PLEASE NOTE


This is a course summary taken over a number of years.
It is not a true reflection of the actual course offered this semester.
The introductory lectures will utilize only a small portion of this outline.


******************************************

SOCIOLOGY 102

INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL THEORY



SOCIAL DREAMERS:
MARX, NIETZSCHE, AND FREUD


 

PROFESSOR GEORGE E. MCCARTHY

KENYON COLLEGE
TRELEAVEN HOUSE

Fall 2020


COURSE DESCRIPTION

This introductory course for first- and second-year students traces the development of modern social theory from the 17th to the 20th century. It begins by examining the fundamental social institutions and cultural values that characterize modern industrial society and the Enlightenment in the works of Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Dickens, Weber, and J. S. Mill: (1) rise of modern state, political democracy, and utilitarianism; (2) market economy, industrialization, and economic liberalism; (3) new class system and capitalism; (4) modern personality (self) and possessive individualism; and (5) natural science, modern technology, and positivism. The course then turns to the dreams and imagination of European Romanticism and Existentialism in the 19th and 20th centuries with their critiques of modernity in the works of Marx (socialism), Freud (psychoanalysis), Camus and Schopenhauer (existentialism), and Nietzsche (nihilism and nominalism).

We will outline the development of the distinctive institutions and principles of modernity, along with the ideas of its critics, in the following works: C. Dickens, Hard Times, J. Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, J. S. Mill, On Liberty, K. Marx, The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, M. Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904-1905) and "Science as a Vocation" (1917 and 1919), R. Descartes, The Meditations Concerning First Philosophy, S. Freud, Dora: An Analysis of a Case of Hysteria and Five Lectures on Psychoanalysis, A. Camus, The Fall, A. Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, and F. Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols.

Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century social theory examines THE TOTALITY OF MODERN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY = SYSTEM AND LIFEWORLD -- the Structures of Political Economy, Integrating and Disruptive Functions, Lifeworld of Culture, Meaning, Ideology, Personality, Socialization, and Social Institutions, and History of modern industrial society. Sociology is the poetry of the mind and science of the soul; it is a form of applied philosophy in the areas of epistemology, methodology, history and philosophy of science, ethics, politics, and social justice. The excitingly distinctive and critical features of European social thought during this period are the following:

1. its integration of Social Science, Social Justice, and Ecological Justice, that is, its integration of empirical and historical research with ethics and social philosophy;

2. its integration of the Ancients and the Moderns: Locke, Descartes, Mill, Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Freud, Camus, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche all returned to the Greeks or Natural Law tradition, in one way or another, for their intellectual inspiration and insight; they all returned to the Greeks to resolve what they saw as a modern crisis of scientific knowledge, subjective morals, possessive individualism, political liberalism, industrial economy, or society as a whole -- the Enlightenment, Liberalism, and Capitalism;

3. its interdisciplinary integration of Philosophy, History, and Political Economy into a comprehensive and holistic theory of the structures, functions, and pathologies of the Modern Social System. Sociology is an historical, cultural, and practical (ethical) science of moral economy and social justice;

4. and, finally, its integration of both German Existentialism (Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche) and British and German Romantic Poetry (Wordsworth, Coleridge, Blake, Byron, Keats, and Shelley and Novalis, Schiller, Goethe, Hoelderlin, and Heine) into a critique of modernity. Existentialism and Romanticism are two key components in the creation of Classical Social Theory, which is an expression of a "poetry of the mind, dreams of reason, and science of the soul" in its empirical analysis of the structures and limits of modern capitalist society.


REQUIRED READINGS (PROFESSOR'S EDITIONS)

C. Dickens, Hard Times (Penguin, 1985)
J. Locke, The Second Treatise of Government (The Library of Liberal Arts, 1952)
R. Descartes, Discourse on Method and Meditations, trans. by Laurence J. Lafleur (The Library of Liberal Arts, 1960)
J. S. Mill, On Liberty (The Library of Liberal Arts, 1976)
                Principles of Political Economy: Books IV and V (Penguin Books, 1985)
S. Freud, Dora: An Analysis of a Case of Hysteria (Collier Books, 1963)
               Five Lectures on Psychoanalysis, trans. by James Strachey (W. W. Norton & Co., 1961)
A. Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, vol. 1, trans. by E. F. J. Payne (Dover Publications, 1969)
A. Camus, The Fall, trans. by Justin O'Brien (Vintage Books, 1956)
F. Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, in The Portable Nietzsche, trans. by Walter Kaufman (The Viking Press, 1969)

Essays: On Reserve on the Kenyon Library ERES System and Course Reserve
K. Marx, "Alienated Labor" and "Class Struggle and Change"
M. Weber, "Protestantism and the Rise of Modern Capitalism" and "Science as a Vocation," in Readings in Introductory Sociology,
ed. by Dennis Wrong and Harry Gracey (Macmillian Publishing Company, 1977)


COURSE REQUIREMENTS

Because this is an introductory course, the reading material, lectures, and discussions are oriented in both substance and difficulty to first- and second-year students. Attendance and participation in classroom discussion are required. Though I do not take formal attendance, absences are noted. Frequent absences (more than 3 per semester) will have a profound negative effect on your final grade. The final grade is determined by the results of a one hour mid-term examination, a two hour final examination, and your classroom attendance and participation. There will be an open discussion and review each Friday at the end of every major work read in this course (about every two weeks). This will help you raise questions, articulate issues, and develop insights into the previous two weeks of readings and lectures. A grade of pass/fail is not offered in this introductory course.

My office hours are Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 8:00 to 9:30 AM in Room 202 of Treleaven House, 105 Brooklyn St. Appointments to see me at other times may be made during the day, or before and after class. My email address is "McCarthy@Kenyon.edu"



PROFESSOR'S NOTES AND COURSE NARRATIVE OF THE MAJOR THEMES
(Page numbers listed below refer to the above mentioned editions in Required Readings)


 WEEK                           LECTURE TOPICS

1. Charles Dickens Hard Times (1854)
The System and Political Economy: Critique of the Enlightenment: Positivism, Utilitarianism, and Classical Economic Theory
Enlightenment and Industrial Capitalism: Study of the values and "heart" of factory production, industrialization, and capitalism in nineteenth-century England; describe the physical characteristics of Coketown and their relationship to the overall meaning of the novel (65 and 146); compare this description to that of the Circus with its imagination, beauty, brotherhood, love, friendship, compassion, kindness, and justice (55 and 77); describe the main characters: Thomas Gradgrind, utilitarian founder of the school system (48 and 52), Josiah Bounderby, the banker and bully of humility, a man without sentiment or imagination (109, 159, and 281), Mr. M'Choakumchild, teacher of utilitarian economics (66), Sissy Jupe, Bitzer, Stephen Blackpool, the man of perfect integrity, the Hands or factory workers (103, 152, and 169-170), and Louisa Gradgrind and the other children of the Gradgrinds: Tom Junior (167), Adam Smith, Malthus, and Jane. The main characters in this story are metaphors for the broader social values and institutions of Western capitalism: Enlightenment science and reason (positivism)provide the epistemological and theoretical foundation for knowledge and truth in modern society, while Utilitarianism provides the moral justification and foundation for the enjoyment of happiness as defined by material pleasure, money, and the self-interested accumulation of private property -- Pleasure, Property, and Production. Utilitarianism is a moral and political philosophy in which morals have been reduced to quantitative, mathematical, and market categories and values; that is, is has been reduced to materialism, egoism, and hedonism. The whole of modern industrial society is guided by the pursuit of utility and facts, market pleasures and rational science. With the Enlightenment emphasis on facts (empiricism) and pleasure (utilitarianism), Dickens maintains that there is a loss of empathy toward others, love, feelings, fancy, and the imagination; there is also a loss of individuality and human potential. And because of its moral calculus, there is a loss of respect for economic minorities and the poor expressed in the notion of a "wealthy nation" and Bitzer's treatment of his elderly mother. There is no compassion for the poor, working class ("Hands"), young (numbers), and elderly and infirmed (minimal subsistence). Note: This dichotomy between the Coketown and the Circus will be major theme throughout this course beginning with Locke's distinction between natural rights and natural law, Marx's distinction between alienated labor and creative work (praxis), Mill's authoritarianism and democracy, Weber's disenchanted reason and substantive/ethical reason, Durkheim's madness and collective conscience, Descartes' body and mind, Freud's unconscious repression and conscious remembrance/enlightenment, and the existential world of representations/appearances and the thing-in-itself. The classical tradition of social theory creates a "seamless garment" in its ethical and political critique of modernity.
Enlightenment and Modern Science (Positivism): Describe the classroom, emphasis on facts, empirical evidence, mathematical numbers, and scientific laws (47, 66, and 79), and the definition of a horse (47-52); relationship between the school and factory; analogy between the people of Coketown and the little Gradgrinds (67); and Dickens' critique of the limits of the Enlightenment and modern science. Enlightenment science becomes the ultimate and only arbiter of truth and knowledge based on empirical facts, data, and quantitative evidence (empiricism) and the methods, theories, and laws of the natural sciences (positivism). Facts are also metaphors for matters of fact and empiricism (David Hume), specialization and the division of labor, fragmentation of work, personality, and human life (Hands), and for a general critique of reason and the Enlightenment.
Enlightenment and Utilitarianism: Reason and Morality Analysis of empiricism and positivism (Hume), utilitarianism (Jeremy Bentham and James Mill), and classical economic theory (Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo); and the theory of utilitarianism: Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy based on the idea that the best moral action is one that maximizes utility, pleasure, and happiness. Utilitarianism is based on a number of moral principles: the greatest happiness principle in which happiness is defined as moving toward the good and avoidance of pain; individuals seek to maximize the good without limit; money is the measure of the good (materialism); and human nature is aggressive seeking of self-interest (egoism), productivity, and pleasure (hedonism). L. Kolakowski in The Alienation of Reason referred to Hume as "the real father of positivist philosophy" (p. 31). A central question for Dickens is whether individual freedom and creative, that is, true individuality, are possible in a capitalist society like Coketown? What is individual freedom. We will see later in the semester that Locke has two entirely different views of freedom and rights, and J. S. Mill and Marx will both return to the Greeks for inspiration beyond modernity. According to these thinkers, modern society fails to develop human potentiality, freedom, and reason because we are enclosed in a melancholic madness, alienated work and consciousness, rationalized life of an iron cage, and existential suffering of the last man as sensualist and specialist.
Summary of Introduction and Course Outline: Hard Times sets the social parameters and values of Capitalism and the Enlightenment: materialism, individualism, and utilitarianism (ethics) and empiricism and rationalism (epistemology). It will be these theories of morals/politics (Hobbes and Locke) and knowledge/truth (Hume and Descartes) that will be the focus of nineteenth-century social critique in Romanticism (Dostoyevsky and Dickens), Idealism (Kant and Hegel), Existentialism (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Camus), Classical Social Theory (Marx, Weber, and Durkheim), and Psychoanalysis (Freud and Breuer); and it will be these theories that will provide the introduction and general framework for this course. Nineteenth-century European social theory was both Romantic (longing for the past) and Revolutionary (looking toward the future) as it questioned the fundamental assumptions and foundations of Modernity. Sociology was a critical, historical, practical (ethical), and anti-positivistic science as it challenged the four pillars of Modernity -- Liberalism (state), Capitalism (economy), Individualism (psychology), and the Enlightenment (culture and science). Sociology is a social and historical science that integrates political economy and the cultural lifeworld (Enlightenment and Personality) -- that is, Talcott Parson's AGIL -- into a comprehensive ethical and critical science of society; sociology is also a form of applied philosophy that takes social ethics, moral philosophy, political theory, epistemology, and the philosophy of the natural and social sciences into an structural and holistic critique of modern industrial society.
Sociology as Science (Methodology), Critique (Epistemology). and Ethics (Social Justice and Existentialism)): The first lecture will introduce the discipline of nineteenth-century Sociology (Classical Social Theory) as it integrates the structures, functions, culture, and history of politics, economics, personality, and the Enlightenment, the dreams of Sociology toward the past (Romanticism and Griechensehnsucht) and the future (Idealism, Ideals, and Existentialism), the nature of sociology as Science (sociology as a holistic, integrative, historical, romantic, interpretive, and critical science), and its integration of Ethics and Critique in the form of its theories of rationalization, repression, alienation, anomie, nihilism, nothingness, dehumanization, decadence, disenchantment, and dereglement (madness, derangement) (RRAANNDDDD). Sociology, as a critical and ethical science, began with the fundamental recognition that modern industrial society produced certain structural social pathologies that resulted in a fundamental historical and existential Loss of Meaning or Eclipse of Reason: (1) loss of power, creativity, and justice in a class society (Marx); (2) loss of substantive reason, cultural meaning, and citizenship due to Enlightenment science and political and economic bureaucracies (Weber); (3) loss of self, meaning, cultural values, and collective conscience through dereglement and anomie (Durkheim); (4) a loss of political and participatory democracy in a class society and market economy (Mill); and (5) a loss of self-consciousness, human rationality, and personal meaning due to unconscious sexual repression (Freud). Contemporary social theory expanded these issues to include race, gender, sexuality, identity, and the global political economy. The strength and importance of Dicken's novel is that it attempts to make the historical and social interconnections among the Industrial Revolution and capitalism, science and technology, utilitarianism and political theory, and education, culture, and epistemology.
2. Charles Dickens Hard Times (1854)
Crisis of Liberalism, Utilitarian Individualism, and Modern Political Economy
Ethics and Liberalism: Ethics and the greatest happiness principle (97-98 and 149-150), social justice (108), Louisa is metaphor for Coketown (65-67 and 239): alienation of love and affection because of her utilitarian education under M'Choakumchild, discussion with her father of her possible marriage to Bounderby, and her despair over her futile search for meaning and life in a utilitarian world (134-137 and 195); utilitarian economics: the law of supply and demand (150 and 192), economic laws based upon self-interest and individual pleasure are incompatible with moral responsibility and familial duty (150), the mechanization of the world and loss of individuality (187-188, 192, and 197), and utilitarian freedom and the loss of individual freedom in Coketown (197 and 304); further evidence of Louisa's loss of sensibilities, affections, opportunities in life, and existential meaning -- crushing of the individual (239-240 and 242); Tom Gradgrind's enlightenment, change of heart, and his confrontation with Bitzer over his son's bank theft (302-303); and commodification of experience (304).
Politics and Existentialism: Dickens is asking fundamental questions about the nature of modern industrial society, freedom, happiness, social justice, and the meaning and purpose of human life; and along with the physical suffering, misery, and exploitation of the factory workers at the hands of the utilitarians in Coketown, there is also a profound existential crisis of meaning and value in modern capitalism.
Coketown and the Circus: Enlightenment and Romanticism: The comparison of Coketown and the Circus provides an introduction and metaphor for the course as a whole as we will investigate the internal tensions that run throughout Western thought between the state of nature and civil society or the state (Hobbes), natural rights and natural law (Locke), civil society and natural law (Rousseau), capitalism and democracy (J. S. Mill), alienated labor and praxis (Marx), formal reason and substantive reason (Weber), suicide and religion/community (Durkheim), the conscious and the unconscious mind (Freud), appearances and the thing-in-itself (Kant), appearances and will/reality (Schopenhauer), idols of the last man and virtues of the Uebermensch (Nietzsche), and the middle-class hell of "Mexico City" and the ideals of existential humanism (Camus).
Dualism of Coketown: Conflict Between Facts and Aesthetics Evolves into the Tension Between Science and Ethics: The heart of Coketown is seen at the micro level in the life of the Gradgrinds and Sissy Jupe; Louisa is the metaphor for Coketown society (67). As we get deeper into the text, we see that the complex relationship between Coketown and the Circus takes on a more comprehensive and subtle meaning from the various stories within the novel: (1) Coketown is introduced in the factory-town classroom with the question about the definition of a horse from facts versus a definition from beauty and art -- grace, proportion, symmetry, and elegance (49-51). But other issues help define this dualism at the heart of the Gradgrind family, Coketown, and modern society. (2) Sissy is asked by M'Choakumchild to define "national prosperity" in purely quantitative and calculable terms (97-98). She cannot define the economic term because she raises issues about values, ethics, fairness, and distributive justice -- these are issues of ethics and politics. (3) Louisa discusses her possible marriage to Bounderby with her father but it turns into a discussion about existential meaning, the meaning and purpose of life and marriage, commitment, and love itself versus the world of facts, commodification, and quantification (134-136). Finally, (4) Tom Sr. and Bitzer have a discussion about forgiveness and compassion at the end of the novel (302-304), but it too is really about ethics and personal values. The dualism of Coketown and the Circus begins with aesthetics and art and moves into ethics and politics -- the meaning of a personal and moral life and the values and ideals of a good society (108, 160, and 195).
Theater of the Absurd and Decadent: World of Facts and Melancholy without Ethics and Meaning: This is the existential dilemma of the modern age. Dickens is concerned with the commodification and quantification of facts, knowledge, people, virtue, and justice. The consciousness of the classroom based on Facts -- empiricism/positivism (Hume), utilitarianism (Bentham and Mill), and classical economic theory (Smith and Malthus) -- replace ethical issues about the good life. Tom Gradgrind treats Louisa and Sissy in the same way as workers in the factory (Hands) or students in the classroom (Numbers)-- he grinds and chokes their true identity and better angels into the dust (240 and 242). Whether it is the definition of a horse, education, national prosperity, national debt, marriage, poverty (192), justice (160), bank theft, or ethics, everything takes on the hue of the logic of the factory -- control, domination, specialization, and monotonous and melancholic madness. The real issue underlying this book is about liberalism and capitalism. Dickens is asking his readers about the nature of liberalism and its compatibility or incompatibility with broader issues of virtue and goodness. Is liberalism incompatible with a life of beauty, harmony, friendship, virtue, love, and justice? Does liberalism destroy the spirit and soul of the modern citizen; does it destroy the ethics and meaning of life? Is the Circus incompatible with Coketown and what does this say about British and even American society? These are very difficult and challenging questions: John Locke's discussion in the seventeenth century about natural law and natural rights in the state of nature and John Stuart Mill's later analysis of democracy and capitalism in the nineteenth century may provide possible answers to these very important questions. It is interesting that for Dickens the ideal world is represented by the Circus with its concern for family and friends, love and community, beauty and the imagination, wonder and emotions, and creativity and play. Dickens' ideal is that of an artist within an aesthetic and spiritual community. In some interesting and radically different ways, this was also the ideal of Karl Marx, as we shall see shortly in the course. Marx's ideal was that of the medieval communal artisan who treated work as a form and expression of community and art -- an aesthetic democracy. Finally, in the class discussion about Dickens turn to the issues of the values and ideals of Modernity: Pages 187 (explanation and understanding), 182 (utilitarianism), 195 (Harthouse), 108 (justice), 195 (existential hollowness and worthlessness of life in Coketown), 240 (crushing of individual freedom and potentiality), and 304 (commodification and mechanization of human experience). At the end of the story of Coketown and the Gradgrinds, the main character and chief defender of positivism (science and reason) and utilitarianism (capitalist happiness and monetary pleasure) recognizes he has a profound lack of understanding and knowledge of human emotions and society and the loss of human happiness and development.
3. John Locke The Second Treatise of Government (1690), chapters 1-5, pp. 3-30
Foundations of Classical Liberalism in Natural Law and Natural Rights
The Two Faces of Liberalism in Locke's Second Treatise of Government: John Locke represents the true soul of modern civil society or civil government because within his work lies the contradictions of modernity and liberalism between the community and the individual, natural law and natural rights, moral economy and market economy, and Sittlichkeit and Moralitaet. These normative and structural divisions within modern society -- the two faces of modernity -- will mark Western liberalism and capitalism as inherently a flawed social system that from an historical perspective represents only a transitional stage to something more free and just. Also the major debates among political and social theorists are framed within these structural contradictions of modernity. Locke's treatise, published one year after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, represents a key foundation of modern liberalism and democracy that is only expanded upon later in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789, 1793, and 1795, Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson) 1776, Declaration of the Rights of Women and the Female Citizen (Olympe de Gouges) 1791, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (Mary Wollstonecraft) 1792, UN Declaration of Human Rights (Jacques Maritain) 1948, "I Have a Dream" speech and the Civil Rights Act (Martin Luther King) 1964, and the Bill of Rights and Constitution of South Africa (Nelson Mandela) 1996. At the same time Locke's treatise represents the enormous divides and contradictions of modern liberalism between natural law and natural rights, moral economy and market economy, human needs and market wants, household communalism and possessive individualism, self-sufficient common or public property and unlimited private property, household/personal property based on labor and private property based on class and power, human needs and material wants, community (Gemeinschaft) and society (Gesellschaft), human freedom and personal liberty, and the common good and general welfare and self-interest and class structures. These ethical and political divisions are expressed most clearly in the abyss between the Original State of Nature of equality, freedom, and individual rights in Chapters 2 (creative insight of human reason into the natural order and law of the universe: Rationalism) and the Second State of Nature of class, power, and property in Chapter 5 (reflections on the empirical reality of a self-interested, competitive, and Hobbesian market economy: Empiricism): The former is grounded in the natural order of God, nature, and reason, whereas the latter is grounded in private property, productivity, market competition, self-interest, and class struggle. The Original State of Nature is based on natural law, natural rights, common and household property, and a moral or household economy, whereas the Second State of Nature is based on pure private property rights (life in terms of access to food, clothing, shelter, and work and health are highly limited by wage labor and class inequality), private property as capital, and a market economy. The Original State of Nature and natural rights are expressions of the will of God manifested in the Old and New Testament, history of Christian religions and its traditions, and, finally, in human reason, whereas the Second State of Nature is the outcome of market decisions, private property, and capital accumulation. Locke looks to the American Indian as an example of the former and seventeen-century England as an example of the latter. Through his examination of the various components and stages of development within the state of nature, Locke is recreating a history interpreted through God, the Bible, Christian tradition, and human reason that parallels the transformation of Aristotle's moral economy (Oikonomike) into a market economy (Chrematistike). Although Locke does not use a different word, even when the tone and meaning are quite different, when referring to individual property in a moral economy and a market economy, I will use the words "personal property" or "household property" when discussing moral property acquired through human labor in the original state of nature and "private property" when referencing unnatural and unlimited accumulation in the second state of nature and a market economy. Locke begins his analysis with an initial acceptance of Aristotle's theory of a moral community but, in the end, reverses Aristotle's rejection of a market economy and unnatural wealth acquisition by creating a Second State of Nature based on private property, class inequality, and unlimited wealth and money accumulation. Liberalism is based on the distortion and reversal of Ancient Greek ethics and the fundamental principles of compassion, love, kindness, human need, and dignity within a moral community. These same ancient ideas find their way into the medieval thought of Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics.
Communal Justice and Market Justice in Locke's State of Nature: Common Property, Household Property, and Private Property: A central point in the analysis of Locke's theory of rights lies in this recognition that there are two distinct states of nature -- the original state of nature (Chapters II, III, IV, and V, para. 4-35) based on Communal Justice: Natural Law, Natural Rights, Moral or Household Economy, and Egalitarian Community (Communalism) and the second state of nature (Chapter V, para. 36-50) based on Market Justice: Property Rights, Money Economy, Unrestrained Right to Property, and Class Society (Possessive Individualism) with its corresponding two kinds of individuality and property rights. The very concept of freedom has shifted from material well-being and equality to the market and, in the process, undermining individual freedom, rights, and liberty toward the deification of the violence and aggression of market competition and unequal private property in the second state of nature. There are three forms of property in the state of nature: Common Property of the community, Household Property of the family in a moral economy based on human labor and ethical and economic limits, and Private Property in a market economy based on accumulation and wealth. The emphasis on the nature of property changes with a redefinition of the state of nature. Household Property is a union of common property and private property based on the moral value of human labor within the limits of both ethical and economic natural law; its goal is to ensure the survival of both the community and the family. Property is justified in these different states of nature in two distinct ways: (1) common/public property and personal/household/moral property as the material foundation of human life and health in the original state of a moral economy; this form of property was given to humanity -- Adam and his posterity -- by God in Psalm, cxv, 16 (common property, human reason, effort, and creativity) and (2) private property or market right to acquired property as capital which is the product of human labor in a market economy in the second state of nature; this form of property is a product of a market economy with its opportunities, merits, rewards, and privileges. The goal of common property and the right to property is to maintain a moral community based on the ethics of human need and dignity, physical survival of humanity, and the will of God. Although personal/household property is introduced in the original state of nature, there are clear ethical (love, compassion, and friendship) and structural limitations (sufficiency, labor, and spoilage) on its acquisition and use. These limitations were designed by God to limit both the acquisition of personal/household/family property -- moral property -- and ensure the protection of natural law and the moral community. To ensure the protection of the rise of modern individualism and liberalism with its rights and liberties, it was necessary for Locke to return to an early stage of socialism; does this mean that for Locke that the material and economic foundation and ethical limits to natural rights and individual liberties lie in a socialist economy of common property and moral property based on the limits of individual/family human labor? In the second state of nature, the Hebrew/Christian God and these natural law limits disappear. And with these changes common and household property and natural rights become independent of all moral obligations and limitations. And as the traditional Hebrew/Christian God disappears in favor of an Enlightenment Deus removed from history, communal property and natural rights are evolve into private property and class rights of a market economy. In the original state of nature -- based on the writings of Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and Richard Hooker -- rights are the material foundations of natural law and the community, that is, they protect equality, freedom, and the community, whereas in the second state rights are the ends of human existence. The argument to be made here is that in the second state of nature -- based on the early libertarian and scholastic theory of the 16th- and 17th-century of the Spanish Enlightenment and the School of Salamanca (Luis de Molina and Francisco Suarez) with its emphasis on the economic market, competition, and individualism as reflecting natural law, the common good and natural order, and the right to private property and T. Hobbes (Joseph Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, 1954) -- rights merely become the theoretical justification for power, domination, and capitalism. Although Locke does not use the term "common labor," it is a relevant concept that helps explain the creation and maintenance of common property within a town or village. Family/household property is that form of moral property necessary for the survival and sustenance of a family farm or small artisan workshop in a town; both common and household property were given to humanity by God at the time of creation in work and reason. Private property as capital is a product of the new market economy, banking, finance, commerce, capitalist development. The concept of common property has a long tradition in Christianity going back to Jesus (the Good Samaritan), Augustine (communitarianism and solidarity), Aquinas (community and communion), and the various denominations in the Radical Reformation (Baptists, Mennonites, and Spiritualists). As with life, liberty, and health, property in the original state of nature is a natural and innate right which means it cannot be earned or merited, traded or surrendered. As an innate or birthright, it furthers life, liberty, and health and is the material foundation for the other natural rights. Property in this context refers to the right of each individual at birth to an equal access to the food, clothing, shelter, and work provided by the moral community and common land. And any excess beyond the natural law limits to household property should be given to the community for its redistribution. Locke develops these distinctions and contradictory traditions into two different theories of natural rights: a theory of communitarian and social rights based on the common good and general welfare of the community grounded in ancient Greek philosophy and medieval scholasticism (Aristotle, Aquinas, and Hooker) in the first five chapters of his book and a theory of market or property rights based on the liberalism and radical individualism of Thomas Hobbes, the Dutch East India Company, Hugo Grotius, and Samuel Pufendorf. The very meaning of "property" itself, as well as equality, rights, and liberty, dramatically changes from the original to the second state of nature. The constitutional and legal history of Western society is framed by these two diametrically opposed interpretations of the concepts of property and rights. In the Second State of Nature there is no longer natural law and natural rights since the market undermines household communalism and common property, makes equality and freedom impossible because of the class structure of the economy, and replaces individual liberty and rights with market liberties and personal privileges; property and health are no longer innate and natural rights for everyone, but, instead, become social or market rights afforded by the privileges of class and power.

Three Forms of General Rights in Locke's Liberalism: Natural or Innate Rights, Market or Private Rights, and Civil or Legal Rights: There are three forms of rights corresponding to the three forms of society in Locke's political theory:

(1) Original State of Nature -- Common Rights and Common Property: Natural or Innate Rights to communal love, friendship, and compassion to provide the material and community foundations for individual survival, health, well-being, and personal liberty in common property, as well as Moral or Family Property within the ethical and economic limits of Natural Law and "do no harm to others" -- principles of natural law (Chapters 2-5). (Note: "Do no harm to others" refers both to direct, individual harm to another person or the harm resulting from inequality, market competition, and class power.) Rights are given to humans from God and are a product of communal love and self-preservation in nature. The community provides the material goods and necessary benefits for human survival and material well-being. They are not the result of individual effort, hard work, personal accomplishments, or legal agreements, but are given to each member of the natural order created by God (para. 5 and 15). These are the principles of natural law and the medieval Christian community. This natural law tradition is also the ethical and economic position of medieval Judaism (Psalm 115:16) and Islam. The community provides the basic necessities of human life provided by the moral economy through common property and household moral property derived from individual labor (paras. 25-27). Access to these two forms of property in the original state of nature would provide the food, clothing, shelter, work, and basic necessities of human life for each individual as an innate natural right since "once being born, [they] have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink and such other things as nature affords, for their subsistence..." (para. 25). Property as a right here refers to natural law common and household property. This is a right to the food and other products of nature that would sustain a healthy life, liberty, and community solidarity. The original natural rights of life, liberty, property, and health in the state of nature are grounded in the natural law of love, compassion, and friendship. Ironically, there is a clear recognition by Locke that advanced liberalism, class inequality, and the unbridled right to property are incompatible with a moral economy and political democracy since, without paragraphs 5 and 15 (natural law of common property), there can be no paragraphs 4 and 6 (natural rights to life and liberty). The ideals of original liberalism cannot be realized except within the ethical and political ideals of socialism. Natural rights are impossible without natural law.
[Note: Marx will later make a similar point in his work On the Jewish Question when he argues that the economic rights of man (liberty and property) are incompatible with the political rights of the citizen (free assembly, free thought, and free speech)]. Locke will ground his initial theory of moral economy in the writings of Richard Hooker, a Protestant who was referred to as an "Anglo-Catholic" because of his reliance on both Catholic social teaching and medieval tradition and Protestantism and Scripture, whereas Marx will turn to Aristotle and classical antiquity for ethical inspiration. Liberalism and democracy are incompatible social systems for both Locke in the original state of nature (up to paragraph 36 of chapter 5 in The Second Treatise of Government in 1689) and Marx. The reasoning behind Locke's transition to the Second State of Nature is not clear and could be the result of an internal logical evolution of his ideas; an internal inconsistencies within his political theory; an attempt at a dramatic defense of capitalism by beginning with generally accepted social, ethical, and religious principles; or even the result of the "Glorious Revolution" and the replacement of the English Catholic king James II by his Protestant daughter Mary and her Dutch Calvinist husband William of Orange in 1688. With the religious transformation of England, Richard Hooker's ideas and prominent place in theology are eclipse and replaced by a staunch Reformed Protestantism that eliminates Catholic tradition, creed, and sacraments as it retains strong elements of traditional Calvinism.]
(2) Second State of Nature -- Market and Economic Rights to attain and protect acquisition and ownership of private property and the products of possessive individualism in a market economy without metaphysics and natural law (middle of Chapter 5). The natural law limits are no longer necessary within a market economy that can itself provide for the abundance of the material wealth necessary for the protection of natural rights. Market replaces natural law, and innate rights are no longer innate, universal, and inalienable because they are now reduced to economic opportunities for acquiring property and achieving economic success based on individual work effort, focus, and accomplishments. The right to life and property are replaced by the right to participate in the market and acquire property though hard work, luck, or inheritance. The right to property was originally a right to self-subsistence and physical sustenance of food, meat, drink, and "such other things as nature affords for their subsistence" that can be provided by the community out of love and friendship (para. 25). The right to property was never conceived in the original state of nature as a right to own property. This is to mistake a legal right of ownership in a market economy with a universal right of God and natural law in a moral economy. Common property was the village owned property that sustained the community, while household property could sustain a family within limits. They were options given to every individual in the community because they were innate, universal, and inalienable. This provision of natural law is taken away in the Second State of Nature. Later, with the creation of Civil Society, the right to property becomes a right of contract and effort to purchase, own, and use private property. There are two entirely different meanings to the word "property" here: In the Original State of Nature, property referred to those things absolutely necessary to sustain human life and that are received because of the love, care, and compassion of God and the community, whereas property in the Second State of Nature becomes the private ownership of land, labor, industry, shipping, technology, etc. without the ethical and material foundations of natural law. The market has replaced natural law, and later in civil society, natural law is further replaced by the law of civil society.
(3) Civil Society, Modern State, and the Legal Right of Contract and Ownership of Private Property -- Civil or Legal Rights are necessary to ensure and protect the newly created rights found in the Second State of Nature to legally acquire, own, and protect the accumulation of unlimited private property and economic wealth in the modern economy and civil society. This is a right to the rewards, effort, merit, accomplishments, and class privileges resulting from individual hard work and business success within a market economy protected by the legal institutions of civil government (Chapter 6 ff.). The individual no longer has a right to property -- no longer has a "right" and no longer has "property" (common and family property) and by implication no longer has a right to life, liberty, and health. The individual only has a right to strive through individual effort and accomplishments to eventually purchase and own property. The difference between the "Right to Property" (Original State of Nature) and the "Right to Own Property" (Second State of Nature) is the difference between two entirely different social systems and two entirely different religious orientations of Catholicism and Protestantism (neo-Calvinism) -- one founded upon natural law and household communalism and the other upon individualism, a market economy, and capitalism. Example: When someone orders and pays for food in a restaurant, they have a legal right to that food; when someone eats at a family dinner, they have a right to the food because of familial love, responsibility, and mutual sharing. These are two radically different views of rights and property that Locke articulates in Chapters 2-5 of his work. Also note that these two different approaches to rights and property will also affect how we interpret the meanings of life, liberty, and health. In the original state, property provides the material goods and physical necessities for life (self-preservation and survival), liberty (free will and individual choice), and health (physical well-being), whereas in the second state, the natural rights become commodities purchasable on the market and are thus not innate and not inalienable. Not everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and health who belong to a certain economic class and cannot afford the costs connected with these "rights." In fact, these are no longer "Rights" but are saleable objects of private property that are justified by contract law and not natural law, by legal and civil law and not the law of God. Civil society and the market have replaced religion and God as the foundation of rights and liberties. Locke has dramatically altered the meaning of natural rights and property in Chapter 5 and, in turn, has changed the meaning of individual freedom, equality, and liberty to conform to the logic and principles of a market economy -- natural rights become civil and market rights. Originally, there was a right to life and liberty because there was common and household property and a moral economy. This was then replaced beginning with paras. 36-50 in chapter 5 with a market economy, private property, class, wage labor, commerce and banking, and inequality -- Commerce and Trade: paras. 45, 47, and 48; Wage Labor: 28, 50, and 85; Civil Society: 138; and Hobbes' view of the state of nature, private property, competition, and class inequality: 50. Key question: Does one lose natural rights with the replacement of natural law and a moral economy by a market economy and private property? Has the very foundation of the rights to life, liberty, health, and property as physical sustenance and human existence through food, clothing, shelter, work, etc. disappear with the rise of possessive individualism and market capitalism? The right to life, liberty, and property become synonymous with the right to fly since the latter has no moral, material, and economic foundation in natural law. With the loss of common and household property, there is no secure foundation for the rights to life and liberty in capitalism, only the possibility of work, wages, and employment in an economy characterized by the search for private profits and self-interest, wealth accumulation and class privilege, utilitarianism and crude materialism, gross inequality, unemployment, poverty, and business cycles, crises, and contradictions.
With the disappearance of the state of nature and the formation of civil society and the modern state by majority consensus, natural rights are no longer innate but protective or legal rights. The protective rights of life, liberty, and property do not ensure access to the material basis of human life, they only legally protect the privileged possessions of already existing class relations, private property, and the market within which these rights are enclosed. Thus, these rights are accessible to only a few of the citizens within civil society. With these rights as mere protections of accomplishments, merit, and privilege, the moral fabric and natural law of the community have disappeared and with them any clear sense of personal identity and personality. The individual becomes isolated from the community, lost in consumption and utilitarianism, and isolated and along. This is the foundation for the narcissistic personality and is the basis for the phrase -- "liberalism is loneliness." Today in the very heart of American society, everyone has a right to grammar school and high school, but only the relatively prosperous have a right to pre-K and college. These are the echoes of the inconsistencies and incoherence of liberalism in America between two different meanings of the political concepts of "rights" and "property." This is the difference between "right" interpreted in the Original State of Nature as an essential gift and entitlement, innate and primary principle of justice, and essential aspect of human existence, whereas in the Second State of Nature "right" is a concept of class, privilege, merit, market success, property ownership, and legal authority. In the Original State of Nature, property was freely given to each human being as a right to sustain life, liberty, and health of the individual and family; in the Second State of Nature and Civil Society, the acquisition and ownership of property was the main purpose and goal of human life. This is the difference between a moral economy and a market economy for Aristotle, Aquinas, and the early Locke. It is also the difference between a society founded upon the ethical principles of human dignity, virtue, freedom, community, and love and a society grounded in economic productivity, accomplishments, accumulation, property ownership, and class divisions.
Summary: Four Forms of Property Rights in Locke's Second Treatise of Government: (1) Right to the basic ethical and material necessities capable of sustaining human life (common property and self-preservation) in the original state of nature; (2) Right to limited or moral private or family/household property based on human labor in the original state of nature but within the ethical and economic limits of natural law (moral community, labor, spoilage, and sufficiency); (3) Right to unlimited private property in a market economy but within the second state of nature: and (4) Right to the legal ownership (deeds and contracts) of private property or working capital in a market economy protected by civil society (government and laws), that is, the Right to accumulate unlimited wealth through rent (temporary use of property, land, and housing), interest (banking and finance), profits (creation of a surplus economic gain from an original monetary investment in agriculture, industry, and commerce), and economic exploitation (wage labor). The Right to property in the original state of nature is necessary to protect and ensure the rights to life, liberty, and health, since without property (food, clothing, housing, etc.) or the material basis for existence there can be no life, liberty, or health of the individual or family. Moral property ensures the very existence of natural rights. On the other hand, in both the second state of nature and civil society, property becomes the primary focus -- almost the exclusive focus -- of Locke's attention and his theory of "natural rights" (paras. 87, 123, 124, and 138). All rights are reduced to property rights in the second state of nature in Chapter 5 and the later creation of civil society in Chapter 6. What is missing in Locke's theory is an analysis of the existential crisis of liberalism and the belief in a secular natural law (J. S. Mill, Marx, and Fromm). Concepts of rights, property, liberties, and life would be better understood in the context of the purpose and meaning of human life that is engaged by 19th- and 20th-century social theorists. Are not these differences between communalism and liberalism, community and individual, moral economy and market economy, natural rights and market and civil rights ultimately differences about the meaning and purpose of life and liberty? Is the ultimate goal of human existence materialism, egoism, self-interest, utilitarianism, and the accumulation of money and wealth or is it about establishing a higher purpose, a moral community based on love and compassion for others, commitment to the common good and general welfare, etc.? This is the basis for the readings and discussions which follow in this course. The historical and philosophical irony of all these different approaches and forms of rights and property is that, in the end, there are no Natural Rights or Natural Law in liberalism. The ethical and material foundations for both no longer exist in modern civil society, and thus there are no rights to life, liberty, health, and property. Natural Rights imply that there is common and moral property that the community provides for all its members that sustains life, liberty, and health. Without this property the other rights cannot exist. Thus, these rights are given by God to humans at birth for the sustaining of life and health. They are, therefore, innate, universal, and absolute which means they cannot be acquired through effort, earned through work, or legally owned through merit. Thus, the natural rights of the Second State of Nature and Civil Society are not and cannot be natural rights; they may become civil and legal rights, but not natural rights. The very concept of Natural Rights in a market economy is incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory; and the very concept of Natural Rights in a market economy based on class inequality, private property, self-interest and competition, and disproportionate power relationships between labor and capital makes democracy impossible. Liberalism not grounded in Natural Law, communal sharing, and love, that is, a moral economy based on communalism makes Rights and Democracy an ideological fantasy. Democracy is incompatible with capitalism and liberalism. This is the sad irony of American history.


Origins of Capitalism and Socialism in Locke's State of Nature There is a sad, but fascinating, reality of intellectual history that, at the very end of the seventeenth century, liberalism contained two entirely different and antithetical states of nature: The first was based on freedom, health, equality, communal property, and concern for the common good and general welfare -- the principles and values of socialism -- and the other was based on the second state of nature -- individual liberty, market competition, private property, competition, and growing material and spiritual poverty -- the principles and values of capitalism. Both principles and systems were grounded in Locke's theory. The only relevant question was which direction would Locke take in Chapter V? In the early stages of liberalism found in the writings of Hobbes and Locke lie the modern origins of both capitalism and socialism. They are both grounded in the ethical and political principles of equality, freedom, liberty, property, law, and rights. However, these economic and political systems provide different meaning to these terms: possessive individualism vs. self-realization and self-determination, private property vs. communal or household property, market freedom vs. political freedom, forced labor vs. creative work, property law vs. natural law, and natural rights vs. human rights. About Locke's second state of nature, Marx wrote: "Locke drove out Habakkuk" (natural law and justice in the Old Testament). The two states of nature represent two entirely different and conflicting views of humanity, goals, ideals, and purpose of human life, ethics and politics, community, individual freedom and liberty, and the role of private property, natural rights, and natural law in society. An updating or re-analysis of Locke's original state of nature for the twentieth-first century would require that we replace common property and the ethical and economic limits to private property accumulation -- the material and economic foundations for equality, freedom, and natural rights -- with the universal rights to health for all, fair employment and housing, living minimum wage, and limits to class inequality in order to protect the ethical principles of freedom and equality. The rights to life, health, and liberty require innate rights to common or household property; they necessitate an innate and inalienable right to food, clothing, shelter, and work. This means they are innate and inalienable rights and not just rights to food, clothing, shelter, and work, if the worker and his family have money or property to purchase these rights. They are not for sale, loan, or borrowing. Morality, ethics, and rights become impossible without the prior conditions of economics. To separate them into distinct areas or distinct academic disciplines is to lose sight of the integrated whole and to lose sight of social justice. Locke is very clear that equality is the foundation of "that obligation to mutual love amongst men" as well as the foundation of justice and charity (para 5, p. 5).
Natural Law and Natural Rights are Lost in Locke's Theory of Liberalism: The Eclipse of Liberalism in Liberalism: The split between natural law and natural rights, between the original and second state of nature is an expression of the distinction between a moral economy and a market economy: Liberty, freedom, and rights in the former are protections for the ethical integrity of the community and common good, whereas in a market economy rights protect private property and the class structure (materialistic reductionism). Both natural law and natural rights are lost in the second state of nature as a market economy and unlimited property acquisition replace a moral economy and egalitarian community. Natural rights of life, liberty, and health require the existence of natural law, a moral economy, and common property. This is the unspeakable truth of Western liberalism:
(1) Natural Rights: at the very moment when the values and ideals of liberalism are articulated in individual freedom and natural rights, their decline and eclipse are already placed in motion
(2) Structures of Economic Power: equality, freedom, majority rule, and democracy in civil society are incompatible with a class system of internal divisions and violent struggles based on authoritarianism, elitism, wealth, power, and material inequality and poverty
(3) Loss of Community and Natural Law: democracy is incompatible with liberalism since the latter emphasizes economic rights of class, separation, competition, self-interest, egoism, materialism, destruction of community and common good which destroy the very foundations of both natural law and democracy
(4) Loss of Material Foundations of Rights: God created the world of natural law and natural rights, and in this creation God provided the material foundations for the realization of these same natural rights. With the loss of natural law and God in the second state of nature and civil society, there are no longer these material foundations and, therefore, there are no longer natural rights. The very ground and being of natural rights have been dissolved, resulting in empty ethical and political categories that have lost their meaning and purpose
(5) Christianity, and Capitalism: Finally, the biggest inconsistency of all is that the natural rights theory of the second state of nature is incompatible with the very values of medieval and modern forms of Christianity. A familiar phrase used throughout Latin America and also attributed to Pope Francis is "Capitalism is Sin." The theological, ethical, and political values of Christianity and Judaism are antithetical to the values (Lifeworld) and institutions (System) of Liberalism articulated this semester in the writings of T. Hobbes, J. Locke, and J. Schumpeter.
Democracy is historically and logically incompatible with liberalism and capitalism because they undermine the very foundations and conditions which make democracy possible -- natural law (community, human dignity, equality, freedom, and common access to the basic material conditions for human life and political participation). Economic expansion, global trade, the unlimited accumulation of private property, and growing class divide within society cannot replace the material and economic foundations that make natural rights possible. Discuss the meaning of democracy and liberalism. Locke represents both the beginning and end of liberalism. In fact, the whole history of modern liberalism from the seventeenth to the twenty-first century is already prefigured in the thought of Locke. The end of liberalism is already visible in the seventeenth-century writings of John Locke when it is quite clear that Natural Law, Natural Rights, and Democracy are incompatible with the liberalism of the second state of nature. Wendell Berry has written: "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." In the history of Western thought rights can be interpreted as protecting the life and freedom of the individual within the community (socialism) or protecting the ownership of property and wealth (capitalism). These distinctions are the foundation of the debate between Locke and Marx over the nature of natural rights (property rights) and human rights (political rights). (To further develop these points, compare the Declaration of Independence, 1776 and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, December 1948. Also, there is an interesting article by Glenn Woiceshyn in Capitalism Magazine, December 11, 1998 in which he argues that the "Individual Rights" to life, liberty, security of person, and property are undermined by the oppressive and destructive "Human or Economic Rights" to work, education, health care, and social security in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Human Rights steal money and resources from Individual Rights. The question raised in our analysis of John Locke's treatise is whether the Economic Rights of the UN Declaration correspond to Locke's Natural Law -- do no harm to others and the ethical and economic limits to the right to property -- and whether the Individual Rights correspond to Locke's Natural Rights?) (Also, Marx will borrow from Locke's labor theory of value as the justification of property rights.) It is interesting to note that Locke's work stands at the beginning of modern liberalism and the two majors possible paths that are available for human development:
(1) The Original State of Nature of natural law, Christian metaphysics, communal morality of compassion, love, and friendship, human needs and dignity, social ethics, do no harm to others, common property, family responsibilities, and natural rights. Harm is viewed as hurting another person by undermining their equality, freedom, and individual rights, but also harm in the sense of damaging the macro social institutions which nurture individual liberty -- mutual love, compassion, and dignity for others, friendship, and common property.
(2) The Second State of Nature of possessive individualism, unrestrained private or corporate property (capital) and class power, civil society, market morality, property rights, and the loss of community and natural law.
Conflict between the Ancients and Moderns: Natural Law/Moral Economy and Natural Rights/Market Economy in Locke's Theory of the 'State of Nature': Examine the theory of the pre-political state of nature in Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan, 1651: state of nature, equality, "war of all against all," individualism of labor, productivity, self-interest, and self-preservation, natural right to everything, fear of violent death, no social institutions or cultural values, no economy, private property, laws, or polity, and the eventual formation of private property and civil society in the monarchical state. Then turn to Locke's theory of the state of nature, natural rights, personal liberty, private property as life (subsistence, self-preservation, and self-interest), liberty of choice, action, and estate (para. 57, 87, and 123), labor theory of value (25-30 and 38-44), and possessive individualism (para. 4-6, 25-30, and 57); the Original State of Nature consists of Natural Law, which is a set of universal ethical principles and moral obligations, legal and political philosophy, political economy, and practical rationality and action, created by God and made available to humanity through the Old and New Testament Scripture, divine revelation and providence, Christian traditions, and the rule of right or natural reason (laws of God, Nature, and Reason) and the Natural Rights to life, liberty, health, and property (para. 6-7, 25, 34-35, 38-40, 57, 87, 136, and 190). (Remember that Locke was both a philosopher and a physician.) Each individual has the right to self-preservation of human life and the various means and tools for preserving that life -- freedom of decision and action (liberty), immediate preservation of the body (health), and the material means of continued life (property of land, animals, food, clothing, and shelter); property is viewed as the right to keep the fruits of one's labor. According to Locke, this natural law form of personal property based on human labor is found in the experience of "Native Americans" and Genesis. Note: this is not a right to private property, only a right to property as the universal material means for sustaining the right to continued life and freedom of action; this is the right to common property, self-sufficiency, and the material resources of the community for the satisfaction of human needs. In fact, the very rights to life and liberty are based on the prior rights to health and property (para. 25). Without access to the material conditions of human life -- work, food, clothing, housing, health, etc. the rights to life and liberty, continued human existence and freedom of action, are impossible. The rights to life and liberty are both logically and historically incompatible with the right to property; the rights to life and liberty are made impossible with the right to property. More succinctly, property undermines life and liberty. This is because class, inequality, and poverty undermine a moral and egalitarian community. [This was the position of the Radical Protestant Reformers, the Levellers, and Thomas Jefferson: See, Schlatter, Private Property, pp. 132-134, 195-199, and 236-237 and George McCarthy, Marx and Social Justice (Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books, 2118), endnote 64, p. 65). A person who is starving or in poor health cannot have any innate, universal right to life and liberty prior to the creation of civil society and a constitutional government. Common property and common care for health (Scholastic Socialism) in Locke's original state of nature act as a universal communal social insurance program to ensure that the material foundations of human life will be protected. The inherent and unresolvable historical, structural, and logical contradictions of Western liberalism are that it was at first grounded and justified by Locke in the Original State of Nature in ancient Greek philosophy (Aristotle), medieval scholasticism (Aquinas), modern Christianity (Hooker), and an early form of modern socialism (common property, human dignity, and individual freedom). The history of Western thought from the seventeenth century to the present twenty-first century has been the attempt to resolve these contradictions in theory and in practice. To further complicate and make this point even more interesting, and to further complete the contradictions of intellectual history, one other important social theorist will attempt to integrate Natural Rights and Natural Law, Individual Freedom and Socialism, individualism and the common good -- Karl Marx.

Structural and Formal Pre-Conditions for the Realization and Continued Existence of Natural Rights in Metaphysics and Household Communalism:
1. Metaphysics and Theology of Christianity: Catholic and Anglican Christianity of Aquinas and Hooker which holds the belief in God, creation, and natural law (para. 6 and 25)
2. Natural Rights and Natural Law: God-given, innate, universal rights of every human being to life, liberty, health, and property prior to the formation of civil society and the state. These rights and laws are God-given that are universal and innate gifts given to humanity that cannot be merited, abridged, lost, or taken away
3. Ethics: Social Ethics and Moral Economy: God created humanity and natural rights based upon a moral and communal economy of love, compassion, dignity, friendship, need, community, and justice (natural law from Aristotle, Aquinas, and Hooker, para. 5 and 15)
4. Economics: Economic Limitations of Rights: limits on property acquisition and accumulation based on the economic principles of spoilage, sufficiency, and labor (natural law, para. 31, 32, 33, and 34)
5. Economic Structures of Common and Household Property: Structural Prerequisites and Material Preconditions for Individual Rights: life and liberty are innate, universal, and God-given rights only when they are based on a prior access to the necessary material conditions for life and liberty of action resting upon labor, food, drink, medical care, common/social property, and personal/family/moral property (para. 25, 26, and 27). Without these innate prior material and structural conditions, the natural rights to life and liberty are empty ethical and political phrases; without the material preconditions, they are unrealizable hopes and ideals; and without these prior economic conditions, they are only class rights and merited privileges. Liberalism and natural rights in the original state of nature are grounded upon a common ethical, economic, and structural foundation of communal and household property. Liberalism is born in socialism and natural law, transitions to a market economy and market privileges but ends in socialism. Liberalism is incapable of sustaining natural rights since it cannot provide the material foundations for life, liberty, health, and property (common and household property). With a market economy in the second state of nature, the material and universal conditions for equality, freedom, and rights disappear to be replaced by self-interest, competition, market aggression, and crude materialism. Natural Rights are transformed into Market Privileges; there are no longer natural rights in a market economy. Market liberalism cannot articulate, produce, or defend Natural Rights or Natural Law; the former and latter are incompatible and contradictory concepts. Only some form of socialism is compatible with rights and law because only socialism provides the material conditions for both. This is why liberalism is indifferent and incoherent. It is liberalism that is born and dies in egoism, hedonism, and materialism which are the economic and political values that are antithetical to the previous traditions of ancient Israel, classical Greece, and medieval Christianity.
Summary: In the First State of Nature in order to have the natural rights to individual life and liberty (para. 4 and 6), one also needed the natural law to equality, health, and property (common and family property, para. 5, 15, and 25). Natural Law provides the ethical foundation, communal laws, and moral virtues that make Natural Rights possible. And Natural Rights provide the material and economic foundations for Natural Law in common and household property and individual liberty. In the Second State of Nature, the natural law of communal ethics, material well-being, health, social responsibility, and economic limits (spoilage, labor, and sufficiency) is dropped and replaced by a market, money, and commercial economy, individual labor, private property, class power, and possessive individualism (para. 36, 37, 42, 46, 47, and 50). In the first four and a half chapters Locke examines natural law, ethical communalism, and a moral economy of common property, whereas in the middle of chapter five Locke moves into the Second State of Nature with its economic capitalism and market economy of unlimited accumulation of private property. The book is an interesting analysis of the transition from communalism to capitalism. The form of constitutional government in the United States is based on the Second State of Nature and civil society with its claims to life, liberty, and property, but without the economic, material, and ethical foundations for life, health, and common property to support the individual natural rights themselves. Locke believed that the market and economic growth would support these natural law and communitarian principles. In the First State of Nature, Locke believed that natural law, not the market, would support natural rights. The central question remains after reading Locke: Without Natural Law are there really Natural Rights? Without the prior support and material/economic preconditions of the community in common property, material well-being, health protection, and a moral community are natural rights possible in an unrestrained market economy or are natural rights simply another form of ideology and false consciousness? In the Original State of Nature, health and common/family property appear to be a derivative rights that ensure the primary rights of life and liberty, equality and freedom. Without the moral values found in paragraphs 5 and 15, the political liberties in paragraphs 4 and 6 would be impossible; without the rights to common property and health, the rights to life and liberty would be impossible. The Moral Economy is built upon the ideals of equality, mutual love, obligation, moral community, friendship and fellowship, human needs, human dignity, duty, social responsibility, affection for others, social peace, social justice, and individual charity.
In the Second State of Nature, the right to property and liberty is ultimately based on the elements of a market economy and possessive individualism -- effort, merit, reward, accomplishments, but also inheritance, privilege, class, ownership, and property. It contains private property, class inequality, wealth, loss of natural law and community, banking, finance, money, market competition, commerce, trade, and wage labor. Without Natural Law there is no foundation for the right to property and liberty, just as without the material or physiological foundations for an individual to fly, there is no natural right to fly. Without common property/family property and health care, there can be no rights to life and liberty; without food, clothing, drink, shelter, health care, possessions, etc., there can be no rights to freedom, equality, liberty, and life. The market economy cannot provide the material foundations for Natural Rights because, as Locke clearly recognizes (para. 50), the Second State of Nature and Civil Society are based on the market and not natural law. The unfortunate irony of Locke's treatise is that he cannot protect or ensure the Natural Rights based on a market economy because it creates inequality, class divisions, and undermines the sense of community and social responsibility. However, the true irony of Locke's treatise is that Natural Rights can only be nurtured, protected, and supported by some form of primitive communism -- Without Communism, there can be no Liberalism. Natural Rights require Natural Law; the former are socially and historically impossible without the latter. He didn't realize that without Natural Law, the only thing left would be the Leviathan and Hard Times.
The right to life, liberty, and property (physical sustenance) cannot be innately maintained or assured within a market economy and capitalism since there is no universal acceptance or promise of property -- only limited meritocracy, low wages, unemployment, and economic crises. Basing human rights on the market is reverting to the bellum omnium contra omnes or universal self-interest, competition, possessive individualism, capital and private property accumulation, human poverty and misery, and social wasteland. Production, trade, consumption, and the market may expand under capitalism, but that expansion leads to private property, class, and inequality as admitted by Locke in para. 50. It does not provide the universal and assured basis for human life, sustenance, liberty, and health as with common property in a moral economy. Because a market economy is capable of overcoming the economic limits of labor, spoilage, and sufficiency, it does not mean that the market is capable of providing economic security, safety, health care, and well-being for all its members. Because a market economy replaces natural law does not mean that it can provide the ethical foundations of love, kindness, generosity, and friendship necessary to protect natural rights. Capitalism can only provide for the limited possibilities of success in the market. Locke is clearly inconsistent and contradictory in his reasoning since a greatly expanded global economy may dramatically increase the social wealth for a few, it does not mean it would be fairly distributed because of class power and structural inequality in the new social system. Both Aristotle and Marx clearly saw the implications of a market economy. Even in Locke's work, an expanded money economy that has moved beyond common property and the economic limits of labor, spoilage, and sufficiency produces inequality, private property, and class which would undermine the whole framework of the moral principles, ideals, and moral purposes of natural law. With the creation of civil society, law, and the modern state, this inherent inequality and Hobbesian view of the world is legally constructed and confirmed.
6. Moral Property: Common and Household Property: common/communal property and personal/family property are justified on the basis of God and natural law to subdue and improve nature "for the support and comfort of their (humanity's) being," reason working for the advantage and betterment of human life and convenient conditions, and property as a product of human labor (possessive individualism in para. 6, 25, 26, 27, and 34). In a few weeks in this course we will see that Marx will integrate the original Locke (chapters.1-5) with the latter's natural law principles 3, 4, and 5 -- Ethics, Economics, and Material Preconditions -- with his critique of natural or economic rights and capitalism. Marx will replace it with a theory of human rights and the political rights of the citizen in his On the Jewish Question (1843). Liberalism is grounded in natural law, social ethics, and common property, that is, it is grounded in some form of early communalism or socialism which is later dropped in the second state of nature which replaces both natural law and natural rights with the primacy of private property. The rights to life (common property), liberty (equality and freedom). and health are no longer the foundations of liberalism -- they have been replaced by private property and unrestrained accumulation within a market economy.
7. Summary of the Spiritual and Material Preconditions for Natural Rights: Foundations of Modern Society in Economic Power, Class, and the Market and not in Ethics and the Community: The Metaphysical, Ethical, Material, and Economic foundations of natural rights are, according to Locke, the absolutely necessary bases upon which rest the protection, preservation, assurance, and justification of natural rights and individual liberties. Without them in the seventeenth century, natural rights would not be possible: (1) Metaphysics: The theological belief that God created the world, state of nature, and natural rights integrates the medieval and modern Christian worldviews; (2) Economics and Common Property: They establish the material preconditions for the safety, continuation, and self-preservation of human life; Economic Limits: spoilage, labor, and sufficiency that protect the common property from misuse and ecological depletion; and (4) Social Ethics: The moral responsibility for a virtuous life of love, compassion, care, friendship, and material sharing and reciprocity rests upon the social ethics and natural law of the community. Without these four components of Natural Law, there are no natural rights because the preconditions for the latter's existence in metaphysics and communalism are no longer present. Without these four components of Natural Law, there are no universal or innate guarantees to rights, no natural rights. There are only particular, historical, and provisional rights based on opportunities, hard work, accomplishments, and market successes. Without a living and extensive root system hidden from immediate view, even the most majestic and power tree cannot long survive. Natural Rights without Natural Law and Protective Economics become a "war of all against all" in a market economy based on competition, self-interest, particular merit, and class profits. Rights become the reward of the powerful and successful. Those oppressed by class, poverty, and inequality, have no rights, only the obligation to behave and conform, to participate in the market, accept opportunities when available, and be grateful for any rewards or merits offered by the system. True human rights are those grounded in theological or secular traditions, that is, the natural and civil guarantees of the rights to life, liberty, health, and property require that these rights be ethically grounded and politically justified by God, moral economy, or communal society. However, in the Second State of Nature and with the formation of legal institutions, the social contract, and civil society, Natural Rights become Market or Legal Rights. That is, individuals have the right to purchase the conditions for life, liberty, health, and property, but not the right to them directly or innately.
As Locke's ideas evolve in Chap. 5 on Property, the natural rights become more articulated but also begin to fade away into market reason, individual effort, private accomplishments, and rigid class privilege. Locke was the central political and social theorist who broke with the intellectual traditions of the past and grounded the foundations of society not in ethics and the common good, but in the market and class inequality. With the loss of the four key elements of natural law, rights, equality, and personal liberties are no longer viable or attainable. This is the great inconsistency hidden within Locke's theory of natural rights: Historically and sociologically, liberalism articulates a defense of individualism and freedom, but the political and social structures necessary for their development do not exist. Natural rights theory becomes pure ideology and false consciousness hiding a social system that does not respect or protect individual freedom, liberties, or rights. The latter are all illusions. The result is that liberalism is incapable of articulating or defending individual rights and liberties. With the liberal ideals of possessive individualism, individual liberty, and market economy, along with the dismantling of the moral economy and natural law, Rights become impossible to maintain. The real conclusion to be drawn from Locke's writings is that liberalism is a political and economy system antithetical to individual rights, freedom, and equality. For the values of Liberalism to exist and flourish -- individual rights, liberties, freedom, and equality -- there must also exist the material foundations of such a society in the form of natural law -- medieval communalism or primitive socialism: Bluntly stated, Liberalism requires Socialism in the original state of nature, since, without the latter, there are really no innate, universal, or natural rights. Today, natural rights and individual freedom and equality are a mythic construct of the market, like supply side economics. This is Marx's main insight in On the Jewish Question (1843).

Issue for Classroom Discussion: There are two theories of natural rights and the state of nature in Locke. If the first one is based on a synthesis of medieval Catholicism and Protestantism (Anglicanism), how can the second state of nature and natural rights be justified by Money and Markets -- finance, banking, commerce, egoism, materialism, self-interest, competition, the war of all against all, class, inequality, etc.? Irrespective of Weber's Protestant Ethic thesis, are not the ethical principles and moral values of Christianity incompatible with the values and institutions of modern capitalism grounded in Money and Market? Are not these materialist and utilitarian values, as A. Camus wrote in The Fall, the values of a "middle-class hell"? How could Hell be compatible with Christianity? For a further analysis of these questions, see Jim Wallis, God's Politics, Peter Gomes, The Good Book, Robin Lowen, Homosexuality in the Bible, and Randall Balmer, Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: A Journey into the Evangelical Subculture in America (2006). Evangelicals and others on the Religious Right came to the anti-abortion position as part of a political strategy connected with segregation and accusations of racism at Liberty University. Jerry Falwell did not speak on eliminating abortion until 1978, well after Roe v. Wade (1973); it was, according to Balmer, a political maneuver to combat criticism of racism. Discuss the relationships within Christianity among religion, politics, sex, and capitalism. By abandoning the natural law tradition, did Locke set the stage for the abandonment of moral values and Christianity, along with the rise of Existentialism? Has the discussion about natural rights reemerged today with a consideration of human rights to housing, education, living wages, fair employment, universal medicine, etc.?
Dissolution of Ethics and Economic Limits and the Dismantling of the Principles and Structures of Natural Law: Liberalism Without Natural Law and Individual Rights:
With the loss of Natural Law, there is a dismantling of Christian Metaphysics, Ethics of a Moral Economy, and the Economic Limits to the accumulation of personal property and possessions in a market economy:
1. Spoilage of production and property (para. 46)
2. Labor (43 and 50)
3. Communal self-sufficiency (37).

