Ethics, Intellectual History, Metaphysics

John Locke, Metaphysics, and Ethics.

by Dave Seng

The true is what is. – St. Augustine.

In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, John Locke makes this curious statement, “Our business here is not to know all things, but those which concern our conduct.”1 Why would Locke make such a statement in a work about the sources, nature, and validity of human knowledge? What, if any, is the connection between ethics and epistemology? Anyone familiar with Locke’s essay knows that ethics is not his central concern and yet he makes this statement which seems to put human conduct at the center of his inquiry.

A correct understanding of metaphysics will help us understand the relationship between how we know things and how we should behave but first we should look at the classical distinction between theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge. Although he does not exactly say this, Locke is getting at the distinction between theoretical and practical knowledge and how they might be related. These categories come to us from Aristotle. According to Aristotle, theoretical knowledge has to do with investigating things like metaphysics, the nature of the person, whether or not there is a God, the ultimate causes of reality, and transcendent truth such as the good, true, and beautiful. Practical knowledge includes pursuing life deliberately towards a good end (ethics), fulfilling one’s vocation wisely, and knowing how to do basic things like changing a tire on a car, building a house, or engaging in a craft.

While I think important connections exist between particular beings (automobile tires) and Being itself, I believe Locke is pointing us to the epistemological aspect of metaphysics and human conduct. After all, if ethics and human conduct is an important concern in our lives (and I believe it is), we must first understand the nature of human beings and the world we live in. If we do not understand the metaphysical nature of what it means to be human, we are likely to get what it means to live correctly wrong. This is one area where theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge go hand in hand.

Philosopher Daniel Sullivan puts it this way, “To judge rightly of human actions, therefore, we have to know what human nature is and its place in the scheme of things. Human nature, then, as seen by reason in its right relation to all reality, will be the test or standard by which we judge the morality of our actions.”2

Locke, therefore, wants us to understand that if we know the structure of reality correctly, we will have a better chance of discovering correct human conduct. I believe that metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics are related. Metaphysical knowledge is not entirely theoretical and ethics is not completely practical (it rests on prior and more ultimate concerns). What Locke helps us to understand is that even knowledge and ethics must have a metaphysical foundation.

Of course, Locke was not completely right in his epistemology and he makes mistakes. His rejection of innate ideas puts him at risk of being an anti-essentialist. Locke was a much better political philosopher than an epistemologist. However, he raises important concerns about what it means to be human and how one should interact with the world.

To read more deeply on this topic see:

Daniel Sullivan, An Introduction to Philosophy: Perennial Principles of the Classical Realist Tradition. TAN books, 2009.

Ed. L. Miller, Questions That Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy (any edition is fine).

Louis Pojman, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Wadsworth, 1995.

1. John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Great Books of the Western World, vol. 33 (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1993), 95.

2Daniel Sullivan, An Introduction to Philosophy: Perennial Principles of the Classical Realist Tradition, (Charlotte, North Carolina: TAN Books, 2009), 150.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History

On Democracy, Part Two

by Dave Seng

This is part two in a series on the history of consensual government as it developed in the West. We will spend the next couple of posts looking at ancient Athens. Click here for part one.

This ideal, or dream of democracy, was given to us by the ancient Greeks. The thought of sharing power among the many rather than the few never even occurred to the Sumerians, Hittites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, or the great enemy of Greek freedom – the Persians. Consensual government is a product of Western civilization and finds its starting point among the ancient Greeks.

The shape of Athenian democracy, however, was very different from modern liberal democracies. During 507 – 321 B.C., Athens was the closest thing this world has seen to a direct constitutional democracy. For this to be possible, certain social structures, customs, and institutions had to be in place – unique conditions rarely experienced in human history. The entire population of Attica, the surrounding area of Athens, was probably between 200,000 and 300,000.1 Athens itself had about 30,000 enfranchised adult male citizens. Slaves and women were not allowed to vote. (Slaves alone may have been a quarter of the population of Athens.) Nonetheless, because the voting population was so low, they could all assemble in one place, listen to speeches and debates, and make important decisions for the polis. This form of direct democracy is not possible in any contemporary democracy. Athenian democratic success largely owes its achievement to outstanding and talented leaders such as, Solon, Cleisthenes, and Pericles – men who were articulate and could balance the rule of law with pragmatic, political, and economic concerns for both the aristocracy and “mesoi” – the emerging middle class. The strength of democracies rests equally with leaders that work towards the common good and the average citizen.

