Locke: State of Nature & the New World | Philosophy Tube
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2017
- The Enlightenment philosophy of John Locke made America and Canada what they are today, and helped forge the British Empire too. History reveals a tale of racism, colonialism, and First Nation genocide; of law, politics, property, and land. The legacy of “the State of Nature.”
Subscribe! tinyurl.com/pr99a46
Patreon: / philosophytube
Paypal.me/PhilosophyTube
Audible: tinyurl.com/jn6tpup
FAQ: tinyurl.com/j8bo4gb
Facebook: tinyurl.com/jgjek5w
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
Transcript of this Episode: tinyurl.com/z4fak7y
Thomas Hobbes, “Leviathan”
John Locke, “Two Treatises of Government”
Alexander Anievas & Kerem Nisancioglu, “How the West Came to Rule”
Adam Ferguson, “An Essay on the History of Civil Society”
James Tully, Rediscovering America
Lief Wenar, “Property Rights and the Resource Curse” www.biicl.org/files/4363_wenar...
“Drumbeat: Anger and Renewal in Indian Country,” edited by Boyce Richardson
Music by Epidemic Sound (Epidemicsound.com)
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it. - บันเทิง
I come from an indigenous community of the United States of America and I am honored that you covered this topic. My Diné tribe had their own philosophy and education, however, that way of life diminished after years of conflict with the Spanish, Mexican, and American government. But, it brings me joy that a non-native demonstrated this problem in philosophy and encourages for better philosophy. As a philosopher and indigenous member of the United States of America you have my support.
You guys should build a wall around your lands/reservation and make the Mexicans pay for it ❤
i know a WASP who (only among other wasps) loves to loudly claim that he is Native American, bc he was born in USA. That is one of the reasons I can not consider this person my friend.
@@XavierbTM1221 Really!
True!
Thank you for calling out the Canadian government. They're not so nice as they'd like to seem, at least to the First Nations people.
I have nothing of value to add but comments count as interaction in the youtube algorithm which might net you views so here is this comment.
Thanks!
This reply serves a similar purpose to my original comment.
Thanks for the videos, Olly. Looking forward to your next book recommendation, especially.
LOL - I work my butt off sometimes in the comments sections. I never wanted to be political. But what can you do?
The idea of difference perceived as absence feels pretty relevant to me as an autistic person, because my disability is often thought of as "he can't read emotions," or "he can't read body language," as opposed to, "he has difficulty reading social cues and is skilled at abstract thinking."
yes! this. another ND here :)
Yeah. You're right. (And you're lucky when it's "she can't read emotion" and not "she doesn't have emotion, it's fine to bully her".)
And in the next century, the State of Nature idea was used to justify the declaring of Australia as “terra nullius”- empty land. While Terra Nullius was officially sort of overturned by the Australian High Court in the early 1990s, we’ve had ministers and even prime ministers who have declared that Australia was an empty land before British “settlement”. They also refuse to acknowledge that it wasn’t a settlement so much as an invasion.
And while the High Court overturned the legal fiction of Terra Nullius, they didn’t go so far as to actually change much in terms of the land being owned by the Crown- which is why Indigenous Australians attempting to have Native Title recognised have to jump through flaming hoops to prove not only that they previously “owned” the land, but that the “ownership” has been continuous and unbroken. That’s a bit difficult to do when British invaders literally pushed most Indigenous people off their land. And if someone owns a modern Australian deed to the land, that is enough to extinguish any hope of native title- because the Indigenous nations haven’t then continuously “owned” that land. And even if they do get native title, they still have very few rights over that land- they can only perform traditional actions on that land, and cannot develop that land or use it to make money.
Also, I’ve continuously put “owned” in quotemarks because most Indigenous nations in Australia don’t recognise the ability of humans to own land. As far as they’re concerned, the land doesn’t belong to them, they belong to the land, and the idea that any one person can own such a thing is preposterous. It’s why many Aussies use the term “traditional caretakers” over traditional owners.
