John Locke's Political Philosophy

After briefly discussing Thomas Hobbes, Professor Charles Anderson discusses the thought of John Locke. This comes from a course on Political, Economic, & Social Thought given at the University of Wisconsin many years ago.

00:00 Thomas Hobbes
21:50 John Locke

#philosophy #locke #politicalphilosophy

[johnnyroycerichardsoniii]

That’s a shame YouTube took down your channel. This YouTube channel has changed my life thank you for sharing over the years!!

[zedicus]

Thank you for sharing. This was very imformative.

[Boog_masskway]

Really really enjoyed this. None of this ever came up in my civics class at university.

[juliancarlson]

Great lecture. I'm glad that your channel is back!

[tenglitan]

A wonderful channel! Thanks for uploaded!

[svipdagx]

I, as an amateur, wanted to know what Locke's ideas are.I only knew him through quotes of him.This was certainly a good introduction...and he gave Hobbes value, in a way.I read and disgarded him.08.44 u

[LongPolipop]

Pro Anderson's lectures are way better than some IVY League's ones

[Rico-Suave_]

Amazingly lecture, Watched all of it 1:34:04

[owlnyc]

I did like the lecture. I would definitely support Locke over Hobbes and even Rosseau.

[rovosher]

On the right to own property, every property has been appropriated at the expense of the public interest. On the right to pursue happiness, the Greek challenge of “what is a good life, ” assuming goodness and happiness go hand in hand, is left untouched.

[barunmitra]

This was a most interesting introduction to the ideas of John Lock. Because it sought to place Locke within the broad genealogy of political ideas as they evolved from the earlier times of Aristotle and Hobbes before, as well as those who followed later, Hegel and Marx. It illustrated the evolution of of political ideas shaped by the diversities of the particular context. Consequently, the reimagination of the ideals that those specific historical contexts produced. This allows for the recognition of the shared intellectual strands that may run across the different times and spaces. By the same token it can also recognise the divergent strands of ideas and ideals. That is exactly how evolution works through nature, without any real capacity to predict the future course of evolution!

Realisation of the significance of the interplay between political idea and the ideals as they evolved and develop may be quite critical. This may help prevent the creation of ideological silos that politics has been reduced to today. Locke and Marx are typically shown as ideologically opposite political camps, Locke on the side of liberal democracy and economic capitalism, and Marx on the side of the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism!

Such ideological compartmentalisation makes little difference to either Locke or Marx, or any other who had played significant roles in their own time. But this kind of ideological divide breeds the politics of identity, of "us versus them". This is how the ideal of politics, as an exploration of ways of negotiations to reconcile the differences within society, is increasingly becoming a platform to leverage those differences in the garb of ideology, denying the political legitimacy of those who deviate, differ or dissent. This is the politics of polarisation that is reducing politics to mere drive for power, and the legal institutions of the state as mere instruments in the hands of those who lay access political power.
Thank you for sharing such lectures.

[hanscyrus]

T'anks for the ride with that train of thought. I crystallized a lot of stuff I already knew.

[chadkline]

The problem is urban society. That is where natural law breaks down. Natural law cannot function with living conditions and technologies that exceed bounds of sustainable nature. The answer is that industry must be confined to govt (military) lands, and all other land ought to be agricultural with enough resources per parcel to support a small family. Natural law and positive law, free people and corporate people, are distinct domains and separate jurisdictions that ought to exist in a balance. Food + natural medicine production belong to free people, (perhaps grains+fiber too) etc, belong to systems of men. And they ought to mutually prosper+limit each other via mutual dependency. Our economy should be: how many apples does a box of lye cost? How many potatoes for a block of iron to make shovels or ploughs? How many onions for some 2x4s and plywood? Jefferson said we give up no natural rights to govt because Locke says that is where the camel's nose comes under the tent leading to tyranny. Every video on YouTube seems to be propaganda hit piece on the foundations of the USA via Locke specifically states that once man gives up natural rights to a govt, he is doomed to tyranny. And every so called expert on Locke hides this. The speaker is totally clueless on capitalism, which he says Locke was the father of. But the word didn't even exist until nearly 1900. Capitalism is a free market rooted in usury+corporations, which is an offense under natural law.

[peterchen-efmd]

So profound! The scientific base of politic theory.

[Nephelokokkygia]

Omg. They took down your channel and now it plays slides from Wikipedia!? 🤮

[jacksteven]

Very glad you back again, every night before sleep i search your channel to think and it's amazing, thank you!!
Could you upload in parallel in a channel app like telegram?
Thank you a lot!

[georgefisher]

Sir, I have enjoyed everything up to your statement that the Declaration of Independence says that citizens are endowed with rights by "nature." You might want to re-read said document.

[jakecarlo]

Awesome, thank you. 🙏 Dare I ask after the Hobbes lecture?!

[mariakornarou]

Please upload the lectures on Jean Jacques Rousseau, too. Prof. Anderson's analysis is exceptional and contributes to a deeper understanding of Rousseau's ideas.

[lor-pxwo]

Recording playback speed is out of sync