Ironically and unexpectedly with the loss of God and Natural Law, there is also a corresponding loss of Natural Rights in Liberalism. Only in later historical documents like the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the "Bill of Rights" of the South African Constitution (1997) are rights expanded. The latter document includes "the rights to life, food, water, health, and social assistance." Without common property, without access to "food and drink," life and liberty are impossible and, thus, no longer rights, but biological wants, social drives, or individual instincts; without common property, the right to family/personal property is contingent, historical, and particular and not innate and universal, that is, it is worthless. As explicitly stated by Locke, the right to life also means that individuals have an innate right "to their preservation, and consequently to food and drink and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence" (para. 25). This means that God and nature have provided humanity as a Natural Right the material basis for sustenance and existence which includes food and drink, but also, by implication, employment, work, and housing, medical services, etc. Liberalism argues the individuals have universal rights to the material foundations of human life because life is created by the will of God. [Note: This dimension of Locke's political and moral theory is dropped in his Second State of Nature and in the United States Declaration of Independence. What is also interesting is that the latter documental also drops the notion of property from natural rights to include only the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.] From another perspective, this explains why we do not have a right to fly, be a good singer or artist, have blue eyes, be carpenters, etc. There is no common, universal, innate, or material basis for such claims in God, nature, or reason. This relationship between the rights to life, liberty, health, and property in the original state of nature requires the existence of the material foundation for these rights, that is, common property and economic self-sufficiency of the household; the latter is the key and foundation of all rights and without it there are no inalienable rights. Locke seems to make the distinction between primary and secondary rights: At the start of his analysis in Chapter 2 he appears to make the rights to common property and health "Secondary or Derivative Rights" to provide the material foundations for the primary rights to life and liberty within the community -- equality and freedom. Property and health are the necessary prerequisites for the natural rights to life and liberty; the former do no stand on their own but provide the material preconditions for equality, freedom, and rights; and without these secondary rights, esp. universal, community, and household access to property (work, food, shelter, clothing, etc.), life and liberty are no longer innate and universal rights -- they become simply market opportunities based on individual merit and hard work. Without the distinctive physiological structure of birds -- their high metabolism and body temperatures, their unusual respiratory system, bone density, and muscular system, etc. -- they could not fly. And without property (housing, shelter, work, food, clothing, etc) and health, humans could not have life or liberty. It is health (sustenance and protection of life as food, housing, work, etc.) and property which make natural rights possible; without this primitive communalism or socialism, liberalism would not be possible. And Locke's original theory of property in the first five books of his work is simply a more modern variation of medieval communal property because both are grounded in ethical and economic conditions of natural law and metaphysics. And the modern history of liberalism and human rights develops out of these initial Lockean insights. Today, to have these natural rights the universal and necessary material conditions would have to exist: universal housing, fair employment, living wage, health care, education, etc. Whether one has blue eyes, is 6 feet tall, is an outstanding soccer player, or is a genius would require the material foundations in biology, physiology, athleticism, intellect, etc. To have health and property, which are the material conditions, according to Locke, for life and liberty, would require the pre-existence of universal and material conditions for health and universal property which would provide for life and liberty. However, under market liberalism, they are not rights but something acquired, merited, won, privileged, worked for, etc. They are not universal, absolute, or necessary. Even for the contemporary Republican Party in America, which calls for the universal right of children to life in its anti-abortion campaigns, the support of the "right to life" is only a support for "the right to birth" because it does not support all the other material conditions necessary to ensure a healthy life after birth, including employment, fair wages, housing, universal health care, etc. (See the Bill of Rights of the South African Constitution, 1996 and compare to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, 1789).
Civil Society as the Legitimation of Market Economy, Capital, and Wage Labor: In Chapter 5, with his analysis of private labor and property, the latter become the "Primary Rights" of possessive individualism. In the original state of nature of these early chapters, the right to property makes life, liberty, and health possible as their material foundation, whereas in the middle of Chapter 5 life, liberty, and health make property and production possible. The second state of nature provides the ethical justification for the creation of civil society (13-14, 85-90, 95-99, 123-131, and 138-142) with its constitution, laws, and political institutions that will also legitimate the basic economic inequalities and inequities of the Market, Capital, and Wage Labor . It is here that the right to private property becomes the end and purpose of the second state of nature, civil society, and human existence. Equality and freedom disappear as well as the rights to life, liberty, and health. With the disappearance of the ethical and economic restraints of Natural Law in the original state of nature, humanity must protect itself from a continuous state of war and general inconveniences by constructing the regulations of civil society; the latter has replaced Natural Law. These issues open up a series of difficult, but exciting, questions:
(1) If individuals have an innate right or entitlement to life before the construction of civil society does that mean they have a right to food, clothing, shelter, employment, social insurance, and social security?
(2) If they have an innate right to liberty does that mean they have a right to the material means that make individual liberty and freedom of choices possible?
(3) If they have an innate right to health does that mean they have a right to food, property, medicine, and physicians?
(4) If individuals have a right to property, does that mean that they must be provided with some form of personal property from the general store of common property before the legal system is created? That is, for life, liberty, health, and property to be truly universal entitlements or innate natural rights, there must first exist the material and structural conditions and foundations for those rights -- this is the function of the ethics and rational structures of Natural Law. And without Natural Law and Economics -- do no harm to others and ethical limits on property accumulation -- there can be no Natural Rights. Without Natural Law, there are no innate rights or universal entitlements, only market ethics, economic opportunities, privileges, and rewards, social contracts, and class property. Individual freedom, liberties, and natural rights all require strong commitments and responsibilities to the community, common good, ethics, and natural law. The Natural Law of ethics and economics provides the material conditions for the realization of Natural Rights. With the replacement of natural law by market rationality, the very possibilities for the rights to life, liberty, health, and property are made impossible.
(5) With the creation of the Second State of Nature and the transcendence of the natural law limits to household/personal property, market accumulation, and kindness and compassion to the less fortunate and poor, does Locke intend the articulation and defense of liberalism to make a fundamental break with the Ancients -- Greek and Scholastic thought? Does this mean that liberalism is fundamentally antithetical to the values of Christianity? And does this introduce the distinction between charity and justice -- the former being individual kindness in a class society to help the disadvantaged and the latter being structural compassion, equality, and the reintroduction of natural law -- is this the distinction between individual morality and social ethics? The second state of nature articulates the primary rights to property, self-preservation, and self-interest. This has been the hallmark of modern liberalism -- the right to life and the products produced by human life and labor. The Ancient and Medieval worlds have disappeared and with them an understanding of individuality and freedom in terms of communal politics, natural law, and responsibility to others. Freedom now is defined in disposition of property, individual consumption, and private ownership. Note: It's difficult to imagine that this modern materialist and utilitarian view of freedom and liberty is still taken seriously given the history of Western consciousness. Liberalism represents the reduction of human achievements, creativity, and potentiality to their most banal and meaningless elements as it ends in loneliness, isolation, destruction of a moral community, and existentialism.
(6) Finally, does the ultimate justification of natural rights, individual liberties, and private property in the state of nature lie in the fact that they protect the individual and the market from outside government interference? Civil society and the law are artificial constructs to protect the natural order of liberty and property, not limit them. Locke has theoretically dismantled all limitations of natural law of the state of nature and the civil law of the social contract on the market and money (finance, banking, commerce, and labor).
Natural or Human Rights in the Original State of Nature and Market or Class Rights in the Second State of Nature: One could argue that Locke in the original state of nature articulated a theory of social/economic rights, personal/household property, and human needs, whereas in the second state of nature he rejected the former and proposed a defense of private property and natural rights. (Note: This is similar to Franklin D. Roosevelt's principle of Four Freedoms articulated in his third State of the Union address to Congress on January 6, 1941. This is later expanded in his fourth State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944 when he develops his theory of political and economic rights in a Second Bill of Rights. In it he said: "We have come to the clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. 'Necessitous men are not free men.'... We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed." These new rights are economic and social rights. Second Bill of Rights: True freedom rests on the ability of each human being to have the right to economic opportunity, social security, food, housing, employment, education, and care for health. Without these basic necessities or economic rights, there can be no true freedom.) Locke in his first state of nature (Chapters 1-4) recognized that the material conditions for rights must be in place before rights can be realized (scholastic socialism). Take away Aquinas and Hooker and there are no rights. It does not take Locke long to drop this socialist notion of common property (or what Roosevelt will later call "economic security") in Chapter 5. Freedom in the second state of nature is freedom to buy what you want and can afford, whereas freedom in the original state of nature is freedom from want in order to buy what you need; rights in the former are market rights since they are private commodities and have a price, whereas in the latter they are an inalienable part of human individuality and true freedom. Freedom is for choice in a market economy or human self-realization in a moral economy. Common property serves human needs for self-preservation, property, work, employment, shelter, food, and health. There is a dialectical interaction between natural law and natural rights. The former provide the ethical, social, and communal foundations for natural rights, while the latter in the form of common and moral or household property provide the material and economic foundations for existence, life, liberty, moral community, and natural law. It is interesting that at the heart of early liberalism with its definition of property, individuality, and freedom there lies dormant ideas of socialism. Also within Liberalism there is a profound subterranean rift or logical contradiction between rights and law that cannot be resolved, and certainly not by Locke. This is why liberalism cannot be the legitimate foundation for individual freedom, equality, and rights; in the end, these rights turn into property rights to ensure the protection of class and inequality (modern liberalism); democracy under these conditions of liberalism -- separation of natural rights from natural law -- cannot be realized. There is thus a contradiction within liberalism between natural rights and natural law, individualism and communalism, and capitalism and democracy. These very points were clearly recognized by John Stuart Mill and account for the transformation of his thought in his later writings. The intention of Locke's original state of nature has been later incorporated into Roosevelt's Four Freedoms (1941) and Second Bill of Rights (1944), the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the Bill of Rights and Constitution of South Africa (1996). Rights, liberty, freedom, and democracy are lost in a market economy and unlimited property accumulation.
The Fate of Humanity: Conflict Between the Ancients and the Moderns: In the second state of nature, life, liberty, equality, freedom, property, and health are all market rights and depend on the particular historical circumstances of the times; in the original state of nature, these ethical principles are innate human values. The unfortunate condition of Locke's political theory is that he is caught between the Ancients and the Moderns: natural law and market rights, democracy (consent of the majority) and oligarchy (market wealth and power), moral economy and market economy, individual freedom and political authoritarianism, and socialism (equality, freedom, and community property) and capitalism (private property and class structure). It is how these tensions and conflicts within the modern polity from the seventeenth century to the present are resolved that will ultimately determine and define the fate of humanity in the future.
Common Property/Economic Rights and Private Property/Natural Rights: Nature of Property and Freedom in the Original and Second State of Nature: The different types of rights in Locke's political theory are based on his distinction between Natural Law as the foundation of rights in health and property and Natural Rights as the foundation of life and liberty. And it this distinction between Natural Law (God, community, equality, and human needs) and Natural Rights (property, market, and class) which creates the fundamental distinction between the original state of nature in Chapter 2 based on the former set of principles and the second state of nature in Chapter 5 based on the latter principles. In the original state of nature (Aquinas and Hooker), household property provides the material basis for building an egalitarian community and satisfying fundamental physical, spiritual, and communal human needs (para. 25), whereas in the second state of nature (Hobbes), property is the goal of that community. Individual natural rights are limited by and subservient to God, natural law, human needs, and the community; they provide the material foundations for the spirit of the natural order and law established by God. Natural rights thus ensure the protection of natural law as the former are the means to ensure the ethical and theological ends of human life in the natural order of things. In the second state of nature, natural rights become the end of human existence as humans become simply the means to create and protect property and class. Life is a right and the other rights are material supports because humans are created in the image and likeness of God who is "the omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker" (para. 6) and without life there is no human potentiality and self-realization. In the second state of nature, natural law disappears and is replaced by the priority of natural rights, and, in particular, the right to private property. The right to life is replaced by the right to property. Locke never examines the real relationships between natural law and natural rights in Chapter 2, and argues in Chapter 5 that property is justified, not for providing the material foundations for the existence of society, but because it is an expression and manifestation of human labor -- the labor theory of value. In the original state of nature household property is limited by human labor, common property, and the ethical principle of "do no harm to others." It is a very constrained right and is less a right to property than a right to the products of human labor and the need for human sustenance and the material foundations of human life. There is no right to unlimited private property. Rights are limited by natural law. In Chapter 5, property, whether common or private, is no longer the material foundations of a moral community, no longer limited by natural law, family farms or artisans, and no longer tied to the dignity of human labor; these are rights given to humans by God. Rather it now becomes in the second state of nature the technical foundation of a new type of society and possessive individualism. God (Scripture and tradition), natural law, ethics, and a moral economy are replaced by technical innovation, economic expansion, money, banking, finance, wage labor (28, 50, and 85), and unlimited class property, i.e. capital. In the second state of nature household property and the centrality and dignity of human labor is transformed into private property, capital, wage labor, and a market economy. Thus, the very foundations of liberalism have always rested on the tension within Western society between Aristotle and Aquinas on one side and Hobbes, Smith, and Malthus on the other. And it is this very contradiction and divide which permeates the whole of Western thought to this day; it is also the Cartesian dualism between the mind (natural law) and body (natural rights) manifested in political theory. The role of natural law in Locke's social theory is twofold: (1) Natural Law provides an ethical and economic limitation on the abuse and transgression of individual freedom, rights, and property; (2) it also provides the material foundations, economic harmony, and social integration for the balance between common and private property, the assurance of life, well-being, and physical health (para 6), as well as for protection of equality and freedom (para. 4), common property (paras. 25-26), and the general welfare and common good (paras. 5 and 15). With the coming of a market economy, natural law and the metaphysical natural order breaks down leaving an unfettered market economy, unlimited wealth acquisition, unrestrained ownership of private property, and the creation of a new class system that undermines natural law, equality, and freedom. The moral economy has been replaced by a market economy, derivative rights by primary rights, common property by private property, social ethics by market logic, majority rule by oligarchy, and the community by possessive individualism. In fact, at the moment natural law disappears in Chapter 5 (paras. 37-50) of Locke's work, natural rights also disappear, as Rights now refer to the merits, accomplishments, and success within a market economy. Rights have evolved from Life, common property, and material Needs (para. 25) to Merit in the form of profits, interest, rents, and unlimited private and class property. Rights are no longer universal, innate, and ethical in a moral economy -- they are no longer Moral Rights, but Market Rights, Rewards, and Privileges. Individuals no longer have a right to property, health, liberty, and life -- they only have an opportunity to merit and acquire these commodities if they are successful in the market and can then purchase health care and property which then allows them to have the possibility of life and liberty. Individuals no longer deserve rights because they are human beings created by God, but because they are successful in the marketplace. Liberalism has been transformed from a moral economy to a chrematistic economy; Rights have been replaced by Opportunity and Merit. Without natural law and common and household property, there are no rights -- without natural law and a moral economy, there is no liberalism -- individual rights, freedom, and equality. (J. S. Mill and Marx will make this point more explicit: Without socialism, liberalism is a mythical ideal and ideological fancy.) Locke's social and political theory contains the basis for political and economic conflict that will become the structural heart of Western society for the next three hundred years. The ideals of liberalism in the original state of nature are incompatible with the reality of modern capitalism. Note: what is the relationship between property as a right and property as a product of human labor? What is the relationship between natural rights and social conventions? And does property only truly become a right in the second state of nature when personal labor is replaced by wage labor in a market economy? Locke seems to be rewriting Aristotle's Ethics and Politics as the former develops the primacy of virtue and democracy within a moral economy over the distortions of a market economy. Locke reverses the direction as he dismantles natural law and ethics and replaces them with the natural right to property and a limited defense of the right to life and liberty within a market economy. His work represents a rejection of the tradition of Aristotle, Aquinas, and Hooker. There is an interesting analogy to these very issues in the educational system in the United States: In the U.S. every young boy and girl has a right to education from kindergarten through high school. However, after high school there are no educational rights only academic marketplaces based on money and success. A college education is not a right, but a privilege of wealth and merit. All rights require the material and institutional conditions for the exercise and protection of rights, and without these prior foundations, rights are pure fictional ideologies.
Natural Rights and Conservative Ideology in Contemporary American Society: Anti-Abortion Public Policy and the Right to Life of the Human Fetus: In contemporary American society, conservatives call for anti-abortion legislation and the right to life for the fetus. However, given the above Lockean understanding of political theory, they provide no material foundation for this right. That is, according to the original state of nature, the right to life must also include the right to common property and the ethical and economic limits to personal/household property which would today include the right to employment, living wages, housing, food, education, etc. These would be the material foundations of an innate human right. Since this is not part of the conservative ideology, the right to life of the fetus is only a right to birth or a right to fetal life. In the ethical and political ideology of American conservatives it is birth that is protected as a right, not life itself or the quality of life. The material foundations of the right to life do not exist and thus the idea of "life" has to be replaced by "fetus." This is a complete misreading of Locke's liberalism and the notion of natural rights.
Foundations of Natural Rights in God, Nature, and Reason: Incoherence and Contradictions of Liberalism: Natural Law is based on God (divinity), Human Nature (function of man, eudaimonia, or state of nature), and Reason (rule of right reason) since Nature and Reason are reflections of the divine order, eternal law, and universal truth. Natural Law consists of the moral principles that guide human conduct, are created and constituted by God, and are embedded in Human Nature and the Natural Order of the world. Natural Rights are grounded in and flow from God and the eternal law, and are expressions of the inherent natural order of the world. Examine the roles of Richard Hooker, a neo-Thomist and neo-Aristotelian (Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 1593) and Aristotle in Locke's political theory (para. 5 and 15); common property and private property (para. 25-29); ideas of common property and equality have their origins in Seneca and Grotius; labor theory of value and justification of private property (para. 27, 34, 39-40, and 43); and theory of the social contract: sovereignty, civil society, and government (para. 13-14, 85-90, 95-99, 123-131, and 138-142). In Locke's state of nature, all men are perfectly free and equal to dispose of their persons and possessions in any way they wish, so long as they do so "within the bounds of the law of nature" (para. 4); in order to insure this they must have natural rights to life, liberty, health, and property. Natural Law justifies and restrains Natural Rights, private property, and possessive individualism. (Hooker borrowed his ideas of natural law and the community from Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12: 31, and Matthew 25:31-46. See paragraph 42 in Locke's First Treatise of Government). Locke's amazing thesis in the early stage of the state of nature is that natural rights require a corresponding means of life. Liberalism, as a political theory, is incoherent and contradictory in Locke's theory because natural rights cannot be justified in the second state of market nature because there is no material foundation for these rights in the moral community and common property. Rights become privileges, merited rewards, and accumulated goods for business success, work, and accomplishments. But the true ethical and economic foundations of the rights to life, liberty, health, and property are absent and impossible to realize in the second state of nature which only produces a class system based on property and not a moral economy based on compassion and friendship (para. 5 and 15). (Note: This is an example of Marx's and Weber's method of immanent critique using the dialectical method.)
From Natural Rights to Class Privileges, from Primitive Communalism to Disenchanted Modernity: To guarantee the rights of life, liberty, health, and property, there must also be an institutional and economic framework that would ensure and protect these rights -- common property, physical means of life, satisfaction of human needs, self-sufficiency of the household and community, barter/exchange, and natural law -- a form of primitive communalism and medieval theology. The former without the latter would be impossible; without the material foundations of the means of life, there is no right to life; and without a moral economy, there are no natural rights. The primacy right in this original state of nature is that the right to life and liberty; the rights to health and property are secondary rights whose sole purpose is to ethically support and materially enrich the individual and the community. In fact, a closer look at natural rights in the original state of nature reveals that liberty and freedom of action, health and well-being, and property and the material goods of life are all means to ensure the right to life and self-preservation within a moral economy. On the other hand, a market economy based on class, inequality, and private property (para. 50) undermines the very foundations of natural rights. Eventually, the means of life are replaced by civil society and the state to protect the property of the few who control the market economy and industrial production. In this state life and liberty become secondary rights necessary to ensure commerce and trade and thus produce property. The conclusion we can draw from these distinctions is that without common property with its equality and freedom, as in the original state of nature, there is no real right to property; in the second state of nature, it is more a hope or possibility (meritocracy) within a competitive market economy than a true innate right. The conclusion that can be drawn from this transformation between Chapters 2 and 5 in Locke's work is that as he abandons natural law in the second state of nature, he also abandons natural rights in favor of a bellum omnium contra omnes without real rights, freedom, liberty, health, or material well-being. This is called a class society of possessive individualism. (This is F. Hinkelammert's critique of Locke in The Ideological Weapons of Death, pp. 91-92.) The crucial difference between Locke's first state of nature (chapt. 2), which is a natural state of perfect equality and freedom, and his second state of nature (chapt. 5, para, 36-50), which is a natural state of inequality, class differences, and oppression, is that the former is grounded in ethics and natural law and the latter is grounded in money and the market (business, commerce, banking, capital, property, and wage labor). The Natural Rights of God are transformed into the Class Privileges of the market. That is, the natural state of equality and freedom is grounded in common property and medieval theology, whereas the natural state of private property is grounded in liberalism and capitalism. The original state of nature may be seen as part of a broader intellectual tradition that emphasizes equality, the remission of debts, and property redistribution in the Hebrew Old Testament -- this is the world of the Jubilee and Sabbath. Grace, reciprocity, and a moral economy in Aristotle; general welfare and critique of private property in Rousseau; economic democracy and worker self-determination in Marx; and worker control over production and property in J. S. Mill. In this tradition, the political principle of individuality -- equality, freedom, and liberty -- does not refer to a monadic, solitary, or brutish existence but is part of a broader whole that includes community, friendship, social ethics, common good, and politics -- polis being, species being, democracy, general will, and discursive rationality. Individual liberty, economic freedoms, and natural rights attached to utilitarianism and a market economy are only forms of political domination. The irrationality of the whole is hidden behind these apparent limited forms of freedom, choice, and rationality of pleasure, production, and property (Herbert Marcuse, One Dimensional Man, p. 7-9).
Self-Contradictions of Liberalism and Locke: Summary: One of the most interesting and ironic elements of liberalism is that at the very moment of its philosophical foundation in the seventeenth century, it unveiled its two contradictory set of principles that it has never been able to resolve and that continues to torment Western society into the twenty-first century: (1) Liberalism, in the original state of nature, is founded on a moral economy based upon God, reason, and natural law with the guiding moral values of mutual love, compassion, community, equality, freedom, friendship, self-sufficiency, common and household property (spoilage, labor, and sufficiency limitations), human needs, dignity of human labor (material self-sufficiency and labor of the household), etc. and (2) Liberalism, in the second state of nature, is based on the principles of a radical individualism, self-interest, state of war, aggressive competition, bellum omnium contra omnes, market economy, class inequality, private property as capital, destruction of the community, and the suppression of individual equality, freedom, and natural rights. An emphasis on a moral economy (Oikonomike) and original state of nature moves the community to a more democratic form of government (Aristotle), whereas the principles of the second state tend toward political hierarchy and authoritarianism (Plato). The two views of liberalism contain a contradictory and incompatible set of social and moral principles that cannot and have not been resolved logically, socially, or historically. And the attempt to integrate or resolve these internal moral and institutional contradictions is the hallmark of the history of Western society. It is these very contradictions that directed both Marx and Mill to favor a secularized version of natural law and moral principles based on Aristotle's ethics and politics, as well as political and economic democracy, over commercial and industrial capitalism. A society that emphasizes capital, class, and property as the primary focus and telos of the economy and human life moves in the direction of an authoritarian government (Plato, Hobbes, V. Pareto, G. Mosca, C. Schmidt, and L. Strauss).
Natural Rights and their Material and Structural Foundations: For rights to life, liberty, health, and property to be natural rights they must be universal, innate, and permanent. They cannot be temporary, historical, or particular rights applicable in specific situations and to specific individuals. To create a hypothetical state of nature with hypothetical rights, we can construct a view of natural rights consisting of the right to have orange eyes, be a minimum of 6'4" in height, be a gifted basketball player, and have the right to fly. However, for such rights to exist, they must be innate and universal, and the material conditions for their existence must be permanently available to everyone. Thus, the natural rights of Locke required the existence of God and natural law, as well as the existence of communal property, security, and protection to ensure and maintain the universal rights to life, liberty, and property. Without natural law, there can be no natural or universal rights. The same would have to be true of these natural rights mentioned above: Everyone must have the physical, biological, and material preconditions that would produce a certain eye color, height, athletic talent, and ability to fly. Otherwise, they would not be God-given, innate, and universal rights. Take away these metaphysical and material foundations, as Locke did in the second state of nature, then natural rights would become impossible. Rights would simply become derivative and dependent upon something else -- dependent upon the vagaries and irrationalities of the market, as well as on individual idiosyncracies and personal gifts to acquire private property, money, and wealth. Natural rights would then become a justification for a particular set of social conditions and rights. Rights would not serve individual equality, freedom, and liberty. These values are no longer the end of the state of nature or civil society. Instead they would be subservient to a market economy and private property. They would be subservient to materialism, utilitarianism, and egoism. These are the very values Locke rejects in the original state of nature; they are antithetical to the spiritual and communal values of natural law, medieval Christianity, and human dignity. (Note: To secularize and historicize Locke's theory of natural law, would transform Locke's foundations into some form of modern socialism. We will see that Marx turns Locke's natural law into a secular form of natural law which focuses upon human dignity, creativity, freedom, and democracy.)
The Ancient Traditions of Natural Law: From the Roman Stoics and Early Church Fathers to the Medieval Scholastics: The major founders of modern Natural Law theory in the seventeenth century were also Samuel Pufendorf (1632-1694), Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), and Richard Cumberland (1631-1718). In his Republic, the Roman Stoic Cicero wrote: "True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions....Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature...." (Richard Schlatter, Private Property: The History of an Idea, p. 21). Locke in The Second Treatise of Government is integrating Aristotle and Aquinas in the creation of his theory of property as the foundation of modern liberalism. Aquinas made a fundamental break with the traditional theories of radical egalitarianism and socialism of Stoicism (Cicero and Seneca) and Early Christianity of the 4th and 5th centuries (Cyprian of Carthage, Basil of Caesarea, Ambrose of Milan, Clermont of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, and Isidore of Seville) -- by returning to Aristotle's theory that household property for the common good is natural. However, according to Aquinas, property is not a natural right and in cases of extreme need, theft is not a sin. Aquinas did, however, maintain that the perfect and most natural form of property was still common ownership (Schlatter, 53-54). The natural law of property was being used in the 13th century against the arbitrary rule of aristocratic princes. For the Early Church Fathers, private property as a social institution was an expression of the Fall from the Garden of Eden, greed, sin, and social convention.
Natural Law, Human Needs, and Moral Economy: Communal Restraints on Personal Property within a Moral and Market Economy: Natural Law consists of an ethical theory and an economic theory: The Ethical Theory of Natural Law is based on the principles of equality, mutual love and obligation, moral community, friendship and fellowship, human needs and dignity, duty and social responsibility, affection for others, social peace, natural justice, and charity (para. 5 and 15) and The Economic Theory of Natural Law contains the structural limitations of Spoilage, Labor, and Sufficiency on the enclosure and accumulation of private property (para. 31, 32, 33, and 34); these natural law limits closely mirror the limits set by Aristotle as Need and Family and Community Self-Sufficiency. These ideas are a reflection of the economic and social traditions of Natural Law theory from Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas to Richard Hooker -- from the Ancient Greeks, Roman Stoics, and Medieval Scholastics to Modern Anglican Theology. Since everything comes from and belongs to God (Workmenship and Ownership theses) and individuals cannot harm others (No-harm principle), there are clear ethical (moral obligations) and economic (structural) limits to the accumulation of property. There is a distinction between liberty and freedom: The etymology of liberty comes from the Latin libertas meaning independence, absence of restrain and right of the individual (freedom from), whereas freedom comes from the Greek word eleutheria which comes from the same root as friend, connection to other people, bond of kinship and affection, and rights of belonging (freedom to). Liberty was defined as freedom from any external authority or "superior power on earth"; liberty meant that humans were not to be restrained by arbitrary power, but to be guided by the Need for freedom, consent of the commonwealth, and the natural law of love, moderation, dignity, compassion, self-sufficiency, protection of the poor, and community. Locke distinguishes in the state of nature between a state of liberty and a state of license since we do not have a right to suicide or a right to harm animals (para. 6), nor do we have a right to become a slave (para. 23). In the end, natural rights are constrained by God, nature, and reason -- by ethical principles, economic structures, natural law, and the need for common property.
Natural Rights Replace Natural Law: Unleashing Liberalism, Possessive Individualism, Private Property, and the Market: Natural Law and Natural Rights are the two major tectonic plates that cover modern Western political and social theory and explain their history, structures, and movements since the seventeenth century. Soon after Locke articulates his economic theory in The Second Treatise of Government, there is a profound and radical theoretical shift in his thought -- this shift in perspective results in an unqualified defense of Liberalism. Natural Law, as Revelation, Tradition, and Reason, was initially the ultimate justification for Natural Rights and Liberalism. However, Natural Law is soon circumvented and dropped as the foundation of Natural Rights (para. 46, 50, and 37). Although Locke begins his treatise with Natural Law and Natural Rights, he concludes by defending unlimited acquisition of property to the detriment of both Natural Law and Natural Rights. Does Locke reconcile Natural Law and Natural Rights through the creation of money (banking, finance, commerce, wage labor and private property) or does he abandon Natural Law in favor of Natural Rights and unfettered capitalism? Compare Natural Rights to Natural Law, that is, the ethical, political, and economic theories of Natural Law to Natural Rights: Compare The Economic and Structural Limits of Natural Law on property and power, that is, the spoilage (need), labor, and sufficiency (enough common stock for others) limits (para. 31, 32, 33, and 34) to the unlimited Natural Rights within the market to money and property (para. 46, 50, and 37); and compare The Ethical and Political Principles of Natural Law (para. 5 and 15) of human needs, individual dignity, love of others, and social justice to the economic values of Natural Rights (para. 4 and 6) of life, liberty, health, and property. Natural Rights are no longer tied to the social ethics and public responsibilities of Natural Law (God, Reason, and Nature) resulting in an unrestricted and unrestrained Liberalism depleted of moral content; liberal materialism and utilitarian economism have triumphed over traditional ethics and Natural Law. This is accomplished by the invention of money (para. 36, 37, and 45-50), a general social consensus, tacit agreement, and consent of the majority regarding the changed relationship between property and Natural Law (para. 28, 35-36, 47, 50, and 95-122), individual effort resulting in greater prosperity, property, and sufficiency (47), greater production and commerce leading to greater general prosperity and "an increase in the common stock" (37), emigration to America also increasing the common stock (32 and 36), and the introduction of large estates, banking, finance, commerce (para. 45, 47-48, and 50), wage-labor (para. 28, 50, and 85), and a money or market economy. Note: this is similar to Aristotle's argument in The Nicomachean Ethics of the transition from common property and barter within a self-sufficient, moral economy (oikonomike) to private property, market trade, and unnatural wealth acquisition (chrematistike: 1257a14-40). )According to the Old Testament and Genesis myth (25-26 and 32-35), property was originally given to humanity by God as a common inheritance for all. However, God also gave humanity reason, ingenuity, and labor, which through hard work and effort, create and justify private property and possessive individualism; private property is also a means to satisfy the right to life and self-preservation. And through the institutions of commercial capitalism (money, commerce, wage labor, and banking) humanity no longer requires the natural law restrictions on individual accumulation of land and capital since money and property don't spoil (spoilage), produce more than enough surplus for the common good (sufficiency), and provide work and wages for those without property (labor). The common property and household/personal property (farm or small business) has been transformed into finance and production capital whose goal is not to ensure the material well-being of the family, neighbors, or the community but the business sucess of agrarian and production entrepreneurs. Also lost with the invention of money, commerce, and capital are the initial conditions in the state of nature of equality, freedom, mutual love, friendship, compassion, dignity, and moral obligations to the community. While common property is a finite resource that must be carefully protected by natural law in order to ensure the preservation of the community, money is infinite and does not admit of these ethical restrictions. Without God and natural law, without common property and abundant land and space for personal property, do natural rights still exist? Are natural rights incompatible with "money" and a market economy because the material foundations of the innate rights to life, liberty, and property do not exist in the same way that the material foundations for human flight, blue eyes, etc. do not exist? Finally, are natural rights only compatible with some form of medieval communalism and moral economy (Aquinas and Hooker) or modern socialism and democracy?
Issues and Questions for Students: (1) What are natural rights; (2) are natural rights in the original state of nature different from natural rights in the second state of nature; (3) are natural rights different in a moral economy and in a market economy; (4) in a moral economy natural rights are universal, innate, and inalienable since they come from God, whereas in a market economy God and natural law are no longer relevant, as is freedom and equality; and (5) the rights to life and health require the universal access to food, clothing, housing, work, health care and the general, material foundations and requirements for human life -- the material conditions of rights are given to all at birth -- they are not deserved, won, merited, earned, or worked for, nor are they legal/civil rights; (6) in a market economy rights only express the legal and civil rights to seek, earn, merit, and eventually pay for food, clothing, housing, work, etc.; (5) do natural rights disappear in a market economy; (6) are natural rights a pure illusion and ideology in liberalism because market property has replaced common property -- there are no natural rights, no liberty and freedom, and no equality as articulated by Locke in his original state of nature in modern liberalism; (7) rights become historically, socially, and logically impossible in a liberal, market economy; (8) there are no natural rights in liberalism or capitalism: and (9) do "liberal natural rights" and "liberal democracy" share the same internal, logical inconsistencies, contradictions, and incoherence, that is, are liberalism and rights and liberalism and democracy incompatible ideas and realities? Discuss. If the market economy, possessive individualism, and civil society replace the Original State of Nature does the market of commerce, trade, finance, and banking replace Natural Law as the material foundation for Natural Rights. But with class inequality, private property, and disproportionate power distribution would there still be natural rights for life and health. And if the replacement of the Original State of Nature would the theological, biblical, ethical, and natural law foundations of the moral community disappear to be replaced by self-interest, competition, aggression, and market survival of the fittest. If Hobbes and Dickens replaced Aristotle, Aquinas, and Hooker what kind of community would remain even if the material foundations are met. Locke concentrates on the need no longer to have the ethical and economic limits to property and production, but is completely silent about the loss of natural law, a moral community, and social responsibility. Does he believe the market economy could sustain the principles and virtues of natural law? But they are social systems based on contradictory premises and values. Locke is silent on these issues.
Civil Society and the State in the Original and Second State of Nature: Civil society and the state government are formed primarily to create a commonwealth (89), avoid the inconveniences and state of war in the original state of nature (16-21 and 90), and, ultimately, preserve property (85, 123, and 138). But the new system also creates class, inequality, and servitude (50 and 85) which can only undermine individual life, liberty, equality, security, and independence. Property also undermines Ethics and Politics since the foundations for social ethics, community, and the common good are lost. Efficiency, productivity, and property transcend the economic limits set by the social ethics of Natural Law. In the end the right to property is no longer justified by human labor and reason for survival, security, and liberty, but by ownership of land, industry, capital, rent, banking, and finance for class rights. Rights were originally secured by common property for everyone's self-preservation, liberty, and security; it was common property that allowed individuals to make private appropriations because there was more than enough left over for the benefit of the community as a whole (principle of self-sufficiency). With the invention of money and its corresponding economic institutions of banking, finance, commerce, and wage labor, this changed. Private property became its own legal justification because of human labor and dramatic expansion of the economy in agriculture and commerce. According to this theory, common property was replaced by private enclosures and an expanding and productive economy. To ensure and protect these changes to property and rights, it became necessary to replace the restrictions of natural law (ethics, spoilage, labor, and sufficiency) with the protections of rights and property by civil society (state, constitution, and law). In the original state of nature rights were the material foundations for natural law and the community, whereas in the second state of nature rights became the ends of human existence. In the end, there are no true rights, only theoretical and theological justifications for class power and property domination. At the end of the second state of nature and the beginning of civil society, the role of the state changes. Civil society is constructed no longer to protect individuals from the occasional violations of natural law and the particular inconveniences of individual violence and property theft. Now at the end of the second state of nature, civil society is constructed to protect property, individual liberty, natural rights of man, inequality, and class power. Finally, discuss the vision and horizons of the two states of nature offered in Locke's work. What are the social ideals and institutions offered in these two radically different political and intellectual traditions? One can see in these two traditions of natural law vs. private property, moral economy vs. market economy, and community (Gemeinschaft) vs. society (Gesellschaft that the whole history of Modernity is laid bare in exciting and enlightening ways anticipating many of the later debates in intellectual history.
Natural Rights and Natural Law: Differences and Dissolution, Conflicts and Contradictions: In the beginning of his work on the state of nature and civil society, economics was a means to an end for the protection and fulfillment of the rights of life, liberty, and the common good, while, after the abandonment of Natural Law, economics becomes the ultimate meaning and end of human existence (130): the world has been turned upside down. The economic limits of Natural Law have been eclipsed and its ethical principles for the common good have been replaced by the principles of Natural Rights. Now property is the final goal of human life and liberty (48 and 123-124). The development of Locke's theory of property is fascinating: What began as a defense of a Moral Economy with limited property rights and an indebtedness to the ethics of Aristotle, Aquinas, and Hooker (para. 5 and 15) turned in an acceptance of unfettered property acquisition, a Hobbesian state of war of all against all in a competitive Market Economy (para. 50, 85, 95, 123-124, and 138), and the right to everything, including others lives, bodies, and their products of labor. Both Natural Law and Social Justice disappeared in Locke's theory of rights and property; there are now no longer any moral duties and obligations restraining liberalism whether derived from God, Nature, or Reason. With the distinction between the first (Hooker and Aquinas) and second (Hobbes and Dickens) states of nature -- the first justifying common and household property while the second justifying a market economy and unlimited private property acquisition -- Locke has moved from Hooker (natural law) back (materialism) to Hobbes. On these issues, see C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism, pp. 203-220 and Michael Zuckert, Launching Liberalism, pp. 192-193 and Natural Rights and the New Republicanism, pp. 234-240 and 252-272. An unrecognized and disconcerting problem of early liberalism is that it is actually Natural Law which protects individual life, liberty, and property (material well being) in a Moral Economy; on the other hand, Natural Rights without Natural Law only protect class rights, private property, and "the disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth" (para. 50) in a Market Economy; class rights are Natural Rights without Natural Law and only ensure inequality, domination, power, and poverty. They do not lead to individual freedom, liberty, security, or self-preservation. Property and liberty without moral values (Heart, passion, and action) and ethical limits (Spirit, community, and social justice) only rationalize economic inequality and class power; the possessive individualism and crude materialism of Locke are antithetical to real individual freedom and liberties. Locke's position ends in a variation of moral positivism -- rights simply reflect and are justified by the structures of market liberalism; there are no transcending moral principles involved. Natural Rights are impossible without Natural Law since the latter are the foundations of the former, and, by dissolving and disabling Natural Law in the second state of nature, Locke has made Natural Rights impossible. In the second (consensual or contracted) state of nature, there is no equality or freedom, there is only market competition and a Hobbesian economic war of all against all producing inequality and class (para. 50). To negate and transcend natural law limits of ethics and economics is to commit a crime against both God and humanity. An argument can be made that the foundations of Liberalism in the seventeenth century lie in this separation and dissolution of the ethical and social principles of Natural Law from Natural Rights along with the resulting loss of Justice and Meaning in society. This thesis is developed by Richard Tawney in Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (1926). Therein also lies the problem of the incoherence of liberalism -- the internal contradictions of its ethical and economic values -- and the break between the Ancients and the Moderns. And it is this logical incoherence of liberalism and its corresponding crisis of traditional values which gave rise to German Idealism, Marxism, Existentialism, and Classical Social Theory. Marx will see this contradiction best articulated in the French Revolution's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1793) or the split between bourgeois economic rights to property and the political rights of citizenship and community -- Natural Rights vs Natural Law. See his On the Jewish Question. The true irony of intellectual history is that it will be Marx who supplies the ethical foundations to equality and freedom in civil society by his return to Aristotle and the Ancients.
Natural Rights and Capitalism are Contradictions of Liberalism: There are No Natural Rights in Capitalism:
(1) Natural Law provides the telos or purpose of Natural Rights -- love, compassion, friendship, dignity, human needs, community, moral economy, human dignity, etc.
(2) Natural Law also provides the material conditions and protections for Natural Rights through common and household property, human labor, and community.
(3) Without Natural Law, there can be no Natural Rights since Natural Law is the foundation and condition for the realization of Natural Rights. Natural Law provides the ethical ideal and purpose -- the goal of society -- just as Natural Law also provides the economic and material foundations for individual rights, liberty, and freedom.
(4) Natural Rights can only be interpreted and understood through Natural Law.
(5) When Natural Law is dropped and done away with, there are truly no Natural Rights -- there are no rights to life and liberty because these are now contingent upon employment, health, food, shelter, etc. provided by a class system.
(6) Rights are ultimately reduced to class rights to private property within a market economy which undermines the whole reasoning behind Natural Rights. As a result, there are no longer innate and universal rights to life and liberty because their ethical and economic conditions have disappeared. Rights have been reduced to capital, profits, and rent.
(7) How are rights possible in a market economy? Without common and family property, there are no rights to life and liberty; without personal health and material well-being achieved through work, food, clothing, and shelter, there is no right to life.
(8) Do Americans have a right to life and health? On what basis do these rights exist? What are the material preconditions for the protection and realization of these rights? Do Americans have a right to fly or be 10 feet tall? Why not? What are the differences between life and health vs. flying and height?
(9) Did the English in Locke's treatise have a right to life and health? These rights were based on the ethical and economic preconditions of a moral economy. Once Natural Law disappeared in Book 6, the material foundations to these rights also disappeared.
(10) Frightening Conclusion from within Locke's own argument and logic: In the second state of nature, there are no rights under capitalism -- no freedom, no liberty, no health, and no property? Why? Explain. Liberalism is self-contradictory and internally inconsistent. It contains its own opposition and contradictory ideals which demand social change.
(11) In the second state of nature, Natural Law disappears, but so do Natural Rights because the material foundations for the rights to life, liberty, and health no longer exist. Health and property in a market economy become commercial properties bought and sold, there is no universal foundation for life and liberty. Not everyone is entitled, as an innate universal right, to own property; only those who have the money and who have become successful in a market economy may purchase these rights. Not everyone has employment, food, clothing, health, etc. Merit, accomplishments, and money replace rights. Life, liberty, and property have become commodities, not rights. Rights, like commodities, can now be bought and sold in the market. If a person is not successful in the market, they have no universal claim to common property or community health care. With capitalism, there is no Natural Law or Natural Rights. An individual does not have a right to fly because the material preconditions (physiology and biology) do not exist to make this an innate, absolute, and universal right in the state of nature prior to the formation of civil society. In a market economy of the second state of nature, individuals do not have a right to life, liberty, health, and property because the material preconditions of human life do not exist to make this a universal right: Some do have property, some do have health care, and some do have liberty of action but these are the products of market success and business acumen, not the properties of a universal right of nature afforded to us as human beings by Natural Law and God. Note: these contradictory ideas are the products of Locke's own political theory and his second state of nature. To reestablish universal natural rights would require a different type of social system grounded in a religious or secular Natural Law with emphasis on human dignity, needs, compassion, equality, friendship, etc. These various elements of Natural Law remind the reader of a synthesis of medieval Christianity, seventeenth-century Protestantism, and Aristotelian ethics and politics in the original state of nature -- moral economy (Oikonomike), household management, love, dignity, friendship, and citizenship. The second state of nature represents a return to Hobbesian political theory, Protestant individualism, and Deus absconditus and the loss of social ethics and social justice.
(12) Natural Law provided the material, ethical, and spiritual foundation of Natural Rights. There are no rights to life, liberty, health, and property without the protections of Natural Law, common property, common friends, and the communal good with the ethical imperative of love, compassion, kindness, and friendship that ensures the existence, protection, and defense of each individual and their rights within the community. Without Natural Law, innate, universal Natural Rights become ideological fantasies and hopes. They become market opportunities to acquire, accumulate, and consume the material goods necessary for human life and health. Their are no metaphysical or religious guarantees to these rights, no innate protections, and no social support to ensure them. An individual may work for them (labor theory of value), earn them (market), and accumulate them (private property), but there is no right to them without Natural Law which disappeared in Locke's second treatise of government. One can argue that with the disappearance of classical and medieval metaphysics, theology, and natural law in Locke, we have the remote and unconscious origins of existentialism. Discussion of the implications of these ideas: Without Natural Law and its communal understanding of rights, liberty, and property, there are no Natural Rights. In the process of the evolution to the Second State of Nature in book 5, the ethical, intellectual, and ideological foundations of liberalism become incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory. The underlying reality and justification of liberalism ultimately lie in class power, privilege, and control over labor, industry, and the market.
Question for the Class on the Historical and Theoretical Contradictions of Liberalism: If there is not a natural right to fly, then why are there natural rights to life, liberty, health, and property in the second state of nature? Just as we do not possess the underlying material conditions for flight, in a market economy the material and spiritual conditions for Natural Rights do not exist because Natural Law (Forms I, II, III, and IV) has been replaced by expanding production and industrial efficiency (para 46, 50, 43, 36, and 37). Natural rights have been reduced to material possessions, natural opportunities, and market possibilities; ethics has been displaced by market rationality. Natural Law has been replaced by Market Law. Conclusion: Liberalism (state) and Capitalism (economy) are incompatible with Natural Rights of life, liberty, health, and property. They are also incompatible with equality, freedom, and democracy. Liberalism and Capitalism are incompatible with their own ideals because the structures of political economy and social institutions undermine the natural law protections and support for the community (love, compassion, justice, and economic limits to production and accumulation) and in the process undermine the foundations of individual equality and freedom (para. 4 and 6). Private property as capital (production, commerce, and finance) even undermines the "right to property." Individuals do not have a prior right to property; they can only acquire property within a market economy through personal effort, merit, education, and/or inheritance -- the "war of all against all" -- but they have no innate right to it. It is something that must be "earned" by effort, luck, family, background, or circumstances. The foundations of Liberalism have collapsed under the weight of capital production and market exchange. If there is a real right under capitalism, it is the right to wage labor, inequality, and class. These rights are the only ones protected and ensured by the legal system under capitalism. Note: Aristotle, Locke (original state of nature), Mill, and Marx all argued that democracy (equality and freedom) was impossible under market capitalism.
The Two "States of Nature" in Locke: Moral and Market States of Nature and the Changing Relationships between Natural Law and Natural Rights: Thought Experiment: There are two distinct States of Nature in Locke's Second Treatise: one grounded in Natural Law and a Moral Economy and the other grounded in Natural Rights and a Market Economy. Discuss the type of society -- its principles, ideals, and institutions -- that Locke imagines and articulates in the original state of nature before the invention of money, commerce, and banking. This is a society that integrates Natural Law and Natural Rights. Then compare that society to Locke's second state of nature in which commerce, capital, wage labor, and a market economy are the supreme economic principles without the ethical and economic restrictions of Natural Law within a Moral Economy. That is, compare Natural Rights with and without Natural Law -- Economy and property with and without Ethics. In the first or original state of nature, natural rights are gifts of God -- rational and inalienable parts of human nature -- and cannot be taken away, surrendered, or traded; they are indestructible, assured, and protected by Natural Law, God, and Reason. Natural Law protects Natural Rights, as it ensures that there is enough material goods and property for self-sustenance and livelihood -- housing, land, food, clothing, care for health, etc. -- to protect the community as a whole. Natural Rights are grounded in and justified by the Natural Law of Aristotle and Aquinas -- Social Justice; this Natural Law is grounded in the traditions of Judaism, Greek philosophy, Christianity, and Medieval Scholasticism. While in the second state of nature, rights are ultimately market categories that can be traded away or lost (work as wage labor), won or earned (market competition and individual merit), and even accumulated (private property and class inequality) in a market economy. In the first state of nature, rights are natural, equal, universal, permanent, unchangeable, and assured in order to protect and maintain life (self-preservation), liberty (action), and property (economic self-sufficiency); in the second state of nature -- the natural state of inequality -- rights simply provide the opportunity to access the market but offer no protection to life, liberty, or property since they are ultimately grounded in competition, self-interest, and market success. The original state of nature is grounded in personal labor and household property, whereas the second state is based on wage labor and private property. The purpose of the original state is economic self-sufficiency of the family and personal labor; whereas the goal of the second state is wealth creation and maintenance or private property. Rights in the second state of nature are illusions without substance. The original state of nature outlines the material preconditions (community, natural law, egalitarianism, and common property) necessary for life, liberty, equality, freedom, and health, whereas the second state of nature outlines the market opportunities for profits, property, production, and pleasure that are hidden behind these ethical values and political ideals. In the latter state, equality, freedom, life, and health are only possibilities achieved by market success and accomplishments; they are the results of the accumulation of private property and wealth and thus no longer innate natural rights. The state of nature is Locke's construct of a world with and without social justice, with and without God. Define the nature of the Market and its role in civil society. What is the meaning and relevance of Rights when they are connected to Natural Law and when they are connected to the Market? Do Rights take on entirely different meanings in each case? And does the second state of nature mean that liberalism is fundamentally antithetical to not only Natural Law, but also to the ethical values of Judaism and Christianity? According to Locke, to ultimately justify the rise of modern liberalism is to leave behind traditional Christianity and morality. This course will continue to follow this relationship between rights and law, individualism and communalism, market and morals, private property and common property, and nature and ecology in the modern history of Western thought: Hobbes, Locke, Descartes, and classical economists defend Natural Rights and Marx (species-being and needs). J. S. Mill (democracy), and Camus (humanism) defend Natural Law. This is the seismic divide that will separate and frame much of contemporary social thought involving rights, laws, politics, society, nature, and science (positivism) as opposed to social and political theory, ethics, religion, justice, and critical ecology. Final key question: Why is property a right? In the original state it is a right because property is materially necessary for human life, survival, and the physical prerequisite for the other rights (chap. 2) and because it is a product of human labor in a moral economy (chap. 5) and necessary for the preservation of human life, liberty, and freedom. In the second state, property is a right because it is the product, not of human labor, but class privilege, family inheritance, and property ownership in a market economy. Summary: The Original State of Nature is based on the intricate balance between natural rights and natural law and the moral and structural limits set by the latter on the former --
(1) ethics of love, community, common good, sharing, friendship, etc. (paragraphs 5 and 15)
(2) economic limits of spoilage (31), labor (32), and self-sufficiency (33-34)
(3) balance between common property and family property (25-27).
With the creation of Money (36-37) and an unrestrained Market Economy (trade, commerce, banking, finance, wage labor, etc.), the tension and divide between natural law and natural rights, moral economy and market economy, ancients and moderns is broken along with the dissolution of the ethical and structural restraints (46 and 25, 50 and 43, 37, respectively). The result is an economy unrestrained by moral and communal values and the formation of a class system of unlimited property acquisition and ownership (50). Locke was caught between the ancients and the moderns, communalism (socialism) and capitalism, law and rights. These divides and problems in the seventeenth century will be some of the most important issues facing Western society well into the twentieth century. We have never really gotten beyond Locke's Dilemma.
Key Questions to be Discussed in Class: What are the differences between Hobbes's view of the state of nature and Locke's theory; what is the relationship within Locke's state of nature between Natural Rights (possessive individualism, unlimited wealth, and private property in a Market Economy) and Natural Law (ethics, economics, and social justice in a Moral Economy); and what are the implications of the suspension and elimination of Natural Law from the state of nature? Does this represent the hollowing out of Liberalism: Does this mean that morals and ethics are eliminated from Natural Rights; and does it also mean that liberalism is without an ethical and moral foundation? Is liberalism caught in a web of crude materialism, individualism, and utilitarianism; are the liberal values of individual rights, freedom, liberty, and equality simply market and property ideals without deeper ethical or spiritual significance? Finally, are the values of liberalism antithetical to the ethical principles of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome? In the nineteenth century, Natural Law will be rediscovered and incorporated into the ideals of the Classical Social Theorists as they re-engage the Ancients and the Moderns in a comprehensive social theory. Sociology will be formed as a practical (ethical) science integrating empirical research, political economy, and Natural Law -- History, Structures, and Ethics. More specifically for this course, ask the following: (1) What is the state of nature; (2) why is Locke using this religiously formed social construct ; (3) what is your definition of "freedom" and what does it mean for you to be "free" and for what purpose; (4) what is the relationship between natural law and natural rights, between common property and private property; (5) what is the relationship between the two; and (6) why does it appear that natural law is the material, spiritual, and ethical foundation of natural rights? (7) When natural law disappears in the second state of nature, what are the implications for Locke's theory of rights? (8) Why are there two states of nature; does Locke change his mind; are they compatible views of pre-civil society? (9) why do human beings leave the state of nature in order to create civil society, laws, and government? (10) Is civil society created because of the violence, aggression, and state of war inherent in a market economy that must be controlled by the state? Why are the foundational principles of modern liberalism since the seventeenth century -- natural rights, liberty, and individual freedom -- all grounded in competitive egoism, crude materialism, and economic utilitarianism (Hobbes and Locke) and all incompatible with the medieval Christian (Aquinas and Hooker) and modern socialist values of human dignity, creativity, compassion, love, kindness, and community? (11) Compare the values of religion and economics, Christianity and capitalism -- are they compatible or contradictory (Weber and Tawney)? On the surface, a moral belief in the Enlightenment values of the primacy of individual rights and liberties seems perfectly normal, acceptable, and even admirable. However, a further and deeper investigation into the origins and foundations of these principles reveals a social system -- Classical Liberalism -- based on the ethically crassest and politically crudest -- even despicable -- aspects of human behavior -- material self-interest, personal greed, aggressive market activity, possessive individualism, exploitative production and division of labor, and excessive material pleasure and consumption. Corresponding to these economic and political transformations in modern society, religion also reflects these conditions in its rejection of natural law and a moral economy in favor of economic individualism, unlimited private property, the transcendence or unknowability of the essence of God (Deus absconditus), existence of a morally meaningless and nihilistic world, the total depravity of humankind, capitalist work ethic, and individual salvation. Both liberalism and Christianity have lost their ancient pasts, moral traditions, and future hopes for humanity by replacing Aristotle with Hobbes and Darwin (and later by von Mises, Hayek, and Friedman). Liberalism is diametrically opposed to the highest ethical and political ideals and visions of Western society, including Hebrew ethics, Greek philosophy, medieval Christianity, modern Romanticism, German Idealism, French and British socialism, and Marxism. (12) What is the role of religion in modern society: Is it a false consciousness rationalizing and justifying the new economic system (Marx) or is it the cultural foundation or "cause" of the spirit and self-consciousness of capitalism (Weber)? It is at this point that Weber's Protestant Ethic thesis of Deus absconditus and the sinfulness and meaninglessness of the world connects to his theory of the Enlightenment, formal reason, technical science, and disenchantment -- the world has lost substantive meaning because of religion and science.
Economic Reductionism and Loss of the Community and the Ancients: In this revised view of Natural Rights, Richard Hooker has been replaced by Thomas Hobbes, Natural Law by Natural Rights, equality and freedom by individualism and liberty, and communal ethics and the common good by self-interest and a market morality of a "war of all against all." There are now no longer communal rights, ethical responsibilities, or economic limitations on the Market, Property, or Commerce in seventeenth-century England. That is, there are no prohibitions on money exchange and private property, market and commercial capitalism, wage labor, wealth accumulation, and class inequality (para. 28, 36, 43-50, and 85-87). And, all of this is to be confirmed and legitimated as the state of nature evolves by the consent of the majority into civil society and a constitutional government. In the end, even Natural Rights and the State are reduced to the "preservation of property" as the true end of government (para. 90, 95, and 138). By the end of the second state of nature, the government and laws of civil society replace Natural Law as the protector of rights and property. And because of the growth of inequality, wage labor, and the propertied class (para. 50), neither the second state of nature nor civil society can protect liberty, equality, and freedom because these were initially grounded in common property, natural law, and love, compassion, and friendship. But they are all gone now. Natural Rights ultimately lead to the unnatural law of power, privilege, possessions, and poverty. The unfortunate and unconscious irony of Locke's political theory is that not only do Natural Rights undermine Natural Law, but Natural Rights undermine individual equality and freedom -- the very things they were intended to protect and preserve. Natural Law grounds and justifies Natural Rights; it ensures and enables Natural Rights by providing a common stock of goods and property; and it protects and preserves Natural Rights. Natural Rights come from Natural Law and are ultimately known through God (Scriptures and Tradition), Nature, and Reason. When Natural Law is dissolved and lost, so, too, are Natural Rights. Without Natural Law to protect the individual and ensure the material and structural foundations of individual liberties and rights in society, Natural Rights become impossible and turn into abstract ethical principles and an oppressive ideology. They do not protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property but, rather, protect the class interests of large landowners. Natural Rights require for their justification, implementation, and realization the values and institutions of Natural Law. Without Natural Law, there are no Natural Rights. That is, in the final analysis there are no Natural Rights in a market economy, only economic opportunities. A society that protects the rights of life, liberty, and freedom requires an economic system grounded in Natural Law. This is a lesson as of yet unappreciated by Liberalism and certainly not truly understood by Locke. Compare paragraphs 4 and 50. What would a society look like grounded in Natural Law? This split between Natural Law and Natural Rights, communalism and individualism, and democracy and capitalism is also articulated by Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, ed by Mayer, pp. 506-510 and vol. 1, chapt. 10 and vol. 2, chapter 20 (2 vols. 1835 and 1840), (2 vols. 1835 and 1840) and Robert Bellah, Habits of the Heart, pp. 28-44. Bellah writes: "that by releasing the untrammeled pursuit of wealth without regard to the demands of social justice, industrial capitalism was destroying the fabric of democratic society" (43).
Slippery Slope from Classical Liberalism to Fascism: Contemporary liberal thinkers have stripped classical liberalism of the original state of nature and its acceptance of natural law, the primacy of the community and common good, moral economy, and the dignity and freedom of human beings. They have unconsciously prepared the way for the displacement of natural law, general welfare, and democracy by fascism and capitalism by depleting political and ethical concepts of content, historical traditions of meaning, and social institutions of substance. They have depleted the natural resources of humanity of any truly critical ideas and theories. Locke has already prepared the way for the early stages of fascism by stripping the state of nature and civil society -- the market and private property -- of any ethical limitations. There is no moral resistance possible with this 'eclipse of reason." Democracy based on true equality and freedom cannot survive in a capitalist society based on private property, class, inequality, and human degradation caused by the principles and structures of a market economy. Aristotle in The Politics saw this, as well as both J. S. Mill and K. Marx; all three theorists called for some form of moral economy. Locke saw it also but rejected the insight as he hid behind the rationality of the market, possessive individualism, and property rights. This latter theme, grounded in the second state of nature, is then taken up in what some have falsely referred to as a revival of "classical liberalism" in the writings of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Discuss the relationship between liberalism and capitalism, as well as liberalism and fascism. Also note the interesting parallel between the original state of classical liberalism (Locke, Smith, and J. S. Mill) and the second state of classical liberalism (von Mises, Hayek, and Friedman) -- the former stressed elements of a moral economy and religious/secular natural law, whereas the latter dispensed with these ethical limitations on the market and wealth accumulation. With morals, ethics, and politics displaced by market and class economics, there are no longer any hindrances to the rise of fascism in a corporate market economy.
Natural Law Justifies and Grounds Natural Rights: Without Natural Law There Are No Rights in the State of Nature or Civil Society, only Universal Class Warfare of the Market: The state of nature created by God begins as a state of complete equality, perfect freedom of action and disposition over possessions and person, and common property, but ends in a state of complete inequality of private possessions, limited freedom of action, and an inhibiting class structure. In the original state of nature in Chapter 2, Natural Law and common property justify personal/household property, while at the same time promote and encourage individual liberty and freedom; without common property, there is no private property, that is, there is no foundation, no legitimation, and no promotion of private property and individual liberty and rights. Even with the ethical and economic restrictions placed on ownership and accumulation by Natural Law, individual liberty is encouraged. For the sources of Locke's theory of the original state of nature and integration of natural rights and natural law, see Francisco Suarez and Hugo Grotius. In the second state of nature of Chapter 5, the justification and promotion of private property are accomplished by economic growth, production, and commerce (37). Natural Law is no longer relevant in Locke's theory of natural rights. What began with a relatively egalitarian and free society for the general welfare of the community and protection of individual rights ends with a hierarchical class system based on private property, large estates, money, and wage labor characteristic of modern liberalism (para. 50). Locke has, in effect, theoretically created a natural state of inequality, class, and wage labor. Natural Law justifies and grounds Natural Rights since the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and property require that all individuals have these rights, that is, these rights must be both inalienable and universal. But with the invention of Money and Markets in the second state of nature, rights are no longer universal and adhere to particular persons only because of their economic power and class interests. After the suspension of Natural Law, God does not give rights to humans -- the market economy confers these rights; natural rights are then replaced by market opportunities, education, training, hard work, business success, meritocracy, etc. In the second state of nature, individuals no longer have rights to life, liberty, and property, but instead, have "universal access" to life, liberty, and property. For many Americans, natural law and ethics are seen as restraints on and even distortions of individual freedom and rights. But the truth is that the former are not limits on the latter; they, in fact, make individual freedom possible. Thus by abandoning ethics and natural law in the second state of nature, liberalism undermines the very ideals which it professed to uphold in the original state. As a result, liberalism has this strange and ironic inner logic that gravitates toward political authoritarianism, class power, and constitutional plutocracy. Liberalism contains within itself its own contradictions, conflicts, and destruction. Its end is already prefigured in its philosophical and historical origins. And without Natural Law there is also no Moral Economy or Democracy. Question for class discussion: Are the attempts to introduce in the U.S. benefits for the poor, lower and working class, and racial minorities such as health care, child care, education, housing, etc. capable of creating the economic foundations for a moral economy and, thus, human rights and social justice or are they simply a social afterthought to ideologically confirm and justify a class system that undermines rights, freedom, and justice? Can Locke's view of a market economy and economic liberalism be the foundation of a just society? Does this split between Locke's Original (medieval moral economy) and Second State of Nature (modern market economy) summarize and anticipate the debate between ancient, medieval, and modern natural law theory (Aristotle, Aquinas, and Marx) and modern liberalism (Economic School of Salamanca, Austrian School of Economics, and Libertarianism)?
Incompatibility of Liberalism and Natural Rights: Rights of Life and Liberty Require Common Property, Common Health, Human Needs, and the Primacy of Human Labor: As we have seen above, there are two States of Nature in Locke's Second Treatise of Government: One grounded in socialized (equal and universal) health and common property (Chapter 2) and the other based in a market economy (inequality and class) and private property (Chapter 5). Rights are compatible with and require universal and common access to property and material basics of health, whereas rights cannot exist under liberalism because health and property are privatized. Locke's attempt to join two contradictory ideas together in Chapter 5 -- liberalism and rights -- is an interesting but ultimately flawed and futile political experiment. There are no rights in a market economy; there can be no natural or human rights in liberalism. Without complete equality and common property in a moral economy for the benefit of all citizens (socialism), there are no inalienable and universal natural rights. That is, without the rights of health and property (labor, employment, possessions, food, clothing, shelter, etc.), there cannot truly be a right to life and liberty; without the second two rights, the first two are impossible and collapse. The right to property in the original state of nature is really a right to subsistence, food, shelter, and livelihood (in later documents this becomes the right to employment). Without a right to property and health, there is no right to life and liberty; the former provide the material foundations for the latter. In the second state of nature, health, common property, and personal labor are dropped and replaced by private property, productivity, and wage labor. Common health and property in the original state of nature made the other rights possible. Likewise without wings underneath the arms of human beings, there can be no human right to fly. Rights require a moral or natural law that protects, ensures, and enhances human life, self-preservation, and the quality of life (health, freedom, and equality) by means of access to the material conditions and structural prerequisites of life through common property, labor, and nature. Rights require a common ground in health and property to exist and to protect the universal rights to life and liberty; rights cannot independently stand on their own or be used to abuse or harm others; rights are essential for the existence of a moral economy. None of these natural and juridical conditions exist for a "right to fly." (Unfortunately Locke never develops these ideas in Chapter 2 -- Why? Could it be that his goal was always to establish and justify independent natural rights and only then drop the natural law preconditions for rights?) This leads to a broader observation about natural rights: Without natural law and common property, there can be no rights to property and without common property there van be no rights to life and liberty. Property is central to the issues of rights but generally not well understood. Property is central because it provides the material foundations for self-preservation and individual freedom. As in the case with wings mentioned above, there must be property available to everyone in order for a right to exist. However, in the second state of nature, where the economy is based on inequality, class and private property, there can be no inalienable right to property. Rights are only a feature of communal property for all. Natural law of love, compassion, and friendship provides the property for a good life. Without common or universal property, there can be no right to property. Rights are grounded in natural law, not the market. The market in the second state of nature only provides access to property, it provides the possibility for the acquisition and accumulation of property, but not the innate right to property itself. The incredible theoretical and logical incoherence of Liberalism in Locke's analysis is that the right of property, equality, and freedom can only be justified by natural law or socialism (communalism). The market cannot provide such rights because it is equally the justification for wage labor, poverty, inequality, and lack of freedom. Some may achieve equality, freedom, and property from the market but the majority of individuals cannot because it is open to chance and market fluctuations. To be a "right" means that it cannot be given by civil society or taken away by civil society or the second state of nature; it is always part of the universal definition and characteristic of human nature.
Liberalism without Ethics in the Second State of Nature: Finally, what are Locke's metaphysical and ethical justifications for natural rights in the second state of nature? It is no longer the ethics, economics, and property of natural law of the original state, nor can it be the Christian God of creation from Genesis; in the end, Locke justifies natural rights and a market economy based on the materialist principles of maximizing production, greater efficiency of land, and expansion of prosperity and private property. Even if this were true which later social and political theorists will argue against, the real question is -- but at what cost to the natural order, community, and social justice? What becomes of Christianity, natural law, social morality, and justice in this new type of society or have these ideals been surrendered to the materialism of market utility, competition, self-interest, and the laws of civil society? Finally, what becomes of natural rights to life, liberty, and health; can there be true natural rights without natural law supporting them; or have natural rights been replaced by civil law and property? The final question has already been asked above, but to place it in its clearest and most precise form: What is the ethical justification for Locke's second state of nature? Does Locke offer an ethical justification of liberalism? And, is there any longer a need for an ethics of liberalism? With Locke's theory of the evolution of the state of nature, there is an eventual loss of natural law, natural rights, and the moral order as the economic market defines the nature of legal rights and individual liberties. Liberalism was originally grounded in love, compassion, and friendship (Hooker and Locke), but ends in materialism, violence, oppression, loneliness, and fear (Hobbes). In the end, liberalism is antithetical and contradictory to the underlying values of ancient Greece, medieval scholasticism, and modern Christianity.
Rethinking Natural Rights and Slavery in Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln: Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, made parallel arguments about Thomas Jefferson's theory of the natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property that lost their moral and individual foundations in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. He argued that Jefferson was not supporting individual rights and personal liberties, as is usually interpreted today in political theory, but the political rights, state authority, and independence of the collective citizens of the United States from Britain in the former document. Roosevelt argued that the document was a declaration of independence and not a declaration of rights. By not mentioning rights and liberties as moral or natural rights, the issue of slavery could then be easily avoided. Also, the content of the U.S. Constitution was not concerned with individual rights and liberties, but with the relationship between the federal government and states' rights and authority, especially regarding the legitimation and acceptance of states' rights and freedom from the federal government and the federal government defense of slavery in America (K. Roosevelt, "Rethinking America's Founding Narrative," a lecture on CSpan3, American History TV, March 3, 2020). His argument is that it was with the philosophical and personal transformation of Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address and in the Emancipation Proclamation and with the Reconstruction Period (Articles 14 and 15) after the Civil War (1865-1877) that ethics and morality were finally introduced and integrated with American politics -- the emphasis turned to the moral and personal rights of all American citizens, including former slaves. Roosevelt, following William Lloyd Garrison, referred to these early American documents of Jefferson as a "Deal with the Devil," an "Agreement with Hell," and a "Covenant with Death" because they were not revolutionary and didn't argue for universal human rights. Rather, they were pragmatic and political documents defending slavery and states' rights. They were viewed at the time as a compromise among the states to ensure political and military independence from Britain and the political unity and integrity of the newly formed Constitutional Republic. (See https://www.c-span.org/video/?469938-1/rethinking-americas-founding-narrative.) For an alternative interpretation of Jefferson's "Declaration of Independence" see Richard Schlatter, Private Property: The History of an Idea and William Scott, In Pursuit of Happiness: American Conceptions of Property from the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century. On this issue also read the speech by Frederick Douglass, "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?," July 5, 1852 at https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/. Question: What does Jefferson mean by the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Are these particular legal rights of civil society or universal and innate natural rights? Why does he drop property and health from Locke's list of natural rights? And, finally, by the pursuit of happiness does Jefferson mean "the pursuit of utilitarian pleasure and materialism" (Bentham and James Mill), the "pursuit of the democratic polity" (Aristotle), or the pursuit of property (Locke)? Is it also possible that Jefferson recognized that property and health can never be natural moral rights in a secular, market economy, since they must be worked for and earned? Is common or household property the foundation of a human society based on equality, love, and human dignity or is private property the basis for class inequality, human suffering, and economic oppression in a market economy? Which interpretation and direction did Jefferson take? Does Marx have a theory of natural rights ("rights of man" and "rights of the citizen")? Compare Locke and Jefferson to Marx; compare liberal, constitutional democracy to democratic socialism.
Compare Human Rights in Moral Economy and Property Rights in Market Economy: Discuss the difference between Human Rights and Property Rights in Locke: From the perspective examined above, natural rights in the original state of nature are closer to human rights because they protect the individual, the community, and moral economy from harm (natural law), whereas rights in the second state of nature are really property rights because they defend the market, profits, and class property. A further point having gone unnoticed by many is that in all of these transformations Liberalism cannot ethically justify itself after Locke; its own ethical foundations have been dissolved and repressed with the loss of Natural Law. One could argue that here, in the incoherence and contradictions of liberalism, lies the beginning of the Enlightenment, Existentialism, and Nihilism. That is, Existentialism has its origins in the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and Liberalism. (Note: This helps explain Marx's turn in his early manuscripts to socialism, but also back to natural law, human rights, and the ancient traditions.) Rights are possible only under some form of socialism -- the right to life (self-preservation) and liberty (freedom of action) require the material foundations of health, along with labor, food, clothing, and shelter provided by common property. It is Locke himself who ultimately recognizes in the original state of nature that socialism is the only means for justifying life, liberty, health, and property. But, in one of the classic ironies of intellectual history, he flees from his own creations and insights into the safety of modern liberalism. It is here in the seventeenth century of John Locke that we have the beginnings of the modern dialogue between liberalism and socialism, between a market economy and a moral economy, between private property and common/household property, between property rights and human rights, and between natural rights and natural law -- between Hobbes and Aristotle (Hooker). In the second state of nature there is no natural law, and ironically in the second state of nature there are no nature rights -- there is only the meaningless violence and aggression of a private economy and the moral nihilism of market ethics.
Summary of the Discourse: Twilight of Natural Law: Without Natural Law, Natural Rights are empty and meaningless, indifferent and inconsistent, illogical and ideological, and lack any moral or ethical foundation as they protect class interests while undermining individual freedom and liberties; liberalism undermines individual potential, happiness, and freedom. That is, it destroys the very things it was supposed to articulate and defend. These ideas are very provocative and disturbing. How would you rescue and defend Locke, his theory of property, and modern liberalism? Does scientific development and technological progress of the Enlightenment help economic expansion to the point that Natural Law ethics, economics, and property are no longer necessary? Or is that economic progress becomes Natural Law, that is, economic expansion replaces common property and the community as the protective foundation of Natural Rights? Although Locke does try to replaced the economic and structural elements of Natural Law with Money and Market -- the illusion of economic expansion and a better life for all -- he never again mentions the ethical foundations of society based on the principles of Hooker, Aquinas, and Aristotle. The ethics of Natural Law are simply dropped from the conversation; they simply disappear. Nor does Locke attempt to show how self-interest, possessive individualism and market competition lead to compassion, charity, friendship, and justice. Later in the nineteenth century J. S. Mill and Marx will offer different approaches to these issues as they rediscover Aristotle, citizenship, democracy, and social ethics in their political and social theories. For a broader range of historical discussion within American political theory about the nature of property -- Edward Bellamy, Thorstein Veblen, Herbert Croly, and John Dewey -- see William Scott, In Pursuit of Happiness: American Conceptions of Property from the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century, chapter 9.
Summary Class Discussion: Scholastic Socialism, Liberalism, and Democracy: As we have seen above, Locke developed two entirely different views of the state of nature, natural rights, and liberalism in his work. The original state of nature was built on natural rights bounded by the ethical norm of "do no harm to others" and the structural limit of scholastic socialism -- natural law, common property, personal and household property, self-sufficiency, protection of the rights of human labor, serving the community good, and a moral economy. With the second state of nature in Chapter 5, natural law and common property were dropped in favor of a market economy and the unlimited accumulation of private property. Discuss the implications of these changes. Without natural law and its accompanying structural elements the ideals of liberalism -- equality, individual freedom, and natural rights to life and liberty are lost and without natural law and its structures -- democracy becomes impossible. Liberalism (second state of nature) is incompatible with Democracy. Without some form of primitive socialism and common access to property in the form of land, food, clothing, shelter, etc., the rights to life, liberty, and health become totally meaningless. Locke outlined the earliest stages and possibilities of liberalism, socialism, and democracy in his work that were all lost with the advent of a market economy, private property, and class oppression. These issues will set the stage for the works of Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and J.S. Mill. Also examine in detail the exact nature of Liberalism and compare the two forms of liberalism mentioned in Locke's treatise: Compare the liberalism of the original state of nature based on God, natural law, community, common property, the value of human labor, and ethical responsibility to others to the liberalism of the second state based on a market economy, individualism freed from ethics, natural law, and community responsibility, and the ownership of capital and private property. Are they compatible? Which one best reflects the United States? And also compare the two forms of Christianity outlined in Locke's theory of the state of nature: The original state of nature reflects a medieval and neo-Aristotelian Christian theology and ethics, whereas the second state reflects a more radical Protestantism. What are the implications for the change. Finally, has Christianity changed again in the contemporary context as it moves away from concerns with poverty, economic redistribution, fairness, compassion, community responsibility, and social justice in the Old and New Testament to a new form of Christian religious fundamentalism which abandons the community and ethics and instead emphasizes sexual differences, homophobia, gay marriages, abortion, birth control, and the wealthy (prosperity gospel). (See Jim Wallis, God's Politics, pp. xxii and 4-5; Geoffrey Stone, Sex and the Constitution; Randall Balmer, "The Real Origins of the Religious Right," in http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133; and Kevin Kruse, One Nation Under God.) There have been a number of theorists who have argued implicitly and explicitly that liberalism and capitalism are incompatible social systems, including Aristotle, Locke, Jefferson, J. S. Mill, and Marx. Summary of the tradition: Aristotle argued that a moral economy and a market economy, oikonomike and chrematistike, democracy and capitalism are incompatible: Locke maintained that the original state of nature and a moral economy (Aquinas and Hooker) are incompatible with a market economy and unlimited private property; and Mill held that democracy and self-realization are incompatible with a limited or liberal democracy. Aristotle and Mill moved in the direction of democracy, while Locke turned in the opposite direction in his defense of a Hobbesian second state of nature with its theory of rights and freedom being reduced to a radical individualism of free choice and market liberties.
Natural Rights Before and After the Dissolution of Natural Law: Rights, equality, and freedom when grounded in God, natural law, and human reason in the original state of nature lead to liberalism and individual freedom, whereas these political ideals when grounded in a market economy, wage labor, and unlimited property acquisition in the second state of nature lead to class, inequality, and political domination. That is, natural rights grounded in reason potentially lead to democracy, whereas natural rights grounded in the economy lead to plutocracy. Examine the condition of humanity and society before and after the dissolution of natural law in the first and second state of nature: Does the meaning of Natural Rights -- life, liberty, health, and property -- change when rights are connected to Natural Law and after Natural Law is dissolved? That is, what do Natural Rights mean when intimately connected with the ethical and political ideals of community, friendship, compassion, and justice and when Natural Rights are used simply as a defense of possessive individualism, materialism, unlimited and unrestrained accumulation of private property, and a market economy? In the original state of nature, human beings were guided and protected by ancient (Aristotle) and medieval (Aquinas) ethical restrictions on wealth and property acquisition; after the invention of money (commerce, trade, banking, finance, and wage labor) these restrictions were no longer applicable. With the expansion of the economy and gross domestic product, the ethical principles and economic structures inhibiting and protecting individuals were no longer necessary. Capitalism has freed itself from the limits of ancient philosophy and medieval ethics. After the dismantling of Natural Law in the second state of nature, how are natural rights and commercial activity ethically justified by Locke? Does liberalism become antithetical to Aristotelian and medieval Christian ethics? Is liberalism incompatible with God and religion? -- Or a certain kind of God and religion? (See Weber's Protestant Ethic thesis below.) Does liberalism reduce religion and ethics to issues of personal conscience, private morality, and practical reason? Does liberalism replace Aristotle and Aquinas with Plato, Calvin, and Kant, that is, with Platonism, Idealism, and Protestantism? Is this movement from social ethics to personal morality the beginning stage of existentialism? Liberalism strips humanity of the social ideals and natural law of ancient Greece and medieval Christianity and reduces these ideals to the least common denominator of market values and property rights. In the process, humanity is reduced to marketable objects or saleable commodities with its highest ideals articulated in its lowest values -- economic categories. Rights, freedom, and liberty become possible only in the marketplace; life has lost any higher goal or meaning. It is ironic that once liberal theory moved from an emphasis on rights to democracy (Locke to Mill) an entirely new vision of the potentialities of humanity also developed which stressed self-realization, human reason, public discourse, and virtue over money, property, and rights. Which definition of Natural Rights is used to justify liberalism and capitalism? Do the very concepts of individuality, freedom, liberty, and material security and property change within Locke as he changes the context of meaning of Natural Rights? That is, do Natural Rights mean one thing in a Moral Economy and another thing in a Market Economy?
In a Moral Economy, Natural Rights satisfy Human Needs while in a Market Economy, Natural Rights are simply property rights (land, capital, and self) that satisfy the economic or physical wants for property, production, and pleasure. In the former, they represent a defense of freedom, individuality, and self-expression, while in the latter they represent liberty, possessive individualism, and private property; in the former, they articulate a moral vision of an economy subservient to broader political needs and ethical ideals ("pursuit of true and solid happiness"), while in the latter the individual becomes subservient to the drives and imperatives of a market economy and commercial profit. Natural Rights can thus be used to protect individual freedom or to crush it. In the second state of nature both Natural Rights and Natural Law become impossible. Liberalism is incapable of providing the ethical and economic conditions -- natural law --for universal, innate natural rights and thus, cannot justify the existence of natural of rights themselves. There is no longer any theological, communal, or theoretical justification of natural rights in the second state of nature because any rights are legal, civil, and contractual and not universal rights. Rights can only be justified, ensured, and protected in a socialist society based on a moral community because only in a socialist society can we have the rights to health, education, employment, housing, etc. On the other hand, in the most positive interpretation of Locke's Second State of Nature, the movement toward a market or money economy is an attempt to overcome the fundamental weaknesses of a moral economy based on common property and stagnant economic growth. Under the latter social system, there is limited economic growth, material expansion, and the ability to physically sustain human life which would always be a threat to the security and rights of its inhabitants. A monetary economy allows for the economic expansion of the availability of food, clothing, shelter, and land through trade, banking, and wealth accumulation to the benefit of all members of the community. This form of economy would be the best protection for future inhabitants and their fundamental natural rights. As Locke recognizes in para. 50 it would come with a price of private property, inequality, and class divisions, but he apparently views this as an improvement over a primitive and underdeveloped economy. The fundamental questions remains: Does a market and class economy -- capitalism -- create the possibilities for the maintenance of natural law and rights or does it undermine this type of community? Is the common ownership of property -- socialism -- a better economy for living a virtuous communal life and protecting its fundamental natural rights. Succinctly stated, after reading para. 50 can a community still maintain both natural rights and natural law? The dilemma for modern liberalism is the following: a market economy may produce a materially expanded, a more efficient, a more proficient, and more prosperous economy resulting in unimaginable wealth and prosperity for society. However, the key question remains -- does this more prosperous, comfortable, and well-to-do society protect those at the bottom with the prior material foundations for life, liberty, health, and property? Are the natural rights still universal and innate given to humans by God or are they marketable, legal, and purchasable and thus contingent on access to money and wealth?
The Real Difference Between the Two States of Nature: Human or Community Rights vs. Market or Capitalist Rights: The real difference revolves around the idea of property as the "means of life." The original state grounds natural rights of life and liberty in common property and natural law, thereby necessarily providing the individual with the social and material means for the continuance of human life in a moral economy. The second state only assures the individual of the possibility of gaining property and the means of life in a competitive, market economy. It turns the "means of life" into the "ends of life"; it turns the material foundations of life into an existential and ideological goal of life, thereby distorting the meaning of human life itself. Without the absolute assurance and innate right to property (land, food, clothing, housing, labor, etc.), there can be no a priori, inalienable, or universal assurance to life and liberty. Under the latter conditions of the second state of nature, life and liberty are no longer natural rights but individual possibilities of possessive individualism within a market economy that are ultimately undermined by money, class, and wage labor. The liberation theologian Franz Hinkelammert refers to this aspect of Locke's theory of property and rights as "commodity totalitarianism" which involves the loss of real natural rights. Reading Locke's Second Treatise of Government is like looking into the ALMA telescope; Locke's work is the telescope of modern politics. We are able to look into the deep past and discover the primitive origins of both liberalism (natural rights) and socialism (natural law). This is the hidden and unarticulated secret of liberalism -- that its defense of individual equality, freedom, and rights is contingent upon a primitive form of socialism or communalism that guarantees food, housing, employment, and health care to all What is even more interesting is that Locke originally viewed them as compatible social systems that needed each other to be real and legitimate: True individual freedom and equality required a strong community, commitment to the common good, and the existence of social property. To be made real, natural rights required the material and moral foundations of communal property. Love, compassion, community, and the good and happiness of the other is the basis of natural and human rights, whereas competition, self-interest, greed, class, and inequality are the foundation for market or capitalist rights. Only with the second state of nature does Locke abandon natural law in favor of the primacy of property rights. This marks his transition from God and natural law to Mammon and the market. This unusual path led Locke to liberalism and the justification of the rights to life, liberty, equality, and freedom in terms of the capitalist, market economy. Marx will examine the contradictions between bourgeois property rights and the political rights of citizens in On the Jewish Question, whereas Locke examined the conflicting rights of original or human rights based on communal property and the common good and economic property rights of self-interest and market accumulation. For both Marx and the early Locke, individual rights of freedom and equality could only be realized and protected after the material and economic foundations of society had been firmly constructed and ensured. Marx maintained that bourgeois property rights were incompatible and contradictory to the political rights of assembly, free speech, freedom of thought, etc. The early Locke of the original state of nature argued that bourgeois property rights were incompatible with the rights to equality, freedom, and liberty. Natural rights for both Marx and the early Locke could only be made real through some religious (Aquinas and Hooker) or secular (species being) natural law based on the principles of human dignity, reason, and freedom (Aristotle). Locke's second state of nature contradicts and is irreconcilable with the values and ideals of the first state of nature, natural law, and the commandments of God to do no harm to others and protect the community and common property. The final and, perhaps, the most difficult question on Locke: What traditions and ethical values in the Hebrew, Christian, and Muslim religions would reflect and support the possessive individualism, market economy, and competitive, self-interest of Locke's second treatise of government? Be specific and why? Is there any justification for the rise of liberalism in the Abrahamic religions or ancient philosophies, especially Greek philosophy? And what does it say about American Christian Evangelical movements that attempt "to monetarize God" with their wealth and prosperity gospels? It is interesting to note that Locke stood at the crossroads of Western civilization -- he represented the attempt to integrate the Ancient Greeks and Medieval Scholastics with Modern Capitalism and Liberalism resulting in a political and social theory that would, in turn, split between Liberalism (Hobbes, Friedman, and Rawls) and Socialism (Marx). In his major work, Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Milton Friedman's indirectly and perhaps unconsciously draws upon some of the implications of Locke's turn to the Second State of Nature in the latter's replacement of natural law by market rationality, the moral economy by the market economy. Friedman clearly argues that fundamental moral decisions are to be made by means of negative freedom, the free market, and individual consumer choices and not by natural law, religion, or the modern state (p. 24). In fact, he shockingly maintains that the decision to prevent racial discrimination in employment and enforce racial equality by the federal government in the U.S. through the Fair Employment Practice Committee (FEPC, 1941)) and civil rights laws is analogous to Hitler's Nuremberg laws and the Jim Crow laws in the American South from the 1870s to the 1950s because they all represent inappropriate and oppressive imposition by the federal government on people's lives, values, and liberties (pp. 111-113).
Contradictions Between Natural Rights and Natural Law, Capitalism and Democracy, and the Enlightenment and Existentialism: The values of Liberalism are sacrificed upon the altar and structures of Capitalism. Locke's own position reveals the incompatibility between Liberalism and Capitalism. The ideals of humanity for equality, freedom, liberty, rights, and happiness are reduced to market categories of self-interest, competition, economic success, and the protection of unlimited property rights. Locke's vision of the state of nature and civil society without the ethical principles and structural restraints of Natural Law returns society to Hobbes' bellum omnium contra omnes. What begins as a theoretical divide in the seventeenth century between Natural Law and Natural Rights, between the Ancients and the Moderns, evolves in the nineteenth century into a conflict and contradiction between Democracy and Capitalism, and in the twentieth century into an unbridgeable abyss between the Enlightenment and Existentialism. Rousseau, J. S. Mill, and Marx will continue this line of internal criticism as they recognize the incompatibility of Natural Law and Natural Rights, democracy and capitalism, and equality/freedom and inequality/property/class. For them, civil society and Natural Rights have returned us to the diffuse slavery of the state of nature of Hobbes and Locke.
Primary and Secondary Rights: Natural Law, Natural Rights, and Politics: By having different combinations of natural law and natural rights, different types of polity are created:
(1) Keep natural law, drop natural rights: primitive communalism and tyranny
(2) Keep natural rights, drop natural law, (second state of nature): capitalism and oligarchy
(3) Integrate natural law and natural rights, (original state of nature): socialism and democracy
Without community health and property, life and liberty cannot be sustained; thus health and property are secondary rights supporting the primary rights of life and liberty. Without natural law, there are no natural rights. Natural law provides the material conditions for the realization and protection of natural rights. In the original state of nature, property is both an independent (common property) and dependent right (personal property) since household/personal property depends on common property and labor for its justification. Property is itself justified because it protects the common good, material well-being of the community, and the products of human labor; these are the real natural rights of equality, individual freedom, and the protection of the rights of human labor. Personal property is not viable without common property, without human labor, and without natural law. Personal property is a right to own products of one's own labor and is necessary, along with common property, to maintain the primary rights to life and liberty. Life and liberty are the primary rights, while health and property are the secondary rights that ensure the primary rights. Household property contains elements of both primary and secondary rights since it is both the material foundation of life and liberty, but also the product of human labor and creativity. In the final analysis, Locke's theory of rights may be summarized as the following: right to life and self-preservation (Hobbes), individual liberty and freedom of choice, property or the right to the products of individual human labor (Suarez, Lex Gentium, also anticipating Marx and Pope Leo XIII), self-sufficiency of the household (accumulation limited by natural law), and to the material resources of the community to help friends, neighbors, and the poor (Aristotle, Gratian, Ambrosius, Aquinas, Francisco Suarez, Hugo Grotius, and Hooker), and the right to continued life through health, property, food, clothing, etc.). Only in the second state of nature does Locke reduce property to its narrowest concept of purely private or class ownership of property in the seventeenth century. Whereas Kant sets the epistemological boundaries for modern European thought, Locke's work is central for establishing the political and social boundaries for contemporary debates about social justice in natural law (common good) and natural rights (individual freedom). The divisions and conflicts between the original and second state of nature anticipate in surprising and unnerving ways the later debates within Western society about the nature of authoritarianism, liberalism, capitalism, and socialism. Central to these debates is the role, if any, of religious and secular natural law and the relationship between natural and human rights.
Discussion Questions for Class:
(1) Do members of the state of nature have the RIGHT to FLY or the RIGHT TO BLUE EYES? Why not?
(2) What are RIGHTS and are there prior requirements of political economy for their existence?
(3) Do the Rights of Life and Liberty require the prior material rights and existence of Property and Health, that is, do natural rights require a moral economy of communal property in order to exist -- whether that is common property of the medieval village or socialist property of the modern age?
(4) Do Rights require ethical and economic limits along with common and household property (Natural Law)?
(5) Does Liberalism require Socialism to protect individual equality, freedom, and dignity and without Socialism there are no Rights to life and liberty?
(6) Are capitalism and democracy, market economy and moral economy, and liberalism and natural rights all incompatible social and ethical systems?
(7) With the creation of the second state of nature are natural laws and natural rights eliminated from liberalism? (8) What does it mean to no longer have the ability to make moral and ethical decisions about the nature of modern society? (9) Does the separation between morality (natural law) and society (market economy) established by Locke help feed into the idea of nominalism, objectivity, and neutrality in the science of both empiricism (Locke and Hume) and rationalism (Descartes and Popper)?
The Aristotelian Renaissance in 19th-Century European Social Theory: Creation of Aristötle: The tradition of Natural Law and the Ancients has been forgotten and lost in Locke's theory of the state of nature and civil society. The impact of the renewed interest in Aristotelian scholarship in the 17th century would have to wait until the nineteenth-century and its criticisms of liberalism and possessive individualism in order to revive the values of a natural community, moral economy, and social justice. Classical social theory, as we will see, represents a return to Aristotle and Natural Law as it rejects much of the social system and cultural lifeworld of Modernity in its views of Rationalization (Weber), Repression (Freud), Alienation (Marx), Anomie and (Durkheim), Nothingness (Schopenhauer), Nihilism and Decadence (Nietzsche and Weber), Dehumanization (Marx), Disenchantment (Weber), and Dereglement (Durkheim) -- RRAANNDDDD.
Overview of the History of Classical Liberalism: John Locke is one of the most interesting and provocative authors in the Western tradition as a key founder of classical liberalism and modern democracy. He is a central defender of individual equality, freedom, and self-determination ("majority rule" and "the consent of the governed"), along with the natural rights to life, liberty, health, and possessions. If he only left his writings at that point, he would be renowned as a key defender of human freedom and rights. However, he is also inconsistent, incoherent, and contradictory in his writings which only makes him more interesting with his defense of a market morality, possessive individualism, and private property. Thus within his works there are two distinct traditions of liberalism: One tied to the ancients, medieval scholasticism, moral economy, human needs, and natural law and the other tied to a self-centered egoism, destruction of the community, unlimited property acquisition, and class inequality. The history of Western thought and liberal institutions will be defined by which path society takes in its definition and evolution of liberalism and democracy: classical economic theory of David Ricardo, Adam Smith, and Thomas Malthus, conservative political theory of Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville, and classical socialism of John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx. Elements of liberalism, capitalism, and socialism reside in this work which only confirms its central importance in Western thought. Liberalism has evolved over time: (1) The classical liberalism of Locke was originally grounded in God, creation, metaphysics, ethics, moral economy, and natural law; (2) as Locke's thought developed, he changed the natural rights to individual liberty and freedom to reflect the primacy of private property and a market economy; (3) add to classical liberalism a mixture of utilitarian moral philosophy with its stress on happiness, pleasure, money, egoism, and materialism (Jeremy Bentham and James Mill); (4) John Stuart Mill articulated the most developed form of classical liberalism highly influenced by the philosophical anthropology of classical Greece, George Grote, and Wilhelm von Humboldt which towards the end of his life forced him to reevaluate his understanding of the nature of democracy from the institutions of classical liberalism to democratic socialism; (5) liberalism continued to evolve in the writings of G. Mosca, V. Pareto, R. Michels, and A. Schumpeter with their ideas of the "circulation of elites" and democratic authoritarianism; and, finally, (6) liberalism in the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries changed into neoliberalism (1938) and libertarianism (Ludwig von Mises, F. A. von Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Milton Friedman) with their emphasis on economic laissez-faire doctrine of free choice, judgment, and political autonomy, free markets, limited government, deregulation, voluntary associations, and individual meritocracy. The different forms of liberalism throughout history have had one strong element in common -- they defined individual freedom and accomplishments within the economics of a market economy which severely limited their understanding of the nature and range of human rights, freedom, equality, and liberty. They failed to take into consideration the structural and ethical limits of these concepts produced by liberalism itself. That is, they were not aware of or did not speak about the repression of traditional politics and the social ideals of natural law, natural rights, and democracy (Freud, Weber, Horkheimer, and Lasch) or the strong emphasis on individual freedom defined in terms of advertisement, market freedoms, materialism, and consumerism (C. B. Macpherson, The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy and Possessive Individualism, C. Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism, and Paul Verhaeghe, What about Me?: The Struggle for Identity in a Market-Based Society). Political democracy has been replaced by consumer democracy of the marketplace, just as social ethics and social justice have been replaced by market rationality, efficiency, and productivity. Economics had displaced and repressed traditional politics in this contemporary version of "Happy Fascism." Economics and the market are not broad enough moral or institutional categories to permit the full development of human potentiality, substantive reason, and democracy. The proponents of neoliberalism have never adequately responded to this last issue since market rationality and economic justice are taken for granted as forms of false consciousness and ideology. What is interesting is to compare modern liberalism with the other influential traditions in Western thought. Why is it that the values and institutions of liberalism -- market economy and representative democracy -- seem incompatible and contradictory to other crucial Western traditions, including (1) the covenant and righteousness of the Ancient Hebrews, (2) moral economy and democratic polity of Classical Greece, (3) neo-Aristotelian political economy of Medieval Christianity, (4) moral economy of Richard Hooker and early Locke, and (5) democratic socialism of modern Christianity (Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis). This introductory course began with a reading of an historical novel from the nineteenth century and then moved to an analysis of natural rights and natural law in Locke's seventeenth-century theory of government. However, in reality, Locke's Second State of Nature is Coketown and its accompanying "hard times" found in Dickens' novel.
Political Thought Experiment: Hooker or Hobbes?: Finally, it is interesting to note that the heart of contemporary debates about the ideals and institutions of advanced industrial society has its philosophical roots in Locke's 17th-century distinctions between the Original State of Nature and the Second State of Nature, a moral economy and a market economy, and communalism or early modern socialism and early market capitalism. In class the example is used of Stephen Hawking's prediction that the human race has only 100 years time in which to find an alternative planet in another solar system to colonize because the ecological system on earth is no longer inhabitable in the long run because of epidemics, asteroid strikes, climate change, environmental problems, etc. The question for the students is the following: If a spaceship could be built to carry a large enough group of human beings for generations to another inhabitable solar and planetary system, what type of political and economic society would they create? Would it be closer to the ideals of the ancient Greek and medieval Christian societies (Aristotle, Aquinas, and Richard Hooker -- Original State of Nature) or closer to Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Second State of Nature (William Golding, Lord of the Flies). How do these questions relate to the future of American society? If you were on that spaceship what type of society would you want to create?

