Political Philosophy Final

Federalist Paper 6

The basic thrust of this federalist paper, like 6-9, is discussing "the dangers which in all probability flow from the dissensions between the states themselves, and from domestic factions and convulsions." Hamilton believed that if the states remained joined in a mere "partial" confederacy, they would inevitably have "frequent and violent contests with each other." The arguments and historic examples given in this essay mirror not only the Convention speech, but also his argument he had written for The Contientalist in 1781. One thing that becomes clear in this essay is the Founding Father's desperate fear of the states dividing into separate political entities. Notice that in this essay Hamilton is not arguing against a weaker form of government, or the reinstatement of the Articles of Confederation. Rather his fear was of the dissolution of a country altogether. To modern readers, this fear might seem silly. But in the political climate of the time, without a strong Constitution, the Articles of Confederation would have merely dissolved and the states would have been on their own. His fears, then, however absurd to the reader conscious of the modern superpower and federal government that has made individual states much less powerful than in colonial America, were well-founded. In future essays, specifically, numbers 18-20, Madison reinforces Hamilton's arguments by an appeal to different historical examples, namely the Amphictonic Council, the Achean League, the Holy Roman Empire, the Swiss Confederation, and the United Netherlands. In writing these essays, Madison, like Hamilton, did not originate new examples, due to the time constraints, but turned to his elaborate research memorandum entitled "notes of Ancient and Modern Confederacies." It is interesting to compare Madison's careful and scholarly use of history in his essays with Hamilton's, as it reveals clearly the different personal qualities of the two men. The New Yorker, Hamilton, was not scholarly in his approach to politics; his use of history was that of a propagandist citing examples from the past in order to make a debater's point, rather than to establish historical truth. Madison's treatment of Greek confederations was based on widely gathered material from all the available authorities, carefully cross-checked and qualified before being synthesized into a rich study. Hamilton's research consisted in superficially extracting bits of a speech of Demosthenes and a hasty reading of Plutarch. This is not to say that on topics in which he was interested Hamilton could not write brilliantly and profoundly. On the problem of war treated in this federalist paper, his thought is both mature and suggestive. But Hamilton was not really interested in the problems of federalism, and even on subjects like war and finance to which his mind was congenial his approach was less of the scholar in politics than of the brilliant publicist.

Nietzsche (On the Uses & Disadvantages of History for Life)

The distrust of historical narratives Nietzsche overtly argues against the blind acceptance of any single perspective. This includes the distrust of political agendas, but extends past that, including a systematic distrust of memory as a force. The danger of studying history is that people become convinced of a type of cause-and-effect narrative that makes sense to people, but which in reality is a gross reduction. Because life is hyper-complex, any one story could have thousands of different narratives, and each would seem plausible. Whichever narrative is retold enough then dominates academically, until people believe it is true. For Nietzsche, the dominant case of this was the Franco-Prussian war. In Germany, the discussion surrounding the war led to a unification of Germany and a strong nationalism that shifted political power in a way that made Nietzsche uncomfortable. He argues for people to ignore history wholesale except for the academically free-minded, who can study the narratives of history and rise above them, using history to achieve a progressive society. Transcending the limitations of culture This is a popular theme in Nietzsche's work. It's behind übermensch arguements in other works, along with the super-history argument in this essay. The system essentially amounts to man acknowledging the limitations of his culture and choosing deliberately to rise above them. The parable of the madman is a similar argument. Nietzschean transcendence depends heavily on rejecting the truth of arguments that the culture accepts without questioning. Religion would be a good example in Nietzsche's work. He rejects Christianity without ever wondering about Christ's resurrection, arguing instead that religion itself is meaningless and destructive. He sees this as admirable and freeminded. In this essay, the same argument is being made against history. History is challenged on two fronts. Firstly, that history itself is a necessarily subjective endeavor, and secondly, that history is essentially meaningless because it's pragmatic value depends on the current agendas of the ones telling the stories. Objectivity vs. subjectivity Classical history depends on the understanding that things happen in a series of causes and effects. If one can identify these effectively, then they can retell history in a way that preserves objectivity. For Nietzsche, objectivity is threatened twice. He rejects the idea that history follows a plot that can be traced through causes and effects. He also rejects the idea that any objectivity is maintained even in the most unburdened, detached history. For Nietzsche, any time a human looks backward into the past, they are reinterpreting an imagined past. Memory is like dreaming, and we find meaning in history the same way some people look for revelation in their dreams. It's all subjective and futile. On drawing meaning from the past An essay concerned with the academic study of history wouldn't necessarily need to argue about memory from an essential/existential perspective, but Nietzsche quickly invokes such arguments. He argues that memory is destructive in man's quest for meaning, because man can create false versions of the past where meaning seems more readily apparent, leading to 'glory days' memories. For Nietzsche, this is destructive because it makes the man believe falsely that life has meaning in a cause-and-effect way. For him, this is a blatant fallacy, a type of escapism from the true challenge of existence--that there has never been redemptive meaning in our experience. When we choose to remember events fondly, we set ourselves up to be disappointed by the objective senselessness of the human narrative. History is not only impossible, it's also dangerous. It threatens to bring man down where he ought to be transcending the chaos through fearless acceptance of his own meaninglessness. Modernism and the goal of education Classically, education has been seen as the process through which people learn where they are in the narrative of history. For an argument which severely discounts the value of that history, education comes to mean something different. Instead of an awareness of the history of the western culture, education for Nietzsche denotes an awareness of the blindspots of one's culture. Many people remember only Nietzsche's writings against the Christians, calling to mind his "God is dead" arguments. But, the fact is that Nietzsche rejects all cultural assumptions wholesale. History, politics, academia, literature--all this is skewed by man's futile search for meaning in a chaotic world. Becoming educated means that one does not need to maintain the normal perspective, but instead can reject it and stand alone, above his brainwashed culture.

Plato (Gorgias)

