History of Western Philosophy - Bertand Russell - Book 3, Part 1, Chapters 10-18 notes

In preparation for the second seminar we needed to read chapters 10-18 in book three, part one of Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. The following are the notes I have made to summarize each of these chapters.

Chapter 10 - Spinoza

• Spinoza lived 1632-1637
• His philosophy was based on a belief in God, but was rejected by Jews and Christians alike.
• He was educated as an Orthodox Jew but did not remain orthodox.
• His magnum opus was Ethics
• In his works he tried to prove that 'scriptures can  be interpreted to be compatible with a liberal theology'
• He believed that a wrong act was something which went again the law, and so in nature there is no right or wrong.
• He realised the importance of  freedom in opinion.
• His book Ethics deal with three matters: metaphysics, the psychology of the passions and will.  
• He put forward an ethic based on metaphysics and psychology.
• Spinoza suggests there is only one substance 'God or nature'
• He believed that individual souls and other matters are 'merely aspects of the divine'.
• Spinoza believed that in the mind there is no such thing as free will, nor is there chance in the physical world - 'it is logically impossible for that events should be other than they are.'
• Spinoza had an odd view about emotions claiming that they 'distract us and obscure our intellectual view of the whole'
• Although he did not object to all emotions, only those which are passions; i.e emotions which we feel to be out of our control.
• God is not subject to emotions of pleasure or pain.
• Spinoza believed that God sees events in the world as part of an eternal, timeless chain.
• We cannot change events in the future any more that we can change events in the past.
• He believed that personal survival after death is an illusion however there is an element of the mind which is eternal.
• According to Spinoza, feelings of hate can be overcome by feelings of love.

Chapter 11 - Leibniz

• Leibniz lived 1646-1716
• His work is split into two different kinds of philosophy, one which is optimistic, orthodox, fantastic and shallow the other being profound, coherent, Spinozistic and amazingly logical.
• He obtained a doctorate in 1666 at Altdorf, where he refused a job offer.
• He entered the archbishop of Mainz in 1667
• In 1672n he moved to Paris for a while. At this time Paris led the world in both philosophy and mathematics.
• He was influenced by Cartesianism.
• He spent time with Spinoza who also influenced his thinking.
• He spent some of his time focusing on trying to rejoin the churches but eventually gave on this.
• Conversely to Spinoza's ideas of substance, Leibniz believed that there are an infinite number of substances which he called monads.
• He believed that each monad is unique and has a soul.
• Leibniz claimed that it is impossible for two monads to interact with each other in anyway - and anything which appears to be interaction is illusory.
• Every monad mirrors the universe.
• Monads form a hierarchy.
• Leibniz allowed for free will in his philosophy claiming that everything that a human does has a motive, but the sufficient reason of his action has no logical necessity.
• Leibniz uses four arguments to prove the existence of God: (i) The Ontological Argument (ii) The Cosmological Argument (iii) The argument from Eternal Truths (iv) The argument from Pre-Established Harmony
• The Ontological Argument depends on the distinction between distinction and existence.
• Leibniz altered this argument slightly, claiming that the idea of God is possible, rather than the idea that the definition of God suggests his existence.
• The Cosmological Argument works from the premise that everything in the universe has a cause, but that there must have been a first cause who does not need a cause, and that this first cause is God.
• Again, Leibniz altered this theory by saying that the universe needs a cause, but that there is nothing contained within the universe which would be this cause, and so the cause must be something outside of the universe, and this must be God.
• He claimed that God had a free choice to create the  universe, and he did not necessarily make this choice out of his goodness.
• The argument from Eternal Truths works from the point that there are some things which are always true. 2+2=4 would be an example of an eternal truth, because it is know to always be true. 
• Leibniz claimed that external truths must exist, but that they can only logically exist in the mind of God.
• Leibniz introduced the doctrine of many possible worlds.
• He claimed that it was possible for a world to come into existence as long as its existence does not contradict the laws of logic.
• God had knowledge of all the possible worlds, and created our world out of his goodness because this was the best possible world out of all the options.
• Leibniz dealt with the problem of evil by saying that evils are necessary in the world so that we appreciate pleasures more and they seem greater.
• If we did ever suffer we would not appreciate pleasures.
• Leibniz's philosophy relies on the law of contradiction and the law of sufficient reason.
• Leibniz believed that nothing within the universe interacts with anything else, but they appear to agree as everything mirrors the universe. 
• There is a distinct difference between truths acquired through experience and truths known by logic.
• Leibniz claims that there is no a priori reasons for certain things to come into existence - it is purely up to God's goodness what He chooses to create.
• Things are compossible if it is possible for both of them to be in existence at the same time.
• Leibniz believed that it was God's goodness to want as many compossibles in the world as possible.

