Letter Concerning Toleration - Locke

Locke's 'A Letter Concerning Toleration'  seems a bit odd at times, because the message is so completely obvious.  Locke says 'I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic of the true Church' and then backs up this observation at length.  I liked this bit:

The toleration of those that differ from others in matters of religion is so agreeable to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to the genuine reason of mankind, that it seems monstrous for men to be so blind as not to perceive the necessity and advantage of it in so clear a light.

And this:

I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other.

That still seems like a tricky distinction to some, but mostly now because of our difficulties with drawing barriers for government actions.  As I said, the message is obvious because this has been our reality for some time but we must remember that when Locke wrote this, England was in convulsions over how people worship.  Today we see little difference between Catholics and mainline protestant worshipers but the distinction then was big enough to cause wars.
One interesting note is that Locke does not preach tolerance to atheists.  He was afraid that their disconnect from belief in God would make them wholly amoral and untrustworthy.  I don't know what he would have thought of the Deism of Jefferson or similar.
This piece is interesting and short, but more of historical interest now than a guide to personal behavior.  Yes, we should let people worship how they will, especially without the guidance or interference of the state.  Yes, it's wrong and un-Christian to try to physically force people to worship in a certain way. 
But we know that now.

Ten Books that Shaped the World

A couple of weeks ago the Guardian published a list of books that shaped the world.  It's a list of ten, each selection was chosen by a different person.  There is no description for what they actually asked for but it does say that they are 'not of an age but for all time'.  The list:

• The Second Sex by de Beauvoir - I haven't read this before but I've put it on my list to read soon.  If you were writing a cultural history of the 20th century, you'd certainly say that one of the key elements is that women gained more equality than at any previous time in history.  It sounds like it was one of the foundational books of feminism.  I honestly don't know how much any particular book influenced women's movements worldwide.  It seems that other mediums, especially film, may have done more.  But the movement as a whole deserves recognition and if this book fits that bill, then it wholly deserves to be on a list such as this.
• The Analects by Confucius - I read this nearly fifteen years ago.  What struck me the most was just how much attention was given to the idea of noble bureaucrat.  The Analects is a guidebook for honest and trustworthy government administration.  It isn't hard at all to understand how a very statist idea like communism would be popular in China.  Which isn't to say that it doesn't have value even in capitalist societies like ours.  We want our officials to be honest and work for the good too.  It's just that we have a healthy skepticism about state actions.  A very worthy inclusion.
• The Origin of the Species by Darwin - An obvious conclusion and I won't argue with it.  It's in the Great Books series but we haven't gotten to it yet.  I wonder if the amount of praise that Darwin gets is more in line with the social upheaval that he caused by questioning religion and how much because of the importance of the science involved.  But it very obviously did change the world.
• Elements by Euclid - This is the work that set the foundations for all mathematics that followed it.  That's a big deal.  Euclid not only laid the ground rules for math but he helped engineers and architects for all time.  Another good inclusion.
• Interpretation of Dreams by Freud - I don't think I would have chosen this.  The science is iffy and widely disrespected.  On the other hand, I guess it did 'change the world'.  For many years, psychologists had to work with within the terms that Freud had created.  Those terms and ideas still dominate art and literature.  So...maybe?
• A Sand County by Leopold - This was completely unknown to me.  The book catalogs differences in a Wisconsin county over time.  It was chosen because 'It helped to transform what had been an essentially conservative, utilitarian conservation movement into the first stirrings of an ecologically centred green movement in the west'.  I don't know how true that is.  There has been a romantic edge to environmentalism since at least the early 19th century.  It goes to far to suggest that without this book, the movement wouldn't be in roughly the same place it is now.
•  The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels - Well yeah, this book had a huge impact, that we're still working through today.  That isn't to say that the impact has been positive but it has very much 'changed the world'.  Of course, 'Mein Kampf' fits this exact bill too...
• Beloved by Morrison - I haven't read this so maybe I shouldn't comment too much but I have trouble seeing how this should be included.  It has a serious anti-slavery message but it was written long after slavery was outlawed in the Western world.  The impact of 'Beloved' can't really be compared with 'Uncle Tom's Cabin', even if the quality is higher.  Having just read some Frederick Douglas, I have trouble believing that Morrison is a more important writer.  Frankly, this selection is a bit embarrassing.  
• Comedies, Histories and Tragedies of William Shakespeare - No argument here.  No other playwright has come close to Shakespeare's global reach.  
• Scripture - The last selection is perhaps so obvious that it was widely overlooked.  No other books in history have had as much influence on the world than the Bible, the Koran and other religious writings.  

