timer Asked: Jun 5th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $50

Question description

Two essay questions only.

Resources are: Cole, Symes, Coffin, and Stacey,WesternCivilizations, Brief 4th edition. and another source wii be attached.

PRIMARY SOURCE READINGS IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION Gilgamesh…………………………………………………………………………………3 Plato……………………………………………………………………………………….6 Aristotle…………………………………………………………………………………..10 Stoicism………………………………………………………………………………….12 Cicero…………………………………………………………………………………….14 Sermon on the Mount…………………………………………………………………… 17 Bernard of Clairvaux…………………………………………………………………… 21 Thomas Aquinas………………………………………………………………………….23 Julian of Norwich……………………………………………………………..…………24 Giovanni Pico della Mirandola…………………………………………….…………….26 Niccolò Machiavelli…………………………………….………………………………..28 Martin Luther…………………………….………………………………………………30 Thomas Hobbes……………………………………………………………….................32 Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet………………………………………………………………..34 John Locke……………………………………………………………………………….36 René Descartes..................................................................................................................38 Voltaire…………………………………………………………………………………..40 Immanuel Kant…………………………………………………………………………..43 Declaration of the Rights of Man………………………………………………………..44 Olympe de Gouges………………………………………………………………………46 Edmund Burke…………………………………………………………………………...49 John Stuart Mill………………………………………………………………………….52 William Wordsworth…………………………………………………………………….55 Giuseppe Mazzini………………………………………………………………………..56 2 Heinrich von Treitschke………………………………………………………................61 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels........................................................................................63 Social Darwinism………………………………………………………………………..67 Certainty and Uncertainty……………………………………………………………….69 Sigmund Freud……………………………………………………………………..........72 Friedrich Nietzsche………………………………………………...................................75 Vladimir Ilyich Lenin…………………………………………………………..………..77 Joseph Stalin……………………………………………………………………………..79 Benito Mussolini...............................................................................................................82 Adolf Hitler.......................................................................................................................85 Mikhail Gorbachev............................................................................................................91 Jean-Paul Sartre.................................................................................................................95 John Paul II........................................................................................................................97 3 Gilgamesh The earliest written version of the story of Gilgamesh was composed by a Sumerian author around 2150 BCE. It was retold and enlarged by later Mesopotamian writers, Babylonian, Akkadian, Assyrian, and Chaldean. Based on the historical figure, King Gilgamesh of the Sumerian city of Uruk, who probably reigned around 2700 BCE, it recounts Gilgamesh’s adventures and his search for immortality. This excerpt is taken from a Babylonian text. I will proclaim to the world the deeds of Gilgamesh. This was the man to whom all things were known; this was the king who knew the countries of the world. He was wise, he saw mysteries and knew secret things, he brought us a tale of the days before the flood. He went on a long journey, was weary, worn out with labor, returning he rested, he engraved on a stone the whole story. When the gods created Gilgamesh they gave him a perfect body. Shamash, the glorious sun, endowed him with beauty, Adad the god of the storm endowed him with courage, the great gods made his beauty perfect, surpassing all others, terrifying like a great wild bull. Two thirds they made him god and one third man. Gilgamesh went abroad in the world, but he met with none who could withstand his arms till he came to Uruk. But the men of Uruk muttered in their houses, “Gilgamesh sounds the alarm for his amusement, his arrogance has no bounds by day or night. No son is left with his father, for Gilgamesh takes them all, even the children; yet the king would be a shepherd to his people. His lust leaves no virgin to her lover, neither the warrior's daughter nor the wife of the noble; yet this is the shepherd of the city, wise, handsome, and resolute.” The gods heard their lament, the gods in heaven cried to the Lord of Uruk, to Anu, the god of Uruk: “A goddess made him, strong as a savage bull, none can withstand his arms. No son is left with his father, for Gilgamesh takes them all; and is this the king, the shepherd of his people? His lust leaves no virgin to her lover, neither the warrior's daughter nor the wife of the noble.” When Anu had heard their lamentation the gods cried to Aruru, the goddess of creation, “You made him, O Aruru, now create his equal; let it be as like him as his own reflection, his second self, stormy heart for stormy heart. Let them contend together and leave Uruk in quiet.” So the goddess conceived an image in her mind, and it was of the stuff of Anu of the firmament. She dipped her hands in water and pinched off clay, she let it fall in the wilderness, and noble Enkidu was created. There was virtue in him of the god of war. His body was rough, he had long hair like a woman's; it waved like the hair of Nisaba, the 4 goddess of the corn. His body was covered with matted hair like Sumquan’s, the god of cattle. In Uruk the bridal bed was made, fit for the goddess of love. The bride waited for the bridegroom, but in the night Gilgamesh got up and came to the house. Then Enkidu stepped out, he stood in the street and blocked the way. Mighty Gilgamesh came on and Enkidu met him at the gate. He put out his foot and prevented Gilgamesh from entering the house, so they grappled, holding each other like bulls. They broke the doorposts and the walls shook, they snorted like bulls locked together. They shattered the doorposts and the walls shook. Gilgamesh bent his knee with his foot planted on the ground and with a turn Enkidu was thrown. Then immediately his fury died. When Enkidu was thrown he said to Gilgamesh, “There is not another like you in the world. Your strength surpasses the strength of men.” So Enkidu and Gilgamesh embraced and their friendship was sealed. [Gilgamesh and Enkidu then set out on a long journey to the Cedar Forest in the North. They slay a fire-breathing monster called Humbaba, the guardian of the forest. After their return, Ishtar, the goddess of love, becomes infatuated with Gilgamesh and offers to marry him. Gilgamesh, complains that she is fickle and refuses. In her fury, Ishtar sends the Bull of Heaven to destroy Gilgamesh, but Enkidu grabs its horns, allowing Gilgamesh to kill it. The gods then decree that either Einkidu or Gilgamesh must die, and it is Enkidu who perishes. Bereaved, Gilgamesh sets out on a difficult quest to find Utnapishtim, the Mesopotamian Noah, to whom and to whose wife the gods had granted the gift of immortality.] Bitterly Gilgamesh wept for his friend Enkidu; he wandered over the wilderness as a hunter, he roamed over the plains; in his bitterness he cried, “How can I rest, how can I be at peace? Despair is in my heart. What my brother is now, that shall I be when I am dead. Because I am afraid of death I will go as best I can to find Utnapishtim whom they call the Faraway, for he has entered the assembly of the gods.” So Gilgamesh traveled over the wilderness, he wandered over the grasslands, a long journey, in search of Utnapishtim, whom the gods took after the deluge; and they set him to live in the land of Dilmun, in the garden of the sun; and to him alone of men they gave everlasting life. [When Gilgamesh finds Utnapishtim, Utnapishtim recounts the story of the flood: mankind's ceaseless activity had disturbed the rest of the gods, who decided to destroy human beings by flooding the earth. Ea, the god of the waters, warned Utnapishtim of the coming deluge. By building a large ship, Utnapishtim, his family, the craftsmen he employed, and the animals he took on board survived. The gods then repented of their action and granted immortality to Utnapishtim and his wife. Utnapishtim cannot share his immortality with Gilgamesh, but he does offer him a similar gift.] “Gilgamesh, I shall reveal a secret thing, it is a mystery of the gods that I am telling you. There is a plant that grows under the water, it has a prickle like a thorn, like a rose; it will wound your hands, but if you succeed in taking it, then your hands will hold that which restores his lost youth to a man.” 5 When Gilgamesh heard this he opened the sluices so that a sweet-water current might carry him out to the deepest channel; he tied heavy stones to his feet and they dragged him down to the water-bed. There he saw the plant growing; although it pricked him he took it in his hands; then he cut the heavy stones from his feet, and the sea carried him and threw him on to the shore. Gilgamesh said to Urshanabi the ferryman, “Come here, and see the marvelous plant. By its virtue a man may win back all his former strength. I will take it to Uruk of the strong walls; there I will give it to the old men to eat. Its name shall be ‘The Old Men Are Young Again’; and at last I shall eat it myself and have back all my lost youth.” So Gilgamesh returned by the gate through which he had come, Gilgamesh and Urshanabi went together. They traveled their twenty leagues and then they broke their fast; after thirty leagues they stopped for the night. Gilgamesh saw a well of cool water and he went down and bathed; but deep in the pool there was lying a serpent, and the serpent sensed the sweetness of the flower. It rose out of the water and snatched it away, and immediately it sloughed its skin and returned to the well. Then Gilgamesh sat down and wept, the tears ran down his face, and he took the hand of Urshanabi; “O Urshanabi, was it for this that I toiled with my hands, is it for this I have wrung out my heart's blood? For myself I have gained nothing; not I, but the beast of the earth has joy of it now. Already the stream has carried it twenty leagues back to the channels where I found it. I found a sign and now I have lost it. Let us leave the boat on the bank and go.” The destiny was fulfilled which the father of the gods, Enlil of the mountain, had decreed for Gilgamesh. O Gilgamesh, you were given the kingship, such was your destiny, everlasting life was not your destiny. Because of this do not be sad at heart, do not be grieved or oppressed; he has given you power to bind and to loose, to be the darkness and the light of mankind. He has given unexampled supremacy over the people, victory in battle from which no fugitive returns, in forays and assaults from which there is no going back. But do not abuse this power, deal justly with your servants in the palace, deal justly before the face of the Sun. Edited from N.K. Sandars. trans.. The Epic of Gilgimesh. (London: Penguin Books, 1978), 61, 62-63, 69, 87-88, 102, 116-118. 6 Plato, The Republic Plato (427-347 BCE) was Socrates' greatest pupil and may well be the most influential philosopher who ever lived. In this dialogue from The Republic, he discusses who should rule the State and why. Only philosophers are able to grasp the one eternal and unchangeable reality. Those who are not philosophers are lost amidst the many and changeable. So which of the two should rule our State? What would be the best way to begin answering that question? Let us say that whichever of the two are best able to guard the laws and institutions of our State should be our guardians. Agreed. And can there be any question that it would better for someone with keen eyesight to be a guard rather than a blind man? None at all. And are not those who have no true knowledge of reality, and no clear standard of truth, simply blind? True, so they are. And shall those who are blind be our guardians? Or shall the philosophers who, besides being their equals in experience and in virtue, also know the deepest truth of every thing? There can be no reason for rejecting those who have this deepest knowledge; they must be our leaders unless they are inferior in some other respect. Suppose, then, that we determine how far philosophers can unite this knowledge with other virtues. Let us do so. In the first place, we must ascertain the character of philosophers. When we have done so, I think that we shall agree that such a union of knowledge and virtue is possible, and that 7 therefore it is philosophers alone who should be rulers in the State. What do you mean? Let us assume that philosophers love the knowledge that reveals the eternal reality that neither changes nor decays. Agreed. And if this is true, is there not another quality that they should also possess? What quality? Truthfulness; they will never intentionally tolerate falsehood, which they detest, and they will love truth. Yes, that may be safely said of them. "May be said of them." is not correct; say rather, "must be said of them:" for if you love anything, you cannot help loving everything closely connected to the object of your affection. Right. And is there anything more connected to wisdom than truth? How can there be? Can the same person be a lover of wisdom and a lover of falsehood? Never. The true lover of learning then will yearn for the whole truth from his earliest youth? Certainly. But then again, we know by experience that a man whose desires are strong in one direction will have them weaker in others; they will be like a stream that has been drawn off into another channel. True. So the man whose desires are drawn toward the acquisition of knowledge will be 8 absorbed in the pleasures of the mind, and will hardly desire physical pleasure--I mean, if he be a true philosopher and not a sham one. That is most certain. Such a one is sure to be temperate and the reverse of covetous; for the motives which make another man eager to get and to spend have no place in his character. Very true. There is something else in the philosophical nature that we must look for. What is that? There should be no secret corner of meanness; pettiness of mind is alien to the philosopher who longs after the whole truth of things both divine and human. That is true. Then how can he who has greatness of mind and is the spectator of all time and all existence, think much of this human life of ours? He cannot. Or can such a person fear death? Not at all. Then cowardly and mean natures have no part in true philosophy? Certainly not. Or again: can a man who is well balanced, who is not greedy or mean, or a boaster, or a coward, ever be unjust or hard in his dealings? Impossible. There is another point that should be noticed. What point? A nature that has no taste or style will tend to lack of a sense of proportion. 