1. "The philosophers have only interpreted the world...; the point, however, is to change it." (Marx, Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach

Transcription

1 1. "The philosophers have only interpreted the world...; the point, however, is to change it." (Marx, Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach). How adequate is Marx's characterization of "the philosophers" to Plato? To Machiavelli, Hobbes, or Locke? (Discuss Plato and any ONE of these three modern thinkers.) Marx is a man with a much more concrete and one track vision of how society should work, right down to who s role is what in society, and how it should function. Marx sees the philosophers as idealists who all their own vision of utopia without doing anything to implement it. In this essay, we will look at two such philosophers, Plato and Machiavelli and determine if Marx s thesis to be accurate. Plato is the one of the earliest philosophers, but arguably one of the, if not the most influential philosopher in history. Plato was a man who believed in the greater good, much like Marx. Plato was believed in close community cooperation for the greater good of society. Everyone had a part in society and everyone contributed to in order for it to function just like Marx. Plato is different from Marx simply because believes there could be cooperation between the upper and lower classes of society, compared to Marx who believes in revolution from the lower classes to overtake all the infrastructure and goods in society. In essence, Marx believes Plato is a man of talk and not action. Justice is a strong point with Marx and Plato. Plato believes that justice is a necessary evil thast benefits those who are in for the greater good of society, not those who wish to harm it. It grew out of in justice which was simply man do what was best for ones self. Marx believes justice is little more than Bourgeois window dressing in order for the top class to expose and abuse the poor. What most workers produce they will never own and the rich can always manipulate the system, therefore justice is for the benefit of the bourgeois Machiavelli also has his similarities and differences with Marx, as well is similarities. In fact Marx is wrong to say all philosophers were simply talkers, as Machiavelli as shown in his book was clearly a man of action. Machiavelli believe in three ways to take power: Virtue, Crime and fortune. Those that take by virtue hold on easily while those that take by fortune struggle to maintain their power. Unlike Marx, this is applicable to anyone rather than just the lower classes.

2 However, Marx and Machiavelli differ on how to treat the people of the said Country. Machiavelli believed in total and absolute power at any cost. Marx was more of a man who favored working together in order to achieve goals. Machieavelli belived power must maintained by the ruler at any cost. It is better to be feared and loved than be just loved. Marx was more about how the leader or government should work for the people. Maintaining power to him is focused on simply keeping the working class happy. 2. Compare and contrast Machiavelli=s critique of the Christian god in the name of virtù with Socrates= critique of the Homeric gods in the name of justice. God is a very powerful symbol in modern society past and present. To many of the earth s pop he presents the good of society. Virtue and Justice is one of the things we also value in society, in order to function competently. Machiavelli and Socrates have two completely different approaches to their critique of the God as we know it. Socrates bases his on the value of justice, while Nicolo bases his on virtute Machiavelli, is man who believes in power by any means possible. In this case, Machiavelli believes God does govern over everything, but ultimately it is up the humans to change their status. According to Nicolo, men are in control of their own destiny, and should use any means possible in order to achive their goals. If you control your fortune, you will achieve the goal. Socrates, feels that God is human, that he represents humanity. With Homer, he shows that unlike what Machiavelli preaches, he does not have to repress his humanity in order to be courageous, in order to be brave. Politics is not necessarily about virtue than it is about managing Human emotions. 3. Both Socrates, in Book 4 of the Republic, and Hobbes, in the Preface to Leviathan, establish parallels between the structure of the best or legitimate society and that of the individuals who compose it. Yet these parallels are very different, as are the roles they play in the arguments of the respective thinkers. Discuss. Society is the core of humanity. Society brings us together and sets the rules to live by. How we do that is debated for many, many year. Among the philosophers, many different ideas have stood out over the test of time. Both Socrates and Hobbes have made arguments on how society should function. And in this case, both arguments are vastly different from one another Socrates and Plato were more conformist that most of the philosophers. They were of the belief that society needed to work together to function. In order to do

3 that, you had to have order. You had to have specialties among the people and a ruling class to government. But society also had to work together to make sure it functioned. The rules of society were created and maintained by the guardians on top of that to maintain some order. Reason being society is supposed to rule in guide us in order to have a better life. Through such concepts like reason and spiritedness, society tells us what is wrong and right. Society requires everyone to contribute in order for it to function. Hobbes was a more of a everyman for himself type. He believed self preservation was most important in contrast with Scorates believed in the interacting society. He believed man needed to do everything in his power in order to survive. Man had to be able to secure the objects of their desire in order to obtain happiness. This is what would lead them to power. Man had a right to do well for himself and not impeded or others right to do them same, that is what made them in Hobbes world. Justice will only carry you as far as you use it to your advantage 4. Plato and Hobbes present very different teachings on the human concern with the good. How are their respective understandings of the ends of political life related to this difference? The good is the what most people in ancient would describe to be the best life. A life of virtue and righteousness. Life that other should and can admire. In this case, both Plato and and Hobbes present completely different teaching on how the good relates to politics. One believes in the better society, the other in doing the best for one s self Plato is a community man to put it bluntly. He believes in sufficiency through group work and specialization of jobs in order to increase efficiency to make society run better. The city, the community, ect is a partnership of people made in order for society to function. Here, the aim is not for the rich to rule, but for everyone to live well. The political partnership is borne out of this, as it exists for noble action and the city a partnership of a self sufficient and happy life. The more you contribute, the more you will get out of the city. Hobbes is about the passion of man. One of Hobbes main beliefs was that you did not others in order to make the best life for yourself. He feels a man has to improve his life by him self. Man is not very political at all and do not need any sort of government necessarily to function. Human do not need organization to achieve success, only themselves. This is the state of nature. 5. The arguments for a rigorous education to citizenship that Socrates advances in Books Two and Three of the Republic contrast

