Macheville, Hobbes, Johnson, Condorcet, & Humboldt

46 views7 pages
19 Apr 2012
Department
Course
Professor
18/04/2012
1
Modernity, Progress, Ideology
3 of the most contentious terms in the English language.
They emerge in the period from The [Italian] Renaissance to the French Revolution.
That is why I am reverting to chronological order for the last 4-5 theories of human
nature in the Malthusian era.
What is The Malthusian Era?
Chronologically it is the LONG, LONG period of human prehistory and history until
cir. 1800 C.E.
Intellectually it is a period of pessimism based on very good reasons.
It was a period in which life expectancy was very low and rates of poverty very high.
The Malthusian Era
In 1798 and 1802 Rev. Robert Thomas Malthus wrote and rewrote the book that
made him both famous and infamous explaining why population would always
outstrip our ability to feed people.
He was the main target of Charles Dickens’s
A Christmas Carol
: Scrooge personifies
Malthus’s views.
Pessimism versus Optimism
Prior to the 18th century there were few reasons to be optimistic about human beings
and the possibility of human progress.
Only after 1800 did such optimism become reasonable.
Yet the idea of such a possibility emerged in the 4 centuries cir. 1400-1800 WHY?
Machiavelli and Hobbes
Both are usually classed as pessimists or cynics or both about human nature.
Both would prefer to be regarded as realists.
The labels “conservative” and “individualist” may be either inappropriate or
anachronistic.
Machiavelli 1469-1527
We start with the person with the best claim to be the most pessimistic and finish
with the most optimistic [or 2 most optimistic]
He also has a legitimate claim to be the first modern political theorist or political
scientist.
Love, Fear and Hate
The Prince
is intended for political leaders and is based on a clearly expressed view
of human nature.
Humans arein general ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger,
and covetous of gain”.
In this sentence the allegedly sexist term “men” seems very appropriate in the
gender rather than species sense.
Love, Hate and Fear
If you cannot be loved make sure you are feared but not hated.
To instill fear you must be prepared to use very cruel punishments.
This includes the soldiers in your army as well as citizens.
Contrasts Hannibal and Scipio.
How to avoid being hated
Be sure to respect both the property and wimmin* of your citizens and subjects.
VERY important sentencemen forget more easily the death of their father than the
loss of their patrimony.
During the Malthusian era patrimony was more important than patriotism.
Final sentence of section 17 “men love of their free will but fear at the will of the
prince”.
* Phonetically [as well as politically correct] ways to spell the word “women”.
Section 18 Keeping faith
Argument based on both human nature and either Gyges Ring or Prisoners’ Dilemma
situations.
Loyalty and good faith are good things but because humans are not good they can
be costly.
Uses contemporary example of Alexander V1.
Reputation vs. reality
Every leader should desire a reputation as a moral and religious person but he will
frequently need to be the opposite.
“it is well to seem merciful, faithful, humane, sincere and religious, and also to be so,
but …when it is (necessary)* to be otherwise” you must be [do] the opposite.
* word change followed by my own words after ”.
Perception and Reality
Interesting point about human perception of other humans.
We judge by eyes not by the hands.
Seems strange until you see the point.
How do we judge people when we cannot read their minds?
We observe their behaviour and infer from that…..
Perception, Reality and Insight
“Everybody sees what you appear to be, few feel what you are”.
Fortunately for the (wise) prince society* “consists only of the vulgar**, and the few
who are not vulgar are isolated when the many” rally round the prince or the flag or
etc.
* My word to replace “world”.
** The term “vulgar, especially in phrases such as the “vulgar herd” by aristocratic
and academic snobs is used to put down “the average person”.
Means and ends and goals
OK suppose the end justifies the means: what is the end or goal?
Read carefully it is NOT the well being of the Prince himself but of his society or
state.
The prince or princess* is often “obliged, in order to maintain the state, to act
against faith…, charity… humanityreligion”
* there were actually a lot more female rulers in the last 1000 years in Europe than
you might expect.
Don’t blame Machiavelli
Blame either human nature or political rulers or both.
“If men were all good this precept would not be a good one; but as they are
bad…..you are not bound to keep faith with them”. p. 171 = “You are not morally
obligated to be a sucker or a saint”.
Machiavelli in the 20th & 21st C
Many politicians in past century were Machiavellian but more out of self-interest than
their society’s interest.