9 Undoubtedly. And do you consider truth to be akin to proportion or to disproportion? To proportion. Then, besides other qualities, we want a gracious mind with a sense of proportion, which will naturally and easily move toward the apprehension of the true nature of everything. Certainly. And so, when they are perfected by years and education, aren't these the only men to whom you would entrust the State? 10 Aristotle, Politics After Plato, Aristotle (384-322 BCE) is the Greek philosopher who has had the greatest influence on western civilization. Although he studied with Plato and admired him, Aristotle was a more commonsensical thinker and disagreed with Plato about a number of matters, among them politics. In this excerpt, Aristotle explains the origins of government and discusses what the best form of government would be. The state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part; for example, were the whole body to be destroyed, there would be no foot or hand, except in an ambiguous sense. The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficient, and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole. A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature. Anyone who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is self-sufficient, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. Almost all things rule and are ruled according to their nature. But the kind of rule differs; the freeman rules over the slave in a different way from that in which the male rules over the female, or the man over the child; although the parts of the soul are present in all of them, they are present in different degrees. For the slave has no deliberative faculty at all; the woman has, but it is without authority, and the child has, but it is immature. So it must necessarily be supposed to be the same with the moral virtues: all should partake of them, but only in such manner and degree as is required by each to fulfill his duty. The temperance of a man and of a woman, or the courage and justice of a man and of a woman, are not, as Socrates maintained, the same; the courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying. We cannot consider all those to be citizens who are necessary to the existence of the state; for example, children are not citizens equally with grown-up men, who are citizens absolutely. The best form of state will not admit [laborers] to citizenship. The government, which is the supreme authority in states, must be in the hands of one, or of a few, or of the many. The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest; but governments which rule with a view to the private interest, whether of the one or of the few, or of the many, are perversions. For [all] the members of a state, if they are truly citizens, ought to participate in its advantages. The forms of government in which one rules and respects the common interests, we call kingship or royalty; that in which more than one, but not many, rule who have the interests of the state and its citizens at heart, we call aristocracy. When the citizens at large administer the state for the common interest, the government is called by the generic name—a constitution. One man or a few may excel in virtue; but as the number increases it becomes more difficult for them to attain perfection in every virtue, though they may excel in military virtue, for this is a virtue found in the masses. 11 Hence in a constitutional government the fighting-men have the supreme power, and those who possess arms are the citizens. Of the above-mentioned forms, the perversions are as follows: of royalty, tyranny; of aristocracy, oligarchy; of constitutional government, democracy. For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all. Now in all states there are three elements: one class is very rich, another very poor, and a third in a mean. It is clearly best to possess the gifts of fortune in moderation; for in that condition of life men are most ready to follow the principles of reason. But he who greatly excels in beauty, strength, birth, or wealth, or on the other hand who is very poor, or very weak, or very much disgraced, finds it difficult to follow reason. Of these two the one sort grow into violent and great criminals, the others into rogues and petty rascals. Again, the middle class is least likely to shrink from rule, or to be over-ambitious for it; both of which are injuries to the state. Again, those who have too much of the goods of fortune, strength, wealth, friends, and the like, are neither willing nor able to submit to authority. The evil begins at home; for when they are boys, because of the luxury in which they are brought up, they never learn, even at school, the habit of obedience. On the other hand, the very poor, who are in the opposite extreme, are too degraded. So that the one class cannot obey, and can only rule despotically; the other knows not how to command and must be ruled like slaves. Thus arises a city, not of freemen, but of masters and slaves, the one despising, the other envying; and nothing can be more fatal to friendship and good fellowship in states than this. A city ought to be composed, as far as possible, of equals and of people similar to one another; and these are generally the middle classes. Therefore the city that is composed of middle-class citizens is necessarily best constituted. And this is the class of citizens which is most secure in a state, for they do not, like the poor, covet their neighbors' goods; nor do others covet theirs, as the poor covet the goods of the rich; and as they neither plot against others, nor are themselves plotted against, they pass through life safely. Great then is the good fortune of a state in which the citizens have a moderate and sufficient property; for where some possess much, and the others nothing, there may arise an extreme democracy, or a pure oligarchy; or a tyranny may grow out of either extremeeither out of the most rampant democracy, or out of an oligarchy; but it is not so likely to arise out of the middle constitutions and those akin to them. 12 Stoicism Epictetus, The Enchiridion (The Handbook) Epictetus (ca. 50-138 CE) was born into slavery in Greece. He lived for a time in Rome where his master allowed him to study philosophy. After obtaining his freedom, he taught philosophy for a time in Rome and then in the Greek city of Nicopolis. Epictetus was a rigorous Stoic who emphasized extreme self-control, the need to accept the world as it is, and the importance of treating others justly. Some things we can control and others we cannot. We can control our opinions, pursuits, desires, antipathies, and our own actions. We cannot control our bodies, property, reputation, and whatever does not belong to our own actions. If you believe that you can control things that you cannot, and that you own what belongs to others, you will be frustrated. You will weep, you will be upset, and you will find fault with both gods and men. But if you believe that you own only those things that truly are your own, and you recognize what belongs to others, no one will ever control your mind. He who fails to obtain what he desires is disappointed, and he who receives what he hates is miserable. If, then, you confine your antipathy only to those things that you can control, you will never suffer from the things you hate. But if you hate sickness, death, or poverty, you will be miserable. So do not hate things you cannot control. And, for the present, totally suppress desire: for, if you desire anything you cannot control, you will be disappointed. As for the things that delight you, are useful to you, or that you deeply love, keep their true nature uppermost in your mind. If, for example, you are fond of a specific ceramic cup, remind yourself that it is only ceramic cups in general of which you are fond. Then, if it breaks, you will not be disturbed. If you kiss your child, or your wife, say that you only kiss things that are human. Then you will not be disturbed if either of them dies. Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form about things. Death, for instance, is not terrible; otherwise it would have terrified Socrates. The terror comes from our belief that death is terrible. Therefore, when we are frustrated, or disturbed, or grieved, let us never attribute this to others, but to ourselves; that is, to our own beliefs. Don't demand that things happen as you wish, but wish that they should happen as they do happen, and you will be well. 13 Never say of anything, "I have lost it"; but rather, "I have returned it." Is your child dead? It is returned. Is your wife dead? She is returned. Is your property taken away? Well, is not that returned as well? Remember that you are an actor in a drama, such as the author pleases to make it: if short, a short one, if long, a long one. If it is his pleasure that you should act the part of a poor man, a cripple, a governor, or a private person, see that you act it well. That is your business; to choose your part is another's. When you do anything from a clear judgment that it ought to be done, never avoid being seen to do it, even if you are misunderstood. Abide by whatever moral rules you have carefully proposed to yourself. Pay no attention to what anyone says about you, for this, after all, is not your concern. Marcus Aurelius: The Meditations The emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180 CE was deeply influenced by Stoicism. He wrote his Meditations for his own benefit as a kind of philosophical diary. A man is never as free from trouble as in his own soul, especially when he has thoughts that make him perfectly tranquil; and I affirm that tranquility is nothing other than the proper ordering of the mind. What you experience as evil is not caused by another or by a change in your physical body. What is its cause? It lies in that part of you that has the power of forming opinions about evils. Do not accept such opinions, and all is well. Do not act as if you were going to live ten thousand years. Death hangs over you. While you live, while it is in your power, be good. Do not consider the depraved morals of others, but cling to the straight and narrow path without deviating from it. Keep yourself simple, good, pure, serious, free from pretense, a friend of justice and a worshipper of the gods, kind, affectionate, strenuous in performing all right deeds. Strive to be the sort of person that philosophy wishes to make of you. Revere the gods and help others. Life is short. 14 Marcus Tullius Cicero, About the Ends of Good and Evil Cicero (106-43 BCE) was a Roman statesman and a philosopher. He was not an Epicurean himself, but in this excerpt he presents the argument used by his friend, Lucius Torquatus, to defend the Epicurean principle that pleasure is the ultimate good. We are inquiring, then, what is the final and ultimate Good [of life]. This Epicurus finds in pleasure; pleasure he holds to be that Chief Good, pain the Chief Evil. But I must explain to you how [according to the Epicureans] the mistaken idea of condemning pleasure and extolling pain arose. No one rejects, dislikes or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain for itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure? The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains. The pleasure we pursue is not that kind alone which directly affects our physical being with a delightful feeling—a positively agreeable perception of the senses; on the contrary, the greatest pleasure according to us is that which is experienced as a result of the complete removal of pain. For example, when hunger and thirst are banished by food and drink, the mere fact of getting rid of uneasiness brings a resultant pleasure in its train. The truth of the proposition that pleasure is the ultimate good will most readily appear from the following illustration. Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures both of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain: what possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable? One so situated must possess in the first place a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain; he will know that death means complete unconsciousness, and that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity. Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power; let him never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection—and his lot will be one which will not admit of further improvement. Suppose on the other hand a person crushed beneath the heaviest load of mental and of bodily anguish to which humanity is liable. Grant him no hope of ultimate relief in view; also give him no pleasure either present or in prospect. Can one describe or 15 imagine a more pitiable state? If then, a life full of pain is the thing most to be avoided, it follows that to live in pain is the highest evil; and this position implies that a life of pleasure ultimate good. Those who place the Chief Good in virtue alone [the Stoics] are beguiled by the glamour of a name, and do not understand the true demands of nature. If they will consent to listen to Epicurus, they will be delivered from the grossest error. Your school [Stocism] dilates on the transcendent beauty of the virtues; but were they not productive of pleasure, who would deem them either praiseworthy or desirable? We esteem the art of medicine not for its interest as a science but for its conduciveness to health; the art of navigation is commended for its practical and not its scientific value, because it conveys the rules for sailing a ship with success. So also Wisdom, which must be considered as the art of living, if it effected no result would not be desired; but as it is, it is desired, because it is the artificer that procures and produces pleasure. The great disturbing factor in man’s life is ignorance of good and evil; mistaken ideas about these frequently rob us of our greatest pleasures, and torment us with the most cruel pain of mind. Hence we need the aid of Wisdom, to rid us of our fears and appetites, to root out all our errors and prejudices, and to serve as our infallible guide to the attainment of pleasure. Wisdom alone can banish sorrow from our hearts and protect us from alarm and apprehension; put yourself to school with her, and you may live in peace, and quench the glowing flames of desire. For the desires are incapable of satisfaction; they ruin not individuals only but whole families, nay often shake the very foundations of the state. It is they that are the source of hatred, quarreling and strife, of sedition and of war. Nor do they only flaunt themselves abroad, or turn their blind onslaughts solely against other; even when imprisoned within the heart