As an indigenous person, I appreciate that you made an episode dedicated to indigenous philosophy. It always makes me angry how many neo-liberals in the humanities have been very careful telling me -- to my face -- that we didn't have culture, language, government, or technology. No, we had, it's just that all evidence of it was destroyed by colonialism. So any verbal preservation of it is valuable, and I thank you for contributing to that.
Hey! A little late to the party but wanted to make a quick comment on pronunciation.
The correct pronunciation is "Mig Maw". I only bring it up because the way you pronounced it, "mik mak", is used as a slur against the nation by white supremacist settlers. Unintentional on your part I'm sure, and it can be tricky because of how it's spelled. If it comes up again just take care with that one.
Love the channel. Thanks for everything you do.
Clifford Symons thank you for sayingthis
Interesting! I didn't realize that there was a significant reason for the different pronunciations i'd heard.
Interestingly enough, the Iroquois Confederacy actually had a structure of governance that's much closer to anarchist principles than the principles of Western representative democracy.
It's not perfectly anarchist by any means, but the comparatively non-hierarchical structure of governance is somewhat similar to Murray Bookchin's idea of libertarian municipalism, which is a form of libertarian socialism closely related to anarchism.
@@kincaidwolf5184 - Hello racist! Did you get lost on TH-cam?
@@kincaidwolf5184 - So? That's got nothing to do with their form of governance, intelligence or their ability to come up with complex ideas. Calling that "fucking laughable" is denigrating and racist af.
TheMrVengeance exactly. cultures change over time, and just because one culture had a writing system while the other didn’t doesn’t make the latter “less intelligent” or “undeveloped”.
Kaide Walsh i’m not saying that every culture is at the same place in its development - i realise that writing systems are important, but a culture not having one doesn’t make it unintelligent.
i’m just saying that it’s less than ideal to call other cultures somehow worse because they haven’t “developed as much”. they may not have the same ways of living, but they’re still people with their own traditions and identities.
@@amandaforsgren04 - I don't think there's any point arguing, Kaide's clearly not arguing in good faith. All he's doing is trying to justify and rationalise his racism.
_"Millions of illiterate illegal immigrants invading the west."_
They're called asylum seekers, and most of the ones in Europe are coming from places like Syria, Iran, the Middle East in general. A region that has had writing systems since a millennium before Old English was even a thing.
And in the US most of the Central/South American people also have writing and aren't illiterate.
Last I checked there weren't millions of deep African jungle tribespeople immigrating to the West.
And _"If you don't like it, go live in the woods."_ is just the most low IQ bad faith argument in history.
(Also I'd happily go live in the woods if f*cking capitalists didn't "own" every square inch of land.)
This is real good. Never made these connections before, but it makes a LOT of sense, and the impact of these ideas echoes through to today.
these ideas physically hurt my heart
the fact that this happened and these cultures were lost and minipulated
I will be sorely disappointed if the "interdisciplinary" title card doesn't make regular appearances.
Really good video, reminds us how important recognising historical context can be
It's good to hear someone question what it means for land to be considered "inhabited" and "usefully exploited".
When I took a political philosophy class, my professor also acknowledged that the state of nature which Hobbes, Mill, and Locke spoke of never "existed," but you're explanation of it as "difference interpreted as absence" helped make that clear.
I've been reading The Art of Not Being Governed by James C. Scott and it talks about people living in the hills of SE Asia not being 'primitives' who have yet to discover the glories of the state but people who have chosen not to live in a state, a deliberate return to a State of Nature (it can't have been that bad, there was plenty of people flowing both into and out of the hills).
Not something you can do these days though.
Olly, I believe you are misrepresenting Rousseau by lumping him in with Hobbes and Locke. Yes, Rousseau believed in a state of nature, but for him it was actually more equal than civilized society. There are concerns that Rousseau's idea of the "noble savage" is an equally problematic fetishizing of native peoples, but nevertheless it is markedly different from Hobbes', Locke's and others' state of nature. Do you recognize the distinction? Do you think that Rousseau's argument also enabled colonialism? Do you think it might have enabled it in a different way?
It was still a tool to advocate would be probably tyrannical religion-states.
