The Dutch Revolt reading discusses the time of the Spanish inquisition and the inquisitors’ power over Spain. This article is more of a historical essay than a theoretical one, like the second reading of John Locke. The first reading discusses the political struggles between 1568- 1648, where under the rule of King V’s son Philip II, the society suffered from the tyranny of the monarchy. Under this rule, religion (Christianity) was forcibly imposed on the people. People were deprived from their own freedom by priests and clergy men, who had given themselves the power to control as if they were the king themselves. They justified their actions by claiming they were for religious purposes. There were revolts and complaints, but none were heard.
From Aristotle to John Locke to Thomas Jefferson, the ideas of great philosophers influenced the foundations of the United States. When Jefferson began writing the Declaration of Independence, he wanted to make this new country based on the basic fundamentals. He wanted to base the country on what was considered the natural laws. Jefferson had many philosophical minds to ponder when writing the document, such as Aristotle and most importantly John Locke.
John Locke was perhaps one of the most influential political philosophers of the modern period. In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke discusses the move from a state of nature and perfect freedom to a then governed society in which authority is given to a legislative and executive power. His major ideas included liberalism and capitalism, state of nature, state of war and the desire to protect one’s property.
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. Locke also has a
Hobbes and Locke both abandoned the thought of the divine right of monarchy. Both did not agree with the fact that the ruler or assembly would have all power over its citizens. So basically they were against Absolutism and their views were that of rebels in their time period. Theses two philosophers both held similar ideas but also have conflicting ideas pertaining to the citizens "social contract" with their rulers, "Natural Condition of Mankind," and sovereignty.
John Locke was an English writer, and his writings were based on the events that took place during the Glorious Revolution in England in 1689, when the people of England overthrew King James II. John Locke was interestingly enough, brought up in a loyalist and Evangelical family. He was born to a very wealthy family, and received much prestige in Oxford for his connections to the higher ups. Locke presented his ideas of rebellion during the English civil war which took place in the mid-1600s, in favor of the revolts against the King’s rule in England at the time. John Locke graduated with a degree in medicine from Oxford University.
The enlightenment era arose in the modern cultural ideology of the 18th century, as ideas among philosophers had a widespread effect among the society. The age of enlightenment, in western society, projected the rejection of traditional Christianity, western philosophy, intellectual advances, scientific, and cultural life, government legitimacy and authority. Upon the enlightenment period multiple philosophers emerged, the individuals arose to leading figures using reason to understand all aspects of human life. The motivations for the enlightenment came primarily from the Englishmen, John Locke. John Locke was a philosophical influence in both political theory and theoretical philosophy, which was embraced among the era of 1789-1914 and
On July 4th, 1776 our founding father's got together to create, “The Declaration of Independence” One of the quotes that benefit all U.S. citizens is that all people living in the United States are entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Life, meaning every person has the right to live, to literally be alive. Liberty, meaning every person has the right to be whatever they choose, and to live their life however they want. The Pursuit of Happiness, meaning every person has the right to pursue happiness and do whatever makes them happy. These are inalienable rights that can never be taken away. John Locke is the person that created the phrase “The Pursuit of Happiness”, but Thomas Jefferson is the person that thought it was a good idea to put that in The Declaration of Independence. What does this phrase mean for us today? What did it mean for people in the past? What was
While reading the “The Second Treatise of Government,” you can notice and see that John Locke has a strong standing for civil rights as well as helping with the development of the Constitution of the United States. He states that the “consent of the governed,” is basically saying that communities are not put together by the divine right or ruled by. Paternal, familial, and political are types of powers that John Locke mentions that have all have unlike characteristics. He inspired others to believe in and want equal rights and democracy. John Locke talks about the state of nature, which basically states that no one has the power to be ruler of someone, as well as they are able to do what they want in a freely matter. In other words people are born just like anyone else that is born, and should have equally rights to property, health, and liberty, and that no one should have the power over anyone. Everyone should be able to live and enjoy his or her own freedom and wellbeing. However, the state of nature is not a guarantee to have natural laws, which could help with the protecting of one’s property. According to him having your own personal freedom was the true meaning of state of nature. John Locke thought that people were following his faith in human rationality through the declaration of Locke. John Locke states that if the government takes away from others for them to empower them then the people have right and opportunity to go against
Could you imagine a world with no freedom, choice of religion, and equality? I’m guessing your answer would be no. Thanks to the 17th to 18th century philosophers, they introduced these ideas to the world to make it an overall better place. There were four enlightenment philosophers and their names were John Locke, Voltaire, Adam Smith, and Mary Wollstonecraft. The philosophers all had different goals but had the same perspective and that was to make the world a better place.
When looking at the Declaration of Independence and the justifications which Jefferson used in order to encourage the dissolve of the ties between the United Colonies and Great Britain, it becomes apparent how much of the theories of John Locke that Jefferson used as the basis for his argument. Focusing particularly on the second paragraph of the Declaration, the arguments for the equality of each man and the formation and destruction of governments come almost directly from Locke's Second Treatise of Government. The other arguments in the Declaration of Independence deal primarily with each citizen's rights and the natural freedoms of all men, two areas that Locke also spent
John Locke’s views on rebellion and civil disobedience puts emphasis on the “state of nature” of man. He determines that man is naturally in this state of nature, meaning man has the power to resolve his issues himself. The only way for a man to execute his personal justice is for his personal property to be damaged by another man. Retaliating only to the extent of the crime committed. When brought together, these men formed a community and the only way for them to function was to implement restrictions on this state of nature in exchange for the protection by the Executive and peace provided by the Legislative. If any of these rules were to be broken it would be punished by the executive and not the person the crime was committed against. Locke stated that if the legislature was to overturned due to a portion of the community rebeling, then a new legislature implicated. This exposes the people to the danger of a naturally state of mind but in a large body. The rest of the people have no other choice but to protect their property themselves, creating a civil war.
Both John Locke and Edmund Burke support political rebellion under specific circumstances. What differentiates these two political theorists in their discussions of revolution? Please make reference to both Second Treatise of Government and Reflections on the Revolution in France when answering this question. Cite the texts and be specific.
The Dutch Revolt, In the sixteenth century, was a conflict between the Protestant Low Countries, and the Catholic Spanish Empire. This resulted in the division of the seventeen provinces of the Netherlands, and eventually the formation of the Dutch Republic. The Dutch speaking north were tolerant to various religious affiliations, whereas, the French and Walloon South, remained loyal to Philip II, and were predominantly Catholic. In order to establish the significance of reformed faith in the success of the Dutch Revolt, this assignment will explore some of the events surrounding the uprising. In addition, it will consider social, economic and political factors, in order to identify how they contribute to the success of the conflict.
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and
My paper will discuss several factors that led to the success of the Revolt of the Netherlands which include; hatred of the Spain monarchy in the Netherlands, failure of King Philip II as a ruler, the union of the provinces within the Netherlands, the support of foreign allies and Spanish enemies, and Spain’s lack of funds. This revolt was composed of people from all social classes and all of these men were all driven and motivated by a deep hate of Spain. After Charles V, Philip II became the king of the Spanish Netherlands. Unlike Charles V, Philip II was not part of the Habsburg Empire, known as the Netherlands. The people of Netherland considered him a foreigner and he was often portrayed as being extremely arrogant and uncaring towards