they quarrel and fall out among themselves; and this cannot but render the whole of life embittered. Hence only the Wise Man, who prunes away all the rank growth of vanity and error, can possibly live untroubled by sorrow and by fear, content within the bounds that nature has set. The same principle will lead us to pronounce that Temperance [self-control] also is not desirable for its own sake, but because it bestows peace of mind, and soothes the heart with a tranquilizing sense of harmony For it is Temperance that warns us to be guided by reason what we desire and avoid. Nor is it enough to judge what it is right to do or to leave undone; we also need to abide by our judgment. Most men however lack tenacity of purpose; their resolution weakens and succumbs as soon as the fair form of pleasures meets their gaze, and they surrender themselves prisoners to their passions, failing to foresee the inevitable result. Thus for the sake of pleasure at once small in amount and unnecessary, and one which they might have procured by other means or even denied themselves altogether without pain, they incur serious disease, or loss of fortune, or disgrace, and not infrequently become liable to the penalties of the law and of the courts of justice. Those on the other hand who are resolved so to enjoy their pleasures as to avoid all painful consequences that follow from them, and who retain their faculty of judgment and avoid being seduced by pleasure into course that they perceive to be wrong, reap the very highest pleasure by forgoing pleasure. Similarly also they often voluntarily endure pain, to avoid incurring greater pain by not doing so. This clearly 16 proves that Intemperance is not undesirable for its own sake, while Temperance is desirable not because it renounces pleasures, but because it procures greater pleasures. The same account will be found to hold good of Courage. The performance of labors, the undergoing of pains, are not in themselves attractive, nor are endurance, industry, watchfulness, nor yet that much lauded virtue, perseverance, nor even courage; but we aim at these virtues in order to live without anxiety and fear and so far as possible to be free from pain of mind and body. It remains to speak of Justice, to complete the list of the virtues; but this can be given practically the same treatment as the others. Not only does Justice never causes anyone harm, but on the contrary it always adds some benefit, partly owning to its essentially soothing influence upon the mind, partly because of the hope that it provides of a neverfailing supply of the things that uncorrupted nature really needs. And just as Rashness, License and Cowardice ever torment the mind, ever awaken trouble and discord, so Unrighteousness, when firmly rooted in the heart, causes restlessness by the mere fact of its presence; and if once it has found expression in some deed of wickedness, however secret the act, yet it can never feel assured that it will always remain undetected. The usual consequences of crime are, first suspicion, next gossip and rumor, then comes the accuser, then the judge; many wrongdoers have even turned in evidence against themselves, as happened during your consulship. And even if any think themselves well fenced and fortified against detection by their fellow-men, they still dread the eye of heaven, and fancy that the pangs of anxiety night and day gnawing at their hearts are sent by Providence to punish them. But what can wickedness contribute towards lessening the annoyances of life, commensurate with its effect in increasing them, owing to the burden of a guilty conscience, the penalties of the law and the hatred of one’s fellows? Men of sound natures, therefore, are summoned by the voice of true reason to justice, equity and honesty. Hence Justice also cannot correctly be said to be desirable in and for itself; it is so because it is so highly productive of gratification. There remains a topic that is pre-eminently germane to this discussion, I mean the subject of Friendship. Your school maintains that if pleasure be the Chief Good, friendship will cease to exist. Now Epicurus’ pronouncement about friendship is that of all the means to happiness that wisdom has devised, none is greater, none more fruitful, none more delightful than this. It affords us enjoyment in the present, and it inspires us with hope for the near and distant future. Thus it is not possible to secure uninterrupted gratification in life without friendship, nor yet to preserve friendship itself unless we love our friends as much as ourselves. Hence this unselfishness does occur in friendship, while also friendship is closely link with pleasure. For we rejoice in our friends’ joy as much as in our own, and are equally painted by their sorrows. Therefore the Wise Man will feel exactly the same towards his friend as he does towards himself, and will exert himself as much for his friend’s pleasure as he would for his own. 17 Matthew 5-7: The Sermon on the Mount (excerpt) (New Revised Standard Version) Most scholars regard the Sermon on the Mount as a collection of the sayings of Jesus that epitomizes his moral teaching. The Beatitudes When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him. Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Salt and Light You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot. You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hidden. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lamp stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven. The Law and the Prophets Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, 18 not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Concerning Anger You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not murder”; and “whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.” But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, “You fool”, you will be liable to the hell of fire. So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift. Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny. Concerning Retaliation You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. Love for Enemies You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Concerning Almsgiving Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven. So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know 19 what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. Concerning Prayer And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then in this way: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one. For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Concerning Treasures Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. Serving Two Masters No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth. Do Not Worry Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into 20 barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? Therefore do not worry, saying, “What will we eat?” or “What will we drink?” or “What will we wear?” For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today. Ask, Search, Knock Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him! The Golden Rule In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets. Hearers and Doers Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall! Now when Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes. 21 Bernard of Clairvaux, De Laude Novae Militiae (In Praise of the New Knighthood) Bernard (1090-1153) entered the Cistercian monastic order in 1113. Two years later he became the abbot of the order’s new monastery at Clairvaux, an office he held until his death. Although Bernard taught a mystical spirituality that emphasized God’s love, he urged the use of force to drive Muslims from the Holy Land. In this essay addressed to the Knights Templar, a religious order of crusading knights, Bernard described what he believed were the values of Christian chivalry and explained how those values differed from those of a secular warrior. We hear that a new kind of chivalry has risen on earth, and that it has risen on the very region of it which the rising Son Himself, present in flesh, once visited from on high; as He then, by the strength of His mighty hand, threw down the princes of darkness, so now He exterminates their followers, those sons of misplaced faith, put to flight by a band of His mighty ones, bringing about even now His people's redemption and raising again the cup of salvation for us in the house of His servant David. A new kind of chivalry, one ignorant of the ways of the ages, which fights a double fight equally and tirelessly, both against flesh and blood and against the spiritual forces of iniquity in the heavens. When a man mightily resists a bodily foe by strength of his body alone, I no more think it a wonder than I believe it to be a rare occurrence; nor is it marvelous, though I might call it praiseworthy, when a man declares war on vice or demons with the power of his soul, since the world is full of monks [who do just that]. But when both of these kinds of men are girded with their own particular powerful sword and distinguished with their own particular noble belt in a single man, who would not judge this, which is as yet an unfamiliar thing, to be most worthy of all admiration? He indeed is a fearless knight, and one secure from any quarter, since his soul is dressed in an armor of faith just as his body is dressed in an armor of steel. Since he is well protected by both kinds of arms, he fears neither the demon nor man. Nor is he afraid of death, since he longs to die. Why should he fear whether he lives or dies, since for him life is Christ and death is a reward? Faithfully and freely does he go forth on Christ's behalf, but he would rather be dissolved and be with Christ: such is the obviously better thing. So go forth in safety, knights, and drive out the enemies of the cross of Christ with fearless intention, certain that neither death nor life can separate you from God's love, which Jesus Christ embodies; in every moment of danger, fulfill through your own actions the principle: “Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.” How glorious the victors returned from battle! How blessed those martyrs who died in battle! Rejoice, brave fighter, if you live and conquer in the Lord; but rather exult and glory, if you die and are joined to the Lord. Life can be fruitful and victory can be glorious; but sacred death is properly to be preferred to either, for if “they are blessed who die in the Lord,” are they not much more so who die on the Lord's behalf? That chivalry is truly holy and safe, and is moreover free from the double danger by which another type of knight is habitually and regularly endangered, when Christ is not the sole cause of chivalrous doings. Every time you who live in the ways of worldly chivalry gather to fight among yourselves, you need fear killing your adversary in body 22 and yourself in soul; even more, you need fear finding yourself killed by him, both in body as well as soul. What then is the end or issue of this secular chivalry, which I should probably just call wickedness outright, if its murderers sin mortally and its victims perish forever? What error, knights, so incredible, what madness so unbearable draws you to chivalrous deeds at such expense and labor, all for no return but death or crime? You cover your horses in silks and dress your armor with swatches of flowing cloth; you figure your lances, shields and saddles; your bridles and your spurs you adorn with gold and silver and jewels; and with all this display, you rush only towards death, in shameful madness and shameless idiocy. Are these the tokens of chivalry or the trappings of women? Perhaps you imagine that your adversary's sword will reverence the gold, be gentle with you because of your jewels, be unable to pierce your silks? A greater danger than all of this, a thing that endangers the conscience of the armed man more, is the fact that the reasons for espousing such a culpable kind of chivalry are so very inconsequential and frivolous. What engenders such war and raises such strife among you is nothing more than unreasoned anger, or lust for profitless glory, or want of some trifling worldly good. Surely it is not prudent either to kill or die for such causes as these. But Christ's knights can fight their Lord's fight in safety, fearless of sin in slaughter of their adversaries and fearless of danger at their own deaths, since death suffered or dealt out on Christ's behalf holds no crime and merits great glory. Pagans would not even have to be slaughtered, if there were some other way to prevent them from besetting and oppressing the faithful. But now it is better that they be killed than that the rod of these sinners continue to imperil the lot of the just, preventing the just from reaching out their hands against iniquity Edited from a translation by David Carbon from: J. Leclercq and H. M. Rochais, eds., "Liber ad milites Templi de laude novae militiae," in S. Bernardi Opera, vol. 3 (Rome, 1963), 206-239. 