4. John Stuart Mill On Liberty (1859), chapters 1-3, pp. 1-28 and 67-90
Classical Liberalism, Virtue, Public Discourse, and Social Democracy
History of Liberal Democracy: Early Liberalism and Protective, Classical, Elitist, and Economic Democracy: Mill begins his work with a history and defense of individual liberty, constitutional government, and critique of absolute political power. Trace the development of the idea of democracy from Locke and Rousseau, Bentham and James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Joseph Schumpeter, and Karl Marx, respectively. Central to this historical analysis is the divide between property and equality, liberty and freedom. This split between economics and democracy has its origins in Aristotle's theory of the democratic polity and frames the discussion of democracy from its modern beginnings. Liberty for Locke meant individual and possessive freedom of action to dispose of one's person and private possessions without harm to others (at least until the second state of nature); freedom for Mill refers to discursive reason, epistemological agnosticism (no ethical or political truths), freedom of public opinions, political diversity, power over one's words in public discourse, pluralism, self-development and fullness of life defined as happiness, virtue (intellectual and moral virtue), beauty, nobility, respect for others as noble and beautiful, wisdom, democracy, and character development, constitutional governments, and will of the people, so long as it does not harm others (67-68). According to Locke, this view of Freedom is ensured by Natural Law in the original state of nature and Market Rationality in the second state of nature, whereas for Mill it is ensured by economic democracy, relative economic equality (115), collective ownership of capital (133), workers' associations (129), socialism (361), and political participation (Principles of Political Economy, Bks. IV and V). According to Locke, rights and liberties refer mainly to economics, property, and possessions, especially in the second state of nature. However, Mill refers to rights and liberties when referencing political rights, democracy, popular sovereignty, constitutional governments, and the limits to political power.
History of Liberalism: Summarize Macpherson's argument in The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy with its analysis of the evolution of democracy: (1) Early Liberalism of Locke, Rousseau, Jefferson, and Madison; (2) Protective or Utilitarian (Jeremy Bentham and James Mill); (3) Developmental or Moral (John Stuart Mill and John Dewey); (4) Equilibrium or Pluralist/Market Elitist (Joseph Schumpeter, Paul Lazarsfeld, and Robert Dahl); and (5) Participatory or Workers' Control Democracy (Mill and Marx). Examine the evolution of Liberalism from an emphasis on Rights, Property, and the Economy (Locke) to Liberalism, Democracy, Discourse, and the Polity (Mill). Trace the evolution of liberalism from an economic definition of man in terms of economic rights, labor, and property (Locke) to a higher definition of man in the form intellectual and moral virtue, self-realization, human potentiality, and a return to Aristotle (Mill). The first lecture compares the various stages of liberalism. This lecture frames the later discussion of J. S. Mill by placing him in the broad theoretical and philosophical context of modern liberalism with its distinctively different views of humanity, its ultimate goals and purposes, its differing views of liberty, freedom, and happiness, and ultimately its different views on the nature of the polity and human existence.
Structures and Principles of Liberty in Classical Liberalism: Civic Virtue, Moral Individual, and Political Freedom: Overview of Mill's Political Theory and Theory of Natural Law: (1) History of institutional and structural liberty in chapt. 1; (2) principles of liberty and constitutional government in chapter 1 and the issue of epistemology, knowledge, agnosticism, and moral and political ideas and policy in democracy in chapter 2; and (3) political freedom, human nature, and self-realization in chapt. 3. Justification of democracy is based on the principles of formal rationality and the dilemma of epistemology in chapter 2 -- theory of opinions, agnosticism (critique of Platonic and universal forms), and moral/political relativity and the substantive rationality of human capacities and self-realization in chapter 3. Since there is no objective or universal truth in political discourse or no universal forms -- there are only private and public opinions -- the structures of democracy must be protected as the only foundation for truth or majority consensus. Truth has moved from epistemology to democracy. Platonic forms have been replaced by existential opinions within the structures of democracy. It is only in the latter form of government that human potentiality can be realized. Although Mill appears to argue for an epistemological/political agnosticism or existential relativism in the public sphere, he does ground his political theory in (1) the institutions of democracy, (2) natural law of "do no harm to others" (67-68) and (3) a belief in human nature expressed as self-realization and self-development (69-82). All opinions must be respected within a political democracy with some restrictions (67-68), including the respect for minority opinions. The majority must not impose itself on dissenting opinions, must respect the other, and must not lead to a "tyranny of the majority" (collective mediocrity, aristocracy, monarchy, bourgeois, and utilitarians). Locke developed his theory of natural rights and liberalism, as we have seen above, by first grounding them in the ancient and medieval natural law theory and then in the market economy and capitalism. Mill, on the other hand develops his theory of liberalism with an emphasis on political tolerance, diversity, pluralism, and democracy. What is interesting is that Locke had difficulty combining natural law and natural rights, moral community and property rights, whereas Mill had similar problems with his juxtapositioning of liberalism and democracy, a market economy with political freedom and discursive rationality. It is very interesting and revealing that in the end, liberalism and economic/property rights were viewed as incompatible and contradictory to the moral community and natural law by Locke and political democracy and individual freedom by Mill.
I. Mill and the Structures of Liberty: Rise of classical liberalism through expanding political liberties, instituting constitutional reform through political checks and balances, forming responsible and representative governments with leaders who are responsible, revocable, and trustful to the people, creating popular parties and a nation which respects rights and liberties, insuring individual rights, elections, popular party, protection of the community, popular sovereignty, will of the people, and history of the limitations of political power (pp. 3-7).
II. Mill and the Principles of Liberty: Individual liberty of conscience, taste, and expression (12-14, 16-17, and 67-68); freedom of opinion through political diversity, pluralism, tolerance, moderation, and personal freedom and self-development; happiness and virtue; theory of democracy and political discourse: political and moral agnosticism, concern for the common good, education, public rationality, and self-government (21-23, 24-28, 52-53 and 76-77); no harm to others and limits to pluralism and open dialogue (67-68); self-realization and individual freedom: neoclassicism, spiritual self-development, cultivation of one's higher nature, fullness of life, virtue, beauty, wisdom, moral courage, strength of character, nobility, benevolence, freedom, prudence, and practical wisdom (phronesis) in public discourse (69-70, 76-77, 81-82, 92, and 96); defense of tolerance and moderation (83 and 95); and rejection of collective mediocrity, tyranny of the majority, and despotism of custom (7-12, 80-81, 85-86, and 90). Distinguish between Mill's theory of individual liberty and political freedom -- liberty and freedom -- and among epistemological agnosticism (public opinion), open democracy (21-25), and political pluralism (21). Mill's theory of democracy is grounded in both epistemology and human nature: In Chapter 2 he defends liberal democracy based on epistemology, pluralism, and the need for tolerance, moderation, dialogue, and no harm to others. Discuss the limitations on public free speech in a democratic society and the applicability of the notion of "do no harm to others" (67-68). Examine the differences among the concepts of free speech, hate speech, and violent speech.
III. Mill and the Principles of Freedom: In Chapter 3 Mill defends democracy based on his theory of human nature in terms of the neo-classicism of Wilhelm von Humboldt, spiritual self-realization, freedom, fullness of life, nobility and beauty of human potentiality, and the self-development of a virtuous life. Just as Locke turned to medieval scholasticism for his inspiration on natural law in the original state of nature through the writings of Hooker, Mill turns to classical Greece though the works of von Humboldt for his understanding of humanity. Thus the Ancients formed the bedrock of Locke's original state of nature and also Mill's theory of liberalism and democracy; later Locke repudiated Hooker and medieval natural law in the second state of nature, while Mill radicalized the Greeks in a secular or nontheistic natural law theory based on reason and nature in his later writings. In chapt. 1, Mill continues Locke's focus on liberty and power of an individual over their own bodies, minds, and actions as long as it does no harm to others (13 and 16-17). Liberty is the personal sovereignty of an individual over their own lives. Mill will expand this view into the relationship between the individual and politics with his view of freedom in chapt. 3. Although Mill argues clearly for an epistemological agnosticism -- a polity of individual and political opinions that are adjudicated in the public sphere through discursive reason and community dialogue -- he does clearly articular universal and structural values for citizens that limit individual liberty: his theory of humanity and self-development, democracy, ethical theory of no harm to others, theory of public virtue and happiness as mental, moral, and spiritual development in the polity, and the structures of liberty, freedom, and democracy. These political, ethical, and moral principles (Freedom) and the institutions of democracy (Liberty) -- secularized natural law principles -- constrain, protect, and nurture the articulation of public opinions in a democracy.
Between the Ancients and the Moderns, Between Democracy and Liberalism: Just as Locke was caught between the Ancients and the Moderns with the tensions between Natural Law and Natural Rights, Mill, too, was faced with the apparent contradictions between Antiquity and Modernity: democracy and liberalism, political freedom and individual liberty, participation and property, universal suffrage and limited suffrage, popular sovereignty (3-7) and the tyranny of the majority (7-12), strength of character and collective mediocrity/tyranny of opinion/despotism of custom (80-81 and 85-86), democratic liberalism and liberal elitism, majority rule and plural voting, intellectual and moral virtue and pleasure, and discursive and deliberative rationality (21 and 24-25) and utilitarianism/materialism. Parallel to Locke's dilemma of natural rights, law, and economic liberalism, Mill also shared a similar problem as he was caught between liberal democracy and socialist democracy as he expanded his particular theory of secular natural law -- principles of liberty and freedom (democratic pluralism and diversity) and principles of humanity (happiness, virtue, and self-realization). Locke chose to favor the right to property and an unbridled market economy, whereas Mill sided with law, humanism, and economic democracy. Just as Locke dropped Natural Law in favor of Natural Rights, market economy, property, and capital, Mill facing a same dilemma dropped the primacy of a narrow or limited theory of natural rights and private or capital property in favor of a secular Natural Law of human dignity, self-determination, equality, and freedom, and democratic socialism in both politics and the workplace. These contradictions were the central tenants of Benjamin Constant, Alex de Tocqueville, and other early nineteenth-century liberals who sided with modern liberalism against ancient democracy and were suspicious of majority rule, the size of government, and potential political tyranny of the people. Whatever the contradictions in Mill's political theory, his ideal was representative government and political democracy which in his later life evolved into economic democracy and workers' control. Mill's creative genius was expressed in his own political evolution from liberalism and democracy to socialism. Locke and Mill were faced with similar dilemmas as they were pulled in different historical and philosophical directions -- Locke turned to liberalism and Mill turned to democracy and socialism which gave voice to a broader and more comprehensive view of individual freedom and self-determination. According to Locke, it is "money" which mediates between Natural Law and Natural Rights to the loss of the former, while for Mill it is "education" (89-90) that mediates between democracy and liberalism to the transcendence of the latter. Like other 19th-century social theorists, such as Marx and Nietzsche, Mill read George Grote's path-breaking work on classical Greece and ancient democracy, The History of Greece (1846-1856). According to the interpretation of Locke in this course, liberalism and the market economy destroyed natural law, common property, natural rights, and a moral or social economy, whereas for Mill, liberalism to be fully realized must turned into some form of socialism.
Incoherence and Indifference of Liberalism: Mill's Theory of Economic Democracy, Moral Economy, and Socialism: Mill's theory of social democracy, political economy, and socialism: theory of moral economy and human needs, economic redistribution, profit sharing, workers' cooperatives, equality of property and worker ownership of production, and social justice in the Principles of Political Economy (Books 4 and 5, pp. 115, 133, and 360-361); and implications of Mill's political and economic theory for understanding the relationships among capitalism, democracy, and socialism. Mill questions the logical and structural inconsistency and incompatibility of capitalism and Western democracy: liberty and equality, individual and community, market and political assembly, and natural rights and natural law. This contradiction between politics and economics within liberalism forces him to turn to democratic socialism. According to Mill, only in a socialist society could one protect the values of individual freedom, self-realization, political pluralism, and democratic participation, whereas, according to Locke, it was only in a competitive market economy freed from the restraints of natural law that these values could be realized. The ethical and political ideals of classical liberalism articulated by him in On Liberty are undermined by the institutions and norms of a capitalist economy. Political ideals are incompatible with their own institutions and structures, thus calling for a new type of social system outlined in the Principles of Political Economy (1848 and 1871). Mill expands upon the incoherence and contradictions of liberalism found in Locke's The Second Treatise of Government (1690). Liberalism cannot defend or justify itself philosophically: Without the natural law and the rule of right reason of Hooker and Aristotle to ground Locke's theory of natural rights; without political and economic equality to validate Mill's theory of pluralism, diversity, and classical democracy; and without a commitment to communal responsibility, the common good, human needs, and egalitarianism, liberalism remains an incoherent and indifferent social theory. Liberalism, with its defense of individual rights, life and self-preservation, liberty and action, and freedom and diversity of ideas and opinions, requires some form of economic democracy and worker control over labor and production to make it real. To split liberalism into a fragmented political and economic system is to undermine the possibilities of a moral economy and true individual freedom. Political liberties cannot be sustained in an authoritarian and class economy for either Locke (original state of nature) or Mill (theory of self-development and self-realization in democracy) -- or, for that matter, individual freedom and democracy cannot be sustained by a market economy (Aristotle). According to Mill, democracy and capitalism are contradictory social systems, and the contradictions are irresolvable. Capitalism is based on natural rights, private property, inequality, market competition, class conflict, and the dissolution of natural law in Locke's second state of nature (Locke, para. 50) -- all of which is antithetical to the principles and structures of pluralism, diversity, tolerance, political and economic equality, political freedom, and democracy (Mill). The debate within Locke is between natural law and natural rights, while, within Mill, it is between political liberalism and economic liberalism, democracy and market economy, political rights and democracy and economic rights and market freedom, self-realization and self-accumulation, and between human potentiality of nobility, virtue, wisdom, and beauty and class ownership of private property. The institutions (chapters 1 and 2 of On Liberty) and the values and ethics of liberalism (chapter 3: happiness, virtue, self-realization, and democracy) are incompatible with the structures and values of liberalism. In the end, politics is ultimately about the potentiality of human beings -- how one defines humanity, its goals and ideals, its hopes and its future? Does one define the individual as a collection of egoistic wants and private physical desires to be realized in market competition and property accumulation or is humanity to be viewed in terms of its highest aspiration for goodness, wisdom, and virtue based on equality, freedom, and democracy? The debate between liberalism and socialism, democracy and authoritarianism hinges on the answers to these questions.
Democracy and Socialism: Liberty, Democracy, Human Self-Development, and Political Economy: The final lecture on Mill's On Liberty will begin with a summary of Mill's argument on Classical Liberalism found in the first three chapters: Chapter 1, On the Nature of Liberty: liberty of conscience, thought, feelings, opinions, sentiment, planning of life, individual action, and free association; Chapter 2, On the Nature of Democracy: diversity of opinion, pluralism, will of the people, popular sovereignty, representative government, tolerance, moderation, limits and responsibility of power and government, discursive rationality, public deliberation, discourse, and epistemological agnosticism; Chapter 3, On the Nature of Human Self-Development and Freedom: self-determination, self-realization, moral and intellectual virtue, happiness, strength of character, freedom, fulness of life, wisdom and prudence, moderation and courage, nobility and beauty, and spiritual development and the higher capacities of character (69, 76, and 81-82). Question: (1) Discuss Mill's theory of human virtue, happiness, and strength of character in relation to Locke's state of nature thesis. Would Mill's theory of self-realization be most compatible with the original state of nature or with the second state of nature; (2) does a liberalism which is grounded in social ethics and natural law (equality, freedom, liberty, tolerance, and democracy) inevitably evolve into some form of socialism; and (3) what are the possible relationships between liberalism and socialism? In Locke's second state of nature, the natural law of metaphysics, ethics, economics, and property is dropped in favor of the rationality of a market economy. Natural law is replaced by a Market Economy. However, without natural law, the ideals of liberalism expressed in individual rights, liberties, and freedom would be impossible to realize. Rights require universal, innate, God-given gifts based on a foundation of universal property and health. In a market economy rights become rewards, merits, opportunities, and profits which cannot provide the material foundations for life and liberty for all. So, too, with Mill's theory of humanity, democracy, and tolerance. These ideals and values cannot be realized in a capitalist society and require some form of democratic socialism. Liberal ideals of freedom, equality, and the self- realization of human potential require a social system quite different from that of a market economy based on industrial production and capitalist class structure. These are serious issues in both Locke and Mill. They took different paths to deal with these problems. Mill's analysis of Liberalism and Democracy in the form of its political institutions (chapter 1), theory of knowledge, agnosticism, and diversity and pluralism of opinions (chapter 2), and theory of human nature, happiness, self-realization, virtue, and political wisdom will lead him to recognize the incompatibility of Classical Liberalism (representative government and democratic republic) and Industrial Capitalism. Mill moves toward a critical theory of Socialism toward the end of his life in The Principles of Political Economy as a result of the ideals of liberalism being measured against the historical and social reality of capitalism. For more on the relationship between Marx's and MIll's socialism, see the following works: Helen McCabe, John Stuart Mill, Socialist (McGill-Queen's: March 2021)); Gregory Claeys, "Mill and Marx on Inequality", in a Nineteenth-Century Prose special issue on Mill (vol. 47.1, Spring 2020); and Joseph Persky, The Political Economy of Progress: John Stuart Mill and Modern Radicalism (Oxford University Press, 2016). Marx will also move to socialism by integrating a variety of intellectual and philosophical traditions in his critical social theory, including: (1) the moral dignity of human creativity, self-determination, and productive consciousness and activity in the thought of German Idealism, (2) the defense of the moral community and democracy in Greek philosophy, (3) the nobility and beauty of humanity in poetic German Romanticism, (4) the divinity of humanity and critique of idolatry in the Hebrew bible, (5) and the critique of capitalism and the potential for political and economic democracy in French Socialism. Compare the ideals of classical liberalism, representative and self-government of the people, and self-realization and freedom with the structures of the collective ownership of property, workers' control, and economic democracy (socialism). When the ideals of liberalism are reformulated by Mill beyond natural rights, property, utilitarianism, and market freedoms to include the fullest development of humanity in terms of human spirituality, self-realization, beauty, nobility, and reason (69 and 76), Mill seemed forced to go beyond liberalism and capitalism to a new social system based on economic democracy, equality, and freedom. He was forced to move beyond crude materialism, possessive individualism, utilitarianism, simple material happiness and pleasure, and market and monetary choices.
Democratic Socialism: Democracy and Freedom Beyond Classical Liberalism: Finally, in the chapter "On the Structures of Political Economy" in the Principles of Political Economy (1871), Mill introduces the institutional changes necessary to realize equality, individual freedom, and democracy in his ideal society: profit sharing, worker cooperatives and associations, sharing between classes, egalitarianism and equality of property, worker ownership of private property, socialization of capital and production, economic democracy, and socialism (Principles of Political Economy: 111, 115, 129, 131, 133, 160, and 360-361). These are forms of Natural Law that both inhibit political and economic abuse and oppression, as well as enhance human potentiality and political/economic participation: Secular Natural Law as human capacities and potentialities, freedom, and democracy. Thus, according to Mill, the acceptance of the values and institutions of Classical Liberalism with its views of liberty, democracy, and human self-development (Utilitarianism: 14, 19, and 22-23 and On Liberty: 21, 24-25, 69, 76, 81-82, 83, and 95) ethically necessitates and structurally requires democratic socialism and radical egalitarianism for its implementation and realization. In the tradition of Rousseau, Mill recognizes that a system of political equality demands economic equality. Earlier Mill was critical of the tyranny of the majority (distorted democracy) in his desire to protect individual and minority opinions: in his later writings, it is the class tyranny of the minority that occupies his attention. Discuss these issues. As Mill develops his ideas in his later writings, he is moving to two main conclusions -- (1) Democracy and Capitalism are incapable social institutions and (2) Without Socialism, the liberal values of Liberty, Democracy, and Individuality are meaningless and unrealizable. Trace the evolution of Mill's theory of democracy from his theory of Human Development (nobility, beauty, honor, and superior qualities) and theory of Political Democracy (constitutional government, freedom, discursive reason, tolerance, and diversity of opinions) to his later theory of Economic Democracy (worker's control, socialization of production, and end to private property).
Compare Locke and Mill on the Foundations of Liberalism: Rights and Democracy: Compare Locke and Mill on liberalism and socialism: In the original state of nature, Locke emphasizes the rights of life and liberty, whereas in the second state of nature he stresses the right to private property. Just as Locke had unintentionally revealed how rights initially required socialism (common property, moral economy, and natural law), Mill, in turn, showed that democracy, with its emphasis on tolerance, civic participation, and discursive rationality, is also only compatible with socialism (Principles of Political Economy). Wealth inequality, disproportionate power, and class divisions are antithetical to individual equality, freedom, liberty, and democracy. Rights and Democracy require some form of political and economic socialism that does not undermine political freedoms, citizenship, and public participation.
Contradictions between Liberalism and Natural Law (Locke) and Liberalism and Democracy (Mill): For Mill, democracy in both the political and economic realms is necessary in order to maintain equality and freedom of public thought and pluralistic expression; Marx, on the other hand, emphasizes the role of economic democracy in tearing down industrial production in favor of craft production. Democracy is necessary in the workplace in order to overcome alienation and for producing an environment of creativity and freedom in work. Locke's has two distinct and contradictory theories of natural rights -- one based on God, love, compassion, and natural law and the other based on the market, competition, class inequality, and private property. Mill has two related theories of democracy -- one which emphasizes the politics of pluralism, diversity of opinions, and human dignity (secular natural law theory) and nobility and the other emphasizes political economy and the need for worker control, end to class divisions, and economic democracy (democratic socialism). Question for discussion: With the evolution of the social and political theories of Locke and Mill discuss the implications of the following: Locke seems to take the position as he develops from the original state of nature to the second state of nature that Liberalism is contradictory to the natural law of compassion, love, community, and justice, that is, it is incompatible with the ethical principles and social ideals of ancient Greece and medieval Christianity. Mill, on the other hand, as he develops his ideas in his later writings on political economy, seems to settle on the position that Liberalism, Utilitarianism, and Class Production are contradictory to Liberty (Chapter 3), that is, the former are contradictory to both political and economic democracy, as well as to the secular natural law of happiness, virtue, discursive reason, wisdom, beauty, self-realization, and the inner nobility of human beings. These debates between natural law and natural rights in Locke and political and economic democracy in Mill in the 17th to the 19th centuries will frame the later discussions in the 19th and 20th centuries between capitalism and socialism. From another perspective, both Locke and Mill recognized the social antagonisms and contradictions within liberalism: Locke saw them in terms of the conflicts between natural law, egalitarianism, freedom, and a moral economy on one side and unfettered property rights and a market economy (capitalism) on the other (paras. 4, 5, and 15 vs. para. 50), whereas Mill saw them in terms of the dualism between liberal utilitarianism and capitalism on one side and economic democracy, ethics, and a virtuous life of self-realization on the other. For both theorists, capitalism contradicted the underlying premises of modern natural law and a moral economy (socialism). Mill eventually moved toward the end of his life to a belief that political freedom, equality, diversity of opinions, and democracy necessitated economic equality, freedom, and democracy, that is, the ideals of political democracy (liberalism) required the institutions of economic democracy (socialism) to survive.
Reconfirming and Reestablishing Natural Law in Western Thought: Natural Rights Reintegrated with a Secular Natural Law in Mill and Marx: What is very interesting is that Locke and Mill sided with the opposite poles of the structural contradictions in the social reality and political theory of LIBERALISM -- Locke sided with unfettered capitalism and the natural right to property no longer grounded in the community and natural law and Mill sided with political and economic democracy. The supreme irony of intellectual history is that the goals of liberalism as articulated by Locke -- freedom, equality, and individual rights -- only flourish within natural law and the community (original state of nature), but are diminished and lost within capitalism and a market economy (second state of nature). A further interesting point is that both Mill and Marx will return to a secular natural law as the foundation of individual freedom and natural rights: Mill's theory of political liberties and rights restrained by "doing no harm to others" (13 and 16-17) and his view of human nature as nobility, beauty, and self-realization in democratic socialism and Marx's theory of species being, beauty, creative self-determination, and communal democracy. Both return to the ancient Greek view of Natural Law -- Ethics, Moral Economy, and Democracy -- for political insight and classical inspiration in order to escape the isolation, loneliness, and class oppression of Hobbesian natural rights and possessive individualism in capitalist society. Mill and Marx continued to develop the emancipatory potential and communal implications of natural law found in Locke's original state of nature in their political and economic theories. They both combined Aristotle's theory of natural law in his Ethics and Politics (virtue, moral economy, and democracy) into their individual analyses of an historical "human nature," political economy, and democratic socialism. The later followers of Locke's second state of nature, with its abandonment of the limitations of social ethics and natural law because of the invention of money, commerce, and banking (spoilage limit), economic efficiency and commercial/industrial productivity (sufficiency limit), and a market economy and wage labor (labor limit), became embedded in a loss of equality and freedom, diminution of natural rights, reduction of rights to property ownership (para. 124-125 and 138), the subsequent loss of the primacy of life, liberty, and health which are now defined as forms of property, Hobbesian class warfare (para. 50), neo-Platonic autocratic rule of the "philosopher king," market rationality and infallibility (neo-classical economics), primary role of civil society and government now viewed as the defense of private property, and the moral wilderness, individual isolation, and metaphysical purposelessness of a world characterized by existentialism.
In the end, to be truly human, noble, and beautiful, for both Mill and Marx, means that each individual must engage in self-government, political dialogue, and discursive reasoning in the form of political and economic democracy. For more on their common traditions, critique of capitalism, and shared views of socialism and democracy, see Stefan Collini, "High Mind: John Stuart Mill", in his collection of essays English Pasts: Essays in History and Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 119-143. Collini states: "Mill is sometimes singled out as a quintessentially English thinker. In its crudest form this judgement is made up of equal parts of ignorance and prejudice, often laced with a dash of hostility. In fact, he was the least parochial of writers, and, with due allowance for the simplification inherent in such epitomes, one could as well say of him what Engels said of Marx, that the development of his thought combined English political economy, French Socialism, and (via Carlyle and Coleridge) German philosophy, as well as many other things" (p. 143). Also Gregory Claeys, "Mill and Marx on Inequality," Nineteenth-Century Prose, vol. 47, no. 1 (Spring 2020), pp. 235-258. Claeys writes: "Both Mill and Marx sought a society where just wages, relative affluence, sufficient time and education, and political control were available to all members of society. Both sought to abolish capitalism, in the sense of the private ownership and control of the means of production" (p. 254). For further reading, see Joseph Persky, The Political Economy of Progress: John Stuart Mill and Modern Radicalism (Oxford University Press, 2016), which treats both Marx and Mill as radical, socialist, and classical political economists and Helen McCabe, John Stuart Mill: Socialist (Montreal, Ca: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2021). In On Liberty Mill refers to a variety of classical horizons and traditions in order to locate his philosophical origins and theoretical framework, including Pericles and Athenian democracy, John Knox and the self-government of Geneva, von Humboldt, classical humanism, and the limits of state power, Aristotle's theory of virtue, moderation, tolerance, self-development, and nobility, and aesthetic romanticism with its emphasis on creativity, imagination, and beauty. Locke began his political theory with Christianity, natural law, the moral economy, and common property, but ends with the market economy, money, private property, and class inequality; the market economy replaced natural law and universal natural rights. Mill begins with the history of liberalism, political rights, and the democratic republic, but ends with economic democracy, self-government of the people, the common ownership of industry and property, and democratic socialism. Mill begins where Locke ended in the Second State of Nature with the rise of a liberal economy and ends where Marx began with classical humanism and democratic socialism.

Summary: Dickens began his novel with the values of Coketown in utilitarianism, positivism, the Industrial Revolution, and capitalism and ended his work with the devastation and gradual grinding and choking of the educational system, the destruction of the Gradgrind family, the pain and suffering of the father, the imprisonment of his son Tom Jr., the divorce and misery of his daughter Louisa, and the loss of the values, love, and community of the Circus. Locke began his work on the First State of Nature with a discussion of Natural Law as the foundation for Natural Rights and ended in his Second State of Nature with the elimination of Natural Law and a defense of market capitalism, unlimited private property accumulation, and a class system. And Mill began his work On Liberty with an historical overview of the evolution of liberal and representative government with an institutional analysis of discursive reason, public participation, limits to power (elections and recall), moderation, and pluralism, and the rise of a new form of individualism grounded in happiness, reason, tolerance, nobility, human dignity, and beauty. But at the end of his life in The Principles of Political Economy (1871), he radicalized his initial ideals and values of politics in Liberty (1859) and expanded his notions of political participation, self-realization, human potentiality, and human beauty and nobility to include the economic institutions of worker cooperatives and worker control, profit sharing, dismantling of the capitalist class structure, and economic democracy of socialism. What is the dialectical relationship between natural law (ethics) and natural rights (political and economic liberties) and do how they interact, reinforce, and support each other? In what way does political participation in both Politics (government) and Economics (industry and production) enable and nurture the dignity, beauty, nobility, community, and rationality of humanity? True democracy encompasses all the important decisions that express and influence individual life and the central ethical, political, and participatory values in both Politics and Economics. Democracy is a form of social system in which individuals express their moral and political identities, ideals, and individualities as human beings; their ethics and spirits as beautiful souls; their self-determination, human potential, and self-creativity in political and economic human activity; and their human and material needs in a political process of voting, debating, organizing the workplace, distribution of resources and surplus, and power relationships in politics, industry, and commerce.

Eight profound and central questions arise from reading Locke and Mill and their foundational works on natural rights and liberties (Locke) and representative government and liberal democracy (Mill):
(1) What happens to the political and ethical values of equality, freedom, and community of Natural Law when the latter disappears in the Second State of Nature (Locke) or when democracy is not expanded to include economics, worker ownership of private property, and wealth re-distribution (Mill)?
(2) In the end, are the ethical ideals of Natural Law (Locke) and Liberal Democracy (Mill) incompatible with capitalism that undermines equality and freedom, the moral community and democratic participation?
(3) Is it possible to have the Natural Rights to equality and freedom without Natural Law and a moral economy (Locke's Second State of Nature) or without worker control and worker cooperatives (Mill)?
(4) Can you have a truly free society, natural rights, and moral community without Natural Law (Locke) and can you have a true democracy without socialism, that is, can you have a true democracy without both political and economic democracy (Mill)?
(5) Do natural rights require common property (Locke) and does democracy require common ownership of industry and production (Mill)?
(6) Does a society based on Natural Rights (Locke) and a society based on participatory democracy (Mill) require a non-capitalist and non-private property economy? Is capitalism disruptive of a moral community?
(7) In Locke's Second State of Nature, society is a civil contract and legal state designed to protect private property, the class system, and market economy, while in Mill's later and radical revision of liberal democracy at the end of his life the primary focus is on the ethical ideals of liberal democracy expanded beyond traditional politics to the economy in order to overcome private property, a market economy, and industrial production. Do the ideals of liberalism -- equality, freedom, nobility, beauty, dignity, and political participation -- as stated by Mill, undermine the ideals of capitalism -- self-interest, greed, utilitarianism, possessive individualism, competition, inequality, class, etc.?
(8) Finally, what are Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Democracy and are any of these social institutions and ethical values compatible with Capitalism?

