|
Rousseau and Locke differ in many ways. Rousseau creates a utopian society designed to give all men equal representation under the law. Rousseau claims that from Civil Liberty man gains "what is called Moral Liberty which alone makes him master of himself; for the impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty" (Rousseau, P.196). In the state of nature, there are certain natural inequalities, strength, age, and sex that allow some individuals to have more liberties than others hold. The social contract removes these inequalities, and, because all inequalities are given up before forming a Commonwealth, it makes all men equal under the law. The society Locke creates, known as capitalism, is a system of greed and unequality that can not be justified. No man has the right to appropriate more than his share. If he does this takes away from the ability of others to self persevere and we will have reverted back to a state of war that both Locke and Rousseau claim was the reason for setting up a society. The Second Treatise on Government should be renamed the Second Treatise on Maintaining, Greed, Wealth, and Power, because that is what it is. Locke's arguments favor those who have wealth. Those who have none are left to try to obtain property and wealth in a system designed to maintain the status quo of those with wealth and property. Therefore, the factory worker who labours ninety hours a week never obtains wealth and property although he has laboured long and hard. However, the wealthy son of the landowner, who has never worked a day in his life, maintains the wealth of his ancestry without the least bit of labour. Under Rousseau's system the people, who are supposed to act for the general good, could pass legislation creating greater economic equality amongst the population.
Dewey is asking us to accept the selective emphasis of the "inconclusive integrity of experience" as a starting point, but by doing so he is guilty of what he criticizes. How can there be "an empirical account of inconclusive integrity of experience," if experience is always changing? There cannot. What would define the account? Experience? Experience cannot be defined if it constantly changes. If experience is constantly changing, it can only be used to direct us to new and better meaning. If the "inconclusive integrity of experience" is the starting point for Dewey's philosophic method, it can not also begin with current society. It must start with the first experience. Either the basis for philosophic discussion is a historical account of the inconclusive integrity of man or the experiences of current society in which one finds oneself. It cannot serve both. One is based upon the refection of historical data without the benefit of experience, the other on the reflection of experience in the current society or culture. The experiences of past cultures may very well have been much different, and therefore they cam to different conclusions about those experiences.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| view all members >> |
|
|
New
After his release Charlie continued to live a life of crime in the California area, until he was arrested and charged with murder in 1970.
Dewey is asking us to accept the selective emphasis of the "...
|
|
|
Plato's writings were arranged in groups of four. The dialog form used by Plato came naturally out of Greek drama, the Athenian habit of discussion and the use of dialog by Socrates.
Usually, for beg...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Featured
They are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if they are wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced b...
|
11/12/2008 07:20
|
|
|
|
Today, there is a big push in this country to limit individual freedom/liberty for the good of society. People fear crime and the diminishing of what is called family values. The problem is whose spee...
|
13/12/2008 12:05
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Favorites
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Magnolia
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
BlinkList