23 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles Thomas Aquinas (1215-1274) was a Dominican priest and the most important scholastic philosopher of the Middle Ages. In this excerpt, he describes what unaided reason can tell us about God and what its limits are. The truths that we confess concerning God are of two sorts. Some things true of God are beyond the competence of human reason; for example, that God is Three and One. There are other truths that human reason can attain, such as the existence and unity of God. But that there are things about God altogether beyond the compass of human reason, is obvious. Knowledge of any given thing depends on an understanding of the thing's innermost being, or substance. The human understanding can comprehend the substance of a stone or a triangle [because we can apprehend them through our senses]. But this is not our case with regard to God. The human understanding does not have the natural power to grasp His substance, since under the conditions of the present life, the knowledge of our understanding begins with the senses, and therefore objects beyond the senses cannot be grasped by human understanding. Nevertheless things of sense do lead our understanding to some knowledge of God; namely, of His existence and of other attributes that must necessarily be attributed to the First Cause. There are, therefore, some things about God that are intelligible and accessible to human reason, and other points that altogether transcend the power of human reason. The same thing may be understood by considering differences in the ability of minds to understand. Of two minds, one of which has a keener insight into truth than the other, the higher mind understands much that the other cannot grasp at all, as is clear in the "plain man" who cannot grasp the subtle theories of philosophy. Now the intellect of an angel excels that of a man more than the intellect of the ablest philosopher excels that of the plainest of plain men. But the Divine Mind exceeds the angelic much more than the angelic the human. Hence not all things that God understands in Himself can be grasped by the natural knowledge of an angel; nor is human reason competent to take in all that an angel understands. Therefore, just as it would be the height of madness in a "plain man" to declare a philosopher's propositions false, because he could not understand them, how much more would a man be exceedingly foolish if he suspected that a divine revelation was false, merely because it was beyond the ability of reason to investigate it. The same thing is obvious from the incapacity which we daily experience when we observe nature. We are ignorant of very many properties of the things we sense; and of the properties that our senses do apprehend, in most cases we cannot perfectly discover the reason for them. Much more is it beyond the competence of human reason to investigate all the points that might be understood about the supreme excellent and transcendent substance of God. 24 Julian of Norwich, Revelations of Divine Love Julian of Norwich (ca. 1342-1417) was one of the most beloved mystics of the Middle Ages. Little is known about her life. She writes that when she was thirty years old, she became seriously ill and was expected to die. As the crisis passed, she had fifteen visions or “showings” that she believed were given to her by God. When she recovered, she became an anchoress, living the rest of her life as a solitary in a cell attached to the church of St. Julian in Norwich, England where she was much sought after for her spiritual advice. In her Revelations of Divine Love, the first book written in English by a woman, Julian shares her visions and explains their meaning, giving us insight into the heart of medieval Christianity. Note that like some other medieval writers, Julian describes God (especially in the person of Jesus) as mother as well as father. In this [vision] [God] showed me a little thing, the size of a hazel nut, lying in the palm of my hand, as it seemed. And it was as round as any ball. I looked upon it with the eye of my understanding, and thought, “What may this be?” And the answer was this: “It is all that is made.” I marveled how it might last, for I thought it might suddenly have fallen into nothingness for it was so small. And I was answered in my understanding: “It lasts and ever shall, for God loves it. And so all things have their beginning by the love of God.” In this little thing I saw three [truths]. The first is that God made it. The second that God loves it. And the third, that God keeps it. But what is this to me? Truly, the Creator, the Keeper, the Lover. For until I am entirely joined to him, I may never have full rest nor true bliss. That is to say, until I be so fastened to him that there is nothing made that is between my God and me. As truly as God is our Father, so truly is God our Mother, and he revealed that in everything, and especially in these sweet words where he says. I am he; that is to say: I am he, the power and goodness of fatherhood; I am he, the wisdom and the lovingness of motherhood; I am he, the light and the grace which is all blessed love; I am he, the Trinity; I am he, the unity; I am he, the great supreme goodness of every kind of thing; I am he who makes you to love; I am he who makes you to long; I am he, the endless fulfilling of all true desires. Our great Father, almighty God, who is being, knows us and loved us before time began. Out of this knowledge, in his most wonderful deep love, by the foreseeing eternal counsel of all the blessed Trinity he wanted the second person [of the Trinity, God the Son] to become our Mother, our brother and our savior. From this it follows as truly as God is our Father, so truly is God our Mother. Our Father wills, our Mother works, our good Lord the Holy Spirit confirms. And therefore it is our part to love our God in whom we have our being, reverently thanking and praising him for our creation, mightily praying to our Mother for mercy and pity, and to our Lord the Holy Spirit for help and grace. 25 And from the time that [the vision] was shown, I desired often to know what our Lord's meaning was. And fifteen years and more afterward I was answered in my spiritual understanding, thus: “Would you know your Lord's meaning in this thing? Know it well, love was his meaning. Who showed it to you? Love. What did he show you? Love. Why did he show it? For love. Keep yourself therein and you shall know and understand more of this same truth. But you shall never know nor understand any other thing, forever.” Thus I was taught that love was our Lord's meaning. And I saw quite clearly in this and in all, that before God made us, he loved us, which love was never slaked nor ever shall be. And in this love he has done all his work, and in this love he has made all things profitable to us. And in this love our life is everlasting. In our creation we had a beginning. But the love wherein he made us was in him with no beginning. And all this shall be seen in God without end. 26 Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola, Oration On the Dignity Of Man Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494), was the most renowned humanist of his time. A brilliant and widely read scholar who was fluent in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic, Pico sought to reconcile Christianity with Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, and with mystical ideas drawn Judaism, Islam, and pagan antiquity. His Oration on the Dignity of Man is a bold celebration of human nature. But despite Pico's belief in the ability of human beings to accomplish almost anything they set their hearts on, the Oration is also deeply religious. I once read that Abdala the Muslim, when asked what was most worthy of awe and wonder in this theater of the world, answered, "There is nothing to see more wonderful than man!" Hermes Trismegistus [a third-century pagan mystic] concurs with this opinion: "A great miracle, Asclepius, is man!" However, when I began to consider the reasons for these opinions, all these reasons given for the magnificence of human nature failed to convince me: that man is the intermediary between creatures, close to the gods, master of all the lower creatures, with the sharpness of his senses, the acuity of his reason, and the brilliance of his intelligence the interpreter of nature, the nodal point between eternity and time, and, as the Persians say, the intimate bond or marriage song of the world, just a little lower than angels as David tells us [Psalm 8:5]. I concede these are magnificent reasons, but they do not seem to go to the heart of the matter, that is, those reasons which truly claim admiration. For, if these are all the reasons we can come up with, why should we not admire angels more than we do ourselves? After thinking a long time, I have figured out why man is the most fortunate of all creatures and as a result worthy of the highest admiration and earning his rank on the chain of being, a rank to be envied not merely by the beasts but by the stars themselves and by the spiritual natures beyond and above this world. What is this rank on the chain of being? God the Father, Supreme Architect of the Universe, built this home, this universe we see all around us, a venerable temple of his godhead, through the sublime laws of his ineffable Mind. The expanse above the heavens he decorated with Intelligences, the spheres of heaven with living, eternal souls. The scabrous and dirty lower worlds he filled with animals of every kind. However, when the work was finished, the Great Artisan desired that there be some creature to think on the plan of his great work, and love its infinite beauty, and stand in awe at its immenseness. Therefore, when all was finished . . . He began to think about the creation of man. All was perfected, all created things stood in their proper place, the highest things in the highest places, the midmost things in the midmost places, and the lowest things in the lowest places. But God the Father would not fail, exhausted and defeated, in this last creative act. God's wisdom would not falter for lack of counsel in this need. Finally, the Great Artisan . . . made man a creature of indeterminate and indifferent nature, and, placing him in the middle of the world, said to him "Adam, we give you no fixed place to live, no form that is peculiar to you, nor any function that is yours alone. According to your desires and judgment, you will have and possess whatever place to 27 live, whatever form, and whatever functions you yourself choose. All other things have a limited and fixed nature prescribed and bounded by our laws. You, with no limit or no bound, may choose for yourself the limits and bounds of your nature. We have placed you at the world's center so that you may survey everything else in the world. We have made you neither of heavenly nor of earthly stuff, neither mortal nor immortal, so that with free choice and dignity, you may fashion yourself into whatever form you choose. To you is granted the power of degrading yourself into the lower forms of life, the beasts, and to you is granted the power, contained in your intellect and judgment, to be reborn into the higher forms, the divine." Imagine! The great generosity of God! The happiness of man! To man it is allowed to be whatever he chooses to be! As soon as an animal is born, it brings out of its mother's womb all that it will ever possess. Spiritual beings from the beginning become what they are to be for all eternity. Man, when he entered life, the Father gave the seeds of every kind and every way of life possible. Whatever seeds each man sows and cultivates will grow and bear him their proper fruit. If these seeds are vegetative, he will be like a plant. If these seeds are sensual, he will be like an animal. If these seeds are intellectual, he will be an angel and the son of God. And if, satisfied with no created thing, he removes himself to the center of his own unity, his spiritual soul, united with God, alone in the darkness of God, who is above all things, he will surpass every created thing. Who could not help but admire this great shape-shifter? In fact, how could one admire anything else? Why do I emphasize this? Considering that we are born with this condition, that is, that we can become whatever we choose to become, we need to understand that we must take earnest care about this, so that it will never be said to our disadvantage that we were born to a privileged position but failed to realize it and became animals and senseless beasts. Instead, the saying of Asaph the prophet should be said of us, "You are all angels of the Most High." Above all, we should not make that freedom of choice God gave us into something harmful, for it was intended to be to our advantage. Let a holy ambition enter into our souls; let us not be content with mediocrity, but rather strive after the highest and expend all our strength in achieving it. Let us disdain earthly things, and despise the things of heaven, and, judging little of what is in the world, fly to the court beyond the world and next to God. In that court, as the mystic writings tell us, are the Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones [orders of angels] in the foremost places; let us not even yield place to them, the highest of the angelic orders, and not be content with a lower place, imitate them in all their glory and dignity. If we choose to, we will not be second to them in anything. Based on a translation by Richard Hooker 28 Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince Machiavelli (1469-1527) was a brilliant Florentine historian, playwright, diplomat, and political philosopher. His treatise on government was rejected with horror by almost all early readers. What made The Prince revolutionary was the delight Machiavelli seemed to take in scorning conventional morality and his apparent indifference to Christian morality. Everyone understands how praiseworthy it is for a prince to remain true to his word and to live with complete integrity without any scheming. However, we've seen through experience how many princes in our time have achieved great things who have little cared about keeping their word and have shrewdly known the skill of tricking the minds of men; these princes have overcome those whose actions were founded on honesty and integrity. It should be understood that there are two types of fighting: one with laws and the other with force. The first is most suitable for men, the second is most suitable for beasts, but it often happens that the first is not enough, which requires that we have recourse to the second. Therefore, it is necessary for a prince to know how to act both as a man and as a beast. This was signified allegorically to princes by the ancient writers: they wrote that Achilles and many other ancient princes were given to be raised and tutored by the centaur Chiron, who took custody of them and disciplined them. This can only mean, this trainer who was half beast and half man, that a prince needs to know how to use either one or the other nature, and the one without the other will never last. Since it is necessary for the prince to use the ways of beasts, he should imitate the fox and the lion, because the lion cannot defend himself from snares and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. Therefore, it is important to be a fox in order to understand the snares and a lion in order to terrify the wolves. Those who choose only to be a lion do not really understand. Therefore, a prudent leader will not and should not observe his promises, when such observance will work against him and when the reasons for making the promise are no longer valid. If all men were good, this precept would not be good; but since men are evil and will not keep their word with you, you shouldn't keep yours to them. Never has a prince lacked legitimate reasons to break faith. I could give you an infinite number of examples from modern times, and show you numerous peace treaties and promises that have been broken and made completely empty by the faithlessness of princes: these knew well how to use the ways of the fox, and they are the ones who succeed. But it is necessary to know how to hide this nature and to simulate a good character and to dissimulate: for the majority of men are simple and will only follow the needs of the present, so that the deceiver can always find someone he can deceive. Therefore, a prince doesn't need to have all the qualities mentioned earlier, but it is necessary that he appear to have them. I'll