I was going to write a similar note, Avram. Ever the Romantic, Rousseau actually criticised Hobbes' state of nature claim and was not on board wit Locke's theories.
Isn't there some similarity between Rousseau's state of nature and Marx' idea of "primitive communism" - which actually seem to hold some ground when you look at contemporary hunter gatherer societies. Rousseau also argued that the creation of property was the root of economic and political inequality.
Rousseau may disagree.
"THE first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows, "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." But there is great probability that things had then already come to such a pitch, that they could no longer continue as they were; for the idea of property depends on many prior ideas, which could only be acquired successively, and cannot have been formed all at once in the human mind. Mankind must have made very considerable progress, and acquired considerable knowledge and industry which they must also have transmitted and increased from age to age, before they arrived at this last point of the state of nature. Let us then go farther back, and endeavour to unify under a single point of view that slow succession of events and discoveries in the most natural order." - JJ Rousseau, On the Origin of the Inequality of Mankind
JJ Rousseau in his book Discourse on The Origin of Inequalities was arguing from the perspective of the state of nature is a positive ideal that we must grow closer to. In a way, JJ Rousseau was pretty ahead of his time and it's actually wrong to characterize him as an Enlightenment thinker, especially considering that he was actually rebelling against the idea of Western civilization being inherently superior. JJ Rousseau is more correctly identified as a Romantic philosopher and a precursor to modern humanism.
Philosophy Tube is only talking about the idea from the perspective of John Locke and its application in contemporary political philosophy.
Love it when you go all interdisciplinary on us, Ollie especially as I'm dipping into a free online introductory course from Duke University on Political Economy where Chapter 5 of Locke's Second Treatise on Government "On Property" is a set text. Thanks!
Yours is a channel that ought to have millions of views per video. Well done.
Pullin' them receipts on John Locke lol. Good video
One of my favourite videos of the last couple of months! Good job, Olly :D
I've went so far in watching Abi's videos I've reached pre-drama philosophy tube ;-;
Love all the books you reference. It really improves my reading list
Top notch research and work Olly. Please keep up the excellent work!
My only issue with the points made here (and it may be that i'm interpreting it wrongly) but it appears to be that you're stating that the reason that Locke, Hobbes, Mill etc. Came up with these ideas to justify the actions they were taking as a means of simple exploitation of the New World, as opposed to their ideology being what made them believe that it was morally correct for them to take those actions (a sort of what came first, chicken or the egg). This assumption therefore leads to the tone in which you talk about the works of thinkers such as Locke and Mill as if they were only using their works to justify exploitation, not as a way in which to run a country/live a life. I'm not meaning to discount your points (i love the channel) I just feel they could be expressed in a more nuanced manner?
Dominic Freeman I agree. This whole thing is a hen - egg situation.
The thing about this situation is ,as Olly said, "Convenient."
There is little to know way of knowing what motives ranked the
strongest for these philosophers as they formed their idea.
However, that does not change what can be seen DID happen.
Whether they intended to exploit people, simply create a better
future away from Europe, is unimportant.
What did happen is that people were subjugated because of their ideas,
and some continue being so in one way or the other to this day,
in addition to some of these philosophers indeed benefiting from that subjugation.
Whether this was the intend, we will likely never know,
but that doesn't change that it happened.
MadHatterHimself Exactly!!!
MadHatterHimself i don't deny that it did, but my point was just that the way in which these points are framed appears to me to almost.. discredit? the ideas of more classical liberal thinkers
Speaking historically, one cannot really separate the philosophy of the day from the happenings of the world aroubd the philosophers. Philosophy is a construct by which people rationalize the world and, as with all such constructs, it grows and changes alongside the society in which it is situated, both mutually affecting one another. I don't take it that Olly is laying the entire impetus for Lockian ideology on European colonization and neither is he saying that Lockian ideology was solely created to justify European colonialism. What I think he's saying is that Lockian(and classical liberal, for that matter) philosophy and ideology and European colonialism and expansionism acted to mutually enforce one another. In this way one cannot look on Lockian philosophy historically without considering the effects of colonialism and expansion on the philosophy as a whole. It's not a chicken and egg situation.