I would have included some of the enlightenment writings on government.  The movement from monarchy to democracy was accomplished in large part because of some serious philosophical heavy lifting from Locke, Rousseau and others. 
When making a list like this, it's hard not to just keep going earlier and earlier.  It's hard to say that any book from the past fifty years or so has really changed the world.  You could argue that the most impactful book written since 1950 is something like 'Dianetics' even if history won't judge it well.  Short term trends are so chaotic that it's probably impossible to forsee just what will come out favorably. 
But this is a fun and useful exercise and I'm glad that the Guardian tried it out.

Reading for August

I'm not going to lie, I'm having trouble getting into this.

August
Locke: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (book 2) link

Essay Concerning Human Understanding - Locke

(This concerns various chapters of Book 3 only.)

In this piece by Locke, he considers how language came about.  In the first three chapters, he opens by suggesting that early man made sounds and that over time, those sounds gained shared meaning.  The concrete items would be first (rock, fire, animal, etc.).  More abstract terms would take time and would have a much greater amount of potential misunderstanding.  I don't know how this squares with our modern understanding of early languages but this makes sense to me.  I'd never considered the probable differences between concrete and abstract concepts, but that also makes sense.  'Fire' is 'fire' and there isn't much argument about it.  On the other hand, even common abstract terms like 'love' are very subjective and easily misunderstood. 
Chapters 9-11 deal more with the imperfection of words (and those that use them).  He speaks of such things as words with double meanings and poorly defined terms.  The most interesting part to me though was Locke's observation on how badly we talk about important things, like art, religion and politics.  This seems to include increasingly technical language.  He says:

What have been the effect of those multiplied curious distinctions, and acute niceties, but obscurity and uncertainty, leaving the words more unintelligible, and the reader more at a loss? How else comes it to pass that princes, speaking or writing to their servants, in their ordinary commands are easily understood; speaking to their people, in their laws, are not so?

 This section came back to me several times while I was trying to puzzle out Kant.  It also made me think of Mark Twain, of all people.  If you read various 19th century novels, you'll note an enormous stylistic difference between writers like Hawthorne and Dickens and Mark Twain.  The former have always given me problems while the more plain spoken, easy going Twain never has.
The other thing that I wondered was how much of an influence did Locke's thoughts have on eventual dictionaries?  Locke published this essay in 1690.  Samuel Johnson's landmark 'A Dictionary of the English Language' was published in 1755.  Could be.

I enjoyed this.  Locke had made a somewhat Aristotelian attempt to classify language, find common problems and propose solutions to them.  

Readings for September

Two of them.

September
Locke: An Essay on Human Understanding (Book III, Ch 1-3, 9-11) link
Kant: Science of Right link

Some nice chewy reading.

Collective Rights

Way back in February, I posted one of my favorite Heinlein passages, this one from 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress'.  Here it is again:

"Dear lady, I must come to Manuel's defense. He has a correct evaluation even though he may not be able to state it. May I ask this? Under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do alone?"
"Uh . . . that's a trick question."
"It is the key question, my dear Wyoming. A radical question that strikes to the root of the whole dilemma of government. Anyone who answers honestly and abides by all consequences knows where he stands - and what he will die for."

 This is an easy one for Locke.  He says that a group of people have no more rights than each one would have individually.  The mere act of grouping themselves does not confer rights.  This makes sense to me but it's not easy to think of our modern governments along this line.

• Would the state still have the right to tax?  No private citizen does.
• Does this invalidate transfer payments (i.e. the welfare state)?  Again, as a private citizen, I can't force working people to give money to someone who isn't working.  
• What about regulations?  I can't go into a factory and tell them owner that he needs to change things.  (Well, I can tell him but I certainly can't force him.)

Again, I see the sense of what Locke is saying.  Which means that in regard to the Heinlein question, my answer is that there are very few things (if any) that groups can do morally that an individual can't.  On the other hand, I shudder at the real world consequences of suddenly changing the modern state.  The deceleration shock would be enormous!  Still, the ideal should be kept in sight as we move forward.