A few got away with violating his injunction against taking their citizens’ property and
wives. [Stalin, Mao and all other communist leaders and many others who were not
commies]
His theory may, however, explain why neither the League of Nations nor the present
UN has been able to guarantee peace and the protection of universal human rights.
Maybe the Arab Spring illustrates why he may be correct about fear and hatred.
THOMAS HOBBES 1588-1679
PROBLEM: The State of Nature
The State of Nature is stateless.
It means “A war of every man with every other man”*
Are “All humans created equal”? Yes and No.
We are equal in body and mind despite obvious differences.
The weakest can kill or overcome the strongest, but “How?”
* or better perhaps “A war of every clan with every other clan
Chapter XIII
Steps in the argument:
1
. From equality proceeds diffidence
.
2.
From diffidence proceeds war
.
3. From civil states there is war of all against all.
4.
The incommodities of such a war.
Leads to one of the greatest lines every written
“the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.
Chapter XI
MANNERS used in difference sense than in his day or ours.
Notice that paragraph 1 seems optimistic.
Despite his very negative view of human nature Hobbes thinks it is possible for
humans to live “in peace and unity” due to some of the “qualities of mankind”.
So, while his views are as negative and cynical as that of Machiavelli he is more
optimistic about avoiding constant strife.
The theory of human nature
1.
A restless desire for power in all men.
2. Competition leads to contention
3. Love of ease, fear and civil disobedience
4. Love of praise lead to love of virtue.
5. Hatred and fear: Hobbes is more democratic than Machiavelli.
6. Fear leads us to hurt others.
7. Egotism [= vainglory] leads to unsuccessful attempts at power or whatever.
8. But we also distrust our own wit i.e. intellectual cleverness.
Other weaknesses of humans
9. Ambition comes from overestimating our own wisdom especially re politics.
10. Our confidences in others come from ignorance of 2 types:
11. Ignorance of wisdom and kindness.
12. Ignorance of natural causes.
The Social Contract
Fortunately we humans are able to overcome all these impediments of our nature by
agreeing to a hypothetical social contract between ourselves and the ruler or rulers
[Hobbes preferred monarchy].
So we make a contract or covenant to give the ruler the power to enforce laws to
protect our lives and liberty and property from both internal (criminals and fellow
citizens) and external (other states) enemies.
Hobbes in the 21st Century
True, there never was a social contract but it sure as hell seems possible that much,
if not most, of human pre-history [no state or government] as well as much of
human history has been similar enough to his state of nature.
Finally, in the Malthusian era, even under reasonably good government, the life of
90% of people was mostly “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.
Samuel Johnson 1709-1795
According to Loptson, Johnson is important as:
(1) a human nature theorist;
(2) as a conservative individualist; and also
(3) as a Christian.
He also had extremely interesting criticisms of the US revolution of 1776.
“Why do the loudest yelps for liberty come from the worst bashers of the negroes?”
Interesting question from an alleged “conservative”!
Pessimistic but not cynical
In the 1776 US DOI Thomas Jefferson* wrote that “…….. all men are created
equal… ……inalienable rights… to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness”
His most pessimistic view is that, for the vast majority of humans, the pursuit of
happiness will be unsuccessful and/or disappointing.
* A Virginia slave-owner who got at least one of his female slaves pregnant.
The Life of Dr. Johnson [1760]
This excerpt raises a question about the consistency of Johnson’s view.
His moral principles (wishing for the happiness of all humanity) and political
principles (based on inequality between humans) seem inconsistent.
Happiness is very rare among humans.
Happiness and hope.
Happiness and getting drunk.
The Rambler [1750]
The most difficult of the 3 readings.
Main point is discussion of Stoic philosophy.
Don’t worry about things that you cannot control.
Don’t let your happiness depend on external circumstances. [// Buddhism]
Human nature cannot follow such advice reasonable though it is. Yet, up to a point,
we can try, usually without success.
The Idler [1760]
Final sentence before the Idler [180] is very interesting since it is based on, and
allegedly deduced from, his own theory of HN.
We seek things we cannot attain: The Idler; line 1 (1) Whatever is useful or
honourable.
(2) Everyone wishes to be wise but we will settle for being cunning.
(3) We try to procure a good reputation.
From Pessimism to Progressivism
Between 1415 and 1815 Europe went through many intellectual, cultural and political
upheavals.
The Renaissance.
The Reformation.
The Scientific Revolution.
The American and French Revolutions.