even add to this: having good qualities and always practicing them is harmful, while appearing to practice them is useful. It's good to appear to be pious, faithful, humane, honest, and religious, and it's good to be all those 29 things; but as long as one keeps in mind that when the need arises you can and will change into the opposite. It needs to be understood that a prince, and especially a prince recently installed, cannot observe all those qualities which make men good, and it is often necessary in order to preserve the state to act contrary to faith, contrary to mercy, contrary to humaneness, and contrary to religion. And therefore he needs a spirit disposed to follow wherever the winds of fortune and the variability of affairs leads him. As I said above, it's necessary that he not depart from right but that he follow evil. A prince must take great care never to let anything come from his mouth that is not full of the above-mentioned five qualities, and he must appear to all who see and hear him to be completely pious, completely faithful, completely honest, completely humane, and completely religious. And nothing is more important than to appear to have that last quality. Men judge more by their eyes than by their hands, because everyone can see but few can feel. Everyone can see how you appear, few can feel what you are, and these few will not dare to oppose the opinion of the multitude when it is defended by the majesty of the state. In actions of all men, especially princes, where there is no recourse to justice, the end is all that counts. A prince should only be concerned with conquering or maintaining a state, for the means will always be judged to be honorable and praiseworthy by each and every person, because the masses always follow appearances and the outcomes of affairs, and the world is nothing other than the masses. The few do not find a place wherever the masses are supported. There is a certain prince of our own time, whom it would not be wise to name, who preaches nothing except peace and faith, and yet is the greatest enemy of both; and if he had observed one or the other, he already would have lost both his reputation and his state many times over. Translated by Richard Hooker 30 Martin Luther, An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans and The Bondage of the Will In his Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans, Luther expounds the principle that human beings are justified by grace through faith rather than by their good works. In The Bondage of the Will, he insists that faith is a gift from God and denies the view shared by most Roman Catholics and humanists that human beings have the ability to participate in their own salvation. An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans Faith is not what some people think it is. Their human dream is a delusion. Because they observe that faith is not followed by good works or a better life, they fall into error, even though they speak and hear much about faith. ``Faith is not enough,'' they say, ``You must do good works, you must be pious to be saved.'' They think that, when you hear the gospel, you start working, creating by your own strength a thankful heart which says, ``I believe.'' That is what they think true faith is. But, because this is a human idea, a dream, the heart never learns anything from it, so it does nothing and reform doesn't come from this `faith,' either. Instead, faith is God's work in us that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever. He stumbles around and looks for faith and good works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are. Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many words. Faith is a living, bold trust in God's grace, so certain of God's favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God's grace makes you happy, joyful, and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace. Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! Therefore, watch out for your own false ideas and guard against good-for-nothing gossips who think they're smart enough to define faith and works, but really are the greatest of fools. Ask God to work faith in you, or you will remain forever without faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do. The Bondage of the Will 31 I frankly confess that, for myself, even if it could be, I should not want free will to be given to me, nor anything to be left in my own hands to enable me to endeavor after salvation; not merely because in the face of so many dangers, and adversities, and assaults of devils, I could not stand my ground and hold fast to my free will (for one devil is stronger than all men, and on these terms no man could be saved); but because, even were there no dangers, adversities, or devils, I should still be forced to labor with no guarantee of success, and to beat my fists at the air. If I lived and worked to all eternity, my conscience would never reach comfortable certainty as to how much it must do to satisfy God. Whatever work I had done, there would still be a nagging doubt as to whether it pleases God, or whether He required something more. The experience of all who seek righteousness by works proves that; and I learned it well enough myself over a period of many years, to my own great hurt. But now that God has taken my salvation out of the control of my own will, and put it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I have the comfortable certainty that He is faithful and will not lie to me, and that He is also great and powerful, so that no devils or opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him. No one, [Christ] says, shall pluck them out of my hand, because my Father who gave them to me is greater than all [John 10:28-29]. Thus it is that, if not all, yet some, indeed many, are saved; whereas, by the power of free will none at all could be saved, but every one of us would perish. You may be worried that it is hard to defend the mercy and justice of God in damning the undeserving, that is, ungodly persons, who, being born in ungodliness, can by no means avoid being ungodly, and staying so, and being damned, but are compelled by natural necessity to sin and perish; as Paul says: We were all the children of wrath, even as others (Ephesians 2:3) created such by God Himself from a seed that had been corrupted by the sin of one man, Adam. But here God must be honored and held in awe, as being most merciful to those whom He justifies and saves in their own utter unworthiness; and we must show some measure of deference to His Divine wisdom by believing Him just when to us He seems unjust. If His justice were such as could be determined just by human reckoning, it clearly would not be Divine; it would in no way differ from human justice. But inasmuch as He is the one true God, wholly incomprehensible and inaccessible to man's understanding, it is reasonable, indeed inevitable, that His justice also should be incomprehensible. 32 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was a controversial philosopher even in his own time. In Leviathan, he argued that, although the State rests on a social contract, because human beings are inherently selfish and violent the State must possess absolute authority. In the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory. The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men's persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue [disrespect], either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name. Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. The final cause, end, or design of men (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in Commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war which is necessarily consequent, as hath been shown, to the natural passions of men when there is no visible power to keep them in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants, and observation of [the] laws of nature. The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or assembly of men, to bear their person; and every one to own and acknowledge himself to be author of whatsoever he that so beareth their person shall act, or cause to be acted, in those things which 33 concern the common peace and safety; and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgements to his judgment. 34 Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, Politics Derived from Holy Writ Bossuet (1627-1704) was a sound classical and Biblical scholar and a brilliant preacher. He served as the tutor to the Dauphin (the heir to the French throne) from 1670 to 1681 and was appointed the Bishop of Meaux in 1682. His treatise, Politics Derived from Holy Writ, is a classic expression of the theory of the divine right of kings. All power is of God. The ruler, adds St. Paul, "is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain : for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." Rulers then act as the ministers of God and as his lieutenants on earth. It is through them that God exercises his empire. The royal throne is not the throne of a man, but the throne of God himself. It appears from all this that the person of the king is sacred, and that to attack him in any way is sacrilege. God has the kings anointed by his prophets with the holy unction in like manner as he has bishops and altars anointed. But even without the external application in thus being anointed, they are by their very office the representatives of the divine majesty deputed by Providence for the execution of his purposes. Kings should be guarded as holy things, and whosoever neglects to protect them is worthy of death. But kings, although their power comes from on high, as has been said, should not regard themselves as masters of that power to use it at their pleasure; they must employ it with fear and self-restraint, as a thing coming from God and of which God will demand an account. Kings should tremble then as they use the power God has granted them; and let them think how horrible is the sacrilege if they use for evil a power which comes from God. We behold kings seated upon the throne of the Lord, bearing in their hand the sword which God himself has given them. What profanation, what arrogance, for the unjust king to sit on God's throne to render decrees contrary to his laws and to use the sword which God has put in his hand for deeds of violence and to slay his children! The royal power is absolute. With the aim of making this truth hateful and insufferable, many writers have tried to confound absolute government with arbitrary government. But no two things could be more unlike. The prince need render account of his acts to no one [because] without this absolute authority the king could neither do good nor repress evil. It is necessary that his power be such that no one can hope to escape him, and, finally, the only protection of individuals against the public authority should be their innocence. God is infinite. God is all. The prince, as prince, is not regarded as a private person: he is a public personage, all the state is in him; the will of all the people is included in his. The power of God makes itself felt in a moment from one extremity of the earth to another. Royal power works at the same time throughout all the realm. It holds all the realm in position, as God holds the earth. Should God withdraw his hand, the earth would fall to pieces; should the king's authority cease in the realm, all would be in confusion. 35 Finally, let us put together the things so great and so august that we have said about royal authority. Behold an immense people united in a single person; behold this holy power, paternal and absolute; behold the secret cause which governs the whole body of the state, contained in a single head: you see the image of God in the king, and you have the idea of royal majesty. God is holiness itself, goodness itself, and power itself. In these things lies the majesty of God. In the image of these things lies the majesty of the prince. So great is this majesty that it cannot reside in the prince as in its source; it is borrowed from God, who gives it to him for the good of the people, for whom it is good to be checked by a superior force. Something of divinity itself is attached to princes and inspires fear in the people. The king should not forget this. "I have said," - it is God who speaks, - "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." "I have said, Ye are gods"; that is to say, you have in your authority, and you bear on your forehead, a divine imprint. "You are the children of the Most High"; it is he who has established your power for the good of mankind. But, O gods of flesh and blood, gods of clay and dust, "ye shall die like men, and fall like princes." Grandeur separates men for a little time, but a common fall makes them all equal at the end. O kings, exercise your power then boldly, for it is divine and salutary for human kind, but exercise it with humility. You are endowed with it from without. At bottom it leaves you feeble, it leaves you mortal, it leaves you sinners, and charges you before God with a very heavy account. 36 John Locke, Second Treatise of Government John Locke (1632-1704) had a profound influence on the ideas of the Enlightenment. In his Second Treatise, he asserted that government rests on the consent of the governed and that revolution is permissible when government subverts the natural rights of the people. To understand political power aright, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another, there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, born to all the same advantages of Nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of Nature 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 all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure. And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. And that all men may be restrained from invading others' rights, and from doing hurt to one another, the execution of the law of Nature is in that state put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation. For the law of Nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world, be in vain if there were nobody that in the state of Nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And thus, in the state of Nature, one man comes by a power over another, but yet no absolute or arbitrary power. Hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom- i.e. make me a slave. 