Locke and the Progression of Rights

Locke starts with the idea that all men have natural rights.  He thinks his way through the history of man from family and tribe to the (then) modern country.  Locke says that those rights are inherent and not a consequence of being in a society.  He also says:

the laws of nature, do bind men absolutely, even as they are men, although they have never any settled fellowship, never any solemn agreement amongst themselves what to do, or not to do

So those rights are there regardless of if the men have first sat down and hammered out the rules.  Which make sense.  If I travel to the farthest ends of the earth, I should still expect it to be a no-no to walk up to someone and punch him in the nose.  He also says that men remain in that state of inherent right unless they have kicked themselves out by declaring war on the rest of society.
So what advantage does man have in combining into larger groups?  Security, of course.

The great and chief end, therefore of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property. To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.
First, There wants an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them: for though the laws of nature be plain and intelligible to all rational creatures; yet men being biassed by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases.

 But there are limits to that power.

But though men, when they enter into society, give up the equality, liberty, and executive power they had in the state of nature, into the hands of the society, to be so far disposed of by the legislative, as the good of the society shall require; yet it being only with an intention in every one the better to preserve himself, his liberty and property; (for no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse)...
...whoever has the legislative or supreme power of any common-wealth, is bound to govern by established standing laws...to employ the force of the community at home, only in the execution of such laws, or abroad to prevent or redress foreign injuries and secure the community from inroads and invasion. And all this to be directed to no other end, but the peace, safety, and public good of the people. 

So those rights given to the legislature in exchange for security must be fairly limited.

Locke and Natural Rights

I found Locke to be fascinating.  He starts out with the most basic unit, the individual, and their rights:

To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.

When we think of 'human rights', we now think of something a bit different.  We think of a much longer list.  For instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is 30 articles long.  (And incidentally, is much weaker in regard to possessions and property).  Locke continues:

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.

So all people are equal, allowing for natural differences.  The exception being if 'the lord and master of them all' elevates someone to the position of 'undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty'.  So we have free people doing what they want, on a level playing field, with a nod to the idea that their might be a king. 
This is only the first two paragraphs. 
Starting from this premise Locke talks about how men can protect those rights.  Basically if another man violates your rights, he has declared war on you and the rest of humanity.  Per Locke (caps his):

EVERY MAN HATH A RIGHT TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER, AND BE EXECUTIONER OF THE LAW OF NATURE.

That's pretty hardcore by modern standards.  I can only imagine what Locke would think of the gun control laws of modern England.  Or the debates we have about 'castle doctrine' and the like.  He clearly believes that the common citizen is allowed to fight back against any outlaw.  A few weeks ago I mentioned that I wish I'd read some of this back in high school.  Now I'm wondering what a group of teens would do with it.
And this is just the surface.  Much more to follow...

Biography of Locke

John Locke was born in 1632, the son of a Puritan lawyer.  He grew up in a rural town near Bristol, England.  At the age of 15 he started school in London.  Reportedly he was more interested in the works of modern writers like Descartes than the more classical writers.  In time he studied medicine and 'natural philosophy' (what we think of as science, especially biology).  He became a member of the Royal Society, a group of the foremost scientific English thinkers of the day.
In 1666 he met Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper (Earl of Shrewsbury) and soon became his personal physician.  Locke helped treat his liver condition and probably saved his life.  During this time period Locke also served on various boards of trade, where no doubt he was given front row lessons in economics.  He also became exposed to more and more of the politics of the day and at the prompting of Shrewsbury, began writing his thoughts.  Locke fled to the Netherlands in 1683, in fear that we tied into a plot to assassinate King Charles II.  He stayed there for five years, returning when William of Orange took over the English throne.
Quoting from Wikipedia:

Events that happened during Locke's lifetime include the English Restoration, the Great Plague of London and the Great Fire of London. He did not quite see the Act of Union of 1707, though the thrones of England and Scotland were held in personal union throughout his lifetime. Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy were in their infancy during Locke's time.

17th century England was a time of great changes.  There were serious questions about the legitimacy of monarchy and the rights of normal men.  Locke tackled those questions and became an enormous influence on the next generation.  If you're interested in that time period, I highly recommend Neal Stephenson's 'Baroque Cycle', especially the first book 'Quicksilver'.  A great deal of this novel takes place within the Royal Society.