The beginnings of the Industrial Revolution [and a prior Agricultural Revolution].
Condorcet 1743-1794
Add one word to Loptson’s introduction: it is the French Enlightenment that was anti-
clerical as well as progressivist and rationalist but only to a point.
Many 18th century thinkers produced anti-rationalist and anti-progressive views.
Condorcet is one of the most optimistic of all our theoriststhe very opposite of the
previous 3, (especially S. Johnson).
Curious strategy perhaps
He asks a whole series of rhetorical questions which is not a good strategy when you
write an essay but can be effective in getting your point across.
Pp. 125-26: notice the similarity with some questions on the course outline.
The idea of progress begins with 2 different types of epistemological progress and
only later turns into the idea of social and political progress based often on the
former.
First four questions
1. Natural laws govern all phenomena.
2. Induction and inference.
3. Tacit determinism for the social sciences.
4. Induction by enumeration?
Interesting contrast with B.F. Skinner later who deduced anti-liberal political
principles from “Yes” answers to all the above. Condorcet does the opposite.
Freedom and its implications ….126-27
Negative
What the Marquis opposes:
Monopoly, Mercantilism,
Slavery, exploitation of Africa,
The misuse of Oriental religions by the rulers of Asian societies.
Positive
What the Marquis favours:
Free trade,
Individual rights and liberty,
Knowledge, reason,
Individuals as equals
The Science of Morality ….127
This title today is mostly regarded as an oxymoron or “category mistake”.
But the 18th century [mostly] thought that reason and science can justify as well as
explain human morality [final sentence, para 1, 127 RS] UNDERLINE THIS IN
COLOUR
Adopts another [great] idea of Adam Smith: the Moral Sense theory.
There are 9 rhetorical questions on p. 127 following the ….!!
The Perfectibility of Humanity ….127-128
Nature has planted a principle of benevolence in all human hearts.
This natural “moral goodness of man” is “capable of indefinite perfection. Is this the
same as “infinite perfectibility”?
The equality of the sexes will improve family life, extend education to both sexes and
eliminate conflicts of family interest and civic duties [128 RS].
Liberte´, Egalite´, Fraternite´
The sacred trinity of the French Revolution
P. 126: spread of liberty to Asia and Africa including [penultimate paragraph] being
open to the trade of Asia and Africa.
They will also be our brothers [= “fraternity”] 126 paragraph prior to penultimate
paragraph.
Equality “between societies as well as between individuals” 127 and even between
the sexes 128 (today we would probably say “genders”) Therefore it includes
Sororite´”!!!
War, Mercantilism, Cosmopolitanism ….126-27
1. Enlightened people will recognize they all have the right to “dispose of their own
life and wealth as they choose” and regard war as the most dreadful of scourges.
2. Mercantile prejudices will fade as well the desire or need to conquer other nations.
3. Nations will form a consensus on the principles of morals and politics and hence
share benefits equally and live in eternal peace and brotherhood.
Von Humboldt 1767-1835
Main points for now: (1) on p. 132: final full para LS “I therefore deduce, as the
natural inference from…….
(2) On p. 137: 5 points summarizing the essence of classical Liberalism and its
optimistic view of human nature.
(3) on p. 138:
final sentence entirely in italics.
Ch. VIII Amelioration of morals
The term “morals” is used in very wide sense unlike today.
Discussion includes the epistemology of sense experience.
Spirituality linked to sensuality.
Aesthetics included: music, painting poetry.
Attempts to link poetry and philosophy.
Morals, reason and happiness
Says “moral life, seems to be province of cold reason” [135]. He obviously has Kant
in mind.
Virtue and happiness should be united. [Kant in mind again!!]
It is not the business of the state to promote any positive morality.
Condorcet and van Humboldt
in the 21st Century
Final 3 paragraphs of Condorcet turned out to be over-optimistic which is too bad
since they are based on great ideas but….
His biggest mistake is to claim all this was “inevitable.
Unfortunately many in the 21st Century will dismiss the “old-fashioned” liberalism of
Condorcet and van Humboldt as ‘reactionary’, ‘right wing’, ‘libertarian”, ’irrelevant’
and out-dated for the new millenium. We have got off to a great start without
following their policies in the 21st Century haven’t we?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
1
2
3
4
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-2 of the document.
Unlock all 7 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
18/04/2012
2
Modernity, Progress, Ideology
3 of the most contentious terms in the English language.