Research groups that study the nature of democracy around the world have created a democracy index and have labeled the United States as a "flawed democracy." See the Economist Intelligence Unit's (EIU) annual "Democracy Index." Among the different indexes the US is generally rated between 26 and 36 among the world's nations. Contributing to these ratings of the US is the role of political super PACS, dark money, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, racial resegregation, voter suppression, growing class inequality, political gerrymandering, etc. Beyond the weaknesses of its political voting system, there are even more reasons to reconsider America's status as a "democracy. It is interesting to note that in the United States democracy only applies to the Constitution and Politics, but not to economics and ethics. An argument can be made that this is not the definition of a real democracy, but an illusion and ideology that hides the reality of the loss of economic democracy and natural law behind the logic of private property, class system, market rationality, and personal merit and accomplishments. Is this the world of Locke's Second State of Nature and Hobbes' Leviathan?
For more on these topics, see J.S. Mill, Dissertations and Discussions (London: UK: John Parker and Sons, 1859), pp. 1-83 and his Collected Works, vol. 11 for his understanding of George Grote's History of Greece and the Greek polis and ancient democracy; Moses Finley, Democracy Ancient And Modern (Rutgers University Press, 1972); and Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, p. 145 for more detailed analyses of the importance of Athenian democracy for Mill's political theory. Two final questions: Why is Mill's theory of liberal democracy considered to be the "classical definition" of the concept and why in the Anglo-American tradition are politics and economics separated when considering the nature of democracy? It will be Mill and Marx who reintegrate the concepts by returning to classical Greece and Athenian democracy. In the end, according to Mill, the values and ideals of liberalism are not realizable without the institutions and structures of socialism, that is, individual rights, liberty, freedom, self-determination, and equality are not realizable goals unless grounded in a social system of economic democracy, dismantling of the class structure of deep economic and political inequality, and ensuring the economic security and well-being of workers through their own self-government and control over production and industry.
For a more detailed and contemporary analysis of economic democracy and socialism, see the following writings:
Robert Blauner, Alienation and Freedom: The Factory Worker and His Industry Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1964)
Staughton Lynd, Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1969)
David Jenkins, Job Power: Blue and White Collar Democracy (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1973)
David Schweickart, Capitalism or Worker Control?: An Ethical and Economic Appraisal (New York, NY: Praeger Publishers, 1982)
Carol Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory (London, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1970)
Gerry Hunnius, G. David Garson, and John Case, eds., Workers' Control: A Reader on Labor and Social Change (New York, NY:
Vintage Books, 1973)
Martin Carnoy and Derek Shearer, Economic Democracy: The Challenge of the 1980s (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1980)
Finally, to appreciate the extent of economic inequality and class divisions in the United States, see the following videos on wealth distribution in the US:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM ("Wealth Inequality in America," Nov. 20, 2012) and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOI8RuhW7q0 (Robert Reich, "How Wealth Inequality Spiraled Out of Control," Nov.3, 2021)

5. Karl Marx "Alienated Labor" (1844), "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" (1859), and
"The Communist Manifesto" (1848), in Readings in Introductory Sociology, ed. by Dennis Wrong
and Harry Gracey, chapters 14 and 16, pp. 140-149 and 162-169
(Essays on Reserve in the Kenyon Library's ERES System and Course Reserve)

Alienation, Aesthetic Labor, Human Need, Moral Economy, and Social Justice
Human Needs and Moral Economy: Alienation, Art, and Human Creativity: Classical Social Theory of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim is formed by integrating political economy, social and political philosophy, and history with the voices and ideals of the Ancients (Horizontverschmelzung). Marx's theory of alienation and the forms of alienation: alienation from the product of production (163, Locke), process of production (164, Smith and Scheler), self as species being (165, Aristotle), and community and others (165, Aristotle). Marx's ideas represent an integration of Western thought: praxis and work (Hegel), creativity, human need (chreia), and justice (Aristotle), human dignity, freedom, and self-determination (Kant, Hegel, and German Idealism), beauty (Romanticism and art), and critique of idolatry and the power of human divinity (163, Ancients Hebrews). Both Marx and Locke begin their analysis of modern society with Natural Law: For Marx, it represents the ethical and social foundations of his critique of industrial work and capitalism and evolves out of his view of human nature, phenomenology, and history, while for Locke is was the ethical and economic foundations of his theory of natural rights given to humanity by God. Work is a central concern for Marx because it lies at the heart of his ethics and secular natural law: Work expresses humanity's essence and telos in its creativity, dignity, freedom, beauty, and communal being as it provides for material needs and moral life, as well as the formation of history, social institutions, and self-consciousness. Work is not the basis for market success, meritocracy, materialism, egoism, and exploitation of humanity and nature. Marx rejects the capitalist organization of work because it undermines the ethical principles of secular natural law. Marx is best understood as the modern version of Aristotle's ethics and politics. According to Aristotle, true human needs (chreia) are expressed as moral and intellectual virtues within the democratic polis, whereas for Marx in his early writings, human needs are manifested as living a virtuous life of reason, wisdom, creativity, freedom, and self-determination within the polity (On the Jewish Question) and the workplace (Alienated Labor). Marx rejects the liberalism of rights, liberty, equality, and property because it is grounded in materialism, economism, egoism, and utilitarianism. Liberalism reduces humanity to a consumer of commodities and alienated consciousness; it reduces humanity to its basest instincts and values. Liberalism does not expand our imagination or horizons, nor does it point us in the direction of higher moral and ethical principles. Humanity is reduced to fear, survival, security, and our crudest instincts of class warfare. That is why alienation is both exploitative and unfair, but also immoral and dehumanizing. Marx is thus an Historical Materialist because he focuses on the structural and institutional forms of oppression within capitalist political economy that produce alienation and dehumanization. On the other hand, he is an Historical Idealist since he rejects capitalism because of his classical Hebrew, Greek, and German ideals of social justice based upon the Ethical Principles of human need, human divinity, dignity, self-realization, self-determination, creativity, work and praxis, and artisanship and beauty. Humanity and Democracy could not survive under the negative conditions of industrial production because the ethical principles of both species being and democracy are contradictory to liberalism. In his writings Marx employs an Ethical Critique and a Structural Critique. In his later writings, he switches from an Ethical Critique of capitalism to a Structural and Historical Critique of the internal contradictions (Widersprueche) of capitalist production of surplus value. Beginning with the Communist Manifesto, Marx borrows from Ricardo's theory of the overproduction of consumer goods and the contradictions between the productive forces and social relations or social organization of production, whereas in his later works on political economy he integrates classical economic theory with Hegelian logic in his theory of the overproduction of capital and surplus value and the internal dynamic and contradictions of economic production. In his earliest writings Marx undermines and rejects the ethical and ideological foundations of liberalism in natural rights (On the Jewish Question) and in work (Alienated Labor); in his later writings he undermines its institutional and structural foundations in the production process. In articulating his vision of work, creativity, and self-determination he is responding to a general existential questions of the meaning and purpose of human life in terms of ethics (Kant and Hegel) and beauty (Schiller), Marx integrates the great Western traditions in a Critical and Hermeneutical Archaeology, that is, in a Phenomenology of Ethical Spirit (Hegel) or in a Horizontverschmelzung (Hans Gadamer). And it is from this comprehensive integration of the various Western traditions -- Ancient Hebrews, Classical Greece, New Testament Followers of the Way, Modern German Literature and Philosophy, and French Socialism that Marx creates his theory of Natural Law, moral philosophy, and the ethical critique of capitalism:

1. German Literature of Winckelmann, Schiller, Goethe, and Heine (work as aesthetic labor, art, play, beauty, and creativity)
2. German Idealism of Kant and Hegel (self-consciousness, reason, creativity, and freedom)
3. German Existentialism of Schiller, Schelling, and Feuerbach
4. British Classical Economics of Smith, Malthus, and Ricardo (liberalism, market, and capitalism)
5. Ancient Hebrew Ethics of Torah and the prophetic tradition (theory of needs, critique of idolatry, community, and humanity as the co-creators and lords of nature (bonding stewardship)
6. Ancient Greek Philosophy of Aristotle (theory of needs (164-165), self-realization, community, praxis, critique of chrematistics, and social justice).

The foundation of Marx's critique of alienation lies in his focus on human beings as creators of their own world, not only in terms of mind and reason (German idealism), but in terms of work and praxis (historical materialism). This critique makes sense when we view humanity as artists and artisans. Praxis, as production and participation, work and democracy, and the economy and politics, is the activity that defines the essence of humanity as a species-being. Human beings are universal, free beings; they are universal because they each represent the species as a political whole and because they define themselves as imaginative artisans and workers who create their community, their essence and being, and their universal ethical values and human needs in history. Also their species life is the universal and ideal by which the structures, alienation, and exploitation of predatory capitalism are morally judged. The first lecture in the Marx series (one week) examines the structural conditions of alienation from the product, process, species-being (self), others (community), and nature; the second lecture builds upon the first and traces the ethical traditions which act as foundations for the critique of alienation in German Idealism (work and creativity), divinity and critique of idolatry (Hebrews), species-being (Aristotle), human needs (Aristotle), human dignity and individual freedom (Kant), and beauty (Schiller). From another perspective, Marx's theory of alienation from the product, process, species being, and community may also be seen as a direct critique of Locke's second state of nature: In a capitalist workplace there are no civil rights to property, material well being, and life; no rights to self-determination and personal liberty; no rights to a moral economy based on natural law; and no rights of individuality based on our communal responsibilities, shared beliefs, and democracy. There are only civil rights based upon class, inequality, oppression, and private property (Locke, para. 50). Marx in his essay, On the Jewish Question, undertakes an immanent critique of natural rights based on the contradictions between the oppressive economic rights of man and possessive individualism and the positive political rights of the citizen. In the essay Alienated Labor he undertakes another critique of natural rights based on his understanding of the human rights to life, liberty, and common property based on human dignity, freedom, and a secular and historical natural law or phenomenology of spirit. It is alienation in the workplace which makes natural rights under liberalism impossible because liberal rights are contradictory to the structure and values of capitalism (alienation), the ideals of possessive individualism, egoism, and materialism (political theory), the degradation and dehumanization of the workplace, the principles of human rights and human emancipation, and the ideals of a participatory democracy. For Marx, it is the very ideals of democracy implicit in liberalism (immanent critique) which undermine the validity of its own social system which Marx then unites with the ancient traditions of a moral economy. Whether the human mind is capable of accessing "objective and subjective reality" through substantive or formal reason is open to discussion. However, Marx throughout his writings creates the phenomenology of the objective spirit through his synthesis of the Ancient horizons of the Hebrews, Hellenes, and Hellenists and the Modern traditions of political economy, socialism, idealism, materialism, romanticism, etc. This synthetic unity of a social objectivity by human consciousness or social subjectivity creates the foundations for social critique. Objective reality is a construct of the values of human self-understanding (ethics) and its objective institutions (politics). By this means he develops his own critical social theory at the same time that he provides an implicit phenomenological self-understanding of the history of Western thought with its ideals and spirit of ethics, politics, and social institutions.
Natural Law, Liberalism, and Marxism: Both Liberalism and Marxism stressed individual equality, freedom, liberty, and rights in the rise of modern industrial society. This they had in common; this is their common heritage. The difference was that Marx placed these ideals within the framework of a secular and historical natural law and ethical social system. The main difference between the two intellectual and political traditions is that Liberalism placed these ethical ideals within a market economy characterized by class, inequality, and the unlimited accumulation of private property and wealth (Locke's second state of nature), whereas Marx emphasized human dignity, human needs, ethical restraints, and social equality within a moral economy. The five types of alienated labor contradicted both the ideals of social praxis, human creativity and self-determination, and the structures of democracy in the workplace. The inverse of these forms of alienation also provide us with a picture of his theory of Needs upon which the economy and polity should be founded. In this theory, he integrates Need and Work since our fundamental human needs are based on human or aesthetic labor: (1) the need for creative work, (2) self-determination, (3) self-development, (4) community and democracy, and (5) an organic bonding with nature. In his later writings, Marx will emphasize the structural contradictions (Widersprueche) within political economy and industrial production. The economy cannot realized the ethical and political values of the polity (early writings) -- freedom, self-determination, equality, etc. -- nor can it realize the stated goals of a fair market economy, fair wages, and a just distribution in production because factory production and the market are based on wage labor and surplus value, overproduction of capital, underconsumption, unemployment, economic crises, etc. in his later writings. The sad situation of intellectual history is that Liberalism contains its own internal defects or ethical viruses (Widersprueche) that ultimately destroy its initial possibilities for realizing individual freedom. The brilliance of Locke's work is that at the end of the seventeenth century he, perhaps unconsciously, saw the end of liberalism -- the conflict between the original and second state of nature could not be sustained in theory, in history, or in everyday practice. Liberalism or the protection of individual rights and freedoms could not be sustained under capitalism. The real irony of Liberalism is that even liberalism and capitalism are contradictory social and value systems, no less than liberalism and socialism. This is Marx's major theoretical insight that should not be lost. With the loss of the broader ethical and political values of natural law in Locke, liberal individualism is further radicalized by the rise of possessive individualism and class property, loss of collective meaning and purpose in human life (Durkheim), the Protestant ethic and God's abandonment of the world (Weber), disenchanted meaning and the Enlightenment (Weber), existentialism and the loss of individual and social meaning in life, and the cultural homelessness of narcissism (Lasch). According to liberals, freedom is defined as the control and disposition over one's person and property, that is, over one's life, market decisions and actions (liberty), and accumulated private property and wealth, whereas, for Marx, freedom is defined as the creative self-determination of individuals in work, producer associations, and democracy: Compare Locke's second state of nature to Marx's view of the Paris Commune of 1871. (And, to make the discussion even more interesting, compare Locke and Marx to the ideas of New Testament socialism (primitive communalism) in Acts 2: 44-45 and Acts 4: 32-37. To make these issues even more provocative, respond to the following question: Is the Bible in Acts closer to Locke or to Marx and why? What are the implications of this connection and comparison? What does it say about the present connection between politics and religion in Western Christianity? What does it say about the role of religion in society and the very nature of Western Christianity?)
Economic Crises and Structural Contradictions of Capitalism: Alienation, Private Property, and Production: Overproduction of capital, economic stagnation, and social crises (141); theory of historical materialism: relationship between consciousness and economic base -- theory of ideology and false consciousness (141); mode of production, or structural foundations of capitalism, combine the technical productive forces and the social organization and relations of production -- contradictions of capitalism (141); revolutionizing production (143); structure of capital and logical inevitability of history (149); search for the cause of alienation in private property (profits, interest, dividends, and rent) or industrial production (168); and alienation and economic equality (168).
Liberalism and Socialism on Liberty, Equality, and Property: Locke, Mill, and Marx: As we have seen throughout the first half of the semester, a central contradiction within liberalism lies in the relationship between the ethical and political principles of equality (and liberty) and property: Locke initially joined the two principles together in the state of nature using natural law and the community as the arbiter between them; Mill joined the two by connecting them with his harm principle (do no harm to other individuals); and Marx viewed them as incompatible because liberty under Enlightenment liberalism necessarily assumed the existence of economic liberty of private property which created class inequality, poverty, and exploitation. Mill came to a similar conclusion as Marx in his Principles of Political Economy. Natural rights based on bourgeois liberty and property make Natural Law and democracy impossible. Instead of emphasizing natural rights (possessive individualism and private property) or human rights (political and human emancipation), Marx stressed the importance of Human Needs reflecting a decided return to Aristotle, Democracy, and Natural Law. Needs are expressions, not of utilitarian and market wants, desires, and pleasures, but rather, are expressions of the very essence and being of humanity as a political animal or species being -- the need for self-determination, freedom, community, beauty, and justice within the workplace. Human beings are species beings because they create the community, its values and institutions, but also because they are free and universal. That is, humanity creates its ethical, moral, and legal laws the form the basis of society both practically and theoretically in its social institutions and social consciousness. Humanity defines its own vision of the future -- its vision of morality and democracy, ethics and politics. It creates the world through its universality of Spirit and self-consciousness (Hegel), its universal moral imperative (Kant), ethical values and virtuous life (Aristotle), its culture and art (German Romanticism of Goethe and Schiller), and its work and nature at the same time that as it rejects the false consciousness of idolatry (Isaiah 44) and the political ideology of liberalism.
Also in a capitalist society humanity turns nature into an expression of its own distorted and alienated universality -- its own exploited and exploiting self. At the ideal level, humans are species beings because the community and politics are naturally part of the essence of humanity. Thus, they are political (Aristotle) and moral (Kant) beings and, therefore, share the goal of life as that of intellectual and moral virtue. It is interesting to note that the typical American consciousness surrounding these ethical issues remains restricted to the political realm. But in production and the workplace, non-alienated labor would require some form of democratic socialism (Paris Commune of 1871). That is, in order for work to be self-determined, free, and creative, it would require that the production process would have to be under the democratic control of the workers themselves. Otherwise, there would only be alienated labor. The question thus remains: If work is such an important part of the very species being and universal essence of humanity, why is democracy only applied to the political arena and not also to the economic sphere? If the workplace is where most people spend their lives, why is this also not open to democratic values and ideals? Compare and discuss the differences between Locke's theory of social justice, natural rights, and liberal democracy and Marx's view of political and emancipatory rights, human needs, and democratic socialism.
Conflict between Equality and Property in American Liberalism: Those authors who specifically argued that property was not a natural right or questioned it at times by contending it was a social convention include Hugo Grotius, the Levellers John Lilburne and Richard Overton, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Joseph Priestley, Daniel Raymond, John Stuart Mill, William Godwin, and Henry David Thoreau. (Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence drops property as an inalienable right and replaces it with the "pursuit of happiness" because of his fear that property could undermine life and liberty; property is dropped as a basic right in the contemporary liberalism of John Rawls. Ernst Block writes in Natural Law and Human Dignity (1961) that Rousseau's view of natural law, individual freedom, and General Will in The Social Contract became the "Bible of the Jacobins" and the "Sermon on the Mount of a rejuvenated people" during the French Revolution.) Not only are liberty/equality and property incompatible concepts for many social theorists, but so, too, are economic liberty of commerce, market inequalities, self-interested competition, and private property and the freedom of self-determination, political participation, and real democracy. This discussion only reinforces the contradictions within the Enlightenment between property and equality, natural rights and human rights, property rights and communal/human rights, economic rights (rights of the bourgeois) and political rights (rights of the citizen), economic freedom and moral/political freedom, natural rights and social justice, productive property and popular sovereignty, natural property as right and common property as social convention, property as labor and industry (inequality) and property as general welfare (equality), human activity as control over products and self-determination of will, and, ultimately, capitalism and democracy. For more on these issues, see MacPherson, The Theory of Possessive Individualism, pp. 208-209, 216-217, 220-221, 231, 238, 250-251, and 266-275. MacPherson argues that Locke's intentions are to ultimately justify, through a theory of natural rights in a state of nature based on God, Nature, and Reason, a commercial economy and class system of social inequality based on the unequal distribution of capital, property, wage labor, and profits. The contradictions and incoherence between the original and second state of nature in Locke's Second Treatise of Government anticipates by many years the divisions in later Anglo-American and French political theory. Also the theorists, such as Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, and others, represent a more radical and dissenting tradition within liberalism that reinforces the primacy of democracy, justice, and equality over property, economic rights, and the market. They reflect positions that go back to the values of Locke's original state of nature, and, in turn, to medieval natural law (Hooker). For more on these issues, see Staughton Lynd, Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism, pp. 67-99 and William Hogeland, Founding Finance.
Social Justice and Political Economy: Rediscovering Natural Law, Human Needs, and Aesthetic Labor in Marx: It is interesting to note that Aristotle, Rousseau, Jefferson, Marx, J. S. Mill, and a number of eighteenth-century radical Protestants argued that social ethics requires political economy -- that is, that a society based on justice, virtue, natural rights, freedom, or happiness requires the fulfillment of basic material human needs as a social and structural prerequisite. These ethical and political principles are meaningless in a society with rampant poverty, class inequality, and abuse of power; class destroys rights, freedom, and justice. Political democracy demands economic equality. On this point, Staughton Lynd refers to the thoughts of Langdon Byllesby, a Philadelphia printer and socialist best known for his work Observations on the Sources and Effects of Unequal Wealth (1826). Writing about the Declaration of Independence, Byllesby wrote, "to speak of inalienable rights of life and liberty without providing material means to sustain them would be like saying that an ox has an inalienable right to fly, or a fish to walk" (p. 89). Without providing wings or feet to these animals -- or without providing sufficient material means for human life -- these rights are useless and absurd; they are political abstractions or ideologies without meaning. Having no wings, oxen have no "right to fly" and having no material security and welfare in a class society, human beings have no "right to life or liberty." Since these rights are inalienable, they cannot be dissolved or displaced by other rights or ethical principles, such as meritocracy, effort, wealth, or class. That is, Natural Rights are without qualification: they cannot be won or lost, traded or surrendered, compromised or negotiated, bought or sold, earned or merited; nor can they be given or taken away. The right to property entails the existence of common property and Natural Law of the community from which the individual makes it private by his labor. Rights by their very nature make an ethical demand upon society that the means for their actualization also be part of the inalienable rights; the social contract is just the realization and protection of these rights. These rights by their very nature are innate and not having the means or law to accomplish these ends or rights, make the rights meaningless. Without an egalitarian society, worker rights, and communal property, there are no rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, or democracy (pp. 83-84). That is, without Natural Law, there are no Natural Rights; without Social Justice, there is no real democracy; and without a Moral Economy, there is no individual freedom or personal liberty. Natural Law provides the wings and feet to the rights of oxen and fish, just as Natural Law provides the basic material sustenance, property, and communal welfare for self-preservation, health, and material security to human beings. Natural Law within a Moral Economy makes rights socially real and institutionally relevant; without it, humans have no rights. To use terms such as "freedom," "equality," "liberty," etc. without society providing the basic means for their realization leaves the individual unprotected and vulnerable before the irrationality of a market economy and class power of private property. This is the incoherence and contradiction of Liberalism -- no Natural Law, no Natural Rights. Another humorous inconsistency of liberalism is that it is itself incompatible with Natural Rights because it reduces the latter to accomplishment, effort, hard work, or merit which are all artificial social categories that are neither innate nor inalienable. Natural Rights are moral obligations related to self-preservation, which like Natural Laws, are derived from Nature and Reason and make no sense within a market economy. Finally, there can be no real social equality and individual freedom in a class society based on private property because so many people are dispossessed of a common stock of property and Natural Law. This is obviously not the position taken by Locke but it is clear and unintended consequence of his own thinking. In the end, liberalism, possessive individualism, materialism, and capitalism are all incompatible with egalitarian and democratic socialism, but, strangely enough, also with the underlying ideals of liberalism itself in both natural law principles (Locke) and classical liberal democracy and its humanitarian ideals (Mill). Along with the classical Athenians and medieval Christians the political ideals of Locke and Mill emphasized the primacy of love, compassion, friendship, kindness, and the moral community in their examination of liberty, equality, freedom, and rights. This contrasts strikingly with the capitalist emphasis on market competition, right to private property, inequality, self-interest, individual labor and accomplishments, and utilitarian materialism and pleasure. The higher and substantive ethical and political ideals of Locke and Mill are lost and repressed.
The Pursuit of Happiness and Species Being: Locke, Jefferson, and Marx on Property and Economic Redistribution: The right to property and the growing inequality and class permitted by Locke in para. 50 only calls into question his own ethical principles of equality and liberty. Thomas Jefferson, an "agrarian apostle of equality" and a critic of concentrations of landed wealth, was aware that equality, life, and liberty could not survive in a class system based on inequality of property ownership. For this reason, he defended popular sovereignty, economic equality, and economic redistribution, and even discussed with Thomas Paine in 1789 the possibility of state control over private property (Schlatter, Private Property, pp. 198-199). The right to property is a product of positive law that is acceptable only as long as it does not supercede or violate the right of individuals to access the common stock of property (199). Liberty is always endangered by Property; Natural Rights have primacy over Property. Jefferson was part of the 18th-century agrarian movement along with Thomas Spence, William Ogilvie, and Thomas Paine who used the right of property against its unnatural accumulation by the English landowners. Private appropriation of land by labor is justified in a state of plentitude of common land. However, by the 18th century this dream of Locke's state of nature was no longer viable. Ogilvie continued to defend the principle of labor but with the provision that property be equally distributed when the supply is limited. On the other hand, Spence and Paine rejected the principle of labor as legitimating property and maintained that "land itself always remains common" (174). These arguments go back to the radicals of the 17th century with the Levellers John Lilburne and Richard Overton who called for a radical egalitarianism, economic redistribution, and equal property; during this period there were also the Diggers, who like Gerrard Winstanley, sought economic equality and the end to private property; the Diggers were called "communists" by the Levellers. Marx's criticisms of the alienation and exploitation of class, property, and power in capitalist society are based on these very distinctions but he takes the argument in a new direction. See his early work On the Jewish Question in which he outlines the inconsistencies between the economic and individualistic rights of man to liberty, security, and property and the political rights of the citizen to political liberties, civil rights, self-determination, public assembly, and political participation. Marx moves beyond the issue of rights (political rights) to human emancipation which includes an emphasis on human needs, self-realization, worker councils, economic democracy, and Natural Law. By defending the underlying ethical principles of Natural Law -- compassion, friendship, citizenship, moral economy, and social justice -- Marx has been called "the Last of the Schoolmen" or last of the Medieval Natural Law theorists. Marx has reversed the polarity and priority of Natural Law and Natural Rights in Locke back to the former. Discuss these issues in the context of poverty, class inequality, taxation, social security, good health, welfare system, etc. in the United States. The brilliance of Locke was that in one major work he was able to encompass the inconsistencies, contradictions, and theoretical rifts within liberalism that gave birth to two major traditions -- Montesquieu, Madison, Hamilton, and the Federalists on one side and Rousseau, Jefferson, Franklin, and Marx on the other (see Lynd, Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism).
Compare Locke and Marx on Rights: Human Need as Natural Law: Compare Locke's state of nature with its Natural Rights of life (self-preservation), liberty (action), health (maintenance of life), and property (ownership of the material conditions of life) to Marx's theory of social praxis, human emancipation, and the Rights of the Subject to self-realization, individual freedom defined in terms of self-determination and human creativity according to the laws of beauty and civic virtue, the good life and economic democracy, and control over industrial production, product, and process within a democratic community. In the two divergent traditions of Western thought, discuss the different meanings of words like individual, liberty, freedom, thought, etc. An argument can clearly be made that Marx's theory of species-being, human needs, human rights, and human emancipation play the same role as Locke's theory of natural law (para. 5 and 15). Both are used to frame the ethical understanding and potentialities of humanity. Marx uses ethics to criticize and reject private property, alienation, and capitalism, whereas Locke to some extent recognizes the dangers but chooses instead to defend natural rights, property, and a market economy. In any case, it is clear that, for Marx, human needs, as Ethics (virtue) and Politics (institutions), are a secular expression of traditional natural law. Concepts such as equality, freedom, liberty, and rights are used by Locke to define our relationship to property and possessions, whereas for Marx they are expressions of the human spirit, need, and species-being, that is, they are part of a creative process by which we form history, self, and society. As we have seen during the third week of this course, Locke was unable to combine individual rights with an ethical responsibility to the community and common good. It was Marx who recognized that rights without social justice only led to further oppression, inequality, and class conflict -- the hallmarks of the Hobbesian war of all against all. True individual freedom, equality, and human rights to life, liberty, health, and the products of human labor (property) according to the laws of beauty and creativity require both political and economic democracy. Beauty, democracy, and justice are the basis for Marx's nontheistic natural law theory -- a reaffirmation and restatement of Aristotle's theory of ethics/virtue and politics/democracy. In their examination of issues of equality and freedom, the eighteenth century political theorists stressed natural rights and the nineteenth century theorists stressed pleasure and utility. Mill and Marx, on the other hand, defined these categories in terms of self-realization, moral development, and economic and social democracy.
Liberalism and Democracy are Incompatible Principles and Institutions: Democratic Socialism is the True Human Need: Marx's theory of political emancipation of French constitutional and liberal democracy begins in On the Jewish Question with the distinction between the "economic rights of man" (developed by Locke) and the "political rights of the citizen" (expanded by J. S. Mill) as he argues that the two forms of natural rights are incompatible and contradictory. It is an interesting phenomenon of modern political theory that Locke, Rousseau, Marx, and Mill reveal, in Locke's case unintentionally and unknowingly, that liberalism (economic rights of possessive individualism, materialism, competitive greed and self-interest, oppressive and exploitative inequality, expansive physical and psychological misery, and class institutions) and democracy (equality, freedom, common welfare, species-being, self-realization, self-development, human dignity, and the common ownership, control, and distribution of the social wealth of the community within a political and economic democracy of the collective associations of production. How the two opposing concepts have been intertwined in modern thought is a fascinating phenomenon of reflexive religiosity and distorting ideology. This confusion between the principles of self-interest and self-development, material gain and human dignity, crude materialism and human spirituality, intense human suffering and household/community love, natural rights and natural law, market wants and human needs, market economy and moral economy, and liberalism and democracy frames the conflicting understanding and approaches to broader social problems in modern liberal politics and the clear inability to resolve them. In the final analysis for Marx, the realization of economic and political democracy within a moral economy grounded in a secular and historical natural law is the fundamental human need to be sought and realized in praxis. Question: How could the Second State of Nature be made compatible with the Original State of Nature, natural rights with natural law, or Locke's liberalism with Mill's democracy and socialism? Liberalism and Democracy seem to be logically and historically in conflict within their own ethical, political, and economic principles and institutions. It is an interesting footnote to Western thought that Locke argued in the Original State of Nature that primitive socialism (natural law, common property, and the ethical/economic limits to personal property) was a necessary prerequisite for liberalism and the natural rights of life, liberty, health, and property; Mill maintained that socialism was a necessary prerequisite for classical liberalism, representative and self-government, and democracy; and Marx held that socialism (humanism and institutions of praxis, creativity, human dignity, and freedom) was a necessary prerequisite for economic and democratic socialism. Liberalism and socialism have been intertwined throughout the history of modern Western social and political theory.
Locke and Radical Protestantism in the 18th Century: Some of the principles of Locke's theory of natural law (communal ethics, common property, and the economic limits of labor, spoilage, and sufficiency) are later developed in the eighteenth century by the political Dissenters and Protestant Radicals (James Burgh, Richard Price, Joseph Priestly, John Wilkes, John Cartwright, Granville Sharp, Catharine Macaulay, and Thomas Paine) and by the Anti-Federalists (Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Patrick Henry) prior to the American Revolution. One can easily see that many of the political and economic debates within the American Congress today are just further developments of these internal fissures or structural contradictions in American society. For more on these issues, see Schlatter, Private Property (1951), Lynd, Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism (1969), Will Scott, In Pursuit of Happiness (1977), Kai Nielsen, Equality and Liberty: A Defense of Radical Egalitarianism (1985), and Lloyd Weinreb, Natural Law and Justice (1987). Finally, it is interesting to note that Aristotle, Locke (original state of nature), Mill, and Marx all argued in one way or another that a moral economy, strong community, and natural law were necessary for the realization of individual freedom, political liberties, and democracy. Question: It seems that the two most radical social theorists discussed in class this semester -- Marx and J.S. Mill -- pushed for economic democracy and socialism based on very similar ideals of classical humanism. They both had a vision of a noble and uplifting life of self-development, self-realization, human creativity, public participation, and discursive reason whether their emphasis was on human labor or participatory self-government. Both seemed to be influenced by George Grote's interpretation of Aristotle and Athenian democracy. Does a political position based on the ethics of classical humanism push the theorist to question a market economy based on possessive and radical individualism, self-interest, economic competition, and class inequality? Locke seemed to move in the opposite direction influenced first by Hooker and natural law in the first state of nature and then by Hobbes and the capitalist market in the second state of nature.
Myths and Ideology about Marx: In the American educational system there are a number of myths constructed about Marx that are difficult to dispel except by a close and critical textual exegesis:
(1) Dialectical Materialism vs. Historical Materialism: Marx believed in historical materialism which made him a crude materialist and economic determinist rather than a critical, historical, and cultural idealist
(2) Positivism vs. Logic and History: he was a positivist who predicted the breakdown of the capitalist system rather than a Hegelian who differentiated between logic and history -- logical and structural contradictions of capitalism and their actual historical realization
(3) Revolution vs. Democracy: he called for a revolution to realize his ideals of socialism rather than through democracy in advanced industrial countries
(4) Equal Distribution based on Labor vs. Human Needs: he called for an equal and universal distribution of society's products and wealth rather than a fair distribution based on a theory of human needs
(5) Economic Determinism vs. Class Struggle: he was an economic and technological determinist rather than a critical social theorist who called for a rethinking of both the class social relations of production and the productive forces within class consciousness and class struggle
(6) State Control vs. Political Democracy: he called for centralized state control and planning of all industrial production rather than a decentralized and democratic political state in which there were worker cooperatives and economic democracy based on the model of the Paris Commune of 1871.
6. Max Weber "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" (1904-1905), in Readings in Introductory Sociology,
ed. by Dennis Wrong and Harry Gracey, chapter 15, pp. 149-161
(Essay on Reserve in the Kenyon Library's ERES System and Course Reserve)

Protestant Reformation and Neo-Calvinist Ethic and Theology
Religious Ethics, Metaphysical Determinism, and the Fate of Modernity: Outline the basic cultural elements or moral/theological values of the Enlightenment (facts, explanation, science, reason, laws, and positivism), Spirit of Capitalism (self-interest, rights and liberty, hard work and specialization, market and profit maximization, materialism, hedonism, and utilitarianism), Catholicism (work, rituals and sacraments, Church hierarchy, condemnation of usury, help the poor, faith, grace, good works, and social justice), and Protestantism (double predestination, determinism, election and salvation, worldly calling and rational vocation with duty, diligence, and dedication, inner-worldly asceticism and neo-Platonic distrust of the body, pleasure, and idleness, terror and fear of damnation and punishment, inner isolation and psychological emptiness, religious individualism, distrust and breakdown of the community and natural law, critique of Catholicism and idolatry, and the rejection of hedonism and materialist pleasure in favor of labor and business success. That is, neo-Calvinism rejects faith alone, contemplation, and utilitarianism. The ethical and theological components of the Protestant Ethic include predestination and determinism of grace, salvation, and calling (155); asceticism (153); the transcendent, hidden, and unknowable God (Deus absconditus), the total depravity and nothingness of man, no ethical reform of the world, and the existential and theological barrenness, sinfulness, and meaninglessness of the world -- expressions of Pauline indifference in the face of evil; distrust of others, friends, and community (never know who is truly saved); professional calling or vocation (154, 156, and 160); psychological terror and fear of damnation, isolation, and growing individualism resulting from predestination, transcendence of God, and the rejection of Catholic community and doctrine; religious rationalization and the critique of Catholic communalism, aesthetics, idolatry (157), and natural law (158); rejection of Catholicism, mysticism of rituals and sacraments, and the politics of religion (157), as well as Catholic Pelagianism; inner-worldly asceticism and the spirit of capitalism (158); division of labor, frugality, specialized calling, and professional vocation (155); critique of utilitarianism, pleasure, and consumption (153); and theory of the iron cage of reason -- "Specialists without Spirit, Sensualists without Heart" -- formal technicians, specialists, engineers, and bureaucrats without objective and absolute Spirit or ethics, social institutions, and justice -- without Reason and Community -- and utilitarians, pleasure seekers, and economists without passion, practical reason, morality, and virtue (161). (Some scholars have argued that Weber borrowed the notion of the "iron cage" from John Bunyan's The Pilgrims Progress, 1678. The traveler, Christian, on his way to the Celestial City meets the individual imprisoned in his own worldly sins, pleasures, and despair of spiritual salvation.) The Protestant work ethic produced a theological and psychological predisposition toward a radical individualism and fear of damnation, methodical and systematic hard work and specialized labor or calling in a profession, and avoidance of consumption and pleasure in favor of property accumulation and increased agricultural and industrial production -- all the necessary structural prerequisites for a capitalist society. This form of individualism became the foundation for modern liberalism: It is an individuality of isolation, meaninglessness, and fear, especially after the elimination of its early theological elements in later political theory. Locke's theory of possessive individualism in the second state of nature does carry with it a deformed type of individuality that has strong elements of homelessness, lostness, meaningless work, and existential isolation, fear, and despair; it defines the individual mainly in economic terms thereby excluding the more profound meanings of the ethical and political ideals of freedom, rights, and justice. (By dismantling the metaphysical and ethical foundations of the original state of nature, Locke may be viewed as perhaps the first to prepare the way for Existentialism in Western society or, at least, the first to start the steep slide downward toward Existentialism. In turn, Kant may be viewed as performing a similar service in epistemology and a constitution theory of science by rejecting the empiricist and rationalist theory of objectivity and truth.) Weber's Protestant Ethic highlights the hidden truth and essence of modern liberalism and Locke's theory of rights, liberty, freedom, and equality in the state of nature: Underlying natural rights and individual freedom is an isolation from the "cult of saints" (public worship) and "company of heaven," that is, isolation from the moral community and our fellow human beings in a world of sin and decadence; underlying natural rights is not individual self-expression and freedom, but terror, isolation, anxiety, estrangement, and loneliness. The truth of Locke's theory of individualism and liberalism lies in Weber's thesis about the protestant ethic and spirit of capitalism. Locke's theory of liberalism and the rights of the modern individual may be summarized in the following manner:
LOCKE = CALVIN + HOBBES - HOOKER
That is, the modern individual has the liberty and freedom to work in technical and specialized labor without a higher ethical meaning or purpose + to acquire, accumulate, and consume material goods and property, and be aggressive and competitive in a class war-of-all-against-all market economy, but without God, ethics, and natural law. Liberalism thus provides the first insights into the existential experience of modern society; liberalism is frozen in a world without theological or secular natural law. In this world, there are no longer communal rights, only private rights; there are no longer Natural Rights, only Property Rights. Innate rights from God are replaced by the rights bestowed by private property resulting from market opportunities, individual accomplishments, personal merit, and class power. Property, not Rights, are the underlying foundations and material conditions for life, liberty, and health. And someone without property is thus without rights and is probably a wage laborer or worse. (As we have seen from later authors such as Mill and Marx, the breakdown of ethics, politics, and the community is not compatible with the values and institution of democracy. Rather, they are more compatible with the neo-Platonic and authoritarian ideas of C. Schmidt, L. Strauss, and Martin Heidegger, the destruction of democracy, and the rise of elitism and fascism. (Note: Camus will refer to this social condition of modernity as the City of Dis or the sixth to ninth circles of Hell in The Fall.) Luther saw Catholicism as a form of Pelagianism (good works warrant salvation) which ironically was rejected by Catholicism itself as a theological heresy. All this produced a lonely and terrified individual without community, friendship, love, and natural law, without a compassionate and immanent God, without meaning and purpose in this world other than the glorification of a transcendent God, and without a deeper social ethic and political purpose -- the very requirements and ideals of commercial and industrial capitalism. And neither love, compassion, good works, or faith will alter the predestined fate of individuals -- nothing the mind or body can do will change the judgment of damnation and punishment. Theological predestination of salvation and damnation, metaphysical Deus absconditus and the transcendence of God, and the psychological terror and fear of unknowing and epistemological impotence in the face of damnation produced a world of radical individualism characterized by isolation, fear, and anxiety. (Weber connects the ethical principles of Calvinism, the psychology of terror, fear, and damnation, and the spirit of capitalism.) The only solution was through a calling or profession that acted as a prayer to God and as an expression of God's glory and personal salvation. According to Weber, the main moral and theological principles of the Protestant Ethic (neo-Calvinism) produce a type of individual who experiences the world as continuous separation, unprecedented loneliness, inner isolation, abandonment, fear, and terror -- the ideal setting for a suspicion and suspension of the community and Natural Law and the fertile ground for the rise of Western individualism, Natural Rights, distrust of others, methodical and systematic hard work and effort, and concern for efficiency and productivity as signs of grace and salvation -- effort over technical accomplishments. Thus the signs of salvation could reach those at the top of industry, agriculture, and government, but also those in the workforce. For the neo-Calvinists it is the organization, intensity, and effort of work that is the sign, whereas for the later Puritans the sign changes into capital accumulation and business success. (Note: By the time of Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, and Charles Murray. the Protestant work ethic and signs of salvation had change even more so that economic accomplishments and market success were the key indicators of salvation; those at the bottom of the economic rung were considered welfare queens, lazy, unintelligent, and, thus by implication, damned.) The theological and psychological conditions for the radical and possessive individualism of modern liberalism and its break with medieval Christianity and ancient philosophy is being framed within the Protestant Reformation. (Note: Neither Luther nor Calvin accepted these materialist and market "signs" of grace and salvation. Rather, for them, salvation was still a matter of faith in God. Everything changed within Protestantism in the sixteenth and seventieth centuries.) In this neo-Calvinist world, the sacramental, theological, and institutional womb that protects the individual and helps nurture salvation are all gone, including the Church hierarchy, natural law, the saving rituals and sacraments (Confession and Extreme Unction), Indulgences, good works, etc. All religious sacraments and rituals are useless for salvation and are only forms of "sentimental illusions and idolatrous superstitions." All that remains is the isolated, lonely, and homeless individual -- terrified by the fear and anxiety of violent damnation and eternal punishment -- whose consciousness and spirit gives birth to possessive individualism with its rights, liberties, and private property. It is just this type of radical individualism which prepares the way for Hobbes and Locke as the Spirit of capitalism. The Protestant Reformation held two apparent conflicting views of the economy -- on the one hand, it rejected materialism and utilitarianism and, on the other, it promoted self-interest, hard work, the division of labor, increased production, success in a calling, and the accumulation of private property. Hard work, ascetic professionalism, and profit/capital accumulation became moral virtues. Work has a number of theological and ethical meanings since it is a way to glorify God (calling), avoid temptation (asceticism), overcome the Terror of damnation (predestination), and provide a sign of salvation (peace of mind). Production, property, and prosperity without consumption and enjoyment was a potent combination in the early stages of capitalist development for commercial and industrial expansion (158). The industrial and market foundations for the future of capitalism rested in these values of the Protestant Ethic. Examine Weber's thesis about the relationship between religion and the rise of the spirit (consciousness) of capitalism and the relationship between idealism and materialism in his work. According to Weber, self-interest and individual greed are not the defining characteristics of capitalism -- rather it is the rationalization of religion, law, science, state, and the economy, that is, all social institutions with an emphasis on bookkeeping and financial accounting. Everything is reduced to the formal organization and control of human consciousness, conduct, labor, and production: specialized labor, formal reason, technical calculation of costs, prices, and profits, and the complete control over production in the hands of owners and managers through private property and natural rights. Note: In contemporary society, evangelicalism, dominion theology, and the prosperity gospel of Joel Osteen have continued to develop this relationship within Protestant theology between religion and capitalism. These forms of modern-day Protestantism leave behind the metaphysics of heaven and hell, the suffering on the cross, and divine predestination and determinism. It replaces the old metaphysics with a gospel of faith in God, monetary hope, and the salvation of wealth, comfort, and health. Weber could see that, without Calvin's theology, there could be no Hobbesian (Leviathan) or Lockean (Second State of Nature) social world.
Locke's Dilemma and the Protestant Reformation: Relationship between Locke and Weber: Discuss the relationship between Locke and Weber. Locke had recognized, if only unconsciously, the inner logical contradictions and incoherence of liberalism in the seventeenth century. The incompatible values and unacceptable schisms between natural law vs. natural rights, the ancients (Greek philosophy and medieval Christianity) vs. the moderns (market, private property, and individual liberty/rights), and communal responsibility, compassion, and love vs. and money, property, and individual power divided modern society. As seen above, in order to make his arguments acceptable and coherent, Locke eventually did away with the ancient natural law tradition of medieval Christianity. This created a cultural and normative vacuum in his defense of the very foundations of individual rights and a market economy. This vacuum was overcome in modern society by incorporating the values and ideals of the Protestant Reformation into everyday life. Protestantism provided the philosophical, cultural, and religious coherence that liberalism lacked -- it provided a defense of individuality and rights while eliminating the need for communalism, natural law, and medieval scholasticism. However, the effect of this transformation was a further distancing of Western society from the social cohesion and ethical values of philosophical and theological natural law; this, in turn, only highlighted the inherent incoherence of philosophical materialism of liberalism and a world with an absconded and transcendent God. A society founded on love, compassion, mutual sharing and concern, family, friendship, etc. became ever so distant and the Enlightenment and science could not supply these missing qualities. Modern society was expanding with industrial development, technological innovation, commercial globalization, and scientific innovations -- but for what and to what? Without natural law, without the more ancient traditions, what became of the meaning and purpose of human existence other than the continuation of existence itself without meaning. This became the basis for Weber's theory of rationalization. Both Calvin and Locke provided key provisions and legitimations for the new economic system by dismantling the natural law tradition of medieval Christianity and replacing it with new and complementary forms of religious and political individualism. Note: If either Weber or Tawney is correct and the Protestant Reformation (neo-Calvinism) is the cause or effect of the capitalist social system, then a corollary questions is the following: Is early and medieval Christianity before Protestantism ethically and politically incompatible with Capitalism? Protestantism, according to Weber and Tawny, is compatible (historical cause) and/or supportive (ideology) of the spirit of capitalism. Does that mean that the metaphysics and doctrine of Catholicism are contradictory to the moral and social principles and institutions of capitalism?
7. Max Weber "Science as a Vocation" (1917), in Readings in Introductory Sociology,
ed. by Dennis Wrong and Harry Gracey, chapter 19, pp. 187-192
(Essay on Reserve in the Kenyon Library's ERES system and Course Reserve)

Rationalization of the Iron Cage and the Silence of Reason in the Last Man
Substantive and Formal Reason: Loss of Reason in the Enlightenment and Utilitarianism: Max Weber's theory of rationalization is an examination of the modern process of institutional rationalization and the rise of bureaucracies, specialization, division of labor, alienation, and hierarchy of knowledge and power in all social institutions (modern state, economy, factories, everyday institutions, etc.) and the rationalization of formal and technical reason in modern science and technology. Rationalization in this essay focuses on the issues of existential disenchantment of formal and technical reason (187) and the history of the evolution of Western science (Wissenschaft) from the Substantive Reason (Wertrationalitaet) to Formal Rationality (Zweckrationalitaet):

Positivism and The Historical Decline and Existential Disenchantment of Substantive Reason:
(1) Greek Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle
(2) Renaissance Art of Leonardo da Vinci
(3) Early Science of Galileo and Bacon
(4) The Reformation Science and Religion of Jan Swammerdam

                                               **************

(5) The Formal Rationality of the Nineteenth-Century Enlightenment:
utilitarianism, liberalism, materialism, and scientific positivism (188-189); theory of the iron cage and the last man of Nietzsche (189); metaphysics of positivism: scientific domination, naturalism and the prophetic preachings of the demagogue (190); and the theory of the warring gods of tradition and epistemological/moral relativism (191).
(6) Existentialism:
disenchantment, nominalism, relativism of the "warring gods," and the loss of meaning, purpose, and ideals -- Substantive Reason -- in modern society


This essay is a twentieth-century rewrite of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit ending not in Immanuel Kant and the "Terror" of the French Revolution but in Existentialism and the terror of World War I -- it ends with the "last man" in an iron cage of human consciousness characterized by existential fear and anxiety, disenchantment, and bureaucratic and technical Specialists without Spirit -- Without Substantive Reason: Self-Consciousness, Objective Spirit, Freedom, Community, or Justice -- and utilitarian and economic Sensualists without Heart -- Without Virtue: Practical Reason, Character, Passion, or Morality. Enlightenment science and rationalization produce a world without Reason and Virtue. It is a world without Hegel and Aristotle, Rousseau and Kant with only science and bureaucracy, the market and industry to give meaning and purpose to human life. The last man is a product of Modernity who lives without suffering, struggle, individuality, or a will-to-power in constant fear of inner loneliness and insecurity; on the other hand, the striving individual is a product of the recognition of the death of God and idols, nihilism, and existentialism. Life has absolutely no meaning, substance, or teleology (nominalism and anomie) except that which is created by the individual will-to-power -- the charismatic man. Weber outlines the crisis of science and reason as it evolves from the Ancients to the Moderns and from Religion -- Protestant Reformation, Pauline Indifference, Deus Absconditus, and the meaninglessness of a sinful, empty world -- Enlightenment, Empiricism and Science -- to Existentialism and Nihilism. Formal reason (Zweckrationalitaet) produces the death of reason of the last man in the iron cage of positivism and utilitarianism -- the Enlightenment and Liberalism. This is the Dialectic of Enlightenment. The iron cage is a concentration camp of the mind out of which individuals are incapable of forming critical ideas, thoughts, and reason because the traditions that could give birth to new ideas are lost and repressed. all that is left is a formal rationality of technical and bureaucratic reason. There is no future, no hope, and no intellectual and social salvation. We are alive, but ethically and politically, we are truly the "walking dead" without spirit and heart, self-consciousness and morals, or cultural ideals and creative imagination for the future.
Twilight of Reason and the Enlightenment: The Rationalization and Disenchantment of the Natural Sciences: Weber, in the context of his analysis of the history of substantive and formal rationality, writes that a university professor should not engage in demagoguery by inappropriately preaching to the students. The teacher should not become a demagogue by manipulating them or by imposing moral and political choices and actions upon them in the course of a lecture. But what does Weber really mean? The answer lies in the exegetical context of his statements on this subject. Usually, scholars have interpreted this to mean that science must remain neutral, objective, and free of any personal, cultural, or political biases or prejudices. But this isn't the context in which Weber raises the question about science, demagogues, and ideology. The central question is whether Weber is, in fact, talking about political ideology and values that distort scientific inquiry, or is he talking about the values implicit in the distinction between substantive and formal reason -- the hidden values and demagoguery of Enlightenment science itself. Disenchantment is a form of nominalism and existentialism extended to the phenomenology of the spirit and the history of Western self-consciousness and thought; it is one pathway to existentialism and represents the latter's historical and sociological foundations seen through perspective of the crisis of reason. Disenchantment is also more than a simple split between thought and values, science and ethics. Does positivistic natural science -- physics, chemistry, and astronomy -- those sciences that seek the "ultimate laws of cosmic events" (190) -- have a hidden agenda that leads to faculty unconsciously becoming demagogues? Does science have a normative, value-ladened agenda that distorts their "objective" inquiry? Are natural scientists demagogues and science itself a form of ideology? What could this possibly mean? This represents a complete about-face in our thinking on this matter. The answer lies in the nature of science as formal reason, Herrschaftswissen, and an existential dilemma. Modern science, with its physical theories, logical methods and procedures, explanatory and predictive laws, and empirical data collection, is built upon unarticulated and unconscious assumptions about the nature of science and positivism, knowledge and empiricism, and the material world and naturalism; these are epistemological, metaphysical, and environmental assumptions about the physical world that make science possible. (Naturalism: the world of social institutions, values, interaction, norms, behavior, etc are similar to the natural world and can be scientifically examined with the same methods that explain objects, motion, time, and causality in the natural world. The epistemology and methods of natural science are transferable to the social sciences. Scientism: the methodology of the natural science is the only legitimate form of knowledge and is the basis for quantitative investigation and research design in the social sciences.) Weber is concerned that they are the hidden norms and ideologies of demagogues that are never philosophically articulated or justified, but produce a certain type of physical and social environment that leads to domination, control, and existential crises. The normative or metaphysical assumptions of modern science built into its methods, theories, and philosophy of nature include: Domination of Nature, Mechanism, Determinism, Formalism, Positivism, Empiricism, Existentialism, and Nihilism. For Weber, this represents a crisis of reason and the Enlightenment, as well as the loss of substantive rationality (Wertrationalitaet) -- ethics, politics, art, philosophy, early science, and religion -- and, thus, a loss of a way to justice, beauty, truth, nature, and God, a loss of questions about essence, being, reality, and pure form, and a loss of questions about the meaning and purpose of human life. The questions raised by substantive reason are no longer valid or important in this existential crisis caused by formal rationality and technical reason. Science or formal reason is the only basis for truth. (These questions about the normative underpinnings of Western natural science have been raised by a number of theorists including F. Bacon, R. Descartes, M. Scheler, M. Weber, E. Husserl, M. Heidegger, and the Frankfurt School; they have also been raised about the social sciences by C. Wright Mills, A. Gouldner, and the Frankfurt School.) If one joins together the theses of the Protestant work ethic and the rationalization of science, science becomes another element in the systematic and methodical organization of work, nature, and human life to avoid pleasure and sin. In this present state of the existential crisis of disenchantment and loss of substantive reason and meaning, a question arises as to the underlying purpose of 21st-century space exploration of the U.S. Why do we want to explore Mars and beyond if we have nothing to say or if we can only say Nothing (Schopenhauer and Camus)? What if we actually meet alien beings from another planet, galaxy, or solar system? What do we have to communicate within our disenchanted and rationalized universe? Why do we really want to explore beyond ourselves when we do not know ourselves? We know the science and technology behind space exploration, but do we know the meaning behind it? Thus Weber's analysis of science as a vocation is an attempt to recognize the underlying causes of the nihilistic and valueless world produced by the rationalization of society and the reduction of human reason to technical science and formal rationality -- the world itself is objective and neutral because it has no values. Weber is playing off of a pun on the world "science" in this essay: On the one hand, he is developing a scientific analysis of the metaphysics and hidden values of modern science and society at the same time his new approach is turning sociology into a vocation or commitment to the dialectic and values beyond rationalization in "'Objectivity' in Social Science and Social Policy". The heart of critical sociology is the study of cultural values and their objective and dialectical relationship to history and society.
Domination of Nature and the Alienation of Reason: Science as Ideology of the Last Man within the Iron Cage: These are the characteristics of "the fate of our times" -- to live in a meaningless universe with science as a form of technical reason whose ultimate goal is the domination of nature and man -- Herrschaftswissen (187 and 190). Examine the relationship between Classical Social Theory and Existentialism by analyzing the relationship between Weber and Nietzsche: two page reading from the prologue of Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1885), and discussion of the teachings of the Uebermensch (striving and overcoming individual) and the last man without reason, justice, compassion, morality, or imagination, that is, without the Subjective and Objective Spirit of Hegel. Thus modern natural science contains two major normative assumptions or metaphysical presuppositions that are not open to scientific analysis or empirical verification: (1) the purpose of science is not absolute or universal truth but the domination of nature and (2) all other previous forms of "science" from Greek philosophy, Renaissance art and music, early natural science of the seventeenth century, and Reformation theology are not legitimate forms of scientific inquiry. (Note: It will take later twentieth-century theorists such as Max Horkheimer, Theodore Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Juergen Habermas, Franz Borkenau, Alfred Sohn-Rethel, Friedrich Tomberg, Kurt Huebner, Leo Kofler, Isaac Balbus, Peter Bulthaup, C. Fred Alford, Andrew Feenberg, Alvin Gouldner, Steven Vogel, Patrick Murray, Carolyn Merchant, and William Leiss to make the historical, sociological, and theoretical connections between science and the social system, rationalization and alienation, the domination of nature and the domination of humanity, abstract nature and abstract labor, the metaphysics of science (Cartesian metaphysics) and the social organization of production (factory), and Enlightenment science and industrial capitalism more explicit. Connect these critical social theorists to Berman, Braverman, Blumberg, and Jenkins to examine the technical and formal application of science to labor and the production process.)
Enlightenment and Liberalism of the Last Man in the Iron Cage: According to Weber, modern society is a social system without Spirit (Objective Spirit, community, and justice) and without Heart (passion, practical reason, virtue, and morals), that is, without Substantive Reason (Wertrationalitaet). Sittlichkeit, and virtue and Moralitaet; Hegel and Aristotle, and Rousseau and Kant have been replaced by the disenchanted last man of Bentham and Mill. With the loss of universal truth in philosophy, politics, art, theology, and science, with the loss of substantive reason and its replacement by instrumental and formal rationality, the Enlightenment has reclaimed the seventeenth-century principles of self-preservation and adaptation to technology, bureaucracy, and social institutions. There are no higher moral values in a rationalized society; there is no way to evaluate or reflect on the ultimate goals and values of human life. Life itself has no ethic, meaning, or substantive value, and thus "life" is reduced to simply self-preservation and the means for maintaining life in liberty of action and property. Reason and the search for meaning in human life have been replaced by the crudest principles of instrumental self-preservation and life (liberty and property) as the foundation of modern society. Reason is no longer the basis for self-consciousness, reflection, and freedom but has become a engineering tool for a mindless continuation of human life in a market economy. Enlightenment science and the last man have reclaimed the political and ethical principles of Hobbes and Locke. The Enlightenment, Liberalism, and Existentialism are integrated in Modernity. This is the end of the first half of this introductory course which focused on the System of Modernity and the structures of political economy with mention of the rationalization of religion and reason. The second half of the course will examine the Lifeworld of Modernity in terms of the philosophical foundations of Western reason and science (Descartes and Freud), critique of the rational self (Freud), and the existential crisis of Western reason and society (Camus, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche). There is a saying that all roads lead to Rome. One could expand this by contending that all reason leads to nominalism, especially with the breakdown of natural law in Locke and to a lesser extent in Descartes (knowledge grounded in the self).
Summary of the First-Half of the Course: Decline of Liberal Politics into Possessive Individualism and Enlightenment Reason of Pure Subjectivity: With the elimination of God, metaphysics, and natural law in Locke's seventeenth-century empiricist theory of the second state of nature, the natural rights based on the ethical obligations of God and the moral community to protect, fortify, and ensure humanity of its innate rights to life, liberty, health, and property are turned into the privilege and merit of work, individual accomplishments, and personal success in a market economy. With the elimination of Descartes' rationalist theory of an all-perfect, all-knowing, infinite God, metaphysics and natural law by later eighteenth-century Enlightenment theorists, nature and science are reduced to a knowledge of a mechanical, meaningless, and lifeless machine characterized by mathematical extension, physical form, and motion. In these very transformations lie the beginnings of Marx's theory of property, work, alienation, and the destruction of individual freedom, liberty and human potentialities; Weber's theory of formal reason, technical science, rationalization, and disenchantment; and Durkheim's theory of anomie, loss of collective conscience and public values, and social dereglement (derangement, lostness, and madness in an existentially meaningless world). The loss of medieval natural law and the moral community of common property and household property by the growing Enlightenment helped to create a world alienated by the economic, social, and cultural system. It is this unraveling of medieval metaphysics, theology, politics, and economics, as well as the rise of Liberalism, Capitalism, and Enlightenment science that will precipitate the later Existential Crisis of a loss of meaning in the workplace, purpose of substantive reason, and collective ideals of the community, along with the structural crises and social pathologies of RRAANNDDDD. Nineteenth-century social philosopher, Luigi Tapparelli SJ, who coined the terms "social justice" and "subsidiarity," attempted to revise medieval Thomism as an antidote to the atomistic individualism which he viewed as partially shaped by Descartes' theory of subjectivity. (Note: He was very influential on the later development of Catholic writings and papal encyclicals in the twentieth century.) Throughout the first half of the course, as we read the works of Locke, Dickens, Mill, and Marx, a major question continuously arose by each of these authors that framed the whole semester: What are the internal conflicts and contradictions between the "is" and the "ought," that is, between the social reality and its transcending economic and political ideals? What were these conflicts and are they unresolvable contradictions within the present social system -- polity and economy, humanistic or historical natural law and spiritual or metaphysical natural law, human or natural rights and civil or legal rights, natural liberties and market liberties, household communalism and liberalism, democracy and capitalism, natural law and market laws, and moral economy and market economy? Do these contradictions force us to re-consider alternative approaches and traditional understanding of political economy and democracy? The second half of the semester pursues an investigation into the relationships among capitalism, science, and existentialism. Does the issue of nihilism and the loss of the meaning of human life relate to metaphysical, existential, or social issues? Is there a relationship between Politics, Economics, and Science, on one hand and the Existentialism of Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Camus on the other? This ties all the elements of sociology as an holistic and integrated discipline (second lecture of course) together into a comprehensive and critical social theory of modern industrial society. Summary Statement: This course began with an analysis of the rise of economic and political liberalism in the writings of Locke and J.S. Mill: (1) Locke attempted to justify Economic Liberalism and natural rights, individual freedom, and liberties in the Original State of Nature through nature law (God, Bible, and reason) and then in the Second State of Nature the foundation of liberalism changed into a class-oriented market economy without the economic limits and moral restrains of natural law and community responsibility; (2) J.S. Mill attempted to justify Political or Classical Liberalism in a representative government, but evolved to a defense of worker control, economic democracy, and democratic socialism in his later writings. He believed that capitalism was incompatible with true political and economic democracy; and (3) Marx defended socialism as the only true foundation for individual freedom defined as freedom, creativity, beauty, and self-determination of human labor in the workplace. Returning to the 17th-century at the beginning of the second half of the semester, Descartes attempts to justify modern science and the domination of nature by turning to metaphysics, God, and natural law.
Summary Questions: Compare the Ethics (Ideals of Moral and Intellectual Virtue) and Politics (Social, Political, and Economic Institutions) of the Major Authors Discussed So Far This Semester: Compare the ethical foundations of J.S. Mill and his ideas of self-development, discursive reason, human freedom, and self-government; Marx's view of the nobility and creativity of work, beauty, self-determination, and freedom; and Locke's neo-Thomist natural law, ethical and economic limits to property ownership, responsibility to the community, and common property in the Original State of Nature TO Dickens' view of Thomas Gradgrind's ideology of the Enlightenment, positivism, utilitarianism and Gradgrind's acceptance of James Mill's and Jeremy Bentham's theory of utilitarianism, self-interest, market competition, class, and inequality; Hobbes's theory of the "bellum omnium contra omnes" and the leviathan State; Locke's Second State of Nature with its dismantling of natural law and the ethical and economic restraints on property accumulation; Calvin's theory of Deus Absconditus, Pauline Indifference, individualism, and the iron cage of indifference, despair and sin; and Weber's theory of rationalization, disenchantment, and the last man and iron cage of Specialists without Spirit (substantive reason, community, self-consciousness, and justice) and Sensualists without Heart (compassion, morality, virtue, and happiness). The Last Man is characterized by a loss of Spirit and Heart and a life in the iron cage of formal reason, moral nihilism, bureaucratic meaninglessness, existential despair, pain, suffering, and market consumerism. The world has lost its purpose, meaning, and Compare the two major divisions within Western thought and their implications for understanding Politics and the Social System. Also examine the interesting relationship between the ethical ideals of the first group -- Marx, J.S. Mill, and the early Locke -- to their vision of society based on some form of natural law, socialism, and community ownership and governance of property. Then compare the ethical ideals of the second grouping -- James Mill, Bentham, Hobbes, Calvin, and the later Locke -- to their vision of society as class divided, antagonistic, competitive, radically individualistic, and disruptive. Discuss the implications of this theoretical chasm between the two groups for issues of freedom, justice, equality, and democracy. Can both perspectives support a just and democratic society? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the two groups? Finally, and perhaps most succinctly, can there be a democracy based on the principles of utilitarianism, radical individualism, market rationality, and the dismantling of classical humanism, natural law, the principles of human self-government and self-realization, and a view of humanity based on its highest moral and political ideals and aspirations?


