet (hadith). The official approach to these is that a saying must be certified by tracing a chain of transmission back to a reliable source a Companion of the Prophet. Islamic scholarship is often very rigorous about this process of authentication. The Pillars of the Faith Islam is theologically a lot simpler than Christianity. are two main doctrines: There is one God. The righteous are required to submit to God. Islam means submission; Muslim means one who has submitted. But so far, this isnt very helpful. What is it to submit? At its center

Submission involves the five pillars of the faith. Confession of faith There is no God but God, and Muhammad is his Prophet. Muhammad is regarded as the last, and greatest, in a line of prophets, including Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.

45

Prayers five times daily, preceded by ritual purification. Fasting in the month of Ramadan, nothing may be eaten or drunk between sunrise and sunset (allowances are made for the sick, for pregnant women, and travelers). Pilgrimage to Mecca involves visiting the site at which Abraham is supposed to have placed a sacred rock (this connects Islam not only with the source of Judaism and Christianity, but also with Arab traditions that precede Islam). Almsgiving theres a minimal level (analogous to tithing, but one fortieth); the righteous give more; the Quran constantly urges fairness and generosity. The first four of these are matters of ritual. The last concerns everyday behavior. The Quran is much concerned with directing the actions of the faithful; faith is expressed through action (works). It insists again and again on honesty and justice in daily life. There may be a sixth pillar jihad. On some interpretations, Muslims shave the task of spreading the word of Allah, and thus contending with unbelievers. This is controversial. A major source for this dispute is Sura 2 190-193. Judgment Day In the short Suras at the end of the text, Muhammad often sounds like a Hebrew prophet, calling a sinful people to their duties. These Suras are focused on the day at which the soul will be judged, and on the different fates of the righteous and unrighteous. These Suras do several things: Establish Muhammad as messenger (81.19, 88.20) Point out the fallen state of the world (89) Recognize God as judge and accountant (96, 98). Were told again and again that the unrighteous will be tormented (101, 85), while the righteous shall live in bliss (83.22 ff., 88.8 ff., 95.6). The vision of bliss, (unlike that prominent in Christian views of heaven) seems to be a heightened state of earthly happiness. Instead of union with God, the faithful receive the kinds of comforts that would be scarce in a desert environment. There are more extensive versions of this vision at 55.46ff., 56.10ff. Sometimes, these passages are read as guaranteeing to the faithful all sorts of sensual delights (for example, 72 virgins). This is highly controversial. The late Suras offer a pithy account of the kinds of righteousness required to attain bliss in the hereafter. Most important is to honor God by embracing the true faith (84.25), not thinking we are our own masters (96.6-7), and recognizing the unity of God (112). Yet it is plain that good works are also important (84.25, 98.7, 93.6ff., 83.1, 89.17-20, 90.13-16, 92.5-11, 107). Righteousness requires both faith and charity.

46

Against Asceticism Muhammad is revered, despite the fact that his earthly life was divided among business transactions, political leadership, and military strategy; he also had eight or nine wives. Throughout the Quran, the emphasis isnt on giving up everyday activities, but on pursuing them in a special way. Apparently, we can manage with an everyday morality of honesty, generosity, fairness, and kindness. Jews and Christians The Quran contains lengthy diagnoses of the errors of the People of the Book, mainly Jews and Christians. These are religious groups to whom a revelation has been given. Some among them have actually recognized the one true God. But the tendency has been to pervert the true doctrine. Jews do this by failing to understand that faith is open to all their error is to maintain the exclusivism of a chosen people. Christians go astray by treating Jesus as divine, and thus dividing the deity they have compromised monotheism. Muhammad is happy to concede that the great figures of Jewish tradition were genuine prophets. He also claims that the birth of Jesus was special (3.36). The Christians have gone badly astray in basing Jesus divinity on his supposed resurrection; the Quran claims that Jesus did not really die on the cross (4.157). Identifying Jesus and God is a form of blasphemy (5.17). In fact, Jesus, like all of Gods creatures, is dependent on God. The question of how to deal with Christians and Jews was worked out in practice by Muhammads successors. They conquered a large amount of territory, and instituted Islam, but they tended to see this as creating a religious/political regime that would serve as an ideal for the People of the Book, without coercing them. Islam gained conversions not by force but by persuasion. In the new state there were tax benefits from becoming a full citizen (i.e. a Muslim). Its worth noting that the Quran holds out the possibility of salvation for some Jews and Christians (2.62). But they have to correct the lapses common to the faiths. Justice and Kindness There are many repetitions of the themes of fair bargaining and supporting the unprotected. The Prophet is particularly concerned that orphans should be looked after (a reflection of his own early childhood?). There are frequent references to the problems with usury (compare with Jews?). You may want to discuss the penalty prescribed for theft (5.38-9). Typically, the Quran suggests that the righteous do better not to insist on the full claiming of what is owed to them. Sometimes, the doctrine seems to be that we can earn credit by being forbearing (5.45). So we seem to have a two-tier vision. Everyone is required to perform actions that are just and fair, as well as to give the minimal amount to the care of the unfortunate. But we can also be righteous in going beyond the law, in doing what is supererogatory (beyond what Allah commands). There are hints that this second type

47

of righteousness can serve as an insurance policy, canceling out those occasions on which we fail to live up to our obligations. Women Islam is typically viewed as a religion that is profoundly anti-women. There are plenty of anti-female hadith (e.g. Those who entrust their affairs to a woman will never know prosperity. Theres little doubt that the Quran assigns different status to men and to women (2.222-3, 2.229 ff., 4.3, 4.11, 4.15). But, there are many passages in which Muhammad urges husbands to treat their wives with kindness, and on the provisions that the Muslim law demands in cases of divorce and inheritance. You can imagine two sorts of Muslims those who take the many remarks about female modesty, privacy and dependence as fixed points, and those who think that the spirit of the religion is to promote kind and just social relations. Is a feminist Islam possible? Democracy By the same token, is it possible to mix Islam with democracy? Some Muslims insist that democracy is unthinkable because it raises the possibility of modifying the true Quranic law in light of a popular vote. Many current trends in Islam are quite at odds with the Enlightenment (and post-Enlightenment) model of the relations between religion and politics, according to which religion is confined to the private sphere of belief. One theme of contemporary Islam is the attainment of a global state in which Islam is the dominant religion and Islamic law is the law. (Those who sound this theme neednt insist that those who dont practice Islam are punished (or killed). They may allow for private practice of Judaism or Christianity, or even atheism.) The important point is that the state will be run by Islamic law, and that there will be no disputing that. One might call this position global theocracy. The Muslim Empire After Muhammads death, the Muslims expanded around the Mediterranean basin and into the East. In the West, their expansion was checked by Charles Martel at the battle of Tours in 732 (one hundred years after the Prophets death). Muhammads death precipitated a crisis. The community was in danger of crumbling, and it was only through the vigorous efforts of his successor, Abu Bakr, that it survived. Abu Bakr kept the Arabs unified by pursuing an expansionist policy, invading Syria and Iraq. In 634, Abu Bakr died, and was succeeded by Umar. Umar continued the expansion, taking Egypt and Syria, and overthrowing the Persian empire. This was culturally important, in bringing a refined civilization within the Muslim orbit. Umar died in 644, and the succession was contested. The two main candidates were Uthman and Ali, and the electors chose Uthman. After Uthman was murdered, there was another dispute. Ali obtained control, but a civil war broke out between him and Muawiya (Uthmans cousin), governor of Syria. In 661, Ali was murdered, and the line of rightguided Caliphs ended. Muawiya inaugurated a new dynasty (the Omayyad Caliphs), centered in Damascus.

48

The civil war precipitated the first split in Islam. Shiites believe that descendants of Ali have a special claim to authority. (Some think in terms of a sequence of holy men, linked by ties of blood to the original Prophet.) There have been further splits within Shiite Islam. The Omayyads continued the holy war, spreading into North Africa, Spain, and France. Their success was the result in part of the weakness of the Byzantine empire and the Latin west, in part on the bureaucratic abilities of the Omayyad Caliphs, and in part on the fact that the Goths and Vandals had trouble adapting to a settled way of life. In the 740s, the Omayyad dynasty gave way to the Abbasid line, and the center of Islam moved from Damascus to Baghdad. The Arab expansion played an important role in preserving and extending ancient knowledge. Although there were always scholars in Islam who rejected secular knowledge, others studied the ancient texts and built upon them. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) is responsible for the recovery and refinement of Greek medicine, that Al-Hazens optics was extremely important to the work of the 16th and 17th centuries, and that Al-Gorismi developed methods of solving equations and trigonometrical problems. He also gave us the place notation we use in arithmetic. The encounter between West and East in the Crusades brought major texts from the ancient and Arab worlds to the attention of scholars in the Latin west. The Crusades began with a vicious series of pogroms in Europe, and that the treachery of the Westerners in the original liberation of Jerusalem (when they promised in advance to spare those who surrendered) contrasts with Saladins magnanimity when he retook it. Islam today A living faith One billion Muslins Only 15% of worlds Muslims speak Arabic as their mother tongue 85% of Muslims today are Sunni A Muslim must at minimum accept the existence of god and revelation and Quran as the actual world of God Period of Islamic revival relationship between Mosque and State: enlargement of the scope of Islam in social and political life Over 50 majority Muslim states Question of sovereignty of God vs Quran notion of shura (consultation, deliberation) And Ijma (agreement, consensus), a precedent for popular sovereignty? Jihad: struggle, exertion or striving in the way of God Major: great effort, internal striving for perfection, inward war against carnal soul Minor: over actions, may include use of physical force The Quran Sura 1 (introduction)

49

Every muslim learns it in Arabic: oral, auditory experience; the most oft-cited in every day life The bismillah (In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful) prefaces every action a Muslin takes as a recognition of Allahs omnipresence. Praise be to Allah concludes every action. Two themes: i. Gods attributes ii. Two groups: those of the straight path and those whose portion is divine wrath Sura 114 (mankind) Security of the universal God, against Satan/evil spirits (Jinns) and men Sura 112 (purity of faith) The unity of God His attributes: sovereignty, dominion over mankind and Day of Judgment, and above all his oneness Sura 56 (inevitable) Status of revelation and description of the hereafter = Case for Resurrection Description of Paradise for companions of right hand (sensual, materialistic, women, no frivolity, undefiled virgins?) Fate of non-believers, left hand (boiling water, black smoke, death in burning Hell-fire) Quran as revelation of God, not be touched save by clean Sura 12 (joseph) Most detailed story in the Quran The most beautiful Prophet Yusuf An edifying tale; clear didactic function God vs Satan All knowing God Reward for those who do right Correspondence between Joseph and Muhammad? A prototype? Both visionaries, both disavowed by their people, both left home and with Gods aid rose to prominence, eventually reconciled with their erstwhile enemies

50

Snare of seduction by women, eternal temptress? Nature of divine guidance? At times it seems that humans face a choice and will be rewarded if they choose the path of the believers; yet at other points, it appears that it is Allah who chooses No partners for Allah: Allah one, and only one; never will I join gods with

No authority: the Command is for none but Allah (Political implications, mosque and state?) Human nature: the human soul is certainly is certainly prone to evil

Reward in afterlife: the reward of the hereafter Prophets/Messengers: Sura 4 (the women) Creation of men and women Orphans Marriage: polygamy? Or very few in practice? but men

Social regulations: Remuneration of the poor Inheritance Gender-relations: to the male a portion equal to that of two females Those who obey: gardens of paradise Those who disobey: hell fire Women evidence of four, punishment for women, vs men, possibility of Allahs mercy; imperative of kindness and equity Who you can marry? Chastity over Lust Allah to relieve human weakness Husbands as the protectors and maintainers of their wives Admonish them first, next refuse to share their beds, and last spank them lightly Reconciliation and marriage counseling Allah all knowing, forgiving Jews disobedient; Sabbath breakers Cursed unbelievers Jews

51

Hypocrites Tests of faith The straight way Martyrs just reward Those who reject faith, fight in the cause of evil Whatever good happens to thee is from Allah; but whatever evil happens to thee is from they own soul Allah the accountant Rejecters of faith: seize them and slay them hell

Injunctions on killing other Muslims; if intentional Those who strive on Allahs behalf are a grade higher Exception for those who are really weak and oppressed Satan Allah did take Abraham for a friend Women - separation - unfairness

Any who denieth Allah, His Angels, His Books, His messengers, and the Day of Judgement, hath gone fare astray Hell Grant to the believers a reward of immense value People of the Book broke Covenant Jews vs Christians Jesus not crucified The Messiah Jesus son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah Say not Trinity: desist Christs disdain for Allah Sura 2 (the cow) Thorough summary and illustration of the Qurans themes and teachings Intro of Quran Steadfast Revelation Hereafter Believers, Unbelievers, Hypocrites How can you reject Allah, when he created you? Adam Jews, chosen people, Deliverance, Moses, Red Sea, 40 nights transgressed, infringed