37 Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it. [But] if man in the state of Nature be so free as has been said, if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest and subject to nobody, why will he part with his freedom, this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of Nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain and constantly exposed to the invasion of others; for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very insecure. This makes him willing to quit this condition which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers; and it is not without reason that he seeks out and is willing to join in society with others who are already united, or have a mind to unite for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name- property. Despotical power is an absolute, arbitrary power one man has over another, to take away his life whenever he pleases; and this is a power which neither Nature gives, for it has made no such distinction between one man and another, nor compact can convey. Since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making: whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. What I have said here concerning the legislative in general holds true also concerning the supreme executor [executive], who having a double trust put in him, both to have a part in the legislative and the supreme execution of the law, acts against both, when he goes about to set up his own arbitrary will as the law of the society. 38 René Descartes: Discourse on Method (1637) René Descartes (1596-1650) was a brilliant mathematician and philosopher. Many regard him as the founder of modern philosophy. Like many philosophers, Descartes sought a path to certain knowledge. But he was troubled by the unreliability of the senses, and dissatisfied with both the premises of traditional philosophy and the limitations of theology. He became convinced that only by doubting everything we believe until we reach those truths we cannot doubt, and then using reason to deduce conclusions from those principles, can we ever obtain the certainty we seek. In this excerpt from the Discourse on Method, Descartes explains his approach and argues that one of the truths we cannot doubt is that we exist as spiritual beings. When I was younger I had studied a little among other branches of philosophy, logic, and among types of mathematics, geometrical analysis and algebra: three arts or sciences which seemed as if they ought to contribute something to my goal. But when I examined them, I realized [their limitations]. So I thought that I had to look for some other method which, having the advantages of these three, would be free of their defects. Instead of the great number or precepts which make up logic, I thought that the four following precepts would suffice, provided that I could make a firm, steadfast resolution not to violate them even once. The first was to never accept anything as true which I could not accept as obviously true; that is to say, to carefully avoid impulsiveness and prejudice, and to include nothing in my conclusions but whatever was so clearly presented to my mind that I could have no reason to doubt it. The second was to divide each of the problems I was examining in as many parts as I could, as many as should be necessary to solve them. The third, to develop my thoughts in order, beginning with the simplest and easiest to understand matters, in order to reach by degrees, little by little, to the most complex knowledge, assuming an orderliness among them which did not at all naturally seem to follow one from the other. And the last resolution was to make my enumerations so complete and my reviews so general that I could be assured that I had not omitted anything. These long chains of reasoning, so simple and easy, which geometers customarily use to make their most difficult demonstrations, caused me to imagine that everything which could be known by human beings could be deduced one from the other in the same way, and that, provided only that one refrained from accepting anything as true which was not, and always preserving the order by which one deduced one from another, there could not be any truth so abstruse that one could not finally attain it, nor so hidden that it could not be discovered. And I had little trouble finding which propositions I needed to begin with, for I already knew that they would be the simplest and the easiest to know. . . . Since I wanted to devote myself solely to the search for truth, I thought that I should reject as absolutely false anything about which I could imagine the slightest doubt, so that I could see if there would not remain after all that something in my belief which could be called absolutely certain. So, because our senses sometimes trick us, I tried to imagine that there was nothing which is the way that we imagine it; and since there are people 39 who are mistaken about the simplest matters of geometry, making mistakes in logic, and supposing that I was as likely to make mistakes as anyone else, I rejected as false all the arguments that I had considered as valid demonstrations. Finally, considering that all our thoughts which we have when we are awake can also come to us when we are sleeping without a single one of them being true, I resolved to pretend that everything I had ever thought was no more true that the illusions in my dreams. But I immediately realized that, though I wanted to think that everything was false, it was necessary that the "me" who was doing the thinking was something; and noticing that this truth--I think, therefore I am--was so certain and sure that all the wildest suppositions of skeptics could not shake it, I judged that I could unhesitatingly accept it as the first principle of the philosophy for which I was seeking. Then, examining closely what I was, and seeing that I could imagine that I had no body and that there was no world or place where I was, I could not imagine that I did not exist at all. On the contrary, precisely because I doubted the existence of other things it followed quite obviously and certainly that I did exist. If, on the other hand, I had only ceased to think while everything else that I had imagined remained true, I would have had no reason to believe that I existed; therefore I realized that I was a substance whose essence, or nature, is nothing but thought, and which, in order to exist, needs no place to exist nor any other material thing. So this self, that is to say the soul, through which I am what I am, is entirely separate from the body, and is even more easily known than the latter, so that even if I did not have a body, my soul would continue to be all that it is. Translated by Paul Brians 40 Voltaire, The Philosophical Dictionary Voltaire, the pen name of François-Marie Arouet (1694-1778), was the wittiest writer of the French Enlightenment. A poet, philosopher, essayist, and playwright, he was a bitter critic of religious intolerance and of the Catholic Church RELIGION As I meditated last night, I was absorbed in the contemplation of nature; I admired the immensity, the course, and the harmony of its infinite worlds. I admired still more the intelligence that directs these vast forces. I said to myself : "One must be blind not to be dazzled by this spectacle; one must be stupid not to recognize the author of it; one must be mad not to worship Him. What tribute of worship should I render Him? Should not this tribute be the same in the whole of space, since it is the same supreme power that reigns equally in all space? Should not a thinking being who dwells in a star in the Milky Way offer Him the same homage as the thinking being on this little globe where we are? Light is the same for the star Sirius as it is for us; moral philosophy must be the same. If a sentient, thinking animal in Sirius is born of a tender father and mother who have been occupied with his happiness, he owes them as much love and care as we owe to our parents. If someone in the Milky Way sees a needy cripple, if he can relieve him and if he does not do it, he is guilty everywhere. Everywhere the heart has the same duties: on the steps of the throne of God, if He has a throne; and in the depth of the abyss, if He is an abyss." I was plunged in these ideas when one of those genii who fill the space between worlds came down to me. He transported me into a desert all covered with piled up bones; and between these heaps of dead men there were walks of evergreen trees, and at the end of each walk a tall man of august bearing, who regarded these sad remains with pity. "Alas! my archangel," said I, "where have you brought me? " "To desolation," he answered. "And who are these fine patriarchs whom I see sad and motionless at the end of these green walks? They seem to be weeping over this countless crowd of dead." "You shall know, poor human creature," answered the genius from the intermundane spaces; "but first of all you must weep." He began with the first pile. " These," he said, "are the twenty-three thousand Jews who danced before a calf, with the twenty-four thousand who were killed while lying with Midianite women. The number of those massacred for such errors and offences amounts to nearly three hundred thousand." "In the other walks are the bones of the Christians slaughtered by each other for 41 metaphysical disputes. They are divided into several heaps of four centuries each. One heap would have mounted right to the sky; they had to be divided." "What! " I cried, "brothers have treated their brothers like this, and I have the misfortune to be of this brotherhood!" "Here," said the spirit, "are the twelve million [native] Americans killed in their fatherland because they had not been baptized." "My God! Why did you not leave these frightful bones to dry in the hemisphere where their bodies were born, and where they were consigned to so many different deaths? Why assemble here all these abominable monuments to barbarism and fanaticism?" "To instruct you." "Since you wish to instruct me," I said to the genius, "tell me if there have been peoples other than the Christians and the Jews in whom zeal and religion wretchedly transformed into fanaticism, have inspired so many horrible cruelties." "Yes," he said. "The Mohammedans were sullied with the same inhumanities, but rarely; and when one asked pity of them, and offered them tribute, they pardoned. As for the other nations, there has not been one from the beginning of the world which has ever made a war that served pure religion." DEIST The deist is a man firmly persuaded of the existence of a Supreme Being as good as He is powerful, who has formed all beings; who perpetuates their species, who punishes crimes without cruelty, and rewards virtuous actions with kindness. The deist does not know how God punishes, how he protects, how he pardons, for he is not reckless enough to flatter himself that he knows how God acts, but he knows that God acts and that He is just. He does not embrace any of the sects, all of which contradict each other; his religion is the most ancient and the most widespread; for the simple worship of a God has preceded all the systems of the world. He speaks a language that all peoples understand, while they do not understand one another. He has brothers from Peking to Cayenne, and he counts all wise men as his brethren. He believes that religion does not consist either in the opinions of an unintelligible metaphysic, or in vain display, but in worship and justice. The doing of good, there is his service; being submissive to God, there is his doctrine. The Mohammedan cries to him--"Have a care if you do not make the pilgrimage to Mecca!" "Woe unto you," says a Catholic priest, "if you do not make a journey to the 42 shrine of Notre-Dame de Lorette!" He laughs at Lorette and at Mecca; but he succors the needy and defends the oppressed. 43 Immanuel Kant, What is Enlightenment? Although his own philosophy was very different from that of the French philosophes, and far deeper, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) shared their belief in intellectual freedom. Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [Dare to know] "Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment. Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men, long after nature has released them from alien guidance, nonetheless gladly remain in lifelong immaturity, and why it is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians. It is so easy to be immature. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me. Thus, it is difficult for any individual man to work himself out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature. But that the public should enlighten itself is more likely; indeed, if it is only allowed freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable. For even among the entrenched guardians of the great masses a few will always think for themselves, a few who, after having themselves thrown off the yoke of immaturity, will spread the spirit of a rational appreciation for both their own worth and for each person's calling to think for himself. But the public can only attain enlightenment slowly. Perhaps a revolution can overthrow autocratic despotism and profiteering or power-grabbing oppression, but it can never truly reform a manner of thinking; instead, new prejudices, just like the old ones they replace, will serve as a leash for the great unthinking mass. 44 Declaration of the Rights of Man Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789 The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen: 1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good. 2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible [inviolable] rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. 3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body or individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation. 4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law. 5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law. 6. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents. 7. No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense. 45 8. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense. 9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law. 10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law. 11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law. 12. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be entrusted. 13. A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means. 14. All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes. 15. Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration. 16. A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all. 17. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified 46 Olympe de Gouges, The Declaration of the Rights of Woman Olympe de Gouges [the pen name of Marie Gouze] (1748–1793) was a self–educated butcher’s daughter from the south of France and an ardent supporter of the French Revolution. An actress and a playwright, de Gouges wrote pamphlets on a variety of political issues, including a denunciation of slavery. In this pamphlet, published in September 1791, she offered a declaration of the rights of women to parallel the one for men, although with some significant differences. In her postscript she criticized the way that many men treated women as objects who could be easily abandoned. Most of the leaders of the Revolution ridiculed or ignored her ideas. In 1793, during the Reign of Terror, the Jacobins sent de Gouges, who was a member of the rival Girondin faction, to the guillotine. Preamble Mothers, daughters, sisters, female representatives of the nation ask to be constituted as a national assembly. Considering that ignorance, neglect, or contempt for the rights of woman are the sole causes of public misfortunes and governmental corruption, they have resolved to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, inalienable, and sacred rights of woman: so that by being constantly present to all the members of the social body this declaration may always remind them of their rights and duties; so that by being liable at every moment to comparison with the aim of any and all political institutions the acts of women's and men's powers may be the more fully respected; and so that by being founded henceforward on simple and incontestable principles the demands of the female citizens may always tend toward maintaining the constitution, good morals, and the general welfare. In consequence, the sex that is superior in beauty as in courage, needed in maternal sufferings, recognizes and declares, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of woman and the female citizen. 1. Woman is born free and remains equal to man in rights. Social distinctions may be based only on common utility. 2. The purpose of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of woman and man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and especially resistance to oppression. 3. The principle of all sovereignty rests essentially in the nation, which is but the reuniting of woman and man. No body and no individual may exercise authority which does not emanate expressly from the nation. 4. Liberty and justice consist in restoring all that belongs to another; hence the exercise of the natural rights of woman has no other limits than those that the perpetual tyranny of man opposes to them; these limits must be reformed according to the laws of nature and reason. 47 5. The laws of nature and reason prohibit all actions which are injurious to society. No hindrance should be put in the way of anything not prohibited by these wise and divine laws, nor may anyone be forced to do what they do not require. 6. The law should be the expression of the general will. All female citizens and male citizens should take part, in person or by their representatives, in its formation. It must be the same for everyone. All female citizens and male citizens, being equal in its eyes, should be equally admissible to all public dignities, offices and employments, according to their ability, and with no other distinction than that of their virtues and talents. 7. No woman is exempted; she is indicted, arrested, and detained in the cases determined by the law. Women like men obey this rigorous law. 8. Only strictly and obviously necessary punishments should be established by the law, and no one may be punished except by virtue of a law established and promulgated before the time of the offense, and legally applied to women. 9. Any woman being declared guilty, all rigor is exercised by the law. 10. No one should be disturbed for his fundamental opinions; woman has the right to mount the scaffold, so she should have the right equally to mount the rostrum, provided that these actions do not trouble public order as established by law. 11. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of woman, since this liberty assures the recognition of children by their fathers. Every female citizen may therefore say freely, I am the mother of your child; a barbarous prejudice [against unmarried women having children] should not force her to hide the truth, so long as responsibility is accepted for any abuse of this liberty in cases determined by the law [women are not allowed to lie about the paternity of their children]. 12. The safeguard of the rights of woman and the female citizen requires public powers. These powers are instituted for the advantage of all and not for the private benefit of those to whom they are entrusted. 13. For maintenance of public authority and for expenses of administration, taxation of women and men is equal; she takes part in all forced labor service, in all painful tasks; she must therefore have the same proportion in the distribution of places, employments, offices, dignities, and in industry. 14. The female citizens and male citizens have the right, by themselves or through their representatives, to have demonstrated to them the necessity of public taxes. The female citizens can only agree to them upon admission of an equal division, not only in wealth, but also in the public administration, and to determine the means of apportionment, assessment, and collection, and the duration of the taxes. 48 15. The mass of women, joining with men in paying taxes, have the right to hold accountable every public agent of the administration. 16. Any society in which the guarantee of rights is not assured or the separation of powers not settled has no constitution. The constitution is null and void if the majority of individuals composing the nation has not cooperated in its drafting. 17. Property belongs to both sexes whether united or separated; it is for each of them an inviolable and sacred right, and no one may be deprived of it as a true patrimony of nature, except when public necessity, certified by law, obviously requires it, and then on condition of a just compensation in advance. Postscript Women, wake up; the tocsin [alarm call] of reason sounds throughout the universe; recognize your rights. The powerful empire of nature is no longer surrounded by prejudice, fanaticism, superstition, and lies. The torch of truth has dispersed all the clouds of folly and usurpation. Enslaved man has multiplied his force and needs yours to break his chains. Having become free, he has become unjust toward his companion. Oh women! Women, when will you cease to be blind? What advantages have you gathered in the Revolution? A scorn more marked, a disdain more conspicuous ... Under the former regime, everyone was vicious, everyone guilty. . . . A woman only had to be beautiful and amiable; when she possessed these two advantages, she saw a hundred fortunes at her feet. . . . The most indecent woman could make herself respectable with gold; the commerce in women [prostitution] was a kind of industry amongst the highest classes, which henceforth will enjoy no more credit. If it still did, the Revolution would be lost, and in the new situation we would still be corrupted. Can reason hide the fact that every other road to fortune is closed to a woman bought by a man, bought like a slave from the coasts of Africa? ... Other examples even more touching can be provided to reason. A young woman without experience, seduced by the man she loves, abandons her parents to follow him; the ingrate leaves her after a few years and the older she will have grown with him, the more his inconstancy will be inhuman. If she has children, he will still abandon her. If he is rich, he will believe himself excused from sharing his fortune with his noble victims. If some engagement ties him to his duties, he will violate it while counting on support from the law. If he is married, every other obligation loses its force. 49 Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France Edmund Burke (1729-1797) is often described as the father of conservative political thought. He supported the American Revolution, but alarmed by the excesses of the French Revolution, he wrote his Reflections on the French Revolution in 1790. This work takes the form of an attack on a sermon by Richard Price. Just as the leaders of the National Constituent Assembly had claimed that the French people had the right to choose their rulers, to dismiss them for misconduct, and to create a government to their liking, Price claimed these same rights for the people of England. Price argued that these rights had been secured by the Glorious Revolution. Burke denied this and rejected as well John Locke’s belief the principal purpose of government is to protect natural rights. [Richard Price] proceeds dogmatically to assert, that, by the principles of the [Glorious] Revolution [of 1688], the people of England have acquired three fundamental rights, 1. "To choose our own governors." 2. "To cashier them for misconduct." 3. "To frame a government for ourselves." If the principles of the Revolution of 1688 are anywhere to be found, it is in the statute called the Declaration of Right [Bill of Rights]. In that most wise, sober, and considerate declaration, not one word is said, nor one suggestion made, of a general right "to choose our own governors; to cashier them for misconduct; and to form a government for ourselves." The people of England look upon the legal hereditary succession of their crown as among their rights, not as among their wrongs; as a benefit, not as a grievance; as a security for their liberty, not as a badge of servitude. The second claim is "a right of cashiering their governors for misconduct." No government could stand a moment, if it could be blown down with anything so loose and indefinite as an opinion of "misconduct." They who led at the [Glorious] Revolution [charged] King James with nothing less than a design, confirmed by a multitude of illegal overt acts, to subvert the Protestant church and state, and their fundamental, unquestionable laws and liberties: they charged him with having broken the original contract between king and people. This was more than misconduct. Kings, in one sense, are undoubtedly the servants of the people, because their power has no other rational end than that of the general advantage; but it is not true that they are, in the ordinary sense, (by our constitution at least,) anything like servants; the essence of whose situation is to obey the commands of some other, and to be removable at pleasure. But the king of Great Britain obeys no other person; all other persons are individually, and collectively too, under him, and owe to him a legal obedience. 50 The third head of right, asserted, namely, the "right to form a government for ourselves," has as little countenance from anything done at the Revolution as the two first of their claims. The Revolution was made to preserve our ancient indisputable laws and liberties, and that ancient constitution of government which is our only security for law and liberty. The very idea of the fabrication of a new government is enough to fill us with disgust and horror. We wished at the period of the Revolution, and do now wish, to derive all we possess as an inheritance from our forefathers. A spirit of innovation is generally the result of a selfish temper and confined views. People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors. Far am I from denying in theory, full as far is my heart from withholding in practice the real rights of men. If civil society be made for the advantage of man, all the advantages for which it is made become his right. Men have a right to do justice, as between their fellows. They have a right to the fruits of their industry; and to the means of making their industry fruitful. They have a right to the acquisition of their parents; to the nourishment and improvement of their offspring; to instruction in life, and to consolation in death. Whatever each man can separately do, without trespassing upon others, he has a right to do for himself; and he has a right to a fair portion of all which society, with all its combinations of skill and force, can do in his favour. In this partnership all men have equal rights; but not the equal things. He that has but five shillings in the partnership, has a good a right to it, as he that has five hundred pounds has to his larger proportion. But he has not a right to an equal dividend in the product of the joint stock; and as to the share of power, authority, and direction which each individual ought to have in the management of the state, that I must deny to be amongst the direct original rights of man in civil society; for I have in my contemplation the civil social man, and no other. It is a thing to be settled by convention. How can any man claim under the conventions of civil society, rights which do not so much as suppose its existence? rights which are absolutely repugnant to it? One of the first motives to civil society, and which becomes one of its fundamental rules, is that no man should be judge in his own cause. By this each person has at once divested himself of the first fundamental right of uncovenanted man, that is, to judge for himself, and to assert his own cause. He abdicates all right to be his own governor. He inclusively, in a great measure, abandons the right of self-defence, the first law of nature. Men cannot enjoy the rights of an uncivil and of a civil state together. That he may obtain justice, he gives up his right of determining what it is in points the most essential to him. That he may secure some liberty, he makes a surrender in trust of the whole of it. Government is not made in virtue of natural rights, which may and do exist in total independence of it. Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. Men have a right that these wants should be provided for by this wisdom. Among these wants is to be reckoned the want, out of civil society, of a sufficient restraint upon their passions. Society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in the individuals, the 51 inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection. This can only be done by a power out of themselves. In this sense the restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights. Society is indeed a contract. Subordinate contracts for objects of mere occasional interest may be dissolved at pleasure--but the state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties. It is to be looked on with other reverence; because it is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are to be born. Each contract of each particular state is but a clause in the great primeval contract of eternal society. 