Re-interpretation of the Philosophical Thought of Benjamin Constant
ABSTRACT: The liberal French thinker Benjamin Constant develops a conception of human nature which shows the triplicity of being human. Such triplicity manifests itself in the close connection between emotion, rationality, and animality. He also develops an idea of liberty which treats it only as a real, historically conditioned minimalization of external limitations. Liberty thus understood enjoys metaphysical rootedness in human nature.
1. Introductory remarks
Benjamin Constant (1767-1830), the French aristocrat, politician, one of the fathers of the French liberalism and, at the same time, the then well-known man of letters is also the author of a voluminous and almost unknown work about religion. It appeared in the years 1824-1833 in Paris in seven volumes, five of which are entitled "De la religion consideree dans sa source, ses formes et ses developpements", and two "Du Polytheisme romain considere dans ses rapports avec la philosphie grecque et la religion chretienne. Constant wrote this work through all his life, changing the fundamental theses and supplementing them as his theoretical knowledge about religion increased and as a result of his personal experiences connected with religion. Although the huge volume of the work is rather perceived as unattractive today and most of the historical material is out of date, it contains interesting philosophical theses which are the crowning achievement of the whole intellectual life of the author. These theses allow us to understand and interpret better the philosophical foundations of Constant's liberalism which are created, among others, by a certain understanding of the human nature i.e. a certain philosophical anthropology, whereas the latter induces an understanding of liberty, peculiar for the Constantian liberalism.
2. The human nature.
Constantian theses contained in the work on religion and refering to the human nature can be formulated as follows: 1. A man is not entirely the product of society in which he lives and its culture, but he is a being that can be defined by his stable and unchangeable nature. 2. What the human nature is like can be judged by examining the behaviours common to all people and their creations, for example religion. 3. The human nature is unchangeable . However, the forms change, through which it manifests it self in various periods of the development of humanity. In people's religious behaviour, for example, there is manifested something which is the permanent source of every religion and is inherent in human nature.
The time of the Cuban Naval Blockade the Unites States was at war with the Soviet Union, the war already preexisting for almost twenty years. The war already had United States and all its citizens at the edge of their seats. The rise of nuclear weapons was relevant and a high scare factor for everyone.
May, Ernest R. "John F Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis." BBC News. BBC, 18 Nov. 2013.
May, Ernest R. “John F Kennedy and the Cuban MIssile Crisis.” BBC News. BBC., 18 Nov. 2013.
The Soviet Union and the United States were very distant during three decades of a nuclear arms race. Even though the two nations never directly had a battle, the Cuban Missile Crisis, amongst other things, was a result of the tension. The missile crisis began in October of 1962, when an American spy plane secretly photographed nuclear missile sites being built by the Soviet Union in Cuba. JFK did not want the Soviet Union and Cuba to know that he had discovered the missiles, so he made his decisions very secretly. Eventually, Kennedy decided to place a ring of ships around Cuba and place missiles in Turkey. Eventually, both leaders superpowers realized the possibility of a nuclear war and agreed to a deal in which the Soviets would remove the missiles from Cuba if the US didn't invade Cuba. Even though the Soviets removed took their missiles out of Cuba and the US eventually taking their missiles out of Turkey, they (the Soviets) continued to build a more advanced military; the missile crisis was over, but the arms race was not.
“Religion is the backbone of evolution.” Without the cultural differences and belief systems we would not have a regulated religious base. It is evident some religions can be both alike but yet still very different. The historical William Bradford and Jonathan Edwards demonstrate this theory. William Bradford portrays more leniencies while allowing for more religious tolerance within the puritan community. With some contrasting beliefs but familiar goals, Jonathan Edwards, pursued a stricter religious background. Both of these author’s play an important role in sculpting the puritan way of life.