Art Throughout this dialogue, as well as in many of Plato's other works, the notion of artful pursuits comes up rather frequently. Essentially, an art is a skill directed towards some form of the good and intended for the benefit of those practicing and/or those on whom a particular art is practiced. In this sense for example, medicine is an art because it aims at improving the physical health of those for whom a specific treatment is prescribed, while serving alcohol is not as it creates a deceptive impression of physical health grounded in the bodily pleasure of intoxication In Gorgias, Socrates first mentions the notion of art as part of an inquiry into the nature of rhetoric. In discussing this topic, he distinguishes between true arts (defined above) and false ones (routine/flattery) which create an incorrect impression of good by means of the pleasant (which Socrates later defines as different from—and less desirable than—the good). This distinction becomes increasingly relevant as the dialogue progresses, since Socrates maintains that most of his contemporary Greeks and Athenians have been led astray from the path of virtue exactly because they mistake false routines of pleasure for true arts of good. Consequently, for Socrates's fellow citizens, the nature of politics, justice, power, good living and the like is based upon a fundamental conflation of true and false arts corresponding to a belief that the pleasant equals the good. The entire text considers how this confusion of art with flattery manifests itself, and as such it adds great strength to Plato's overall philosophical project of defining virtuous existence. Power The nature of power embodies a concept crucial both in Gorgias as well as to Plato's larger philosophical beliefs. For Socrates's contemporaries, the rampant view of power is as the ability to rule over others and to satisfy one's own desires. This position is best expressed by Polus (466-69) and Callicles (490-492). Plato takes great care to debunk this formulation. On the one hand, Socrates argues, those who rule others often must perform actions they do not will in order to benefit the state of which they are in charge. In this sense then, apparently powerful tyrants are often unable to act as they will, and true power is shown to consist of something other than ruling over others. At the same time, those who repeatedly satisfy their desires do not possess real power because this gratification further fuels rather than extinguishes the appetites. A person capable of always satisfying desire is in constant need of more satisfaction, and as such possesses no true power. This point is illustrated in 493b by the metaphor of the leaky jar. Instead, Socrates argues that true power comes with the control and order of one's body and soul—the discipline to act justly, live virtuously, and not need anything. This treatment of power becomes all the more significant in light of the events surrounding Socrates's actual trial and death. The philosopher was accused of corrupting through false instruction and treason, and convicted and executed because of his refusal to admit having acted wrongly. In light of this event and its close proximity to Gorgias' creation, then, the nature of power for Plato takes on crucial importance in that he must prove his teacher died in strength rather than weakness. Evil The question of evil comprises an important theme for Plato. Evil takes root in wrongful acts—those which by nature involve shame and/or pain. Not only is this position argued in Gorgias by Socrates, but the other participants in the conversation agree with him as well. This aspect of evil exists as one of the text's few uncontroversial claims. Dissention enters instead with the discussion of what is the greatest evil, or which is "worse": to suffer or to inflict wrong (e.g. 473a). On the one hand, Socrates's opponents (mainly Polus and Callicles on this issue) state that suffering wrongdoing is worse, since it places the sufferer in a position of pain and subjugation to the inflictor. On the other, Socrates maintains that committing wrong is worse, since it is more shameful and therefore painful and evil. He goes on further to declare it worse still to inflict wrong without being punished, since retribution for an evil act at least helps to right the wrong. Such considerations are integral to Plato's purpose within the dialogue, because wrong and evil relate directly to its other key topics: the inquiries of art, justice, politics, virtue, and temperance center around what is right and wrong conduct within each field of focus. The notion of evil also is important within the scheme of Plato's overall body of work. This is so at least in large part due to the death of his virtuous teacher at the hands of an apparently evil government. For Socrates not to have died in vain and supreme evil, nor to leave behind a legacy of error, such definitions of wrong must prove convincing. As a consequence of this fact alone (independent of his general and powerful interest in the philosophical character of right and wrong), the nature of evil constitutes a recurring theme of Plato's philosophy. Temperance Though Socrates's discussion of temperance in Gorgias initially appears rather specific and therefore of limited impact, its key role in the attainment of virtue quickly renders its impact far-reaching. Temperance (separate from its application) signifies a certain quality of self-control and discipline. In this sense, it is a fairly simple and non-contentious concept. Socrates goes on, however, to define such integral notions as power, justice, and proper living (among others) to a large degree by reference to temperance. In this way, individual power lies in slowly tempering desires into nothing, justice lies in tempering the balance of power so that all maintain equal shares, and virtue consists in tempering the body and soul into a balance of fitness, justice, and the good. Consequently the establishment of a clear definition of temperance ultimately serves as a foundation by which to resolve most of the dialogue's main issues. This clarification and elevation of temperance frequently returns to Plato's writings throughout his life, since for him understanding and pursuing virtue (known now to be based upon temperance) represent the ultimate human activity. Virtue Defining virtue and its attainment comprise what is arguably THE central theme of both Gorgias and Plato's lifelong philosophical quest. Somewhat surprisingly, though, Socrates does not define this notion independently within the dialogue, but instead frames its nature by reference to other qualities he has worked to establish. In this light, virtue may be viewed as a composition of crucial topics: power, justice, temperance—all of which are associated with the good. Put differently, virtue is itself the 'good life', which results from proper practice of these various principles and behavioral methods. Considered from this perspective, then, the range of individual arenas of inquiry and subsequent discoveries about them here undertaken by Socrates melt into this more overarching, abstract notion. This extrapolation towards virtue should not seem surprising, however, when placed in the context of Plato's life. To start, the war, corruption, and (wrongful) execution of Socrates for which Plato's government is responsible must have heavily influenced the thinker's search for virtue. The correlation between these historical aspects of Athens and the time of the dialogue's writing simply is too tight to deny. Moreover, each of Plato's dialogues almost without exception questions various aspects of proper living and what constitutes a good life. When taken together, Plato's entire body of creation looks to comprise an extremely comprehensive, long-term inquiry into the nature of virtuous living. Just as an understanding of abstract virtue gradually emerges from more specific sub-topics within Gorgias, so too does a general treatise on a complete life of virtue embody a unity among all Platonic dialogues.

Federalist Papers 1

Before beginning a more general analysis of Alexander Hamilton's remarks, it is necessary to provide the background of the political theory of educated men in the United States. First, most educated men, especially those who were at the heart of governing the new country, were extremely familiar with the republics of Ancient Greece and Rome (for example, see John Adam's book Defense of the Constitution, published at the same time as The Federalist Papers). From this background, the primary fear was that while a republican government was desirable in order to defend liberty, it was not possible over a large geographic area, such as the United States, because it had never been accomplished before. Rather, this problem had always been the downfall of republics (for instance, the fall of the Roman Empire). The other major pitfall of republics had been class war, something that the Founding Fathers had seen in the recent Shay's Rebellion. More specifically regarding the text, the introduction to the Federalist Papers contains the outline of Hamilton's "argument," the basic points that he wishes to discuss for ratifying the new Constitution. He also explains his motives and those of his cohorts, explaining that this will not be a debate between two sides of the argument, but rather a coherent examination of the strengths of and necessity for the new Constitution. In this article, therefore, the most important part is the outline Hamilton provides, enabling the reader to classify the remaining 84 papers with ease. It is also interesting to note that the "world-wide" fame that Hamilton speaks of in this essay occurred, just as the Founding Father predicted. The United States Constitution that Hamilton defended has become one of the most copied and admired documents in the history of civilization. Indeed, the Federalist itself was published in Spanish in 1811 by the Venezualan Manuel Garcia de Sana, along with copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In addition, the Federalist influenced movements in Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, and in Europe. Not only did Hamilton's predictions come true, but his very words were influential far beyond the original thirteen colonies. In summation, after reading Federalist 1, Hamilton, perhaps more than any of the founders, believed in the future greatness of America; he believed that this nation could be one of power and strength, that such power and strength, far from corrupting the nation's purpose or the rights of individuals, alone could bring to realization the former and protect the latter. The very use of the word "empire" in this paper is very telling. Characteristically, he looks ahead; he "dips into the future' and sees the Untied States as a world power. While this might not seem odd to the modern reader, in 1788 America was extremely vulnerable to European conquest and domination, not vice versa. His vision for America is even more remarkable under these circumstances.

Federalist Paper 37

Federalist Number 37 is the beginning of another of James Madison's series of work. Hamilton's series of fourteen papers on the vital need for an energetic constitution ended with Number 36, published on January 8, 1788. On January 11, Madison commenced with 37, explaining how the Convention had combined "energy in government with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to the republican form." In this division of the work so peculiarly suited to his talent he had occasion not only to develop the federal principles of the Constitution, but also to discuss in his own characteristic vein the various questions that lie at the foundation of free government itself. And although twelve of the twenty-four essays he wrote in this section have been claimed by Hamilton, examinations of the papers themselves show they were indubitably written by Madison. Madison's' first two essays, not only 37 but also 38, were devoted to the difficulties faced by the Convention in guaranteeing both the security of the few and the liberty of the many. Madison's thoughts on the relationship of liberty and authority are interesting, because this is a problem that had been his chief concern since he had entered politics. He eloquently wrote in Federalist 37, "Energy in government is essential to that security against external and internal danger and to that prompt and salutary execution of the law, which enter into the very definition of good government. Stability in government is essential to national character. . . On comparing, however, these valuable ingredients with the vital principles of liberty, we must perceive at once the difficulty of mingling them in their due proportions." While Madison complains in this Federalist paper that the founding fathers had no guides, this is not completely true as they relied heavily upon the philosophers of their time and of earlier times. Raynal, Delome, Montesquieu, and Hume, are, among others, expressly mentioned and quoted within the Federalist Papers themselves, but these writers do not exhaust the list of those whose impact on the Papers is obvious. Machiavelli, and Hume; Hobbes and Rousseau; Harrington, Coke and Clackston, and above all Locke, were all intellectual forebears of the Federalist's discussion of constitutional democracy. While some of theses authors were fundamentally accepted by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, others were probably fundamentally rejected. No one philosophy was taken over completely or, for that matter, completely rejected. It is probably no exaggeration, however, to say that Locke exercised a greater influence upon American political thought during the revolutionary era than any other philosopher. His writings were the colonists' major work of reference in their struggle with the mother country. The Declaration of Independence was so close to the Second Treatise of Government in form, phraseology, and content that Jefferson was accused of copying from it. Locke's influence can be seen in state declarations and constitutions. His ideas were present in the Philadelphia Convention. They played an important role thereafter, as well. Locke is the philosopher to whom the authors of the Federalist are most indebted for an exposition of constitutionalism and free government.