In addition, Greece was culturally unified. Herodotus speaks of the unity during the Persian wars between Sparta, Athens and the rest of Greece of their unity against the hated “barbarian” Xerxes,

Again, there is our common brotherhood with the Greeks: our common language, the altars and the sacrifices of which we all partake, the common character which we all bear – did the Athenians betray all these, of a truth it would not be well. Know then now, if ye have not known it before, that while one Athenian remains alive, we will never join alliance with Xerxes.2

The ancient Greeks would find cohesion in the same language, customs, and traditions. They shared a common belief and reverence in the gods of Homer. Family piety was common as they sought to honor their ancestors who were born from the land that they worked and died for. Sports played an important role in every polis and even wars were stopped so the soldiers could participate in the games that would involve all of Greece. They also shared a common interest in art, philosophy, literature, and history – human pursuits that sparked a love for beauty, discussion, rationality, and free inquiry. Though there were ethnic differences between Dorians, Ionians, and Phrygians there was much more to unite them as well. Common institutions held the Greek spirit together.

Athenian direct democracy simply would not be feasible in today’s contemporary political situation. The ancient Athenians were particular to their own time and place and to try to recreate what they achieved 2,500 years ago in today’s world would not be wise. Since the rise of the nation-state during the nineteenth century modern democracies have become too large for direct participation. An examination of Athenian democracy is still valuable, however, as an aid in discovering ideas and clues that would help us understand our own time, how democracies work, and how to improve them. No democracy is perfect but a study of the past can give us ideas that we can apply today. Western civilization should not be seen as static, either. It is evolving, changing, adapting, and growing. The Greeks were fascinated with other cultures and implemented what was useful and seemed good to them. Herodotus admired elements of Egyptian and Persian culture. Thucydides had an affinity to Spartan society. Democracy itself is an evolving concept and the twenty first century brings a whole set of different challenges and opportunities to consensual rule that the Greeks never faced. By carefully studying the past we can learn how to adapt and incorporate ideas that may be helpful today. On the other hand, the Athenians did make mistakes. But they made different mistakes than we are making today. The important thing about the past is that it can serve to correct our own mistakes, if we are willing to listen responsibly and learn from those who have gone before us.

Athenian democracy was different from any democracies in existence today. Even so, they were guided by ideas that still resonate with contemporary democracies – ideas of freedom, equality, rule of law, legal checks on majority rule, citizen participation, public audit of elected officials, and citizen control of the military. The basic structure of Athenian government consisted of the assembly, council, and elected officials (generals that held military posts and sometime served as political leaders or archons). The Athenians believed all these posts were to function under the rule of law.

The rule of law was essential to Athenian democracy. Pericles in his funeral oration explains that it is the laws which provide equal opportunity for everyone to participate in the governing bodies of Athens,

Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his position.3

The idea that law should provide equal justice to all was a revolutionary concept in the ancient world and Pericles believed it was among the most important institutions of Athenian democracy. It created equality, freedom, and a citizenry that respected both the magistrates and the laws. Nonetheless, slaves and women were disenfranchised and the idea of equality was more of a political idea and did not seem to spread to economic or social spheres of society. Perhaps the Athenians did not fully understand this contradiction or realize what to do with the powerful idea of democracy.

1 Woodruff, First Democracy: The Challenge of An Ancient Idea. (New York: Oxford University Press), 2005, 32.

2 Herodotus, The History of Herodotus, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 6, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 287.

3 Thucydides, The Peloponnesian Wars, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 6, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 396.

Intellectual History, Metaphysics, Uncategorized

Apprehending the Transcendent

by Dave Seng

“… that which causes derivative truths to be true is most true. Hence the principles of eternal things must be always most true (for they are not merely sometimes true, nor is there any cause of their being, but they themselves are the cause of the being of other things), so that as each thing is in respect of being, so is it in respect of truth.” Aristotle, Metaphysics.