4 markedly with Locke's case for toleration in his Letter on that subject. Drawing on the Second Treatise on Government as well as on the Letter and on the Republic, explain why Socrates' position is so strict while Locke's is, well, so liberal. Education provided knowledge. Knowledge provides, a well rounded human being. On top of that, it provides power. The world thrives on the constant gain of knowledge and how it changes the impact of society throughout the years. Locke and Plato come from completely different thoughts when it comes to education of the young mind, most due to their core positions, in this case Plato believes in Strict Education while Locke is more of a free spirit on the issue Education is a very important component in Plato s world. Education was what trained a person for society. Plato felt that a proper education would train the guardians of tomorrow effective to guard and protected the city. Education is character training. It teaches right from wrong. It is also about the physical and no physical. All this contributes to making a well rounded human being. This does mean critical thinking is not as important as well some other schools of thought. The unity of the city depends on this Locke sees this much differently. Man needed to defend himself. Man needed to learn to survive on its own, as Locke felt the government needed a lesser role in society. Education needed only to teach the most basic parts of to survive as humans, and skill needed to survive, but that education they got would be of the highest quality. 6. Both Aristotle and Machiavelli understand political life in terms of the struggle of the few and the many (Aristotle) or the Agreat@ and the people (Machiavelli). Yet they present this struggle very differently. Explain. Aristotle had a much diversified onion of the struggle. He believed that people should not not share everything to the point of communism but believed people working together as a group. He had three main types of rule he favored. Kinship, aristocracy and polity. He wanted or saw that man when in power should rule for the common good. Ruling for the common good created a better prosperous society. Oligarchies and typical democracies only dealt with part of justice and fairness and not the whole of justice. Both these are extremes which often delve into the the majority rules with tyranny Machiavelli was more of a winner takes all man. He believes in man using what ever, when ever in order to get power or get ahead. The people needed to fear you in order for a ruler to be successful, so you had to crush the people in some cases in order to be successful. You also did not have to support or even help anyone else as it would weaken your own position. Therefore the struggle was greater because to Machiavelli a good leader did what ever he had to do, including

5 kill in order to maintain power. It is better to be loved and feared or feared that just loved. 7. In Book 3, Chapter 9 of the Politics, Aristotle criticizes one Lycophron the sophist for asserting that law is a compact and a guarantor among the citizens of the just things. According to Hobbes, Lycophron is correct, and the law is exactly what he said it was, no more, no less. Focussing on Aristotle=s reasons for rejecting the adequacy of understanding society in terms of a social compact, and Hobbes=s reasons for endorsing this notion, discuss their fundamental differences concerning the origin and purposes of civil society. Aristotle mainly felt the laws were made for virtue but only warlike virtue. The laws represent constant structure in society at the cost of leisure. The laws also then needed to be enacted based on whether the regime was good or not good. The laws should always have more authority than the ruler or rulers of society Hobbes believed that natures laws overruled man always. As a proponent of smaller government, rights are inalienable and cannot be infracted upon by others. Man has a right to protect its valuable possession. This overrules the government can and cannot do to rules over man, as the state of nature say men have a right to preserve the own lifes and valuables. 8. Contrast Aristotle=s treatment of slavery in Book One of the Politics with Locke s treatment of it in Chapter Four of the Second Treatise. How do their differences in framing this issue reflect their broader political outlooks? Aristotle is rather ambiguous on slavery. Aristotle believed that slavery was needed in order for society to work, as you needed underclass to do all the extra work. Nature allows for slavery but ultimately it is man choice whether or not to engage in it. Those who believe that slavery is wrong simply because of the fact that like natural slaves(slaves without reason), they are also slaves according to the law. Legal slavery is unjust in that sense because not all those conquered are automatically slaves. Locke was more of a man who believed in less government. Man had to do work and protect property on his own without help. Things such as an absolute monarchy were not really applicable to society as no man had a right to completely rule over another. Slavery is a violation of the state of nature, because there is no reason to believe that man would take you live if he has not already forced you under his power. Man had to gain as much power as possible without impeding on others.