They emerge in the period from The [Italian] Renaissance to the French Revolution.
That is why I am reverting to chronological order for the last 4-5 theories of human
nature in the Malthusian era.
What is The Malthusian Era?
Chronologically it is the LONG, LONG period of human prehistory and history until
cir. 1800 C.E.
Intellectually it is a period of pessimism based on very good reasons.
It was a period in which life expectancy was very low and rates of poverty very high.
The Malthusian Era
In 1798 and 1802 Rev. Robert Thomas Malthus wrote and rewrote the book that
made him both famous and infamous explaining why population would always
outstrip our ability to feed people.
He was the main target of Charles Dickens’s
A Christmas Carol
: Scrooge personifies
Malthus’s views.
Pessimism versus Optimism
Prior to the 18th century there were few reasons to be optimistic about human beings
and the possibility of human progress.
Only after 1800 did such optimism become reasonable.
Yet the idea of such a possibility emerged in the 4 centuries cir. 1400-1800 WHY?
Machiavelli and Hobbes
Both are usually classed as pessimists or cynics or both about human nature.
Both would prefer to be regarded as realists.
The labels “conservative” and “individualist” may be either inappropriate or
anachronistic.
Machiavelli 1469-1527
We start with the person with the best claim to be the most pessimistic and finish
with the most optimistic [or 2 most optimistic]
He also has a legitimate claim to be the first modern political theorist or political
scientist.
Love, Fear and Hate
The Prince
is intended for political leaders and is based on a clearly expressed view
of human nature.
Humans arein general ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger,
and covetous of gain”.
In this sentence the allegedly sexist term “men” seems very appropriate in the
gender rather than species sense.
Love, Hate and Fear
If you cannot be loved make sure you are feared but not hated.
To instill fear you must be prepared to use very cruel punishments.
This includes the soldiers in your army as well as citizens.
Contrasts Hannibal and Scipio.
How to avoid being hated
Be sure to respect both the property and wimmin* of your citizens and subjects.
VERY important sentencemen forget more easily the death of their father than the
loss of their patrimony.
During the Malthusian era patrimony was more important than patriotism.
Final sentence of section 17 “men love of their free will but fear at the will of the
prince”.
* Phonetically [as well as politically correct] ways to spell the word “women”.
Section 18 Keeping faith
Argument based on both human nature and either Gyges Ring or Prisoners’ Dilemma
situations.
Loyalty and good faith are good things but because humans are not good they can
be costly.
Uses contemporary example of Alexander V1.
Reputation vs. reality
Every leader should desire a reputation as a moral and religious person but he will
frequently need to be the opposite.
“it is well to seem merciful, faithful, humane, sincere and religious, and also to be so,
but …when it is (necessary)* to be otherwise” you must be [do] the opposite.
* word change followed by my own words after ”.
Perception and Reality
Interesting point about human perception of other humans.
We judge by eyes not by the hands.
Seems strange until you see the point.
How do we judge people when we cannot read their minds?
We observe their behaviour and infer from that…..
Perception, Reality and Insight
“Everybody sees what you appear to be, few feel what you are.
Fortunately for the (wise) prince society* “consists only of the vulgar**, and the few
who are not vulgar are isolated when the many” rally round the prince or the flag or
etc.
* My word to replaceworld”.
** The term “vulgar”, especially in phrases such as the “vulgar herd” by aristocratic
and academic snobs is used to put down “the average person”.
Means and ends and goals
OK suppose the end justifies the means: what is the end or goal?
Read carefully it is NOT the well being of the Prince himself but of his society or
state.
The prince or princess* is often “obliged, in order to maintain the state, to act
against faith…, charity… humanityreligion”
* there were actually a lot more female rulers in the last 1000 years in Europe than
you might expect.
Don’t blame Machiavelli
Blame either human nature or political rulers or both.
“If men were all good this precept would not be a good one; but as they are
bad…..you are not bound to keep faith with them”. p. 171 = “You are not morally
obligated to be a sucker or a saint”.
Machiavelli in the 20th & 21st C
Many politicians in past century were Machiavellian but more out of self-interest than
their society’s interest.
A few got away with violating his injunction against taking their citizens’ property and
wives. [Stalin, Mao and all other communist leaders and many others who were not
commies]
His theory may, however, explain why neither the League of Nations nor the present
UN has been able to guarantee peace and the protection of universal human rights.
Maybe the Arab Spring illustrates why he may be correct about fear and hatred.