52

Any (Jews, Christians, Sabians) who believe in Allah shall have their reward People who buy the life of this world at the price of the hereafter The curse of Allah is on those without faith Wrath upon wrath Allah is an enemy to those who reject faith It is never the wish of those without faith that anything good should come down to you Whoever submits his whole self to Allah and is a doer of good he will get his reward Allah will judge between them (Christians and jews) in their quarrel on the day of judgement To Allah belongs the East and the West: is Allahs countenance whithersoever ye turn, there

For Allah is to all people most surely full of kindness Turn to Mecca to pray To each is a goal to which Allah turns him No swine Charity Fasting; self restraint; Ramadan I listen to the prayer of every supplicant The Hajj The life of this world is alluring to those who reject faith and they scoff at those who believe. But the righteous will be above them On the day of Resurrection; for Allah bestows his abundance without measure on whom he will (vs contemporary west?) Mankind was one single nation Wine and gambling Your wives are as a tilth Oaths Social regulations: duties maternal duties, annulment of engagements, death

Attributes of Allah he feeleth no fatigue

53

Let there be no compulsion in religion Questions: 1. Character of Allah: oneness, omniscience, compassion, creative power, wrath. Comparison with Hebrew God? 2. Muhammad: a model for Muslims? virtuous and upright Muslin Mere mortal. Yet exemplar of the

3. Quran: An extension of Judaic and Christian religions? Umma or nation of believers? How does this differ from the Jewish nation of Exodus? 4. Attitude to Jews and Christians? People of the Book i.e. had access to divine knowledge. Shared prophets? Jesus? Error of the Jews and Christians? 5. Who are the hypocrites? 6. What is the relationship between faith and works? 7. How is human nature portrayed in the Quran? or evil? Is it essentially good

8. What conceptions of justice are found in the Quran? 9. Does a coherent image of women emerge? between the sexes portrayed? How is the relationship

10. Relationship between the earthly life and afterlife? 11. Target audience? Humanity? Muslims? Arabs? Muslims and people of the Book?

Medieval Thought Handout

Medieval World
Note that no empire comparable to the size of the Roman Empire comes into existence after Rome falls. The Byzantine Empire - existed for more than a thousand years (from approximately 306 AD to 1453 AD).

In 476:

54

in 565:

in 1170:

55

Muslim conquests Dark shade: Muhammad, 622-632 Middle shade: Expansion during the Patriarchical Caliphate, 632-661 Lightest shade: Expansion during the Umayyad Caliphate, 661-750

he Muslim conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries

Expansion during the Patriarchal Caliphate, 632661

Expansion under Muhammad, 622632 Expansion during the Umayyad Caliphate, 661750

56

Europe, 1328

57

Medieval Thought in General

Political/social context
increasing plurality and fragmentation politically and ideologically part of an attempt to harmonize the various RELIGIOUS authorities of their own tradition with ANTIQUE philosophy, especially Aristotle o In this sense we should see this as an extension of Augustines project. Main figures of scholasticism: o Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Abelard, Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas's masterwork, Summa Theologica, is often seen as the highest fruit of Scholasticism.

Scholasticism
-

taught by academics (scholastics) in medieval universities circa 1100-1500 POINT: to articulate and defend orthodoxy in an increasingly pluralistic context. o Therefore think of it NOT as a philosophy or a theology, but a METHOD of learning emphasis on DIALECTICAL reasoning seeks to extend knowledge by inference seeks to resolves contradictions coincides with the growth of early Islamic philosophy, most famously Averroes o 8thC onward: the Mutazilite branch of Islam driven to defend their beliefs against the more orthodox Ashari school to do so, they turn to philosophy And coincides with Jewish philosophy, notably Maimonides These two traditions occurred before the Christian scholastics, and their methods provide a model for Acquinas et. al. o Particularly the methodologies of Islamic mathematics and astronomy, which inform the philosophic logic of this period And many Greek texts were transmitted to the Latin West through the Islamic world. o Greek had vanished in the west except in the monasteries of Ireland. o Medieval = means middle period between classical philosophical and their rediscovery during the Renaissance. most of this transmission occurs in SPAIN, particularly after the Reconquista in the 12th C

What is the Scholastic Method?

-

Wider ideological context

58

The Rationalists

Averres (Ibn Rushd) 1126-98 Physician and lawyer Spent most of his life in Spain Known during the high middle ages as the commentator (on Aristotle)

Maimonides, 1138-1204 Like Averres, a physician Spent much of his life in Cordova, but also worked in Cairo. Highly respected by Muslim rulers

Aquinas, 1224-74 Born in Italy, took orders as a Dominican, studied in Paris before returning to Italy to serve as Dominican prior

59

Intellectual Relationships
The big (and obvious) issue is how one reconciles the claims of secular knowledge with those of religious texts and traditional interpretations of them. all agree that some bits can be treated as allegorical, but HOW do you stop this approach from spreading? (context: mysticism) AAM offer different views of how the reconciliation should proceed. o Averroes is often seen as the most radical, and is interpreted as giving priority to secular knowledge (we use secular knowledge to expose those parts of the scripture that need to be read non-literally) o Aquinas probably has the most conservative position.

They then all try to resolve the following:

-

what can we know about God? What is divine justice? What kind of laws are there? o Overall: they want to find indubitable principles from which substantive religious doctrines can be derived. this can be boiled down to an exploration of the relationships between: o religion and philosophy o faith and reason o tradition and speculation OR, to use todays concepts: RELIGION and SCIENCE

The problem they were grappling with arose from the recognition of two source of truth:
1. By revelation, deemed to be expressive of divine wisdom, and therefore foundational to religion 2. By rational speculation, taken to be indicative of rational wisdom, and therefore central to philosophy Each source was held to be equally authoritative yet produced apparently incompatible claims. Today we regard this as a problem of epistemic justification. From the point of view of science, religious claims lack the empirical justification of scientific truths. From the point of view of religion, religious beliefs do not need the justification of empirical evidence. Inevitably, all three derive a particular conception of religious belief from their respective religious frameworks.

60

OUR perspective today there is in general a marked disassociation of religion from science, or religion from philosophy, because we tend to consider faith and reason to be totally unrelated. This was not the opinion of A. A. and M.

In a nutshell
Averroes: faith gives way to reason Aquinas: reason gives way to faith Maimonides: third way - intermediate position - faith does fully give way to reason, nor does reason fully give way to faith. Averroes: religion lies within the scope of philosophy Aquinas: religion lies beyond the scope of philosophy Maimonides: religion can extend beyond the scope of philosophy; however it can not be grasped or justified without appeal to philosophy. Religion and Philosophy are inherently linked.

Quotes
Aquinas: The things that reason is fitted by nature to know are clearly true, and it would be impossible to think of them as false. It is also wrong to think that something that is held by faith could be false since it is clearly confirmed by God. When something clearly acts for an end we say that the end is that toward which the movement of the thing that acts tends; when it is reached, we say that the end has been reached. And in the action of everything that acts there is a point beyond which the actor does not seek anything further. Otherwise actions would go on forever which is impossible. Everything in nature moves and acts for an end that is a good since the end of something acting in nature is the result of a natural appetite. Therefore everything that acts acts for a good. The purpose of the first actor and mover should be the final purpose of all, just as the goal (finis) of the commander of an army is the goal of all the soldiers under his command. Human inquiry does not cease until it comes to the first cause Therefore man desires by nature to know the first cause as his ultimate end. But the first cause of everything is God. Therefore mans ultimate end is to know God.

61

we must conclude that God can be seen through the intellect, by both the separate intellectual substances and our souls. Nothing can be changed from a state of potentiality to actuality except by something that itself is in a state of actuality Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause which all men call God. We have a more perfect knowledge of God through grace than through natural reason. God loves everything in existence we have shown above all that the will of God is the cause of everything. Therefore for anything to have existence or any other good it must be willed by God. The Soul is not material. We must say that the human soul which we call the intellectual principle is incorruptible. Ibn Rushd (Averroes) We maintain that the business of philosophy is nothing other than to look into creation and ponder over it in order to be guided to the Creator in other words, to look into the meaning of existence. All things have been made and created We see an inorganic substance and then there is life in it. So we know for certain that there is an inventor and bestower of life, and He is God. When a man sees a thing in a certain shape, proportion and fashion, for a particular advantage is derived from it, and purpose which is to be attained, so that it becomes clear to him, that had it not been found int hat shape, and proportion, then that advantage would have been wanting in it, be comes to know for certain that there is a maker of that thing, and that he had made it in that shape and proportion, for a set purpose. Plus all is in HARMONY The universe, with all its component parts, is found fit for the existence of man and things; secondly, that which is found suitable in all its parts, for a single purpose, leading to a single goal, is necessarily a created thing. For had the earth been created smaller than it is not, that is, without mountains, it would have quivered by the motion of other elements, the water and the air, and would have been shaken and thus displaced.

62

We say that it is necessary that there be found order and arrangement, the more perfect and finished than what can be imagined. This mixing together of elements is limited and prearranged and no disorder has ever happened in them. Maimonides Man is political by nature and it is his nature to live in society. Therefore I say that the Law, although it is not natural, enters into what is natural. You should know that in regard to the correct opinions through which the ultimate perfection may be obtained, the Law has communicated only their end and made a call to believe in them in a summary way that is, to believe in the existence of the deity, may He be exalted, His unity, His knowledge All these points are ultimate ends. [512] The meaning of many of the laws became clear to me and their causes became known t me through my study of the doctrines, opinions, practices, and cult of the Sabians you will know for certain that what I say about the reasons for these laws is correct. For they think that if those laws were useful in this existence and had been given to us for this or that reason, it would be useful in this existence and had been given to us for this or that reason, it would be as if they derived from the reflection and the understanding of some intelligent being. If, however, there is a thing for which the intellectual could not find any meaning at all and that does not lead to something useful, it indubitably derives from God; for the reflection of man would not lead to such a thing.

63

The Ontological Argument

St. Anslem (11thC Italian who moved to England and became Archbishop of Canterbury) offered what many consider to be the MOST convincing justification for Gods existence. 1. 2. 3. 4. God is (by definition) that being, greater than which no being can be conceived. For anything of which we can conceive, that thing can exist either only in our conception of it or also in reality. We can conceive of a being greater than which no being can be conceived. The being greater than which no being can be conceived either exists only in our conception of it or else also in reality. [From 2]. If the being greater than which no being can be conceived only existed in our conception of it then we could conceive of an even greater being (viz. one that also existed in reality). Plainly we cannot conceive of a being greater than the being greater than which no being can be conceived. Hence, the being greater than which no being can be conceived must exist in reality. [From 5 and 6]. Therefore God exists. [From 1 and 7].

5.

6. 7. 8.

64

Mysticism
The term mysticism, comes from the Greek , meaning to conceal. In the Hellenistic world, mystical referred to secret religious rituals. In early Christianity the term came to refer to hidden allegorical interpretations of Scriptures and to hidden presences, such as that of Jesus at the Eucharist. Only later did the term begin to denote mystical theology, that included direct experience of the divine. Typically, mystics, theistic or not, see their mystical experience as part of a larger undertaking aimed at human transformation and not as the terminus of their efforts. Thus, in general, mysticism would best be thought of as a constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts, institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation, variously defined in different traditions. Al-Ghazali (1158-1111) their method is brought about by a combination of knowledge and practice. The objective of their knowledge is to overcome the obstacles found in the soul. The knowledge associated with mysticism was easier for me that the practice. I began to acquire their knowledge by reading their books. It became apparent to me that what was most distinctive about them and specific to them was what could not be attained through teaching but rather through tasting, the state, and a transformation of attributes. I came to know with certainty that the mystics were the masters of states rather than statements, and that I had acquired what I could by way of knowledge. I had acquired certain faith in God Almighty, prophecy and the Day of Judgment. These three foundations of faith had become entrenched in my soul My desire to pursue the afterlife would take hold one morning, only to e dispersed by the forces of appetite by evening. But even though I could attain the pure state only from time to time, that did not extinguish my hope of achieving it. Obstacles would impede me, but I would always go back to it. I came to know with certainty that the mystics are exclusively the ones who pursue the course that leads to God Almighty. All their activity, whether outward or inward, is obtained from the light of the lantern of prophecy, in comparison with which no light on earth is capable of illuminating.

65

Purity, which is its first precondition, is the complete purification of the heart from everything but God Almighty. The key to their way, which follows from this first step, just as prayer follows from sanctity, is the complete obliteration in God.