Beauvoir (Second Sex)

Immanence vs. Transcendence De Beauvoir uses "immanence" to describe the historic domain assigned to women: a closed-off realm where women are interior, passive, static, and immersed in themselves. "Transcendence" designates the opposing male lot: active, creative, productive, powerful, extending outward into the external universe. Every human life should permit the interplay of these two forces, immanence and transcendence, but throughout history, man has denied woman the transcendent role. In her stage-by-stage description of woman's "situation," de Beauvoir shows how women are forced to relinquish their existential right to transcendence and accept a circumscribed, repetitive imprisonment. There is no escape for them except through man, and even this is a dead-end. Man has projects, activities, accomplishments; woman just has man. Nature vs. Nurture De Beauvoir believes that woman's inferiority in society is a result not of natural differences but of differences in the upbringing of man and woman. Male domination is not inherent or fated but conditioned at every stage of development. De Beauvoir says that "Man learns his power." By the same token, woman is not born passive, mediocre, or immanent. Rather, she is socialized to believe that proper women must embody these characteristics and, subtly and not subtly, she is conditioned to believe that denying her true self is the only way to achieve happiness and gain acceptance. To bring about substantial changes in society, young boys and girls must be educated differently from the outset. Since they are born equal, the possibility exists of their being equal in adulthood as well as in childhood—but it is up to society to change its skewed perspectives. Production vs. Reproduction Women are both treasured and reviled for their reproductive function, and de Beauvoir explains that one of the central problems of the female situation is the difficulty of reconciling woman's reproductive capacity with her productive capacity. Her productive capacity includes her ability to participate in labor or otherwise contribute to the economy of her society. On closer inspection, de Beauvoir finds that reproduction and production are not mutually exclusive. A woman's reproductive capacity should not stop her from fulfilling a position in society beyond the home. Woman is neither exclusively a worker nor exclusively a womb. Throughout history, woman has been enslaved to her reproductive function. Her life to the present has been an uninterrupted succession of pregnancies, and her contributions to society have been restricted to her womb. Technology has failed to incorporate woman into the workplace, for she must still juggle the burdens of childbearing and childrearing unassisted, an impossible task for even the most energetic mothers. For woman to achieve more than liberation and enter the workplace as man's equal, the nuclear family must be reconfigured so that she is able to leave the home. Social stigmas against unwed mothers and abortion must be lifted to allow woman to take charge of her own pregnancies and control her own life. Though it is important for woman to be permitted to participate in work, it is more important for her to be integrated into the "totality of human reality" to become a true partner to man. Motifs The Eternal Feminine De Beauvoir goes into great detail to debunk what she refers to as "the eternal feminine," or that "vague and basic essence, femininity." This myth takes many forms—the sanctity of the mother, the purity of the virgin, the fecundity of the earth and of the womb—but in all cases serves to deny women's individuality and trap them inside unrealizable ideals. She uses the phrase "the eternal feminine" to describe all the terrifying processes of fertility and reproduction that arose from male discomfort with the fact of his birth and the inevitability of his death. As the author of human history, man has conflated woman with her womb. He has lumped all those mysterious processes of life and reminders of death, which both confuse and frighten him, under a single dismissive myth. De Beauvoir points out that just as there is no such thing as the "eternal masculine," there is no such thing as "eternal feminine." Or, to put it differently: there is no essence, only experience. All beings, de Beauvoir insists, have the right to define their own existences rather than labor under some vague notion of "femininity." The Other De Beauvoir uses the term Other throughout The Second Sex to diagnose the female's secondary position in society as well as within her own patterns of thought. One of her chief goals in undertaking the project is to answer the question of why woman is the Other. De Beauvoir explains that according to the philosopher Hegel, reality is made up of the interplay of opposing forces. Self-understanding is much the same. For a being to define itself, it must also define something in opposition to itself. "[A]t the moment when man asserts himself as subject and free being, the idea of the Other arises," de Beauvoir states. For every subject, there must be an object. This reciprocal relation is a primary tenet of existentialist thought, and it points to the fundamental problem with the male monopoly on subjectivity. This idea is uneven and imbalanced when applied to the relation between men and women. Throughout human history, man has occupied the role of the self, the subject, the absolute, the free being. He sees woman as the object, the deviation, the inessential. She has value as a sexual partner but not as an independent entity. According to the male schema, woman is contingent, deviant, and inessential. She completes him, but she herself is incomplete. Because it is fundamentally unnatural to live in the role of object, woman hesitates between the historical role offered her and an assertion of her liberty. To accept her role as the Other, she must deny a great part of her humanity and surrender all claims to freedom. Symbols The Praying Mantis Women who try to achieve transcendence, reject the passivity imposed on them, and attain some mastery over their lives are looked on unkindly by patriarchal society. Among the many negative stereotypes heaped on this sort of woman is that of the praying mantis. This unflattering symbol refers to the female insect's habit of devouring the male immediately following intercourse. The shrewish, nagging wife, the "ogress" who demands too much out of life, the tyrannical lover who withholds her body—any woman who threatens male supremacy is accused of cannibalism. Many women fear being regarded as too aggressive or powerful, and thus being called a praying mantis.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Discourse on the Origin of Inequality)

The Origin of Inequality The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality is a detailed story about the beginnings of human inequality and its development to the present day. The Discourse begins by making a distinction between natural inequalities given by nature, such as those of strength, beauty and intelligence and social and political inequality, such as differences in wealth, status or political power. In the state of nature, humans lived from day-to-day, struggling to survive, but in this state natural inequalities made little difference and social and political inequalities could not arise. As men came to cooperate with one another and enjoy the benefits that followed from it, their numbers grew and languages grew in sophistication and new tools were developed. Men became even more productive as a result but this made competition for resources necessary. Consequently, property rights needed to be invented. The benefit of property rights is that they solve fights over who should use what, but the downside is that the enable natural inequalities to become social and political inequalities. Thus, some are poor but others grow rich, and this generates social conflict, since the poor want to be rich and the rich do not want to lose what they have from, say, revolt by the poor. Since the rich are afraid, they create the state to protect them; they then give their power to it. For a time, the state safeguards the rich against the poor but it still dominates both groups. As time progresses, members of the state discover how to centralize its power, and this produces despotism. Political and social inequalities become more severe and the state ruthlessly dominates the poor and the rich. In a somewhat ironic turn of events, all become slaves of the state, and thus all members of society are oppressed equality and return to powerful equality. Yet in this state, they are miserable.

Kant (Perpetual Peace)

In this essay, Kant proposed a peace program to be implemented by governments. The "Preliminary Articles" described these steps that should be taken immediately, or with all deliberate speed: 1. "No secret treaty of peace shall be held valid in which there is tacitly reserved matter for a future war" 2. "No independent states, large or small, shall come under the dominion of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation" 3. "Standing armies shall in time be totally abolished" 4. "National debts shall not be contracted with a view to the external friction of states" 5. "No state shall by force interfere with the constitution or government of another state" 6. "No state shall, during war, permit such acts of hostility which would make mutual confidence in the subsequent peace impossible: such are the employment of assassins (percussores), poisoners (venefici), breach of capitulation, and incitement to treason (perduellio) in the opposing state" Three Definitive Articles would provide not merely a cessation of hostilities, but a foundation on which to build a peace. 1. "The civil constitution of all states to be republican" 2. "The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states" 3. "The law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality" Kant's essay in some ways resembles modern democratic peace theory. He speaks of republican, Republikanisch, (not democratic), states, which he defines to have representative governments, in which the legislature is separated from the executive. He does not discuss universal suffrage, which is vital to modern democracy and quite important to some modern theorists; later commentators[who?] dispute whether it is implied by his language, although many Enlightenment thinkers advocated a more aristocratic republicanism by men of letters, similar to Ancient Athens. The essay does not treat republican governments as sufficient by themselves to produce peace: freedom of emigration (hospitality) and a league of nations are necessary to consciously enact his six-point program. Kant claims that republics will be at peace not only with each other, but are more pacific than other forms of government in general.