                                                   MID-TERM EXAMINATION AND SEMESTER BREAK

8. Rene Descartes The Meditations Concerning First Philosophy (1641), Dedication, Preface, First, Second, and
Third Meditations, pp. 61-108

Foundations of Western Science and the Enlightenment: Natural Law, Reason, and the Philosophical
                                             Justifications of God, Nature, and Science

Leaving The System (Political Economy) for the Lebenswelt: Foundation and Justification of Science and the Enlightenment in Self-Consciousness and God: In the seventeenth century, Descartes attempts a parallel argument to that of Locke: Whereas Locke attempts to justify modern liberalism, possessive individualism, natural rights, and private property using natural law, right reason, and God's revelations and scriptures, Descartes will attempt a similar goal by returning to the natural order. Whereas Locke attempted in the seventeenth century to justify individual freedom, liberties, and natural rights in the state of nature through natural law (God, Bible, and human reason), Descartes will attempt to justify modern science through the metaphysics and natural law of cogito, God, and nature. The Scientific Method (Discourse on Method, p. 15) will be grounded and justified in Metaphysics (natural law) of Consciousness (Meditation 2), God (Meditation 3 and 4), Nature (Meditation 5), and Science (Meditation 6). Objectivity will be grounded in Consciousness and Reason. By proving the existence of a non-deceiving God, he hopes to ultimately justify the Western Enlightenment, reason, and science. Whether it is politics or science, the theorists in the seventeenth century return to natural law and God as the foundation of their arguments. Descartes' goal is to justify modern science and reason by logically connecting metaphysics, epistemology, and the scientific method, thereby grounding perception and natural science in Metaphysics and Natural Law (laws of God, Nature, and Reason -- the existence of the self, truth, God, and the material world). The world that we see, experience, and know is a product of the underlying metaphysics of science that divides the world into primary and secondary qualities, mathematical and geometric relationships and sensory perception. Perception and knowledge are impossible without metaphysical presuppositions and assumptions. The result is that metaphysics creates objectivity. Later, Kant will change this epistemological insight into "subjectivity or transcendental consciousness creates objectivity of experience and science." The apriori assumptions of innate ideas and natural law of Descartes will later become the apriori categories of the understanding of Kant. The existence of science and nature rest on the metaphysical foundations of the divinity and perfection of God. Reason and theology become the foundation for the Enlightenment and Liberalism. Descartes' Method and defense of the Enlightenment and Science are grounded in his Metaphysics -- proofs for the existence of Self, God, and Nature. Modern critics of Descartes have argued that he used metaphysics and the proofs for the existence of God as a deus ex machina to resolve epistemological problems of the logical grounding of rational and scientific knowledge. The METAPHYSICS of self, God, and nature are the foundations and justifications for the analytic METHOD and LOGIC of modern science; they make modern science possible. Without metaphysics, there would be no legitimate science. Metaphysics provide the innate ideas given to us by God that ultimately justify scientific reality/objectivity and scientific truth. In turn, the METHOD of science, built upon clear and distinct ideas, analytic and synthetic reason, the quantification of human experience, including the mechanization of world, domination over nature, mathematics, utilitarianism, mechanism, functionalism (analytic component parts of nature and their functional, mechanical, and deterministic relationship to the whole synthesis of nature), and determinism, and the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, res extensa and res cogitans, and thinking substance and extended substance, creates the METAPHYSICS OF NATURE; there is a dialectical relationship between the two. Metaphysics makes Physics and Method possible, but without Metaphysics itself being verifiable or justifiable by science. It is more a philosophy or worldview than ideas open to scientific enquiry; they are innate ideas. And Method makes domination of nature possible. Metaphysics makes Science possible by providing the foundations for the method. The Method of Science provides the tools, techniques, formal procedures, and internal logic of scientific enquiry -- the epistemology, methodology, and philosophy of science. All this would be impossible without a prior Metaphysics of Science which establishes the underlying view of nature or constructed ontology as a dead and lifeless mechanism capable of being examined and used by science itself. Science cannot create this image of nature, it can only use it and act within it. Proofs and justification for modern science and its method rest ultimately on the metaphysics of the mind, God, and nature. An interesting implication of these arguments with a closer look at the Cartesian foundation of Western science and reason reveals that the view of nature as a technical machine is itself a metaphysical entity whose validity is called into question with the questioning of the metaphysics of theology and God.
From the Metaphysics of Self and God to the Metaphysics of Nature and Science: From Metaphysics as Theology and Rationalism to Metaphysics as Politics and Ideology: A closer look at Marx's theory of historical materialism also opens up the reader to the possibility that science and nature are metaphysical, historical, social, and ideological constructs that reflect the underlying priorities and mechanical values of the commercial (quantitative analysis and mathematics) and industrial (machinery and technology) revolution. In the process, science and nature become the metaphysical and natural reflections of Capital. Descartes is aware that science (Meditation 6) is justified by the metaphysics of the self (Meditation 2), God (Meditation 3-4), and nature (Meditation 5). But he does not take the next step to examine the nature of metaphysics itself as an historical and social product. That is, he does not consider that Metaphysics needs further justification, but is its own justification, and not a form of ontological or theological speculation. It will be Marx who takes the argument further to show that the relationship beyond metaphysics is society, that is, consciousness and nature are metaphysical projections of history and society. Science, nature, and method cannot be justified by metaphysical or theological arguments; they can only be understood as the physical and theoretical conditions reflected by historical materialism and the underlying social relations of production. As a result, the study of science moves from metaphysics to a critical sociology. To base the validity of modern science on metaphysical assumptions and presuppositions about nature as an industrial machine as Descartes attempts to do in Discourse on Method, 1637 in (Discourse on Method and Meditations, Liberal Arts Press, 1960, pp. 35, 41, and 45) becomes more and more problematic after the seventeenth century. Moving from the seventeenth century to the twenty-first century, what validity can metaphysics claim today as the basis for the justification of modern science and method? If Descartes justification of science and method by metaphysics becomes open to question, what is the justification for the objectivity, validity, and truth of modern science today? Is Science open to question today because it still remains grounded in Metaphysics? From a Cartesian metaphysics or theology of nature and method to a metaphysics of science as a politics of capitalism, the very concept and application of metaphysics has evolved over time. See Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; E.A. Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science; and C. Merchant, The Death of Nature. The questions remain: How do I know what I know; what do I know: what is objective knowledge and truth; and is knowledge a useful illusion? Is there an objective reality and objective truth that can be known and does science give us access to that external world. Or is Descartes' metaphysics of science and nature the later stage of Weber's thesis of rationalization, formal reason, the iron cage, and the last man in a meaningless and mechanical universe?]
Methods, Science, and Metaphysics: Idea about the Thinking Substance or Self-Conscious Ego: Descartes begins by raising three crucial epistemological questions that highlight the Cartesian dilemma: (1) What do I know (in the objective world); (2) how do I know it (through perception and experience); and (3) how do I know what I know (justification of knowledge and science about the world)? I know the world and its objects and events through my perception and experience of it. And I am able to justify my knowledge of the world because I have seen and known these objects of the world through experience. This justification of knowledge based on experience requires that experience be the basis of knowledge. There is a logical fallacy and circular reasoning here because one is using experience as the justification of experience which is the very thing that must be logically and epistemological proven. The conclusion of a sentence is used to justify the subject of the sentence. To accomplish this Herculean task he begins with a critical skepticism and his method of radical doubt in the First Meditation; discovery of the ego and the thinking substance in the idea of the Cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am"), theory of wax, and primary (extension, flexibility, and motion) and secondary (subjective sensations and attributes) qualities of substances in the Second Meditation. The individual may experience the illusions of changing perception and experience, distortions of various dreams of reality, and the intentional deceptions of an evil god. Nothing can be true and all is thrown into doubt by our knowledge, dreams, and theology. Descartes takes this initial skepticism and turns it into the foundation of his deductive justification of reality, nature, and science. Ultimately, the existence of illusions, dreams, and deceptions presuppose the existence of a thinking being who is being deceived. The "I think," even if I am mistaken in what I think, requires the existence of a deceived thinker. A world of illusions, dreams, and deceptions presuppose and require existence. The first Archimedean point for Descartes' deductive logic is now in place (75, 77, 78, 79, and 80).
Proofs for the Existence of God: Idea, Causality, and Essence of God: The conscious mind now has metaphysical ideas and contemplates the existence of a superior being. Three proofs for the existence of God based on the principles of perfectionism, sufficient reason or causality, and the ontological argument or the Idea, Cause, and Essence of God. These proofs are grounded in : (1) Idea of God as an infinite substance (cosmological argument or argument from first cause, 101) in Third Meditation; (2) Cause of the idea of God as a perfect being and cause of the self; cause of the idea of God and self must have a greater reality than effect (97, 99, 105-106, and 107-108) in Third Meditation; and (3) Essence and Existence of God; essence of God as perfection entails existence of God, just as idea of a mountain entails the idea of a valley (ontological argument, 121) in the Fifth Meditation; existence of a non-deceiving God (109, 125, and 133); and theory of clear and distinct ideas (88-89, 90, 92, 102, and 107). Descartes' proofs for the existence of God rest on the principles of perfection, causality (cosmological argument), and essence (ontological argument). Questions: (1) Has Descartes' argument proven the existence of God or only the existence of the idea of God and (2) Is Descartes involved in a "vicious circle [to prove the existence of God] by using the very criterion which is to be guaranteed by the conclusions of the proof"? Descartes has an idea of the existence of God, an idea of the cause of the idea of God, and, finally, an idea of the essence of God. Does this prove the existence of God or only the existence of the idea of God? If he has proven the existence of the idea of God in his mind that does not prove the existence of God in reality. The dualism exists between mind and reality, idea and world, consciousness and God. Also the understanding of ideas have not been justified since clear and distinct ideas are valid only after God's existence is proven. Descartes is using ideas and logic that themselves have not been justified and are justified only after a non-deceiving God is proven. Also the existence of the idea of God only proves the existence of the idea of God in the cogito, not the actual existence of God in life. This is another example of the irrationality and circular logic of Descartes's analysis (Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, vol. 4, p. 114-115. Descartes bases his argument on having clear and distinct ideas of God but cannot justify these ideas until he first proves the existence of a non-deceiving God using clear and distinct ideas. He is using ideas that he has not yet validated as clear and distinct.) Another intellectual irony of the seventeenth-century philosophers is that, by using the deductive method of scientific rationalism, Descartes begins with the proof for the existence of individual consciousness and God and ends with the proof of objective reality and science. However, with the philosophical justification and legitimation of science and the Enlightenment, Descartes has provided the foundations of Western science at the same time as the decline and delegitimation of religion and Christianity. In the end, Locke attempts to justify radical individualism and the liberal market, just as Descartes attempts to justify God and Christianity. In the process, they both undermine their foundational principles in God and ethics -- Locke undermines natural law, natural rights, and a moral economy, while Descartes undermines belief in metaphysics and God.
Proofs for the Existence of Nature and Objective Reality, and the Validity of Experience and Science: Proofs for the existence of objective reality -- an autonomous and external world of substances and objects -- as well as the validity and truth of experience and modern science. A non-deceiving and perfect God is the ultimate foundation and justification for the existence of nature and the epistemic validity of perception, knowledge, and science. (109, 125, and Sixth Meditation). Natural Law justifies Nature and Science. This argument is reminiscent of Thomas Aquinas' theory of natural law which contends that because nature is a divine creation we can rely on both experience and reason as truthful forms of knowledge. Just as in the case with Locke's justification of the principles of Natural Rights based on Natural Law, Descartes justified the existence of nature, reality, and science based on Natural Law. However, by the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, Natural Law was not longer necessary to ground individualism and personal rights. The important implications of the loss of restraints of communal responsibility and universal moral reason on the exercise of both individual rights and private property, as well as on the ecology and the environment (Herrschaftswissen) -- the exploitation and alienation of humanity and nature -- will be discussed: Does an underlying historical cause of the crisis of liberalism and the environment lie in the loss of Natural Law?
The Metaphysics of Cartesian Science and Nature: Enlightenment, Utilitarianism, and Natural Ecology: In his general analysis of Nature, Descartes juxtaposes the relationship between Method and Metaphysics, that is, between the method of science and the metaphysics of nature. The method of scientific analysis, analytic and synthetic reason, and the world of Cartesian dualism (15 and 87- 89) becomes possible only with an apriori foundation in a physical universe that reflects the underlying values of industrial production and machine labor (41 and 45-46). Descartes is quite aware of this connection but does not expand upon it. There are three forms of metaphysics: Metaphysics of Cogito, Metaphysics of God, and the Metaphysics of Nature. It is the Metaphysics of God which provides the foundations and justification for the Metaphysics of Nature (dualism, mechanics, determinism, and primary and secondary qualities) and it is the latter which provides the foundations for the extensive range of questions and method of scientific inquiry. The Scientific Method (access to external reality, utility, scientific explanation, prediction, and analytic and synthetic ideas) would be impossible without the prior articulation of the range and picture of nature as a dead, deterministic machine that ultimately allows for the application of modern science. An interesting result is that this view of nature is not a product of history or society (historical materialism), but rather, is a product of natural law and the creation of a perfect, infinite, and non-deceiving God. The justification of modern science lies in the prior systematic and coherent metaphysics of nature or apriori machine-like world. Without it, science would be impossible because science and nature would not be constructed along similar lines. The Metaphysics of Nature presents the organization and framework of objective reality within which observation, testing, and science operates. Perception of an external world of specific kinds of material objects in motion is not the result of science, but of the Metaphysics of God. And it is upon this world that science formally and technical operates. Without these objective preconditions and prior physical substrate, science would be impossible; and without this foundation science could not operate as a "Herrschaftswissen." Without this Metaphysics of Nature, science would be impossible. The laws of nature require a prior framework of Natural Law and, thus, the foundations of modern science rest in Natural Law. Only later is Descartes' method and epistemology combined with a philosophy and sociology of science to form a critical social theory of ecology which incorporates an organic and unifying theory of nature and a rejection of capitalist industry and environmental decay with a critical theory of social justice. (According to Descartes, science is based on an analytic-synthetic method (15) for the purpose of acquiring a utilitarian form of knowledge for the domination and control of nature; Hobbes's view of the world, as a "war of all against all," has a parallel argument in Descartes' theory of the natural sciences and the war of humanity against nature (41 and 45-46). There are three types of metaphysics in Descartes' writings: (1) the Metaphysics of Objective Reality and proof of the existence of self, God, and nature -- this creates the justification of nature and the validity of the scientific method; (2) the Metaphysics of Method of analytic and synthetic reasoning in a mechanical and formalistic universe; and (3) the Metaphysics of Science and Nature as the picture, Weltanschauung, ontology, or ideology of the physical world of the "ghost in the machine." The Cartesian Method of geometric deduction based on the first principles of consciousness and God, clear and distinct ideas, analytic and synthetic reason, primary and secondary qualities, theory of understanding (wax), and positivism, along with his underlying

METAPHYSICS OF SCIENCE: METHOD AND NATURE:

(1) mind-body dualism: res cogitans: thinking substance and res extensia:
extensed substance and external world
(2) primary and secondary qualities of extension, shape, motions and
quantification and taste, sight, sound, quality, and subjective
(3 divide problem into the smallest parts
(4) world as machine: mechanization of nature: mechanism, determinism,
meaningless, dead world, and disenchantment
(5) domination and control over nature
(6) mathematics
(7) materialism
(8) quantification of nature
(9) utilitarianism
(10) functionalism
(11) determinism
(12) explanation
(13) prediction and causality
(14) scientific laws
(15) economic progress


Metaphysics in Descartes' Meditations has two distinct meanings: (1) the foundations of science lies in the innate ideas of self, God, and nature and (2) the metaphysics of nature lies in the formal, causal, and deterministic mechanism of the "ghost in the machine" (Gilbert Ryle). The term "metaphysics" refers to ideas, concepts, theories, and method that are beyond empirical validation and justification although they are the foundation of science by making empirical inquiries possible; the create the physical and empirical world within which science navigates and performs. They are the underlying assumptions and presuppositions of our experiments and theories of nature, the basis of philosophical ontology, being, and essence, and the foundation of religion and theology; they are the rules, principles, and metatheory of science. However, according to Descartes, they can only be justified by a non-deceiving God. Weber writes at the end of The Protestant Ethic that the origins of capitalism lie in the Reformation in the 16th century, but that capitalism no longer needs religion to justify itself. One can say the same thing about science from the Cartesian perspective: Science needed religion and metaphysics to validate itself, but by the 18th century Enlightenment had its own internal dynamic and justification based on formal reason, technical utility, and material accomplishments. Questions: How do I know I see a tree and how do I know that science reflects objective reality and an external, autonomous empirical world. Answer: I know that I see the tree because it is based on sense certainty and experience and I know that science reflects empirical reality because it is scientific. Again, we seem to be involved in circular reasoning because that which is to be proved is logically involved in the proof itself. This is why Descartes requires that the knowledge of nature and science must be based on something other than experience and science -- thus the need to develop a Metaphysics of Natural Science. For Descartes, it is the belief in the knowing self and God which is the foundation and justification for modern science. Descartes' metaphysics and foundation of science will later in the twentieth century be the basis for Marcuse's theory of the technological and political apriori of science.
The Fundamental Ontological and Epistemological Problem: How is the Metaphysics of Science to be justified; what is its foundation in Nature: and what is its justification in Science and Reason? Metaphysics grounds and is the foundational principle for Science, but what grounds and justifies Metaphysics? Where do the perception and ideas that we have come from? Do they come from nature (empiricism of Locke and Hume), the mind (rationalism of Descartes), an imaginative synthesis of the mind and body (idealism of Kant), political economy (sociology of Marx), from society (phenomenology of Berger and Luckmann), or a social consensus within the scientific community (pragmatism of Kuhn). Metaphysics here refers to a complex set of ideas, a Weltanschauung, an ideology, a religion, a world beyond the physical, a picture or mirror of nature and the physical world, or a social construction. Solution: A resolution of this difficult problem requires us to move beyond epistemology (science) and ontology (nature) to the underlying structures of society (sociology). From the perspective of Classical Social Theory, the metaphysics of science is based on the logic, domination, and alienation of the workplace, rationalization and disenchantment of modern science, and the quantification and mathematization of nature (death of nature) -- all this leads to the Alienation of Reason in Weber's theory of formal rationality and Leszik Kolakowski's theory of Positivism. Metaphysics refers to that which is beyond the physical, that is, that which provides a general and pre-scientific picture of nature before the application of the scientific method of observation, data collection, theory construction, hypothesis creation, verification of explanations and predictions, and final validation of the theory, but which itself is not open to empirical verification. Metaphysics permits Method to become viable and applicable and without the former the latter is impossible. But the dilemma remains: From where does metaphysics come and what is its justification. It makes science possible, but is itself without scientific validation. Although not open to verification, this philosophical view of nature does provide the foundations upon which methods and theories are constructed. The modern view of nature is unlike that found in ancient Greece and Rome, medieval Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. It is distinctive to modern Western Europe since the 16th- and 17th centuries. While there is scientific justification for Method, there is no such justification for Metaphysics; the former must be validated empirically through facts, explanation, and prediction, while the latter is closer to an article of faith -- and thus meta-physical. The Metaphysics of Science and Nature makes the Method, Logic, and Theory of Science possible and doable, but it is itself not verifiable or even logically justifiable. In the end, what we know is real, is what we know in the mind (Gerald Galgan, The Logic of Modernity, 75) which leads us back to an epistemological dilemma and problem. This problem in Descartes pre-figures and to some extent anticipates Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. But the fundamental epistemological question remains: How do we know that the Metaphysics of Science is truly the Metaphysics of Nature, that is, do the concepts, ideas, methods, and theories of modern science reflect the essential reality of nature or are they imposed on it? And if the latter, what are the social, political, and economic structures which form this modern consciousness and science? Are the concepts and methods of science a product of the underlying structures and market imperatives of capitalism? Read Marx, A Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy for his analysis of historical materialism and cultural superstructure. Both Locke and Descartes justify the values and institutions of modern liberalism and the Enlightenment, respectively, by means of natural law, God, and the innate ideas of the state of nature (Locke) or the metaphysics of method and science (Descartes). But, with the establishment of liberalism and natural science, the stage is set for the eventual abandonment of natural law by later thinkers making the justification of liberalism and natural rights, capitalism and a market economy, natural science and the mechanization of human reason more problematic leading to nineteenth-century Classical Social Theory and its formulations of rationalization, disenchantment, and deregelment.
Metaphysics of Science and the Metaphysics of the Capitalist Machine: Nature and the Factory in the Disenchanted World: Like Francis Bacon, Descartes reduces reason and science to technical and instrumental control over nature (Discourse on Method, pp. 45, 41, and 15). He sees a brief connection between science and capitalism. Metaphysical Foundations of Nature refers to the view of nature developed by Descartes which makes science possible, but is itself not open to scientific inquiry. It is a set of naturalist assumptions about the physical world that cannot be proven. These assumptions are closer to theological or metaphysical propositions about nature: dualism, mechanization, domination, disenchantment, death of nature, mathematics, materialism quantification, utilitarianism, functionalism, determinism, explanation, prediction, causality, and laws. Science may be viewed as a form of disenchantment of alienation of reason (Weber) or a form of alienation of nature (Marx). The central question is where do these categories of science and nature come from, if they are not a reflection or mirror of nature. What is the relationship between Metaphysics and Method. The metaphysical view of nature provides science with a picture and general orientation of natural reality upon which the scientific method operates (Herrschaftswissen). But the empirical and rational operation and justification of science only confirm the method, not the metaphysics. From where does the metaphysics derive and how is it justified? As metaphysical assumptions about nature, what are their intellectual and methodological origins? In unexpected sociological fashion, Descartes intuits here that the origin of science and metaphysics lies in the nature of the "skilled worker" (41 and 45). He sees some correlation between science and work, but it is never examined in any detail. Only later, with the rise of classical and contemporary social theory, this brief relationship will expand into an analysis of science and the underlying social and class structures of the workplace. Metaphysics will then been seen as a reflection of the underlying values and institutions of Capitalism -- RRAANNDDDD. Unaware of the implications of his own insight, metaphysics is a form of alienated consciousness and deformed relation to nature; private property, class system, and alienated work are the social conditions upon which rest the metaphysics, epistemology, and methodology of the natural sciences.
Science, Historical Materialism, and Sociology of Knowledge: Science as Alienated Consciousness: Marx has written: "The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political [and scientific, ed.] superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness...It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness" in the "Preface" to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, pp. 20-21. The rise of modern science is not independent of society but an historical and social process in which the fundamental categories of modern science reflect the process of alienation (naturalism), disenchantment (nominalism), and rationalization (technological control characterized by division of labor, specialization, fragmentation of knowledge, bureaucracy, hierarchy, and the existential crisis of formal rationality). Nature becomes a dead, lifeless machine with functionally interrelated parts that can be mathematically measured (primary qualities) and mechanically calibrated through predictive rules and explanatory laws. Science becomes the empirical and mathematical study of fabricated matter in motion in time and space. This kind of knowledge reflects a social system in which work no longer expresses human creativity, self-determination, or personal freedom but, rather, is an expression of a mindless, specialized labor in the melancholy madness of the factory machine and iron cage. Alienated work and natural science become meaningless in an empty world devoid of purpose and community. Both science and work reflect the same foundations in a capitalist social system. The epistemological dualism between ontology (being, essence, and reality) and utility (prediction, causation, and domination) is already apparent in the writings of Descartes. This utilitarian approach to the disenchanted and discarded physical world is made possible because the traditional medieval Natural Law of an organic, living nature and immanent God is no longer relevant in a world where God is the perfect clockmaker and divine mathematician. Nature is the miracle and providence of a distant and removed divine interventionist power. According to Locke, Natural Rights have abandoned Natural Law; while according to Descartes, God has abandoned Nature. In both cases, Humanity and Nature are left unprotected in face of the onslaught of the Enlightenment. With Cartesian dualism, the death of nature, and the disembodied self as pure cogito, human beings become the "ghost-in-the-machine" preparing the way in the seventeenth century for the later rise of Existentialism and Nihilism. This reflects the status of humanity in the second state of nature possessing rights and individuality without natural law -- the ghost-in-the-state of nature; it reflects an social emptiness without compassion, love, and community. In Locke's second state of nature, there is no warmth, compassion, natural law, or meaning; everything has become a fact or commodity to be used to dominate nature (machine and labor) and humanity (property and possessive individualism). The same may unfortunately be said of Descartes' view of metaphysics and the natural environment. The metaphysics of science (nature) and the metaphysics of liberalism (human nature) -- Lifeworld of Enlightenment Culture -- are deeper reflections of the metaphysics of capitalism (industry, property, and labor) -- System of Political Economy. In the end, the natural sciences are truly social sciences since the former are a product of the latter, that is, the former are a product of the ideology and structures of political economy of modern industrial and global capitalism. (For further reading on these questions, see C. S. Lewis, The Discarded Image and Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic.) From a more skeptical position, once the three proofs for the existence of God are articulated in the Meditations the real purpose of the work becomes clear -- the justification of the existence of the objects of experience (senses) and knowledge (ideas), that it, Science and Nature. For clarification of these Cartesian principles, see F. Capra, The Turning Point, 55 and 59-60; C. Merchant, The Death of Nature, 234 and 239; E. A. Burtt The Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, 25; F. Matson, The Broken Image; 14, A. Koyre, Metaphysics and Measurement, 16; and W. Heisenberg, Philosophy and Physics, 9, 25, and 196-197, 200-201). A hypothetical question arises: If we lived in a different type of society -- democratic socialism -- with a different production, consumption, and ecology, would the metaphysics and methodology of science change or would its technical application and formal procedures change or both? Not knowing the answer to such hypothetical and historical questions or how the suggested social changes in production and ecology would affect science, one could only begin to provide a concrete and practical response by integrating Science, Ecological Justice, and Social Justice.
Science within Cultural Idealism and Historical Materialism: Descartes' theory of nature and causality reflects the two entirely different and later intellectual traditions of Weber and Marx. At first in The Meditations Concerning First Philosophy (1641), he articulates the view of nature in terms of the Cartesian dualism between the mind and body, res cogitans and res extensa (ontology and being, 87-91), innate ideas (92 and 99-102), and creation of God (metaphysics, 91-108). He also frames these same issues in his earlier work Discourse on Method (1637) in the context of capitalist production -- machine (41), domination of nature (45), utility (45), workplace (45), and workers' skills (45-46). This distinction between idealism and materialism in Descartes' analysis of science and nature prefigures the later discussion between Marxists and Weberians over the nature of religion: Was the Protestant Ethic the "cause" of the rise of the spirit of capitalism or was it the result of an already developed capitalism?
Locke and Descartes: The Foundations of Modernity in Liberalism and the Enlightenment: Descartes justifies the Enlightenment -- the realm of ideas, mathematics, and science, while Locke justifies liberalism and capitalism -- private property and an unbridled market economy -- both using the power and authority of God to ensure their main arguments and logic. In the seventeenth century, Locke grounded natural rights in God and natural law just as Descartes grounded nature and science upon the underlying Metaphysics of Nature and Science. Natural Law permits rights to exist by providing the material and economic conditions of life, self-preservation, and liberty just as the metaphysics of nature as the mind-body dualism and the world as a self-moving machine with deterministic laws allows science to exist and to develop its method, theories, and explanatory and predictive laws. As stated above: The metaphysics of nature accommodates science; it makes science possible. Finally, one could argue that in defending liberalism and Enlightenment science, both Locke and Descartes were, in effect, defending the underlying and foundational values of modern capitalist society in their respective defenses of private property and the market economy and Enlightenment reason and modern science. Both liberalism (equality, freedom, and rights) and science (truth, methods, and verification) are expressions and validations of the underlying values of modern political economy; they are the cultural projects of modern capitalism -- alienation, rationalization, and disenchantment -- into the realm of politics and consciousness.
Cartesian Metaphysics, Enlightenment, and Environment as Politics: The metaphysics of science or the "ghost in the machine" provided the foundations of an explanation of nature and its empirical characteristics, as well as the foundations of modern science. They made science possible by providing a central overview to its underlying structural characteristics -- mind and body dualism, res cogitans and res extensa, sensuousness and spirit, primary (extension, shape, breadth, and motion) and secondary (taste, sight, sound, and qualities) qualities, perception and understanding, the utility of science, and the world as a dead machine viewed through the categories of utilitarianism, quantification, determinism, and disenchantment. Science produced a mechanical machine without meaning or purpose (ethics or telos). These characteristics made science and nature possible without, however, themselves being scientifically justifiable or empirically verifiable. Science is not scientifically grounded because it can't justify itself.
Nature and Natural Law: Humanity and the Environment without Ethics: According to Descartes, science can only be validated by meta-physics or the non-scientific. Because nature is viewed with such metaphysical assumptions and values as mind-body dualism, mechanism, determinism, quantifiability, mathematics, and machine -- the death of nature -- there are no moral values or natural law which insure that we do no harm to nature. The medieval tradition which did apply natural law to both society and nature no longer influences Enlightenment reason or science. And this is the dilemma of modern science and its underlying and hidden ethical and political values -- the metaphysics of science. It also gave rise to the question of whether science is the mirror of nature or the mirror of production -- does science reflect objective external reality and truth or does science reflect a specific historical and social (political economy) reality? Is science a reflection of true being or a reflection of the economic conditions of modern industrial society -- the alienation and commodification of reason. In the original state of nature, Locke put in place clear ethical and political restrictions to natural rights and private property. Locke's original state of nature and Descartes' metaphysics of science represent the ideals of both human nature (love, compassion, friendship, and dignity) and nature (dead and mechanical). Because of the metaphysics of science, there are no such restrictions or moral principles that mediate humanity's relationship to nature. Question: Could this be a contributing factor to the present ecological crisis of modern capitalism? Do humans, animals, the ecology, and all living nature have rights and limitations that must be protected? Does nature also have a natural law that binds all living organisms and beings? Natural law protects individual freedom, liberty, rights, and the community, but not nature. Why? (For more on this, see Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, John Scotus Eriugena, Pope Francis's encyclical letter, Laudato Si' (May 2015), COP21, United Nations Paris Conference on Climate Change (Nov-Dec. 2015), The Universal Ecological Fund, "The Truth about Climate Change" (July 2016) (https://www.scribd.com/document/325824016/The-Truth-About-Climate-Change), and Scott Davidson, "Natural Law Based Environmental Ethic," Ethics and the Environment (2009, 14: 1-13).
The Domination of Man and the Domination of Nature: 17th-Century Loss of Natural Law in Ethics, Politics, Nature, and God: Locke abandons the Ancient and Medieval Natural Law of Ethics and Politics (Aristotle, Aquinas, and Hooker) to justify liberalism, possessive individualism and class property for the Domination of Man, while Descartes abandons Medieval Natural Law of Nature (Aristotle, St. Francis, and Medieval Mysticism) and God (Aquinas) to justify the Enlightenment view of Experience, Reason and Science for the Domination of Nature. With the elimination of Natural Law in Locke, liberalism and capitalism had no ethical restrains or demands on self-interest, property accumulation, and the competitive market economy; with the abandonment of Natural Law in Descartes, there are no ethical restraints on the mechanization and control over nature. Even this transcendent God is complicitous in this Faustian bargain. In both cases in the seventeenth century, the traditional ethical restraints on the Domination of Nature, Property, and the Economy failed and with it the possibility of Social Justice in Politics and Ecology. Community responsibility for the common good and for nature is lost. With Locke and Descartes, the Western Enlightenment is intimately bound to the values of utilitarianism and materialism of liberalism and capitalism. For more on these issues, see Galgan, The Logic of Modernity, William Leiss, The Domination of Nature, and Carolyn Merchant, The Death of Nature. What is surprising after reading Descartes is the many normative, value-ladened, and metaphysical assumptions hidden within his theory of science. The world is viewed through the following categories: dualism, mechanism, determinism, disenchantment, objective, neutral, mathematical, materialism, quantifiable, utilitarianism, functionalism, explanation, prediction, laws, etc. Do they categories represent natural reality or a social reality; are they absolute truths, metaphysics, or social constructs? How are these views of science justified -- on the basis of clear and distinct ideas and the existence of a perfect, non-deceiving God? But as Copleston has argued (114-115), clear and distinct ideas, proving the existence of the thinking substance and God, is only possible at the end of the argument, not its beginning; he argues that Descartes is using a circular argument, that is, justifying his argument about clear and distinct ideas that are only "justified" at the end of the Meditations. On the other hand, is science is a product of a certain kind of society and political economy out of which it evolved -- historical and cultural materialism.
The Enlightenment as a Reflection of Truth or Society: Question for consideration: Is modern science (physics, chemistry, and biology) an expression of the reality, being, or essence of nature and thus a form of universal and absolute knowledge or is science an expression of the socio-economic conditions of modern life. Bluntly put, is the Enlightenment a form of truth or is it a cultural and mathematical expression of the underlying economic structures of Capitalism? Is the Alienation of Reason a product of the Alienation of Work in the same way that Locke's theory of natural rights, individual liberty, and private property is a reflection of the transformation of liberalism and the market economy? Does Descartes offer us in the Discourse on Method an opportunity to reflect on the connection between the Enlightenment and Capitalism; that is, are the scientific ideas of machines, mathematics, measurements, and prediction simply reflections of profound structural changes occurring in commercial and industrial capitalism? Also connect the modern transformation of Nature and God to the Protestant Reformation and examine the historical relationships among Medieval Catholicism, Protestant Reformation (Weber), Enlightenment (Descartes), Liberalism (Locke), and Capitalism (Marx).
Contemporary Criticisms of the Cartesian Worldview: The Cartesian perspective will provide the intellectual and metaphysical DNA for much of modern Western thought, including the natural sciences, social sciences, Anglo-American philosophy, and medical science and technology. The synthesis of Science and Utilitarianism (Herrschaftswissen, science of domination) in the Enlightenment (Bacon and Descartes), along with its implications, will not escape the critical gaze of sociologists and philosophers in the twentieth century, including Max Weber, Max Scheler, Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, and Max Horkheimer. It will be Scheler who coins the term Herrschaftswissen in his work, "Problems of a Sociology of Knowledge" (1924), which is later expanded in The Forms of Knowledge and Society (1926), to refer to the values and metaphysics of the domination and control of nature through modern science. And it will be around this concept that a radical critique of the environmental crisis will evolve. Can technology and science solve problems of nature and the environment if the underlying metaphysics of science is itself problematic and, thus, contrary to the values and goals of a balanced, harmonious, and symbiotic ecology? Can the tools of the master solve the problems of the master's house (Audre Lord)? Finally, an interesting question to be discussed after reading Locke's defense of the market economy, private or class property, and possessive individualism and Descartes' defense of science and the domination and control of nature is whether these two seventeenth-century defenses of Liberalism and the Enlightenment represent fundamental breaks with the ethical tradition of Medieval Christianity and its ideas of nature (Genesis: "dominion over nature" and common property) and humanity (do no ethical or economic harm to others).
Historical Materialism and the Ghost-in-the-Machine: Integrating Marx and Descartes: According to Descartes, Nature is a concept derived from innate ideas given to us by God -- thus it is metaphysical because it is based on God and not the scientific method. This latter method, in turn, creates its observations, hypotheses, experimentations, testing, and conclusions based on these prior innate presuppositions and assumptions about the objectivity and structure of nature itself. But these foundational principles -- that nature is a dead, mechanical, formal, functional, and deterministic machine -- cannot be scientifically proven or empirically verified. Method cannot create Metaphysics. It works the other way around. The metaphysical foundations of nature clearly help science technically work and are formally effective. Without metaphysics, there can be no science because the former provides the objective picture and foundations of empirical reality within which science operates and dominates (Descartes' notion of utility and power and Weber's and Scheler's notion of domination and control). According to Descartes, the justifications of science lie in the proofs for the existence of a perfect and non-deceiving God and the validity of our perception, understanding, and reason. However, something interesting occurs when Descartes and Marx are examined together, and as we move beyond rationalism, idealism, and phenomenology to historical materialism. When comparing Marx's theory of alienation to Durkheim's theory of nature and natural science interesting correlations appear. Durkheim completes his metaphysics of science with an analysis of nature as an extended substance having the characteristics of extension (size and figure), geometric magnitude, motion, dualism, utilitarianism, materialism, quantification, functionalism, separation from consciousness and humanity, externality, mechanism, machine, parts and functions, laws, explanation, determinism, prediction, and domination of nature. Marx's theory of alienation and dehumanization in the workplace characterizes the nature of work as turning humans in mindless things, objects, commodities, machines, division of labor, monetary calculation, costs and benefits, products, profits, efficiency, parts/labor/functions, efficiency and productivity of work, and the domination of labor. Descartes view of the metaphysics of science and nature reflects not an objective, external reality, but, rather, reflects the underlying economic conditions of production and political economy. Natural science is not a result of the search for objective reality or objective truth. Just as the Protestant Reformation is a product of the rise of capitalism (R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism and his critique of Weber's thesis), so too are the Enlightenment and natural science a product of the underlying modes of industrial production. (Also see Capra, 55, 59, and 60; Merchant, 234 and 239; Burtt, 25; Matson, 14; and Descartes, 15, 41, 45-46. and 87-89.) Descartes' justification of modern science rested on the Metaphysics of Consciousness, God, and Nature. Today this justification appears to rest only the metaphysics of nature -- see E. A. Burt, The Metaphysical Foundations of the Natural Sciences, C. Merchant, The Death of Nature, and M. Berman, The Reenchantment of the World. The meaning and purpose of metaphysics has changed since the seventeenth century. Its function is no longer to provide a proof or justification for scientific inquiry. Rather, its purpose is to provide a picture of nature (being) that helps makes science possible. That is, nature after the Enlightenment is viewed as a dead, deterministic, predictable, and mathematical machine that science can dominate and control for the purposes of industrial and commercial useage (Herrschaftswissen, Scheler, Weber, and the Frankfurt School). After the Enlightenment in the 20th and 21st century, the question still remains: How does one justify nature, science, objective reality, and metaphysics today -- ontology vs. utility? Can 17th-century natural law continue to be used to justify political liberalism, natural rights, and the state (J. Locke), as well as modern science (Descartes)?
9. Sigmund Freud Dora: An Analysis of a Case of Hysteria (1905)
Psychoanalysis of Dora, Archaeology of the Mind, and the Formation of the Modern Personality
Freud's Theory of Repression, Amnesia, and Rationalization:
The first lecture outlines Freud's theory of the mind and the general distinctions between the mind and the body, conscious and unconscious life, and public and private language in the process of repression. Emphasis is placed on the nature of lost or repressed experiences, feelings, emotions, desires, and ideas which are not socially acceptable in the conscious life of religion, morals, education, law, family, etc. But these repressed experiences do continue to affect the individual through the distortions of parapraxis (slips of the tongue), dreams, and hysteria. Psychoanalysis is the psychological theory which attempts to bridge these divides and reintegrate the mind and body into an enlightened and healthy person. Mention is also made in this lecture to Griechensehnsucht and Freud's deep borrowings from Plato (memory), Socrates (dialogue and the talking cure), Aristotle (catharsis and release from the Poetics, and Sophocles (Greek tragedy and Oedipus Rex). Finally, Freud's ideas are highlighted by their distinction from the Cartesian paradigm: mind/body dualism, human rationality, critique of Enlightenment science, and a new theory of consciousness. Psychoanalysis is the study of serious psychological problems that have been repressed, displaced from the MIND to the BODY, and hidden from view in the unconscious mind as they appear in the form of hysterical and physical or somatic and psychic symptoms. Reason does not necessarily lead to enlightenment, but to false consciousness and rationalizations (psychological lies).
Freud's Theory of Repression, Distortion, and Displacement and the Psychopathology of Neurosis:
(1) Experiences (41, 43, and 45)
(2) Memory (45, concepts),
(3) Repression (31): Resistance (31) and Distortion
(4) Displacement of Memory and Creation of Physical Symptoms (44)
(5). Symptoms (44 and 55, amnesia, difficulty breathing, loss of voice [aphoria], dry cough [tussis], migraines, fatigue and lack of concentration, low spirits, and alteration of character, 36-39, 46, 55-57, and 64-65))
As Freud examines Dora, who is unable to articulate or remember the various repressed experiences and memories that have so detrimentally affected her life, he is able to create a new public language in the form of his theory of the mind and sexual repression. It is this new language which helps her recall the various events of sexual assault in her life from her experiences with Herr K at the lake (16 years old) and the office (14 years old), as well as her visual memory of her father and Frau K having oral sex, and, finally, her experiences of the Oedipus complex (love of father), lesbianism (love of Frau K), and infantile masturbation. Freud's new language helps Dora bridge the gap between her conscious and public memory and repressed and private experiences and desires. Freud integrates his theory of the mind, repression, and sexuality. [Note: later social and political theorists in Europe especially will reject his theory of sexuality but accept his theory of consciousness and repression. They will apply these aspects of his theory to politics and economics, rather than to sexuality.] Freud contends that the repression of the two experiences into the unconscious mind was an attempt by Dora to forget the sexual assault by Herr K and also her unconscious feelings of arousal and affection for him. They continued to meet after these events; Herr K continually brought her presents; they met daily; and she wanted to be the mother of his children. She also felt disgusted and betrayed by her father who was having an affair with Frau K and had given her to Herr K.
Compare Marx's theory of ideology and false consciousness and Freud's theory of repression and distorted rationalizations -- phenomenal ideas and thoughts are distortions that hide the underlying and repressed reality of alienated labor and class property on the one hand and sexual desires and occurrences on the other. Freud's theory of the mind and split between the mind and body, concepts/ideas and repressed physical desires, emotions, and passions. Marx developed a theory of false consciousness and ideology -- political freedom and emancipation, rights of man, natural rights, fair exchange, and fair wages -- that hides the underlying structures of power, property, and the social organization of production, that is, the oppressive structures of political economy. In an analogous way Freud develops a theory of the unconscious, dreams, and hysteria that present symbols and physical symptoms that hide the repressed experiences, ideas, emotions, and desires of the individual. Outline the symptoms of parapraxis, dreams, and hysteria (ustera); examine the nature of psychoanalysis as both a science (description, analysis, and medical history) and an art form of hermeneutics (meaning in historical, literary, and psychoanalytical texts). Trace the Greek influence on Feud and his Griechensehnsucht: Aristotle theory of catharsis and release, Plato's ideas of memory, Sophocles's tragedies and Oedipus Rex, and Socrates' dialogues -- "the talking cure." Also briefly discuss Irving Stone's The Greek Treasure and Heinrich Schliemann's discovery of ancient Troy. Freud's uncovering of the mind as an archaeology of the mind. Finally, outline Freud's critical reaction of Descartes, rationalism, and the Enlightenment: critique of the mind/body dualism, Enlightenment science, rationality of human beings, his development of a new theory of the mind and levels of consciousness.
Psychoanalysis and Repression: Analysis of Freud begins with a critique of Cartesian rationality, consciousness, and the mind/body dualism and 19th-century European surface psychology as we investigate the pathogenesis of hysterical symptoms, parapraxis (slips of the tongue), and dreams. Dora at 18 years of age enters Freud's office at Berggasse 19, Vienna complaining of physical (somatic) symptoms of difficulty breathing (dyspnoea), loss of voice (aphonia), nervous coughing and sore throat, migraine headaches, depression and irritability, hysterical unsociability and avoidance of men, lack of concentration and fatigue, amnesia, low spirits, and alterations in character. Some of these physical symptoms she has had since she was 12 years old. After an initial comprehensive physical examination and later psychoanalytic therapy, Freud concludes that the physical symptoms are the result of deep psychological repression of early traumatic childhood experiences: Lake trauma at 16 with Herr K, sexual assault by Herr K in his office at 14, seeing her father engaged in oral sex with Frau K, and a myriad of other "sexual encounters" throughout her life that extend back into her earliest childhood memories. These socially unacceptable experiences, desires, thoughts, and memories have been repressed by Dora deep into her unconscious mind (das Unbewusstsein). These desires and thoughts have been excommunicated, forgotten, and lost in a private language that is transformed itself into physical symptoms and dreams and that cannot be easily translated; they have lost all connection with a public language necessary to recall and articulate them into the present moment. However, because of the nature of repression and the levels of the human mind, these lost desires (body) and ideas (mind) find ways of expressing themselves in the distorted and censored forms of physical symptoms and dreams. Psychoanalytic theory of the Mind and Repression provides an opportunity in a clinical setting of the "talking cure" to create a new language of remembrance and a new self-consciousness based on psychoanalysis and clinical therapy. Freud hoped that over times with this new enlightenment the traumatic experiences would be remembered, the hysterical symptoms would disappear, and the patient would return to a healthy state.
Discovering the Mind in the Ancients through Depth Hermeneutics: Ancient Greek literature, tragedy, and philosophy provided Freud with the intellectual foundation for his psychoanalytical theory: Greek tragedy of Oedipus Rex (Sophocles), catharsis and release (Aristotle's theory of tragedy), memory (Plato), and the centrality of dialogue (Socrates), along with the importance of Jean Martin Charcot's theory of hysteria and hypnosis, Hippolyte Bernheim's method of hypnosis, Josef Breuer's theory of hysteria, and critique of Cartesian rationalism, surface psychology, theory of consciousness, and the Enlightenment; psychoanalysis as science, art, and depth hermeneutics of the interpretive understanding of unconscious and forgotten meaning and memories (12); access to the deep structures of the mind: hysterical symptoms and dreams (26-29); nature of mental repression (31); and clinical setting for Dora: history of patient and physical description of her medical problems: loss of voice (aphoria), migraines, depression, unsociability, and difficulty breathing (dyspnoea) (31); clinical movement from somatic to psychic problems: lake trauma when she was 16 years old (41) and office love affair when she was 14 years old (44-45); and Dora's displacement (44). In the European tradition, the art of interpretation of a text (hermeneutics), an event (sociology), a particular occurence (history), or lost memory (psychoanalysis) is a science. Europeans reject the narrow reductionism and naturalism of the Anglo-American tradition and its limited view of science.
Theory of Repression, Rationalization, and the Unconscious: Mechanism of Repression: childhood experiences, loss of memory, repression, condensation, displacement, sublimation, conversion (70-72), and symptom and language distortion (44-45); Freud's reproach to Dora (51-52); Freud's analysis of coughing and aphoria (55 and 57); new symptoms of gastric pains, nervous spasmodic coughing (64-65 and 69-70), sucking on objects (69), difficulty breathing (98-99), and mucous discharge (101-102); and theory of sexuality, deep unconscious, and repressed causes of hysteria: Dora's love for Herr K (44-45), love for her father and the Oedipus complex (73-77), love for Frau K and lesbianism (78 and 80), and infantile masturbation (97).
10. Sigmund Freud Five Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1910)
Psychoanalysis and Freud's Theory of the Mind, Unconscious, and Repression
Deep Structures of the Mind in Plato's Cave: Ego, Id, and Superego: (1) Topography of the Mind: conscious, preconscious, and unconscious; (2) Structures of the Mind: the dynamic and functional relationships between the ego (consciousness, reality principle), id (instincts, pleasure principle), and superego (family, culture, education, religion, law, mores, etc.): and (3) Mechanism of Repression: theory of childhood repression (masturbation and Oedipal fantasies), anger, fear, aggression (Thanatos), anxiety, guilt, and social adjustment (Hall and Lindzey, Theories of Personality, 44 and 52); theory of the ego, id, and superego, Oedipus complex, and castration anxiety. The overcoming of aggression, anger, anxiety, fear, and guilt --Terror (compare to Weber's thesis of the Protestant ethic and the terror of damnation as the formative principles of modern individualism) -- overcoming the Oedipus Complex and the desire to kill one's father and physically possess one's mother -- is achieved through maturation, acculturation, assimilation, adjustment, and adaptation to the authority of the father and the broader values of the superego and society. That is, at first there the father or authority figure who produces anxiety and aggression on the part of the child. This, in turn, later evolves with the socialization and acceptance of the superego values into the adjustment and adaptation to the general culture of the family and society. The more intense the sexual repression, the stronger becomes the ego identity and personality (Personlichkeit). Examine the following in more detail: Eros and Thanatos, sublimation, displacement of energy and symptoms, rationalization, and personality development. Discuss the importance of F. Mesmer, H. Bernheim, J. Breuer, H. Marcuse, and C. Lasch.
Theory of Dreams and Sexuality: Mechanism of the Dream Work and Depth Hermeneutics: dream interpretation and depth hermeneutics, process of dream work, manifest and latent content of dreams, dialogue, and dream symbols of male and female sexuality (35-41); analysis of Dora's first dream (88); and theory of the mind, unconscious, and repression. The Mechanism of Dreams and Dream Work and the Method of Interpretation and Translation involve an understanding of the process of repression and distortion of the unconscious in manifest dreams and the method of interpretation of the deep and hidden meaning within the latent dream: (1) Condensation of events and experiences; (2) Displacement of emotions from one object or person or experience to another; (3) Representations -- thoughts are translated into symbols and visual images; (4) Symbolism -- symbols replace action, persons, or ideas (Wolman, Contemporary Theories and Systems in Psychology, 220); and (5) Secondary Revisions and Rationalizations -- make something whole out of distortions and particulars. Textual analysis of Freud's theory of repression (22), wish fulfillment (26), dream distortion (35-36), meaning of dream symbolism (Wolman, 220), interpretation of the unconscious as analogous to the political underground (Litz, The Person, 248), and the Oedipus complex (Wolman 236). Undertake a closer look at Freud's theory by examining his analysis of Dora's first dream about sleeping, locked doors, and the jewel case (Schmuckaestchen) (81, 85, and 88). In the dream Dora is concerned about locking the door while sleeping, protecting herself from attack, and securing and rescuing her jewel case in a fire but her father was uninterested. Freud believed the jewel case represented Dora's genitals and virginity that her father was unwilling to protect her in order to maintain his secret relationship with Frau K. In the dream she couldn't lock the door to protect herself from the sexual advances of Herr K. The concepts and theories of psychoanalysis about the structure of the mind and the mechanism of dream work help translate Dora's everyday activities and her unconscious and repressed ideas and experiences back into the conscious mind. The remaining course lectures will focus on the issues of Existentialism, Nihilism, Modernity, and the Rise of Classical Social Theory. What are dreams; are they real; and what do they say about human behavior, unconscious repression, and conscious thought? Is Freud too reductionistic by reducing human activity and the mind to sexual desires? Or is this just a continuation of the tragedy of Cartesian dualism and the drive for self-preservation and natural rights based on life, liberty, and possessions.
Playful Discussion: Freud's theory of the mind and repression is based on his theory of the ego, superego, and sexuality. What if the driving force in an individual's life was not sexual gratification but other drives or desires, such as the fulfilment of human needs (Aristotle), natural law (Aquinas, Hooker, and Locke), human creativity (Winckelmann and Marx), social responsibility and general will (Rousseau), need for democracy and public discourse (Marx and Mill), meaning and purpose in human life (Schopenhauer and Nietzsche), etc.? Would these alternative needs and drives help explain repression, psychological problems, neuroses, etc.?
11. Albert Camus The Fall (1956)
Existentialism as Social Critique: Liberalism, Nihilism, and the Modern "Fall" into Hell
"Mexico City" in Amsterdam, Holland: Camus's novel is set in a local bar in Amsterdam and entails a private discussion of two individuals over a five day period. He begins his novel with the line the "silence is deafening." This is a key to the whole story which is set in Amsterdam. Holland attempted to remain neutral before and after the German invasion during World War II. Most of the activity and story occur within a bar called "Mexico City" located along one of the many canals located in the heart of the city. Start with a physical description of the sights and smells of the city: Ill-lite lamps outside the bar casting shadows and confusion, odor of gin and liquor from the bar, the scent of death emanating from the accumulated funerary flowers rotting in the canals at night, the slow movement of boats in the distance, and the sounds of raucous nightlife in the air in Amsterdam, Holland; analyze the patrons in and outside the seedy bar; outline the various literary and religious references in the first few pages of the novel; and trace the traditions mentioned within the text that attempt to locate the story within an ethical, political, and religious context. Amsterdam was the site of the extermination of the Dutch Jews in Holland and "Mexico City" (Tenochtitlan and the City of Dis) was the site of the extermination of the Aztec Indians in Central America. 100,000 died in the initial battle with Hernando Cortes and the Conquistadors and over 10 million in the broader Aztec Empire died of smallpox introduced by the Spanish. Note: Amsterdam and Tenochtitlan were both sites of the extermination of indigenous populations. Examine how the physical description of the setting in "Mexico City" in Amsterdam reflects the inner life of the exiled protagonist, Jean-Baptiste Clamence, a famous lawyer from pre-World War II Paris, and his Fall from grace, prestige, and power. Also discuss the apparent abuse of language at the beginning of the novel: "An addiction to silk underwear does not necessarily imply that one's feet are dirty" (6). A few pages later, Jean-Baptiste refers to the Holocaust in equally nonsensical and irrational terms such as "cleanup," "real vacuum-cleaning," "diligence," "method," and then finishes with the idea that it was "one of the greatest crimes in history" (11). What does this mean in the context of what follows -- the distortion of moral language in a state of drunkenness and debauchery? Distortion of language and the silence of reason are the keys to understanding Jean-Baptiste as a lost and tormented soul: He abuses language in the bar by continuously judging others, so as to not be judged by them; he has replaced universal natural law by his own moral judgments aided by the liquor of "Mexico City." In turn, he remains silent and frozen in the face of suicide, personal treats to his manhood, mistreatment of women, the theft of water and death of inmate in the prison camp in Tunisia, and the abuse of language (Pope and king) and people (Jews, Chinese, etc.). Hipocrisy, personal confessions, distortion of language, and the abuse of power are the crimes of Jean-Baptiste that he then turns into the positive moral foundations of life in Amsterdam as he distorts moral law to excuse his own transgression. Jean-Baptiste's inability or unwillingness to act morally is the result of both a lack of moral courage and a loss of moral concepts due to psychological and social repression. There are thus strong residual elements of Freud's theory of the mind and repression in this work. Here is an example of where repression of human sexuality is replaced by the repression of ethics and politics so that certain types of questions cannot be asked. The cause for this repression lies in Jean-Baptiste's character and the character of modern industrial society -- materialism, egoism, and utilitarianism. "Mexico City" is the more contemporary version of Locke's second state of nature without natural law and God and Dickens' melancholic empiricism (facts) and dispirited Coketown. One could argue that the origins of existentialism and moral nihilism lie in Locke's theory of the second state of nature. The modern Hell articulated by Camus has it origins in capitalism and liberalism that have lost natural law, natural ethics, human rights, and the moral community -- whether that moral community is articulated by Aristotle, Aquinas, Hooker, or Marx. Thought question: Are Christianity (less the Protestant Ethic) and Marxism incompatible with Capitalism? Camus incorporates Dante's vision of the center of Hell in the Inferno (first part of the Divine Comedy) as occupied by traitors (Judas, Cassius, and Brutus), but changes the meaning of treachery to the silence in the face of violence and the Holocaust. According to Dante, those who stood at the gates of Hell on the shores of the Acheron but never crossed over on the ferry to the inner circles were those who were morally neutral, uncommitted, and silent in the face of human misery and violence. Camus now sees these shadows as the real traitors to humanity who remained silent in the face of Nazism and the terrors of German fascism and the Holocaust. Camus' novel fuses Weber's theory of the disenchantment of substantive reason and the iron cage of the last man, Horkheimer's theory of the silence and liquidation of reason, and Locke's view of humanity in the second state of nature with its loss of natural law and God replaced by unlimited private property, class inequality, and the freedoms of a market economy.
Major Themes in the History of the Fall of Humanity: The main themes of this work include the following: integrating the Fall of Humanity in the Bible and Greek tragedy -- Hebrews (Old Testament Fall, Garden of Eden, and Tower of Babel), Hellenists (New Testament John the Baptist and Sadducees), ancient Greek philosophy and tragedy (Aristotle and Sophocles), and Renaissance poetry (Dante) -- the holocaust at Tenochtitlan (1520s) and Amsterdam (1940s) with the Fall of modern Liberalism (distorted language, loss of knowledge, disenchantment, moral relativism, egoism, and materialism) in the creation of the modern Hell in the city of Dis and "Mexico City" (Dante and Camus). In turn, these themes may be broken down into three major areas: (1) the Fall of the Ancients and the Moderns; (2) the Fall of Liberalism; and (3) Fall of Humanity in the Holocaust. What is of particular interest in this novel is that Camus attempts to historically and socially locate the Fall of Humanity in the Holocaust in the very institutions and values of Liberalism. At first view, Jean-Baptiste is a famous and modest, articulate and caring lawyer, successful defender of the poor, weak, and disadvantaged, kind and helpful, honorable and righteous, generous and compassionate who refuses money, rewards, and public recognition. During World War II, he helped his fellow inmates in a prisoner-of-war camp in North Africa who refer to him as Pope because of his community service, moral and physical care for others, and ideals of social justice. But as the story develops in The Fall and with the recognition in chapter 3, there is the realization that this is all a series of illusions, lies, and appearances of the real person -- the conflict between the ideal and the real is the tragic experience of the novel. Jean-Baptiste finally sees himself as vain and shallow, an egoistical sexual predator who lives from moment to moment without any guiding moral ideals or authority beyond himself. He doesn't care for others and feels no moral responsibility beyond his own self-interest and pleasures. There is no longer any language in the main character or in society as a whole for moral outrage and social protest against the violation of natural law. This is why he wants to become the judge-penitent and ultimate distributor of moral justice. In a similar manner, the conflict within Liberalism between the public ideals of individual freedom, equality, self-determination, and natural rights and the actual historical reality of materialism, egoism, utilitarianism, no natural law, and moral nihilism and silence or quiet participation, acquiescence, and moral death in the face of the terrors of Nazism and the Holocaust is the central focus of this work. Camus attempts to distinguish between the ideal Jean-Baptiste and the real person, just as he distinguishes between the ideology of liberalism and the real liberalism as the "middle-class hell" in Amsterdam. (These connections will be developed more fully by later Existentialists, who integrate Marx and Existentialism (Sartre), to develop these insights in a comprehensive social theory of modernity.) Discuss the institutional and structural relationships between Liberalism and Nazism and between Liberalism and the Holocaust. This is the heart of the modern Hell: in the face of the Holocaust and crimes against humanity, individuals were silent because of the loss of meaning, words, ideas, traditions, and logic -- silk underwear, Chinese restaurants, and the Pope in the prisoner-of-war camp -- distorted language, voiceless reason, and moral nihilism. Camus did not leave his criticism at the level of existential disenchantment but tried to place it in a social context -- this middle-class hell was the result of the rise of liberal materialism, individualism, egoism, self-interest, totalitarianism, and slavery. Modern society had depleted the moral resources of the broader ethical community, natural law, and the human soul. These very values and norms were internalized in the personality of Jean-Baptiste Clamence who was an immoral, empty, and shallow person (50, 59-60) who lived in an ethical void without meaning or purpose, compassion or feeling, and without commitment or community. He was guilty of debauchery (barfly), vanity and egoism, arrogance, sexism (his treatment of women), racism (Chinese restaurant workers), crimes against humanity (stealing water in the prisoner-of-war camp and stealing moral salvation and tragic recognition as false prophet), cowardice (motorcycle incident), unwillingness to help those in distress (dying prisoner and suicide at bridge), and crimes against reason and humanity (kills God, logic, substantive reason and morality, 117-118,132-133, 140, and 147). Jean-Baptiste manifested the personality and psychology of modern liberalism who, in the end, could not speak in the face of the most despicable and deplorable ethical crimes against humanity. He is frozen in silence in the face of the suicide and the physical abuse at the traffic light, just as the Cro-Magnon bartender is frozen in the loss of language in "Mexico City." He cannot speak of his own crimes except to this strange visitor to the bar. Finally, Jean-Baptiste's remarkably tragic character flaw and fall (Chapt. 3) are a reflection of the deeper ethical and political emptiness and void of liberalism -- loss of reason, community, and social values. The inherent meaninglessness of human life lies in the ethical and political philosophy of liberalism in The Fall (1956), not in some abstract and speculative reasoning about the meaninglessness of the universe in general as in Camus' Myth of Sisyphus (1942). In the latter work, Camus argues that life is absurd and meaningless because God does not exist and there is no inherent natural order, law, or purpose to human life. But human life must prevail in the face of absurdity by continuing to push the rock daily up the hill. For existentialists, individuals must continue their lives by a confrontation, deviance, and a "leap of faith" in the face of meaninglessness (Kierkegaard) or by revolting against the human condition, embracing and accepting the absurdity of life, and creating beauty (Camus). According to Camus, this is how we become "poets of our lives." On the other hand, if God does exist, then the world still is indifferent and absurd because of all the pain and suffering experienced in it. There is something different, however, in The Fall since the real problem is not the problematic and finite nature of human existence, but the ethical and political meaninglessness of liberalism as the foundation for modern existence; the main issues are epistemological, sociological, and political and not ontological. In this work the real problem is not the absurdity of existence, but the absurdity of liberalism and the life of Jean-Baptiste Clamence. This work represents Jean-Baptiste's betrayal of the elderly, women, friends, fellow prisoners-of-war, morality, and humanity (Pope, judge-penitent, lawyer). It also represents a broad socialist critique of liberalism after WW II with its egoism, individualism, utilitarianism, relativism, nihilism, totalitarianism, and defense of slavery at the micro level. And at the broader macro level it is a critique of Hobbes, Locke, Smith, Bentham, and J. Mill, and the silence of reason and liberalism. We have already seen this semester similar criticisms of liberalism in a variety of different works and authors. With the rise of liberalism and capitalism, there is a loss of moral economy, community, and natural law in a market economy in Locke, a loss of critical, ethical reason in alienation, ideology, and false consciousness in Marx, a loss of substantive reason and disenchantment in Weber, a loss of collective consciousness and social values in Durkheim, and an existential loss of meaning, purpose, and values in human life in Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. The tragedy of modernity is that it is a modern hell characterized by self-interest (48 and 103-104) and shallowness (59-60), dread and anxiety (133), loss of God, law, and the moral order (117-118 and 136-137 ), a loss of friendship and community, traditions and past, self-respect and kindness to others, narrow individualism and egoism (48 and 50), and a loss of moral values and social ethics (132-133 and 140). These are the characteristics of economic and political liberalism that produced fascism, World War II, and the Holocaust.
Rethinking Modern Tragedy and the "Fate of Humanity": Integration of the Old and New Testament, Aristotle, Dante, and the Moderns: This work is a French phenomenology of ancient and modern tragic literature as it searches for the fate of humanity and modernity in the classical texts of the Ancient Hebrews, Hellenes, Christian Hellenists, 14th-century Renaissance, and modern liberalism. Camus's work represents an overview of the tragedy of the Ancients and the Moderns as humans attempted to strive beyond the limits of the natural moral order to approach the wisdom, knowledge, or power of the divine. The modern tragedy inverts this history and turns Hell into a world of silence, ignorance, natural disorder, meaninglessness, and moral nihilism. (It is a world without natural law: Locke, without substantive reason: Weber, and without moral voice and language: Camus.) The tragedy of The Fall at the micro-level is experienced by Jean-Baptiste Clamence in chapter 3 and the tragedy of Modern society appears in chapter 5. Camus in his literary fashion traces the tragedy of humanity through the following traditions:

(1) Ancient Hebrews and Old Testament: Garden of Eden, the Fall, and the Tower of Bab-el (gate of Heaven) (3-4)
(2) Hellenists and New Testament: John the Baptist, a "voice crying in the desert" (vox clamantis in deserto) and the prophet of the "Good News" of the Messiah, who baptizes Jesus with "water" (8, 70, and 108-109) and the Sadducees as high priests and traitors acting on behalf of the Romans (9 and 10)
(3) Ancient Greek Tragedy: Structure of Greek Tragedy in Sophocles's Oedipus Rex and Aristotle's Poetics: Flaw or Error (ch. 1, pp. 3-16), Fall (ch. 2, pp. 17-41), Recognition or penitential confession of the Fall (ch. 3, pp. 42-71), Judgment (ch. 4, pp. 72-96), and Moral Reconciliation (ch. 5, pp. 97-118)
(4) Early Renaissance and Dante's 'Inferno': concentric canals of Amsterdam and the bar named "Mexico City" located on the innermost island or in the ninth circle of Dante's hell (3-4, 7, 10, 12-13, 14-15, and 43)
(5) Modern Society and the Middle Class: Camus refers to hell as the "middle-class hell" -- the hell of modern liberalism -- where individuals fornicate and read the newspapers (6). It is a place of compulsive liars, stupid and inarticulate individuals, drunkards, prostitutes, and pimps, distrustful fornicators, distorters of language, and average and unquestioning family members, employees, and consumers who slowly liquidate and kill life by their unimaginative dullness and extraordinary complacency; they kill by the slow attrition of boredom, passivity, and depression in a meaningless void. This is the world of uninspired mediocrity and the banality of evil in the last man as formulated in the world of Liberalism, Enlightenment, Nihilism, and Nazism (7-8). Throughout this semester we've seen the middle-class hell of Coketown (Dickens), disappearance of natural law and the ethical restrictions on the market economy and private property in the second state of nature (Locke), the use of metaphysics and God to justify modern science (Descartes), and the loss of substantive reason due to Enlightenment science and liberal utilitarianism (Weber) -- all this leads to the rise of Nazism. Liberalism and utilitarianism lead to individual isolation, loneliness, moral decay, breakdown of the community and social responsibility, and the end of equality and freedom. The end results of this evolution begun by Locke and ending in Paris and Amsterdam is moral relativism and silence in the face of the abuse of women, suicide, cleansing of the Jewish Quarter, stealing water in the prison camp, and the Holocaust.