Chapter 12 - Philosophical Liberalism

• Early philosophical liberalism has been described as optimistic and energetic.
• There a generally widespread view that all me are born equal, and that inequalities arise through differences in social environments.
• Political Liberalism developed largely between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries.
• Individualism became highly valued, as prior to this, particularly in Greek philosophy, the individual was relatively unimportant compared to the community.
• During the middle ages, the importance of an individual was secondary to a hierarchy and laws.
• Descartes' philosophy of I think therefore I am sparked ideas of individualism as it meant that the starting point became every mans personal experiences and thoughts rather than the thoughts and ideals of the community.
• Early forms of liberalism highlighted the importance of individualism in intellect and economy.
• Starting with Rousseau, ideals about individualism expanded beyond intellect and began to be considered with emotions.
• Russell explains how there were initial hatred for the industrial revolution due to nostalgia from the Middle Ages.

Chapter 13 - Locke's Theory of Knowledge

• John Locke lived 1632-1704.
• His magnum opus is An essay concerning human understanding - published 1690.
• He wrote An essay concerning human understanding prior to the Revolution in 1688 because he could not then openly express his philosophy.
• He was heavily influenced by Rene Descartes.
• He has been regarded as the father of philosophical liberalism.
• The political powers in the country shared his views around the same time that he completed them and so he was able to share these ideas and become hugely influential.
• His primary followers were Berkeley and Hume
• He put forward a theory on what he called Primary and Secondary qualities.
• Primary qualities are defined as those that are inseparable from the body for example, motion or rest.
• Everything else are described as being secondary qualities, for example colours and smells.
• Primary qualities are maintained within the body, while secondary qualities are the precipitants.
• Russel uses the example of an eye being a primary quality, and colours seen by the eye are secondary qualities.
• Locke worked from the point of logic and believed that valid reasoning from sound principles cannot lead to error.
• Locke largely disregarded the dogmatic beliefs of society, following only the ideas about our own existence, the existence of God and the truth of mathematics.
• Locke claimed that when multiple people could not agree on certain truths, what is actually true becomes a matter of personal opinion rather than some people being wrong.
• It is not in a mans nature to blindly follow someone elses views if they differ to their individual thoughts. Therefore we must listen to what others think but if we feel that our ideas are accurate then we should not accept the ideals that are trying to be prescribed to us.
• We should not assume that people are wrong for not accepting our views, as it is equally possible that we should accept their views instead.
• Locke was not a fan of metaphysics, and while he accepted the metaphysical justifications for the existence of God, he did not consider them in any great detail.
• Lock has be considered to be the father of empiricism.
• He believed that knowledge can come from two sources - sensation and reflection (for more information about his thoughts refer to An Essay on Human Understanding -chapter one notes)
• In the third book of Essay Locke considers the use of words, and expresses his view that what metaphysicians present as knowledge is merely verbal.
• He believed that essence is only verbal.
• Locke argues that all simples things must agree with things.
• He believed that every sensation has a cause but that we do not know the cause, we only notice the sensation - so the question of validity is raised here; if no one can experience it then how does Locke know that it exists?
• Similarly to Bentham, Locke believed that man must continually strive to achieve the greatest happiness and pleasures for himself.
• It is noted that future pleasures are considered of less value than present pleasures.
• Locke argued that a man should put his future happiness ahead of present pleasures.
• He believed that morality is capable of demonstration.
• Locke suggested that even if there were no laws or police/authorities to enforce them, man would generally act for the good in accordance with Divine Law.
• Russell highlights the problem with Locke's belief in Divine Law and God punishing those whose break it.
• Locke does not discuss any reasons as to why God punishes people for some acts and not others - in other words why did God decide that certain acts are wrong?

Chapter 14 - Locke's Political Philosophy
A. THE HEREDITARY PRINCIPLE:

• In 1680 Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha: or The Natural Power of Kings
• Filmer believed in the absolute power of the Kings over his kingdom.
• Filmer put forward his belief that Kings were direct heirs of Adam, and that Kings have a parental control over everyone else, and the King is completely free from any human control.
• Filmer's ideas were completely disregarded by Locke.
• Locke found it preposterous to suggest that all kings are heirs of Adam, and raised the issue that Adam had only one heir, and if he were ever to be found would all the kings have to submit their power to him?
• Locked raised the point that in life parental control is temporary and once the child is an adult, all parental control is lost.
• Locke also pointed out that if it is an issue of parental control then the mother should have equal control as the father does.
• The hereditary principal in politics has been completely disregarded, however there is a slight difference with regards to economics.
• For example, it is accepted and largely expected that a father will leave their land and money to his children.

B - THE STATE OF NATURE AND NATURAL LAW

• Locke was a believer in natural law, although his ideas about natural law were not anything new as philosophers such as Aquinas established the ideas first.
• Locke's views on natural law are hard to uphold in modern society.
• One of Locke's main beliefs was that with natural law, a man has complete freedom over his property, his possessions and his family.
• This means that if a man were to threaten anything belonging to another man, then the second man would be allowed to punish the first in whatever way he found fit, even murder.
• State law is not so liberal as far as punishment is concerned, although the laws of murder alter when in self defence or the defence of others.
• There is some debate as to what natural laws actually are, although for Locke these laws are evident in the Bible as they have come directly from God.

C - THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

• During the seventeenth century there were two theories as to the origin of government.
• One of the theories is that God gave power to certain people over others - this is the theory that Filmer supported.
• The other theory is that civil government is the result of a social contract - this is the theory that Locke supported.
• It was considered important that people had a reason to obey the government.
• The social contract could be interpreted in mainly two different ways, one of which allowed a tyranny.
• Hobbes, for example, interpreted the contract to mean that citizens handed over all power to the government a part of the contract.
• On the other hand, Locke interpreted it to mean that the government was part of the contract, and if the government went against the contract then it could be repelled against.
• Locke defined political power as the right of making laws.
• It is suggested that a system of government was the logical solution to problems which arise with following natural law.
• Russell explains that an absolute monarchy is not a form of a civil government because there is no neutral observer to intervene should a problem arise between civilians and the monarchy.
• Generally, a civil society means that rules should be made based on the opinion of the majority.
• Locke however did not include women or the poor as having citizenship.
• It is understood that the power and choices of the government will never go against the common good.
• Locke argued that the judge should be the opinion of the majority, for if the government was judge then it would be bias to itself.

D - PROPERTY

• We learn in this section that every man has private property in the produce of his own labour.
• Locke believed that when dealing with property, peasant proprietorship would be the most efficient, fair system.
• He states that a man can own the amount of land that he is able to look after, and no more than that.
• Russell however point out that this system would be unsuccessful across Europe.
• In most countries the majority of the land was owned by the aristocrats, who charged farmers rent, or took a proportion of their produce.
• In Russia and Prussia the farm workers were 'serfs ... and had virtually no rights.'
• Russell then goes onto explain the labour theory, which had two main aspects; ethical and economic, the difference being that 'the value of a product OUGHT to be proportional to the labour expended on it, or that IN FACT the labour regulates the price.'
• Locke remarked that it is the labour which accounts for the different prices on everything.
• Russell explains how Locke's ideas of peasant proprietorship would not work in a more modern working environment, and gives the example of large-scale mining to emphasise this point.
• Locke's theory, according to Russell is that a man must not have more produce than he and is family is able to eat before it goes bad as this is a waste.
• He does not appear to factor in the idea that a man will be able to sell the excess produce for a profit before it goes bad.
• He does however allow for as much money and diamonds as the family is able to acquire, as these things never go off.