Federalist Paper 51

In this essay, Madison's thoughts on factionalism are delineated clearly. As we observed earlier, he assumed that conflicts of interests are inherent in human nature, and he recognized that, as a consequence, people fall into various groups. He wanted to avoid a situation in which any one group controlled the decisions of a society. Free elections and the majority principle protected the country from dictatorship, that is, the tyranny of a minority. However, he was equally concerned about the greater risk of tyranny of the majority. A central institutional issue for him was how to minimize this risk. Madison's solution characteristically relied not only on formal institutions, which could be designed, but also on the particular sociological structure of American society, which he took as a fortunate starting point for the framers of the new constitution. The institutional component in his solution was checks and balances, so that there were multiple entry points into the government and multiple ways to offset the power that any one branch of the government might otherwise acquire over another. In this system, "the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on each other." These institutional arrangements were reinforced by the sociological fact that the Republic contained a multiplicity of interests that could, and did, offset one another: "While all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority." It is good that there are many group interests; that they be numerous is less important than that they be impermanent and shifting alliances whose components vary with the specific policy issue. Madison commenced the statement of his theory in Federalist 51 with an acknowledgement that the "have nots" in any society are extremely likely to attack the "haves." Like Hamilton, the Virginian believed class struggle to be inseparable from politics. "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard against the oppression of its rulers," Madison writes, "but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest the rights of the minority will be insecure." Madison, it is clear, had emancipated himself from the sterile dualistic view of society that was so common in the eighteenth century and that so obsessed Hamilton. Madison was one of the pioneers of "pluralism" in political thought. Where Hamilton saw the corporate spirit of the several states as poisonous to the union, Madison was aware that the preservation of the state governments could serve the cause of both liberty and union. Finally, the vastness of the United States, a fact that Hamilton considered the prime excuse for autocracy, was recognized by Madison as the surest preservative of liberty. To assert after reading this passage that Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist 51 is to imply, first, that he was a magician in mimicking Madison's very words and tone of vote, and second that he was the most disingenuous hypocrite that ever wrote on politics. No unprejudiced or informed historian would accept this latter charge against Hamilton. It is interesting to note that the Federalist papers are unique, as shown in this paper, because of the extreme amount of thought that was put into the design of the Constitution, as shown in Madison's original thought process that were penned in 51. Many, if not most, changes in institutional design, occur as the reactions of shortsighted people to what they perceive as more-or-less short-range needs. This is one reason the Constitutional Convention was a remarkable event. The Founding Fathers set out deliberately to design the form of government that would be most likely to bring about the long-range goals that they envisaged for the Republic. What is most unusual about Madison, in contrast to the other delegates, is the degree to which he thought about the principles behind the institutions he preferred. Not only did he practice the art of what nowadays is deemed institutional design, but he developed, as well, the outlines of a theory of institutional design that culminated in this essay.

Federalist Paper 49

In this essay, more than any other besides perhaps 51, Madison lays out his philosophy on free government. Madison does not state in the Federalist how the state of nature is abandoned and government created. We may assume, however, that his opinion does not differ here from what has been called the core of his philosophy, namely the compact theory of the foundation of the state. This theory was generally accepted at the time the essays were written, whereas the organic theory was hardly known. Madison adhered to it even when it was being abandoned by most European theorists, and called it a "fundamental principle of free government." Furthermore, the acceptance of the compact theory in the Federalist can be concluded from the fact that Madison, who recognizes a parallel between the formation of the state by individuals and the formation of a confederacy by state, calls the Confederation "a compact among the States." Madison's view on the relation between people and government has important consequences. His conception of government as a means follows not only the primacy of the individual's protection before popular participation in government, but also his Federalist, advocating the Union, can be a treatise on the Union only in a relative sense and must, in an absolute sense, be a treatise for individual rights. His conception of society as an intrastate phenomenon must influence his view on the nature of confederations and the Union. Finally, from the necessity of the independence of the government from the people follows the possibility that government abuses it power. In that case the people, possessing "the transcendent and precious right . .. . to abolish or alter their governments as to them shall most likely to effect their safety and happiness (62)" may resort to a revolution. Furthermore, from the subjection of government under a constitution follows the existence of two sorts of man-made law; that by which the government is bound (society-made, fundamental, constitutional law), and that by which the government binds the people (government-made, ordinary, statue law). In summary, Madison believed that the individuals, motivated by self-interest, leave the state of nature in order to live under justice in a free government that, primarily, protects their lives, liberty, and property and, to the degree compatible with the security of these rights, permit people to participate in government under a constitution. The main threat to free government arises form its own creation of factions, the control of which is of vital importance. The latter observation has important implications for Madison's inquiry into the compatibility of concrete governments with the ideal free government. In his search for the government that is most likely to realize that ideal, he need only look for a government under which factions are controlled.

Federalist Paper 9

It is important to understand Alexander Hamilton's political philosophy in order to clearly view this essay. During the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton proposed to copy the British constitution as closely as possible. In the first place, he advocated the creation of a senate that would correspond to the House of Lords and represent the wealthy few. Recognizing the impossibility of making this upper house hereditary, Hamilton nevertheless hoped to give it strength and power by electing senators for life. The chief "organ" of Hamilton's "strong souled" government, however, was not its senate but its elective king. As Hamilton insisted in Philadelphia, nothing less would check "the amazing violence & turbulence of the democratic spirit." This "republican" monarch, like the senate, would be elected for life; he would have power to veto all national legislation, and the prerogative of appointing the governors of all the states, which would thus, under Hamilton's scheme, be reduced to administrative satrapies of the national government. Finally, he hoped this elective king would be given control of the patronage in order to bribe the legislature and insure a steady administration. His study of England had convinced him that this "corruption" was required for a stable government. This "strong souled" government copied after England's was Hamilton's ideal for America. Only in the establishment of a state which institutionalized in its very organs a "will" independent of the people could the class struggle be allayed in the Untied States. When the Convention turned Hamilton's scheme down in favor of the more democratic and responsible government outlined in the Virginia Plan, he was bitterly disappointed. In July he left the Convention and returned to Philadelphia only for the last sessions. When he signed the Constitution he admitted "no man's ideas were more remote from the plan than his were known to be." He further confessed that this signature was given only because the choice was between "anarchy and Convulsion on one side, and the chance of good to be expected from the plan on the other." It was in this same spirit of disdain, only partially concealed, that Hamilton wrote as Publius, especially in #9. He was never reconciled to the Constitution's "weakness" as long as he lived. Even while he was preparing to write The Federalist, he drew up a private memorandum in which he prophesied its failure unless additional power could be "squeezed out its clauses by interpretation." Hamilton felt so strongly about the need for an overruling, irresponsible, and unlimited government that it showed through even in his Federalist essays, in spite of his attempt to conceal his opinions in order to achieve ratification. Federalist 9 indicates clearly that he expected a continual use of military force to be necessary for keeping the rebellious poor in their place. In this essay the union is advocated because it will permit the use of troops raised in one section of the country to stamp out revolts in other districts, an expedient restored to Hamilton during the Whiskey Rebellion. It is characteristic of the different outlooks of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison that Hamilton, in this Federalist Paper, advocated the new union because it will make it easier to suppress with military forces such outbreaks as Shay's Rebellion, while James Madison, in Federalist #10, argues that the union will prevent the recurrence of any such outbreaks. Hamilton prized the union as an instrument guaranteeing that the rich would win every class struggle; Madison hoped that union would prevent class war from being declared in the first place. This dichotomy is part of the internal conflict of the Federalist Papers, something for which many critics have criticized this document. In contrary, these two different approaches provide two different aspects of the constitution, allowing both to become an important part of this philosophic document.

Federalist Paper 10

James Madison carried to the Convention a plan that was the exact opposite of Hamilton's. In fact, the theory he advocated at Philadelphia and in his Federalist essays was developed as a republican substitute for the New Yorker's "high toned" scheme of state. Madison was convinced that the class struggle would be ameliorated in America by establishing a limited federal government that would make functional use of the vast size of the country and the existence of the states as active political organisms. He argued in his "Notes on Confederacy," in his Convention speeches, and again in Federalist 10 that if an extended republic was set up including a multiplicity of economic, geographic, social, religious, and sectional interests, these interests, by checking each other, would prevent American society from being divided into the clashing armies of the rich and the poor. Thus, if no interstate proletariat could become organized on purely economic lines, the property of the rich would be safe even though the mass of the people held political power. Madison's solution for the class struggle was not to set up an absolute and irresponsible state to regiment society from above; he was never willing to sacrifice liberty to gain security. He wished to multiply the deposits of political power in the state itself sufficiently to break down the sole dualism of rich and poor and thus to guarantee both liberty and security. This, as he stated in Federalist 10, would provide a "republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government." It is also interesting to note that James Madison was the most creative and philosophical disciple of the Scottish school of science and politics in the Philadelphia Convention. His effectiveness as an advocate of a new constitution, and of the particular constitution that was drawn up in Philadelphia in 1787, was certainly based in a large part on his personal experience in public life and his personal knowledge of the conditions of American in 1787. But Madison's greatness as a statesmen rests in part on his ability to set his limited personal experience in the context of the experience of men in other ages and times, thus giving extra insight to his political formulations. His most amazing political prophecy, contained within the pages of Federalist 10, was that the size of the United States and its variety of interests could be made a guarantee of stability and justice under the new constitution. When Madison made this prophecy, the accepted opinion among all sophisticated politicians was exactly the opposite. It was David Hume's speculations on the "Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth," first published in 1752, that most stimulated James Madison's' thought on factions. In this essay Hume disclaimed any attempt to substitute a political utopia for "the common botched and inaccurate governments which seemed to serve imperfect men so well. Nevertheless, he argued, the idea of a perfect commonwealth "is surely the most worthy curiosity of any the wit of man can possibly devise. And who knows, if this controversy were fixed by the universal consent of the wise and learned, but, in some future age, an opportunity might be afforded of reducing the theory to practice, either by a dissolution of some old government, or by the combination of men to form a new one, in some distant part of the world. " At the end of Hume's essay was a discussion that was of interest to Madison. The Scot casually demolished the Montesquieu small-republic theory; and it was this part of the essay, contained in a single page, that was to serve Madison in new-modeling a "botched" Confederation "in a distant part of the world." Hume said that "in a large government, which is modeled with masterly skill, there is compass and room enough to refine the democracy, from the lower people, who may be admitted into the first elections or first concoction of the commonwealth, to the higher magistrate, who direct all the movements. At the same time, the parts are so distant and remote, that it is very difficult, either by intrigue, prejudice, or passion, to hurry them into any measure against the public interest." Hume's analysis here had turned the small-territory republic theory upside down: if a free state could once be established in a large area, it would be stable and safe from the effects of faction. Madison had found the answer to Montesquieu. He had also found in embryonic form his own theory of the extended federal republic. In Hume's essay lay the germ for Madison's theory of the extended republic. It is interesting to see how he took these scattered and incomplete fragments and built them into an intellectual and theoretical structure of his own. Madison's first full statement of this hypothesis appeared in his "Notes on the Confederacy" written in April 1787, eight months before the final version of it was published as the tenth Federalist. Starting with the proposition that "in republican Government, the majority, however, composed, ultimately give the law," Madison then asks what is to restrain an interested majority from unjust violations of the minority's rights? Three motives might be claimed to meliorate the selfishness of the majority: first, "prudent regard for their own good, as involved in the general . . . good" second, "respect for character" and finally, religious scruples. After examining each in its turn Madison concludes that they are but a frail bulwark against a ruthless party. When one examines these two papers in which Hume and Madison summed up the eighteenth century's most profound thought on political parties, it becomes increasingly clear that the young American used the earlier work in preparing a survey on factions through the ages to introduce his own discussion of faction in America. Hume's work was admirably adapted to this purpose. It was philosophical and scientific in the best tradition of the Enlightenment. The facile domination of faction had been a commonplace in English politics for a hundred years, as Whig and Tory vociferously sought to fasten the label on each other. But the Scot, very little interested as a partisan and very much so as a social scientist, treated the subject therefore in psychological, intellectual, and socioeconomic terms. Throughout all history, he discovered, mankind has been divided into factions based either on personal loyalty to some leader or upon some "sentiment or interest" common to the group as a unit. This latter type he called a "Real" as distinguished from the "personal" faction. Finally, he subdivided the "real factions" into parties based on "interest, upon principle," or upon affection." Hume spent well over five pages dissecting these three types; but Madison, while determined to be inclusive, had not the space to go into such minute analysis. Besides, he was more intent now on developing the cure than on describing the malady. He therefore consolidated Hume's two-page treatment of "personal" factions and his long discussion of parties based on "principle and affection" into a single sentence. The tenth Federalist reads" "A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex ad oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good." It is hard to conceive of a more perfect example of the concentration of idea and meaning than Madison achieved in this famous sentence.

Federalist Paper 50

Madison appears to be very careful in rejecting these calls for periodic public examinations of government conduct. He must be careful because such a proposal is deeply republican in character. The anti-federalists had been accusing the federalists of trying to undermine republican principles with the creation of an overly powerful national government. Therefore, if Madison appears to be staking out an anti-republican position, he risks losing public support. Madison recognizes in this and previous papers the value of holding government accountable to the people. However, he asserts that the kind of public censuring proposed here will be ultimately ineffective. Although an advocate of the separation of powers and checks and balances, this is one check on government power that Madison does not support.

Bacon (New Atlantis)

The Stagnation of Knowledge Francis Bacon's works were a reaction to Bacon's view that the progress of knowledge and discovery had slowed down. While it is not clear what, for Bacon, was the 'golden age' of discovery, it is clear that he wanted to end the stagnation of his day. Bacon believed that a number of dogmas or 'idols' held humanity back from basing knowledge on science and building up not only knowledge but a method of discovering move of it. The stagnation of knowledge was caused primarily by Scholasticism, in Bacon's view. Scholasticism is the philosophy of the followers of St. Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century Roman Catholic philosopher who strove throughout his career to meld Aristotelian philosophy and Christian theology. The resulting mix died down in the centuries after him, but in the 17th century, Scholasticism was making a comeback. Bacon claims that the Scholastics were excessively focused on deduction and a priori reasoning. A priori reasoning is reasoning that occurs prior to experience; it is reasoning about the nature of concepts. Because Scholastics focused on how to logically manipulate conceptions, they rarely looked into the world to generalize from observation. In fact, many Scholastics downplayed empirical knowledge in favor of more conceptual knowledge. They also used a method of reasoning, deductive reasoning, to think through their ideas, which they regarded as derived from experience in a relatively unbiased way. Bacon believed that men's minds were inherently biased and corrupt and that repeated observation subject to test was required to end that bias. Further, observation should be the ground of knowledge, in Bacon's view, and a method of reasoning known as induction should take over in order for scientists to move past Scholastic-caused stagnation. The Revolution of Knowledge Again, Bacon believed that the progress of knowledge was stagnant, hampered by philosophical dogma and held back by the unwillingness of scientists to challenge that dogma. Bacon believed that scientists had to plunge themselves into the world, to make constant observations, to develop theorist and test them and when their theories proved robust with respect to observation, to add to the body of general knowledge by generalizing from their theories across other theories to derive more general information about the world. The revolution of knowledge was to root knowledge in observation and to build up human ideas from observation and induction, rather than using the partially corrupted common sense ideas that humans are born with or abstract from experience. Reason was partly corrupted and so had to be based on something firm—observation. The entire point of The Great Instauration is to outline a project for achieving this revolution of knowledge. The project included several steps; among them were attempts to systematically classify the sciences, develop a detailed method of inductive reasoning and develop a theory of knowledge rooted in observation and induction. While The Great Instauration was never completed, Bacon still had a vision for what a great research institution could look like. Perhaps the main point of The New Atlantis is to outline that vision in narrative form. The Father of Salomon's House gives the speech that outlines the structure of the institution in great detail. The Greatness of Scientific Reason and Observation While Bacon believed that human beings had a natural tendency to believe falsely and to reason poorly, he believed that reason was capable of great feats and that it was among Man's greatest features. For Bacon, reason and observation were the foundations of all authority. Anyone's traditions or theology must ultimately bow to scientific reasoning. A priori reasoning of the Scholastics was based in ideas that were not rooted in scientific observation and reasoning, and so, in anachronistic terms, their reasoning was based on a 'garbage in, garbage out' system. Further, they eschewed observation. Scientific reason was rooted in observation and did not function to one-up one's philosophical opponents. Instead, the purpose of inductive reasoning is to come to a mastery of nature by understanding it and ultimately being able to manipulate it. The power of reason can make human life better rather than merely functioning as a device used by elite philosophers to embarrass one another. Observation, while biased when it occurs through common sense alone, can be repeatedly verified by different scientists and tested over and over again. Thus the best form of knowledge begins with observation and then takes reliable inputs and uses induction to derive generalizations that can then be the fodder for more theoretical reasoning. If knowledge is truly refounded, then Bacon believes that English society can achieve much of what Bensalem achieved in The New Atlantis. The English can found great research universities and come up with many scientific achievements that can benefit society as a whole.