Y'all gon' make me interdisciplinary, up in here, up in here.
Absolutely amazing video, I love your videos so much
This is a really well done video! I've been reading the history of the events surrounding the American and French revolution, and I have to say you did your homework well. :)
Thank you for this most enlightening and most eloquently presented video!
THank you so much for going beyond just a wikipedia article!
Where can I find out more about the awitkatavitik (not sure I'm spelling that right?) That you mentioned?
Interested in the same, I don't get any answer on google under that spelling
Got a seminar on this, this morning, thanks this helped a lot. I knew they weren't well-intentioned and too pessimistic.
In 1770 James Cook concluded New South Wales was "In a pure state of nature". Australia was settled under this assumption and my nation still lives with the consequences of Locke.
Hey I really enjoy your page ☺ Keep it up!
Thanks for adding more context and another voice to the deep argument of celebrating Canada 150 or resisting it. It's a really important discussion happening now. I realize that you didn't make this video explicitly for this, but it is a helpful resource.
Most/all of this is easily applicable to Australia as well, It would be powerful to add other smaller countries to these talks... connecting more people and displaying that it has influence more than two countries of the world. But besides that this is amazing.... thank you
First Shawn and Jen, then HBomberguy, then You!! I love you guys!
I love that you brought up Mi’kmaq
:D at 1:00 I cracked up, this caught me off guard so hard ^^
and then it got serious ... and I got sad.
thank you for both Olly, your work is so important!
Thank you for making this video!! i appreciate your insights !
hey olly LOVED this video! I'm ojibwe and have a book recommendation for you if you haven't already read it "black elk speaks" by john neirhardt. It's a very good read with quite a few native American philosophy tid bits. I'm sure you'd enjoy it as much as I have enjoyed this video.
Really good video, Olly!
You know what I don't get? I'm currently an undergrad, and have just finished a course all about political philo in which we looked at Locke. My question is... WHY IN THE NAME OF ODIN DID I LEARN THIS ONLINE BUT NOT IN CLASS?
Thank you for your words. Needed. Time to acknowledge. Zach Bush says that he believes an apology on behalf of all colonizing nations is in order and then moving forward from there.
Could somebody explain to me what the 'interdisciplinary card' is?
Just fucking sensational! As an Indigenous dude dwelling in what's called canada, as well as a student of philosophy who spent no small amount not time reading lock and hume, this is just a delight to hear. Way to put the state of nature into context as a sanitized racist ideology. Tres legit.
just dropped by to say that olly looks great in this video
A truly great video!! Most teachers wouldn't tell you the truth as did in the video. Which is really bad. Most of then only give you a small clue, but that is all.
Great video!
The music was on point.
I think this dovetails nicely with your previous video on subjectivity. Of course the world/time a philosopher lives in effects their reasoning. Considering a philosopher's possible vested interests can be valid, not just an ad hominem attack.
This is all too relevant as my country (Canada) hits its 150th anniversary of Confederation tomorrow. The Canadian government has been all too eager to make it a simplistic, vapid celebration of Canadiana--and even more insidiously, has attempted to appropriate Indigenous traditions, arts, and cultural aesthetics as a central part of the 'Canadian' aesthetic. This is in line with the general government strategy to resituate Indigenous experience in the 'cultural mosaic' picture of pluralistic Canadian indentity as a purported rehabilitation of Canadian-Indigenous relations. The problem is, though, that many Indigenous people(s) are not so eager to 'Canadianize' Indigeneity, as it were. Indigenous peoples have not freely entered an equal social contract with the Canadian state--a (post)colonial authority--in some classical liberal European way, so why should they want to celebrate Canada 150? And why should the Canadian government engineer Indigenous imagery into the cultural aesthetics of national patriotism (and propaganda)? What we see is a strategy to legitimize our nation along Lockean lines, with all the trappings of liberal democracy and the social contract, while removing reference to the state's historical ties to colonial Britain and France and the philosophy/ideology and material conditions that drove North American expansion; the Canadian state places much emphasis on our country's Indigenous cultures and multiculturalism, arguably, to distract from our country's oppressive power structures. But we cannot have truly welcoming, cosmopolitan multiculturalism without interrogating this country's past and very much present oppression of anyone other than rich white male Anglophones. Canada 150 is (rather, could have been) a valuable opportunity to critically reflect on the foundations of our country--the violence at the roots of its history, and the violence that persists today--but the government and mainstream cutural forces seem content with a sanitary self-conception and only a surface-level reckoning with Canadian postcolonial reality.