Descent into Hell: The Tragedy of Jean Baptiste and Liberalism: Camus' The Fall is a rewrite of Dante's Inferno (1300) and descent into Hell for a contemporary audience to express the existential crisis -- Nihilism and Nothingness -- of the individual in modern society; the existential dilemma has individual, social, and cultural causes; and descent into Hell: Virgil and Clamence (clemence (French) and clamentia (Latin) for compassion and mercy) lead us through the Inferno into the ninth circle of Dante's hell with the traitors Judas, Brutus, and Cassius in the mouths of Lucifer -- Judas was a traitor to Jesus, Brutus and Cassius were traitors to Julius Caesar and Roman Empire, and Lucifer was a traitor to God. Describe Camus' view of Hell as a place of drunken debauchers, pleasure seekers, and moral traitors (14 and 43) and Modern Liberalism: middle-class hell (7, 14, and 47) of liberalism: Liberalism is a major social crime against humanity and is the underlying reason for the Holocaust and Existentialism. The latter is also the logical conclusion to the second state of nature in Locke's Second Treatise of Government: The logical development of Hobbes' view of the individual and Locke's theory of possessive individualism ends in the modern hell with the traitors to humanity and the loss of humanity's potential for true equality, freedom, and justice. Moral values have been transformed into heartless and spiritless market values. This hell is not characterized by fire, ice, physical torture, or damnation and punishment, but by radical individualism, utilitarian pleasures, and moral darkness, that is, by isolation, inner loneliness, loss of community and friends (7, 8, 58, and 102-105), and silence. Nihilism produces moral silence and homelessness when confronted by injustice and evil. In the center circle of the modern hell are Hobbes and Locke, the founders of middle-class liberalism and Calvin who helped create the modern consciousness, radical individualism, terror of damnation and predestination, and the breakdown of the integrated moral community (Weber and Horkheimer), thereby replacing Judas, Brutus, and Cassius. Jean-Baptiste, because he is a pope, judge-penitent, and moral arbiter of this world, does not challenge its underlying and false assumptions and values but becomes its final judge; he recognizes his fall (chapt. 3), but does not reconcile or reestablish a universal moral order and natural law (chap 4 and 5). He is a traitor to humanity, just as liberalism is a traitorous social system. Both Jean-Baptiste (micro) and liberalism (macro) are traitors because of the former's character and the latter's social values. This "middle-class hell" of liberalism results from an inability to make universal moral judgements about right and wrong, good and evil. It has redefined morality into terms of market and economic categories of materialism, hedonism, and egoism; this is the world of Locke's second state of nature. There are no transcending moral values, natural law, or metaphysical principles that can be used to criticize suicide or the Holocaust. (Note: This is the very problem first examined by Locke in chapter 5 of his work on the second state of nature with its corresponding loss of natural law. A defense of natural rights and possessive individualism results in the loss of the spirit (justice) and heart (morality) of modern liberalism. Camus' novel is just its final realization.) In the end the real traitor in the ninth circle of hell is the false prophet Jean Baptiste whose banality, shallowness, and theft of natural law led him to become the moral judge-penitent; in the end the real traitor to humanity is also Liberalism with its false ideals of self-interest and self-pleasure without an overarching responsibility to the community, others, or a moral law of "do no harm to others." Finally, Jean Baptiste is a traitor to Humanity and Traditions that Camus makes reference to early in the novel. He is a traitor to the lost ethical and metaphysical traditions of the Ancient Hebrews and Greeks who had a profound belief in various gods, natural order, and the integrity of the moral community now forgotten in the depravity of the middle-class hell in "Mexico City." Unable to find a moral grounding in a life of liberal pleasure, market materialism, individual consumption, and unlimited sexuality, power, etc. Jean-Baptiste is the modern picture of humanity unable to resist the Holocaust and speak out against the violence of Nazism.
Liberalism is Loneliness, Despair, Disenchantment, and Madness: Locke's theory of possessive individualism and market morality, Marx's theory of alienation and physical wants, Nietzsche's theory of the will-to-power and last man, Weber's theory of the madness of disenchantment in the iron cage, and Durkheim's theory of deranged madness resulting from the loss of the collective conscience and communal morality are all social expressions of the rise of Liberalism, individualism, and economic materialism and the decline of ethics and social justice in the face of moral and political barbarism. A nice succinct and clear summary of these ideas appears in Christine Emba's essay "Liberalism as Loneliness" (Washington Post, 4/16/18) which is a review of Patrick Deneen's book Why Liberalism Failed: "As liberalism has progressed, it has done so by ever more efficiently liberating each individual from 'particular places, relationships, memberships, and even identities "unless they have been chosen, are worn lightly, and can be revised or abandoned at will." In the process, it has scoured anything that could hold stable meaning and connection from our modern landscape -- culture has been disintegrated, family bonds devalued, connections to the past cut off, an understanding of the common good all but disappeared...And in the end, we've all been left terribly alone...That's the heart of it, really. Liberalism is loneliness." And the psychological results of modern liberalism has been higher suicide rates and "rise in deaths of despair," with "less happiness and more pain than its illiberal counterparts." All this has left Americans "desperately, desperately lonely."
"Middle-Class Hell" and Classical Sociology: "Middle-Class Hell" is just (1) an historically updated form of Coketown (Gradgrind and Bounderby); (2) it's the hell whose origins lie in the writings of Hobbes, Locke, Bentham, and James Mill while updated to include moral relativism and moral silence in face of the Holocaust and crimes against humanity. (3) The logic of moral relativism and moral empiricism is found deeply embedded in German Idealism and Existentialism and in the loss of Natural Law in Liberalism. Camus describes this "middle-class hell" as full of pimps, prostitutes, and perverts who have no morality; a bartended who is silent and cannot speak; two exiled and lost individuals who are in a bar called "Mexico City" named after a city of murder and a holocaust "Tenochtitlan" in the country that was neutral in World War II until the Nazi invasion in May 1940, also located in the Jewish Quarter of Amsterdam which is in the low country of the Netherlands, and surrounded by polluted waters, rotting flowers, and death barges. This is a middle-class hell because the values of Liberalism -- individualism, egoism, materialism, hedonism, utilitarianism, market morality, silence and moral relativism, and the loss of community, social responsibility, common good, and natural law -- are all reflected in the personality and actions of Jean-Baptiste Clamence. Liberalism has replaced the values of the ancient and medieval ethics and moral economy with the market values of maximum efficiency and productivity, calculation and control, unlimited growth and production, artificial consumption, and the accumulation of unlimited commercial and industrial profits and property. And it is Jean-Baptiste, who as a famed lawyer and judge penitent, replaces traditional morality and natural law with his own personally defined moral judgements like watching a suicide, stealing water from a dying prisoner of war, or sleeping with the wife of a friend. The responsibility to others, the community, and common good is replaced by the "I, I, I," that is, by the egoism and materialism of modern liberalism (Locke's second state of nature). The result is that both Jean-Baptiste and Liberalism eliminate all morality from society, all sense of a common responsibility to others, thereby creating a world of cultural emptiness, personal homelessness, and moral meaninglessness; it is a despiritualized, disenchanted, and frozen world deprived of an intimate and bonding connection between Economics and Ethics. Both Jean-Baptiste and Liberalism live a world without Ethics - RRAANNDDDD. Society has become an empty and absurd moral void without truth, direction, or hope -- alienation, disenchantment, and anomie. According to Camus, Clamence is the personification of the death of morality and reason in liberalism which is then unable to resist the rise of fascism and the death camps. This problem, which finds its fullest expression in the twentieth century, will be developed more in the next few weeks with an examination of the writings of Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. (One wonders if it is more than just an eerie coincidence that Adolph Eichmann, one of the key participants and organizers of the Wannseekonferenz in January 1942 and a chief architect of the "Final Solution" and the Holocaust, received a Red Cross passport in Italy to enter Argentina in 1950 under the name Ricardo Klement. Could there be any symbolic relationship between Klement and Clamence? If not, it is still a strange historical accident. The etymology of the surname name "Klement" derives from the Latin "Clemens" for "merciful.") (4) Finally, it should be noted that Weber's distinction between the substantive reason of philosophy, art, religion, and early science and the formal rationality of the positivism and utilitarianism of the last man in the iron cage could be another important aspect in our understanding of the "Middle-Class Hell" and the "banality of evil." And since Weber was influenced by Freud, especially in his later life, he would have been aware of the importance of the historical loss and psychological repression of ideas.
Existentialism and Classical Social Theory: John Locke had, even if unconsciously, showed us the existential dimensions of Liberalism. That is, by his transition from the original state of nature to the second state of nature, from the moral community to the market economy, he revealed the inherent contradictions, incoherence, and inconsistencies of liberalism. By the end of chapter 5 of The Second Treatise of Government, it was clear that the key political and ethical concepts of equality, liberty, freedom, rights, and justice had lost their core foundations and meaning in the community and natural law and became depleted of all moral elements. By being reduced to economic and market categories, these key concepts had lost all substantive and objective content, purpose, and ideals. The ethical world had become meaningless, empty, and lonely -- an existential void stripped of all content and hope as the underlying values of liberalism, such as individual freedom, equality, rights, and happiness have been reduced to consumer choices, market opportunities, hard work, self-interest acquisition, competitive advantage, and property ownership. Consumption, physical pleasure, and money have become the foundation of human freedom and creativity. The world has become an isolated and empty market society stripped of all values of meaning and purpose in work, politics, culture, traditions, and the collective conscience of the community. So, by the time of Camus' work, The Fall, the "middle-class hell" was quite recognizable. Liberalism had turned into Existentialism. Note: This helps clarify why classical social theory was so influenced by various forms of existentialism: Marx (Fromm -- loss of meaning, purpose, freedom, and self-determination in the capitalist workplace and economy), Weber (Nietzsche -- bureaucracy, relativism and decadence of the warring gods of values, the positivism and religion of preachers, and the ideology of science), and Durkheim (Schopenhauer -- nothingness of the world, individual isolation and loneliness, and the loss of collective consciousness and social meaning). Marx's theory of alienation and work, Weber's theory of rationalization and disenchantment, and Durkheim's theory of anomie and dereglement are all based on the foundations of liberalism and existentialism. The irrationality and bankruptcy of the modern lifeworld is not a product of neo-Kantian epistemological developments, phenomenal experience, science, the death of religion, and the barrenness of human experience and morality. Rather, existentialism is a product of the institutions and values of a particular historical type of political and economic society -- liberalism and capitalism -- that has lost all traditional meaning in its institutions, political economy, and culture.
Fall of Jean-Baptiste as Traitor to Humanity: Jean-Baptiste was a famous lawyer in Paris (Garden of Eden) who helped the poor, children, and widows. He refused the Legion of Merit twice because of his modesty and strength of character. He even tipped his hat to the blind person whom he helped to cross the street. He expressed compassion and concern for the poor, dispossessed, infirmed, and blind. There are clear elements of natural law residing in his character. But the more we get to know him in the fallen-state of his self-imposed exile in Amsterdam (Hell), we learn more about his real character, especially his egoism and individualism (48, 50, and 65) shallowness, pride, and vanity (28, 32-33, 47, 48-50, 58, 59-60, 67, 87-88, and 142), distrust of friends and others (46, 82-83, 86, and 73-74), forgetfulness (49-50, 53, and 70-71), perpetual laughter and guilt (39, 69, 78, 84, 91, 102, 106, 125, 131, and 142), debauchery and utilitarianism (58 and 102-105), inconsistency and hypocrisy (141), distortion of language and reason (3-4, 6, 10-11, 46, 49, 90, and 92), fear of freedom (44-45, 67, and 136), defense of domination, totalitarianism, and slavery with a smile (23-24, 43-46, 55, 84-85, 132-133, 131-133, and 136-137), and false prophet (90, 117, 136-141, and 147). The tragic and fatal flaws of Jean-Baptiste's character mirror the tragedy of modernity -- the character and ethical/structural flaws of modern industrial society.

Recognition of the Fall and Greek Tragedy in Chapter Three: Individual Fall and Recognition by Jean-Baptiste as Coward and Traitor to Humanity:
(1) cowardice at the traffic light (52-53)
(2) abuse of women (50 and 56-60)
(3) suicide at the Pont Royal (69-71)
(4) elected "pope" in a World War II prison camp near Tripoli
(5) takes the water of a dying comrade (126-127)
(6) steals hope and moral reconciliation (80-81 and 128-31)
(7) undermines moral authority and moral universals through the hypocrisy, false self-confessions, and false judgments of others as the judge-penitent (17, 23, 81, 93-96, 110-111, 116-118, 128-132, 134, 136-138, and 140).
Unlike in Greek tragedy, there is no final reconciliation at the end of the story between the individual transgressor and the moral universe; there is no reestablishment of a universal moral order and metaphysical mythology. There is only Jean-Baptiste controlling the definition of sin and punishment in a seedy bar in the red-light district of Amsterdam -- there is only Nihilism and Nothingness. Existentialism (and its later variation in "Postmodernism") is a social reflection of the cultural emptiness and moral vacuity resulting from the relativism, nominalism, and nihilism of ethics and politics. However, its underlying cause could also be considered a product of the Enlightenment, Science (positivism), and Modernity as a whole.
Liberalism as the Social Fall, Hell, and Traitor to Humanity: Materialism, Egoism, Utilitarianism, Nihilism, and Totalitarianism:
Camus characterizes hell as the following:
(1) Liberalism, individualism and egoism (50)
(2) Utilitarianism (141)
(3) Abuse of others and slavery (46-47 and 132)
(4) Loss of virtue and honor
(5) Middle-class stupidity and the liquidation of humanity (7)
(6) Nazism, concentration camps, death camps, and the Holocaust (10-11)
(7) Distortion of moral language about the Jews in the Jewish Quarter of Amsterdam, Chinese waiters in restaurants, and slavery (10-11, 46-47, 136, and 140-141)
(8) Totalitarianism (44, 45-46, 55, and 130-131)
(9) Moral nihilism and relativism (117-118, 136, and 140)
(10) This middle-class hell is the product of the historical evolution of liberalism and the loss of natural law, virtue, public participation, and community.
(11) The rise of totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and Fascism.
(12) Suppression of ethical and political values and critiques, separation of Justice from Innocence, no moral absolutes, desire to escape from freedom, false prophet, and moral slavery and totalitarianism -- Moral Nihilism (95, 102-103, 110, 117-118, 125-128, 130-132, 133, 136, 137, and 140). (Note: In the context of this introductory course, the Holocaust can be explained by the rise of existentialism (Camus), disenchantment of positivism and utilitarianism (Weber), alienation of work, human creativity, and self-determination (Marx), anomie, madness, and the loss of the collective conscience (Durkheim), liberalism (Hobbes and Locke), and political and religious loneliness, isolation, fear, and the breakdown of the moral community (Locke, Weber, and Camus). That is, by the loss of individual freedom, rights, liberty, and moral community in the liberalism of the second state of nature; the loss of meaning and values in a disenchanted world of modern positivism and utilitarianism; the loss of collective cultural ideals and the resulting individual madness and suicide; the loss of individuality and freedom in the workplace; and the loss of ethical and political language -- ethics, politics, art, truth, early science, philosophy, religion, etc. -- to resist and protest the oppression and murder of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities. Camus in The Fall outlines a view of the origins of the Holocaust in the values, structures, and institutions of modern society -- RRAANNDDDD -- especially in Existentialism, Disenchantment, Nihilism, and Liberalism ("middle-class hell"). The critiques of modernity in this course are framed by an historical and existential novel rejecting modern liberalism as leading to Enlightenment shallowness and workplace oppression (Dickens), as well and existential emptiness and silence in the face of mass atrocities (Camus).

What is left is a "short, brutish, and nasty" possessive and utilitarian individualism without ethical guides to human behavior. Existentialism, then, as the emptying of all meaning and purpose in human life and the social totality (RRAANNDDDD), is a final product of the evolution of Western Reason, Science, Religion, Economics, and Politics: (1) the Enlightenment and Science with its crisis of knowledge, moral silence, Hume's separation of object, fact, and is from value, morals, and ought, Kant's theory of representations and the thing-in-itself, and Schopenhauer's nothingness and nihilism; (2) the disenchantment, dehumanization, and alienation of political economy and Capitalism; (3) the materialism, utilitarianism, and possessive individualism of Liberalism; (4) the transcendence and removal of God from the world and the depravity and sinfulness of humanity in the Protestant Reformation; and (5) the death and inhumanity in World War II and the Holocaust. Camus' work represents a recapitulation of Western intellectual, literary, philosophical, and theological history from the Old and New Testaments, Aristotle's Poetics, and Sophocles' "Oedipus Rex" to Dante's Divine Comedy; it is also a restatement of Dickens' critique of liberalism and capitalism for the twentieth-century audience, since, in the end, the middle-class Hell of "Mexico City" is a revisiting of the evils of "Coketown." Just as Dickens' Gradgrind is a representative of the Enlightenment values of Liberalism -- utilitarianism, individualism, materialism, and positivism (science) -- Jean-Baptiste reflects the traitorous crimes against humanity. Camus' "middle class hell" is the modern existential form of the logical and historical development of the ideals of Locke in his Second Treatise of Government. The possessive individualism of equality, freedom, liberty, and rights in a Hobbesian view of the state of nature is now reflected in a new modern form of individual -- compulsive liars, stupid fornicators, distrustful, gifted with distorted language and poor logic and reasoning, and self-interested traitors to humanity. Camus characterizes "Mexico City" as a middle class hell of mythomania and stupidity where "our society is organized for this kind of liquidation" (7) and banality of life concerned with the middle-class pleasures "of job, family, and organized leisure."(8) There is a distortion of reason, logic, and existence with its distinctive liquidation of God, natural law, ethics, and people. This is the hell of enlightened disenchantment and the iron cage integrated into the Holocaust, that is, the synthesis of Hooker, Locke, Weber, and Victor Frankl (1946). Existentialism is the twentieth-century culmination of the journey of the isolation and loneliness of seventeenth-century liberalism that created the conditions for the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust "in the Jewish center" -- this is the "middle-class hell" (14). Locke sets the preconditions for Camus in his second state of nature by dismantling natural law and the metaphysical foundations of the universe.

Liberalism is the Hell of Modern Economics, Politics, Psychology, and Morality: Damnation and Suffering in the "Middle-Class Hell" of "Mexico City": Jean-Baptiste is in hell because of his character and being a traitor to humanity -- he will not allow himself to be judged by others which would reestablish some form of natural law. However, he also reflects at the micro level the broader structural elements of modern industrial society without natural law, moral values, or ethical ideals. The shallowness of Jean-Baptiste only reflects the shallowness and banality of modernity. Liberalism aspires to Nothingness beyond itself. Liberalism is Hell because it creates the social conditions moral nihilism (existentialism), the authoritarian personality (Jean-Baptiste), and totalitarianism, that is, for the rise of Fascism, Nazism, and the Holocaust:

(1) Individualism/egoism: self-interest and market aggression reflect the banality, shallowness, and terror of economic life (Hobbes, Locke, and Calvin), 48-50, 59-60, 65, 70, and 103
(2) Materialism and utilitarianism: reduction of human life to simple physical pleasures without substantive or objective meaning 141
(3) Existentialism: no meaning (metaphysics), no moral values (morality), no social ideals (ethics), and no knowledge or truth (epistemology)
(4) Hedonism: loss of virtue, morality, and the social and political ideals of the good society, eudaimonia, that is, the loss of ethics and politics
(5) Totalitarianism and Slavery: political oppression, domination over others, loss of a sense of community, democracy, compassion, love, and social responsibility for others, 44-46 and 130-133, and 136-137
(6) Loss of natural law and God in liberalism and scientism: loss of meaning, purpose, and ideals in life
(7) Moral nihilism and relativism: post-World War II existential world without moral and ethical values, without natural law, 140-142
(8) No reconciliation: no resolution of the tragedy of modernity in "Mexico City" since Jean-Baptiste is king, pope, and judge, 128
(9) Judge-penitent and false prophet: slavery of the mind and spirit imposed by the judge-penitent, 117, 136, 139-140, and 147
(10) Nothingness: no moral values of right or wrong, just or unjust; no moral values of compassion, mercy, and forgiveness: separation of innocence and judgment, justice and compassion in the stolen painting, van Eyck's altarpiece "The Adoration of the Lamb" from the Cathedral of Ghent, 128-130.

Middle-Class Hell and the Banality of Liberalism and Evil: Camus, Locke, Dickens, Bentham, Mill, and Weber: Camus juxtaposes the personal Fall and betrayal of humanity by Clamence and the Fall of Humanity in utilitarian materialism (liberalism), existential nihilism (disenchantment), and Nazism (Holocaust). Existentialism and moral nihilism are the end product of the inner logic of liberalism and Locke's individualism, liberty, and the state of nature without natural law, ethics, and God. Locke was unable to integrate the natural law and natural rights traditions ultimately leading to the disappearance of natural law (God, scriptures of Protestantism, Catholic tradition, and natural reason) in an unrestrained market economy of the seventeenth century; J. S. Mill was unable to integrate natural rights, liberalism, and democracy in the nineteenth century forcing him to turn to socialism, economic democracy, and workers' associations; and, by the twentieth century, there was no moral law in liberalism to guide practical or existential reason through The Fall -- Nihilism, Relativism, and Nazism. Jean Baptiste's character and flaws align perfectly with the modern tragic fate of conformism, adaptation, and silence in the face of fascism (see C. W. Mills' theory of "abstracted empiricism" in The Sociological Imagination, M. Horkheimer's theory of distorted reason in the Eclipse of Reason, and A. MacIntyre's theory of moral philosophy and the Enlightenment in After Virtue). Underlying Dickens' Coketown, Locke's second state of nature, Weber's formal reason in the iron cage, and Camus' Amsterdam is the liberalism of modern industrial society and the liberalism of modern science, rationalization, and disenchanted nihilism. Liberalism leads to Nihilism and to Fascism. The voices and ideas of Hobbes, Locke, Mill, and Weber ultimately lead to the reality of Jean-Baptiste and his world of banality, emptiness, materialism, totalitarianism, and nihilism. Existentialism is the logical product and end result of Liberalism -- WWII and the Holocaust are the product of the state of nature and "war of all against all" in a competitive market economy that has left behind and forgotten God, natural law, the rule of right reason, and democracy. There is no longer any imaginative and friendly circus, Natural Law, non-utilitarian ethics, humanistic theory of species-being, or Substantive Reason (Wertrationalitaet) to resist the middle-class hell. Examine these issues in detail by returning to The Fall. This work represents a fall from grace in the Garden of Eden to a fall from the values and ideals of modern Western society found in the writings of Dickens, Locke, J. S. Mill, Marx, and Weber. Later sociologists will see this loss of voice and forgetfulness in the desert of the American academy as an example of Freud's theory of repression applied, not to issues of sexuality, but to issues of politics and the methodologies of sociology, that is, to the relationships between science and ethics (Horkheimer and Adorno). Positivism helps to make all quantitative and qualitative methods that do not conform to its theory of knowledge and science into a rejection of science itself, including the definitions that come from Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. Rather than rejecting classical social theory, positivists translate their theories and their different methodologies into that of positivism itself, thereby losing their voices to make ethical and political judgments about society. They are silenced in the face of evil and can no longer speak about alienation, rationalization, anomie, or repression. The voices of the classical and contemporary European social theorists cry out in the desert in vain, no longer to be heard or understood, as they are forgotten in a wasteland of the middle-class hell of the academy. Modernity is a voiceless and silent hell without Spirit and Heart, that is, without universal moral concepts or compass. Discuss the relationships between Hell and Jean-Baptiste (micro) and Hell and Liberalism (macro). Jean-Baptiste is in Hell because of his faulty character and unwillingness to reassert universal laws and the cosmic moral order -- he steals morality from humanity by ignoring the woman's suicide on the Paris bridge or the Holocaust, falsely playing the role of elected pope and judge penitent, and refusing to be judged himself. How does Liberalism steal morality from society -- through its values of materialism? Does the middle-class Hell represent the suicide of modern liberalism? We live in a cold, barren, lifeless world without meaning or purpose, without morals or ideals -- it is a "world of melancholy madness," that is, a world "perfectly devoid of sentiment" (Dickens). This is the world provided given by modern liberal and utilitarian society; it is a world of mindless facts, figures, and statistics whose only measure of happiness, freedom, and self-realization is through money, success, property, and the market. This is a world created by Hobbes, Locke, Gradgrind, M'Choakumchild, Bounderby, and Hume. Locke's theory of the state of nature is the holistic work that frames the structure of this introductory course in social theory, as well as modern social and political theory. The Original State of Nature, natural law, and moral economy influences the later development of Marx and socialism, while the individualism and market economy of the Second State of Nature is the basis for classical and neo-classical economics, the self-interest, radical egoism, and technical rationality (Descartes and Weber) of capitalism, and the moral relativism and nihilism of existentialism (Schopenhauer and Nietzsche).
Social Existentialism: The Classical Social Theorists sought meaning in a world overwhelmed by alienated labor and the loss of human dignity, creativity, and freedom in the workplace (E. Fromm), overwhelmed by anomie and the madness and derangement of a world without social ideals and collective values (Schopenhauer), and overwhelmed by disenchantment and the loss of culture and reason (Nietzsche). Existentialism has usually been viewed as an individual phenomenon resulting from the loss of meaning and purpose in a world without God, morality, and natural law. However, the later existentialists and sociologists saw the problem resting in the distorted ideals and institutions of liberalism and the loss of social ethics and human rights, that is, in the liberal ideals of egoism, self-interest, materialism, naturalism (primacy of natural world of objects and causes), scientism (primacy of scientific method), property, wealth, and utilitarianism. This was a world without spirituality, morality, and high ideals -- a world characterized by Marx as an "immoral, irrational, and soulless abstraction" in "On the Thefts of Wood," 1842.
Existentialism as Critique of the Enlightenment and Liberalism: Compare Dickens and Camus: Compare Dickens' Coketown in England to Camus' Mexico City in Amsterdam and their critical responses to the rise of the Enlightenment, Liberalism, Utilitarianism, and Moral Relativism. Sociology, as an integrative, holistic, and critical discipline, was formed between the Industrial Revolution, Modern Capitalism, and the Enlightenment, on one hand, and World War II, Nazism, and Existentialism and Nihilism, on the other. The remaining lectures for the semester will focus on the origins of German Existentialism in the writings of Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche as existentialism evolves from a crisis of knowledge (epistemology) and morals (nominalism and nihilism) to a crisis of politics (liberalism). This tradition of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche is crucial for an understanding of the crisis of society (capitalism) in the social pathologies of Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Freud -- Rationalization and Repression, Alienation and Anomie, Nothingness and Nihilism, and Dehumanization, Disenchantment, and Dereglement -- RRAANNDDDD. Existentialism is a response to the philosophical epistemologies and scientific methodologies of the seventeenth (Bacon, Descartes, and Locke) and eighteenth (Berkeley, Hume, and Kant) centuries with the rise of science, reason, nominalism, and relativism, as well as a response to the political economic and historical transformations of Western liberalism and capitalism during these times in the critique of dehumanization, disenchantment, and derangement. Both science and capitalism resulted in a crisis of reason and the rise of existentialism as a literary and philosophical response to the loss of meaning and community in society. The alienation of work (Marx), self (Freud), art (Coleridge and Hoelderlin), and nature (Marx), the formalization and fragmentation of reason (Weber), and the displacement of the collective conscience and community (Durkheim) had resulted in a crisis of the Enlightenment and liberalism.
Loss of Seventeenth-Century Natural Law of God, Nature, and Reason: A Turn to Hobbes or Camus, Materialism or Existentialism: Final thought on Camus' Existentialism: If "Mexico City" is featured as the ninth circle of Hell for traitors to humanity, then why did not Camus, following closely on the model of Dante, not have Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels at the center of Amsterdam and in the metaphorical jaws of Lucifer? Quite possibly the reason is that the underlying cause for the rise of Nazism was the general character of liberalism and its eclipse of reason in the person of Jean-Baptiste and his middle-class personality. He was the quintessential representative of an isolated and lonely ego, empty liberalism and debaucherous materialism, and moral nihilism. Liberalism prepared the moral and political soil for the rise of Fascism; the soul of Fascism lies in the unconscious heart of Liberalism. This is a position taken by Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno,, Camus, Horkheimer, Eclipse of Reason, and Richard Rubenstein, The Cunning of History. Take away Natural Law from Locke's state of nature and possessive individualism (para. 5 and 15) and one gets either a return to Hobbes' class "war of all against all" in a market economy based on private property or a turn forward to the existential fall and moral silence of Jean-Baptiste's "Mexico City." Finally, it is extremely ironic that Camus can only give us an inarticulate and unimaginative ending to his story through the symbolic fusing of the two panels of van Eyck's altar piece from the Cathedral of Ghent -- "The Adoration of the Lamb" and the stolen "The Just Judges" (128-130). (Historical note: The latter panel was actually stolen in 1934 and never found, nor was the case ever resolved.) That is, he attempts symbolically to rejoin innocence, mercy, and compassion with a new universal law and moral judgment to form a new freedom and humanism. But Camus seems to be also caught in this ninth circle of "Mexico City" with all the others since he can't find his way out. Perhaps it will be left to Jean-Paul Sartre and Maurice Merleau-Ponty or others to unite Existentialism and post-modernism with Marxism and critical social theory to form a comprehensive critique of and exit out of the hell created by modern liberalism and utilitarianism. Finally, discuss the systematic segregation, Jim Crow Laws, Indian reservations, and the extermination of the indigenous populations in America and their influence on Hitler's Mein Kampf, Nazi antisemitism, the Nuremberg Laws, and the extermination camps throughout Germany and Eastern Europe. See James Whitman, Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law, Adam Cohen, Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck, Adam Doerr, "Three Generations of Imbeciles are Enough. and the Supreme Court case, "Buck vs. Bell," Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1927.
12. Arthur Schopenhauer The World as Will and Representation (1819 and 1844), vol. 1, (sections 1-5, 18-22, 38, 65, and 68),
pp. 3-18, 99-112, 195-200, 359-367, and 378-398

Existentialism as Critique of the Enlightenment: From Kantian Idealism to German Existentialism ----
                                                     From Representations to Illusions and Nothingness

General Influence of Immanuel Kant on European Philosophy and Sociology: So far this semester we have seen a number of different interpretations as to the rise of existentialism and moral nihilism: Weber viewed it as a product of the Enlightenment and the rise of formal technical reason and positivism; Camus saw it as a result of World War II, the Holocaust, loss of reason, and liberalism; and Schopenhauer will tie it to Kantian epistemology and its theory of representation. Immanuel Kant was probably the most influential philosopher on the development of modern European philosophy. The various schools of thought and range of philosophical arguments included: German Idealism: Schelling and Hegel; Classical Social Theory: Marx, Weber, and Durkheim; Phenomenology of Consciousness: Husserl and Heidegger; Historical Materialism: Marx and Critical Social Theory; Social Constructivism and Sociology of Knowledge: Berger and Luckmann; Existentialism of Appearances and Representations: Schopenhauer and Nietzsche; American Pragmatism: Meade and Dewey; and Neo-Kantian Analytic Philosophy of Science: Russell, Moore, Wittgenstein, Carnap, and Popper.
German Idealism and Existentialism: Immanuel Kant and the Philosophical Origins of Existentialism or the Slippery Slope of Subjectivity: Perception, Experience, and Science: Existentialism is a production of philosophical, religious, historical, and sociological factors. Philosophically, existentialism is the result of the evolution of modern philosophy from David Hume's theory of representation and skepticism of empiricism (sections 5, 7, and 12 of A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), Kant's theory of subjectivity, representations, and phenomena, Schopenhauer's theory of representations and nothingness, Marx's theory of existential alienation, the meaninglessness of work, and the loss of identity (species being) and community, human dignity and needs, and creativity and self-determination (Berman and Erich Fromm), Nietzsche's theory of idolatry, decadence, and moral nihilism, Durkheim's anomie and the loss of collective conscience and values, and Weber's theory of rationalization, disenchantment, and the loss of substantive reason. There are a number of historically different forms of Existentialism with their corresponding crises of meaning: knowledge and epistemology (Schopenhauer), morals and ethics (Camus and Nietzsche), religion, death, and human mortality (Kierkegaard and Heidegger), society and social theory (Camus, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty), Christian theology (Barth, Tillich, and Bultmann), and literature and postmodernism (Rorty). During the early Enlightenment there were two mains schools of thought within epistemology: There were those who argued that access to objective knowledge and truth could be gained only through the senses, experience, and inductive reason (Empiricism of Locke and Hume) and those who maintained that it could occur only through ideas, mathematics, and deductive reasoning (Rationalism of Descartes and Leibniz). Kant took their theories of the structure of the mind -- Senses, Reason, and Imagination -- and combined it with the distinctive epistemological traditions which emphasized one of these aspects of the mind -- senses (empiricism) and reason (rationalism). Thus, according to Kant, the act of perceiving and knowing the world required the synthetic unity of all three component parts of the mind by the transcendental subject. Kant thereby provided a middle path by integrating both traditions into German Idealism with his theory of representations (Vorstellungen). All knowledge was subjective in origins (forms of intuition and the categories of the understanding), but objective in form and structure (objects of experience). (Note: This theory of representation is also present in David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature, section XII. We can never know the external objects -- substance and objectivity; we can only know their representations and impressions. We can never know objects through perception, causality, or primary/secondary qualities. See Hume's essay in The Empiricists, Dolphin Books, 1961, pp. 419-422. It is this skepticism in Hume's epistemology that precipitated Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, 1781.) Experience and knowledge were representations or constructs of the a priori categories of the understanding (substance and causality) and the forms of intuitions (time and space). The ability to say a simple sentence such as, "The chair on the other side of the room was moved in front of the table by the instructor twenty minutes ago," presupposes ideas encased in the forms of intuition of a spatial and temporal continuum and within the categories of the understanding of substance (physical objects) and causality (movement of the table). These Newtonian categories of the mind (subjectivity) framed and organized the chaos of indeterminate intuitions and formless sensations -- blind and unarticulated impressions -- into a coherent form of experience and knowledge -- objectivity. All knowledge is subjective in origin but objective in form and structure (universal or transcendental nature of the human mind). This led to the famous saying: "Subjectivity creates Objectivity" -- consciousness (mind) creates the objective world of perception and experience, sensation and thought, impressions and ideas. Unlike in the other epistemological traditions of empiricism and rationalism, there is no access to an objective reality of empirical facts (inductive logic and passive mind) or rational ideas (deductive logic and active mind). Kant rejected the notion that we have access to an external, objective reality (thing-in-itself) through the empirical facts of perception or the ideas of the mind. There is no knowledge of objective truth or objective reality beyond and behind the power of human reason. We can never know before we know; we can never know what we do not know; and we can never know what is behind our knowledge of representations and appearances. That is, we know only the constructs of the mind (Newtonian forms of time and space and categories of substance and causality), not the reality behind the constructs. Although not an existentialist himself since he was a key figure in German Idealism, Kant could be referred to as the father of existentialism because of his constructivist theory of knowledge, theory of representations, and his implicit critique of realism. The idea of perception and ideas as representations and his theory of the thing-in-itself (external or objective reality) will provide the foundation stones for Schopenhauer's own theory of representations as dreams and illusions. Note: Do not confuse epistemology and psychology. Kant's theory of knowledge does not attempt to outline the actual process of knowing the world through perception. experience, and the imagination (psychology). Rather, his goal is to outline the universal and necessary logical conditions for the possibility of knowledge of that world (transcendental subjectivity) in terms of the sensations, forms of intuition, categories of the mind, and creative imagination.
Distinction Between an Epistemology of Perception and an Epistemology of Psychology: We Only Know Sensations and Ideas: This distinction between epistemology and psychology is the key to understanding the first two pages of Schopenhauer's work, as well as the philosophical origins of existentialism. Psychology is influenced by the different sensations and is individualistic as each individual may perceive reality differently because of different abilities and strengths of their sense organs. Epistemology rests on the Kantian notion that we only know appearances through the transcendental subject and never the objective and external thing-in-itself. Thus Schopenhauer argues that we do not see the sun or the reality of the sun, but only our perception and idea of the sun(3). Schopenhauer is integrating the theory of representations found in Hume (chapter 12 of An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding and Kant's Critique of Pure Reason here. Within the traditions of both rationalism and empiricism, the idea of the sun reflected or mirrored the essence or reality of the sun. But with the Copernican Revolution in Kantian philosophy with its constitution theory of truth, the idea and reality are distinct -- this is the dilemma of double affection. The perceiver cannot get behind the perception (impression) or understanding (idea) of the sun to its original and foundational cause or formal reality. With the constitution theory of knowledge, subjectivity is always an intricate and invaluable part of objectivity and the two cannot be separated. Thus, there is no pure objectivity of ideas or empirical facts without the transformation and constitution of human consciousness. We cannot get from the idea of the sun (phenomenon) back to the reality of the sun (noumenon); this is an impossible epistemological task. There is no sun in itself; no being, essence, pure form, or objective reality of the sun. We see only what is the product of epistemological Subjectivity and consciousness which is assumed to be universal to all human beings. Psychology emphasizes the differences between different perceptions and forms of perception (Gestalt theory), while epistemology emphasizes the underlying conditions for the possibility of knowledge of the external world. Naive realism argues that we know the world and the truth of objective reality because the human mind is a mirror of that reality. Kantian philosophy, as the epistemological foundation of existentialism, maintains that knowledge is a transformation and construction of the external or noumenal world based on the apriori categories of the mind of time, space, causality, distance, and motion. The underlying innate forms of knowledge is a product of human reason and not our perception of the real world. The latter is never knowable because it is a construct of these apriori categories which change it in the act of sensation and understanding, perception and experience, everyday knowledge and science. Therefore, we do know the real world but only our perception and ideas of it. It is this insight of Kant's Copernican Revolution in philosophy which provides Schopenhauer with the intellectual foundations of his existentialism and later retreat into Hinduism. For Schopenhauer there were two forms of cognition: (1) sufficient reason of perception, understanding, and science that gives us access to the representations, appearances, and nothingness of Kant and the illusions and veil of Maja of Hinduism and (2) art and philosophy and their access to the pure forms of Plato and the contemplation of true being of Hinduism.
Radicalizing Kant and the turn to Hinduism: The World is my Representation: First question in lecture 2: What does the sentence "the world is my representation" mean? Schopenhauer begins his work with this sentence which as many meanings from Kant's epistemology and critique of pure reason. The term "representation" (Vorstellung) refers to a number of Kantian terms such as the world is my -- phenomena, appearance, subjectivity, construct or creation, mind, consciousness, objectivity, perception and experience, sensation and understanding, constructed experience, senses, and ideas, as well as to ideas from Hinduism such as the world is my illusions, dreams, veil of Maya, and nothingness. The world of the Sensibility and perception is a world of meaningless sensations, unarticulated impressions, formless empirical information, and incomprehensible intuitions, while the world of the Understanding or forms and concepts of the mind organize this meaningless universe into a comprehensive picture of empirical reality. But there is no way that we can get beyond these conceptual constructs to see nature as it truly is; we know only the constructs of our ideas and understanding. We cannot see the Construct and Reality at the same time; we only know the Representations as sensations and ideas. This is the theory of double affection. We only know what the mind has constructed -- we only know the Mind -- we only know Nothingness. This is the central epistemological foundation for the evolution of Existentialism.
Knowledge of the Objects and Objective Reality of Experience/Ideas or Knowledge of the Sensations and Impressions of Experience/Ideas: This is also known as the dilemma of double affection: We cannot know the sensations of objects and the objects of sensation at the same time; we only know the sensations and experiences of objects -- representations. We cannot know both the objects of external reality and the sensations of objects, objects and the impressions of objects, and objects and the ideas of objects. The latter are mental constructs of perception and experience, sensations and ideas, and sensibility and the understanding. This theory of knowledge is a direct rejection of Western realism, rationality, and materialism. The thing-in-itself is the world of perception without the organizational principles of the forms and categories of the mind -- perception without time and space, without substance and causality. It would be a formless mass of meaningless information. All knowledge is a representational construction or re-construction of subjectivity integrating the mind and body, form and matter, understanding and perception; the world is a constructed experience; all knowledge -- perceptions and experience -- is mediated by the mind. The world as Will and Representation is a world constructed by action and the mind (forms of intuition and categories of the mind); objectivity is a construct of subjectivity or consciousness and appears in the form of the objectivity of perception, experience, and knowledge (representations and consciousness) and the objectivity of the will (body and desires) -- all of which is simply an illusion or dream of Nothingness and Meaninglessness. We have only access to the phenomenal world of the appearances and not to the noumenal reality since our ideas are only re-presentations of our perception and experience. There is no access to the reality of an objective, natural world independent of our perception and experience of it. What would this thing-in-itself or noumenal reality look like; how could we know it; and how could we know that we knew it? To know this world, we would have to experience it before we experienced and changed it. Without the categories and forms transforming and re-structuring the objective world, there would be no way of knowing the universe independent of the structure of the human mind: forms of intuition of time and space and the categories of the understanding of substance, accidents, and causality. This is the famous Copernican Revolution in Kantian philosophy. Kant's theory of knowledge is summarized in his statement: "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind." This theory of knowledge represents a rejection of objectivism, realism, and a copy theory of knowledge. These insights were then expanded by later thinkers. Idealism and the constitution theory of truth are the philosophical foundations of Existentialism. The German Existentialism of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche is grounded in a radical form of German Idealism and Kant's theory of knowledge as representations (sensations and ideas). They will push Kant's theory of the transcendental construction of reality in epistemology and moral philosophy to its extreme -- objective reality and moral universals are subjective constructions of the mind. In a similar manner, does an artwork of photography mirror or reflect, or create and transform, the reality we see; or is it the only reality we have? Examine relation between philosophy and photography on this point. [Theory of Representation: This theory of representation runs from Hume's skepticism, Kant's transcendental idealism to Schopenhauer's existentialism.] The intellectual irony of Schopenhauer's critique of reason and the understanding is that it is grounded in Kantian subjectivity (transcendental consciousness) and theory of representations, but ends in existential subjectivity (relativism and nothingness); Existentialism evolves out of German Idealism. Beyond Kant: Note that Kant begins a long and fruitful tradition of constructivism. It is the transcendental subjectivity, self-consciousness, Objective Spirit, labor, consciousness, society, etc. which construct the objective world. Included in these traditions are Kant, Hegel, Classical Social Theory (Marx, Weber, and Durkheim), Phenomenology (Dilthey, Rickert, Weber, Scheler, Husserl, Heidegger, and Berger and Luckmann), neo-Marxism, neo-Freudianism, Critical Hermeneutics (Weber and Gadamer), post-Modernism, Post-Analytic Philosophy, neo-Kantian philosophy of science (Quine, Kuhn, Lakatos, and Feuerabend), and Existentialism.
Existentialism and the Homeless Mind: Lost in a World Without Objective Reality: For the Existentialists, possible implications of this is that there are no truths about nature or morality -- there is only Nothingness and Nihilism (veil of Maya, relativism, and perspectivism). Schopenhauer will retreat from these radical implications into the universal forms of the "thing-in-itself" expressed in Hinduism and Platonic philosophy, while Nietzsche will accept them as the beginning of his thought and the will to power. Existentialism is a form of radical Kantianism as the German Enlightenment collapses in upon itself in a crisis of universal knowledge and morals. Moving from the idea that the natural and moral worlds are constituted by the mind and representations, Schopenhauer moves to the position that the world is only consciousness, ideational illusions, or solipsistic nothingness. In the end the only thing an individual knows is the structure of their own mind in the form of ideas and perceptions; reality has been reduced to pure consciousness. In the history of Western thought, theories evolved that the senses reflect objective reality (Hume), the mind reflects ideational reality (Descartes), the mind interprets and constitutes reality (Kant), and the mind creates and is the only reality (Schopenhauer). "The world is my representation" (3) is a logically expanded view of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason: Beginning with the idea that the world is reflected by the mind, Schopenhauer's view evolves to the notion that the world is constituted by the mind (subjectivity), the world is constituted as representations, the world is representations, the world is consciousness, the world is only consciousness, and the world, therefore, is Nothing. This latter position is a form of existential captivity -- the world is Nothing but projections of the human mind, that is, the world is a collection and experience of phenomena, appearances, illusions, and dreams -- Nothingness. Nietzsche will begin with this philosophical idea from Kant (Representations) and Schopenhauer (Nothingness, Illusions, and Dreams) and push it even further into existential Nihilism and Moral Relativism. As we have already seen existentialism is also a product of social change with the loss of natural law and species being (alienation), ethics, values, and substantive reason (disenchantment), immanent presence, telos, and meaning of God in the world (rationalization), and the loss of guiding cultural norms and social values (anomie). Protestantism + Liberalism + Enlightenment Science = Existentialism. The logic, reason, and values of the lifeworld have been replaced by the liberalism and market rationality of capital and the last man. Kant's philosophy is the foundation of German Idealism, the Classical Social Theory of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, the Existentialism of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, and the Post-Modern philosophy and sociology of science of Kuhn and Rorty.
Rise of Existentialism from the Dreams and Illusions of Representations (Mind): Kant's theory of knowledge, critique of pure reason, and defense of modern Newtonian science; epistemology, consciousness, and truth: theory of representations (3, 5, 10, 13-15, 98-99, 105, and 119-23), categories of the understanding and the a priori structure of the mind (5, 6, 11-13, and 16), appearances or re-presentations in th mind (5 and 8), phenomenal world (7, 8, and 287), and the thing-in-itself or original presentations before the mind (8, 97, and 113); and radicalizing the Enlightenment and Kant's epistemology and logic, that is, pushing the Critique of Pure Reason to its limits in the veil of Maya and the meaninglessness, despair, and illusions of human perception, experience, and knowledge (4 and 18). Representations are appearances, illusions, and distortions of reality. All the world is a Re-presentation, that is, perceptions and ideas are constructs of the mind. Since I experience only the sensations of the sun or know only the idea of the sun, I never know the sun itself; this is the dilemma of double affection which is transformed into the veil of Maya. I never know the natural reality of the external world or the "thing-in-itself." I only know the creations of sensibility (time and space) and mind (causality and substance) as projected onto the external world, that is, I only know the re-presentations of the world in human consciousness, never the immediate presentations themselves. The subject only knows the forms of objectivity that exist a priori in the transcendental structure of the mind. Reality prior to conceptual transformation is inaccessible to me and thus all knowledge is only a meaningless construct. Schopenhauer takes this Kantian insight in the nature of perception and experience and turns it into an existential crisis. Since we only know the re-presentations of the senses and understanding, perceptions and ideas, we are limited to knowledge projected and created by our own minds. And since this knowledge does not permit us access to objective reality or the thing-in-itself, we know only subjectivity or NOTHINGNESS. Schopenhauer next turns to the world as will which is the body in motion searching for the realization of its physical desires, emotions, and passions. But like the mind, the body ends in the NOTHINGNESS of suffering and pain because every passion realized is another passion unfulfilled and sought (196).
Existentialism and the Illusions of the World of Will and Human Striving (Body): Theory of the will and human suffering (108, 110-112, 196-197, and 275-276); and path to salvation and escape from Nothingness: escape from the veil of Maya (8 and 17-18) and the pain, suffering, and meaninglessness of the world. The search for meaning of the will-to-live in the world of materialism, utilitarianism, and egoism offers no solution to the unremitting and unrelenting desire for more and more; the will-to-live is a world experienced as a will to egoism, pleasure, happiness, desires, wants, etc. Instead of turning to a social and political understanding of this concept of will, and a possible solution to it in the rejection of liberalism (as seen in Camus), Schopenhauer views the will-to-live in metaphysical terms of the distortions and illusions of the "veil of Maya." The world of knowledge and truth -- the world of representations -- and the world of striving and wants -- the world of will and action -- provide us with illusions and distortions of reality; there is never any completion or satiation of desires. Schopenhauer in the last line of the book writes, "this very real world of ours with all its suns and galaxies, is nothing" (412). In the end, there is only "the terrible pain...the most frightful desolation and emptiness...and an excessive inner torment, an eternal unrest, and an incurable pain" that represents the modern Hell of Nothingness -- the private existential hell of torture, torment, and terror without Christian metaphysics (364). Neither Western Enlightenment nor Liberalism provide solutions to the existential dilemma of the veil of Maya and the Nothingness of the world. The answer lies in the paths to salvation heralded by Hinduism, Platonic philosophy, and Medieval monastic life.
Beyond Representations, Desires, and Illusions: Paths to Enlightenment and Truth in Hinduism and Platonic Philosophy: Salvation can be achieved through the willess self, pure resignation and contemplation, asceticism and self-mortification, and the creation of the beautiful soul (388-390). That is, salvation can only be achieved through the rejection of representations, human desires, the will-to-live, and egoism (196, 363-366, and 389-391); and turn to resignation and pessimism (379-380, 389-90, and 395-97), asceticism and self-mortification (383 and 386-87), examples of the lives of the Christian saints and medieval monasteries (205 and 386-387), contemplation of the beautiful in the virtuous life of the saint, ascetic, and the artist (196-197, 205, 221, and 379), and following the ideals of Hinduism, the beautiful soul, and eventual union with Brahman, the supreme spirit (205, 220, 363, 383-392, 388, and 410-412) and Plato and the philosophical contemplation of the eternal Forms or Ideas (170-174, 179-187, 195, and 366). Through resignation, asceticism, rejecting the will-to-live and modern individualism, and the momentary pleasures of life, each person is able to achieve a level of serenity and knowledge of the cosmos and beauty of art. Schopenhauer is searching for the truth and meaning of human existence amidst the existential crisis of cognitive illusions and despair, on the one hand, and universal suffering and pain on the other. The ultimate Form lies in the awareness that Atman (true self, living energy, eternal essence, or individual soul) is Brahman (cosmic energy or soul of material phenomena, absolute, eternal reality, or Being) and Brahman is Atman.
Existentialism and the Truth of Self and Being: Schopenhauer is searching for the truth (thing-in-itself) and meaning of human existence amidst the existential crisis of cognitive illusions, the dreams of representation, and the universal suffering and pain of the will-to-live. He finds truth in the contemplation of Beauty and Being. Plato's theory of Beauty and Forms and Hinduism's theory of atman, Brahman, and samsara (cycle of birth and rebirth) replace the void left by his critique of materialism, utilitarianism, individualism (egoism), and the Enlightenment. In the end, atman is Brahman -- the self is will and life itself.
Illusions and Dreams of the Mind and Body: Neither the mind nor the body can lead to truth and wisdom or happiness and pleasure -- there is only Nothingness. The mind realizes itself in the phenomena and dreams of the appearances, but never in objective reality or scientific truth. The body only reproduces the samsara of eternal suffering and pain, life and death. All reality produced by the mind and body is an illusion; the concrete and objective world of Galileo and Newton and the materialist and egoistic world of Hobbes and Locke are all dreams created by humanity to give the appearance of reality, happiness, and purpose. They mean nothing. In the end, there is no meaning or purpose to human existence, only existential despair, torment, and suffering. The only solution for Schopenhauer is to escape from the will-to-live (body) and the will-to-truth (mind) through asceticism, resignation, and aesthetic contemplation in the life of the saint, ascetic, or the artist; the only solution is to lose oneself in the contemplation of beauty (Plato) and the oneness of Being (Brahman). This integration of Greek philosophy and Hinduism offers Schopenhauer the only means of escaping the nothingness and pain of the mind and body. There are no answers provided by Enlightenment science and liberalism -- the values and institutions of modern Western society only produce and reproduce the existential dilemma. Existentialism arose out of the dilemma of Kantian epistemology, the thing-in-itself, and the theory of double affection. However, from a sociological perspective, we can argue that Schopenhauer is part of the logical evolution of Locke's second state of nature with its loss of God, natural law, economic restraints on property, and social ethics. Thus, the true origins of Existentialism lie in Locke and Kant, that is, in the ethical/political philosophy (second state of nature) and epistemology (theory of representations) of the British and German Enlightenment or in Locke's dismantling of ethics and natural law and Kant's dismantling of realism and the copy theory of knowledge. Where Schopenhauer stressed the existential nothingness of the mind (ideas and knowledge) and the body (desires and instincts), Nietzsche will focus on moral existentialism and the meaninglessness of human life.
13. Friedrich Nietzsche Twilight of the Idols (1888)
Radicalizing Kant and Schopenhauer: Tragic Vision of Dionysus and the Solace of Mythology,
                               Metaphysics, Art, Ethics, Politics, and Science of Apollo

Shadows of Reason: Birth of Tragedy and Nihilism in Greek Mythology and German Idealism: The Nietzsche lectures begin with the outline of three distinct but interrelated traditions that frame the next two weeks of classes:
(1) Phenomenology of Tragedy of the Ancients and the Moderns from Greek Tragedy, Greek Mythology, and Greek Philosophy to German Idealism and German Existentialism
(2) Shadows of God of Platonic Idealism, Christian Theology, Scientific Rationalism, Political Liberalism, and Kantian Morality
(3) Modern Theory of Knowledge and Culture of Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche.
In his theory of the twilight of Western ideals and idols, Nietzsche creatively brings together a number of different philosophical and literary traditions as he moves beyond a Kantian theory of knowledge (form and understanding) to a Schopenhauerian theory of culture and nihilism (Dionysian pain, suffering, and tragic vision concealed by the shadows of an Apollonian metaphysics of solace). It is Schopenhauer who will help Nietzsche give voice of the Nothingness, absurdity, and meaninglessness of the world; and it is Schopenhauer who will help spark Nietzsche's return to Greek tragedy -- its insight into the pain and suffering of human existence and the simplicity, beauty, and elegance of its aesthetic expression in art and drama. The Greeks expressed the highest form of the "will-to-power" as they created beauty in the heart of nothingness as they strove to give meaning to a meaningless world without, at the same time, falling victim to the worship of idols. According to Nietzsche, the ancient Greeks did not seek ultimate truth and reality but actively sought creativity (Kant), beauty (Schiller), and the tragic vision in a world of appearances (Schopenhauer). The will-to-power creates a world of cultural representations that balances the Apollonian and the Dionysian drives. However, when the Dionysian drive is repressed and forgotten in the phenomenology and history of spirit (Hegel), along with Schopenhauer's phenomenal appearances, the representations are mistaken for noumenal reality and self-consciousness and turn into forms of cultural decadence. Nietzsche's Phenomenology of the Tragic and Decadent Spirit not only traced the coming to self-consciousness and freedom from a world of decadence and the shadows of God to a full circle realization of the actual tragic conditions of humanity seen by Heraclitus, Sophocles, Kant, and Schopenhauer, it also gave us a true historical and cultural picture of humanity as seen by Nietzsche. It summarized the various component parts of the essence of human beings in (1) their desire for form and creativity in life; (2) their realization of the illusions and appearances of objective and moral reality; (3) their instinctual desire and striving for being and order (Apollonian "metaphysics of solace") in a world of Dionysian becoming and disorder ("tragic wisdom"); (5) their articulation of a philosophy and metaphysics which describes this situation as a philosophy of being (Parmenides) and becoming (Heraclitus); and (6) a description of the true reality of human life being a world of pain, suffering, and human tragedy (Sophocles and Schopenhauer). By integrating classical Greek Philosophy and Tragedy with German Idealism and Existentialism Nietzsche creates a new form of the phenomenology of the decadent spirit that summarizes Western thought from Platonic rationalism, Christian theology, scientific rationalism, political liberalism, and modern morality and ends in an creative synthesis of the Apollonian and Dionysian search for existential knowledge and tragic wisdom of the human condition -- there is only Nothingness and Nihilism within the Will to Power. The Greeks possessed the unusual ability to combine and integrate the Apollonian and Dionysian drives of humanity into a single cultural force to deal with the meaninglessness of human life. By joining Greek mythology with Greek tragedy, Dionysus with Apollo, they were able to create cultural representations of beauty, truth, and political ideals which gave life meaning and purpose at the same time they recognized the painful tragedy of human existence. On the other hand, the human experience since Plato, the genealogy of morals, and the twilight of the idols up to the Enlightenment, liberalism, and Kantian morality lost the Greek dialectic between reason and the tragic vision, between Apollo and Dionysus, resulting in the decadence of modern consciousness. Only with Schopenhauer has the Dionysian spirit been rediscovered with the possibility of reintegrating existential pain and suffering with modern beauty and order in his theory of the "will to power." Nietzsche's major failing in his writings on decadence and idolatry is that he turned the will to power into a highly individualistic, rare, and infrequent occurrence, rather than the cultural experience of a whole society. Greek tragedy was an experience of the polis and not just individuals, that is, it was an experience of humanity and the political community of ancient Greece and not just that of a cultural or political aristocracy. It is this which has led scholars to interpret his works as a defense of an authoritarian politics and not a total human experience. Nietzsche seemed to evolve from his early work on The Birth of Tragedy (1872) to his later writing on the Twilight of the Idols (1888). In the former work, the integration of the Dionysian and Apollonian drives of tragedy and art/philosophy/law/physics is a social and cultural phenomenon, whereas the emphasis in his later works is on particular and unusual individuals who represent the will to power. The concept of the "will to power" was first used in Thus Spoke Zarathustra in 1883 and represented the integration of both the Apollonian and Dionysian drives of distinctive and powerful human beings. Earlier in his writings the drives for knowledge of tragic wisdom and the metaphysics of solace were social categories representing the recognition of the tragedy and beauty of classical Greek society.

European Traditions in Nietzsche's Theory of Tragedy:
(1) Greek Tragedy of Aeschylus and Sophocles:
pain and suffering of the tragic vision arising from
the stories of Oedipus, Orestes, and Prometheus
(2) Greek Mythology of Olympic Gods: reason and instincts of Apollo and Dionysus
(3) Greek Philosophy of Parmenides and Heraclitus: being and becoming, permanence and change
(4) German Idealism of Kant and Schiller: rational form, order, and creativity
(5) German Existentialism of Schopenhauer: illusions, appearances, and idols

Examine the dialectic between the Apollonian (forms of being) and Dionysian (creative becoming) aesthetic drives -- dialectic between metaphysical solace (bromides or opium of truth) and chaotic creativity (wisdom of Schopenhauer): Greek Tragedy of Aeschylus and Sophocles, Greek Philosophy of Parmenides and Heraclitus, German Neoclassicism of Winckelmann, Goethe, and Schiller, Critical Idealism of Kant, and the Romantic Existentialism of Schopenhauer; and further radicalization of Kant's critique of reason (epistemology and moral philosophy) and Schopenhauer's theory of the mind, representations, and the will as appearance, illusion, and suffering -- the epistemology and morality of Nihilism and Nothingness. Nietzsche brings together the idealism of Kant, the existentialism of Schopenhauer, and the tragedy of Greek literature to dramatize the suffering and pain that are the "fate of humanity." The Kantian forms of the understanding which bring meaning and organization to human life are replaced by the historical, phenomenal, and Apollonian forms of culture. But this is not the end of the story: the Apollonian forms give meaning, serenity, and comfort to human life -- they are forms of "metaphysical solace." But despite this Dionysian wisdom we must constantly struggle to give meaning to our actions and our lives. Besides the tragedies of Aeschylus and Sophocles and the stories of Oedipus, Orestes, and Prometheus, the classical Greeks also produced beauty and splendor, joy and creativity, and self-respect and self-reliance in their art, sculpture, architecture, politics, and society. These aesthetic, philosophical, and political experiences shelter and protect us from the tragic wisdom of the Dionysian imagination that there is no truth or meaning beyond human suffering and death and there is no purpose to human life (moral and religious nihilism). Rather, they give clear meaning and direction to human existence. And it is with this fundamental contradiction and existential inconsistency that the ancients produced the wonders of their culture and civilization. It was living between the Apollonian and Dionysian drives that gave the Greeks meaning and purpose to their daily lives. According to Nietzsche, this is now the fundamental insight of the Uebermensch. Thus there is a dialectic in the creation of culture between the forms of reason (Kant and Apollo) and human misery (Schopenhauer and Greek Tragedy). Only when we forget the Dionysian/Schopenhauerian truths and, instead, attempt to make universal claims about the products of Apollonian reason -- about political and epistemic forms, aesthetic values, religious doctrine, scientific theory, the essence of nature, or modern morality -- do we fall into an idolatry of doctrine and dogmatism, that is, into the "Shadows of God" (The Gay Science, 1882). It is then that the Apollonian drive represses and hides consciousness from the Dionysian reality of pain and suffering. Schopenhauer is the modern philosopher who revives the "tragic wisdom" of Greek drama found in the plays of Sophocles and Aeschylus (Oedipus Rex, Oresteia, and Prometheus Bound). Nietzsche concludes that life is ultimately pain and suffering, that it, it is a tragic struggle for meaning, purpose, and beauty in a meaningless world. All representations -- all knowledge and cultural values -- are illusions and idols for Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and belief in them will kill human passion (Herz and morality), rob the human spirit (Geist and community), impoverish human life, and corrupt human reason. This is the world of the "last man." But the struggle to continue to fight against meaninglessness and create a world of culture in face of the absurdity of human existence is the prerogative and goal of the "striving individual" (Uebermensch). Meaning lies in the chaotic process and activity of becoming and not in the ordered product of culture and institutions. Life is fundamentally a self-conscious, self-determined, and courageous act of aesthetic, ethical, and spiritual creativity in the face of Nothingness and Nihilism -- representations, illusions, suffering, and torment. This is the heroic "will to power" in the face of the tragedy of the human fate. Each "striving individual" faces their own Thermopylae with grace, self-determination, and wonder but never wavers even with the recognition of the inevitable. Character is formed not in the politics and discursive rationality of the Athenian Pnyx, but in the lonely and isolated struggle against the fate of humanity. From this perspective, Existentialism may be viewed as the heart and telos of Liberalism and Individualism -- Hard Times -- which have lost any sense of responsibility to the community, general will, and natural law. It is the false gods of modernity which attempt to escape suffering through the denial of life and humanity hiding behind the "casuistry of sin and the inquisition of the conscience" and their hatred of courage, beauty, nobility, and true freedom (588-589).
Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky: Last Man and the Grand Inquisitor: Note the connection here between Nietzsche's critique of idols and the last man and the Grand Inquisitor in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov (1879-1880). In the chapter on the Grand Inquisitor, Jesus Christ returns to earth. He is immediately condemned to death by the Spanish Inquisition because of his rejection of the three temptations in the desert found in the New Testament (Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-12), and because he is no longer needed by the Catholic Church. The biblical story of the three temptations of Christ in the desert is retold. The three temptations are the temptation for political power and order, food and material well-being, and miracles and spectacles. Instead of the diversions and temptations of materialism, Jesus offers the multitude wisdom, choice, and freedom which the Inquisitor believes only increase human suffering. This is the modern condition which offers us options of freedom or suffering. It is better for the mass of people to remain ignorant and to believe in the idols, false gods, and secular priests of power, prosperity, and illusions; it is better for them to live with deceptions and dreams which only help them escape the world of suffering and pain. Jesus has remained silent throughout the process and the Inquisitor eventually releases him into the darkness of the city with a kiss. Examine and compare two chapters: "The Great Rebellion" which stresses existential nominalism and moral nihilism and "The Grand Inquisitor" which hides the nihilism under an exoteric herd morality. Compare the Existentialism in Dickens, Camus, and Nietzsche and their criticisms of utilitarianism, egoism, and nihilism. Introduce Nietzsche's critique of idolatry: Greek Philosophy, Medieval Christianity, Early Science, Political Liberalism, and Modern Morality. The concept of nihilism was first introduced into philosophical discourse by Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (1743�1819) to characterized the thought of the rationalism and idealism of Baruch Spinoza, Immanuel Kant, Johann Fichte, and Friedrich Schelling.
14. Friedrich Nietzsche Twilight of the Idols (1888)
Existentialism and Modernity: From Nothingness and Nihilism to the Crisis of Knowledge, Morals, and Society
Madness and Nihilism: Idols of Reason and the Revenge of Decadence: Nietzsche develops Kant's and Schopenhauer's critique of pure reason and ideational representations to a critique of cultural representations and decadent history. He embraces Kant's notion of knowledge and creativity and Schopenhauer's theory of the meaninglessness of the world as his starting points. Nietzsche has transformed Kantian subjectivity and objectivity of the world of natural and physical perception and ideas into an examination of the social and historical phenomena of Western society from Platonic rationalism to Kantian moral philosophy. These are the beginnings of the modern consciousness of Apollonian metaphysics and solace without the corresponding Dionysian wisdom of the tragic vision of humanity. After the Greek tragedians, this integration of Apollo and Dionysus had been lost to Western consciousness only to be rediscovered by Schopenhauer with his theory of the Nothingness of the representations and will.