THOMAS HOBBES 1588-1679
PROBLEM: The State of Nature
The State of Nature is stateless.
It means “A war of every man with every other man”*
Are “All humans created equal”? Yes and No.
We are equal in body and mind despite obvious differences.
The weakest can kill or overcome the strongest, but “How?”
* or better perhaps A war of every clan with every other clan
Chapter XIII
Steps in the argument:
1
. From equality proceeds diffidence
.
2.
From diffidence proceeds war
.
3. From civil states there is war of all against all.
4.
The incommodities of such a war.
Leads to one of the greatest lines every written
“the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.
Chapter XI
MANNERS used in difference sense than in his day or ours.
Notice that paragraph 1 seems optimistic.
Despite his very negative view of human nature Hobbes thinks it is possible for
humans to live “in peace and unity” due to some of the “qualities of mankind”.
So, while his views are as negative and cynical as that of Machiavelli he is more
optimistic about avoiding constant strife.
The theory of human nature
1.
A restless desire for power in all men.
2. Competition leads to contention
3. Love of ease, fear and civil disobedience
4. Love of praise lead to love of virtue.
5. Hatred and fear: Hobbes is more democratic than Machiavelli.
6. Fear leads us to hurt others.
7. Egotism [= vainglory] leads to unsuccessful attempts at power or whatever.
8. But we also distrust our own wit i.e. intellectual cleverness.
Other weaknesses of humans
9. Ambition comes from overestimating our own wisdom especially re politics.
10. Our confidences in others come from ignorance of 2 types:
11. Ignorance of wisdom and kindness.
12. Ignorance of natural causes.
The Social Contract
Fortunately we humans are able to overcome all these impediments of our nature by
agreeing to a hypothetical social contract between ourselves and the ruler or rulers
[Hobbes preferred monarchy].
So we make a contract or covenant to give the ruler the power to enforce laws to
protect our lives and liberty and property from both internal (criminals and fellow
citizens) and external (other states) enemies.
Hobbes in the 21st Century
True, there never was a social contract but it sure as hell seems possible that much,
if not most, of human pre-history [no state or government] as well as much of
human history has been similar enough to his state of nature.
Finally, in the Malthusian era, even under reasonably good government, the life of
90% of people was mostly “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.
Samuel Johnson 1709-1795
According to Loptson, Johnson is important as:
(1) a human nature theorist;
(2) as a conservative individualist; and also
(3) as a Christian.
He also had extremely interesting criticisms of the US revolution of 1776.
“Why do the loudest yelps for liberty come from the worst bashers of the negroes?”
Interesting question from an alleged “conservative”!
Pessimistic but not cynical
In the 1776 US DOI Thomas Jefferson* wrote that “…….. all men are created
equal… ……inalienable rights… to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness”
His most pessimistic view is that, for the vast majority of humans, the pursuit of
happiness will be unsuccessful and/or disappointing.
* A Virginia slave-owner who got at least one of his female slaves pregnant.
The Life of Dr. Johnson [1760]
This excerpt raises a question about the consistency of Johnson’s view.
His moral principles (wishing for the happiness of all humanity) and political
principles (based on inequality between humans) seem inconsistent.
Happiness is very rare among humans.
Happiness and hope.
Happiness and getting drunk.
The Rambler [1750]
The most difficult of the 3 readings.
Main point is discussion of Stoic philosophy.
Don’t worry about things that you cannot control.
Don’t let your happiness depend on external circumstances. [// Buddhism]
Human nature cannot follow such advice reasonable though it is. Yet, up to a point,
we can try, usually without success.
The Idler [1760]
Final sentence before the Idler [180] is very interesting since it is based on, and
allegedly deduced from, his own theory of HN.
We seek things we cannot attain: The Idler; line 1 (1) Whatever is useful or
honourable.
(2) Everyone wishes to be wise but we will settle for being cunning.
(3) We try to procure a good reputation.
From Pessimism to Progressivism
Between 1415 and 1815 Europe went through many intellectual, cultural and political
upheavals.
The Renaissance.
The Reformation.
The Scientific Revolution.
The American and French Revolutions.
The beginnings of the Industrial Revolution [and a prior Agricultural Revolution].
Condorcet 1743-1794
Add one word to Loptson’s introduction: it is the French Enlightenment that was anti-
clerical as well as progressivist and rationalist but only to a point.
Many 18th century thinkers produced anti-rationalist and anti-progressive views.