You said it better than I could have.
being a "rich white male anglophone" is not violence. your argument does not logically follow i'm afraid.
stayphrosty You have misunderstood me. My point was not that rich white male Anglophones are intrinsically more violent people or anything along those lines. My point was rather that people in those social categories (including myself) have been generally given advantage over others in the political and cultural foundations of Canada, whereas other groups, particularly Indigenous peoples in what is now Canada, have been marginalized. That is what is violent, and it is an ongoing national violence with which this country has yet to fully reckon.
In any case, what is it about my argument that doesn't "logically follow"? You claim that my reasoning is faulty but provide no counterpoints, I'm afraid.
I'm Mi'gmaq and I have Indian status. If I have a child with a non-status person, my child will not be considered "native" in the eyes of the federal government. This means that my child would not be able to live or work or own property in their own home community. They can't even be buried among thousands of years of their ancestors. This is the doctrine of consanguinity - known in the states as blood quantum and known in Canada as the second generation cut off rule. This one-sided dynamic lies at the core of Canada's economy to this very day.
And in case you didn't notice, it doesn't work the other way around. Non-status people do not have to worry about losing their property when they marry status people. And so if you do some history and follow the major political families in Canada, you'll find that most of them are involved in real estate. You will also find that most of the politicians and land owners were upper class white Anglophone men. This is obvious because even upper class white Anglophone women were not allowed to own property or hold political office.
But besides going through publicly-available genealogies and colonial land grants, which I invite you to investigate for yourself, Native people pass down oral histories. We have observed particular modes of habitual behavior among certain classes of people - the same way our traditional stories talk about the behaviors of plants and animals and natural cycles. We know who did us wrong, and where, and when, and why its important to achieve justice for ourselves and our ancestors today. We can see how Canadians upheld the power and authority of these rich white anglophone men.
We are well aware that Canada maintains a feudal relationship with Indigenous peoples. We have been trying to show Canadians that the same political dynasties who have robbed and continue to rob us are also robbing all of you and your children's futures. Where does all the money go when corporations like Nestle are GIVEN entire bodies of water for next to nothing and then they turn around and sell that water for more than the price of gas?
Do you have any idea of the scope of wealth that natural bodies of water generate - for free? The actual value of renewable natural resources does not figure into these calculations whatsoever. They are written off by the government and euphemistically called "externalities." Even Indians know that there's no such thing as a free lunch. We know that our lives are lumped in with these externalities too. You will become externalities too when there's none of us left. Don't say we didn't spend the better part of five centuries warning you.
Unless you're only half wouldn't it be your grandchild who would lose status? And even then only if your child married non-status? I thought they recently changed / updated the genealogy regulations or whatnot. Also, if they got rid of that law, everyone who could prove native ancestry would be eligible for status and we would have to reduce benefits as there would be too many, and it would also cause a huge snafu in regards to who is put into which band. For some reason I doubt the modern Mohawk would be all that keen to now be a minority on their own reserve.
Helped with class today a lot thank you
What picture did you use for the thumbnail?
Very well done olly, well done.
very interesting olly thank you!!!
Could you make a video on philosophy of death? I have seen all of your videos and I know you have touched on subjects such as meaning of life, but I am very interested in your views on death.
OY ME GOD!!!! OLLY BE LOOKIN' A TWINK
This is why the whole idea of private property is extremely problematic. It has historical violence baked in, and allows future exploitation of those who don't have property of their own.
To the extent that society recognises private property at all, it should be done so for the benefit of all members of society.
Nah I wouldn't toss the property out with the bathwater. Maybe a person wants to own some property to open up a bakery or something. We shouldn't tell them no just because property acquisition can be violent
you can have bakeries without property.