I want to share this video which features an excellent discussion about transcendent truth and meaning in life between the philosopher Roger Scruton and psychologist Jordan Peterson. This is an important discussion because the disappearance of transcendent truth is one of the greatest problems we are encountering in the West. As the discussion points out, the fallacies of postmodernism result in a rejection of Being. I want to make a few comments about the discussion. First, why is it important to understand the metaphysical concept of Being?

Being is simply that to which existence (everything) belongs, and it is the task of the metaphysician to describe the causes, principles, and limitations which belong to different kinds of things. It is believed that understanding the modes and properties of being through the philosophical lenses of being and becoming, or being and non-being, that a greater apprehension of reality is achieved. Being is the exploration of reality, although, it may include more than physical reality because the metaphysician is also interested in how immaterial things like mathematics (including the axioms and laws of logic such as noncontradiction, identity, and excluded middle), the mind or intellect (or at least, objects of the mind), and moral truths such as justice, the good, or the concepts of right and wrong, relate to being. Metaphysicians explore the question, “is there an ultimate foundation to these things that make them possible?” Therefore, when Aristotle, Augustine, or any other classical metaphysician discusses themes such as being and truth, or logic, they are investigating the first principles of reality and how they relate to the world around us.

It is important to point out as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas do, that there is a transcendent and universal quality to being. Briefly, these philosophers believe there is a transcendent nature to being because it is a universal concept just like truth, goodness, justice, and human nature (among others) are. These concepts are considered transcendent and universal because any number of particular things can participate in them. For example, many particular people can pursue justice and even experience instances of it. To the degree that a particular instance of justice is genuine, it resembles or takes part in the universal and transcendent definition of what it means to achieve justice which is true at all times and places. This is why an historian can say that a particular event in the past is just or unjust1.

Also, as far as Peterson is concerned I understand that many critiques of his thought can be made from a confessional Lutheran perspective and I am sympathetic to those critiques (Jung was a self-described Gnostic). On the other hand, it would be unwise to categorically reject some of his ideas. As St. Augustine would remind us, when we find truth we should accept it. I know my readers have a strong sense of discernment so I do not need to say more.

Finally, as an Aristotelian, I did not find anything metaphysically wrong in the discussion (at least not any major concerns). I have noticed that in many places Plato and Aristotle are complimentary to each other. I believe that both philosophers are necessary to read and understand in order to have a robust metaphysical understanding of the world. Dr. Mortimer Adler once made the quip that it has been said that all of Western philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato and Aristotle, but it was Aristotle who wrote the footnotes.

That said, enjoy this Platonic discussion.

1Here, it is claimed that although the past no longer exists, it is a real object of study and perceptual thought and, therefore, has reality. That is, it has being and is related to being even though it is no longer in act or has actual existence. Humans are cognitively wired in some way to discern the past. Moral truths apply to history because of their transcendent nature.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Uncategorized

On Democracy, Part One

by Dave Seng
Photo courtesy of Nathan Perkins

Note: This is the first part of several essays that will explore the development of constitutional consensual government as it has developed in the West. This post is one of many and primarily focuses on definitions.

The idea of democracy is among the oldest and most inspiring ideals of the human spirit. In fact, it is impossible to get past the earliest writings of Western literature without encountering the idea of democracy and there is probably a no more controversial form of government. This ancient idea of government by the consent of citizens has been scorned, cheered, ridiculed, debated, argued for, and against by most of the greatest thinkers in history. Within the idea of democracy, we see many of the virtues and vices of Western civilization itself. For its very existence, democracy requires the free exchange of ideas, rule of law, public audit and accountability, discussion, debate, economic and individual freedom, dissent, and a constructive consensus among people for the purpose of building a government for the people. These ideals are inherent to the classical and Western ideas of democracy. On the other hand, democracy can easily devolve into mob rule, partisan politics, and a mere clash of wills – also elements found in Western liberal democracies. Democracy is an ideal and as such, it points to the greatness of what human beings should be able to accomplish. The greatest ancient proponents of democracy have been poets, playwrights, generals, and philosophers. Democracy, however, will always be an ideal. An examination of how this idea has developed and has come down through the ages will help shed understanding on the contemporary conception of democracy and modern republics. By examining this ancient ideal and exploring its evolution we will not only have a better conception of where we have been but the opportunities, possibilities, and challenges that face modern democracies.