Decadent Idols of Reason and the Shadows of God (533):
(1) Philosophical Rationalism of Plato and Aristotle (478-479 and 482-483):
critique of Platonic universals and the search for absolute and unchanging forms and truths in politics (justice), art (beauty), and science (truth)
(2) Medieval Christian Theology of Augustine and Aquinas (487, 489-490, 499, 516, 535, 618-619, and 656): metaphysics of the hangman, virtue of the meek and weak, asceticism and rejection of the body, equality before God, theodicy, slave morality of salvation and punishment and the herd mentality of obedience and conformity. Christianity replaces passion, strength, and courage with individual guilt, sin, fear, vanity, and punishment
(3) Scientific Rationalism of Descartes and Galileo (482-483 and 514): forms of the understanding, quantification of human experience, perspectivism, and the illusions and appearances of objectivity. Science is another form of metaphysics and religion.
(4) Political Liberalism of Hobbes and Locke (499, 500-501, and 540-41): equality, freedom, and rights, happiness and virtue defined in terms of market and consumption, pleasure and materialism, and the last man who is shallow and unreflective
(5) Moral Philosophy of Kant (577): universal morality of the categorical imperative, abstract rationality, internal moral law and obedience, and internal oppression.

Nietzsche rejects the traditional values of Western society, including the absolute forms and universal truths of Plato, the asceticism, obedience, and conformity to a slave morality of Christianity, the materialism, positivism and the quantification of human experience and knowledge of modern science, the egalitarianism and utilitarianism (pleasure) of political liberalism, and the universal morality and internal oppression of Kant's categorical imperative. The reality is that the world is a product of will and representation -- the world as illusion, tragic suffering, and human misery, that is, cognitive and moral nihilism. All these traditions represent the "metaphysics of the hangman," not just Christianity with its priests, eunuchs, and last men. Nietzsche is rewriting Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. German Idealism is being retranslated into Existentialism.
Will to Power as a Will to Form, Creativity, and Moral Self-Determination: Theory of the will to power, ressentiment, Uebermensch, herd morality, revaluation of all values, eternal return, and beyond good and evil; and the world of the play and creativity of art and beauty (518-519, 525-526, and 533). The Uebermensch is the striving individual for whom life, in its social institutions and cultural values, is a form of art, beauty, and human creativity in the face of "tragic wisdom". Meaning is derived from the act of creation and self-determination, not from the worship of appearances, illusions, decadence, and idolatry. Nietzsche represents the Romantic fulfillment of Kant's theory of practical reason and moral self-determination. Following Hegel's theory of the Absolute Spirit in the Phenomenology of Spirit and Schopenhauer's paths to salvation in the World as Will and Representation, Nietzsche believes that the Uebermensch lies in the passion and drive of the Artist, Saint, and Philosopher in his exercise of the will-to-power. This activity of the "will-to-power" is a will to form and transform, a will to imagine and create, a will to reason and beauty, a will of the spirit and soul, and a will to Apollo (mind and being) and Dionysus (body and becoming). This will-to-power summarizes the drives of the various traditions in Western society as a drive to form (Kant), a drive to transform and overcome (Schopenhauer), a drive to create (Dionysus) and a drive to order and reason (Apollo) in the face of human tragedy (Aeschylus and Sophocles) and pain and suffering (Schopenhauer). For Weber the last man was without Spirit and Herz, without justice, reason, morals, and virtue, while for Nietzsche this was the very prerequisite of the Uebermensch. What for Nietzsche were idols were, for Weber, the spirit and heart of humanity -- the ideals of Substantive Reason (Wertrationalitaet). In the end, the ultimate ideal of humanity is an individual who creates their lives (Kant) according to universal forms of beauty (Schopenhauer) while also recognizing the inherent absurdity and tragedy of human existence. It is in this blending of Apollo, Parmenides, and Kant with Dionysus, Heraclitus, Sophocles, and Schopenhauer that the real Uebermensch is formed; this represents the cultural and historical radicalization of Kant's theory of subjectivity and the forms of intuition and the understanding. Nietzsche referred to these cultural traditions from Socrates and Plato to Immanuel Kant as the shadows of God, decadence, idols, crude fetishism, disease, absurdly rational, corruption of reason, original sin of reason, cage, decline of life, internal enemy, resentment, and prejudicial reason. The idols from Plato to Kant were rejected because they were forms of false universality of eternal, absolute, and transcendent truths in philosophy, metaphysics, and religion; they called for a false equality in religion and politics, and a loss of the creative ideals of art, culture, and society to the crude materialism and individualism of Western liberalism. They resulted in blind obedience, passivity, resignation, and the acceptance of cultural authority, which undermined any recognition of the Dionysian element of pain and suffering or the creativity and exceptional freedom in humanity. They lost the tragic vision of the Greeks and the theory of representation and will in Schopenhauer -- the tragedy of human existence -- thereby forcing a blind obedience to external authority. Nietzsche was against equality of conscience (Kant), soul (Christianity), and politics (liberalism).

Summary of One Path of Existentialism from Kant to Nietzsche: The phenomenology of the existential spirit and consciousness begins with the following:
(1) History of Western Epistemology and Philosophy in Empiricism and Rationalism:
distinction between the mind and the body in a theory of knowledge
(2) Kant and his Theory of Representations: distinction between the mind as forms of intuition
of time and space and forms of the understanding of substance and causality creatively
forming the world of appearances and phenomena in perception and ideas
(3) Schopenhauer on Will and Representation: these distinction evolve into the representations
of illusions, dreams, and the veil of Maja and the will as pain, suffering, and Nothingness
(4) Nietzsche and Greek Mythology: these epistemological and physical distinctions were more
evolved in the Ancient world of classical Greece with its cultural mythology and metaphysical
dialectic between Apollo, the god of reason and order, and Dionysus, the god of fertility and ecstasy
(5) Nietzsche on Reason and Chaos: retranslates Greek mythology in human ontology as the Apollonian
instinctual drive of humans becomes a drive to order, light, reason, unity, law, and religion and the
Dionysian drive is one of chaos, creativity, desires, instincts, and sexuality
(6) Greek Philosophy and Art: Nietzsche sees the origins of these diverse drives for creativity,
rationality, and morals in Greek mythology as they are transposed to the culture and society
as the Tragic Vision of Greek tragedy of Aeschylus and Sophocles and the Metaphysical Solace of
Greek Art, Philosophy, Morality, and Society
(7) Greek Tragedy and Art: in response to the pain, suffering, and tragedy of human life,
the ancient Greeks created the beauty and strength of the architecture of the Parthenon and the
elegance and grace of its sculptured frieze, the morality of its everyday life, the human dignity
of its citizenship and participation in the General Assembly on the Pnyx, and the social justice
of its law, polity, and economy
(8) Nietzsche and Human Creativity: Nietzsche recapitulates the History of Western Culture and
Idolatry by revealing that Greek art, religion, and philosophy were constructs of human creativity
in the face of a meaningless and painful world that were lost to Western consciousness with
the development of the oppressive idols from Platonic Rationalism, Western Christianity,
Enlightenment Science, Political Liberalism, and Kantian Moral Philosophy
(9) Schopenhauer and Nothingness: it was Schopenhauer who was the first modern philosopher
to rediscover this classical dialectic between the mind and body, reason and desires,
and Apollo and Dionysus in the world as will and representation
(10) Nietzsche and Creativity in a Meaningless World: Nietzsche further radicalizes these conclusions
with the idea that the cultural and social constructs of Apollo were also meaningless. But, and this
is his major philosophical insight -- in the face of a meaningless and tragic world
the "striving individual," applying the "will to power," attempts to create meaning at the same time
that they know there is no meaning in the world. The moral foundation for human life exits
not in natural law, Greek mythology, or Christian metaphysics, but in human creativity.
This is, for Nietzsche, the heart of true creativity and true courage.

Existentialism and Classical Social Theory: Summary of the Course: This course outlined the Structural Crises of Modernity: the crises of political economy, industrial production, and social bureaucracy (System) or the loss of freedom, creativity, self-determination, and self-realization in communal work; the crises of social institutions, psychological repression, and the collective conscience (Lifeworld) or the loss of community, individuality, ethics, and social ideals; and the crises of natural law, tradition, and values (Existentialism) or the loss of meaning, morality, and reason in Western society. Existentialism represents the synthesis of various intellectual movements in Western thought whose origins lie in Locke, Hume, and Descartes, as well as in the death of God, mechanization of nature, alienation of reason, and the radicalization of Kantian epistemology and moral philosophy. For the existentialists, the irony of Western reason is that it precipitates both the death of God and the death of the Enlightenment; for the sociologists, the crisis of Western reason plays a crucial role in the rise of nineteenth-century social theory, especially in the development of Weber's theory of formal rationality (Zweckrationalitaet) and the last man. What begins as a crisis of knowledge, science, and morality ends in a crisis of society. In fact, the crisis of Existentialism is a direct response to the Nothingness of the spiritual hollowness, ethical emptiness, and aesthetic bankruptcy produced by radical individualism, utilitarian competition, market consumerism, technical domination of nature, and the exploitative workplace of capitalist society: Nothingness and Nihilism are the direct result of Capitalism, Liberalism, and the Enlightenment. Because sociology is a holistic, integrative, historical, and critical discipline it views the Nothingness and Nihilism of Existentialism as a product of RRAADD. Classical Social Theory was built on the foundations of modern society and Existentialism. The latter is the underlying telos and spirit (Geist) of Liberalism; the seventeenth-century materialist theories of Hobbes and Locke lead inevitably to the Nothingness and Nihilism of the twentieth century. Traditional horizons and natural law have been displaced by the market values of life, liberty, property, greed, and acquisition. Morality, ethics, law, and social justice have become commodified in the search for personal happiness within the limits of market choices: Taste has replaced ideals. Natural law tradition no longer defines our universal values and goals; rather it is the capitalist system and the market that become the ultimate arbiters of personal happiness and private morality. Objectivity has been preselected and predefined by natural science, and morality has been codified into market categories. The more traditional values of love, compassion, beauty, human dignity, truth, practical wisdom, friendship, political participation, virtue, the good life, etc. are replaced by the crass "war of all against all" in a market economy and industrial production. There are no higher moral values, no natural laws, and no social ideals of justice to be realized -- only the values of "Mexico City" and the Eclipse of Reason. Existentialism is a literary and philosophical response to the loss of power and control over production (alienation and dehumanization), the loss of meaning and reason (rationalization and disenchantment), the loss of community as Sittlichkeit (possessive individualism and egoistic rights), the loss of foundationalism (skepticism and idealism), and the loss of moral laws, traditions, and universals (relativism and nihilism) in modern society; existential nominalism and naturalism are best expressed in sociology as disenchantment, dereglement, and anomie. It is important to note that Classical Social Theory represents only the beginning of sociology and not its end. There are so many more questions on inequality, poverty, race, gender, feminism, health care, rural economy, political economy, the welfare state, literature, art, music, etc. that can and should proceed based on this initial foundation of nineteenth-century thought. A more comprehensive and intensive examination of these classical themes will continue in the course, Classical Social Theory (Socy 361). The search for truth and virtue (Kant and Nietzsche), beauty (Schiller), and God (Feuerbach) is undermined by the recognition that objective reality and universal morality, theology and metaphysics, and the true forms and aesthetics are human constructions. And it is this creative dimension of humanity which leads to self-consciousness and freedom and forms a key foundation in the theories of Alienation, Disenchantment, and Anomie. The four main faces of Modernity -- the four pillars of the Iron Cage -- Liberalism (state), Capitalism (economy), the Enlightenment (science and technology), and Possessive Individualism (psychology) -- provide us with the total estrangement of humanity from its own universality and creativity in that its values, ideals, and institutions do not lift us to new heights of human potentiality and imagination due to the extreme reductionism of economic rights, utility, and property (Marx), technical knowledge and the decadence and nihilism of reason (rationalization), and loss of collective consciousness and ethical horizons (Durkheim). The world is homeless and empty; everything is reduced to market or scientific values. After Calvin, even God abandons the world as a meaningless hovel (Deus absconditus). Liberalism reduces humanity to the simple economic categories of life, liberty, and property without meaning beyond the market; objective and substantive reason with its universal ethical values is lost to Enlightenment science and rationality. All life and imagination are lost in an existential crisis. The spirit and heart of humanity is crushed without hope of some social remedy. Nineteenth-century classical social theory seeks to encompass and comprehend (science), if not change (social justice), the reality of the depreciation and dehumanization of Liberalism, Capitalism, the Enlightenment, and Protestantism (neo-Calvinism).
Existentialism as the Contradictions (Widersprueche) of Liberalism, Capitalism, the Enlightenment, and Loss of Natural Law: Modern industrial society has produced a social system in which questions of Meaning and Values in ethics, politics, nature, aesthetics, and religion have been abandoned because of the following Structures, Culture, and Crisis of Meaning in modern society. Existentialism is the product of a complex set of historical, social, and philosophical events: Disenchantment, rationalization, Enlightenment reason, scientism, nominalism, Protestant Reformation, alienation, liberalism, materialism, and utilitarianism:

(1) Protestant Reformation and Ethics (16th and 17th Centuries): transcendent God, Deus absconditus and meaninglessness of world, predestination, ascetic inhumanity of terror, isolation, and hopelessness, worldly corruption and sin, and depreciation of organic nature -- Luther and Calvin. TULIP is also a cause of PERSONNN.
(2) Cartesian Dualism and Materialism (17th Century): tragedy of dualism, alienation of the mind and body, and the degradation of the physical world in a technical science geared to the domination and control over nature for utilitarian reasons -- Descartes and Bacon. Nature is viewed as a dead machine.
(3) Liberalism and Natural Rights (17th Century): the necessity to ground natural rights and the second state of nature in possessive individualism, property, and the market rather than in God, natural law, common property, and the community in Locke's Second Treatise of Nature. There is also a loss of community, social responsibility, and the common good. The moral prohibition of "do no harm to others" is forgotten in the "second state of nature" in the rush to accumulate wealth and property; and with the unfettered accumulation of property, there is no equality, freedom, or natural rights as in the "First State of Nature." With the loss of God (Luther), the loss of a meaningful world (Descartes), and the loss of natural law (Locke), the way is open to the despair, disenchantment, and emptiness of the soul. From this perspective an argument can be made the Locke provides the fundamental foundation upon which existentialism is eventually built, since, with Locke and his theory of the Second State of Nature, a market economy has replaced a moral economy, and natural law and natural rights have been replaced by the civil rights to private property and capital accumulation in a market economy. Later in his 19th-century writings and moving beyond natural rights theory, John Stuart Mill develops the notion that there are no ethical and political truths; all ideas are only opinions that must be publicly analyzed, debated, and adjudicated in a democracy. It was Mill's way of placing emphasis of the values and institutions of political democracy that eventually pushed him beyond liberalism to socialism. However, this idea of liberalism that there are no truths contains the seeds of relativism and existentialism. The second state of nature, loss of natural law, and rise of a market economy in Locke and the disappearance of Descartes' light of reason and natural law with the rise of the Enlightenment critique of religion both provide the foundations for the moral nihilism of post-modern ethics (Nietzsche). Existentialism is built into the very structures and logic of a liberalism grounded in only natural rights without natural law or science and reason without the metaphysics of medieval cosmology. That is, grounded only in market rationality and the right to property or in scientific utility and the domination of nature, formal or technical reason reverts to relativism and utilitarianism.
(4) Liberalism and Utilitarianism (18th and 19th Centuries): utilitarianism, materialism, egoism, individualism, market economy, and the disappearance of community spirit, compassion, friendship, general welfare, and loss of God, love, and Natural Law in J. Bentham and J. Mill. This is one of the main social themes connecting liberalism as a middle-class hell to the rise of individualism, hedonism, indifference to others (Paris suicide and death of inmate in WW2 prison camp), market rationality, existentialism, and the silence before the horrors of the Holocaust in Camus's The Fall. Liberalism, with its materialism, self-interest, market morality, and Enlightenment science and rationality, has replaced God, natural law, and reason as the foundation of moral decisions -- thus the emptiness, silence, and moral relativism of modern society and hell.
(5) Capitalism and Production (19th Century): the nihilism of possessive individualism, greed, competition, prosperity, utilitarianism, materialism, and the fetishism of humanity in the workplace -- Smith, Ricardo, and Marx. Work is no longer a place for creativity, community, and the imagination (Marx).
(6) Alienation and Work: One aspect of Marx's critique of capitalism and the workplace was that it produced an existential crisis. That is, alienated labor undermined the individual's ability to define, create, and determine the meaning and purpose of their life and their work. The ultimate goal of individuals (species being) to self-determination and freedom in ethics, politics, and the economy is undermined by the capitalist social relations of production. The result of the capitalist workplace was a loss of self, community, and meaning.
(7) Disenchantment, Enlightenment, and Science: rationalization of technical and formal reason and disenchantment as the loss of God, natural law, and the substantive reason of ethics, politics, and art (Weber) because of empiricism, nominalism, and scientism.
(8) : Loss of the Collective Conscience and Culture through Derangement and Anomie: Durkheim's examines the rise of suicide in Western Europe resulting from the loss of traditional cultural values, social ideals, religious principles, moral imperatives, and community ethics due to the rise of liberalism, utilitarianism, a market economy, and a formal, empty Enlightenment rationality of nothingness and idolatry.
(9) Modern Bureaucracy and Rationalization: rationalization of institutions, positivist science, formal law and subjective reason, specialized and technical knowledge, division of labor, institutional hierarchy, formal reason of specialists without heart and spirit, and the last man -- Nietzsche and Weber.
(10) British Empiricism, Skepticism, Nominalism, and German Idealism: skepticism and idealism argue that there is no direct knowledge of objective reality (thing-in-itself) as in empiricism or rationalism since the imagination or transcendental subjectivity creates objectivity, respectively -- Hume, Kant, and Hegel. Ethics has no role in the methods and theories of science as there is an unbridgeable divide between facts and values, particulars and universals (nominalism).
(11) Classical Social Theory: Marx, Weber, and Durkheim: the classical theorists noticed the depletion of meaning and values in modern society in their theories of alienation and dehumanization, rationalization and disenchantment, and anomie and dereglement, that is, the rise of political and ethical ideology and false consciousness (Marx), and the loss of substantive reason in the iron cage (Weber) and the loss of the collective consciousness and rise of suicide and derangement (Durkheim). Existentialism played an important part in the development of classical social theory of Marx (Hegel's dialectic, Absolute Spirit, Objective Spirit, and the modern State), Weber (Nietzsche's theory of decadence, false consciousness, and the warring gods), Durkheim (Schopenhauer's theory of Nothingness and ethical relativism), and Freud (Schopenhauer's theory of the unconscious). The classical tradition, especially Marx, attempted to integrate science with ethics by developing an alternative view of historical and empirical science with Griechensehnsucht, Romanticism, Idealism, and Existentialism.
(12) Existentialism: Dionysian wisdom and the Nothingness of truth and Nihilism of moral values, a theory of knowledge based on illusions, appearances, and representations, and the loss of collective conscience and social ideals -- Nietzsche and Durkheim.

These transformations of the total social system since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries have produced a Crisis of Meaning in Western Culture, Nature, and Society. From one perspective, Existentialism is a product of the radicalization of Kant's theory of representations, constructed objectivity, and the thing-in-itself in Schopenhauer and, from another perspective, it represents a radicalization of Locke's theory of property and market economy and the loss of Natural Law. An argument can be made that Existentialism is a response to Kant and Schopenhauer, on the one hand, and to Hobbes and Locke on the other. From another perspective, Existentialism (Nothingness/Nihilism) is the result of individual despair in a disconnected and repressed sense of identity and self (Individualism/Repression), a competitive, destructive, and isolating economy (Capitalism/Alienation/Dehumanization/Chrematistike), an empty and indifferent polity (Liberalism/Rationalization), a culture that has loss its sense of morality, community, the common good, and broader social values (Anomie), and a meaningless, deterministic, and mechanical science (Enlightenment, Disenchantment, and Rationalization) -- these are the values and structures of modernity expressed as RRAANNDDDD. Life is not inherently meaningless (Existentialism), but is the result of a society built on the contradictions and inherent inconsistencies between freedom and liberty, natural law and natural rights, democracy and capitalism, and communal being and radical individualism (Sociology).

Existentialism is both a philosophy of the crisis of meaning and a sociology of the emptiness and domination of nature (Descartes), loss of moral community and natural law (Locke), commodification and fetishism of work (Marx), disenchantment and rationalization of science (Weber), loss of collective values and social consciousness (Durkheim), the rise of ethical nihilism or existential disenchantment (Nietzsche), Kantian existentialism and the nothingness of perception and experience of the appearances (Schopenhauer), and the silence of the moral conscience in the face of the Holocaust (Camus). From this perspective, existentialism is not a response to the human condition but to history and human society. Does history result from changes within ideas and culture (idealism of Weber) or from changes within the structures of political economy (materialism of Marx)? In summary, the modern phenomenon of moral nihilism is the result of many ethical, religious, scientific, political, and epistemological features embedded in the culture of modern society: Liberalism and alienation or the loss of natural law; Enlightenment, Positivism, and Naturalism as worldly disenchantment and the loss of substantive reason and ethics/religion; Protestantism and the transcendence of God from the meaninglessness of the world as the loss of an ethically meaningful and beautiful world; Idealism as constructivism and the loss of objective reality and objective truth; and Existentialism or the loss of social meaning, universal morals, and scientific truths. Locke may be viewed as the father of existentialism since he laid its foundations in both empiricism and the loss of natural law. A central response to Existentialism and RRAANNDDDD would be the reestablishment of social ethics and social justice in terms of "do no harm to others," social responsibility, friendship, citizenship, community, compassion, love, and a secular natural law -- the foundations of the Aristotelian ideal polity and democratic socialism. In the vocabulary of social science, this would mean the reintegration of the social system and the lifeworld, political economy and political ideals, and social structures and cultural ideals. There internal contradictions (dialectical science) in liberalism and capitalism would have to be transcended so that the social system could expression the ideals of society; ideology would be transformed into politics. European social theory would have to be rediscovered and reinvigorated. In order to transform consciousness, there would have to be a major critique of Anglo-American social science and positivism in qualitative and qualitative analysis -- empiricism and critical rationalism.

Along with this, there would also have to be a dramatic change in the very structures of political economy. Both subjectivity and objectivity would now conform to the ideals of a true economic and political democracy based on equality, freedom, and the common good. Besides the depletion of natural meaning and objective ethics with the rise of liberalism and its economic reductionism, there is also a depletion of the material resources of nature and the unfolding of the ecological crisis. But that is another story to be told in another course. With the rise of a liberal economy and polity, there is also a rise of existential decadence, ethical disenchantment, cultural anomie, social derangement, economic alienation, and the repression, displacement, and liquidation of reason. According to Horkheimer, this process leads to the loss of human reason and the rise of fascism and political oppression -- loss of the social ideals of democracy, freedom, equality, human dignity, and self-determination which could resist fascism, but no longer exist or are no longer relevant. Under positivism, reason and social theory can only measure and calculate what is -- surface phenomena, opinions, intentions, and actions or predict the consequences of what can be under the accepted variables, not what could be (immanent critique) or should be (ethical critique). It cannot examine the unconscious forms of psychological repression or the deep structures of monopoly capital, poverty, dehumanization, and the welfare state; it cannot examine the classical values of the ancient Greek polity, the transcendent values of liberalism, or the ideals of democratic socialism. Individual voices against the oppression of the socialist, trade unionists, and the Jews can no longer be raised and, therefore, there is no one left to speak out against the oppression of those remaining citizens -- no one to speak out against my oppression (Martin Niemoeller).

Each author discussed in this class offers insight into these very problems of the rise of modern industrial society and the loss of reason, ethics, community, and democracy: (1) Locke stresses the Natural Law foundations of Natural Rights, the moral foundations and economic communalism necessary for individual freedom and the political rights of citizens in a limited government that are eventually dissolved in a market economy and commercial capitalism; (2) Weber recognizes the loss of substantive reason and ethics due to the rise of the Enlightenment, Western science, utilitarianism, and economic liberalism; (3) Camus focuses on the silent traitors to humanity in the ninth circle of Hell who are unable to voice moral judgments and act upon them in a society based on egoism, utilitarianism, and the loss of moral values; and (4) Marx who recognizes the loss of individual and social creativity and freedom in a capitalist economy defined by specialization and the private ownership of property which is the hallmark of capitalism and the Second State of Nature. It is the rise of modern capitalist society which, in the end, undermines Natural Law, communalism and common property, the moral community, the common will, and social ethics in the face of possessive individualism and a market economy. These are common trends in liberalism, socialism, existentialism, and medieval scholasticism.

Classics and the Classical: Foundations of European Social Theory in Athens, Jerusalem, and Berlin: European social theory was created as a direct response to both the Enlightenment (science and methods) and Liberalism (political economy): with their critique of the Enlightenment, classical theorists were impelled to turn to the German Idealism, Romanticism, and Existentialism of Kant, Hegel, and Nietzsche, respectively, for their theories of knowledge, science, and nature and, with their critique of liberalism and capitalism, they turned to the Ancient Hebrews (Torah and the prophets) and Ancient Greeks (Aristotle) for inspiration in ethics, politics, and economics. The spirit of Classical Theory is found in the heart of the Classics. Pull this critical tradition together with its rejection of Enlightenment epistemology and methodology and Liberalism's moral individualism and market justice, we have the foundation for a Critical Social Theory and a Critical Theory of Ecology. This introductory course provides the foundations for later courses in Classical Social Theory: Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, Social Justice: The Ancient and Modern Traditions, and Science and Society: Crisis of the Enlightenment and Environment. The imaginative power and critical sensitivity of modern social theory -- its range and horizons -- rest in its synthesis of the classical traditions of Athens, Jerusalem, and Berlin. Sociology is the integrative, historical, and critical discipline which exclaims: Sociology without philosophy and ethics is blind and Philosophy without sociology and science is meaningless. That is, Sociology needs philosophy and justice to guide it through its historical and empirical analyses in order to make ethical changes in the social system, whereas Philosophy needs sociology to make it relevant in an ever changing, concrete, and empirical world. This is the fundamental reason why the Classical Social Theorists returned to the Ancients in order to rediscover an ethical and political experience of meaning and purpose in the face of the disenchantment (de-spiritualization, formalization, and de-valuation of reason) and moral void of modern science, positivism, utilitarianism, and existentialism.

The Dilemma and Disillusionment of the Enlightenment -- Positivism and Existentialism: World without Ends: This course begins with an examination of the various values and institutions that constitute the structural foundations of modern industrial society -- politics, economics, culture, and psychology. It begins with the Industrial Revolution, positivism, and the factory system (Dickens), a defense of liberalism, natural rights, and radical individualism (Hobbes and Locke), democracy, diversity, and political pluralism (J. S. Mill), natural science, objective truth, and Enlightenment reason (Descartes), and a strong, enlightened ego which balances individual desires and social mores and restraints (Freud). It soon unfolds to include the more critical insights of alienation (Marx), rationalization (Weber), anomie (Durkheim), repression (Freud), and relativism and nihilism (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Camus). The course moves from 17th-century liberalism, empiricism, and rationalism to 19th-20th-century existentialism; it moves from Enlightenment science and rationality (Descartes and Hume), liberalism without God and natural law (Locke), and a market economy and industrial commodity production without the ethical restrains and values of a moral economy (Marx and Weber) to existential isolation, loneliness, and despair -- Nothingness and Nihilism. Positivism and Existentialism are the twofold faces of Western modernity because both leave the institutions and values of modern capitalism and Enlightenment rationality untouched by any critical social theory -- both leave the individual powerless before the shadows of the Enlightenment. Neither empiricism (neutrality and objectivity) nor existentialism (relativism and nihilism) permit the exercise of a social science wedded to ethical critique. Discuss the meaning and implications of science (empiricism) without ethics (positivism). See Max Horkheimer, L. Kolakowski, C. Wright Mills, and A. Gouldner. This leads to knowledge and life without universal guiding principles; this dilemma becomes of the foundation of contemporary conservative political philosophy, post-modern English and literature, and positivistic sociology. However, it also the stepping stone to the foundations of the Classical Social Theory of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim and the Critical Social Theory of the Frankfurt School. Given the "hard times" that presently exist in today's society, it is now more important than ever to be able to dream about human dignity, human rights, democracy, and the common good. And even more important than ever to appreciate the classical tradition of modern social theory and its relationship to ancient Greece and its classical horizons. With the rising inequality, poverty, class differences, fascism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, white supremacy, etc. in the United States, this critical tradition and its evolution in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is central to the maintenance of a true democracy, human freedom. and political and economic self-determination.
Indifference, Dereglement, and Existentialism: Existential and Ecological Crises: In summary, sociology is the discipline which examines the four structural components of modern industrial society -- political liberalism and democracy, market and industrial capitalism, radical individualism, and the cultural values of Protestant transcendence, emptiness, and indifference, Enlightenment science and positivism, and existential relativism and nominalism. These structural elements produced a society characterized by the incoherence, indifference, and contradictions of the total social system -- between natural rights and natural law (Locke); capitalism and democracy, market liberties and political freedom, and materialism and economic development and human spirituality and nobility (Mill); rights, freedom and human liberty and alienation and dehumanization (Marx); modern science, technology, and institutional bureaucracy and rationalization and disenchantment (Weber); the values of Enlightenment rationality and the Protestant Reformation and anomie and dereglement (Durkheim); the hopes of freedom, Christianity, and justice and the reality of World War II and the Holocaust (Camus); and the rise of Western religion, reason, and empiricism and the decline into existentialism, despair, and nominalism (Schopenhauer and Nietzsche). Existentialism is a watershed in Western thought because it is a result of the breakdown of the traditional Enlightenment views of science, religion, ethics, and politics since the 17th century, while, at the same time, acting as a transition point to contemporary debates over the nature of knowledge, morality, science, and society. Usually, existentialism was seen as a philosophical or metaphysical issue based on human mortality and death -- the death of humanity (Camus) and the death of God (Nietzsche). Instead, the classical social theorists saw it as the death of society -- the complete pathology and breakdown of social values, morals, and ideals. That is, existentialism is more the product of the structural and ethical incoherence and contradictions of modern society -- capitalism. It is a product of the long history of the decline of religion and the loss of the universal, essence, and divine in history whether in the form of God's creation or human creativity -- loss of natural law and the ethical justification of liberalism in a theory of materialism (Hobbes and Locke), loss of the substance and meaning of democracy as equality, participation, and the good life in democratic elitism and tyranny (Mill and Schumpeter), transcendence and disappearance of God and the decadence of the world (Calvin and Weber), commodification and idolatry of the market and property (Dickens and Marx), derangement, anomie, decadence, and the loss of collective cultural values (Durkheim), scientific rationalization and domination (Descartes and Weber), and experience and knowledge as cognitive representations and ethical nominalism -- no objective reality or objective moral values (Schopenhauer and Nietzsche). The intellectual and spiritual heart of Western society has been depleted and ripped asunder as it is replaced by the logic and institutions of market rationality. Existentialism is a total sociological phenomenon that is the result of the structural transformation of society into RRAANNDDDD. This nominalistic collapse of social ethics and political meaning -- the ideals of the good and virtuous life -- in the form of its cultural, political, and economic values -- Existentialism -- only prefigures later in history the collapse of humanity's relationship to Nature -- the Ecological Crisis. The classical social theory of the nineteenth-century European tradition was grounded in the existentialism of German and British poetry and German idealism (Marx), Schopenhauer (Durkheim), and Nietzsche (Weber). Sociology is an empirical and historical discipline grounded in the existential search for meaning -- the meaning of human labor, creativity and self-determination, freedom and equality, democracy and political participation, natural law and natural rights, and knowledge and science; it is the search for social meaning within a community of friends, neighbors, and citizens; but it is also a search for meaning in a world characterized and structured by alienation and commodification, rationalization and disenchantment, anomie and derangement, and repression and the loss of unconscious memory.
Inconsistences and Contradictions of Western Civilization: Western civilization, religions, and liberal democracies are able to coexist with incompatible traditions. For example, the blessings and gifts of God's creation in ancient Hebrew and Christian traditions coexist with a dead, mechanical, and deterministic nature of the Enlightenment, the teleology of God's creation with a meaningless and purposeless world, natural law with natural rights, communalism (medieval Catholicism) with individualism (Protestantism), democracy with capitalism, Aristotelian (democracy) with neo-Platonic (elitism and authoritarianism) political philosophy, political freedom and citizenship with economic exploitation and the factory, individual equality with hierarchy and class divisions, freedom with exploitation, equality with racism and sexism, and the social ideals with historical/structural reality. For more on this issue of the desacralization of religion, politics, and nature, see Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic. Locke's Second Treatise of Government provides a crucial element in the foundation of Western democracy, individual freedom, and civil liberties but, when looked at more carefully within classical social theory, we see that the true foundations of liberalism lie in the social pathologies of theological and psychological fear, isolation, and loneliness (Weber), existential disenchantment, decadence, and loss of reason (Weber), alienation and dehumanization (Marx), anomie and individual despair and deregelment/derangement/madness (Durkheim), and moral emptiness and ethical silence (Camus). This is not the rational basis of a true democracy and human rights. RRAANNDDDD is, unfortunately, the truth of liberalism and capitalism.
Sociology as a Practical and Critical Social Science: Integrating Ethics and Science: As a PRACTICAL or ETHICAL SCIENCE, sociology recapitulates 2500 years of intellectual, philosophical, and theological history from the Ancient Hebrews (Torah and the Prophets), Ancient Hellenes (Aristotle), and Hellenists (New Testament) through Medieval Scholasticism and Modern Natural Law Theory to Modern Social Ethics and Contemporary Political/Social Philosophy in its attempt to examine modern industrial society from the perspective of moral philosophy, ethics, and social justice. It asks what is the nature of the good society; what is happiness, the function of humanity, and the meaning and purpose of human existence; what does human freedom, self-determination, and self-realization mean; what is the good citizen and democracy; and how can these ethical ideals be institutionalized and made real? It also questions issues of racism, sexism, ageism, and classism and rejects societies that continue to maintain these obstacles to human emancipation and freedom. It is a CRITICAL SCIENCE because it rejects both empiricism and rationalism -- Positivism -- as its epistemological and methodological foundation. Rather it turns to neo-Kantian (Kulturwissenschaft) and neo-Hegelian (Dialektische Wissenschaft) traditions as the basis for an ETHICAL, CULTURAL, AND HISTORICAL SCIENCE. With its view of SOCIETY, sociology examines the deep Structures, Functions, Culture, and History of modern capitalism and liberalism. That is, it views society as a holistic, integrated macro organism that must be viewed in its totality and not from the perspective of fragmented and disjointed empirical studies. This means that this view of science questions the use of positivism in the application of its qualitative and quantitative research methods. It relies upon methods of cultural hermeneutics (Rickert and Weber), depth hermeneutics (Freud), existentialism (Weber and Durkheim), and deep structural and historical analysis (Marx, Weber, and Durkheim). Sociology, as historical materialism, also asks about the historical and social formation of consciousness, culture, ideas, and values as a product of the institutions and structures of modern society and industrial capitalism. It also makes the connection between the domination of nature (science) and the domination of humanity in its two forms of society and inner personality. Social Critique, as a distinct sociological method, is grounded in history, structures of society, anthropology (human needs and desires), phenomenology or history of western spirit or self-consciousness of social ideals, immanent critique, dialectical critique, historical materialism, etc. Throughout this semester the existential question and a central focus in the course readings has revolved around the meaning and loss of meaning in human life. Is the crisis of modern society a result of the loss of meaning in the world and the absurdity of human existence manifested in the loss of God and natural law (Locke), the loss of substantive reason (Weber), the loss of public and civic virtues and social ideas through disenchantment, dereglement, and anomie (Durkheim), the Holocaust and World War II (Camus), etc. Or is it the result of the rise of modern society itself in the form of capitalism and liberalism (RRAANNDDD)?

Finally, as the distinctive discipline of Modernity, sociology navigates between the rocky shoals of Scylla and the whirlpool of Charybdis, between positivism (Dickens) and postmodernity/existentialism (Nietzsche), and between capitalism (Smith and Malthus) and materialism (Bentham and Mill). Sociology is the study of the Structures, Functions, Culture, History, Pathologies, and Critique of the total social system or social ecology -- System and Lebenswelt (Structures and Consciousness & Culture). Sociology is the historical and empirical study of RRAANNDDDD for the purpose of realizing the fundamental human needs for Democracy and Social Justice -- the rediscovery and reintegration of Science and Ethics. This introductory course in European social theory finishes with a summary of the authors read this semester and their classical Greek influences: Locke (natural law), Descartes (natural law), J. S. Mill (Greeks political theory), Marx (Aristotle), Weber (ancient history), Freud (Sophocles), Camus (Sophocles and Aristotle), Schopenhauer (Aeschylus and Sophocles), and Nietzsche (Apollo and Dionysus, Parmenides and Heraclitus). Thus 19th- and early 20th-century social theory was founded upon these social dreamers who examined the total social system with a strong and critical ethical and political view of social justice thereby creating the following formula: Social Theory = Social Dreamers + Social System + Social Justice. In the end, modern industrial society has led to a religious, scientific, existential, political, and economic NOTHINGNESS through the NOTHINGNESS of religion and the meaningless, transcended world (Weber), the NOTHINGNESS of knowledge and science (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Weber), the NOTHINGNESS of individual equality, freedom, and rights (Locke and Marx), the NOTHINGNESS of capitalism (Dickens and Marx), the NOTHINGNESS of democracy (Marx and Mill), and the NOTHINGNESS of individualism, narcissism, loneliness, and personal neurosis (Freud and Marx): NOTHINGNESS is the social and functional creation of RRAANNDDDD.

Sociology, when at its best, is philosophy with wings,
theory with praxis, ideas with application, values with facts,
virtue with political economy, ethics with politics, and social justice with science;
that is, it makes ideas and ethics historically and empirically concrete and relevant
to understanding and changing today's complex social and environmental problems.
Philosophy without sociology is abstractly speculative, meaningless, and empty, -- without Spirit,
whereas Sociology without philosophy is empirically concrete, visionless, and blind -- without Heart.
However, together they offer unlimited horizons, creative visions, and hopeful futures.
(Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and the Frankfurt School)

Social Theory is the poetry of the mind and
soulful yearning for human dignity, beauty, and justice
that, unfortunately today, is lost in a positivist world of
disciplinary fragmentation, alienated disenchantment, and an eclipse of reason.


Five Part Summary of the Course: The summary involves five distinct areas and questions:

(1) Classical Social Theory: Definition of Sociology as a holistic, integrative, and critical social science that examines the structures, functions, history, culture, and pathologies (RRAANNDDDD) of modern industrial society. It further integrates into its comprehensive theories the disciplines of history, political economy, and philosophy as it moves toward a comprehensive and critical theory of social justice. Sociology is grounded in philosophy, especially ethics, politics, and social philosophy but moves beyond it to incorporate a more historical and empirical understanding of these areas. The goal of sociology was to make philosophy relevant for the modern age when dealing with issues of knowledge, truth, science, ethics, law, democracy, rights, and freedom; Aristotle attempted this for the Greeks with his historical writings on Athenian law, constitutions, and democracy, while Hegel moved in this direction with his analysis of the Objective Spirit and the modern state; and the classical social theorists only expanded upon these earlier authors.
(2) Philosophy, Sociology, and Existentialism: The rise of existentialism, which comprises the lectures of the last four weeks of this course, is a product of the philosophical development of Kant's theory of knowledge, Schopenhauer's theory of will and representation, Nietzsche's theory of idolatry and the shadows of god, and Camus's theory of moral relativism and nihilism brought about by WW II and the Holocaust. But it also is a product of broader structural changes in modern society, including the loss of natural law with the coming of natural rights, possessive individualism, and private property, the loss of God and natural law in the Enlightenment and modern science, the disappearance and transcendence of God in the Protestant Reformation, the loss of meaning, self, and freedom with the growth of private property, market economy, and the factory system, and the loss of substantive reason and the creation of the last man in the iron cage. That is, because of the Enlightenment, Protestant Reformation, the tensions within Liberalism, the nature of formal reason and the bureaucratic State, and the contradictions of Capitalism, there was a slow weakening of the generally accepted cultural values of ethics, religion, and politics within society. These structural transformations also gave rise to a profound crisis of reason and values, truth and ethics, and science and social justice -- this is the crisis of positivism, science, and moral relativism.
(3) German Existentialism and Classical Social Theory: Sociology examines the inner contradictions and conflicts of the Structures (Capitalism) and Lifeworld (Culture) of modern industrial society expressed in the loss of meaning and purpose in life -- Existentialism (Dickens, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Camus), the loss of human dignity and productive creativity in work -- Capitalism (Marx), the loss of basic natural rights, natural law, and common property -- Metaphysics (Locke), the loss of equality, freedom, and democracy -- Liberalism (J. S. Mill), and the loss of human and substantive reason and the rise of technical, nominalistic, and disenchanted science -- Scientism and Positivism (Descartes, Weber, and Freud). It is the loss of substantive reason, natural law, and democracy. Existentialism begins with Subjectivity, Nothingness, Nihilism, and then Hell. One effective response to existentialism lies in the rediscovery of classical social theory and its intellectual and philosophical origins in Classical Greece.
(4) Classical Greece and Critical Social Theory: Sociology is distinctive because its very spirit encompasses both the Moderns and the Ancients. According the Durkheim, the first sociologists were Plato and Aristotle, but this tradition soon faded. The integration of philosophy and sociology was rediscovered in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but lost again by the mid- to late twentieth century due to the primacy of empiricism and positivism (Horkheimer, C. W. Mills, and A. Gouldner). All the major theorists this semester leaned heavily upon ancient Greek philosophy and/or Greek tragedy. In fact, the tension within Locke's political philosophy between the ancients and the moderns, natural law and natural rights, common property and private property, and between communalism and individualism runs throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; it represents the inner contradictions of liberalism and capitalism that cannot be resolved within the present social system. This relationship between the Ancients and Moderns can be found in the following theorists:


                                                                        ANCIENTS                            MODERNS
                                                                        Natural Law                             Locke
                                                                        Natural Law                             Descartes
                                                                        (Scholasticism)
                                                                        Aristotle                                     J. S. Mill
                                                                        Aristotle                                     Marx
                                                                        Aristotle                                     Durkheim
                                                                        Greek History                           Weber
                                                                        Sophocles                                   Freud
                                                                        Sophocles and Dante                Camus
                                                                        Plato                                           Schopenhauer
                                                                        Sophocles & Aeschylus             Nietzsche
                                                                        Parmenides & Heraclitus         Nietzsche
                                                                        Apollo & Dionysus                    Nietzsche


(5) Integrating Structural Functionalism, Critical Theory, and Classical Social Theory: Looking at the social box with its separation of SYSTEM and LEBENSWELT (see below), we see the overall structure of modern society with its key component parts of Politics, Economics, Culture, and Psychology. At the surface and phenomenal level, modern society represents the evolution of (1) liberal democracy, the rule of law, natural rights, individual equality and freedom, and the modern state; (2) capitalist economy, economy growth and global expansion, productivity and efficiency, and material well-being and consumer comfort; (3) Enlightenment culture and the development of modern science and technology, literature and art, philosophy and theory, religion and Christianity, and the enlightenment of the general population; and (4) the rise of a new individualism with its break with the mindless conformity to society and religion, a new spirit of innovation and creativity, and a freedom from magic and superstition. However, a closer look at the deeper structures of society and their phenomenal appearances and political illusions -- Ideologies -- we see something more complex and menacing that results in the rise of: (1) a rationalized and bureaucratic state and liberal democracy that destroys individual rights, freedom, the moral community, and economic and political democracy (J. S. Mill and Weber); (2) forms of an economy that undermine the traditional artisan and individual self-determination and creativity in the workplace (Marx); (3) an Enlightenment of cultural decadence (Nietzsche), meaningless disenchantment (Weber), and anomic derangement (Durkheim); (4) a new individuality of repression, anxiety, and neurotic fear (Freud); and (5) an existential crisis of a nihilistic society without ethical, moral, or political meaning, purpose, or values (Schopenhauer and Nietzsche), or the ability to express ethical, religious, and political values openly and publicly in the face of rising fascism and anti-Semitism (Camus). Once the illusions, ideology, veil of Maya, and social repression have been lifted by classical social theory, we see another society that no longer resembles the ideals and values of liberalism and capitalism. But the classical horizons of nineteenth-century social theory lead to the possibility of a new enlightenment and with it a new future for humanity and nature in the form of social and ecological justice.

Course Summary and Major Themes: Class Discussion
1. Social Structures: System and Lifeworld
2. Social Pathologies: RRAANNDDDD
3. Social Traditions and Horizons: Ancient
and Modern Ideals of ethics and politics
4. Social Totality: Sociology as a holistic,
integrative, and critical science 5. Social Justice: Political, Economic,
Distributive, Civil/Legal rights, Workplace, and
Ecological justice
6. Social definition: Sociology is a critical study
of the structures, functions, history, and culture
of modern industrial society. Society is a living
organism in which each component part integrates and
interacts with the other parts: family, psychological
repression, and society; Protestant ethic and political
economy; alienation and psychology; and existentialism,
formal reason, and society; and rationalization and
disenchantment.



Without Social Dreamers, One Cannot See or Feel Justice

and

Without Critical Social Theory Based on Historical and Empirical Analyses,
One Cannot Realize Social Dreams

**************

SOCIAL DREAMERS: SUMMARY

1. Sociology is the study of the Social Totality as RRAANNDDDD --
Structures, Functions, Culture, and Pathologies of Modern Society

2. based on the integration of the traditions of
Philosophy, Political Economy, and History

3. for the purposes of developing a Critical Social Theory

and

4. integrating Science and Ethics/Politics
Empirical Research and Theory
Theory and Practice
and
Ancients and Moderns
in
SOCIAL JUSTICE.

5. Empirical and Historical research without Theory is blind
and Theory without Empirical and Historical research is meaningless.
(variations on a Kantian theme)


                                    

********      ********     ********     ********

                                                       

SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR THEMES IN LATE 19TH- AND
EARLY 20TH-CENTURY EUROPEAN SOCIAL THEORY




MAIN THEMES IN "SOCIAL DREAMERS": Focus throughout this course will be on the following main themes:

(1) Sociology and the Structural Foundations of Industrial Capitalism: Nineteenth-Century
                                           Critique of the Four Pillars of Modernity

Examine the defining and distinguishing characteristics of modern industrial society in the History, Structures or Four Subsystems, Functions, and Meaning of social institutions and cultural values in modern Liberalism and Capitalism. Juergen Habermas divides the social totality into the System (Structures, Functions, and Pathologies) and Lifeworld (Lebenswelt) (Culture, Value Sphere, Social Institutions, Socialization, and Personality). Habermas develops his structuralist social theory from Parson's theory of society as AGIL:

(1)    STATE AND LIBERAL DEMOCRACY: state of nature, civil society, law, liberal democracy, and the welfare state
                    (Hobbes, Locke, and J. S. Mill)
(2)    ECONOMY AND MODERN INDUSTRY: industrial production, market exchange, economic distribution, and consumption
                    (Dickens, Smith, and Marx)
(3)    CULTURE AND THE ENLIGHTENMENT: religion, values, and the social ideals: natural rights, liberalism, positivism, utilitarianism,
                    and possessive individualism (Dickens, Smith, Hume, Bentham, James Mill, and Weber ) and science and technology:
                    utilitarianism, rationalism, and the domination of nature (Descartes and Weber)
(4)    PERSONALITY AND SOCIALIZATION: egoism, self-interest, and the formation of the modern individual
                    (Hobbes, Locke, and Freud).

Sociology is the empirical study of society as it is formed by the structural, functional, and historical interrelationships among the State, Economy, Culture (Science and Technology), and Personality. It was created in the nineteenth century as a new discipline in response to the fragmented and narrow intellectual and empirical focus in the humanities and social sciences, to the increasing scientism, naturalism, and positivism gaining momentum in the social sciences, and to the loss of a critical and substantive reason and the ability to make ethical and political judgments about the social world (nominalism, anomie, and social justice). In the process, sociology incorporated and expanded a much broader range of views on the nature of "science" that included interpretive science, hermeneutical science, historical science, human or moral sciences (philosophy, history, and philology), cultural science, critical or neo-Kantian science, dialectical science, depth hermeneutics (Freudian science ), etc. Juergen Habermas has characterized sociology as the discipline that examines the relationship among work, interaction and communication, and the domination of political economy. The discipline was created in the nineteenth century as a critical reaction to growing disciplinary specialization, academic fragmentation, and philosophical abstractionism found in the humanities and social sciences; it was formed as a unique interdisciplinary science that integrated history, political economy, and social philosophy into a comprehensive and critical whole. Distancing itself from the positivism of empiricism (Hume) and rationalism (Descartes) of the other social sciences (economics, political science, and psychology), the classical social theorists grounded their epistemology and methodology in the critical methods of German Idealism and the works of Kant and Hegel. Their theoretical focus was on the structural pillars of modernity: Liberalism (State), Capitalism (Economy), Individualism (Personality), and the Enlightenment (Culture and Science). It was Habermas who argued that the main structural characteristics of modern industrial society are its market economy, liberal democracy, possessive individualism, and Enlightenment science and technology. This course on nineteenth-century social dreamers uses these four areas as the starting point for the introduction and outline of the lectures; the required readings listed above are systematically placed into this structural and historical framework.


FOUR PILLARS OF MODERNITY:
STRUCTURES, FUNCTIONS, and PATHOLOGIES
OF CAPITALISM

State                                                         Economy

(Hobbes, Locke, and J. S. Mill)                                         (Dickens, Smith, and Marx)

Liberal Democracy                                      Market Production

SYSTEM/FUNCTIONAL INTEGRATION

Structures
Functions
Base

******   SOCIETY   ******

Meaning
History
Superstructure

LIFEWORLD/SOCIAL INTEGRATION

Personality                                               Culture

   (Hobbes, Locke, and Freud)                                        (Descartes, Hume, and Weber)

Possessive Individualism                          Science & Technology

            Self & Freedom                                  Enlightenment & Ideals




(2) Science and Justice: Sociology as a Practical or Ethical Science of Social Justice

Nineteenth-century social theory represents a creative and critical synthesis of political and social philosophy with empirical and historical research, thus blending together issues of science and ethics -- Social Science and Social Justice. Sociology is a Science of Social Justice and Natural Law -- a Practical or Ethical Science. Whether the research emphasis is on the contradictions between economic and class power and social democracy (J. S. Mill), economic exploitation and dehumanization (Marx), disenchantment and the loss of substantive and critical reason in the "last man," modern science, decisionist democracy and oppressive bureaucracy (Weber), dereglement, anomie, and the decline of community, organic solidarity, and economic democracy (Durkheim), the unconscious social repression of reason, drives, and ideas (Freud), or life experienced as a meaninglessness illusion or nothingness (Dickens, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Camus), classical social theory attempts to scientifically study the structures and institutions of Modernity along with the possibilities for practical action and social change. It develops an historical science and immanent critique that compares modern capitalism -- its history, institutions, and social actions -- with its own publically stated cultural, political, and ethical ideals. As a practical science, the contradictions (Widersprueche) and dialectic (Dialektik) within modern society between its concrete historical reality (science) and publically-stated social ideals of equality, freedom, democracy, and justice (social ethics, politics, and natural law) form the basis for the ethical imperative for social change or social praxis; society itself calls for its own change based upon its own values (immanent critique). In a variation on a Kantian theme, one could say: empirical and scientific research without values, ethics, or social justice is blind and directionless -- systematic accumulation of irrelevant data without purpose; while values and ethics without science are empty and meaningless -- abstract moralizing and speculative metaphysics. This integration of Ethics and Science forms a new kind of sociology as a Practical Science based, not on the principles of positivism, but on the principles of practical wisdom or phronesis (Aristotle), practical reason or die praktische Vernunft (Kant), and social ethics or Sittlichkeit (Hegel). With the rise of Anglo-American sociology in the twentieth century, sociology as a practical science was replaced by sociology as a positivist science. The result of this transformation has been the creation of a technical world of formal and bureaucratic rationality -- a Kafkaesque discipline of "specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart." Positivism, as social science, is a form of the alienation and rationalization of reason.

(3) Sociology as an Historical, Holistic, and Critical Science

In the nineteenth century, when other social sciences and humanities were busy demarcating their subareas of specialization -- the study of history, mind, literature, economic activity, political behavior, philosophy, etc. -- sociology, viewing this as just the academic side of the general fragmentation of human life, attempted to study the integrated whole or totality of society. It attempted to explain and understand the foundations of modernity -- Modern Capitalism, Liberalism, and the Enlightenment -- with a focus on its historical development, deep structures, component parts, internal dynamic, functional mechanism, and cultural ideals and legitimation. It relies on the critical methods of history (Windelband, Rickert, and Weber), political economy, critical theory, neo-Hegelian dialectics and immanent critique (Marx), neo-Kantian hermeneutics, phenomenology, cultural ethnography, exegetical and interpretive science (Dilthey, Simmel, Scheler, and Weber), and depth hermeneutics, psychology, and theory of the unconscious (Freud). These forms of inquiry will expand the general understanding of sociological methods beyond positivism to include the methods of history, cultural hermeneutics (verstehende Soziologie), structuralism of political economy (Erklärung), dialectics (structural and normative contradictions), and immanent critique. Sociology began as an interdisciplinary historical and critical science that continues today to view society as a structurally and functionally integrated totality:

(1)    ECONOMY: industrial production, economic distribution, market exchange, and individual consumption (Marx, Grundrisse, pp. 88-89 and 101)
(2)    STATE: liberal democracy, and social/corporate welfare state
(3)    CULTURE AND THE ENLIGHTENMENT: RELIGION, EDUCATION, FAMILY, AND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: nature, and ecology
(4)    PERSONALITY, INDIVIDUALISM, AND SOCIALIZATION: socialization, and possessive individualism.

Sociology is the study of the Social Totality in history, political economy, culture and hermeneutics, Enlightenment science and nature, and the individual in pragmatism, symbolic interactionism, and depth hermeneutics of psychoanalysis. It is "critical" (Kritik) because its epistemological, methodological, and ethical origins lie in German Idealism, that is, in Kant's theory of representations, universal consciousness and moral values, and his critique of pure and practical reason and in Hegel's social ethics, dialectic, and historical phenomenology of the mind , and not in the philosophy of British empiricism (Locke and Hume) or French rationalism (Descartes). Critique originally focused on the examination of the a priori structures of the mind (Kant) and the social formation of self-consciousness and reason in history (Hegel). It then expanded from universal consciousness and historical reason into a critique of political economy (Marx), social action and historical events (Weber), and collective representations and cultural experience (Durkheim). It expanded from an abstract and philosophical idealism to an examination of historical and social phenomena. Objectivity is created by Subjectivity -- the external world of perception, concepts, and ideas are constructed by the forms of Reason, Spirit, and Society; and Society, in turn, is constructed by the structures and functions of Political Economy, Culture, and History . Finally, Society is to be judged by the ethical standards of practical science in the form of the categorical imperative, social ethics, and social justice. For more on this topic of critical science, see Number 12 below.

(4) German and French Existentialism in Sociology: From a Crisis of Knowledge, Morals, and Meaning
                                              to a Crisis of the Enlightenment, Science, and Society

Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Camus are viewed as literary and philosophical responses to the Enlightenment and Institutions of Modernity, that is, as responses to the dual crisis of knowledge and truth in German philosophy (epistemological nihilism) and to the crisis of meaning and values in European political economy, social institutions, and culture (moral and social nihilism). This crisis is expressed in Existentialism as the illusions, suffering, and nothingness of concepts, thoughts, and reality, as the nominalism, contingency, and relativism of moral values, and as the alienation, rationalization, anomie, and the loss of substantive reason (disenchantment), social and ethical ideals, and the community in historical sociology. Existentialism has its origins in the first half of the nineteenth century with the radicalization of Kant's theory of subjectivity, representations, reason, creativity, and human dignity and autonomy and Schopenhauer's theory that both knowledge and reality of the world are an appearance, illusion, and dream -- the veil of Maya. German Existentialism develops out of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. The solution for Schopenhauer is to retreat to Hinduism and Plato's theory of Forms, whereas, for Nietzsche, the solution lies in the creative will to power of the striving individual (Uebermensch). For Camus, it involves a descent into the darker side of the ninth circle of Hell, that is, into the hell of middle-class liberalism, utilitarianism, and totalitarianism. Rewriting Dante's Inferno for the modern audience, Camus offers a vague hope of finding a humanistic way out of the damnation of modernity by rediscovering the stolen altar piece of the Cathedral of Ghent, "The Adoration of the Lamb," thereby reconciling the tragic fate of humanity by reintegrating innocence and mercy with universal moral law and social justice. Existentialism begins with a crisis of knowledge (representations) and will (action) in mid-nineteenth century Europe (Schopenhauer) -- the world as illusory representations and willing -- the veil of Maya and Nothingness -- evolves into a crisis of individual meaning and culture (Nietzsche), and, finally, develops into a crisis of society in the twentieth century (Weber and Camus) -- the world as utilitarian nothingness and meaningless nihilism. Existentialism begins with epistemology and develops into aesthetics, ethics, and sociology. It expresses a fundamental rejection of the values of the Enlightenment and Liberalism as it moves from an idealist theory of knowledge and radical Kantian epistemology to a critical social theory. Hegel's phenomenology of the Spirit and dialectic may be interpreted as an early form of phenomenological existentialism since each historical and social claim to knowledge and truth led to its own internal logical contradictions and the need for change. Only at the end of his major work Phenomenology of Spirit did Hegel believe he found the answer to the existential crisis of knowledge in religion, art, and philosophy of the Absolute Spirit. But the latter, in turn, was only a temporary answer since the true end lay in the revival of the Greek community and polis in the modern state in his Philosophy of Right. The proper grounding of social critique and political economy then became for Marx a central issue in his social theory. Neither Kant nor Hegel were existentialists, but they certainly prepared the way for this tradition. (For more on the relationship between Classical Social Theory and Existentialism, see the writings of Jon Stewart and Stjepan Gabriel Mestrovic).

Radical Kantianism and Existentialism
-- Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche -- were also very influential in the development of classical social theory of Marx (a la Fromm), Weber, Durkheim, and Freud. Existentialism and Classical Theory: Kant's theory of pure and practical reason, subjectivity, and human creativity, autonomy, and dignity; Marx's theory of praxis, subjectivity, creative work, individual freedom, human emancipation, and the priority of existence over essence; Weber's neo-Kantian theory of subjectivity, personality, moral vision, and vocation (purpose, meaning, dedication, virtue, and the virtuous life); Durkheim's theory of anomie, dereglement, madness, representational and moral nothingness, and breakdown of social solidarity; and Freud's theory of unconscious repression, meaningful life, and creative self-enlightenment. Later, in the twentieth century, schools of thought will develop from the synthesis of Existentialism and Marxism (Kostas Axelos, Jean-Paul Sartre, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Andre Gorz, Henri Lefebvre, Jacques Lacan, Michel Foucault, and Louis Althusser); Existentialism and Psychoanalysis (Karl Jaspers, Ludwig Binswanger, Jean-Paul Sartre, and R. D. Laing); and Marxism and Psychoanalysis (Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Gilles Deleuze, Michael Schneider, and Slavoj Slavoj Zizek).

(5) Structural and Existential Crisis of Liberalism: The Social Pathologies of Modernity

Sociology is the critical and historical science of the structures, functions, and culture of modernity, as well as the critical science of the social pathologies of modernity, that is, the social crises of modernity expressed in the critical theories of Alienation & Dehumanization (Marx ), Rationalization & Disenchantment (Weber), Anomie & Dereglement (Durkheim), Repression (Freud), and Nihilism & Nothingness (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Camus) -- RRAANNDDDD. Classical social theory of the nineteenth-century is a product of the integration of philosophy, political economy, and history. Also bring together main themes in Number 1 and 5 in discussion about European Social Theory.
[This outline represents a fusion, in dramatically altered form for this introductory course, of the ideas of Talcott Parsons' structural-functionalism and social action theory (A-G-I-L), Juergen Habermas' theory of communicative action and the social pathologies of modernity (RRAA), and the cultural crisis of meaning in Existentialism (NN). In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there was a structural crisis and systematic distortion of needs (Marx), reason (Weber), and social ideals (Durkheim): The structural integration, functional stability, and cultural meaning and legitimation of the social system articulated by Parsons in his systems theory of A-G-I-L (Adaptation of the economy, Goal attainment of the state, Integration and solidarity of social institutions and societal communities, and Latency and pattern maintenance of cultural values and social norms) lead historically, according to Habermas, to the instability, crises, and social pathologies examined by the classical social theorists and existentialists as RRAANNDDDD -- Rationalization, Repression, Alienation, Anomie, Nothingness, Nihilism, Dehumanization, Disenchantment, and Dereglement. Habermas refers to the rationalization of the social structures of modernity as the encroachment of the system on the cultural lifeworld or the "colonization of the lifeworld." Because of the complexity and difficulty of their ideas and theories, neither Parsons nor Habermas are mentioned in this introductory course. Their general and formal ideas are used to provide a basic working definition and overall structure for the course. Note that the required readings for the semester each express a specific aspect of the total social system.] Finally, Existentialism is the result of the internal contradictions of Liberalism and Capitalism.

By joining together Parsons' theory of society as A-G-I-L and Habermas' theory of modernity as RRAANNDDDD, we get a more comprehensive structural overview and introduction to nineteenth-century Classical Social Theory.




SOCIAL STRUCTURE     --    SOCIAL PATHOLOGY    :    MODERNITY IN CRISIS
       (A-G-I-L)                         --            (RRAANNDDDD)             :       (SYSTEM IN CRISIS)


          (1)       Economy          --         Alienation                 (Marx)
          (2)       State                 --         Rationalization         (Weber)
          (3)       Social Institutions  --  Anomie                      (Durkheim)
          (4)       Personality      --          Repression                (Freud)
          (5)       Culture            --          Disenchantment, Nihilism,
                                                            and Nothingness
      (Weber, Camus,
                                                                        Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche)




**************



SOCIAL PATHOLOGIES OF MODERNITY

(RRAANNDDDD)

               State                                                                   Economy

Goal Attainment                                                     Adaptation

RATIONALIZATION                                             ALIENATION

                                                                                 DEHUMANIZATION

SYSTEM/FUNCTIONAL INTEGRATION

Structures
Functions
Base

****** SOCIETY ******

Meaning
History
Superstructure


LIFEWORLD/SOCIAL INTEGRATION

       Social Institutions                                   Culture & Personality

Integration                                                      Latency

       ANOMIE                                                  REPRESSION

                                                                         DISENCHANTMENT

                                                            NIHILISM & NOTHINGNESS





PERIPHERAL THEMES: In this introductory course, the following themes are occasionally, but briefly, mentioned. They are explored in more detail in advanced courses in Classical and Contemporary European Social Theory.

(6) The Enlightenment and Romanticism

The clash between the ideals of the Enlightenment and the critical responses of Neoclassicism and Romanticism -- critique of the Enlightenment, Utilitarianism, and Liberalism -- is a constant theme running throughout late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century European literature, poetry, and social theory. Perhaps the best introduction to the imagination, longing, and ideals of the classical social theorists is to read the poetry of the Counter-Enlightenment and European Romanticism: English poetry of William Wordsworth, Samuel Coleridge, William Blake, Lord Byron, John Keats, and Percy Shelley and the German poetry of Novalis, Friedrich Schiller, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Hoelderlin, and Heinrich Heine. The power and imagination of Romanticism with its emphasis on subjectivity, autonomy, creativity, self-determination, and the unifying integration of sensibility (body, art, and beauty) with reason (mind and understanding) also permeated the philosophy of Kant, Schiller, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel; their writings became a key foundation stone for later classical social theory. Critique of the Enlightenment -- liberalism, positivism, utilitarianism, and modern science -- is a central part of nineteenth-century social theory, especially in the works of Dickens, Marx, Weber, Freud, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Camus. When attempting to understand the rise of sociology as a discipline and as a science, it is first necessary to appreciate these various historical and intellectual movements (Geist) which emphasize a return to the Greeks (Griechensehnsucht), romanticism and individual autonomy and subjectivity, rejection of modern materialism and utilitarianism, and, finally, a critique of Enlightenment rationality and science. These are all responses to the rise of modern Existentialism. It is only when these traditions are re-discovered and re-appreciated is sociology as a critical science more fully understood. This cultural dimension within social theory is referred to as a Horizontverschmelzung or blending of intellectual, cultural, and philosophical traditions into a comprehensive critique of modern industrial society. It is a science with attitude in that it attempts to break with Enlightenment empiricism and rationalism, materialism and utilitarianism (Herrschaftswissenschaft), and Cartesian dualism and divided consciousness. On the other hand, the Enlightenment view of science as Positivism is a philosophy which contains ontological, epistemological, and methodological presuppositions about the nature of scientific reality that is grounded in the normative assumptions and values of PERSONNNN --

1. Predictivism
2. Empiricism
3. Realism
4. Scientism
5. Objectivism
6. Naturalism
7. Neutralism
8. Nominalism
9. Nomothetic laws

That is, this paradigm of science is grounded in the dogmatic and religious belief in Objectivity (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) -- an objectivity of explanatory and predictive laws, empirical and objective facts, objective knowledge and truth, the objective validity of science, existence of an external, autonomous, and objective reality, the objective method of the natural sciences, and the rejection of universal moral laws (separation of science and ethics), respectively. (See Number 11 below for more details). These are the very values that are rejected by European sociology as an ethical and critical science.