Nicolas Young A bakery would be personal property.
Your videos are cool and great
Thank you for this video
Fitting video for Canada's 150th Anniversary Celebration!
Great video! Micmac is now spelled Mi'kmaw and pronounced that way.
I'll be playing this at my Thanksgiving get together
I have a question, everything you said John Locke was a secretary or owner of seems to be correct, by where can i find any proof that he was an investor in Company of Merchant Adventurers?
Gonna drop this comment in before I've seen the video but I'm in a hurry.
My views on the state of nature, mainly from what I've seen of Hobbes, is that he's sort of guessing that there was just a state violence prior to kings, just as Adam Smith did with his theory of the society based on barter.
I find it a bit silly, if this is the case, why people keep going on about him as evidence that we need a strong, dictator of sorts?
But I haven't read Leviathan so meh.
BadMouseProductions Hobbes idea is that all humans strives after the same thing, and since people have the same skill level, no one can active their goals, thus all against all. The hole book is about one centralized power above all others, like the Bible's Leviathan. Yes silly if you take state of nature and social contract as directly representing reality, but the book still makes a lot of sense, look at the Middle East after some dictator have been removed and Hobbes thoughts where right.
Smith's useful fiction of "truck, barter, and trade" is a perfect analogue to Locke's "state of nature." Both are ideological abstractions that have zero basis in historical reality. Both were used to justify economic relations beneficial to the emerging bourgeois class. Both have been thoroughly debunked, exposed, and contextualized. Both are still dogmatically believed by silly-willy conservatives.
I recommend watching the video, I think you will enjoy.
BadMouseProductions Moreover, it was a rationale for the actions of the Puritans in challenging Charles I, the subsequent English Civil War, deposing Charles I, and the rule of Cromwell in the Interregnum. Charles had broken the Social Contract by acting against the interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Arguably, the bourgeoisie got their way. Don't think the Social Contract concept has run out of steam yet though. The resurgence of Populism can be understood as reaction against the failure of the State to ensure that Capitalism fairly pays its way, and Locke's ideas on property would comfort many a crony capitalist. The socialisation of corporate banking debt is as exploitative as colonialism.
I don't find the State of Nature approach helpful at all. At worst, it justifies hierarchy, dominance, and state violence; it naturalizes inequality and property rights and so forth.....even if this was not their intent; it certainly wasn't Rousseau's. At best, it's simply 'sound and fury signifying nothing.'
It's pretty damn telling when you compare those excerpts to Marx's method in the Grundrisse:
“When we consider a given country politico-economically, we begin with its population, its distribution among classes, town, country, the coast, the different branches of production, export and import, annual production and consumption, commodity prices etc.
It seems to be correct to begin with the real and the concrete, with the real precondition, thus to begin, in economics, with e.g. the population, which is the foundation and the subject of the entire social act of production. However, on closer examination this proves false. The population is an abstraction if I leave out, for example, the classes of which it is composed. These classes in turn are an empty phrase if I am not familiar with the elements on which they rest. E.g. wage labour, capital, etc. These latter in turn presuppose exchange, division of labour, prices, etc. For example, capital is nothing without wage labour, without value, money, price etc. Thus, if I were to begin with the population, this would be a chaotic conception [Vorstellung] of the whole, and I would then, by means of further determination, move analytically towards ever more simple concepts [Begriff], from the imagined concrete towards ever thinner abstractions until I had arrived at the simplest determinations. From there the journey would have to be retraced until I had finally arrived at the population again, but this time not as the chaotic conception of a whole, but as a rich totality of many determinations and relations.”
What fascinates me is the lagging of sorts that the Spanish and Portuguese had. They used somewhat different tactics in terms of conquering and state formation but did so nonetheless. I love the focus of this video but it is fascinating to see that just south of the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo there is a different "nature" to this history of colonization and exploitation.
hey olly, are you thinking about pursuing a phd in philosophy at some point?
My ninth grade history teacher talked allot about those three philisophers but he never mentionted that
There is noting on Awitkativitik on Google. Does this exist?