When one investigates such a great idea as democracy it is helpful to start by clarifying and defining its meaning. When clarity is attained it becomes easier to understand its development in the course of Western intellectual history. In the case of democracy, however, a clear definition is difficult to attain but not impossible. The term “democracy” is often misunderstood and used without any deeper critical reflection. Many times, it automatically evokes conceptions such as the right to vote, majority rule, or a form of partisan representational government, without any kind of thought to what these terms are or should mean. None of these ideas alone, however, will be sufficient to express the ancient and classical ideal of democracy. Democracy can not simply refer to the right to vote, because many countries offer the right to vote without allowing any real power to its citizens. Also, majority rule alone is not itself democratic if it does not allow a voice for the minority or function under the rule of law. A simple “rule of the majority” can easily turn into a tyranny.

Furthermore, a strictly representative government is equally undemocratic if the political parties are served rather than citizens. Representatives that are devoted to their parties rather than seeking the will of their constituents are positively undemocratic. True democracies are not based solely on the right to vote, majority rule, or representation. Historically, most democracies have been a mixture of these elements – or in classical terms most democracies are a mixture of oligarchy, aristocracy and popular sovereignty (what eighteenth and nineteenth century thinkers, following Aristotle, called “mixed government”). Nonetheless, the idea of government by the people, under the equality of law, for the common good is an idea that is returned to again and again throughout history, and is an ideal that should be attempted even when we find instances in history when it is imperfectly conceived or executed. The ancient Athenians would always return to a democratic form of government whenever they were ruled by an oligarchy or tyranny.

One can get a better idea of democracy when it is contrasted with the idea of republic or republican form of government. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines a republic “as a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.”1 Similarly, Merriam-Webster’s defines democracy as “Government by the people; esp: rule of the majority, or a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.”2 There are several ideas that an investigation of these definitions will highlight. Both definitions take popular sovereignty as the starting point and seem to indicate that consent of the governed is a necessary requisite for each form of rule. Democracy seems to emphasize the rule of the many or majority as the supreme power regardless if it is a direct democracy or representation (indirect). The rule of law is never mentioned in the definition of democracy while law and representation seem essential to a republican form of government. It seems then, that democracy emphasizes the rule of the majority while a republic emphasizes representative government according to the rule of law. Also, since a republic is still based on the consent of a body of citizens, it should be considered a type or form of democracy although it should be distinguished from a pure or direct democracy. Perhaps this is why democracy is usually the term used to describe the American system although in actuality it is a republic.

Through the ages many authors and political philosophers have offered different definitions of democracy. Philosopher Ed Miller defines democracy as “government in which the power is vested in the body of citizens, either directly or through elected representatives.”3 Paul Woodruff simply states “democracy is government by the people for the people.”4 More philosophically, Mortimer Adler explains that the necessary elements of any democracy ought to allow individuals “to be governed by their consent, with a voice in their own government, and with their natural rights secured.”5 For these posts, a broad definition of democracy will be used to include all legitimate governments that seek to rule by the consensus of its citizens for the common good. This includes parliamentary forms of government, constitutional monarchies, as well as republics or the three part American system of President, Congress, and Judiciary. Ideally, a democracy exists when political power is based on a consensus of citizens for the purpose of the common good (if the common good is ignored a democracy would become a tyranny). For this reason, the term consensual government will be used to designate those legitimate governments that rest the ultimate political power in the many for the common good.

1 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 11th ed. S.V. Republic.

2 Ibid. S.V. Democracy.

3 Miller, Ed. Questions That Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy. 4th ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1996), 573.

4 Woodruff, Paul. First Democracy: The Challenge of An Ancient Idea. (New York: Oxford University Press), 2005, 15.

5 Adler, Mortimer. Adler’s Philosophical Dictionary. (New York: Scribner, 1995), 79.