(7) Griechensehnsucht of Classical Social Theory: Longing for the Ancients

Nineteenth-century theory represents a romantic Yearning for the Ancients (Griechensehnsucht) and a poetic longing for a new humanity and social ideal based on the principles of citizenship, happiness, and virtue -- it is "a poetry of the mind and science of the soul" informed by empirical research and historical science (Geschichtswissenschaft) through the incorporation of the Social Philosophy of the Greeks with British Classical Political Economy and the economic history of the German Historical School. The Ancients also helped articulate an alternative view of science that represented a critical reaction to the natural sciences of the Enlightenment (Herrschaftswissen): synthesis of Neo-Kantianism of Wilhelm Windelband and Heinrich Rickert and the Ancient Greek Philosophy of Aristotle and his theory of practical wisdom (phronesis). This longing for the Greeks, which began with the poetry, art, and philosophy of Goethe, Schiller, Hoelderlin, Herder, and Schelling, eventually led to the integration of the Ancients and the Moderns in classical social theory. In the process of creating early nineteenth-century social theory, Hegel integrates Aristotle's theory of practical wisdom (phronesis) and his theory of public happiness (eudaimonia) with his view of the ethical life of the community (Sittlichkeit). Aristotle's dreams of virtue, friendship, justice, and the good life are joined together with Hegel's hopes for mutual recognition, respect, and moral and political self-legislation. In fact, Aristotle is so much a part of this nineteenth-century European tradition -- but especially the German tradition -- that one could easily refer to him as "Aristoetle," with an umlaut. This view of science as a science of the ethical life or practical science has not been accepted by mainstream American sociology because of its dogmatic devotion to the metaphysics of positivism (see Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Remember, it was Durkheim, who in one of his early works, maintained that Plato and Aristotle were the first sociologists.

(8) Classics in the Classical: Origins of Nineteenth-Century Sociology in Ancient Greece

The integration of the Ancients and the Moderns, which represents a continuation of the theme of Griechensehnsucht, occurs at many levels in this course: Ancient Greek Politics, Ethics, and Theory of Knowledge are crucial for J. S. Mill, Marx, Weber, Schopenhauer, and Durkheim; Ancient Greek Tragedy for Nietzsche, Freud, and Camus; and Ancient and Medieval Natural Law are central for Descartes, Locke, and Marx. This classical synthesis occurs in early modern social thought with the theories of Locke (scripture, revelation, natural law, rule of right reason of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and Richard Hooker, and natural rights), Descartes (light of nature, methodical doubt and skepticism, Socratic ignorance and skepticism, Platonic rationalism and innate ideas, natural reason and natural law, cosmological argument of First Cause from Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas, cosmological argument of causality of existence and perfection of God from Aquinas, ontological argument of St. Anselm, and proofs for the existence of self, God, nature, and the objective validity of science), J. S. Mill (Greek polis and Pericles, discursive rationality, political freedom, pluralism and tolerance, moral virtues, nobility and beauty, self-realization, and participatory democracy), Marx, Weber, and Durkheim (Greek citizenship, phronesis [practical and political wisdom], praxis [social action and creative work], moral ideals, political virtue, moral economy, dereglement, and social justice), Freud (Greek tragedy and Aristotelian catharsis [tragic release or purgation], Sophocles's Oedipus Rex, hysteria, the fate of humanity, Platonic memory and forgetfulness, Plato's theory of the cave, unconscious repression, and lost language and memories, self-enlightenment through the Socratic dialogue and the talking cure, psychoanalysis as the archaeology of the mind, and science as art, meaning, and interpretation), Camus (Old and New Testaments, Greek tragedy and the dramatic structure of Oedipus Rex, Sophocles and Aristotle on tragedy, and Late Medieval and Early Renaissance literature and art), Schopenhauer (illusions and dreams of representations as impressions and ideas, nothingness of the human will and suffering, illusions of the mind and the body, crisis of the Enlightenment in the veil of Maya and Plato's cave, Indian and Platonic metempsychosis, and turn to aesthetic contemplation of Plato's theory of Beauty and Forms, medieval monasticism, and the Oneness of Being in Hinduism), and Nietzsche (German Romanticism and Neoclassicism, Greek tragedy and human suffering, Greek drama and Schopenhauer, Apollonian forms of truth, beauty, and metaphysical solace of being, and Dionysian aesthetic creativity and the tragic wisdom of suffering and becoming). Both Marx and Durkheim returned to the Greeks by stressing issues of human rights, human needs, moral economy, democracy, and social justice, whereas Weber returned to the classical horizons by focusing on issues of Aristotelian virtue, personality, moral action, autonomy, substantive reason, public responsibility, and collective wisdom and citizenship. These values -- social ethics, politics, and social justice -- then had to be integrated with a practical form of scientific inquiry which led each classical theorist into conflict with Enlightenment science and positivism. In order to develop the classical form of practical science, the Ancient and Modern views of science had to be integrated: the modern theorists looked to Kant's theory of knowledge, representations, and critique of pure reason, Hegel's expansion of the critical method, historical phenomenology, and the dialectic, and Aristotle's theory of knowledge, textual interpretation, legal hermeneutics, and practical wisdom (phronesis). These ideas are not discussed in this introductory course, but will be developed in more advanced courses in social theory. See Number 12 for more information. Also see Classical Horizons: The Origins of Sociology in Ancient Greece (SUNY Press).

(9) Philosophical Foundations of Sociology in Aristotle, Kant, and Hegel

Origins of classical social and political theory of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim in German Idealism of Kant and Hegel, German Existentialism of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, classical political economy of Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus, the German Historical School of Economics of William Roscher, Karl Knies, Gustav von Schmoller, Karl Buecher, and Werner Sombart, and ancient Greek political theory and social ethics of Aristotle.

(10) Evolution of Modern Consciousness and a Sociology of Knowledge: From Ideology to
                          Collective Representations and the Collective Unconscious

The early evolution of subjectivity and a sociology of knowledge in Kant's theory of knowledge, constituted representations, and critical reason traced in the works of the classical theorists and their theories of social consciousness -- empirical, cultural, and objective reality is structured and filtered through the following: representations, transcendental subjectivity, and the a priori concepts of the understanding (Kant), history, society, the Enlightenment and French Revolution, and the Objective (social institutions) and Absolute Spirit (culture) (Hegel), ideology and false consciousness (Marx), forms of egoism and representations of the veil of Maya (Schopenhauer), Apollonian forms and Western cultural idols of the last man (Nietzsche), rationalization and the forms of technical reason (Weber), collective conscience, anomic consciousness, and collective representations and social ideals (Durkheim), and the superego and lost concepts and memories of unconscious repression (Freud). Sociology of knowledge arises out of the philosophy of knowledge debates in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century epistemology (mind and Spirit constitute knowledge and reality) and evolves into sociology as the "social construction of reality."

(11) Natural Law and Sociology: From Aristotle and Aquinas to Nineteenth-Century Social Theory

The natural law tradition from Aristotle to Aquinas -- from the ancient Greeks and Hebrews to the medieval Christians -- with its emphasis on natural reason, social ethics, virtue, community, compassion, and social justice, plays a central role in the formation of nineteenth-century sociology as an empirically-based discipline that integrates history and ethics, science and justice. In the seventeenth century, Natural Law is integrated into theories of Natural Rights (Locke), Science (Descartes), Human Rights and Social Justice (J. S. Mill, Marx, and Durkheim), and Virtue, Nobility, and Responsibility (Nietzsche and Weber); by the nineteenth century and the rise of Neoclassicism, elements of Greek political science, ethics, democratic ideals, and Greek tragedy are directly incorporated into classical social theory. Richard Tawney in Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (1926) wrote that Marx was the last of the medieval Schoolmen or Aristotelian natural law theorists; he was also part of a long tradition of modern Natural Law theorists which included Spinoza, Rousseau, Kant, and Hegel. This was an extremely subtle insight into Marx, but could easily have been written about the classical theorists in general. Early sociology was a dialogue with Aristotle and the natural law tradition; it represented a continuation of over two thousand years of Western intellectual history in epistemology, ethics, and political theory. There was no split between ethics and science. However, with the appearance of twentieth-century American sociology and the growing trend toward a Metaphysics of Modern Science and Positivism, all this changes. This critical and practical tradition is replaced by Predictivism (objective and explanatory laws), Empiricism (objective facts), Realism (objective knowledge), Scientism (science as only legitimate form of knowledge and objective validity), Objectivism (objective reality), Naturalism (objective method), and Nominalism (no objective moral order) -- PERSONNNN. Along with the loss of this critical tradition, Political Economy (depth structural and functional analysis), Philosophy (ethics, epistemology, and social justice), and History are also lost resulting in the unfortunate domestication of sociology and the slow disappearance of European social theory in the United States. All of classical social theory of Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Freud and most of contemporary European theory are lost under the weight of the Anglo-American tradition. Methods displace Theory as the foundation of science. The themes of ethics, politics, and social justice in social theory and the relationship between natural law and sociology are explored in more detail in more advanced courses. For more information on Natural Law, Social Justice, and Sociology, see the "Professor's Notes" by clicking on Social Justice: The Ancient and Modern Traditions.

(12) Critical Methods in Classical Sociology: "Critique" as the Method and Science of Political Economy,
                                            History, and Interpretive/Cultural Sociology

Critique (Kritik), as both a moral evaluation of modern capitalism based on its own ethical principles required of political legitimation and as a method of social inquiry, is always immanent to the social system; it is not arbitrarily or authoritatively imposed from the outside by the personal values, cultural biases, or political ideology of the scholar. Critique, simply compares and contrasts the appearances to the essence or form in the epistemology of Kant and Hegel and structures to ideals in the social methodology of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. How these differences between social structures of political economy and cultural ideals affect human perception, consciousness, and thought, see Number 10 above: Evolution of Sociology of Knowledge. Critique is a sociological method that evolved out of the analysis of the constitution of objectivity and subjectivity in Kant (Critique of Pure Reason) and the historical phenomenology and dialectical development of self-consciousness in Hegel (Phenomenology of Spirit -- Subjective Spirit of consciousness, Objective Spirit of social institutions of the family, economy, and state, and the Absolute Spirit of art, religion, and philosophy). Hegel's phenomenology added an historical and social dimension to the critical, transcendental, and constructivist method of Kant. Kantian and Hegelian epistemology and methodology, which examine the formation of the transcendental consciousness and the historical Spirit, became the foundation for later Classical Social Theory -- Dialektische Wissenschaft, Geschichtswissenschaft, and Kulturwissenschaft. Critique evolved from a critique of consciousness (Kant) and self-consciousness (Hegel) to a critique of class consciousness (Marx), historical or social consciousness (Weber), and collective consciousness (Durkheim). Critique is the distinctive method of political economy (structuralism, functionalism, and economic crisis theory), history, and interpretive or cultural sociology (political ideals and ideology, consciousness and unconscious repression, meaningful action and rationalization, and collective consciousness and representations). Critique thus begins as epistemology (theory of representations), practical reason (categorical imperative and inner natural law), and phenomenology (history and society in the development of representations, self-consciousness, and freedom) and then develops into the methodology of the various forms of critical and empirical science in sociology: Dialectical, Interpretive, Hermeneutical, Historical, Moral/Functional, and Depth-Hermeneutical Science for the study of Culture, Structures, and History. Critique examines the empirical phenomena as they are created and constituted by means of transcendental, historical, ideological, and cultural representations -- objective reality is a construct of the Subject, Spirit, and Society. Theorists, like Hegel, Marx, and Freud, use the phenomena, appearances, and representations of history, social institutions, political economy, or consciousness to gain access to the essence or underlying structure of the social or individual reality. And, finally, Critique is an historical/empirical method which integrates the Ancients and the Moderns as well as History and Ethics, Science and Social Justice into a holistic study of modern industrial society. It is at this point that the critical method becomes the basis for social criticism -- RRAANNDDDD. Marx's critiques of alienation and political economy are key features in his ethical theory of social justice. And it is his theory of social justice which unites the disparate parts of his writings into a single comprehensive whole from his early philosophical manuscripts to his later economic theory. For Weber, Durkheim, and Freud, their views of critical science are based on their appropriations of Kant's theory of representations and constructed phenomena as the foundation for the interpretation of meaningful action and social intentions, functional stability of collective representations, social conscience, and organic solidarity, and the uncovering of individual rationalizations and repressed experiences, respectively.
However, although RRAANNDDDD may capture the heart of the structural crisis and existential meaninglessness of modern society, it also represents those elements in modernity which have been repressed in the academy and in politics. Freud's theory of the mind minus his theory of sexuality offers us interesting and provocative insights in the nature of social repression. We live in a society where these very issues are repressed into the social unconscious and cannot be articulated because their distinctive epistemologies, methodologies, and theories do not conform to the accept approaches to science -- naturalism, nominalism, and positivism. Nor do their particular political philosophies correspond to a defense of liberalism and capitalism. Thus, their various forms of social critique, sociological, dialectical, and historical methods, and critical social theories cannot be fairly represented in the academy and public sphere. They cannot be articulated since they represent inarticulable and incoherent forms of social criticism that remain outside the acceptable level of discourse in a repressive and disenchanted society. These very ideas represent the rationalization, disenchantment, alienation, exile, and eclipse of reason. This is what Herbert Marcuse in One Dimensional Man meant by the concept of the "repressive desublimation" of technological rationality, industrial production, and excessive capitalist consumption (Wilhelm Reich and Theodor Adorno). Desublimation has two connotations: one involves sexual liberation and the other cultural repression. The repressive aspects of sexual liberation occur when the liberation of the body leads to the use of sexual liberation as a means for the further integration of the individual into a consumer market and mass advertisement. The other aspect of repression occurs when there is a loss of reason, reflection, and the collective cultural values (Durkheim) critical of the social system. Marcuse integrated Weber's theory of disenchantment, Durkheim's theory of anomie and loss of cultural traditions with Freud's theory of sexual liberation. In our society it is not human sexuality that is repressed, but our ability to reason creatively, transcend the present, and think critically about our consciousness of RRAANNDDDD and other types of social deviancy that call for a more humane and virtuous society. From Marcuse's perspective, in modern industrial society it is not sex that is repressed, but reason and politics. Freudian psychoanalysis is integrated with Classical Social Theory and the concepts of alienation, rationalization, disenchantment, and anomie. With the repression of classical social theory by modern positivism, the ability to reason and critique is lost because these traditions have been repressed, displaced, and forgotten by a certain form of naturalistic science that has permeated the social sciences. Lost are numerous epistemologies, methodologies, and theories that are based on interpretive, historical, structural, moral, dialectical, and critical sciences. The culture created by sublimation (Freud) has become repressive because it no longer transcends the logic of capitalism (Marx) and technological rationality (Weber). It cannot call the society into question because the culture itself only reinforces alienation and repression. A more detailed analysis of the use of Critique and the critical method in social theory may be found in the "Summary of the Major Themes: 'Critique' and 'Dialectic' in Practical Social Science" in the "Professor's Notes" by clicking on Classical Social Theory: Marx, Weber, and Durkheim.

ALTERNATIVE THEORIES OF SCIENCE (WISSENSCHAFT)) WITHIN CLASSICAL SOCIAL THEORY:
CRITIQUE OF THE METHODS OF NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN AND POSITIVISM


(1) Historischer Materialismus: historical materialism (Marx)
(2) Dialektische Wissenschaft: dialectical science (Engels, Marx, and Weber)
(3) Geschichtswissenschaft: historical science (Marx and Weber)
(4) Kulturwissenschaft: cultural science (Weber), Geisteswissenschaft, moral science,
humanities (Weber), Interpretationswissenschaft, interpretive science and verstehende
Soziologie
, sociology of understanding (Weber), and Hermeneutik, hermeneutics (Weber)
(5) Phaenomenologische Wissenschaft: phenomenological science (Scheler, Weber, Husserl,
Dilthey, and Alfred Schuetz )
(6) Kritische hermeneutische Wissenschaft: critical hermeneutic science (Schleiermacher, Heidegger,
Dilthey, Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur, Walter Benjamin, Ernst Bloch, Jacques Derrida, and Fredric Jameson)
(6) Strukturwissenschaft: structural science (Durkheim) and Funktionale Wissenschaft, functional science (Durkheim)
(7) Tiefenhermeneutik: depth-hermeneutics (Freud),


1.    Classics in the Classical: influence of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and Politics on nineteenth-century German and French social theory.
2.    Natural Law of Hellenes, Hellenists, and Medieval Scholastics: emphasis on citizenship, virtue, moral economy, and social justice in Aristotle,
        Luke, Matthew, Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Abelard, Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Bonaventure, and Thomas Aquinas.
3.    Modern Natural Law Theorists: nature, reason, and moral law in Francisco Suarez, Richard Hooker, Hugo Grotius,
        Samuel von Pufendorf, and John Locke.
4.    French and German Romanticism (Sturm und Drang): Poetry and Philosophy of the Inner Self and Return to the Ancients
        (Griechensehnsucht) in Rousseau, Goethe, Schiller, Hoelderlin, Heine, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche.
5.    German Neoclassicism: Longing for the Ancient Greeks in Poetry, Art, and Philosophy in Winckelmann, Schiller, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel.
6.    German Existentialism: Search for Meaning, Autonomy, and Morality in Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche.
7.    German Idealism and Theory of Representations: integrating Romanticism and Subjectivity as Consciousness in Kant and Spirit in Hegel.
8.    Neo-Kantianism of the Southwest School: Kant's Critique and Theory of Representations applied to the methods of social sciences
        in Windelband and Rickert (Kulturwissenschaften).
9.    Classical Political Economy and the German Historical School of Economics: British economics of Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus
        and the German history and economics of Roscher, Knies, Schmoller, and Sombart.
10.   Structures, History, Political Economy, and Collective Consciousness in Classical Social Theory: Integrating Science and Ethics
        in the analysis of modern pathologies of Rationalization, Repression, Alienation, Anomie, Nothingness, Nihilism, Dehumanization,
        Disenchantment, and Dereglement (RRAANNDDDD) in Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Freud.



                    

Critique as Method and Science


EPISTEMOLOGY    --    PHENOMENOLOGY    --    POLITICAL ECONOMY    --    HISTORY   

(Transcendental Subject)    --    (Objective Spirit)    --    (Class Consciousness)    --    (Society)   

METHODOLOGY    --     META-THEORY

CRITICAL SCIENCE

GERMAN IDEALISM                   ---->>>>                    CLASSICAL SOCIAL THEORY


Forms of Critical Science
(Critique of Positivism)

                                                        DIALECTICAL SCIENCE              ----            MARX

                                                        INTERPRETIVE SCIENCE           ----             WEBER

                                                        HISTORICAL SCIENCE                ----             WEBER

                                                        FUNCTIONAL SCIENCE               ----             DURKHEIM

                                                        DEPTH-HERMENEUTICAL          ----            FREUD
                                                        SCIENCE




METHODS WITHOUT METAPHYSICS:
SOCIAL THEORY AND EMPIRICAL RESEARCH


In the nineteen century, Critical Social Theory expressed itself in multiple forms as Dialectical Science, Interpretive/Cultural Science, Historical Science, Moral Science, and Hermeneutical, Phenomenological, and Depth-Hermeneutical Science: (1) Marx's dialectical science, critique of political economy (chrematistics) and economic crisis theory; (2) Weber's theory of interpretive and historical science, understanding, value relevance (Wertbeziehung), and social policy; (3) Durkheim's moral science, solidarity, and collective conscience and representations; and (4) Freud's depth hermeneutics, critical understanding, theory of the unconscious mind, and social repression. Critique as Method develops as a critical reaction to and as a rejection of the values of Capitalism and the Enlightenment -- utilitarianism (Bentham and James Mill), liberalism (Hobbes, Locke, Smith, and Ricardo), empiricism (Locke and Hume), rationalism (Descartes), positivism or social physics (Henri de Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte), and technical or formal reason and science (Bacon, Descartes, and Weber). Methodology in Classical Social Theory is grounded in the various forms of Kantian philosophy from Kant and Hegel to the neo-Kantianism of Windelband and Rickert and the German Existentialism and Radical Kantianism of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche; Kantianism is then integrated with Ancient Greek Philosophy of Aristotle. The central question emerges: Why are these Critical Methods not taught in the United States as part of the normal sociology curriculum? The latter reduces Methods to Quantitative and Qualitative Methods of Positivism. Does this have to do with the relationship between methods and ideology?

Classical European sociologists rejected Enlightenment science and its underlying epistemological values of objectivism, realism, naturalism, and scientism -- this Metaphysics of Science was viewed as a form of false consciousness and ideology since it merely reproduced, without a critical analysis, the given values, relationships, and institutions of the existing society. Instead of looking for surface phenomena and social appearances in the form of economic predictions, explanatory laws, causal relationships, statistical patterns, and empirical facts, social theorists sought a deeper analysis of the underlying and hidden social structures (political economy, structural contradictions, and class power), meaning (political ideology, ideal types, collective representations, and unconscious memories), and historical and functional causes of modern industrial society. Positivism, or the application of the method of the natural sciences to the study of human behavior, also rejected the integration of empirical science and social justice. For the defenders of this method, science cannot make ethical and political judgments about the nature of society. Positivism stultifies human consciousness, alienates human reason, and silences critical reflection. The result is the "iron cage" of the Enlightenment and the "eclipse of reason" itself, all under the name of scientific inquiry. As C. Wright Mills has argued in Dialectical Imagination, science becomes another form of authoritarian and conformist ideology. Critical nineteenth-century sociologists, on the other hand, saw that science had its own unconscious and unrecognized value system about the nature of knowledge, society, and the environment. Enlightenment science was never neutral, objective, and value free, but contained its own deeply embedded Metaphysics of Positivism and political acceptance of the status quo. This criticism of Positivism is best expressed in Marx's theory of reification and commodification and Weber's theory of objectivity, technical knowledge (Herrschaftswissen), rationalization, the last man (Uebermensch), and the loss of substantive reason (Wertrationalitaet) in modern bureaucratic society.

Objectivity is a Construct of Reason and Science: Positivist science, using the empirical-analytic method, is not "objective," "neutral," or "unbiased," but is unconsciously embedded in the broader values and perspectives of a modern market economy and state bureaucracy. That is, positivist science is itself integrated into the process of alienation and reification, rationalization and formal reason, and anomie and the loss of substantive values. According to Weber, the goal of natural science is the "domination and control of nature." When this conceptual and methodological imperative is applied to the study of society, as in sociology and the other social sciences, it produces a form of knowledge that distorts social reality and is incapable of moving beyond the phenomena, appearances, status quo. That is, it cannot integrate empirical/historical knowledge with questions of social justice; it cannot call into question the institutions or values of modern industrial society. Science can only provide a technical knowledge that produces functional stability and normative reinforcement of the given social reality. Taking his cue from Kant and Hegel but transforming the main idea to fit the circumstances of the famous Positivismusstreit, Adorno has stated, "Methods create Objectivity." The Positivist Methods define what are legitimate questions, issues, and frameworks; what are the legitimate approaches to scientific enquiry -- official statistics, experiments, surveys, structured questionnaires, and quantitative analysis; and what is science, objectivity of method (methodology), and objectivity of experience (epistemology). What we see, examine, and critically analyze are defined, determined, and legitimated by methods; nothing else is legitimate science. Social science must work within the limited epistemological and methodological framework created by modern positivism (empiricism and critical rationalism). The methods of positivism define and create the objective facts, accumulation of data, empirical reality, procedures of verification, range of acceptable questions, and the very nature of science itself. The world we experience, know, investigate, form theories about, and live in -- Objectivity -- is a construct, not of the human imagination (Hume), human mind (Kant), the objective social spirit (Hegel), or the structures of political economy (Marx), but rather, it is a construct of the methods of science. "Critique as Science" becomes impossible. And the critical methods of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim are either forgotten, repressed, or retranslated into the acceptable language of positivist scientific discourse in America.

In very subtle and complex ways, the Metaphysics of Positivism, as a contemporary philosophy of social science, created its own fields of study, empirical objects, factual evidence, logic of inquiry, forms of validation and justification, and claims to scientific knowledge; it created its own worlds of objectivity, causality, prediction, explanatory laws, and truth (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination, Theodor Adorno, "Sociology and Empirical Research," in Critical Sociology, and Leszek Kolakowski, The Alienation of Reason). It even styled its own systematic middle range sociological theories (Thomas Merton). However, it lost the ability to raise the types of ethical, political, and broad historical and theoretical questions offered by the classical theorists in the nineteenth-century -- it lost the ability to do Historical, Critical, and Ethical Science. In the end, Measurements and Methods replaced Social Theory as the foundation of twentieth-century American sociology -- Theory became the abstract form of Methods; in the end, Measurements and Methods developed their own forms of theory which were merely abstract generalities, formal classifications, universal systematizations, empirical regularities, and research summaries and conclusions; and, in the end, Measurements and Methods failed to continue and to expand Social Theory resulting in a discipline of technical and quantifiable questions without the ability to examine the whole social system, its structures, functions, and history or to imagine a "dancing star (Nietzsche and Weber), or social dreams, or democratic socialism, or social justice. As a result, Methods turned into a Political Ideology as Social Theory, with its emphasis on the structural, functional, historical, and ethical (social justice) analysis of the integrated social totality or whole, was replaced by mid-level Sociological Theory that simply reproduced the given micro-social relations without an ability to reflect on their meaning, ideals, and contradictions -- Methods are Ideology in American sociology. Toward the end of the 1950s, Mills had anticipated the direction of American sociology in which empiricism and induction could not create social theory; by the end of the twentieth century, Methods had replaced, repressed, and, finally, became Theory. This occurred because Methods, having methodological, epistemological, technological, and political assumptions about the nature of modern science (Herrschaftswissen of Bacon, Descartes, Weber, Scheler, Husserl, Heidegger, and the Frankfurt School) create their own Theory, logic, and objects of scientific analysis. That is, Methods conceal a priori assumptions about Nature, Knowledge, and Society -- technical control, formal rationality, domination of man and nature, utilitarian culture, capitalism, etc. -- which distort any attempt at an "objective and neutral" search for truth. At the very least, scientific methods in American sociology simply reflect the immediate experience of the status quo, while at the worst, they reproduce the very social relations of production of a capitalist economy (Alvin Gouldner, The Coming Crisis of American Sociology, pp. 28, 66-67, 82-83, and 103, and Herbert Marcuse, One Dimensional Man, pp. 11-13 and 144-169). This discourse on methods represents a summary of nineteenth-century intellectual history as Methods expresses the alienation, rationalization, and repression of substantive reason. The end result is that Anglo-American sociology has become the objective manifestation of formal, technical reason which is the political ideology and technical engineering of the last man within the iron cage.

Finally, Ideology is reflected in the unconscious and unarticulated epistemological and methodological assumptions of Quantitative and Qualitative Methods -- The Metaphysics of Positivism -- that are rarely, if ever, reflectively examined or publicly discussed. They are a set of assumptions or religious conversions (Kuhn) about the nature of Reality, Truth, and Science: Objectivism as the ontological belief in an external, autonomous reality or objectivity; Realism as the epistemological belief in truth and objective validity as a correspondence between ideas and reality; Naturalism as the methodological belief that the universal laws of causal explanation can only be based on the method of the natural sciences; and Scientism as the belief that science and the scientific method offer us the only privileged access to truth. There is no philosophical or logical justification for Objectivity in its various forms of objective reality, objective validity, and objective truth. With the introduction of German Idealism and Classical Social Theory, a crucial component of Enlightenment science and reason collapses: There is no objective reality or truth after the recognition that consciousness or subjectivity mediates, filters, and structures our perceptions and ideas about the "external" world. Elements of these ideas can be found in Kant, Hegel, Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Mills, Kuhn, the Frankfurt School, and Critical Sociology). That is, sociology does not reflect reality, but interprets it through theoretical inquiries, studied observation, and scientific procedures. These critical traditions represent a critique of foundationalism and the idea that there is an objective reality or independent standard by which to measure and compare various claims to truth. We cannot get outside of our consciousness, forms, or paradigms in order to investigate reality in itself. With this critique of positivism is not the dilemma of relativism far behind? Are there ways out of this epistemological problem that permit us to evaluate and judge the institutions and cultural values of modern industrial society and, thereby, reestablish sociology as a practical and critical science? Attempts to resolve this epistemological dilemma have resulted in "immanent critique," a coherence theory of knowledge, and a consensus or discourse theory of truth. Note: By the beginning of the twenty-first century, this European diversity of scientific methods has been lost in the American academy as sociology, like the other social sciences, has reduced science and the scientific method to a very narrow meaning of empiricist and rationalist positivism (David Hume and Karl Popper) -- Naturwissenschaft. A result of this narrowing of scientific epistemology (theory of knowledge), methodology (theory of science), and methods (technical application) has been an increasing tension between American Theory and Methods. In fact, Theory and Methods are incompatible in American sociology. The questions raised by European social thought are made more difficult, if not impossible, in today's academy; there is no examination of their methods that make their questions, issues, and theories possible. Given today's methods courses, where is the analysis of Marx's immanent critique (On the Jewish Question), ethical critique (Paris Manuscripts), dialectical critique (Capital), and historical and ethical critique (Paris Commune of 1871) or Weber's historical science (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism). dialectical science ("Science as a Vocation" and "Objectivity in Social Science and Social Policy"), and transcendental historical analysis (General Economic History). These methods are impossible to reproduce in contemporary method courses resulting in the loss of the various approaches in classical and contemporary critical social theory. The method courses taught in American universities are clearly at odds with classical and contemporary European social theory.

Juergen Habermas of the Frankfurt School once argued that European sociology began with theory and looked for the appropriate methods to examine the questions raised, whereas American sociology began with methods (and the need for self-justification and scientific legitimation) and concluded with a theory that summarized the empirical results of the research. As a result, American social theory has become a supplemental and conceptual condiment, a comprehensive summary of research results, or a literature review and bibliography to positivism at the same time that it represses and replaces critical social theory. Theory is no longer the guiding light, inspiration, and horizons within which empirical and historical research is undertaken. In American sociology, Methods define and create the Issues and Questions and Theory is later applied as an unavoidable and even unnecessary and reflexive afterthought. In this way, theory becomes just another subdivision or academic course within the general field of study; it is basically irrelevant since real theory arises only out of a particular scientific method. In the American universities relying exclusively on positivist and quantitative methods theory becomes irrelevant, eclipsed, and liquidated. On the other hand in German sociology, Theory defines and creates the discipline of sociology itself, especially its Issues and Questions and then looks for an appropriate method to research and understand them. Theory is not a subarea of sociology, but the core of the discipline. In the latter, there are many different social issues and, therefore, different methods. Social science has become unnaturally anti-intellectual because it has separated itself from the ideals and visions of the humanities. Questions and issues central for classical and contemporary social theory cannot be raised or articulated within the parameters set by American science and methods. The methods of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim are unrecognizable within contemporary sociology because they do not correspond to the realism and nominalism of either empiricism or rationalism. Repressed and forgotten, social theory can no longer be neo-Kantian or neo-Hegelian, nor can it be critical or ethical; sociology does no fit the ideal of hypothesis creation (inference logic and if-then statements), empirical experimentation and testing, and theory validation within Popper's critical rationalism (neo-positivism). Theory has been lost in American sociology because the complexity and diversity of theories and their corresponding methods are impossible to maintain and explore within a very limited understanding of the concept of Wissenschaft. Theory has been lost because, as quoted from Adorno's writings above, it is Methods which creates Objectivity -- the objectivity of both methodology and epistemology. That is, Method defines methodological objectivity in terms of Neutralism and the elimination of all normative presuppositions and cultural, ethical, political, or personal perspectives. It also delineates epistemological objectivity by creating the objects of perception, experience, and science, that is, by creating the historical and empirical objects of inquiry. [Note: This is the critical tradition that began with the creation of objectivity by the transcendental subject (Kant), Objective Spirit (Hegel), political economy (Marx), and now the sociological method of science (Adorno)]. European social theory and methods, humanities and science have been irretrievably separated and repressed by positivism. On the other hand, in the German intellectual tradition, Objectivity is a construct of Theory. An unfortunate aspect of intellectual history continues just at a time when the call for diversity in American education has become the strongest in recent memory; however, the ability to reason, judge, and criticize has noticeably declined. Methods have replaced Theory to the point where theory is just a summary of the accumulation of data and facts by quantitative and qualitative methods. But how do you get access to issues of alienation, rationalization, anomie, or repression, the deep structures of political economy and the human mind, the structural contradictions between accumulation and distribution, productive forces and the social relations of production, and production and the class system, or the immanent contradictions between the natural right to property (Locke) and the human right to political participation and assembly (Rousseau and Marx), material production and inequality of wealth, and consumer wants and human needs? How does a scholar get access to issues of history, social critique, immanent critique, ethical critique, hermeneutics, depth hermeneutics, phenomenology, ethnomethodology, American pragmatism, etc.? How does a scholar raise the issues of democracy, fairness, equality, discursive rationality, and social justice? Or are these issues simply outside the parameters of American scholarship? How is a scholar able to argue that the social system is pathological, contradictory, irrational, or unethical as it undermines the possibility of humanity to realize their full human potential, dignity, rights, freedom, democracy, needs, and substantive rationality? Even Emile Durkheim, who is generally perceived by many as a positivist, used a quantitative method in his statistical analysis of suicide rates in Northern and Southern Europe, but framed his analysis within a neo-Kantian theory of knowledge and philosophy of science.

Max Horkheimer's work The Eclipse of Reason has never been more relevant today. In this more up-to-date rewrite of Weber's theory of disenchantment in "Science as a Vocation," Horkheimer's greatest fear was that the American academy in the 1940s would not be able to resist Fascism because it had lost the concepts, ideals, methods, and theories by which to challenge the destruction of democracy and its classical social ideals. Unfortunately, his fears of disenchantment and fascism have been realized. Sociology is incapable today of public speaking and remains silent on crucial social, political, and ethical issues; its scientific method does not allow it to speak about issues of social justice out of fear of being perceived as non-objective and non-neutral. Faculty have strong personal views that reflect their private conscience, but their science is silent in the face of industrial and state fascism. This is the very thing Marx criticized and rejected as economic theory and political ideology and Weber rejected as the hidden values of modern demagogues who religiously preached positivism in the classroom ("Science as a Vocation" and "Objectivity in Social Science and Social Policy"). With this evolution of American sociology toward positivism and scientism, we are experiencing Weber's concerns about moral relativism and "the last man" in "the iron cage" at the end of WW I and Horkheimer's fears about "the liquidation of reason" and the holocaust of the mind in the barbed wire fences of the concentration camps at the end of WW II (Note: relationship between iron cage and concentration camps in Europe to African slave trade and Southern plantations, American Indian reservations and religious reeducation camps, and Japanese internment camps during WW II in the United States). In the end, sociology is an ethical or practical science. It is a form of applied philosophy whereby morals, ethics, and politics are made "objective," real, concrete, and institutional in history and society. Without Philosophy, Sociology is an iron or barbed wired cage restraining creative and critical thought and without Sociology, Philosophy is simply metaphysical speculation and theoretical irrelevance. When considering the nature of European social theory and placing it in the Kantian context of "percepts and concepts," it may be said that Empirical and Historical research without Theory is blind and empty and Theory without Empirical and Historical research is void and meaningless. It is this creative imagination and synthesis of Philosophy and Sociology that explains the genius and revolution of classical social theory in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as well as the decline of social theory in the twenty-first century.

The Metaphysics of Positivism makes it impossible for other critical approaches and social issues to be raised using methods that don't appear under the standard Quantitative and Qualitative designations. By stressing Methods as the scientific foundation of sociology, much of American and most of European social theory and its alternative methods are repressed and lost in the "dreamless present" of the academy. This is certainly a major factor in the decline of social theory in American sociology. In Anglo-American sociology, Methods and Theory are antithetical to each other: They occupy different traditions, intellectual histories, epistemologies, and methodologies -- they create different objects of research, different logics of inquiry, different methods of analysis and validation, and different types of theory. In fact, Methods make Critical Theory impossible since, as Mills has written, Methods have depleted sociology of any substantive content and what remains is often just "propaganda," "conformity," "adaptation," and "adjustment," that is, pure "ideology." (See C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination, pp. 56, 57, 68, 80-82, 90-92, and 96.) Since Theory becomes unable to critically challenge, evaluate, or direct sociological research, the important questions are lost. Also sociology can only ask questions about consciousness, beliefs, and attitudes -- psychologism -- and not about history or social structures. Sociology is reduced to a "fetishism of the Concept" -- to an analysis of the immediately given commodities, objects, or social facts (74). According to Mills, sociology becomes an ideology that simply reflects the appearances of reality without knowing its historical and structural developments. Social pathologies are defused and reduced to social problems. Positivism as Enlightenment science is an ideology of modern industrial society; it is a form of science that makes theory impossible. Critique as Science expresses the neo-Kantian and neo-Hegelian traditions of dialectical, interpretive, historical, moral or human, hermeneutical, or depth-hermeneutical sciences. Enlightenment science or positivism (empiricism and rationalism), on the other hand, can only mirror or reflect empirical reality, but it can never challenge or dig beneath its surface phenomena to the deeper and more profound realities of modern society. In an advanced industrial society, the Enlightenment and Science provide the Ideology for Liberalism and Capitalism.

According to the classical tradition, positivist science does not challenge the values, ideals, or institutions of Modernity. This perspective would later become dominant in Anglo-American analytic philosophy and American sociology. This is the methodological position it occupies to this very day in much of Quantitative and Qualitative research. American sociologists attempted successfully for many years to read positivism back into the classical social theory of Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Freud. They shared this common approach to scientism in Science and Methods with contemporary economists, psychologists, political scientists, and historians. However, classical social theory developed as an alternative to this perspective based on its theory of the dialectic, critique, history, representations, and its view of science grounded in the epistemology of German Idealism. The theoretical pendulum is moving in the opposite direction as the philosophical traditions and "classical horizons" of European thought are being rediscovered in classical and contemporary social theory. We must re-engage and rethink the connections between Theory and Methods. Advanced courses in social theory will continue to examine these epistemological and methodological questions, especially the relationships between critical science and positivist science. Would a methods course in the critical and historical sciences of Classical European Theory, contemporary French and German social theory, critical- and depth-hermeneutics, phenomenology, historical sociology, existential sociology, feminist theory, deep and social ecology, etc. -- which would reject the Metaphysics of Positivism -- look different from a methods course for positivist science? The various schools of thought within the critical tradition would attempt to free themselves from the underlying values of positivism -- what Weber referred to as "Wertfreiheit." This would require the development of a new approach to Quantitative and Qualitative research whose ultimate goal is a sociology of Methods without Metaphysics, that is, a sociology in which methods do not define objectivity (objects of perception, knowledge, and social reality), but are responsive to the issues and questions raised by social theory itself. As Weber has so forcefully and elegantly argued, Theory (value relevance) precedes Methods in empirical research; one must first have a question before empirical research can begin. However, if one begins with Methods, it creates its own objects and theory.


For more information on the Methodology and Epistemology of 'Critical Science,' see the "Professor's Notes" by clicking on Classical Social Theory: Marx, Weber, and Durkheim.


SUMMARY AND OUTLINE OF "SOCIAL DREAMERS"

ORIGINS OF SOCIOLOGY IN GERMAN AND FRENCH SOCIAL THEORY


1.   Introduction to European Social Theory: The goal of this introductory course in sociology is to introduce the student to the fundamental and distinctive System, Structures, Institutions, Culture, and History of modern industrial society. Through an examination of key theoretical, philosophical, and literary texts of the nineteenth century, we will investigate the central institutions of Modernity: Economy (market economy and industrial production), Polity (state and liberal democracy), Culture (Enlightenment science and liberal ideals), and Psychology (competitive self-interest and possessive individualism).

2.   Nineteenth-Century British Historical Novel: This lecture course begins with an investigation into Charles Dickens' historical novel, Hard Times (1854), as a broad introduction to the Empiricism and Positivism of David Hume in the Coketown schoolroom and the distinctive social patterns, institutions, and cultural values of nineteenth-century industrial Capitalism and the Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and James Mill. Hard Times sets the social parameters and values of Capitalism and the Enlightenment: materialism, individualism, and utilitarianism (ethics) and empiricism and rationalism (epistemology). It will be these theories of morals/politics (Hobbes and Locke) and knowledge (Hume and Descartes) that will be the focus of nineteenth-century social critique in Romanticism (Dostoyevsky and Dickens), Idealism (Kant and Hegel), Existentialism (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Camus), and Classical Social Theory (Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Freud); and it will be these theories that will provide the introduction and general framework for this course.
(2 weeks on Dickens)

3.   Early and Classical Liberalism: Hobbes, Locke, and J. S. Mill: Over the next period of lectures, we will examine the philosophical origins of political Liberalism in the writings of John Locke (1632-1704) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Within Locke's writings, the conflicts between Natural Rights (life, liberty, and property) and Natural Law (equality, mutual love, friendship, human needs and dignity, common good, and general welfare) reflect deeper conflicts between the Ancients and the Moderns that will form the heart of later Classical Social Theory. After Locke's theories of the state of nature, property, and individual liberty, we examine J. S. Mill's views on democracy, political pluralism, and individual freedom. In Locke's Second Treatise of Government, the conflict between Natural Rights and Natural Law was central, whereas, in Mill's On Liberty, there is a profound tension between politics and economics, democracy and modern capitalism that he attempts to resolve in his later work, The Principles of Political Economy.   
(2.5 weeks on Locke and J. S. Mill).

4.   Classical Social Theory: Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Freud: Following this brief analysis of Enlightenment political theory, we turn to Classical Social Theory in the writings of Karl Marx (1818-1883), Max Weber (1864-1920), Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) as a critical reaction to the rise of Capitalism (political economy), Liberalism (politics), the Enlightenment (positivist science and industrial technology), and Possessive Individualism (personality, egoism, and market economy) in modern industrial society. These theorists were grounded in the traditions of Natural Law, Romanticism, Neoclassicism, German Idealism, and Aristotelian philosophy which prompted them to view Leeds, Manchester, and London -- the British Industrial Revolution and the Birth of Liberalism -- through the critical and poetic eyes and ideals of Ancient Greece. They saw Modernity from the heights of the Acropolis and the Parthenon as Athenian democracy provided them with a new vision of human possibilities and new "classical horizons" for a just and free society.
(2.5 weeks on Marx, Weber, and Durkheim)

5.   Enlightenment and Rationalism: Rene Descartes (1596-1650) details the foundations and justifications for the Enlightenment, Modern Science, and Objectivity. He begins with the proof for the existence of the self as cogito, moves on to prove the existence of God (idea of God, cause of the idea of God, and the ontological argument), and concludes with a justification of the external world of perception and ideas and the validity of modern science. Weber focuses on the social implications of Enlightenment Culture in his theories of formal rationality, the last man, and modern bureaucracy. Descartes uses the Natural Law of God, Reason, and Nature -- rational and divine order of metaphysics and nature -- to ground the Enlightenment and Western science in the first half of the seventeenth century; Locke will also use Natural Law -- rational and divine order of economics and politics -- later in the same century to justify Liberalism, Capitalism, and Possessive Individualism. After the seventeenth century, the market economy, individual rights, private property, and Enlightenment science no longer require the application of Natural Law to justify themselves, since Liberalism and Science contain their own self-evident rationality and justification. However, in response to the rise of Modernity a secular form of ancient and medieval Natural Law (Aristotle to Thomas Aquinas), which emphasizes communal social ethics, the common good, and social justice, becomes incorporated into Classical Social Theory.  
(1 week on Descartes)

6.   Psychoanalysis and Classical Social Theory: Sigmund Freud's (1856-1939) theory of Psychology and Psychoanalysis represents a depth inquiry into the structures of the human mind (ego, id, and superego), relationship between the conscious and unconscious mind, and the social repression of sexual drives and childhood memories within the nuclear family which defines our modern personality. Analyze the relationship between psychoanalysis and social theory.  
(2 weeks on Freud)

7.   Existentialism and Social Theory: Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Camus: During the last four weeks of this course, we study the central importance of Existentialism -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) -- to the origins of Classical Social Theory in the nineteenth century. Schopenhauer's crisis of knowledge and representations (ideas) as illusions and dreams and Nietzsche's theory of idolatry and moral nihilism set the stage for a more general understanding of the existential crisis of modern society, ethics, and culture. Existentialism evolved from epistemology and moral philosophy into social theory. The Classical Theorists were concerned with the meaning of human life expressed in terms of the meaning of individual freedom, self-realization, citizenship, creative work, reason, science, culture, democracy, and social justice; they were also concerned with the loss of meaning in Modernity resulting from Rationalization, Repression, Alienation, Anomie, Nothingness & Nihilism, and Dehumanization, Decadence, Disenchantment, & Dereglement (RRAANNDDDD). Existentialism, German Idealism, and Greek Philosophy became the pillars upon which rested the methods and ideals of critical social theory. Albert Camus' (1913-1960) work, The Fall, provides us with an interesting novel bookend to the course and summary of Existentialism and the Crisis of Modernity. It is a rewrite of Dante's Inferno (1300) and descent into the ninth circle of Hell to express the existential crisis of moral Nothingness and Nihilism for a contemporary audience which had just witnessed the horrors of World War II and the Holocaust. Within a sociology of literature, his work offers us the opportunity to compare the historical novel of the nineteenth century with the existential novel of the twentieth century -- Dickens' Coketown in England to Camus' Mexico City in Amsterdam.  
(4 weeks on Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Camus)

8.   Sociology as a Critical Science of Social Justice: The most distinctive and important metatheoretical features of nineteenth-century European Social Theory are its Views of Science as: Critique (Epistemology and Ethics), Hermeneutics, Existentialism, History, and Holism (System, Structures, Functions, and Culture) :

          (1) a Holistic and Historical Science that is expressed in its interdisciplinary, integrative, and historical study of the whole of modern society and the functional interrelationships among its component and structural parts of the Economy, Polity, Culture, and Psychology;
         (2) a Critical Science based on a rejection of Enlightenment epistemology and the methodologies of rationalism (Descartes) and empiricism (Locke and Hume) and turn to the theories of knowledge of German Idealism (Kant and Hegel) -- Critique, Phenomenology, and Dialectic of Reason and Spirit, neo-Kantian philosophy of social science (Windelband, Rickert, Simmel, and Dilthey), and Existentialism and Radical Kantianism (Schopenhauer and Nietzsche). The concept of "Critique" implies a distinct epistemology, methodology, and philosophy of science that evolved and matured out of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, and nineteenth-century theories of knowledge and social science;
          (3) an Ethical or Practical Science that brings together empirical and historical research with a call for social justice -- blending together history and critique, empirical research and ethics, and science and social justice. Practical Science begins with Kant's Critique of Practical Reason and Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit as it begins with morality (Moralitaet), develops into social ethics (Sittlichkeit), and, finally, forms the foundation of 19th-century social theory. The German Idealists attempt to create a world based on human dignity, moral autonomy, and self-conscious rationality. Hegel's criticisms of Kant rest upon his rejection of a transcendental moral imperative and individual freedom abstracted from the history, phenomenal experience, and social institutions of the Objective Spirit (family, economy, and state). The first example of practical social theory -- the synthesis of Structures and Ethics -- comes from Aristotle's study of politics and ethics in his examination of the moral economy, virtuous life, law and political constitutions, and ideal Athenian democracy in the Nicomachean Ethics and Politics. There was an Aristotle renaissance in the nineteenth century that played a central role in the formation of classical social theory. In fact, during this time Berlin was referred to by its own citizens as the "Athens on the Spree";
          (4) an Historical, Critical, and Ethical Science, classical theory rejects positivism or the normative belief that the appropriate method of scientific research for the study of Society and History is the use of the techniques of the natural sciences. Sociology was formed as a response to the inadequacies of positivism or social physics in the writings of Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer and to the inadequacies of the view of Society and History as mechanical, linear, deterministic, and predictable. Positivist science is incapable of undertaking a critical analysis of the total social system -- its deep structures, functions and history; positivism inhibits the creation of critical social theory. (The main epistemological and methodological issues in numbers eight and eleven are discussed in more advanced courses in European social theory and are not the focus of this introductory course); and
          (5) as an Existential and Hermeneutical Science that details the Crisis and Dialectic of Meaning in the modern age of Capitalism and Existentialism. Existentialism evolves out of Immanuel Kant's philosophy of subjectivity, cognitive and moral creativity, individual freedom, and human dignity into Schopenhauer's theory of the nothingness and illusions of representations and will and Nietzsche's critique of the cultural idols of Greek rationalism, medieval Christianity, early science, political liberalism, and modern morality, as well as epistemological and moral nihilism. In turn, these ideas provide the intellectual ground and inspiration for Marx's theory of alienation and work, Weber's theory of rationalization, the last man, and theoretical relativism of the "warring gods," Durkheim's theory of anomie, dereglement, organic solidarity, and collective representations, and Freud's theory of psychoanalysis, repression, and forgotten meaning.

9.   As a Holistic Science, Sociology examines the social totality in its Meaning, Structures, Functions, and History :

                     (1)    Economy            market and production                                    Dickens, Adam Smith, & Marx
                     (2)    State                   law and liberal democracy                              Hobbes, Locke, & J. S. Mill
                     (3)    Institutions        solidarity, consciousness, civic morals            Durkheim
                     (4)    Culture               Enlightenment, science, and values                Descartes, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, & Weber
                     (5)    Personality         self-interest and individualism                        Locke & Freud

10.   As an Ethical or Practical Science, Sociology examines the Social Pathologies and Structural Crises of Modernity -- Rationalization (state bureaucracy, cultural disenchantment, and technical (ir)rationality), Repression (lost memories, experiences, and desires in the unconscious mind), Alienation (worker estrangement and capitalist exploitation), Anomie (cultural dereglement and social madness), Nothingness and Nihilism (cognitive, ethical, and existential meaninglessness), and Dehumanization, Disenchantment, and Dereglement (loss of mystery, ethics, and substantive reason) -- RRAANNDDDD:

                     (1)            Economy                     Alienation                                       Marx
                                                                           Dehumanization                                 
                     (2)            State                             Rationalization                               Weber
                     (3)            Institutions                  Anomie                                           Durkheim
                     (4)            Culture                        Disenchantment, Dereglement,       Weber, Schopenhauer,
                                                                           Nothingness, & Nihilism                 & Nietzsche
                     (5)            Personality                  Repression                                       Freud

11.   As a Critical Science, Sociology combines political economy, social philosophy, and history with the traditions of German Idealism, German Existentialism, Neo-Kantianism, Critical Hermeneutics, and Aristotelian philosophy. In its rejection of positivism, Classical Social Theory created a number of distinct Forms of Critical Science:

                     (1)                Marx                                     Dialectical Science and Immanent Critique
                     (2)                Weber                                   Interpretive/Cultural Science and Sociology of Understanding
                     (3)                Weber                                   Historical Science and Structural/Functional Analysis of Capitalism
                     (4)                Durkheim                             Functional Science and Theory of Collective Representations
                     (5)                Freud                                    Depth-Hermeneutical Science and Dialogical Cure

12.   And, finally, as an Existential Science, Sociology seeks to uncover the lost meaning in private and public experience, that is, in the search for meaning in the productive life of the species being and the contradictions between the social ideals and the institutional reality (Marx), in the understanding of cultural experience and lived history and the dialectic of meaning in the concepts, consistency, contradictions, and consequences of particular intentions and historical events (Weber), in the moral values and social forms of the collective conscience, representations, and consciousness and their cultural breakdown in lost solidarity and anomic dereglement (Durkheim), and in the rediscovery of repressed meaning and forgotten memories ( Freud). The Existentialism of Kant's subjectivity and creativity in Marx, Schopenhauer's representational and moral nothingness and veil of Maya in Durkheim, Nietzsche's moral nihilism and epistemological perspectivism in Weber, and Schopenhauer's and Nietzsche's dualism between sensibility and understanding, physical desires and forms of egoism, and Dionysian ecstasy and Apollonian forms and their theory of the unconscious in Freud pervade every aspect of the methodology and theory of classical nineteenth-century social thought. Existentialism begins as a crisis of Knowledge and Truth in German Idealism, develops into a crisis of Meaning and Culture in German Existentialism and a crisis of Experience and Memory in Psychoanalysis, and ends in a crisis of the Institutions and Values of modern capitalism in Classical Social Theory: Nothingness and Nihilism are a product of Capitalism, Liberalism, and the Enlightenment -- NN is a product of RRAA. The social system and cultural lifeworld of Modernity establish the favorable conditions for the rise of existentialism. That is, the Crisis of Modernity begins in Epistemology, develops in Morality, Culture, and Psychology (Consciousness and Mind), and ends in the Structures of Society. Summary of the Forms of Existential and Hermeneutical Science:

                     (1)                Marx                                      Meaning of Creative Work and Social Institutions
                     (2)                Weber                                    Meaning of Culture & Historical Action
                     (3)                Durkheim                              Meaning of Moral and Collective Representations
                     (4)                Freud                                     Meaning of Repressed Desires and Memories


Summary: Nineteenth-century European social theory represents a fundamental critique of the Four Pillars of Modernity:

                     (1)               Capitalism                                      Market economy, industrial production, and private property
                     (2)               Liberalism                                      Individual rights, market liberties, and liberal democracy
                     (3)               Enlightenment Rationalism         Western science and technology
                     (4)               Possessive Individualism               Egoism, individual liberties, and competitive self-interest

The social theorists question the institutional, structural, and normative foundations of modern political economy through their critical analysis of the alienation and exploitation of industrial capitalism and political economy (Marx ), the rationalization and disenchantment of institutional bureaucracy and Enlightenment rationalism (Weber ), the anomic breakdown of communal solidarity and collective consciousness (Durkheim), the decline of natural law, communal responsibility and love, and social justice (Locke and J. S. Mill), the unconscious repression of human psychology and instinctual needs ( Freud), and the loss of normative culture and existential meaning in knowledge, morals, and society (Dickens, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Camus). Results of these social pathologies lead to the Structural Crisis and Moral Incoherence of Modernity that must be addressed by integrating Science and Ethics -- Empirical Research and Social Justice. And the imaginative and creative spark that ignites this general social critique is found in the blending of the Ancients and the Moderns through the synthesis of Greek philosophy (Aristotle), German epistemology and philosophy of science (Kant, Hegel, and neo-Kantians) with the methods of historical and human science. The cornerstone of classical social theory is set in Political Economy, Philosophy, and History, and these areas become the foundations of European sociology.

Romancing Antiquity: Integration of the Ancients and Moderns in Nineteenth-Century Sociology: The critique of the pillars of modern political economy and Enlightenment rationality was filtered through the nineteenth-century social theorists viewing the reality of Modernity through the ideals of the Ancients:

                     (1)           Locke                        Aristotle, Richard Hooker, Oikonomia, and Natural Law
                     (2)           Descartes                  Medieval Scholasticism, Aquinas, St. Anselm, and Natural Law
                     (3)           J. S. Mill                   Aristotle, Pericles, George Grote, Social Justice, and Classical Athenian Democracy
                     (4)           Marx                         Aristotle, Epicurus, Oikonomia, Social Justice, and Classical Athenian Democracy
                     (5)           Weber                       Ancient History, Aristotle, Public Discourse, and Understanding
                     (6)           Durkheim                 Aristotle, Montesquieu, and Collective Solidarity and Conscience
                     (7)           Freud                         Sophocles and Oedipus Rex
                     (8)           Camus                       Sophocles's Oedipus Rex, Aristotle's Poetics, Dante, and Greek Tragedy
                     (9)           Schopenhauer           Plato's Theory of Forms, Aesthetics, and Beauty
                     (10)         Nietzsche                   Sophocles' Oedipus, Aeschylus's Oresteia, Prometheus, Parmenides, and Heraclitus

Conclusion: Nineteenth-century Sociology is the scientific and ethical study of the holistic and integrated Society, that is, the Total System, including the Structures, Political Economy, Functions, Lifeworld, Culture of Meaning, and History of Modernity -- Industrial Capitalism, Liberal Democracy, Individualism, and the Enlightenment & Existentialism. Sociology is the study of Society as RRAANNDDDD and the need for SOCIAL JUSTICE. The theorists constructed this critical science by integrating the Ancient views of social ethics, politics, and practical knowledge -- the ideals of the good life (eudaimonia), practical wisdom (phronesis), and social justice -- with historical and empirical analyses of Modernity. The result was a deep criticism of the structural pathologies of modern society (RRAANNDDDD) -- Rationalization & Disenchantment (Weber), Repression (Freud), Alienation & Dehumanization (Marx), Anomie and Dereglement (Durkheim), Nothingness (Schopenhauer), and Nihilism (Nietzsche) and a rejection of Enlightenment epistemology, science, and moral positivism (PERSONNNN) -- Predictivism, Empiricism, Realism, Scientism, Objectivism, Naturalism, Neutralism, Nominalism, and Nomothetic Laws -- as the basis for sociological inquiry. Founded upon the disciplines of political economy, history, and philosophy, while integrating the Ancients and the Moderns, sociology is a critical science of modern industrial society that combines empirical and historical analyses with a philosophical critique of morals and politics (epistemology, ethics, and social justice). Sociology applies four forms of the critical method: Dialectical, Historical, Interpretive, and Structural analysis.

The Greeks gave the Moderns the exhilarating heights and extraordinary horizons from which to see their Social Dreams of a better life more clearly. They looked upon modern industrial capitalism, liberal democracy, cultural individualism, and the Enlightenment from the perspective of the elegance, beauty, and harmony of the Parthenon and Acropolis as they cried (out) for a better world. By integrating the Ancients and the Moderns, ethics and science, and sensibility and the understanding, a new type of social theory was formed in the nineteenth century that represented a fundamental rejection of formal science and positivism. By bringing together ancient Greece with modern social science, European social theory represents over 2500 years of enriching and creative intellectual history. And by critically standing on the shoulders of these intellectual giants, we might be better able to understand our present social situation and offer rational and democratic alternative courses of action.

SOCIOLOGY IS A PRACTICAL, CRITICAL, AND HISTORICAL
SCIENCE OF SOCIETY


PRACTICAL (ETHICS) -- refers to Moral Economy, Social Justice, and the 2500 year history of moral philosophy, social ethics, and Natural Law from the Ancient Hebrews, Classical Greeks, Early Christians, and Medieval Scholastics to the Moderns.

CRITICAL (EPISTEMOLOGY) -- refers to the theory of knowledge grounded in the Critique of Constructed Objectivity, Representations, and Pure Reason (rejection of positivism and the metaphysics of empiricism and rationalism) in the neo-Kantian and neo-Hegelian epistemology and methodology of Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Freud. The Critique of Kant is then blended with the Phenomenology and Dialectic of Hegel in Classical Social Theory. Positivism makes discussion of metatheory -- Ethics, Critique, Methods, and Society -- very difficult because of its own Metaphysics of Objectivism, Realism, Naturalism, and the split between Science (fact) and Ethics (value) on the one hand, and its phenomenal or surface method of causal laws and universal prediction -- can't get access to deep structures or meaning -- on the other. The critical theory of knowledge rejects both Enlightenment empiricism and rationalism, while it introduces a constitution and dialectical theory of truth.

HISTORICAL (METHODS) -- refers to the historical analysis of the MEANING and STRUCTURES of modern capitalist society. This scientific approach includes the methods of hermeneutics and understanding (Verstehen) and historical explanation, objective possibility, and adequate causality, that is, the methods for the understanding and interpretation of the Values, Ideals, and Culture of the Lifeworld (neo-Kantian idealism and German Historical School) and the social institutions that constitute the structural preconditions for modern capitalism in medieval society (Catholic Church, feudalism and decentralized fiefdoms, and commercial cities with autonomous legal, political, economic, and military institutions), 16th-century bureaucratic state, and the modern economy (market economy, private property, science and technology, industrial production, and factory system) (later materialism of Weber). Included under historical methods are the dialectical explanation and functional causality of the Structures, Contradictions, and Crises of the System of political economy (neo-Hegelian historical materialism and dialectical method of Marx)), the sociology of knowledge, religion, and the collective representations of society (Durkheim), and the depth hermeneutics and psychoanalytic reconstruction of the lost memories of socio-sexual repression (Freud).

SCIENCE (METHODOLOGY) -- refers to the European concept of science as CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, MORAL, AND DIALECTICAL SCIENCE, that is, a scientific inquiry based on hermeneutical, interpretive, or cultural science (Weber), depth-hermeneutics (Freud), moral or historical science (Durkheim), and dialectical or critical science (Marx) that examines the interpretation and meaning of individual actions, culture, and history, as well as the deep structures, functions, contradictions, and crises of social institutions -- Rationalization & Disenchantment, Repression, Alienation & Dehumanization, Anomie & Dereglement, and Nothingness & Nihilism (RRAANNDDDD). In German, these views of science have been referred to as Geisteswissenschaften, Kulturwissenschaften, and Geschichtswissenschaften.

SOCIETY (THEORY) -- refers to the modern social system of Capitalism, Liberalism, and the Enlightenment found in its holistic and integrated Structures, Functions, Culture, and History. It integrates the other fragmented disciplines into a comprehensive study of modern industrial society:


STATE ---- ECONOMY ---- CULTURE ---- PERSONALITY ---- SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Liberal Democracy    ---    Industrial Production    ---    Enlightenment    ---    Repressed Unconscious
Natural Rights and Law   ---   Market Economy   ---   Science & Technology --- Possessive Individualism
State                                      Economy                             Culture                            Personality


END AS BEGINNING -- This is the end of the course on Social Dreamers but only the beginning of our analysis of Modernity. The classical tradition of the nineteenth century is the "core" of Sociology but there are many new and exciting questions, theories, and methods to be examined, including the historical rise of the following: (1) monopoly capital, globalization, finance capital, and macroeconomic crises and state interventionism; (2) the welfare state for corporations (tax expenditures and subsidies) and for the poor and elderly (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid); (3) deindustrialization, the dual labor market, and union busting; (4) militarism, neocolonialism, and neoliberalism; (5) private and universal health care; (6) human rights, legal system, and the structures of political economy; (7) sexism, racism, and ageism; (8) postmodernism, relativism, and moral nihilism; (9) environmentalism and deep, social, and critical ecology; and (10) class, inequality, and political and economic democracy. Even with these many additions, sociology is still a distinctive form of social science because it remains fundamentally an ethical science of social justice. Methodologically, the next important question is the epistemological justification of the integration of empirical research and ethics, science and justice.




THE LECTURES PRESENTED IN THIS COURSE ARE ON DIGITAL AUDIO AND VIDEO DVD DISKS
AND HARD DRIVES IN THE KENYON COLLEGE LIBRARY ARCHIVES.


TO RETURN TO THE CLASS SCHEDULE AND REQUIRED READINGS FOR "SOCIAL DREAMERS," CLICK ON:

Social Dreamers: Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud