A Role for Everyone

“We could just rule the world, and we could just burn every kingdom as it turns, put on our crowns of gold it’s been hard I know, oh, darling we could just rule the world”

-Banners “Rule the World”

John Locke was born in North Somerset in 1632, just ten years before a series of civil wars erupted in England, which would become the backdrop to most of Locke’s adolescence. Although his family was not of noble rank, his father was a gentleman* and an attorney which meant that Locke was afforded an education that was beyond the reach of many, attending one of the most prestigious schools in England before earning his degree at a college in Oxford in his early twenties. Locke’s father sided with the Parliamentarian forces during the English Civil War, holding strong to his anti-authoritarian views that his son would inherit along with his passion for civil liberties and desire for a constitutional monarchy. Since Locke was a freethinker who took pleasure in learning and theorizing, he became educated in many different fields and topics that he would later write about. His Second Treatise of Civil Government is especially notable because of the level influence it had on not only the French Revolution but also American Revolutionists who took part in drafting documents that would have a fundamental impact on Western politics and the foundation from which the United States of America was born. It’s important to note that Locke lived under the reign of King Charles II for a significant portion of his life which meant that he had firsthand experience of what it was like to live under despotic leadership. Presumably, his arguments laid out in this treatise were heavily inspired by this political association and the levels of oppression that were occurring in result of authoritarian principles that were suddenly under fire in England at the time.

Arguably, Locke’s purpose for writing The Second Treatise of Civil Government was to prove that absolute monarchy was (and always will be) an illegitimate form of government and used natural law theory to validate his claims. In this treatise, Locke touches on some of the most controversial topics of his era, such as slavery, property, and paternal power, exposing, very specifically, the elements which he finds to be unjust within these institutions. But above all, he sought to empower citizens by helping them to understand that it is within their right to disobey unjust forms of government and any laws that violate their natural rights. For Locke, it was individual freedom that he was most concerned about which became the basic unit of politics when measuring Western liberalism and how we understand it today. This contrasted Aristotle’s theory which viewed the household as the basic unit of politics approximately 2000 years earlier.

Like Locke, Aristotle was also eager to discredit constitutional slavery in the 4th century and presents a strong argument for why this relationship is (and always will be) unjust according to natural law. He also shares Locke's need to categorize the different forms of government to help support his argument for why a polity* is the most ideal form of democracy as opposed to the more “defective” forms of government that rule in the interest of the few. Due to Aristotle’s extensive knowledge in both physics and metaphysics, he often relied on first principles when searching for truths about the more “practical” sciences like politics. In one of his later works titled Politics he considers the state as a whole and views it as “prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part” (Aristotle 5). His proof of this claim is that “the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore [they, she, he] is like a part in relation to the whole” (6). This argument is important to focus on because it is this perspective that is absent from Locke’s treatise which puts the individual before the family and the state. And although this difference may seem very subtle and inconsequential, it would end up having a major impact on Western nations that were influenced by this unique brand of philosophy.

So, when we compare the works of these two highly influential thinkers and the political philosophy they designed approximately 2000 years apart from one another, we can find many curious similarities in their topic choices, their layouts and even their purposes for writing. However, there is one major concern regarding this genre of writing, which is that it risks becoming a breeding ground for misinterpretation and can unfortunately be manipulated very easily by those who stand to either gain or maintain power from the content of this type of work. But what is most unfair, in my humble opinion, is that when dangerous rebellions are catalyzed and/or governments are overthrown, it is influencers like Aristotle and Locke who are often blamed for these bloody revolutions, rather than holding accountable those who initiated and organized violence or who were purposely stimulating attitudes that caused extreme tensions to rise in society for the purpose of gaining wealth and/or power during times of radical political change. So why is “civil” society so quick to villainize political philosophers and turn them into objects of irrational hostility? The simple answer is because they are easy targets for bullies and even more so after they are dead. Because their writing is effortlessly provocative and because most of society still needs a scapegoat to take responsibility for their sins, sadly.

Was it irresponsible of Aristotle to quote lines such as “silence is a woman’s glory” (13) and “the male is superior by nature, and the female inferior” (7) in Politics if he knew the level of influence it would have or if he intended this work to be used as a reference to measure the justness of a state and its legislation for centuries following its publication? Absolutely. Are these the types of misogynistic beliefs that have led to horrific levels of domestic abuse toward women throughout history? They sure are. However, the thing about statements like these, is that although they are insufferable, the arguments that support them are uncogent because they are both weak and have false premises (Waller 25). Furthermore, when a sentence has no truth value, it isn't even a legitimate statement (14), which means that it is within our right as 21st century women to either challenge these fallacies or simply disregard them entirely. What can I say? Some parts of history just need to be erased.

Political Philosophers have a very unusual role in society because not only is their political participation/contributions, and life’s work largely invisible, but it is also widely detested due to its pretentious and forthright nature which is mostly due to their lack of social intelligence, ironically. I have a special appreciation for political philosophers and their unique role in society because not only has their work helped me to reach my fullest potential as a living organism, but their writing speaks to me on a very profound yet personal level. I understand their desire for anonymity and desperate need for privacy in their private life. It's a feeling of fellowship. It's a need to protect them, or at least what's left of them. But most of all, it's a need to help lift some of the responsibility off their shoulders because no one, single citizen should ever have to bear as much blame as they do.

The thing that I appreciate most about Aristotle is that he approached politics as if it were a single living organism itself which is reflected in his philosophy that moved in sync with this motion. He understood that societies will, one day, outgrow their constitutions and why this change is both natural and just. He could see how the common interest evolves and why human-made laws and conventions need to change alongside this evolution. He never expected his philosophy to be timeless because he understood that what feels just to us now in the 21st century will not likely feel just to those living 2000 years from now, at which time, new political philosophy will be needed to support those changing interests and attitudes. He knew that eventually someone like Locke would come along and feel morally responsible for updating his philosophy simply because they could.

So, the big questions that I will leave my readers with tonight are what are the common interests of our time? Do we all share a desire to be treated with kindness? Do we all share a desire to be treated with respect? Do we all share a desire to feel loved, to feel supported, to feel connected, and understood? Do we all share a desire for knowledge? For fellowship? For goodness? For purpose? Because once a society has come to a collective agreement about what exactly their common interests are, it is then that their political philosopher(s) can begin designing philosophy that is in harmony with these interests.

Sincerely,

Heather

*A gentleman is a term that was used in English history to describe a man of social class belonging to the landed gentry (one who owned land)

*The word polity stems from the Greek word polis which means “city” or “city state”. A polity was the most ideal form of government according to Aristotle’s Politics

Note: This post was inspired by the provocative ones who anger and challenge me the most. The ones who arouse my passions, and who continue to fuel my fire with their “spiritedness”. It was also inspired by the education that I'm receiving in the PHIL100 course that I'm taking this semester, which is giving me the tools that I need to detect an invalid argument when I hear one and challenge those arguments respectfully when necessary.

Aristotle. “Politics”. Internet Classics Archive. http.//classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/politics.html. Accessed 13 Sept. 2022

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Civil Government, edited by Andrew Bailey, Peterborough, Broadview Press, 2019.

Waller, Bruce. Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict. 6th ed., Pearson, 2012.