Search

Harry V. Jaffa came to argue that the proper understanding of the American founding required a blend of Aristotle and Locke. The article in which he first made this claim contains Jaffa's own criticisms of this idea. These criticisms implicate the fundamental elements of his interpretation of the founding and help us grasp Jaffa's understanding of political philosophy and its relationship to politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American Founding seems to reflect Spinozist principles, despite the fact that few of the Founders evince any real engagement with Spinoza's ideas. I argue that the surface-level similarities between the American regime and Spinoza's political ideal mask deep disagreements. The Lockeanism of the American Founding may in fact contain resources to ameliorate the crisis of modern liberal democracy that Spinoza would only intensify. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Locke's Some Thoughts Concerning Education plays an important yet underappreciated role in resolving a classic debate in Locke scholarship. In An Essay concerning Human Understanding, Locke rejects essentialism, arguing that natural species, including "man," do not exist. This position rests uneasily with the liberal conception of man that informs his political thought, and scholars have long debated whether and, if so, how Locke's anti-essentialism and liberalism are related. While several proposals have been made, all must grapple with the fact that Locke's principal discussions of politics and anti-essentialism occur in different texts. The Thoughts helps to address this difficulty, for under one cover Locke shows how a proxy for anti-essentialism—human malleability—is related to liberal ideas. There, he describes how to transform rather malleable children into modern English gentlemen, but he also indicates that nature does not mandate a liberal approach to the development of human nature. The Thoughts thus favors the view that Locke was a conventionalist about his political liberalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nationalism according to Hazony is the view that the world ought to consist of independent nation states, each constituted at bottom by the loyalty granted to it by its individual constituents in return for its nurturing and protecting the prior loyalties granted by them to their families, clans, and tribes. This view contains three unresolved difficulties. (1) It claims to provide a wholesale alternative to Lockean and post-Lockean constitutionalism, though unlike Locke et al. it fails to differentiate political from apolitical loyalties. (2) It cites biblical Israel as the model for loyalty-based nationalism but disregards the biblical prophets' insistence that national loyalty must be grounded in obedience to the (divinely revealed) law, not vice versa. (3) It limits what it calls the Bible's "political philosophy" to putative "natural laws" or moral principles, while overlooking the biblical authors' unobtrusive self-distancing from prophetic moralizing when, facing the prospect of their nation's long-term exile, they quietly encourage what amounts to a political–philosophical examination of the merit of biblical law as such, e.g., by calling it "your wisdom and your understanding in the eyes of the nations." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Locke claims that man makes a mistake by linking the perception of authentic beauty to nature, because beauty is argued to constitute a deliberate man-made fabrication. Specifically, man is said to emotionally wrap the ugliness, and brutishness, of a parsimonious nature within an extreme understanding of perception, where even apparent qualitative distinctions, between tone and hue, form one aspect of this fabrication. By becoming a slave to this emotional fabrication of beauty, Locke argues that the mind liberates reason, by freeing it from the debilitating influence caused by the overwhelming ugliness of nature. Being liberated in this manner, man can then secure the acquisition of property. Trusting the senses, so as to deliver an authentic rendering of external natural beauty, to the mind of man, as once presumed by older philosophy, therefore, becomes impossible. Hence, the prospect modern man ever experiencing authentic beauty, as provided by nature, is lost. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Locke builds a world that has benefits and costs. While economics has illustrated the benefits, this work illustrates the costs, by contrasting Two Treatises of Civil Government to the work of Aristotle. Generally, the cost one must bear from entering the world that Locke built is a compression of human experience, where qualitative equality of all things is asserted to exist. More importantly, a trivialization of all the outcomes, which emanate from all human decisions, must accompany the equality that Locke asserts. Even though Locke provides the elementary operating system for modern economics, through his proposition of the principle of qualitative equality, this operating system effectively divorces man, not only from nature but also from the very thing with which man has always used to interpret the natural world; works of great literature. While great literature has little patience for the trivial outcomes of human existence, except to highlight the importance of non-trivial outcomes, this work suggests that economics, under the influence of Locke, is permanently incapacitated from ever considering non-trivial outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Eric Voegelin's criticism of Hans Kelsen's legal positivism places him closer to the natural law tradition than to other legal traditions. This proximity could be interpreted as a defense of the contemporary relevance, or as an attempt to revive the natural law tradition in the twentieth century. However, Voegelin always avoids using the traditional terminology of natural law in his mature works, and expresses a certain ambiguity regarding its contemporary revival. To understand this problem, this article investigates the evolution of Voegelin's understanding of natural law and his criticism of different natural law traditions from Cicero to John Locke, especially his positive evaluation of Aristotle's and Thomas Aquinas's interpretations. Furthermore, it seeks to illuminate his position on the contemporary relevance of this topic, as well as to assess some of the recent interpretations that consider Voegelin as a natural law thinker. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A problem with modern philosophy, as partly initiated by Locke, is that modern philosophy defines human knowledge as comprising exactly one uniform quality; a quality that is exclusively derived from the effort of man. Specifically, Locke makes the monumentally important assertion that human knowledge derives no qualitative diversity from what older philosophy identified as "nature." However, this axiomatic assertion is developed in a careful, restrained, and staged manner. First, Locke asserts such uniformity exists in terms of the derivation of value, within The Two Treatises of Government ([1689] 1988). Second, Locke then radicalizes and generalizes this assertion in An Essay on Human Understanding ([1690] 1824), which has facilitated the creation of modern economics, as well as some other profound outcomes. Fortunately, alternatives to the problem posed by Locke are apparent, which are mainly evident in the philosophy of Aristotle, and these are also briefly considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although Roger Scruton insists on the incompatibility of his conservatism and the fundamental liberal principles of individualism and consent, his political thought has much in common with classical liberal constitutionalism. This essay explores these relationships while arguing that particularly Locke's constitutionalism is more compatible with Scruton's ideas than he allows. Specifically, Scruton argues that authority necessarily precedes any individual claims, but Locke's civil society, in fact, subordinates individual rights to political authority and common goods. Similarly, Scruton's insists that the state is an end rather than a means, but his own account of the conditionality of allegiance approaches Locke's understanding of legitimacy in the practice of civic association. This narrowing of the differences suggests that a conservative teaching could begin with an education in liberal constitutionalism rightly understood. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The perennial concern over executive overreach continues well into Obama's presidency, leading many to wonder if the “unitary executive” is here to stay. Discussions of executive war powers focus on three models. The Hamiltonian perspective gives presidents the lead position in foreign affairs; the second model, following Madison, presents Congress as the leader when initiating hostilities. Finally, Jeffersonians present emergency powers as extra-legal, giving presidents a sphere of actions that cannot be contained within constitutional discussions. Problematically, current scholarship implicitly or explicitly grounds these explanations in Locke's political philosophy. This occurs despite a dearth of references to Locke during the Constitutional Convention and infrequent references to his thought during early debates over executive-congressional divisions of war powers. Comparatively, all of these seminal American figures frequently mention Montesquieu, often fighting over the specifics of his theory. While scholars widely acknowledge this influence, they rarely mention him during discussions of war powers or the nature of executive power in general. This article examines the Montesquieuan understanding of executive power and shows how this model represents a viable alternative to the Lockean one. Most importantly, examining the executive from a Montesquieuan perspective provides solutions to current problems that the Lockean perspective does not. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The late Jefferson presents a puzzle to scholars. In his last years the author of the Declaration of Independence strongly opposed the Missouri Compromise and set important precedents for the political strategy of the antebellum South. This essay argues that these problematic aspects of Jefferson's career are more closely linked to his natural rights doctrine than is generally recognized and extend tendencies already present in Jefferson's draft of the Declaration. Unlike previous scholars who explain Jefferson's problematic politics by his racism or the inherent selfishness of Lockean natural right, I argue that the core flaw in Jefferson's natural rights doctrine is the encouragement it gives to self-righteousness. Because he responded to the problem of slavery in a spirit of angry self-defense, Jefferson's understanding of natural rights blinded him to the ways in which his actions strengthened slavery and undermined his own most cherished political achievements. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this article, I argue that John Locke presents a novel understanding of “ecclesiastical liberty” that allows him to use it as the basis for separating religion from politics, church from state, in a manner favorable to secular interests and power. Montesquieu and Toqueville understood this approach and adapted and modified it to conditions in France and America. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Francisco Suárez's political theory has received increased attention in recent years. In some regards it bears a resemblance to that of John Locke, but the two view politics as having different ends. It is interesting that both thinkers are in favor of religious toleration but for different reasons that correspond to the different ends they assign to government. Locke's reasons are more secular, whereas Suárez's are derivative from a religious perspective. The paradox, however, is that Suárez's account of toleration provides a firmer ground for religious liberty. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article explores and defends Leo Strauss's interpretation of Edmund Burke's thought. Strauss argues that Burke's conservatism is rooted in the modern empiricist school of John Locke and others. Following Strauss, this article sets out to consider the suitability of these foundational principles to conservative politics. Burke wants to temper or ennoble Lockean politics by inspiring sublime attachment to the political community and its traditions, but he shies away from stating universal standards according to which the traditions of political communities ought to be judged. This respect for reason in history without moorings in transcendent standards of reason or revelation leaves his conservatism on precarious ground. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Strauss's essay on Locke is devoted to Locke's early lectures on the law of nature, a text unpublished when he initially wrote on Locke in Natural Right and History. One purpose of his essay was to show that the Locke text did not contradict the position on the law of nature that Strauss had earlier attributed to him. Strauss also used the essay as an opportunity to further his own reflections on traditional natural law doctrine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary democratic theorists focus on democratic processes to the exclusion of the substantive goods which motivated their predecessors. This undermines the legitimacy of democracy, especially in an era of emerging democracies. This article critiques underlying deficiencies in contemporary theory and prescribes revisiting early modern, natural-law-based democratic theory exemplified by John Locke. Locke argued that the ultimate legitimacy of democratic processes depends on their serving the good of the people, as distinct from the will of the people. The authors argue that this conclusion is unavoidable, because it is impossible for democratic legitimacy to rest ultimately on any kind of process at all, even a democratic process. Legitimacy must rest on a substantive norm used to govern (create or repair) processes. Contemporary democratic theory seems unwilling to revisit this important problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

John Ford's 1962 classic Western, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, analyzes the difficulties inherent in founding a new political order based on the rule of law. Some critics have concluded that the film mordantly portrays the closing of the frontier, the tragic loss of the rugged individualism it promoted (represented by Tom Doniphon), and the ascendance in its place of a fraudulent political class (represented by Ransom Stoddard), while exposing that even free societies are founded on crime. Yet, as others have argued, Doniphon also represents the spirited part of the Platonic tripartite soul, revealing spiritedness's ambiguous relation to justice: he refuses to fight unless personally threatened; perpetuates servitude, if not slavery; and shows no interest in promoting equality of women. Doniphon stands in opposition to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, pointedly recited at the film's chronological center, and his eclipse by Stoddard is not a tragic mistake. In addition, John Locke's state of nature teaching unlocks why Valance's death is not a crime that sullies the foundations of the society. Finally, the legend told as fact at the film's conclusion combines both men into a single entity, “the man who shot Liberty Valance,” thereby propagating a salutary lesson for future citizens: reason must combine with and rule over spiritedness if law and order are to prevail. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peter Lawler is our most original and persuasive proponent of an understanding of a "providential" or unwritten constitution that incorporates Christian and even Catholic natural law components. Nevertheless, Lawler admits elsewhere in his work that the Constitution's more Lockean individualistic logic is a reality and concern, thus putting in doubt the staying power of a premodern inheritance that he elsewhere confidently assumes to persist. Lawler's confidence in the persistence of virtue among his American countrymen is thus shown to be threatened by the unfolding logic of our Lockean founding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In The Unheavenly City, Edward Banfield argues that people form social classes based on their perception of time. The radically present oriented constitute a lower class whose presence explains social problems and whose condition cannot be improved with public policy. Critics engaged Banfield on the empirical level, raising doubts about his description of the lower class. However, there has been little engagement at the theoretical level and thus no attention to the problem of Banfield's deriving horizon theory from culture instead of nature. Had Banfield looked to nature, such as John Locke's teaching of self-interest, he would have found support for horizon theory but also appreciated that horizons are dynamic, suggesting greater optimism with regard to the lower class. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article argues that a minimalist theology is deployed by John Locke to mitigate the theoretical and rhetorical shortcomings of the absolutist approach of submitting religion to overt political control. It is said that in "Letter Concerning Toleration," Locke outlines a strategy to incorporate religious belief as a support for political liberty. Also in the said literature, he weaves together theoretical and rhetorical arguments of varying weight, coherence, and plausibility to justify a policy of limited religious toleration. His early career as a political theorist did not seem to cast much light on his mature views on the proper relation between church and state.

The article reflects on the influence of Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas on the book "Judgment Day," by Flannery O'Connor. The influence of Jesuit paleontologist Teilhard De Chardin on the formation of the title of the book is discussed. The structure and the narrative style of Aquinas in "Summa Theologica" is analyzed. The article also discusses the influence of U.S. liberal theorist John Locke on the book.

Compares the theories espoused by John Locke and John Stuart Mill about toleration. Criticism of the principal of toleration by opponents of liberalism; Mill's reasons for making truth the focus of his defense of liberty; Competing arguments by Locke and Mill in their defense of toleration.