Everything I can find talks about the Mi’kmaq government being the Sante’ Mawio’mi (Grand Council). But I don’t speak the language at all so it could easily be that Sante’ Mawio’mi is like their version of Parliament while Awitkativitik is a word for government or something else that hasn’t made its way onto the internet in its untranslated form. I am far from an expert though.
An additional relevant read would also be Charles Mills's The Racial Contract!
(I'm using my brother's account for this comment, since he's the one logged in, sorry for any confusion this might cause)
Do you think Montaigne acted counter to this trend of European Enlightenment philosophy in attempting to reckon with the customs of various indigenous peoples (I'm thinking of *Of Cannibals* specifically)? Or was his tendency to try and state the guiding motives of indigenous cultural practices in terms of the European philosophical tradition (i.e. his frequent references to Stoicism and Epicureanism) inherently colonialist--in that it could be seen as an erasure of difference?
Thanks for the video! I was thinking recently about how the "discovery" of the "New World" and its perceived "openess" (as in being wild, devoid of "civilization") might tie into Enlightenment notions of freedom (which I think we haven't really reckoned with, this being evident in the tendency of certain people [unnamed for purposes of not being swarmed in the comments] to throw around "free speech" as a justification for nastiness and bigotry). This video was a wonderful spur to further thought!
Sorry for my run-ons.
I had never thought of philosophy (outside of expressed political philosophy of course) having an impact on actual politics before this video, usually it just seems like politicians ignore philosophy in favor of their own goals. Are their any other major points that philosophy enters Politics, and could that be in another video?
Thanks! The video was great!
Politics is philosophy, and philosophy is politics.
Usually, it's the philosophy that is built around the politics, either to justify the actions of a person, or to justify a system of power.
But sometimes (like in the case of Plato's Republic, or Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto) politics can be built around philosophy. Ideally, philosophy would always and continually build and inform politics - something Plato actually suggests.
Huh, well that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for responding!.
I'm from the ojibwe tribe (anishinabie), and I'd like to second what Dee said. Miigwech (thank you)
Hey Ollie! Big fan.
So, I get that there was a political environment there and that that kind of philosophy had a "purpuse" but, with this video are you saying that it "invalidates" the thought experiments of the time? Isn't that a kind of Ad Hominem fallacy?
I don't know if you meant that or just to make people think about the context whilst thinking about this, I just think it wasn't clear by the end of the video.Regardless of that, excellent point as always!
I'm a comic book artist and I like to use philosophy to hlp me write thought provoking plots and characters. Your channel helps me a lot with that ;)
Cheerio!
Fucking eh man. I'm Mi'gmaq and I approve of this message. Maybe some day I'll send you my works on Edward Cornwallis and Carl Schmitt. It goes in line with a lot of the ideas you discuss here. Tahoe!
Well this was enlightening
Ty Ty so much really Ty like KRS One once said ... don't seek justice on stolen land.
spot on
Great video. You made some interesting connections that I haven't considered before. Specifically, you draw into sharp relief the very problems societies face in justifying initial acquisitions of property. But I do have one question that seems to not fit with other things you have said here: weren't the enlightenment thinkers some of the first to be abolitionists? If that is the case they couldn't be arguing for an end to slavery while creating a philosophy to justify its existence for their own personal gain. Maybe there isn't evidence of Locke being an abolitionist and that is what i am missing.
you are the best
As far as i understand it there are property rights in the state of nature according to Locke, this is kind of the thing that sets him apart from Hobbes and Rousseau.
I hope you do more about Enlightenment thought. It still pervades our ideas today.
Wow, great point. Even learning lockian theory this year I never made a connection to practical occurrences. Seems kind of like he worked diligently to keep his writings in the abstract to avoid self suspicion. Never liked Locke. Always thought Hobbes was way more of a genuine philosopher.
This was a very well thought out connection and viewpoint... Thankyou for all the research and time spent making this video!
Hey Olly, are you sad that Idea Channel is ending?
I don't really like how you framed this issue. While of course it is clear that European colonial leaders often interpreted "difference as absence" in the justification of their conquests, this occurred long before the time of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, etc. I feel like you took a single concept which pervades their thought (and happens to coincide with this colonial ethos) and which each of them use in distinct ways to describe the most efficient manner of dealing with European just to make a point about the flaws of colonialism.