John Stuart Mill (On Liberty)

Mill's mission in writing On Liberty can perhaps be best understood by looking at how he discussed his work in his Autobiography. Mill wrote that he believed On Liberty to be about "the importance, to man and society, of a large variety in types of character, and of giving full freedom to human nature to expand itself in innumerable and conflicting directions." This celebration of individuality and disdain for conformity runs throughout On Liberty. Mill rejects attempts, either through legal coercion or social pressure, to coerce people's opinions and behavior. He argues that the only time coercion is acceptable is when a person's behavior harms other people--otherwise, society should treat diversity with respect. Mill justifies the value of liberty through a Utilitarian approach. His essay tries to show the positive effects of liberty on all people and on society as a whole. In particular, Mill links liberty to the ability to progress and to avoid social stagnation. Liberty of opinion is valuable for two main reasons. First, the unpopular opinion may be right. Second, if the opinion is wrong, refuting it will allow people to better understand their own opinions. Liberty of action is desirable for parallel reasons. The nonconformist may be correct, or she may have a way of life that best suits her needs, if not anybody else's. Additionally, these nonconformists challenge social complacency, and keep society from stagnating. Mill's argument proceeds in five chapters. In his first chapter, Mill provides a brief overview of the meaning of liberty. He also introduces his basic argument in favor of respecting liberty, to the degree it does not harm anybody else. His next two chapters detail why liberty of opinion and liberty of action are so valuable. His fourth chapter discusses the appropriate level of authority that society should have over the individual. His fifth chapter looks at particular examples and applications of the theory, to clarify the meaning of his claims. Mill's essay has been criticized for being overly vague about the limits of liberty, for placing too much of an emphasis on the individual, and for not making a useful distinction between actions that only harm oneself, and actions that harm others. That said, the essay does provide an impassioned defense of nonconformity as a positive good for society, and an equally impassioned reminder that no one can be completely sure that his or her way of life is the best or the only way to live.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Discourse on Arts & Sciences)

Rousseau: Ancient, Enlightened and Romantic Rousseau combines a variety of philosophical traditions that were influential in 18th century France and that are still influential in the present day. First, Rousseau displays many affinities with ancient philosophers like Aristotle and medieval philosophers like Thomas Aquinas. He believed that the best communities were small and virtuous, focusing on the common good. While he was a democrat, he still believed that the state should aim at a single end of the common good, just as the ancients and medieval did. He also is a critic of modernity, arguing that humans were happier in less technologically and economically developed times. The critique of modernity and love of virtue are prominently featured in the First and Second Discourses. Rousseau is best known as a representative of the Enlightenment, however. The Enlightenment emphasizes the unlimited power of human reason, human political equality and the innate goodness of humanity. This powerful movement first swept European intellectual circles and then generated a series of revolutions in Europe (and arguably in the United States). Rousseau is one of the most prominent Enlightenment thinkers and was an important influence on the French Revolution, although it occurred after his death. Rousseau's Enlightenment elements are more prominent in his later work but there are elements of it in the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality where Rousseau hedges his affinity for ancient man with the claim that men can never return to that state. He will later claim that the despotism of the state can become a form of freedom if it governs in accord with the reason of all in the form of the General Will. Rousseau also prefigures the Romantic period of art, literature and thought in the 19th century. He wrote one of the first pre-Romantic French novels, Julie. He also strongly emphasized that power of emotion and the beauty of men who lived in harmony with nature. He also saw modernity as having destructive effects despite its rationality. The Corruption of Humanity by Civilization The main argument of the First Discourse is straightforward: humanity has been corrupted by civilization. Men once lived in an idyllic, noble, yet savage state; he lived from one day to the next trying only to acquire enough food to survive. However, in the noble, savage state, men were equal and morality did not exist. This form of life was both simple and happy. As humans became more able to survive the harsh conditions of nature, they expanded in number and civilization was born. However, new aspects of human life grew out of this development. Enough men came to be that all men did not know one another and so they often had to restrain and hide their true feelings and their urge to attack each other. Instead, they had to allow others a degree of freedom. Consequently, humanity became increasingly corrupt if more well-mannered in public. When humans are not policed, they will engage in many evils and develop vices. The arts and sciences only serve to increase this evil. The arts and sciences are conceived from bad aims—selfishness, war, and laziness. They then produce these evils in greater amounts. Instead of enjoying and admiring such achievements, Rousseau encourages men to beware. The Second Discourse has more to say about the noble savage's nature. Rousseau argues that through the growth of population and human capacities, men acquired the desire to own their own property and to exclude others from it. In the beginning, property was a kind of deception, yet was required to resolve fights. Property norms permitted natural inequalities of strength, beauty and intelligence to produce social and political inequality. Conflict resulted and this prompted the rich to bring the state into being. Eventually the state turns on the rich and the poor, enslaving everyone. In this way too, humanity is corrupted by civilization.

Plato (The Apology)

The Apology is one of those rare works that gracefully bridges the divide between philosophy and literature. The work is less concerned with asserting any particular philosophical doctrines than it is with creating a portrait of the ideal philosopher. On trial, with his life at stake, Socrates maintains his cool and unwaveringly defends his way of life as unassailably just. This speech has served as inspiration and justification for philosophical thinkers ever since. It is also valuable in that it links three major themes in Socratic thought: Socratic irony, the elenchus (the Socratic mode of inquiry), and the higher ethical concerns that dominate Socrates' life. The Delphic oracle, which proclaimed that Socrates was the wisest of men because he knows that he knows nothing, can be posited as the source of Socratic irony. This oracle has led Socrates to assume his highly ironic stance of confessing his own ignorance, and yet showing his interlocutors to be even more ignorant than he; great wisdom turns out, contrary to expectation, to reside in a humble acknowledgment of ignorance. With wisdom of this kind, Socrates does not take himself too seriously. Indeed, his wisdom is deeply humbling, as it casts all pretensions to human knowledge into question. With a smile, Socrates accepts that he is better off the less he thinks he knows, and passes this wisdom along with appropriate wit. This irony, then, deeply informs the elenchus, Socrates' preferred mode of inquiry. It is important to note that almost all written accounts of Socrates are dialogues (The Apology is an exception)--Socrates never lectures on his beliefs in a one-sided manner. This supports the idea that Socrates has no knowledge of his own to put forward. His method of inquiry consists of identifying what his interlocutor thinks he knows, and then slowly dissecting those claims of knowledge. The Apology, however, is presented almost exclusively in the form of a monologue, because Socrates is not discussing and dismantling any one particular claim so much as he is laying out the method behind these dismantlings. As such, it is an invaluable commentary on the other dialogues. The elenchus acts to disabuse Socrates' interlocutors of their pretensions and thereby deepens their wisdom. For Socrates, wisdom and virtue are closely connected, so his efforts serve to improve society as a whole. In Socrates' view, if we are all wise, none of us will ever do wrong, and our self-knowledge will lead to healthier, more fulfilling lives. Thus, the philosopher, according to Socrates, does not merely follow abstract intellectual pursuits for the sake of amusement, but is engaged in activities of the highest moral value.