E - CHECKS AND BALANCES

• Locke strongly held the belief that the legislative (Parliament) and executive (the king) must be separate to one another to prevent abuse of power and to ensure, what Locke described as a well framed government.
• In general terms Locke considered the legislative to be virtuous and the executive to be wicked.
• He believed that the legislative must have ultimate power, but that it should also be able to be removed from power by the community.
• It must also be elected by the majority of civilian votes.
• Locke asserted the fact that if the executive decides to go against the legislate, then the executive is directly conflicting with the people, who would be well within their right to remove the executive by force.
• Locke held the opinion that an honest man can know what is just and lawful. This does not however allow for the situation of there being an honest man on either side.
• He believed that if there were to be a conflict between legislate and executive then they must fight because Heaven will give the victory to the better cause.
• Checks and balances were initially introduced in England to limit the power of the king, who in Locke's day had complete control of the executive.
• This control dwindled and eventually the executive became dependent on the legislate
• Russell notes how Locke's principles about the legislate and executive are best shown in the United States of America where the President and Congress are completely separate from one another, and the Supreme Court is independent of both.
• Locke's ideals on this issue were valid until the industrial revolution, when corporations grew beyond anything Locke had ever imagined.

Chapter 15 - Locke's Influence

• One branch of philosophy owes it's ideals to Locke, the other to Kant.
• The first heirs of Locke were Berkeley and Hume.
• Secondly were the French philosophers.
• Thirdly were Bentham and the philosophical radicals.
• He also influenced Continental philosophy and Marxism.
• In Locke's day, his opposition came largely from the Cartesians and Leibniz.
• Locke's eventual victory in both England and France came from the success of Newton.
• Newtonian laws diminished their respect for Descartes and increased their respect for England. Both these causes inclined men favourably towards Locke.
• Kantianism eventually took the place of Locke for a number of reasons. For example, the German opposition to the French made them favour a German philosophy, while the French turned to Kantiantism as an opposition to Jacobinism.
• After Rousseau and Kant, two forms of Liberalism were formed - hard-hearted and soft-hearted. 
• Hard-hearted liberalism was favoured by Bentham and Marx, and eventually led to Stalin.
• Soft-hearted liberalism was favoured by Byron and Nietzsche and eventually led to Hitler. 
• There were also two types of philosophy, British and Continental. 
• In his philosophy, Locke drew general conclusions based on a broad survey.
• Leibniz drew very specific conclusions working 'logically' from small facts. 
• The two different methods can be somewhat explained by the differences of metaphysics. 
• Kant offered metaphysical proof for the existence of God, where as Spinoza had a pantheistic God, who seemed to the orthodox to be no God at all.
• Locke believed pleasure and happiness to be the good, and urged people to actively seek them - throughout the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries this was the view shared by empiricists.
• Locke's opponents rejected this active search for happiness and pleasure, and instead sought heroism.
• They valued strong emotions, which led to the toleration of hatred and revenge.

Chapter 16 - Berkeley

• Berkeley lived 1685-1753
• He believed that there was no such thing as matter unless it can be perceived - for example a tree does not exist unless someone is there to see and perceive it.
• He expanded on this by claiming that the reason matter appear to be present all the time is because God continually perceives everything.
• He claimed that sensations such as touch and taste are in the mind.
• Russell questions what is meant by perception.
• Philonous rejected the idea that perception is a link between a subject and a percept.
• Russell suggests that a perception is an event that can be remembered.
• Berkeley thinks that there are logical reasons to support his stance that only things in the mind exist.

Chapter 17 - Hume

• David Hume lived 1711-1776
• His magnum opus was the Treatise of Human Nature, in which he discusses understanding, passions and morals.
• He claimed that our simples ideas are formed from impressions, but our complex ideas do not need to be based on impressions.
• He believed that no man perceives his own brain, but ... he has an 'idea' of it.
• Hume defines seven kinds of philosophical revelation:

1. Resemblance
2. Identity
3. Relations of time and place
4. Proportion in quantity or number
5. Degrees in quality
6. Contrariety
7. Causation

• He then said that these seven revelations can be split into two categories, those which depend only on ideas, and those which can be changed without changing the ideas.
• We can only be certain of knowledge obtained in the first category.
• Hume was the first person to pose a real to challenge to the Scholastic view that the connection between cause and effect were necessary.
• He claimed we can only know cause and effect through experience, not reasoning or reflection.
• To explain his ideas we are given the statement A causes B.
• Hume would arguer that just because A and B are frequently linked together does not suggest that A causes B.
• Russell clearly summarises Hume's doctrine as such:

"(1) in causation there is not indefinable relation except conjunction or succession; (2) induction by simple enumeration is not a valid form of argument. Empiricists in general have accepted the first of these and rejected the second."

This post has been simply summaries of each chapter - my thoughts about John Locke will follow shortly!