How does one HAVE a mystical experience?

This can only be sensed through EXPERIENCE. Hence the emphasis in Julian of Norwich (1342-1416) on suffering. Or the opposite type of experience as represented in Kabbalah, of experience of divine love through recitation of words: That is why the Torah scroll must not be vowelized, for the meaning of each word accords with its vowels. Once vowelised, a word means just one thing. Without vowels, you can understand it in countless, wondrous ways.

This helps explain the emphasis on autobiographical, self-center narrative

Julians first-person narrative; Al-Gs complete self-obliteration: Purity, which is its first precondition, is the complete purification of the heart from everything but God Almighty. The key to their way, which follows from this first step, just as prayer follows from sanctity, is the complete obliteration in God.

The contradiction inherent in mysticism

Can never prove existence of holy b/c you are material, yet seek to experience it through the material. The mystical state aims to unite these K: There is a secular world and a holy world, secular worlds and holy worlds. These worlds contradict one another. The contradiction, of course, is subjective. We cannot reconcile the sacred and the secular, we cannot harmonize their contradictions. Yet at the pinnacle of the universe they are reconciled, at the site of the holy of holies.

Why are we suddenly seeing a lot of WOMEN?

Scholars most often explain this sociologically? Mystical experiences are solitary activities, that dont involve mastering a field of knowledge, therefore mysticism can be construed as more accessible. At the turn of the twentieth century, psychological theorists began to search for a MEDICAL explanation of mystical experience, and began to associate it with hysteria, itself a gendered diagnosis.

Background note on Kabbalah

The origins of the actual term Kabbalah are unknown and disputed to belong either to Solomon ibn Gabirol (1021 - 1058) or else to the 13th century CE Spanish Kabbalist Bahya ben Asher. While other terms have been used in many religious documents from

66

the 2nd century CE up to the present day, the term Kabbalah has become the main descriptive of Jewish esoteric knowledge and practices. Main Kabbalistic literature which served as the basis for most of the development of Kabbalistic thought divides between early works such as Bahir and Heichalot (believed to be dated 1st Century CE) and later works dated to the 13th century CE, of which the main book is the Zohar representing the main source for the Contemplative Kabbalah. Because it is by definition esoteric, no popular account can provide a complete, precise, and accurate explanation of the Kabbalah. Some scholars, notably Gershom Scholem and Martin Buber, have argued that modern Hassidic Judaism represents a popularization of the Kabbalah. According to its adherents, intimate understanding and mastery of the Kabbalah brings one spiritually closer to God and enriches one's experience of Jewish sacred texts and law. According to Kabbalistic tradition, Kabbalistic knowledge was transmitted orally by the Jewish Patriarchs, prophets, and sages, eventually to be "interwoven" into Jewish religious writings and culture. According to this tradition, Kabbalah was, in around the 10th century BCE, an open knowledge practiced by over a million people in ancient Israel, although there is little objective historical evidence to support this thesis. Foreign conquests drove the Jewish spiritual leadership of the time to hide the knowledge and make it secret, fearing that it might be misused if it fell into the wrong hands. The Sanhedrin leaders were also concerned that the practice of Kabbalah by Jews deported on conquest to other countries (the Diaspora), unsupervised and unguided by the masters, might lead them into wrong practice and forbidden ways. As a result, the Kabbalah became secretive, forbidden and esoteric to Judaism for two and a half millennia. According to most groups of Orthodox Judaism, Kabbalah dates from Eden and is an integral part of the Jewish religious tradition. It is believed to have come down from a remote past as a revelation to elect Tzadikim (righteous people), and, for the most part, was preserved only by a privileged few. By contrast, contemporary scholarship suggests that various schools of Jewish esotericism arose at different periods of Jewish history, each reflecting not only prior forms of mysticism, but also the intellectual and culture milieu of that historical period. Questions of transmission, lineage, influence, and innovation vary and cannot be easily summarized. Originally, Kabbalistic knowledge was believed to be an integral part of the Judaism's oral law, given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai around 13th century BCE, though there is a view that Kabbalah began with Adam. When the Israelites arrived at their destination and settled in Canaan, for a few centuries the esoteric knowledge was referred to by its aspect practice - meditation. Rebbe Nachman of Breslov referred to a somewhat different approach called Hitbodedut, translated as being alone or isolating oneself, or by a different term describing the actual, desired goal of the practice prophecy. During the 5th century BCE, when the works of the Tanakh were edited and canonized and the secret knowledge encrypted within the various writings and scrolls, the

67

knowledge was referred to as either the act of the Chariot" and "the act of Creation". Merkavah mysticism alluded to the encrypted knowledge within the book of the prophet Ezekiel describing his vision of the "Divine Chariot". B'reshit mysticism referred to the first chapter of Genesis that is believed to contain secrets of the creation of the universe and forces of nature.

THE REFORMATION Summary Handout

There were many different Reformations, all of which would have said that they aimed at creating the authentic Catholic church, or the Western Church of the Latin Rite. In addition to the Protestant Reformation were reading about this week, keep in mind there was a sense of a need for Church reform widely present in the early sixteenth century and the attempts to cleanse the Church that arose in response to Luther (and others). This led later to the Counter-Reformation: a series of reforms within the Catholic church itself a century later. The texts were reading rose in large part out of the reaction against the practice of granting indulgences: the ability to buy ones way in earthly life greater leniency in the afterlife. The concept of purgatory a between point between earth and heaven/hell had arisen as part of the humanizing of the church in the 12thC. It seemed extreme to think that you would be damned to hell, or sent to heaven, so a middle was conceived: purgatory, where you had the chance to make up for your sins on earth. Purgatory was to be cleared out at the coming of the Final Judgment. Many commodities could be traded for years in Purgatory, literally in the case of indulgence grants. Indeed, many theologians described human virtues as commodities. Money and material works could be exchanged for virtue thus when you die, you could leave money in your will to pay the villages tax bill to the king, and this was just as good as having been kind all your life. Thus this rationale encouraged charity, and should be seen as this as opposed to strictly a sign of corruption. Prayer also was a commodity a way of uniting the living and the dead together with mutual aid, of exchanging an earthly act for grace. This bred a big industry in prayer, and all of it was encouraged by the Black Death. Protestants aimed to do away with the concepts of purgatory and indulgence.

Timeline
312 476 1290 13489 1378 Christianity allies with the emperors of Rome (Constantine) Roman Empire formally dismantled, but Latin remains the language which unites people. King Edward I had expelled all the Jews from England, first monarch in Europe to do so. BLACK DEATH The Great Schism 68

1515 1517

Papal bull announced to raise money to rebuild St. Peters The churchs supposedly reforming Lateran Council ended without achieving much. Luthers complaints about the indulgences; continued to accept existence of Purgatory until 1530 then he realized that the logic he had unleashed meant he couldnt believe in purgatory.

1520s 1525 1529

Divisions btw reformed and Luthern branches of Protestantism Luther: sacred art generally okay. Reformed disagree. Culmination of a period in which anything seemed possible ended with the quelling of a German peasant rebellion. birth of term Protestant; Holy Roman Emperors Diet (imperial city) met in Speyer, and a group of princes and cities who supported the programs of Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli found themselves in a minority. So they issued a Protestatio affirming the reforming beliefs they shared. 1547 - Coronation of King Edward the VI in England: used the term Protestant to set aside a place for the diplomatic representatives of the reforming germans at the ceremony.

15401 1545 1572 1618

Prospects for reunion seemed possible Beg. Of the Council of Trent start of Counter-Reformation Massacre of St. Bartholomew massacre of Huguenots by Catholics. Outbreak of the 30 years war (largely btw German Lutherans and Catholics)

Various Protestant Reformers

Martin Luther Basic Chronology 1483 Luther born 1501 Luther goes to University in Erfurt 1505 Luther decides to become a monk 1510 Peasant rebellion in Erfurt. Journey to Rome. 1512 Luther takes Chair of Theology in Wittenberg 1513-17 Development of theological views 1517 Tetzels Indulgence campaign; the 95 theses 1518 Luther questioned

69

1519 Debate in Leipzig 1520 Luther writes his three manifestoes 1521 Luther appears at Diet of Worms 1524-5 Peasant revolt; denounced by Luther 1525 Luther marries Katherine von Bora (ex-nun) 1546 Luther dies. Luther didnt start out trying to create a new church. He was an Augustinian monk, concerned, as many Catholics were, with the failings of the church. Large numbers of faithful people worried about the involvement of the Papacy in Italian politics, about the sales of church offices, about the difficulties in providing spiritual care for ordinary people. Anti-papal sentiment was especially strong in Germany, and it isnt surprising that the reforms come from Germany. There had been significant protests before, both in England (Wycliffe and the Lollards) and in Bohemia (Jan Hus; put to death in 1415). Luthers celebrated theses were primarily triggered by the arrival of an indulgence salesman in Luthers neighborhood: Johan Tetzel in Joteborg. Just outside Saxony, where Luther lived, and where the ruler, Frederick The Wise, denied permission for Tetzel to sell. Luther was a bright child from a working class family. His father, a miner, was dismayed when his talented son had a life-transforming experience in a thunderstorm and decided to become a monk. From the start, Luthers intellectual gifts were recognized by his order. But he was haunted by recurring doubts, not about the existence of God but about the possibilities of human salvation. Whether or not this is correct, it does seem clear that the Pauline theology of sin and judgment gave him enormous trouble. We dont know the exact trajectory of his views, but its clear that by 1517 he had rejected the idea of salvation by works in favor of salvation by faith. Catholic Christians had been used to the idea that they were required to do penances for their sins. In light of Luthers conclusions about sin, grace, and redemption, the practice of selling indulgences appeared the height of corrupt cheating: instead of persuading poor people to cultivate the attitude of faith, Tetzel and others like him were taking their money and, more importantly, giving them the false impression that they had been absolved. Luthers broadcasting of the theses brought the revisionary theology of a previously obscure monk to public attention. As Luther explained himself to his bishop, and to others, he started to go beyond the original theses; in effect, the theological views he had been articulating to work out his own worries about salvation became evident. Initially, Luther was protected by Frederick (Fredericks chaplain, Spalatin, was a personal friend of Luthers; its doubtful that Luther and Frederick exchanged more than a dozen words). Moreover, the Pope was reluctant to put pressure on Frederick, because he wanted Fredericks political help in blocking the succession of Charles of Spain to the Holy Roman Empire (Charles V did succeed in 1519). At the 70

beginning, Luther appears to the church as an intelligent but stubborn young monk, with some misguided views; the official reaction, however, isnt entirely dismissive, and there are suggestions of the possibility of compromise. But Luther, concerned with the fate of his immortal soul, wasnt willing to compromise. Under questioning, he said quite inflammatory things for example, in 1518, appearing before the Dominican cardinal Cajetan, he asserted the priority of the scripture over papal authority; to the response that the Pope is authoritative, Luther is supposed to have declared His holiness abuses scripture; I deny that he is above scripture. In a debate at Leipzig in the following year, he makes the even more provocative statement that papal councils can err. Back in Wittenberg, Luther wrote furiously. The Freedom of a Christian Man is one of three tracts published in 1520. When a papal bull denouncing Luther was brought to Wittenberg, the students mocked the messengers. During this period, it seems clear that Luther was benefiting not only from Fredericks protection, but also from German dissatisfaction with the Papacy. In 1521, Luther was summoned to appear before Charles V at the parliament (Diet), held that year in Worms. He was asked two questions: Are these books yours? Will you recant? Luther replied that the books were his, but that he needed time to consider. Returning the next day, he replied that some of them were devotional writings, which nobody would want him to recant; some were personal controversy, and may be marred by rhetorical excesses (he was willing to apologize for that); for the doctrinal writings, he would not recant until he had been shown to be in error. At this point, he is supposed to have said: I am bound to the scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not retract anything. Luther could easily have been silenced on the spot (despite the fact that Charles had promised Frederick protection for Luther). He wasnt, probably in part because of Charles political need to avoid hostilities with Saxony, and in part because of the eruption of protests in Worms on Luthers behalf. So Charles sent Luther back, announcing an intention to prosecute him. Luther is effectively kidnapped by friends and taken into safe-keeping in Saxony. At this stage, the latent German opposition to the Papacy had broken out into enthusiasm for the creation of reformed churches in Germany. During the 1520s, especially in the North, congregations switched to modes of worship that were aligned, in various respects and to various degrees, with Luthers teachings. It became increasingly difficult for anyone, even a Pope or an Emperor, to stamp this out. Some of Luthers followers linked his message to socio-political reforms; in 1524-5 the German peasants revolted, issuing demands in the name of Lutheran 71

reform. Luther himself responded by writing a tract Against the Murdering Hordes of Peasants, in which he urged princes to knock down, strangle, and stab and think nothing so venomous, pernicious, or Satanic as an insurgent. No doubt this shocked many people who had followed him. John Wycliffe (1324-84) and Lollardy First challenge, 1380s, based in Oxford. Wycliffe was a philosopher who saw invisible, external realities as more representative of reality than the experiences of the everyday world. All the churchs teachings should be tested against scripture, he argued: so lets all keep our copies of the Bible handy, he told his followers. The gentry liked any plan that stripped clergy of their influence, but even gentry support did not help here. Opponents called them lollards mumblers of nonsense and church authorities banned all copies of the Bible in English. But this was before the print revolution, so Wycliffes ideas did not spread as quickly as did Luthers. At the same time, there was a challenge in Prague from Jan Hus, who promoted copies of Wycliffes writings and was burnt at the stake. John Calvin (1509-1564) In some ways the most influential Protestant because of the systematic character of his writings, and because of his influence on visitors (British and Dutch) to Geneva. From 1541, he attempted to make Geneva a model religious city; according to the Scots visitor John Knox, it was the most perfect school of Christ that ever was in earth since the days of the Apostles. Calvins influence on Anglo-Saxons depended in part on historical contingency: when, in the 1550s, English Protestants fled the reprisals of Edward VIs successor, Mary, they were not well received by Lutherans but were greeted hospitably by Calvin. Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) Zwingli aimed to reform the Swiss church. From 1521 to his death, he was a priest in Zurich. In doctrine, Zwingli was similar to Luther (from whom he claimed independence), but he was much more interested in linking church reform to social causes. He died in battle, trying to spread reformed religion in Switzerland. Henry VIII Not really a reformer at all, but a man desperate for a divorce. Henry earned the title Defender of the Faith (which British monarchs still bear) from the Pope for writing a reply to Luther. The English church separates from the Papacy solely so that, as head of the church, Henry can annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn. Doctrinal differences follow, and are intensified in the short reign of Henrys son, Edward VI. Only with Elizabeth does moderate Protestantism become secure in England (and, at this time, returning exiles from Geneva and other 72

Calvinist strongholds begin the Puritan movement; that movement, of course, drives the voyages to North America when the English church is perceived as swinging back to Catholicism). Erasmus (1466-1536) Traveled everywhere (even though Rotterdam claimed him), became a priest in 1492. Provided Greek original of the New Testament, as well as the Latin translation. Disliked excessive allegory, and the cult of Mary and angels. Ended life in 1536 very unhappy with the shape of things. He was an inspiration of the reformation, but never of it himself. He emphasized diversity, humanity, and tolerance above all (he was gay). He was one of the only people not to turn to Augustine in this period thats why humanism does not automatically equal Protestantism (a common association).

Print culture: appearance of Bible in vernacular print editions in different languages

1466-1522: there were 22 editions of the Bible in high or low German. 1471 reached Italian 1473-4 French 1477 Dutch 1478 Spanish 1492 Czech and Catalan Print v. manuscripts suggest different attitudes towards knowledge Manuscript culture: knowledge is fragile, like vellum we need to work to preserve it. Like vellum tends to decay, so too does knowledge. Knowledge has to be copied by hand, which leads to mistakes its a very literal form of corruption. The priority is to keep the knowledge secure, to prevent its getting lost or decayed. Hoard knowledge, so it doesnt decay. Print culture: can multiply exact copies, indeed printer has a vested interest in multiplying as many copies as possible. No longer a sense of decay more forward looking, as can produce more things. Fosters an attitude which spreads knowledge.

Salvation by faith
Luther extends the approach to salvation introduced by Paul and developed by Augustine. From his own accounts of his theological development, its clear that the central chapters of Romans were immensely important to him. According to the Catholic view, each of us is born into a condition of sin (original sin, stemming from Adam). By accepting the Christian message, and undergoing the

73

sacraments of baptism and confirmation, that sin is taken from us. But, in our new condition, we typically sometimes fail and go astray. Because that happens, its important for each person to confess regularly, to repent, and to perform the penitential tasks prescribed for us by our confessor. In doing this we bring ourselves back into a state of grace. It is possible, of course, that we die with sins unconfessed, and this is to be avoided if possible (you might recall Hamlets reluctance to kill his uncle while Claudius is praying). Yet, even if we die without the benefit of confession and absolution, we can still hope that our constant performance of repentance for our sins will secure a place in purgatory, the location where Christians do penance for residual sins. On Luthers reading of Paul, this is quite wrong, for it underestimates the extent to which sin is a part of our condition. Baptism doesnt replace a creature worthy of damnation with one worthy of salvation. It only places us on a path where we might receive Gods grace. The important change must occur within, in the direction of the soul towards God. These theological ideas can obviously be elaborated in quite different ways in liturgical practice, and they have been differently developed by different groups of Protestants. They lend themselves to radically democratic possibilities for religious communities full equality before God. Luther and his successors typically didnt go in that direction, in large measure because of the felt need for scholarly expertise in settling points of doctrine. Luther: this faith can rule only in the inner man and since faith alone justifies, it is clear that the inner person cannot be justified, freed, or saved by any outer work or action at all, and that these works whatever their character, have nothing to do with this inner person. On the other hand, only ungodliness and unbelief of heart, and no outer work, make him guilty and a damnable servant of sin no other work makes a Christian.

Predestination
There are passages in Luther, especially in the earlier writings, in which he seems to commit himself to the doctrine of predestination; later, he appears to back away from this. The position does emerge very clearly in Calvin indeed its the doctrine most closely associated with Calvinism (despite the fact that Calvins Institutes covers a vast number of other issues). Calvin: The covenant of life is not preached equally to all it is plainly due to mere pleasure of God that salvation is offered to some, while others have no access to it. Some should be predestined to salvation and others to destruction. Calvin: All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life.

74

Good behavior
Neither Luther nor Calvin would deny that those who have turned to God in faith tend to behave in a morally good way: that is, they are more charitable, less inclined to indulge carnal appetites, and so forth. Their point is that this behavior doesnt cause them to become worthy of Gods salvation. Rather it is the effect of an attitude a quality of the soul, they would say that is a precondition for Gods grace. Further, both are inclined to think that pious deeds and Christian actions are the outward sign of the manifestation of faith. Especially within Calvinism, theres a tendency to look for outward signs that someone belongs to the elect. Initially, these are seen in terms of especially strict conformity to Christian maxims for human conduct. As time goes on, the criterion tends to be broadened so that worldly success is taken as a sign that one has been chosen by God. Luther: In this life he must control his won body an have dealings with others. Here the works begin; here individuals cannot enjoy leisure; here they must indeed take care to discipline their bodies by fasting, watchings, labors, and other reasonable discipline and to subject it to the Spirit. Luther: While they are doing this, behold, they meet a contrary will in their own flesh, which strives to serve the world and seeks its own advantage. This is the spirit of faith cannot tolerate, but with joyful zeal it attempts to put the body under control and hold it in check. Luther: In doing these works, however, we must not think that a person is justified before God by them [BUT] these works reduce the body to subjection and purify it of its evil lusts, and our whole purpose is to be directed only toward the driving out of lusts. Calvin: Second Objection: The doctrine of election takes guilt and responsibility from individuals. Answer: Though their perdition depends on the predestination of God, the cause and matter of it is in themselves Humans fall, but they fall by their own fault. Calvin: Fourth objection: the doctrine of election destroys all zeal for an upright life. Answer: If the end of election is holiness of life, it ought to arose and stimulate us strenuously to aspire to it, instead of serving as a pretext for sloth.

Religion and the State

Both Luther and Calvin offer views about the proper relationship between Christianity and the State. Luthers approach stresses the spiritual character of the

75

Christian life to justify allowing your deeds to be governed by the laws of secular societies. But how far can you go in honoring the laws of the state? Luther is prepared to allow for the Christian hangman . Is that really in accordance with the commitment to the growth of faith on which he insists? Where he plainly draws the line is in connection with matters of religion. Calvin seems to favor a quite different approach. His ideal religion is practiced in community. The members watch one another, exhorting and reproving. Luther: For no matter how harshly they lay down the law, or how violently they rage, they can do no more than force an outward compliance of the mouth and the hand, the heart cannot compel, though they work themselves into a frazzle. For the proverb is true: Thoughts are tax-free. Luther: Christians, so far as they themselves are concerned, a subject neither to law nor sword, and have heed of neither. But take heed and first fill the world with ral Christians before you attempt to rule it in an Xtn and evangelical manner Xtns are few and between it is out of the question that there would be a common Xtn govt over the whole world for the wicked outnumber the good. C: The first foundation of discipline is to provide for private admonition he or she must allow themselves to be admonished; and everyone must study to admonish the brother when the case requires whose duty is not only to preach to the people, but to exhort and admonish from house to house.

MACHIAVELLI
Summary Handout

Biographical details
Machiavelli was born in 1469, in Florence. His father was a lawyer, not wealthy but determined to give his son a good education. Its clear from Machiavellis writings that the education took he is deeply fascinated by classical learning and strongly influenced by Renaissance humanism. In 1494, as a result of a French invasion of Northern Italy, the ruling Medici family was forced to flee Florence. After the fall of the charismatic friar Savanarola in 1498, Machiavelli found a prominent place in the republican regime. For the next fourteen years, he worked both on internal affairs (particularly on matters of military organization and defense), and also served as a traveling diplomat, representing Florence in France and in Rome. His experiences during this period gave him an empirical basis for his subsequent writings.

76

In 1512, the republic collapsed and the Medici were restored. As an administrator of the former regime, Machiavelli was questioned and tortured put to the strappado. He was subsequently imprisoned, and released only in the general amnesty that followed the coronation of one of the Medici as Pope (1513; he had been in prison for about a month). A condition of his release was that he be confined to the territory of Florence, and he withdrew to a farm he owned seven miles from the city. Its plain from his letters that Machiavelli found country life dull, and that he yearned to return to public office. The Prince seems to have been written in the hope that it would return him to favor, but his attempt to secure the services of his friend Vettori as an intermediary or advocate failed. He spent the rest of his life, until his death in 1527, in enforced retirement. The Prince was probably written by 1515; it may well have been completed by the end of 1513. The Discourses occupied him between 1515 and 1519.

Two Traditional Puzzles

Relatively soon after his death, Machiavelli acquired an unsavory reputation (for example, there are strongly negative references to him in Elizabethan plays). This reputation rested on the perceived amorality of the Prince. Although many of the same themes are sounded in the Prince and in the Discourses, the former appears to concentrate on monarchical rule, while the latter is enthusiastic about republican government, and specifically on the kind of political culture exemplified at the height of the Roman republic. These facts generate two traditional puzzles. 1. 2. Why does Machiavelli become a byword for unscrupulousness? Is it the endorsement of violence? Or a separation of morality from politics? Or the absence of an orthodox religious perspective? Is Machiavelli a consistent republican? Once we read the Discourses his preference for republics is clear. So does this mean the Prince is disingenuous? Is he simply angling for a job, and disguising his politics to curry favor with the Medici?

NMs scheme of values may be somewhat elusive, but he plainly has one. Its centered on the idea that certain kinds of shared political life are genuinely worthwhile. Similarly, even though Machiavelli believes that some ends justify means that others regard as always morally illegitimate, we should resist the reduction of his views to the slogan The end justifies the means. Machiavellis thought is best expressed as the recognition that certain ends are genuinely valuable, that these ends cannot be attained without sacrificing other values, and that the decision to make that sacrifice can be defended. He doesnt dispute that theres a scheme of values according to which political assassination is

77

forbidden. His view is that, if you opt for that scheme, youll have to give up the value of a flourishing civic life; if flourishing civic life is the value that matters most to you (and Machiavelli would not only claim that its a value, but also rate it very highly), then youll have to do things that are opposed to the standard scheme of Christian values. Similarly, its probably too simple to write Machiavelli off as inconsistent, or as sacrificing his political convictions in the pursuit of selfish interests. Throughout his career, Machiavelli wants to make possible the kind of social and political life in which people have the opportunity to engage in projects that require the sustaining activity of others; civilization, as he conceives it, is valuable, and it requires coordination, cooperation, and security. His considered view, it becomes apparent when reading the Discourses, is that these conditions are most likely to be met under a republic. But its also part of his notion of virt (see below) that it demands adaptation to existing conditions. He wants to realize civic life in Italy (particularly in Florence), and, around 1513, the best option for that looks like working with and through the Medici which is probably why he writes the Prince. When he turns to the more theoretical problem of explaining how to achieve the right sort of social and political life, he writes the Discourses.

Three Crucial Concepts

virt Our translator wisely indicates the many places in the text where Machiavelli uses virt and cognate notions. Some of these do link virt to virtue but the more prominent tendency is to think of it as a matter of strength, ability, or prowess. It cant be mere strength, of course, because Machiavelli wants to distinguish the man of virt from the unscrupulous tyrant. Virt requires strength, ability, and judgment in the service of the package of values in which Machiavelli is most interested. The man of virt pursues honor and glory, but the understanding of these latter notions isnt just a matter of individual success. The kinds of honor and glory that concern Machiavelli dont necessarily come from charging into the enemy lines, but in making possible a certain kind of socio-political life. The ultimate value consists in the creation and maintenance of a state in which individuals can live truly civilized lives. p It is necessary not only to pay attention to immediate crises, but to foresee those that will come, and to make every effort to prevent them In this matter it is as doctors say of consumption: In the beginning the disease is easy to cure, difficult to diagnose; but, after a while, if it has not been diagnosed and treated early, it becomes easy to diagnose and hard to cure. So too in politics. fortuna

78

Machiavellis talk of chance or good luck can seem confusing. Is he invoking a peculiar secular deity, supposing that our traits and actions make no difference, or advocating a theory of history on which fortunes wheel revolves? Theres something right about these questions insofar as they are at odds with any providential view of history and politics. Machiavelli clearly wants to debunk the idea that following some set of divine commands is a recipe for worldly success. But hes after something slightly more nuanced. At the core of that view is the conviction that circumstances are changeable, and typically complex. So, as things change, states and their leaders are faced with problems that cant be solved either by falling back on established habits or by trying to calculate. Typically, you have an unprecedented situation, and your knowledge of all the relevant variables is radically incomplete. So how do you cope? The man of virt is adaptable. He has to see that this is a novel situation, and that he cant simply use the strategies that have worked so far. Moreover, he doesnt have the knowledge he needs to figure out all the intricate chains of consequences that would ensue from various courses of action often he doesnt have time to use what knowledge he has. Yet, in a certain sense, he can try to tame fortuna. He can do this by acting decisively, in ways that complicate the decision-making of those with whom hes in conflict. Anyone who sacrifices his own convenience in order to make others happy is bound to inconvenience himself, but cant be sure of receiving any thanks for it. And since fortune wants to control everything, she evidently wants to be left a free hand; meanwhile we should keep our own counsel and not get in her way, and wait until she allows human beings to have a say in the course of events. I conclude, then, that since fortune changes, and men stubbornly continue to behave in the same way, men flourish when their behavior suits the times and fail when they are out of step. I do think, however, that it is better to be headstrong than cautious, for fortune is a lady. It is necessary, if you want to master her, to beat and strike her. And one sees she more often submits to those who act boldly than to those who proceed in a calculating fashion. Moreover, since she is a lady, she smiles on the young, for they are less cautious, more ruthless, and overcome her with their boldness. freedom Machiavellis notion of freedom relates to his treatment of civic life as an ultimate value. He doesnt think of freedom in terms of the non-interference of others. To be free is not to be free from coercion, to have ones own private sphere into which other people arent permitted to intrude. That, he seems to think, would be an impoverished type of freedom, since what we can do as isolated individuals isnt 79

very important. The freedom that matters to him is the freedom to have certain options, options that are only made possible within civilization. In the Discourses, Machiavelli introduces the notion of freedom by defining it first for cities: cities are free when they are not subject to external domination. When this occurs, cities (or states) can set up institutions that are genuinely public, serving the common good. These institutions make much wider options for individual lives. The commitment to participation in common projects, and the common good runs through the Discourses. Its particularly apparent in Machiavellis contention that the public treasury should be full, and individual citizens should be relatively poor.

View of Human Nature

The Prince overflows with eminently quotable maxims. It is better to be feared than to be loved; You should combine the qualities of the lion and the fox; You should concentrate your cruelty into a single act; A reputation for parsimony is preferable to a reputation for generosity. Behind these maxims stands a picture of human nature. Machiavelli clearly doesnt think theres much chance that powerful actors will follow the moral precepts to which they officially subscribe. In general, he inclines to the view that people are motivated by self-interest. Hence the importance he attaches to setting things up in a way that aligns the interests of the rulers with the common good.

Moral Stance
Machiavelli has a genuine moral stance. He clearly believes that the actions of politicians can be judged he comments that some are right and others are not. Moreover, he is obviously well aware of the conventional moral perspective. He takes that perspective to issue in absolute duties, duties that interfere with our obtaining and maintaining those values on which he sets most store. On his view, its quite possible to try to honor those duties, but those who pledge themselves to this course will have rather unfortunate careers. If they are rulers, their people are likely to be extremely miserable. He supposes that there are other values, values that can be realized in this world, in socio-political arrangements that give people security and the freedom to choose from a rich menu of options. His first move within the domain of morality is to give these other values particularly civic life priority. After that, he takes a consequentialist turn: it is ethically appropriate to do anything that needs to be done to secure the values that are given priority. Notice that considerations of justice and of the rights of individuals dont come into play so far at all.

80

Once this is done, I think Machiavelli is willing to recognize the conventional duties. I take him to maintain that, when the important things have been secured, one of the luxuries that can be enjoyed is trying to live up to Christian ideals. This is where thugs like Agathocles go wrong they find no place at all for the conventional duties. Read in this way, Machiavelli poses an interesting dilemma for liberal societies. We tend to think that certain types of individual rights are sacrosanct, although were prepared to waive some of them under special circumstances. Machiavellis view is that rulers have an obligation to be vigilant, and to abrogate the conventional duties whenever the public good is at risk. This shouldnt be confused with violating the duties whenever its expedient for the self-interest of the ruler. Thats tyranny. But he would probably indict liberal democracies for not being tough enough to set up the conditions that maintain their conception of civic life. I think here we have to distinguish between cruelty well used and cruelty abused. But one cannot have all the good qualities, nor always act in a praiseworthy fashion, for we do not live in an ideal world. You have to be astute enough to avoid being thought to have those evil qualities that would make it impossible for you to retain power; as for those that are compatible with holding on to power, you should avoid them. Nevertheless, you should be careful how you access the situation and should think twice before you act. Do not be afraid of your own shadow. Employ policies that are moderated by prudence and sympathy. Avoid excessive timidity, which leads to carelessness, and avoid excessive timidity, which will make you insupportable. My reply is one ought to be both loved and feared; but, since it is difficult to accomplish both at the same time, I maintain it is much safer to be feared than loved.

Religion
NM can be read as posing a deep break with Christian morality, in his giving priority to this-worldly values. He does think people could try to live according to Christian precepts; its just that, by secular standards, their lives would go badly. A state that obeyed the Christian commandments would be quickly overrun, and its people would suffer servitude (or worse). A Christian might declare that this doesnt matter; after all, the sufferers will have their reward in the afterlife. Machiavelli, however, i less interested in the afterlife than in having things go better in this world. That may be a sign that he doesnt take the afterlife or Christianity very seriously. In the Discourses, NM offers an officially positive view of religion. Religion can be good for maintaining the civic life. There are plenty of hints that he believes that

81

Roman paganism fulfilled this function rather better than Christianity has done. These suggest that religions are to be assessed not in terms of the truth of their doctrines, but for the role that they play in civic affairs. It was religion that facilitated whatever enterprise the senate and the great men of Rome designed to undertake its citizens were more afraid of breaking an oath than of breaking the law. - D I conclude that religion introduced by Numa was among the primary causes of Romes success, for this entailed good institutions; good institutions led to good fortune; and from good fortune arose the happy results of undertakings. And, as the observance of divine worship is the cause of greatness in republics, so the neglect of it is the cause of their ruin. D

Forestalling decline
The Discourses center around an obvious question: how do you prevent a flourishing civil order from becoming corrupted? The general form of Machiavellis answer is that you have to develop institutions that constrain individuals, so that they cant act from self-interest in ways that endanger the public good. Religion can play a role here. But Machiavellis main suggestion is that you need to have a balanced struggle among different parts of society. Machiavelli doesnt blink at the fact that internal conflict may result in civil strife and even a significant amount of violence and death. This is simply the price one must pay to keep the polity going. The important thing is that having different factions within the society prevents the laws from being wrested in a direction that destroys the possibility of recognizing the common good as a shared aim. Another striking feature of Machiavellis treatment of the problem is his use of the story of Brutus and his sons. He explains several times that, to preserve the republic, you have to kill the sons of Brutus, whenever they appear. Just as the man of virt had to be vigilant, so too do the administrators of the republic. They have to be looking out for potential rebellion and sources of corruption. One does not learn the danger of such an erosion of support from experience, as the first experience proves fatal. So a wise ruler will seek to ensure they his citizens always, no matter what the circumstances, have an interest in preserving both him and his authority. If he can do this, they will always be faithful to him. For at the start religious institutions, republics and kingdoms have in all cases some good in them, to which their early reputation and progress is due. But since in process of time this goodness is corrupted, such a body bust of necessity die unless something happens which brings it up to the mark. -D

82

A republic can MORPH and CHANGE therefore it will enjoy a fuller life and good fortune for a longer time than a principality. - D

Methodology: Using History

NM derives some of his conclusions as general explanations of the things hes observed; others come from his attempts to give a general account of the pieces of political history he knows. Does this suggest a new empirical turn in political theory? Is the reliance on history compatible with Machiavellis stress on changing circumstances? Above all he should set himself to imitate the actions of some admirable historical character, as great men have always initiated their glorious predecessors, constantly bearing in mind their actions and their ways of behaving.

THE NEW WORLD Summary Handout

What different justifications were employed for the colonization of the New World? De Las Casas, Sepulveda, and Vitoria should all be read as advocates of the European, specifically Spanish, right to colonise land across the Atlantic. The three, however, begin from very different suppositions about the nature of the Indians and the European relationship to them. This informs three radically different justifications for European behavior. When is colonization and war just? DLC: A just war requires not only just causes for its undertaking, but also legitimate authority and upright spirit. How do we know when authority is legitimate? How can you measure whether actions proceed with upright spirit either in yourself or, more problematically, in others?

Timeline
1493: Pope issues Papal Bull the new world protectorate to Spain 1530s: Vitorias most influential writings 1542: Spanish New Laws indigenous peoples = UNENSLAVEABLE FREEMEN (context: slaves from Africa after the 1530s) The Black Legend (term coined in the XX century): The political power of Spain became intimately associated with the religious power of the Pope. When Charles V became the King of Spain in 1517, he was also Holy

83

Roman Emperor. As the anointed defender of Christianity, Charles V saw it as his duty to purify Europe from what he perceived as heresies. He launched a bloody counterreformation war against Germany and defeated the Schmalkadic League of Protestant princes, at Mhlberg in 1548. Holland became in 1568 the other party in a war that lasted 80 years. In the same vain, Spain launched an attack against England. This venture resulted in the disastrous defeat of its armada in 1588. Spain came to be portrayed by competing European powers as bloody and barbaric. Its colonization of the New World became a key example of the ruthlessness of the Spanish. Justifications for colonization of the new world therefore also pivot around tensions related to Spains hegemony in Europe. 1550-51: Debate de las Casas v. Sepulveda touchstone: Aristotle ideas on natural slavery Aristotle used as a justification for natural slavery Aristotle on slavery, in the Politics: "Those whose condition is such that their function is the use of their bodies and nothing better can be expected of them, those, I say, are slaves of nature. It is better for them to be ruled thus."

The Three Actors & Their Positions

Sepulveda neo-Aristotelian humanist - argued for Indian inferiority - cultural barbarian is subject to the civilized man by nature - slavery is a punishment for sin o Spanish RIGHT of conquest, colonization o Argued on basis of natural law philosophy I was seized by a doubt, to wit, whether it was congruous with justice and Christian charity that the Spaniards should have made war on those innocent mortals who had caused them no harm I also want you to explain succinctly, with the clarity peculiar to your outstanding mind and subtle understanding, all the possible causes for a just war, and then to resolve the question in a few words. De las Casas Dominican friar - arrived in West Indies in 1502 - 1514: became an ADVOCATE for the Indians - argues for the FULL HUMANITY of the slaves concludes that evangelization, not rule, is the basis of the relationship

84

Most Important of the 30 Juridical Propositions: 1) Pope has the authority of Christ himself over ALL but must use the power in different ways w/ unfaithful v. faithful 2) Christians are by DIVINE LAW supposed to evangelize to unfaithful 1) Xtn monarchs occupt a special position for conversion of unfaithful 7) divided political realms exist so that some can preach faith to others 8) divided pol realms do NOT exist to further material wealth 10) real princes etc exist in other kingdoms far away; these dominions not abolished w/advent of Christ 11) those who oppose 10 = heretics 12) for NO sin should the unfaithful be deprived of their dominions 13) unfaithful cannot be punished by WORLDLY judges unless they prohibit the spread of faith directly, and have been warned not to do so. 19) All kings of these other places will ACCEPT monarchs of Castile as universal sovereign after having received our holy faith and sacred baptism of their own free will; and if before receiving these they do not do so or wish to do so, they cannot be punished by any judge or court. 22) The rulers of Castile are obliged by divine law to see that the faith is PREACHED. BUT must preach with gentleness 23) do not preach aggressively, like Mohammed do it gently, easily, like Christ 28) encomienda and repartimiento = BAD impossible for these people to receive the faith. 30) everything done in the new world WITHOUT the sanction of the monarchs of Castille = null and void. Vitoria - lawyer - international law republic of the WHOLE WORLD - school of Salamanca o reconcile reformation and Acquinas w/new world order - law is in NATURE ITSELF, therefore al are a part of it. - All humans share the same NATURE, therefore they all share the same RIGHTS 85

2x realms of power: natural and supernatural o leads to the proposals that there are LIMITS on powers of government England: EXTENDING the divine right of kings This school: putting that divine right in people Rights of peoples First to say that the common good of the WORLD is superior to that of STATES Just war: only when used to prevent an even GREATER evil o Self-defense o Against a tyrant o Against a guilty enemy Needs to be COMENSURATE, not more force in response People have a right to depose their govt if they believe its waging an unjust war

all forms of domino derive from natural or human law; therefore they cannot be annulled by lack of faith. this title against the barbarians is also invalid the Spaniards, when they first sailed to the land of the barbarians, carried w/them no right to occupy their countries.

Shifting Categories
The confrontation with peoples who look, sound, and act differently leaves Europeans flummoxed. How should the existence of these peoples be understood? Into which preexisting categories should they be slotted? Children? Women? The Retarded? The Insane? Animals? S, 6) and since furthermore these Indians were otherwise so cowardly and timid that they could barely endure the presence of our soldiers. Scattered in flight like women before the Spaniards. S: those who are retarded or slow to understand are by nature slaves, and it is proper and useful that they be so. If they reject such rule, then it can be imposed upon them by means of arms, and such a war will be just according to the laws of nature. the Spanish have a perfect right to rule these barbarians of the New World and the adjacent islands, who in prudence, skill, virtues, and humanity are as inferior to the Spanish as children to adults, or women to men I might even say between apes and men. these half-men who not only do not possess any learning at all, but are not even literate or in possession of any monument to their history except for some obscure and vague reminiscences of several things put down in various paintings; nor do they have written laws

86

Source Bases
The source bases these three writers rely on point to their formative influences and also shape the conclusions they go on to form. This seems particularly striking in the contrast between Sepulveda and de las Casas. Sepulveda, a philosopher, bases his conclusions on Aristotle, and argues that the natural inferiority of Indians justifies their enslavement. De las Casas, a friar, uses biblical exegesis to advocate an evangelical relationship between the Spanish and the Indians. Which of these positions was more likely to aid the Crowns conquest? Can one be read as more moral than another? Vitoria, a lawyer, seems to suggest the most radical way forward. In his eyes, all people, by virtue of being human, possess natural rights. His justification for this position is preceded by a careful analysis of different realms of jurisdiction: the natural, the human, and the divine realm. Here we see a foreshadowing of Locke, and the conclusion is potentially radical. We cannot, as humans, arbitrate in the divine realm; Vitoria thus brackets it. This leaves the natural and the human realms. Natural rights proceed states, and therefore should be prioritized above them. Whereas the crown in England, thanks to Henry the VIII, was that asserting divine rights lay in Kingship, Vitoria asserts that divine right lies in people. This begs the question: what role, if any, should states like Spain play in debating the rights of individuals and groups across the Atlantic? Are Indians and the Spanish equal? Vitoria ends his argument short of embracing such a radical conclusion (they are not yet equal, b/c the Spanish had enjoyed the privilege of exposure to the word of God), but his line of logic begins a chain that can be traced to the development of human rights discourses on a global scale, through the Enlightenment and beyond.

THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION Galileo & Descartes Summary Handout

The Enlightenment political and moral thought of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is inspired by, and depends on, the development of early modern science. The Scientific Revolution paves the way for Locke, Hume, Smith, Kant and company (Hume, after all, aspired to be the Newton of the mind). The Scientific Revolution begins with Copernicus (Nikolai Koppernigk, a Polish monk). Starting around 1509, Copernicus set himself the task of arriving at a more accurate model of the motions of the heavenly bodies, so that the Church could carry out a calendar reform. The dominant model of the solar system was a geocentric one, originally inspired by Aristotle and developed mathematically by Ptolemy. The task of the astronomer was to construct the orbits of the planets by composing them out of circular motions (this accords with the Aristotelian idea that the heavens are made up of a special element, the quintessence, whose natural motion, unlike those

87

of the four terrestrial elements, is circular). From antiquity it had been recognized that the motions of the planets are anomalous, in that, at particular times, observations taken on consecutive nights reveal them reversing their dominant direction of motion. The standard devices for dealing with this are the epicycledeferent system, the eccentric, and the equant. The first is easy to explain: you imagine that the planet describes a small circle whose center moves uniformly on a larger circle. Post-Ptolemaic astronomers had invested enormous efforts in trying to use these devices to generate an accurate account of the planetary motions. Handicapped in part by observational inaccuracies, the models they produced remained problematic. Copernicus took up this problem with all the resources of medieval astronomy (he has been described as the last medieval astronomer). He struggled with it for more than thirty years, eventually producing a system that was more accurate than any extant rival. His approach stemmed from a reluctance to use one of the standard devices (the equant), and he seems to have seen, relatively early, that he could avoid this by supposing that the sun was the center of the orbits of the earth and the other planets; this supposition also allowed him to dispense with a number of epicycles, but, while he deployed fewer than the Ptolemaic systems, his model retained a significant number of epicycles (about 50). Copernicus recognized that his approach faced a number of objections based on the prevailing views about motion (views derived from Aristotles Physics). He sought to defuse these by various arguments in the style of late scholasticism (some of them derive from a predecessor, Nicole Oresme, a fifteenth century scholar in Paris). Reluctant to publish, Copernicus was prodded into completing his major book On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (a title resonant with the accepted Aristotelian cosmology) and, supposedly, the first printed copy was placed in his hands as he lay dying in 1543. There was no immediate hostile Catholic response. Protestants were far more worried about Copernicus suggestion that the earth moved, and they raised the objection that this would be at odds with the Biblical verse reporting Joshuas command to the sun to stand still. Relatively quickly, however, it was recognized that, for any heliocentric (sun-centered) system there is a mathematically equivalent geocentric (earth-centered) model. Although the geocentric accounts are a bit more complicated, they could be taken to represent the real motions. Mathematicians could save themselves some pains by working with the heliocentric systems, conceiving of them as useful shorthand devices for making predictions but not as corresponding to the ways in which the heavenly bodies actually moved. (It would be like assuming that the earth is perfectly flat for purposes of exploring the motions of bodies near its surface.) This useful strategy of disinterpretation effectively ended sixteenth-century controversy. Its been estimated that there were very few scholars before 1600 who thought that heliocentrism was literally true less than ten. There were 88

occasionally people willing to speculate more radically than Copernicus had done, for example, Giordano Bruno who claimed that the universe was infinite in spatial extent, and who was burned at the stake in 1600. A very few appreciated the mathematical features of Copernicus system. Tycho Brahe, a Dutch nobleman, set up an observatory to make more accurate measurements, and proposed a compromise system that retained some of the advantages of heliocentrism without arousing worries about the motion of the earth; on Brahes scheme, the planets revolve around the sun, and the sun revolves around the earth; (the principal troubles with this arise if you try to make dynamical sense of it but that would not have been a common concern in the late sixteenth century). Brahe attracted a young assistant, Johann Kepler, who had been taught by one of the few sixteenth-century Copernicans. Kepler was convinced of the accuracy of Brahes observations, and set himself the task of using them to calculate a completely accurate Copernican model. His intellectual journey led him down many blind alleys, and, since he recorded all these in his published reports, his books are extremely hard to read. After liberating himself from the thought that motions must be composed out of elementary circular motions, he first proposed that the orbits were ovoid in shape, and eventually worked his way to the claim that they are elliptical (Keplers First Law buried in his astronomical presentations). Kepler recognized this at the end of the first decade of the seventeenth century. Very few people understood what he had accomplished. Galileo, who corresponded with him, did not; indeed, Galileo continued to believe in circular orbits to his death in 1642. Galileo was born in 1564, the son of a musician. Trained in mathematics and natural philosophy, he probably became a Copernican towards the end of the sixteenth century. In 1608 he is supposed to have heard of a Dutch lensmaker who had combined lenses to produce magnified images, and he used the idea to make the first telescope. Turning it on the sky, he identified the moons of Jupiter (the Medicean planets), the phases of Venus, and sunspots all recorded in his Starry Messenger (1610). The power of the telescope could be demonstrated on earth by turning it on distant objects whose properties could be checked by viewing them from close up (ships coming into the Venetian harbor, for example). But there were objections to the use of the telescope in the heavens, for, according to Aristotelian cosmology, the heavens were made of different stuff, and it could by no means be assumed that an instrument fashioned from mundane elements (sublunary matter) could disclose the properties of bodies made from the quintessence. From 1610 until 1615, Galileo campaigned tirelessly for the accuracy of the telescope as an astronomical instrument, by establishing the continuity of observations made with the naked eye and with telescopes of different power, by using the observations of new stars in the heavens (novae were seen in 1588 and 1604) to dispute the changelessness of the supposedly immutable heavens, and, most importantly, by improving both the telescopes and the techniques for using them. By 1615, the overwhelming majority of the learned world had accepted his claim that the telescope could provide accurate information about the heavens. 89

Galileo proposed to use the telescopic findings to make a case for heliocentrism, but, in 1616, Cardinal Bellarmine intervened, declaring that public teaching of Copernicanism was forbidden. Only in the early 1620s, when Matteo Barberini, a friendly interlocutor of Galileos, became Pope (Urban VIII) was there some relaxation of the ban. Galileo was led to understand that he might publish a judicious discussion of the rival claims of different astronomical systems. Deciding to write in dialogue form, he completed the Dialogue Concerning the Two Great Systems of the World and submitted the text for Papal scrutiny in 1632. The Dialogue was a devastating critique of Aristotelian cosmology and physics, and Ptolemaic astronomy, both defended by a character, Simplicio, who is inevitably outargued by the two other figures, Salviati (Copernicus spokesman) and Sagredo (an allegedly neutral figure). The official conclusion is a decision to agree that, despite the appearances, God might have created a geocentric universe that looks deceptively heliocentric a position raised in cavalier fashion on the closing page, and a position that happened to be that defended by Barberini in his earlier conversations with Galileo. The papal office inspected the Dialogue, and summoned Galileo to Rome. He was shown the instruments of torture and commanded to recant. He complied, although the apocryphal story is that he muttered under his breath Eppur se muove (It does move, all the same). He was sentenced to house arrest, outside Florence. But the damage was done. The Dialogue was published and read in many European countries. In it Galileo had responded to the classic objections to the motion of the earth (such as the worry that clouds and birds would be left behind) by offering cogent arguments about local motion (many of which depended on thought experiments that draw on familiar observations). The telescopic observations were deployed to raise trouble for geocentric views, and effectively, Galileo was able to show that the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic position faced insuperable difficulties, while the Copernican system could overcome what had originally seemed severe problems. In the last decade of his life, Galileo continued to work on issues about motion, formulating his thoughts in Discourses Concerning Two New Sciences, a manuscript that was smuggled out of Italy. The Discourses offers the results about motion of falling bodies under uniform acceleration for which Galileo is famous. Essentially, Galileo provided us with modern kinematics. But he wasnt the only figure working on problems of motion. From the early 1630s on, Descartes had been elaborating scientific results across a range of disciplines. The Discourse on Method was originally published as a prefatory piece to three other discourses, one on geometry, one on optics, and one on meteorology. The geometrical work is notable for its introduction of Cartesian coordinates, and the formulation of previously unsolvable problems in algebraic terms; (Descartes 90

greatly developed the algebra of the sixteenth century French lawyer Franois Vite). The optics provide laws of reflection and refraction; (Descartes independently discovered Snells Law). The meteorological work provides the first explanation of the rainbow. Yet, mindful of the fate of Galileo, in the 1630s he kept his large-scale system of physics to himself. That system saw the universe as a vast machine, made up of small particles operating under laws of motion. Descartes was quite willing to extend the conception to all bodies, including those of animals and of human beings, and he sought a mechanical explanation of the motions of planets. Many other thinkers of the time (Hobbes and Gassendi, for example) also believed in the thesis that all bodies were composed of atomic corpuscles (the corpuscular hypothesis), but they did not develop the kind of dynamical account attempted by Descartes.