This essay discusses John Locke statement: “it is as insignificant to ask, whether Man’s Will be free, as to ask, whether his Sleep be Swift, or his Vertue square: Liberty being as little applicable to the Will, as swiftness of Motion is to Sleep, or squareness to Vertue.” Locke came to this conclusion while writing on the subject Of Power in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Subsequently, I argue whether Locke is successful in establishing this parameter against the Will’s being Free. I conclude that Locke makes an inconsistent and unclear argument about this specific subject. This conclusion will be address in this essay. In order to perform this task, I will first state the argument that Locke makes. An explanation of the argument will follow after. Next, I will offer an argument that contradicts Locke’s view. Finally, I will demonstrate how Locke’s argument can be attacked, making it unstable to its previous claim.
Brown, Vivenne. "The ‘Figure’ of God and the Limits to Liberalism: A Rereading of Locke’s ‘Essay’ and ‘Two Treatises’". Journal of the History of Ideas 60.1 (1999): 85.
Locke’s viewpoint towards human nature is more optimistic and positive as it highlights the individual as he views humans as being rational and with reason. He believes that humans are bound by natural laws that keep each other from harming one another. Thus, no human is better or higher in status than another and are equal thus attaining perfect freedom as all men are created equally. Humans are by nature born free as Locke states that “man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom” and also with “an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man” has the power to preserve his “property, life, liberty and estate” (Locke, Section 87). Locke believes in the state of nature that “has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Lock...
Throughout history, western philosophers have vigorously attempted to define the word freedom, to little avail. This is because the word carries so many meanings in many different contexts. The consequences of these philosophers’ claims are immense: as “free” people, we like to rely on the notion of freedom, yet our judicial system relentlessly fights to explain what we can and cannot do. For instance, is screaming “bomb!” on an airplane considered one of our “freedoms?” Martin Luther, in his “Preface to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans” asserts that people are free when their actions naturally reflect laws and morality to the point that those laws are considered unnecessary. Immanuel Kant, in his “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?”, articulates a similar view: freedom for Kant is the ability to exercise one’s reasoning without limitation in a public sphere. A deeper reading of these two texts exposes that Kant’s and Luther’s interpretations of freedom are actually more similar than different. Indeed, they are mutually exclusive: one cannot coexist with the other and Kant’s views can even be read as a restating of Luther’s understandings.
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 civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
Jean-Paul Sartre claims that there can be no human nature, or essence, without a God to conceive of it. This claim leads Sartre to formulate the idea of radical freedom, which is the idea that man exists before he can be defined by any concept and is afterwards solely defined by his choices. Sartre presupposes this radical freedom as a fact but fails to address what is necessary to possess the type of freedom which would allow man to define himself. If it can be established that this freedom and the ability to make choices is contingent upon something else, then freedom cannot be the starting point from which man defines himself. This leaves open the possibility of an essence that is not necessarily dependent upon a God to conceive it. Several inconsistencies in Sartre’s philosophy undermine the plausibility of his concept of human nature. The type of freedom essential for the ability to define oneself is in fact contingent upon something else. It is contingent upon community, and the capacity for empathy, autonomy, rationality, and responsibility.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was a major event in U.S History that almost led to nuclear destruction. It was over a period of thirteen days in which diplomats from the U.S and the Soviet Union were trying to reach a peaceful resolution so that they wouldn’t have to engage in physical warfare. The crisis was the hallmark of the Cold War era which lasted from the 1950’s to the late 1980’s. The Cold War was a power struggle between the U.S and Soviet Union in which the two nations had a massive arms race to become the strongest military force. The U.S considered Communism to be an opposing political entity, and therefore branded them as enemies. Khrushchev’s antagonistic view of Americans also played a big role in the conflict. The Cold War tensions, coupled with a political shift in Cuba eventually lead to the military struggle known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the point of most tension and near collapse causing the Cold War to almost shift from a passive and underground struggle to a violent and catastrophic one.
The books Brave New World by Aldus Huxley and Anthem by Ayn Rand are both valuable twentieth-century contributions to literature. Both books explore the presence of natural law in man and propose a warning for what could happen when man's sense of right and wrong is taken from him. In this essay, I hope to show how these seemingly unrelated novels both expound upon a single, very profound, idea.
Compare John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which, while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state, present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies. In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective.
Nathan, James A. "Chapter 9: The Kennedy-Khrushchev Letters: An Overview." The Cuban Missile Crisis Revisited. New York: St. Martin's, 1992. 281.