Not to say that colonialism wasn't flawed to the very core, it's just that I think you may have wasted the opportunity to discuss some very interesting and complex political philosophy by only focusing on a very narrow aspect of John Locke's work (not to mention the others).
The state of nature is not really held to be hypothetical by the Enlightenment thinkers. Locke gave the example of Native Americans as people in a state of nature as he imagined it (and we should have in mind that according to Locke there is natural law in the state of nature, and people have a duty to not violate other people's rights); Hobbes gave the English Civil War as an example of the state of nature as he saw it (which is, as said, nasty, brutish, and short); whereas Rousseau interestingly prefigures Darwin, he mentions how people were like orangutans when in the state of nature, fundamentally different then we are now, and it is impossible for humans to return to such a state, because our nature has changed. According to Locke and Hobbes it is possible to return to the state of nature, although they differ in how many lets say steps. According to Hobbes it's one (any rebellion is a return to the state of nature), according to Locke it would take several steps (a rebellion can be either first level change, within a form of government, like to replace a king with another king; a rebellion can be a second level change, to change the form of the government, like replace the monarchy with democracy; but only a third level rebellion, which would abolish the state itself, would be a return to the state of nature). And the notion of the state of nature is a seminal notion, when the appeal to traditional authority lost it's strength as a justification for monarchy and aristocracy, it became necessary to think about how is the existence of the government justified, and what does that kind of justification tells us about what kind of social system we should have, and that is probably the most important question. Thinking about this today is very much needed, and people need to engage with the ideas of Enlightenment authors and also newer contractarian thinkers like Rawls, and not shrug off the entire notion due to some spurious connection with colonialism. And the connection is spurious, because the where the problem lies is not with the notion of the state of nature, but with the notion of property, and the different views about it, like what can be property, in what way, how constitutes original appropriation, etc.
If I was granted the choice of either waking up one morning with a knowledge of all the world's philosophical knowledge, or, spending the day with someone who had Williams Syndrome - then I know which one I'd choose.
I'm glad you talked about the racism in enlightenment. people seems to mythologize these people too much.
Good
The argument that the land is uncultivated has a much stronger version that is dangerous but also hard to combat: "Ok, the land is being cultivated, but not in a space-efficient way."
It's hard to combat because it isn't actually incorrect.
It's *dangerous* because, if the two alternatives presented are colonization and non-interaction, it favors colonization.
Does John Locke reminds anyone of lost?
Here we can see that it is the habit of the human mind that needs to be revisited.
I'm not sure I would say "whoever can control resources through military might is their rightful owner" so much as "whoever can control resources through military might is their de facto owner." I.E. The bourgeoisie, through the state, have de facto ownership of the means of production, even if rightful ownership does not go to them.
These social contract advocates used the idea of the state of nature to show that it would be preferable to live in a society with rules and rulers than in the state of nature, thus legitimizing government. However, if I remember correctly, all three of them (Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke) said that the social contract was an agreement among the people living in the state of nature to create the government which would 'fix' the problems of the state of nature. Isn't it a misinterpretation of their philosophies to force the previously formed government on people who didn't agree to that government in the first place?
Would you ever consider going in depth into Native American political systems and governments?
actually the term "new world" .. came way after the Nueva Espania .. which was the original term used by the Spanish conquistadores - new world was once what the spanish grabbed from the tip of Tierra Del Fuego all the way upto what is now known as Nevada...
As a Canadian I have to say - this is a really well-done video. I'm from European decent. I also went to public school and although first nation issues were covered. It wasn't in this much depth or well explained. Just we did bad things, we still treat first nations like shit especially on reserves now time to move on.
There will be someone saying ''It's not Holland. It is The Netherlands!''. And it will be amusing.
Very interesting. Just to be clear, Is it your argument that Locke used the concept "State of Nature" to manufacture consent for colonial expansion and exploitation? I may be oversimplifying but your lecture may have a little Chomsky in there.