Changes of social role

Part of the shift in this period consists in new ideas about the relative importance of certain kinds of intellectual endeavors. This is most evident in the case of mathematics, a subject which, from the medieval perspective is subordinate to philosophy; Renaissance mathematicians sometimes served as entertainers at princely courts (Tartaglia and Cardano, early solvers of cubic equations without explicit algebraic notation, would amuse the aristocracy by publicly finding the answers to challenging problems). By the late seventeenth century, mathematics has come to be recognized as an important autonomous discipline, and as the key to main areas of physical science. Galileo writes that the Book of Nature is written in the language of mathematics, an amazing statement from an Aristotelian perspective. Theres a simultaneous upgrading of various kinds of practical knowledge, and the displacing of some exercises of theological argumentation. This being granted, I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not form the authority of scriptural passages, but from sense-experiences and necessary demonstrations. - G

Claims about method

The major contributors to the substantive science frequently articulate their views about method. This is especially obvious with Descartes, who plainly views himself as having the key to a more enduring corpus of knowledge.

Social organization of inquiry

One of the big features of the period is that inquiry into the natural world becomes assigned to a new group of people, often to people who are outside universities. There spring up informal networks of investigators as in the group linked by the French friar Mersenne. Eventually, we get the first scientific societies, both in

91

Britain and in France. These are sometimes quite self-consciously opposed to the schools, to universities and to Aristotelianism. I am referring at all times to merely physical propositions, and not to supernatural things which are matters of faith. -G

Galileos Letter
Galileo is making a very ambitious claim. Hes supposing that highly-disputed theses about remote objects force a non-literal reading of the scripture. Typically, his style of argument combines both attack and defense. He tries to show that a literal interpretation would make no sense if the Aristotelian view of the planetary motions were correct. What exactly does Galileo have to go on at this stage? The telescopic observations. But you should also point out that he faces a serious difficulty, about which he knows. If Copernicanism were true, the stars ought to be seen at different angles at different times of the year; think of sitting on a carousel as you go round, you see the surrounding objects at different angles. But, as every learned person knew, you dont observe any such changes of angle (this phenomenon, stellar parallax, only became observable in the nineteenth century, when telescopes were greatly improved). Galileos response correct, in fact is that the stars are vastly further away than they have been taken to be. Not only does he lack a body of convincing evidence for that, but it can easily be seen as pushing Copernicanism in the direction of an infinite universe. So Galileos argument was much harder to make than it may appear to us today. What exactly are the methods for acquiring knowledge of the natural world? To what extent can religious texts help us? Should we even think of them as in the business of providing insights into natural phenomena? I hold the sun to be situated motionless in the center of the revolution of the celestial orbs while the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun. Every truth is in agreement with all other truth.

Descartess Method
Failure to articulate explicit principles of sound investigation allows the haphazard development of opinion, Descartes believes - much of it false. The remedy is to delineate, as exactly as possible, the criteria for the adoption of new truths. This is the task that Descartes undertakes in the Discourse on Method. He wants a method of discovery that will build up knowledge systematically in such a way that we wont be led off track by premature settling of issues. He thinks such a method exists because he takes himself to have worked by one probably implicitly in his early

92

discoveries about nature. With such a method in place, the ramshackle mess that has descended from Aristotle can give way to a complete system of precise knowledge. What is the method? Plainly inspired by the case of mathematics, Descartes proposes four rules: 1) not to admit anything doubtful 2) to resolve problems into parts [academic disciplines, kinds of knowledge] 3) to start with the easiest and simplest things 4) to engage in complete reviews of all the steps. But putting forward this essay merely as a story or, if you prefer, as a fable in which, among some examples one can imitate, one will perhaps also find many others which one will have reason not to follow, I hope that it will be useful to some without being harmful to anyone But he will conform to certain moral conventions while performing the methos. He will: 1) obey laws of country 2) be firm and resolute in actions as he could follow any path he set for himself 3) always conquer SELF rather than fortune 4) review occupations of live and pick best one for him (knowledge-seeker)

Descartess Meditations
Descartes Meditations is often seen as the founding text of modern philosophy. The third level of methodological presentation, sketched in the Discourse and elaborated in the Meditations, attempts to give more substance to the idea of a foundation for knowledge in the operations of pure reason by showing how an individual can move from a state of complete doubt to one of knowing all sorts of things about the physical world. The Main Issues of the Meditations Systematic Doubt. Does the fact that our senses sometimes incline us to believe things that are false cast any general doubt on the beliefs we acquire by means of perception? Can we make sense of the idea that we might always be dreaming? Or that we might be mad? In both of these cases cant we draw a contrast between dreams (or madness) and wakeful states (sanity) within our experience? The Cogito. Everyone associates Cogito, ergo sum with Descartes. Why is Descartes so convinced of this? Does he make a genuine inference (I think therefore I am)? If so, how is he so sure of the premise (I think)? Should he have any confidence in a subject of thought or just make the more minimal claim that 93

there is thought? Couldnt one raise skeptical doubts about the language he employs? Objections raised to the Cogito: - just b/c something is doing the thinking, doesnt mean that its I - should have said thinking is occurring o Nietzsche would make this criticism Instead of I think, it should be it thinks Just the way we say it rains o Kirkegaard also made it: - "x" thinks I am that "x" Therefore I think Therefore I am o Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing. o Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I" 's existence as that which thinks. Kierkegaard argues that Descartes is merely developing the content of a concept, namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks. Qualities in the objects. At the end of Meditation 2, Descartes introduces a very important example, one that sets the stage for many arguments among his successors. He uses a thought experiment about a piece of wax to suggest that there are some features of appearances that dont correspond to anything external. So the program of reconstructing the world is going to turn out to be quite revisionary: we arent going to get all our common sense views back. By bringing the wax closer to the fire, some of its apparent properties change. Descartes argues that the wax itself remains, despite the apparent loss of some qualities. On this basis, he distinguishes between those properties essential to the wax the important ones such as extension in space, flexibility, and mutability, and those like its smell. The move he is making is to view certain parts of the appearances of things as stemming from us; they are products, at least in part, of our minds. Other parts are genuinely in the world, and they are the basic properties on which everything else (including the appearances) depends. This yields a metaphysical foundation for the mechanical philosophy. The world, in itself, is a swarm of colorless, odorless corpuscles, particles that possess such primary qualities as extension, shape, and motion. A full objective description of nature could be given in terms of the ways in which the totality of particles moves. Everything else is derivative. This picture has been immensely influential. It was adopted by many of Descartes contemporaries and successors Gassendi, Hobbes, Boyle, Locke, and Newton, for 94

example. It gave rise to many research programs in eighteenth and nineteenth century science, some of them quite successful. God. Of course, at the end of Meditation 2 we havent any assurance of the existence of an external world. Strictly speaking, we ought to think of the example of the wax as drawing a distinction between two kinds of properties of the appearances in the Cartesian theater, those that endure under change and those that dont. Descartes route to the external world leads through the existence of God; but that may be a tendentious way of putting things, since an important part of the project may be to renew rational theology. Ultimately, Descartes will use the existence of God to vindicate the thesis that whatever appears to us clearly and distinctly is true. The trouble is that his proof of the existence of God seems to deploy that thesis as a premise, and the conclusion that God exists then serves as supporting argument for the premise. This is the famous Cartesian circle. Scholars have labored mightily to extricate Descartes to no definitive conclusion yet. Mind and Body. The discussion of Meditation 6 renews and extends the themes of the example of the wax. Descartes distinguishes between the realm of mental contents and the things that belong to external objects; pain, for example, isnt in the fire. Bodies are explicitly conceived as mechanisms (thus pointing towards a thoroughgoing treatment in terms of the physics of motion). Minds are different. In particular, they are indivisible. The dualist view that the world consists in two sorts of things bodies and immaterial minds has been enormously influential.

HOBBES, The LEVIATHAN Summary Handout

Life is but a motion of limbs. Hobbes was born in 1588, the year of the Spanish Armada. As a young man he Hobbes served as tutor and secretary to a number of prominent people (including Bacon, but most consistently the Cavendish family). Educated in classical humanities, Hobbes discovered the exact sciences in mid-life, and thereafter became convinced of the demonstrative character of geometry (his model for all science). He visited Galileo, corresponded with many of the luminaries of the age (including Descartes), and was a principal figure on the British intellectual scene. From 1640-51, Hobbes lived in France, avoiding the Civil War, an event that made a profound impact upon him. Leviathan was published in 1651. Many people viewed it as an evil (atheistical) book, and it was burned at Oxford. Hobbes engaged in a number

95

of controversies, particularly with members of the nascent Royal Society. He died in 1679.

Context: England in the 17thC

English Civil War/ English Revolution (later term favoured by Marxists like Christopher Hill)
3x wars btw 1642-1651 Official battle lines btw Parliamentarians (Roundheads) and Royalists (Cavaliers) Important b/c establishes precedent that English crown cannot govern without the consent of Parliament tho not officially established until the Glorious Revolution later in century.

1625

Charles I ascends

Nov 1640

Charles bows to pressure, finally calls Parl back for real needs money.

Jan 1842

Charles tries to arrest 5 members of Parliament, storms House, but cant find them

Charles only mild ambitions, but expected them to be obeyed w/out question. Married a French Catholic Princess, a Bourbon. Wanted to take part in thirty years war. Began to fine Puritans around the country for not attending Anglican church services. Didnt call parliament for over ten years autocratic tho this meant he had very little $$ to spend. New, angry Parliament passes laws: King cant tax w/out Ps consent, P gets say over Ks ministry, P must meet every 3 years. People also beginning to polerise against King, b/c of things like imposition of drainage of the Fens, for which King awarded only select people the contracts. 1641 Irish Rebellion warfare there for much of the period. 1649 Cromwell kills 3500 people at Drogheda Royalist (catholic) supporters. After failing to do this, he leaves the London area in fear of his safety. Places begin to take sides. Generally, cities and ports favour Parl (esp southeast), and rural areas favour King (esp northwest)

Jan 1849

Charles I beheaded

96

1649

1653

Charles I executed, his son Charles II exiled, and replacement of Monarchy with Common wealth of England Protectorate headed by Oliver Cromwell

Cromwell steps in and takes control b/c of infighting in Parliament. Essentially a military dictatorship Cromwells son Richard steps in and takes place as Lord Protector. But army has little confidence in him. Army removed Richard after 7 months before finally dissolving into its own faction. Bourbon Catholic monarchy restored, but parliament more active. Charles II gained reputation as fun loving and easy going. Theaters and other fun things had been closed by Cromwell and the Puritans, and when reopened by Charles II new genre of Restoration Comedy emerged. Last Catholic Monarch. Deposed by his Protestant daughter. Jacobites form, taking name from James, in order to restore the Stuarts to the English/Scottish thrones. Both Charles II and James II brothers, sons of Charles I grow up in France and brought back a softened attitude toward the Catholic Church, with a deep respect for absolutism and broad religious tolerance. James = Catholic, Mary and Orange = Protestant. The Stuarts lived in France and Spain from then on, and occasionally those governments attempted to help Stuarts regain the throne. Company had a monopoly on trade with all Spanish territories, south America, and the west coast of north America. Within the colonies, the Glorious Revolution instituted the idea that the people could overthrow and replace a ruler they deemed unsuitable; uprisings against royal

1658

Cromwell dies; Protectorate ends

Restoration

1660

Charles II 1660-85 son of executed King declared King all along by new Parliament

1685- Dec 1688

James II

Glorious Revolution

1688

James the II and VII deposed by daughter Mary II and her husband (and first cousin) William of Orange.

97

governors occurred in all the colonies after this.

1707

Act of Union creates Kingdom of Great Britain

The state of nature

Hobbess fundamental premise rests on the equality of people: we are share an equal capacity for rapaciousness (Ch 6). Competition is inevitable because we all have needs that are hard to fulfill indeed that can only be fulfilled through the frustration of similar needs in others. Diffidence comes from the fact that, even when we have taken steps to meet our needs, we constantly have to worry that those whose needs have not been met will find ways to deprive us of what we have so far obtained. Glory is the product of something Hobbes views as a different kind of basic propensity in human nature, the desire not only to have but to have more. But were people ever in a Hobbesian state of nature? Hobbes denies that he is telling a historical story. He does suggest that there are isolated places that remain in a state of nature (America). The real point is that sliding back into the state of nature is always a possibility for us; the Civil War is very much on Hobbes mind. Life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

War
Humans in the state of nature constantly face the threat of war. But what does Hobbes mean by war? Its not the actual occurrence of violence all around that is so dreadful, but the constant threat of such violence Why does this threat arise? Hobbes tells us that there are three principal causes: 1) competition 2) diffidence 3) glory Even though ultimately itll be possible to provide for the needs of all (once we have the state in place), we cant get it without the powers of enforcement provided by the state. Why not? Because, Hobbes believes, there can be no incentive to engage in a long-term project if the rewards of your labor are going to be taken from you (or stand a high chance of being taken).

98

The difference between man and man, is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit, to which another may not pretend, as well as he. And therefore if two men desire the same thing, they become enemies. Only the establishment of the Leviathan will protect us from our fellow men. A multitude of men, are made one person, when they are by one man, or one person, represented

The Leviathan
After establishing his conception of human nature in Book 1, Hobbes goes on in Book 2 to delineate the Leviathan. Why submit to the Leviathan? Because most reliably protects your interests. Game theory helps to understand these tradeoffs, as we walked through in class: Prisoners Dilemma Player 2 C Player 1 D <10,0> <2,2> C <7,7> D <0,10>

The table tells you that, if Player 1 performs the action C and Player 2 performs the action C, both will get 7 welfare points, being relatively well off; if #1 does C and #2 does D, #1 will get 0 and #2 will get 10, so that #1 will do badly and #2 will do very well. Hobbes state of nature is often viewed as a situation in which the individual actors are forced to play PD with one another. The logic of his argument can then be taken to run as follows. In the absence of any authority that can enforce cooperation, the agents will head for the grim outcome of mutual defection and life will be solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short. But if theres a power with the sword, it can compel each agent to cooperate, leading to the much happier outcome of mutual cooperation. Covenants, without the sword, are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.

Hobbes Ethics
At first glance, Hobbes would seem committed to a version of ethical subjectivism. He repeatedly tells us that, in the state of nature, theres no right or wrong (see e.g. 188). Its easy to think, therefore, that the only conceptions of right, wrong, justice, injustice etc. are those introduced within particular societies. Once a group of people have made a

99

covenant with one another and have established a sovereign, then we can talk about justice (and so forth) in terms of the laws laid down by that sovereign. Actions are required just in case there are rules that demand them of us. (Notice that Hobbes could build in a distinction between ethics and the law, by supposing that there are separate kinds of acts of rule-making.) Despite the strong appearance of a subjective approach to ethics, Hobbes might turn out to be an objectivist. The problem posed in the state of nature is one of our selfpreservation. Solving that problem might generate strong constraints, so that any framework of laws and norms that genuinely promoted peace would have to include particular requirements and liberties. Whatsoever we imagine is finite. Therefore there is no idea, or conception of any thing we call infinite.

The Commonwealth Itself

In the Leviathan, the power of the sovereign is absolute. The individuals make covenants with one another, but they do not make a covenant with the sovereign. It follows, according to Hobbes, that nothing the sovereign does can be a breach of covenant, or in violation of law. Hobbes sovereign may be read, from the beginning, as referring to a single individual (a monarch). Chap 19 attempts to argue for the view that, typically, the purposes for which the sovereign is introduced will be better served by concentrating power in the hands of a monarch than by setting up a representative assembly. Throughout, Hobbes guiding idea seems to be that the alternatives to monarchy retain some of the worrying features of the state of nature.

LOCKE and HUME Summary Handout

Locke was born in 1632 and died in 1704. After being educated at Oxford, he trained as a physician, and became the medical advisor to the future Earl of Shaftesbury. Shaftesbury was prominent in post-Restoration politics, at times holding high office, although he was also in political and legal trouble because of his resistance to the Catholic leanings of Charles II (and his brother, later James II). Locke was probably involved in political movements and plots for which others were arrested and executed, and he spent much of the 1680s in exile in Holland. He became famous for his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (a work in metaphysics and epistemology), but published the Treatises on Government and the Letter on Toleration anonymously. The Second Treatise was written before the bloodless revolution of 1688 in which James II fled the country, and in which William of Orange (a Dutch prince) and his wife Mary (James daughter) assumed

100

the throne; its easy, however, to recognize the concord between the Second Treatise and the political movement that eventually gave rise to the events of 1688 a leader who fails to protect basic rights of the citizens is overthrown. Locke was a member of the Royal Society, and a friend of Newton and Boyle. Like Newton, he tended to Unitarianism in matters of religion.

The Second Treatise

Locke wrote a first Treatise in opposition to Sir Robert Filmers defense of patriarchy. Filmer argued for a theory of political authority that began with Gods granting of power to Adam, and the descent of kingship among Adams descendants. Plenty of mid- and late-seventeenth century Englishmen were bound to find this account worrying, and Filmer was attacked by several authors. It hardly needed Lockes genius to demolish the theory. The Second Treatise can be read as a positive answer to Filmers question: From what does the power of states (and monarchs) derive? The task is to show how there can be legitimate authority. Like Hobbes before him, Locke views the justification of the state as stemming from the decisions of citizens to grant powers to some central institution that will serve the citizens ends. Of course, he differs from Hobbes in his conception of the predicament of people in the absence of a state, and specifically in his views about the rights of people antecedent to the state. Lockes answer develops in three stages. First, he offers a general account of the state of nature, explicitly distinguishing it from a state of war. Second, he develops a view of property. The bulk of the Treatise is devoted to an account of how individuals can enter into agreement with one another to introduce a legitimate authority. The State of Nature Locke plainly has a richer conception of natural law (and natural right) than Hobbes. In section 6, we learn that no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. There have to be some restrictions on these natural rights, since some actions (ferocious violence towards others, for example) would forfeit them. Instead of claiming that theres no executive, with power to enforce the laws of nature, he maintains that, in the state of nature, we all have this power. As he notes (section 13), this can easily lead to disorder. Even though he distinguishes it from the state of war, he doesnt pretend that the state of nature is completely secure. There are reasons why we need to turn to the political state. Its easy to read Hobbes as conjuring up agents who are relentlessly pursuing their own selfish goals. Participants in Lockes state of nature might find themselves in

101

trouble not because they are selfish (or driven by Glory) but simply because they disagree on the facts: some suppose that an individual deserves punishment; others dont see why, and take the punitive posse to be out of line; and things escalate from there. in the state of nature every one has the executive power of the law of nature.

Property
Lockes conceptions of natural rights rest on property ownership: I own myself I have rights to myself I have rights to acquire things to help myself (food, material goods) Therefore I come to own those things once I mix them with myself (by eating them, as in food; by adding my labor, as in land I till). Locke offers here an analysis of original acquisition. Original acquisition takes place when one person appropriates something that has not previously been marked out as private by anyone else; the first condition for legitimate original acquisition is thus that the item acquired be so far unowned. There are two further constraints: first, you can legitimately acquire only what you can use (this can easily be linked to divine commands against waste); second, you must leave enough and as good for others. Locke articulates the first proviso by suggesting that legitimate original acquisition involves mixing your labor with the object acquired. This is easy to understand in the case of land. You mix your labor with the land by cultivating it, and the first condition here takes the form of requiring that you not acquire more than you can cultivate. Quite clearly, most of the property owned in Lockes time, as in ours, was not acquired through original acquisition. Its legitimacy must arise from processes of transfer. Legitimate transfer can occur through the process of free gift, as happens across the generations when some people inherit the legitimate possessions of others. It can also occur through trade and barter, perhaps first without any medium of exchange, but for recorded history through the use of money. Locke doesnt say much, however, about the conditions that ought to govern legitimate transfer. When is transfer legitimate? When not? Should you be allowed to pass on to another more than that other can make use of? Should you be allowed to obtain so much of some desirable commodity that theres no longer enough and as good for others?

Government by Consent
Locke offers us a version of a social contract theory of the state. He poses the problem very clearly at the beginning of Chapter 9. Having already argued that to

102

consent to a government is to place yourself and your possessions under the dominion of that government, he asks (section 123) why anyone should give up their freedom to do as they please. His answer is akin to Hobbes in one obvious way: we give up a certain kind of liberty to obtain security (which, it might be argued, itself expands our liberty). He goes on to list three ways in which we improve our situation in the state of nature: by having a fixed standard of agreedupon law instead of constant disagreement, by replacing the vengeance of those who may be personally involved with that of an indifferent judge, and by setting up a situation in which therell be sufficient power to enforce the law against anyone who breaks it. These three considerations provide reasons for replacing the state of nature with the political state. Given his concerns about the Hobbesian sovereign, and given the political strife Locke had seen in his own times, he wants to find ways of protecting the citizens against the abuse of centralized power. Principal among these is the idea of dividing the legislative body from the executive body. The state is legitimate because the people have consented to it; the people consent because they expect certain kinds of benefits and protections; when the benefits and protections are not provided, they have a right to rebel against the existing state and fashion one that can deliver what they have expected.

Letter on Toleration
Locke argues in the Letter that belief isnt voluntary. Hence, even if there are people who dont have the beliefs required for salvation, you cant force them to acquire them. Religious professions that persecution of heretics is designed to save souls are thus hypocritical cover for fanaticism and cruelty. Two groups, it seems, Locke would find difficult to reconcile into his schema: atheists and Catholics (or any corporate group that combines civil and ecclesiastical authority).

Humes Original Contract

David Hume (1711-1776) was a Scottish philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist, known especially for his philosophical empiricism and skepticism. He is regarded as one of the most important figures in the history of Western philosophy and the Scottish Enlightenment. Hume is often grouped with John Locke, George Berkeley, and a handful of others as a British Empiricist. Hume strove to create a total naturalistic "science of man" that examined the psychological basis of human nature. A prominent figure in the skeptical philosophical tradition and a strong empiricist, he argued against the existence of innate ideas,

103

concluding instead that humans have knowledge only of things they directly experience. Thus he divides perceptions between strong and lively "impressions" or direct sensations and fainter "ideas," which are copied from impressions. He developed the position that mental behavior is governed by "custom"; our use of induction, for example, is justified only by our idea of the "constant conjunction" of causes and effects. Without direct impressions of a metaphysical "self," he concluded that humans have no actual conception of the self, only of a bundle of sensations associated with the self. BOTH the Whig and Tory positions of his time were incorrect, argued Hume. Tories, who argue the monarchs authority stemmed from God, the Whigs from an original contract, but neither connections could be definitively proven. Position A: traces govt to the Deity (TORY) Renders govt so sacred that its sacrilegious to rebel, no matter how tyrannical it becomes Position B: traces govt to the people (WHIG) Argues that there is an ORIGNAL CONTRACT which the people made w/the sovereign, which they therefore have the right to overturn. DHs Argument: 1) BOTH sides JUST, but NOT in the sense they intend. 2) Both sides practical consequences in general = prudent, but not when taken to extremes Re: A: - no one will deny the Deity = ultimate author of govt (if you believe in providence) o BUT even if he gave RISE to it, a sov CANT be his vice-regent b/c the whole point is that hes HIDDEN. ANYONE w/ sovereignty must therefore trace that sovereignty back to god therefore a constable no less than a kind, acts by a divine commission, and possesses an indefeasible right. Re: B: - all men equal in bodily FORCE, so yes, it must be true: there must have been an agreement at some stage consent to associate them together therefore no one will deny original contract o BUT people wouldnt have understood it in that way an idea far beyond the comprehension of savages (2) therefore hard to affirm w/certainty the govts authority But philosophers insist on maintaining that people would consented. BUT how can you demonstrate this? You cant.

104

But being so ancient, and being obliterated by a thousand changes of government and princes, it cannot now be supposed to retain any authority. (2) Almost all govts which exist at present have been founded originally, either on usurpation or conquest, or both, without any presence of a fair consent or voluntary subjection of the people.

DHs INTENTION: - NOT to deny the consent of the people as being a source of legitimation o That is, after all, the best! - Its just that its never really happened o Therefore some other foundation of government must be admitted. By living under the dominion of a price which one might leave, every individual has given a tacit consent to his authority - but this a bit silly as well, as by birth you have no choice QUESTION: I may now ask, upon what foundation the princes title stands? To refute the notion of original contract, we need to accede the following: 1) all moral duties may be divided into two kinds a. those which men are compelled to by INSTINCT (love of children, etc) b. those performed by OBLIGATION (justice re: property of others, observance of promises SO WHY OBSERVE LAWS? Because society could not otherwise subsist The answer back: Because we should keep our word. The problem DH has with this: no body, till trained in a philosophical system, can either comprehend or relish this answer. Reason tells us there is no property in durable objects, such as lands or houses, when carefully examined in passing from hand to hand, but must, in some period, have been founded on fraud and injustice. The general obligation, which binds us to government, is the interest and necessities of society; and this obligation is very strong. Effect of this argument: he builds a TORY consequence of passive obedience on a WHIG foundation of the original contract.

105