Condorcet is one of the most optimistic of all our theoriststhe very opposite of the
previous 3, (especially S. Johnson).
Curious strategy perhaps
He asks a whole series of rhetorical questions which is not a good strategy when you
write an essay but can be effective in getting your point across.
Pp. 125-26: notice the similarity with some questions on the course outline.
The idea of progress begins with 2 different types of epistemological progress and
only later turns into the idea of social and political progress based often on the
former.
First four questions
1. Natural laws govern all phenomena.
2. Induction and inference.
3. Tacit determinism for the social sciences.
4. Induction by enumeration?
Interesting contrast with B.F. Skinner later who deduced anti-liberal political
principles from “Yes” answers to all the above. Condorcet does the opposite.
Freedom and its implications ….126-27
Negative
What the Marquis opposes:
Monopoly, Mercantilism,
Slavery, exploitation of Africa,
The misuse of Oriental religions by the rulers of Asian societies.
Positive
What the Marquis favours:
Free trade,
Individual rights and liberty,
Knowledge, reason,
Individuals as equals
The Science of Morality ….127
This title today is mostly regarded as an oxymoron or “category mistake”.
But the 18th century [mostly] thought that reason and science can justify as well as
explain human morality [final sentence, para 1, 127 RS] UNDERLINE THIS IN
COLOUR
Adopts another [great] idea of Adam Smith: the Moral Sense theory.
There are 9 rhetorical questions on p. 127 following the ….!!
The Perfectibility of Humanity ….127-128
Nature has planted a principle of benevolence in all human hearts.
This natural “moral goodness of man” is “capable of indefinite perfection. Is this the
same as “infinite perfectibility”?
The equality of the sexes will improve family life, extend education to both sexes and
eliminate conflicts of family interest and civic duties [128 RS].
Liberte´, Egalite´, Fraternite´
The sacred trinity of the French Revolution
P. 126: spread of liberty to Asia and Africa including [penultimate paragraph] being
open to the trade of Asia and Africa.
They will also be our brothers [= “fraternity”] 126 paragraph prior to penultimate
paragraph.
Equality “between societies as well as between individuals” 127 and even between
the sexes 128 (today we would probably say “genders”) Therefore it includes
Sororite´”!!!
War, Mercantilism, Cosmopolitanism ….126-27
1. Enlightened people will recognize they all have the right to “dispose of their own
life and wealth as they choose” and regard war as the most dreadful of scourges.
2. Mercantile prejudices will fade as well the desire or need to conquer other nations.
3. Nations will form a consensus on the principles of morals and politics and hence
share benefits equally and live in eternal peace and brotherhood.
Von Humboldt 1767-1835
Main points for now: (1) on p. 132: final full para LS “I therefore deduce, as the
natural inference from…….
(2) On p. 137: 5 points summarizing the essence of classical Liberalism and its
optimistic view of human nature.
(3) on p. 138:
final sentence entirely in italics.
Ch. VIII Amelioration of morals
The term “morals” is used in very wide sense unlike today.
Discussion includes the epistemology of sense experience.
Spirituality linked to sensuality.
Aesthetics included: music, painting poetry.
Attempts to link poetry and philosophy.
Morals, reason and happiness
Says “moral life, seems to be province of cold reason” [135]. He obviously has Kant
in mind.
Virtue and happiness should be united. [Kant in mind again!!]
It is not the business of the state to promote any positive morality.
Condorcet and van Humboldt
in the 21st Century
Final 3 paragraphs of Condorcet turned out to be over-optimistic which is too bad
since they are based on great ideas but….
His biggest mistake is to claim all this was “inevitable.
Unfortunately many in the 21st Century will dismiss the “old-fashioned” liberalism of
Condorcet and van Humboldt as ‘reactionary, ‘right wing’, ‘libertarian”, ’irrelevant’
and out-dated for the new millenium. We have got off to a great start without
following their policies in the 21st Century haven’t we?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
1
2
3
4
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-2 of the document.
Unlock all 7 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Get OneClass Notes+

Unlimited access to class notes and textbook notes.

YearlyBest Value
75% OFF
$8 USD/m
Monthly
$30 USD/m
You will be charged $96 USD upfront and auto renewed at the end of each cycle. You may cancel anytime under Payment Settings. For more information, see our Terms and Privacy.
Payments are encrypted using 256-bit SSL. Powered by Stripe.