Marx (Communist Manifesto)

The Communist Manifesto reflects an attempt to explain the goals of Communism, as well as the theory underlying this movement. It argues that class struggles, or the exploitation of one class by another, are the motivating force behind all historical developments. Class relationships are defined by an era's means of production. However, eventually these relationships cease to be compatible with the developing forces of production. At this point, a revolution occurs and a new class emerges as the ruling one. This process represents the "march of history" as driven by larger economic forces. Modern Industrial society in specific is characterized by class conflict between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. However, the productive forces of capitalism are quickly ceasing to be compatible with this exploitative relationship. Thus, the proletariat will lead a revolution. However, this revolution will be of a different character than all previous ones: previous revolutions simply reallocated property in favor of the new ruling class. However, by the nature of their class, the members of the proletariat have no way of appropriating property. Therefore, when they obtain control they will have to destroy all ownership of private property, and classes themselves will disappear. The Manifesto argues that this development is inevitable, and that capitalism is inherently unstable. The Communists intend to promote this revolution, and will promote the parties and associations that are moving history towards its natural conclusion. They argue that the elimination of social classes cannot come about through reforms or changes in government. Rather, a revolution will be required. The Communist Manifesto has four sections. In the first section, it discusses the Communists' theory of history and the relationship between proletarians and bourgeoisie. The second section explains the relationship between the Communists and the proletarians. The third section addresses the flaws in other, previous socialist literature. The final section discusses the relationship between the Communists and other parties.

Arendt (What is Authority?)

The Human Condition is fundamentally concerned with the problem of reasserting the politics as a valuable ream of human action, praxis, and the world of appearances. Arendt argues that the Western philosophical tradition has devalued the world of human action which attends to appearances (the vita activa), subordinating it to the life of contemplation which concerns itself with essences and the eternal (the vita contemplativa). The prime culprit is Plato, whose metaphysics subordinates action and appearances to the eternal realm of the Ideas. The allegory of The Cave in The Republic begins the tradition of political philosophy; here Plato describes the world of human affairs in terms of shadows and darkness, and instructs those who aspire to truth to turn away from it in favor of the "clear sky of eternal ideas." This metaphysical hierarchy, theôria is placed above praxis and epistêmê over mere doxa. The realm of action and appearance (including the political) is subordinated to and becomes instrumental for the ends of the Ideas as revealed to the philosopher who lives the bios theôretikos. In The Human Condition and subsequent works, the task Arendt set herself is to save action and appearance, and with it the common life of the political and the values of opinion, from the depredations of the philosophers. By systematically elaborating what this vita activa might be said to entail, she hopes to reinstate the life of public and political action to apex of human goods and goalsAccording to Arendt, the origins of European philosophical thinking date back to Ancient Greece, with Aristotle and Plato. Plato had taught us that the truth was not present within the society and in public affairs, but in eternal ideas, as demonstrated in the allegory of the cave. On the contrary, Marx thought that the "truth is not outside the affairs of men and their common world but precisely in them." The end of Platonic and Aristotelean tradition of philosophy came with Marx, according to whom the philosopher had to turn away from philosophy in order to be involved in society and human affairs in order to change the world. Marx's own attitude to the tradition of political thought was one of conscious rebellion. Crucial among [certain key statements containing his political philosophy] are the following: 'Labor created man'. 'Violence is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one', hence: violence is the midwife of history. Finally, there is the famous last thesis on Feuerbach: 'The philosophers have only interpreted the world differently; the point is, however, to change it', which, in the light of Marx's thought, one could render more adequately as: The philosophers have interpreted the world long enough; the time has come to change it. For this last statement is in fact only a variation of another: 'You cannot aufheben philosophy without realizing it'. For Arendt, Marxist philosophy considers that man creates himself, that his humanity is the result of his own activity, and that what distinguishes man from animal is not reason but labor. Thus Marx challenges the traditional praise of reason. Moreover, for Marx violence is the leading force that determines human relations, while for the traditional thought it is the most disgraceful of human actions and the symbol of tyranny. To Marx, violence or rather the possession of the means of violence is the constituent element of all forms of government; the state is the instrument of the ruling class by means of which it oppresses and exploits, and the whole sphere of political action is characterized by the use of violence. The Marxian identification of violence with action implies another fundamental challenge of tradition.

Plato (Crito)

Though brief, the Crito is a confusing and somewhat muddled dialogue. The difficulty Plato faced in composing the dialogue was to somehow justify Socrates' decision to stay in prison rather than try to escape after his wrongful condemnation. To do this, Plato had to draw out a distinction between the just Laws, which Socrates must obey by staying in prison, and the unjust behavior of Socrates' accusers, who sentenced him to death. The problem, of course, is that Socrates' accusers have unjustly sentenced him by using the Laws. By giving the Laws their own voice, Plato hopes to distinguish them as a separate entity, making them something human toward which Socrates might be able to act unjustly. However, it is highly debatable how far one can truly separate the laws of a state from the people who apply them. In this instance, we have the people of the state condemning Socrates and the Laws of the state following suit and persuading Socrates that he must face death in order to avoid breaking them. But if both the people and the Laws have ruled that Socrates must be executed, either the people are siding with the Laws or the Laws are siding with the people. And regardless of which of these is the case, it seems odd to assert that the Laws are just and must be respected and that the people are unjust and should not be respected. It seems Crito, who is trying to persuade Socrates to escape, and Socrates are in a sense talking past one another. One of Crito's strongest arguments in favor of escape comes at 45c, where Crito suggests that Socrates would be abetting the wrong-doing of his enemies in following through with their wishes. Socrates' reply to this argument is that he would in fact be harming the Laws, which are just. If the Laws are just and the people are unjust, but both are willing the same thing, then it seems Socrates is in a quandary. If Socrates stays in prison, he will be siding with his unjust accusers, and if he escapes he will be acting against the just Laws. Ultimately, it seems that it is better to accord oneself with the Laws than to side against the people. The Crito's distinguished reputation rests largely on the idea of the social contract that Socrates introduces. It is the first suggestion in Western civilization that a legal system exists as a result of a kind of contract between the individual and the state, and this idea has had a tremendous impact on the modern world. Also, the very confusion a reader finds in wading through these arguments is a great motivation to sort through issues of justice and law oneself. After all, Plato's goal is not ultimately to present the final word on any particular issue. He chooses the dialogue form precisely because he wants to encourage us to think for ourselves.

Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America)

Tyranny of the Majority In a democracy, tyranny of the majority happens when a legislative body enacts laws that favor the rights of a majority of the electorate and in so doing, diminish the rights of the corresponding minority. The potential for democratic tyranny can be found at every level of government: Municipal, county, state, or country. It can also be enacted by any kind of political majority based on religion, culture, race, wealth, language. Tyranny of the majority can happen even where and when not intended. Tocqueville argues that democracy is a self-correcting political system that can usually fix its own flaws, if enough time has passed and enough political pressure is applied by minorities. Democratic tyranny is a vice of democracy that cannot be easily avoided. However, the mechanisms of democracy in America allows for an unprecedented degree of self-correction. Many of the constitutional and legal barriers to potential tyranny of the majority in America were originally created by Federalist James Madison and later incorporated in the Constitution. Madison, like Aristotle before him, mainly feared that tyranny of the majority would lead to the expropriation of the wealthier landowners of the South. In "Democracy in America", Tocqueville praises Madison but barely hints at particular outcomes of tyranny of the majority. The Impact of Democracy on Art Literature and Philosophy Many of Tocqueville's arguments revolve around the effect of democracy on the crafts valued by the aristocracy. This insistence on the part of the author is because Tocqueville was himself part of France's aristocracy, and because his overall goal was to sell democracy to the ruling regime. One of the main arguments of the aristocrats for clinging to power was that by legislating with great intelligence, they were able to elevate the societies that they ruled upon. However, "elevating" society meant that the common people - who could admire but not aspire to the level of their rulers - had to suffer to attain an idealistic State of "greatness" was irrelevant to this idealistic regime. The aristocracy holds such intellectual crafts as art, literature and philosophy to have higher value for the good of people than material comfort and peace. To the aristocrats, democracy constitutes a threat that turns their values upside down. The author believed that History was heading irrevocably towards greater equality of conditions of the people and democracy. Tocqueville does not try to disprove the devaluation of the aristocratic ideals brought by democracy. However, he does defuse the argument by concluding that the "great" intellectual crafts of man are not condemned, but simply displaced in the scale of values. The outcome of democracy, he insists, is a society where people live generally better, and where ideals can thrive in their own sphere without interfering with the peace and well-being of the people. Materialism, which is inherent to democracy, conspires in devaluating the traditional trade of the artisans. Under an aristocratic regime, artisans can elevate themselves to the higher class by creating greater pieces of art and literature. By doing so, they can entice the admiration and respect of the aristocrats, which in turn leads them to a better social position. Under a democratic regime, the artisans tend to become manufacturers of cheaper, more immediate "goods" that can be produced and consumed at a greater rate. The value of a product of democratic "art" lies strictly in its resulting economic value. Thus, the products of arts and literature in America are produced in enormous quantity at the expense of quality. The same reasoning applies to the cheapening of philosophy. Undoubtedly, meditation and introspection are time-consuming tasks and are not considered very "productive," at least from a pragmatic point of view. Democracy forces thinkers to keep their feet on the ground, so to speak, and concentrate on solving the immediate difficulties of everyday life. It comes as no surprise to Tocqueville that America (at least until the 1830's) did not to produce great philosophers, influential writers and geniuses in art. However, the author also knew that America was, at the time of his writing, a very young nation. As time progressed, and as America continued to produce a deluge of popular, mediocre products, the democratic society was bound to deliver more influential and valuable pieces of art equal to the output of any aristocratic society. One again, the extreme freedom of democracy serves to counter its negative side. Equality and Freedom The future of democracy rests on the fragile balance between the people's equality of conditions and liberty. Tocqueville's analysis shows that this balance can only be maintained if the conditions of both equality and freedom are "extreme." In a perfect society where the conditions of democracy are ideal, equality and liberty are mirror images of each other and blend completely into the social environment. In such a perfect world, "no one is different from his fellows, none can exercise a tyrannical power; men will be perfectly free, because they are all entirely equal; and they will be all perfectly equal, because they are entirely free." However, the world is such that no perfect environment exists and the people will always have to deal with conditions that prevent absolute equality and absolute freedom. Both concepts of equality and freedom are ambivalent. Tocqueville never makes this ambivalence very clear through his arguments, and the result is sometimes confusing. Equality of conditions even the odds for everyone, but it applies whether or not freedom is involved. Under an imaginary extreme despotic regime, where no freedom exists at all, everyone can be still be called "equal" since their collective condition is the same and everyone is unable to do anything freely. In other words, slaves enjoy perfect equality of conditions among slaves. Freedom is also a dangerous concept, because it can easily be manipulated. In a perfectly bland world, where nothing is left to do or say, then freedom is no more useful than a high performance racecar in the middle of the jungle. Tocqueville shows that equality tends to reduce the social conditions where freedom can have practical applications, making it an even more difficult concept to apply. In Tocqueville's view, equality constitutes an immediate danger to democracy, because it can turn society against itself. It should be noted, however, that this threat is not specific to America; in fact, he always concludes that America has solved the problem of balancing equality and liberty by extending and securing the realm of both to an unprecedented level through its legislation. The United States laws are able to counter the negative effects of equality by making sure that the principle of liberty remains secured and untouched.

Hobbes (Leviathian) Ch. 1-16, 21, 29, 30

Vain Glory One of the main problems men face when they are in nature is gaining too much power. When they are popular people and have the ability to charm people into being their friends and followers, then they have the power to control and gain even more power. This can lead to vain glory because a person will not know when to stop. Power in this sense becomes addictive, like a drug, and a person can be willing to lose everything he has to ensure they keep their power, or gain more. Vain glory is just as dangerous in a commonwealth as it is in nature. In a commonwealth, a vain person may think he or she is above the law and will begin to resent it. This resentment causes them to begin to harbor anger and people can only internalize anger for so long. Once people have become so upset at being subjected to rules and laws he or she feels they are above, they will start to spread their ideas, anger, and hatred to other people, poisoning their minds and making them angry as well. This anger can spread throughout the commonwealth and cause people to start breaking laws they do not agree with. When too many laws are broken and the civil system cannot keep up with the violators, chaos can break out and an internal war can weaken and eventually dissolve the commonwealth. This is why it is extremely important for the sovereign to write fair and necessary laws to protect the people from vain and prideful people. Artificial Man The idea of the artificial man is very interesting and fairly simple to comprehend, even though the system of the artificial man is complex. The artificial man refers to the commonwealth. Throughout the book Hobbes tries to humanize the commonwealth, attributing different parts of the commonwealth to internal body parts. The sovereign is the soul of the commonwealth. Interesting enough, the sovereign is not the heart. The heart of the nation is charity, money given by the people for the benefit of all the nation's citizens. In Hobbes' time, people gave money to charity by placing it in a designated box. The money from this box was given to people who were in between jobs, or were destitute, much like modern day welfare. Money itself is the blood of the nation because it can go through the hands of everyone in the commonwealth and helps the economic development of the nation. Though it is never expressed what part of the commonwealth the people represent, perhaps they are the skin for they protect the inner workings of the commonwealth. Any rupture to the skin can lead to infection and slow destruction of the health of the nation. The health of the commonwealth lies in the hands of the people and they have the power to destroy it. They can poison the people of the commonwealth, or allow corporations to control an abundance of money so that it stays with them and does not circulate freely from person to person in the nation. In sum, the artificial man is built to be just like a natural man. It is strong, intelligent, and has a necessary routine to live a long and healthy life. The soul of the nation protects the physical part of it, and without it people would be living in natural fear and continuous war. Kingdom of Darkness This Kingdom is where the damned go once they die. People are damned if they do not believe in the Christian doctrine, led morally bad lives, or committed crimes against the commonwealth. When these heathens die, they are judged before God and are condemned from enjoying eternal life in the kingdom of God. What they go through in the kingdom of Darkness is not known, rather there are many different ideas of what happens. These range from falling into a bottomless pit, to living in a lake of fire, and being tormented. The most common idea is the second death and never being able to enjoy eternal life. The Kingdom of Darkness is not run by the devil for the devil is not an individual, but rather anything which tempts a person from leading a virtuous life. The Kingdom of Darkness is a mechanism to inflict fear in people to do the right thing. In the commonwealth, a person fears being punished by civil authorities. Because life after death is not lived here on earth, nobody knows what really waits for us. This lack of knowledge leads to anxiety and the answer to this anxiety is the Kingdom of Darkness: a fearful tool to keep people from leading immoral lives. The existence of hell is not as important as the existence of the Kingdom of God. If neither exist, then a person does not lose anything from being a good person and citizen, rather they gain a nice reputation and the kind words of those still alive who will remember them. If there is a Kingdom of God, then being kind and obedient will be profitable. Either way, being virtuous is a win-win situation and the fear of hell is a perfect way to ensure people follow a virtuous life.