52 John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859) John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was the most influential liberal philosopher of the nineteenth century. In his essay, On Liberty, Mill defended the rights of the individual against both the tyranny of the State and what he regarded as the more insidious threat of the tyranny of public opinion. The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. If any one does an act hurtful to others, there is a prima facie case for punishing him, by law, or, where legal penalties are not safely applicable, by general disapprobation. There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to perform; such as, to give evidence in a court of justice; to bear his fair share in the common defense, or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection; and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow-creature's life, or interposing to protect the defenseless against illusage, things which whenever it is obviously a man's duty to do, he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing. But there is a sphere of action in which society, as distinguished from the individual, has, if any, only an indirect interest; comprehending all that portion of a person's life and conduct which affects only himself, or if it also affects others, only with their free, voluntary, and undeceived consent and participation. This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow: without 53 impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived. No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified. The aim, therefore, of patriots [has been] to set limits to the power which the ruler should be suffered to exercise over the community; and this limitation was what they meant by liberty. It was attempted in two ways. First, by obtaining a recognition of certain immunities, called political liberties or rights, which it was to be regarded as a breach of duty in the ruler to infringe; and which if he did infringe, specific resistance, or general rebellion, was held to be justifiable. A second, and generally a later expedient, was the establishment of constitutional checks, by which the consent of the community, or of a body of some sort, supposed to represent its interests, was made a necessary condition to some of the more important acts of the governing power. A time, however, came, in the progress of human affairs, when men ceased to think it a necessity of nature that their governors should be an independent power, opposed in interest to themselves. It appeared to them much better that the various magistrates of the State should be their tenants or delegates, revocable at their pleasure. In that way alone, it seemed, could they have complete security that the powers of government would never be abused to their disadvantage. As the struggle proceeded for making the ruling power emanate from the periodical choice of the ruled, some persons began to think that too much importance had been attached to the limitation of the power itself. That (it might seem) was a resource against rulers whose interests were habitually opposed to those of the people. What was now wanted was, that the rulers should be identified with the people; that their interest and will should be the interest and will of the nation. The nation did not need to be protected against its own will. There was no fear of its tyrannizing over itself. Let the rulers be effectually responsible to it, promptly removable by it, and it could afford to trust them with power of which it could itself dictate the use to be made. In time, however, a democratic republic came to occupy a large portion of the earth's surface, and made itself felt as one of the most powerful members of the community of nations; and elective and responsible government became subject to the observations and criticisms which wait upon a great existing fact. It was now perceived that such phrases as "self-government," and "the power of the people over themselves," do not express the true state of the case. The "people" who exercise the power are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised; and the "self-government" spoken of is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest. The will of the people, moreover, practically means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the 54 majority; the people, consequently may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this as against any other abuse of power. In political speculations "the tyranny of the majority" is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard. Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant--society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism. 55 William Wordsworth, "The Tables Turned" William Wordsworth (1770-1850) was a leader of the Romantic movement in England and one of its greatest poets. Up! up! my Friend, and quit your books; Or surely you'll grow double: Up! up! my Friend, and clear your looks; Why all this toil and trouble? The sun, above the mountain's head, A freshening lustre mellow Through all the long green fields has spread, His first sweet evening yellow. Books! 'tis a dull and endless strife: Come, hear the woodland linnet [a small finch], How sweet his music! on my life, There's more of wisdom in it. And hark! how blithe the throstle [a thrush] sings! He, too, is no mean preacher: Come forth into the light of things, Let Nature be your Teacher. She has a world of ready wealth, Our minds and hearts to bless Spontaneous wisdom breathed by health, Truth breathed by cheerfulness. One impulse from a vernal wood May teach you more of man, Of moral evil and of good, Than all the sages can. Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; Our meddling intellect Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things: We murder to dissect. Enough of Science and of Art; Close up those barren leaves; Come forth, and bring with you a heart That watches and receives. 56 Giuseppe Mazzini, An Essay On the Duties of Man Addressed to Workingmen Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-1872) devoted almost his entire adult life to the cause of Italian independence and unity. In 1831 he founded the nationalist organization Young Italy, and he edited a journal of the same name. Mazzini was an outspoken champion of democracy and social equality. Convinced that every nation is sacred, he encouraged nationalist uprisings elsewhere in Europe. He participated in the revolutions of 1848-49 in Italy, first in Milan and then in Rome. When an uprising briefly drove the pope from Rome, he served as one of the three Triumvirs in the short-lived Roman Republic. Not surprisingly, he spent many years in exile. INTRODUCTION I intend to speak to you of your duties. I intend to speak to you, according to the dictates of my heart, of the holiest things we know: to speak to you of God, of Humanity, of the Fatherland, and the Family. Why do I speak to you of your duties before speaking to you of your rights? Why, in a society wherein all, voluntarily or involuntarily, tend to oppress you; wherein the exercise of so many of the rights that belong to man is continually denied to you; wherein your portion is suffering, and all that which men call happiness is for other classes, do I speak to you of self-sacrifice rather than of conquest? Of virtue, of moral improvement, and of education, rather than of material wellbeing? All that has been achieved or attempted in the cause of progress and improvement in Europe during the last fifty years, whether against absolute governments or the aristocracy of birth, has been attempted in the name of the Rights of Man and of Liberty, as the means of obtaining that wellbeing which has been regarded as the end and aim of life. All the acts of the great French Revolution, and of all of those revolutions which succeeded and imitated it, were a consequence of the "Declaration of the Rights of Man." All the works of those philosophers, whose writings prepared the way for that Revolution, were founded upon a theory of Liberty, and of making known to every individual his Rights. The doctrines of all the revolutionary schools preached that man was born for happiness; that he had a right to seek happiness by every means in his power; and that no one had a right to impede him in that search; while he had a right to overthrow whatever obstacles he met in his path towards it. And all those obstacles were overthrown; liberty was achieved. In many countries it lasted for years; in some it exists even yet. Has the condition of the people improved? Have the millions who live by the daily labor of their hands acquired any, the smallest amount, of the promised and desired wellbeing? No; the condition of the people is not improved. On the contrary, in most countries it has even deteriorated. 57 And nevertheless in these last fifty years the sources of social wealth and the mass of material means of happiness have been continually on the increase. The idea that there are rights inherent to human nature is now generally admitted and accepted, hypocritically and in words at least, even by those who seek to withhold those rights. Why, then, has not the condition of the people improved? Why has the fresh impulse given to industry and commerce resulted, not in the wellbeing of the many, but in the luxury of a few? The answer is clear to those who look closely into things. The promoters of revolutions and political transformations have hitherto founded them all on one idea, the idea of the rights pertaining to the individual. Those revolutions achieved Liberty - individual liberty, liberty of education, liberty of belief, liberty of commerce, liberty in all things and for all men. But of what use were rights when acquired by men who had not the means of exercising them? Of what use was mere liberty of education to men who had neither time nor means to profit by it? Of what use was mere liberty of commerce to those who possessed neither merchandise, capital, nor credit? For such men, compelled to spend the whole day in material and monotonous labor, and condemned to a continual struggle against hunger and want, what was liberty but an illusion, a bitter irony? The only way to prevent this state of things would have been for the upper classes voluntarily to consent to reduce the hours of labor, while they increased its remuneration; to bestow a uniform and free education upon the multitude; to render the instruments of labor accessible to all, and create a credit for workmen of good capacity and of good intentions. But why should they have done this? Was not wellbeing the end and aim of life? Was not prosperity the one thing desired by all? Why should they diminish their own enjoyments in favor of others? "Let those help themselves who can. When Society has secured to each individual the free exercise of those rights that are inherent in human nature, it has done all it is bound to do. If there be any one who, from some fatality of his own position, is unable to exercise any of these rights, let him resign himself to his fate, and not blame others." It was natural they should speak thus, and thus in fact they spoke. And this mode of regarding the poor by the privileged classes soon became the mode in which individuals regarded one another. Each man occupied himself with his own rights and the amelioration of his own position, without seeking to provide for others; and when those rights clashed with the rights of others, the result was a state of war—a war, not of blood, but of gold and craft; less manly than the other, but equally fatal; a relentless war in which those who possessed means inexorably crushed the weak and inexpert. In this state of continual warfare, men were educated in selfishness and the exclusive greed of material wellbeing. Mere liberty of belief had destroyed all community of faith; 58 mere liberty of education generated moral anarchy. This is the state of things we have reached at the present day, thanks to the theory of rights. Rights no doubt exist; but when the rights of one individual happen to clash with those of another, how can we hope to reconcile and harmonize them, if we do not refer to something that is above all rights? And when the rights of an individual, or of many individuals, clash with the rights of the country, to what tribunal shall we appeal? DUTIES TOWARDS YOUR COUNTRY Your first duties—first as regards importance—are towards Humanity. You are men before you are either citizens or fathers. If you do not embrace the whole human family in your affection; if you do not bear witness to your belief in the Unity of that family, rooted in the Unity of God; if, wheresoever a fellow-creature suffers, or the dignity of human nature is violated by falsehood or tyranny, you are not ready, if able, to aid the unhappy, and do not feel called upon to fight, if able, for the redemption of the betrayed and oppressed, you violate your law of life, you do not comprehend that Religion which will be the guide and blessing of the future. But what can each of you, singly, do for the moral improvement and progress of Humanity? You can from time to time give sterile utterance to your belief; you may, on some rare occasions, perform some act of charity towards a brother-man not belonging to your own land—no more. But charity is not the watchword of the Faith of the Future. The watchword of the faith of the future is Association and fraternal cooperation towards a common aim; and this is far superior to all charity, as the edifice which all of you should unite to raise would be superior to the humble hut each one of you might build alone. But, you tell me, you cannot attempt united action, distinct and divided as you are in language, customs, tendencies, and capacity. The individual is too insignificant, and Humanity too vast. The means [for united action] was provided for you by God when He gave you a country; when he divided Humanity into distinct groups or nuclei upon the face of the earth, thus creating the germ of nationalities. Evil governments have disfigured the Divine design. They have disfigured it by their conquests, their greed, and their jealousy even of the righteous power of others; disfigured it so far that, if we except England and France, there is not perhaps a single country whose present boundaries correspond to that design. These governments did not, and do not, recognize any country save their own families or dynasty, the egoism of caste. But the Divine design will infallibly be realized; natural divisions and the spontaneous, innate tendencies of the peoples will take the place of the arbitrary divisions, sanctioned by evil governments. The map of Europe will be redrawn. The countries of the peoples, defined by the vote of free men, will arise upon the ruins of the countries of kings and privileged castes, and between these countries harmony and fraternity will exist. Then may each one of you, fortified by the power and affection of many millions, all speaking the same language, gifted with the same tendencies, and 59 educated by the same historical tradition, hope even by your own single efforts to be able to benefit all Humanity. Our country is the fulcrum of the lever we have to wield for the common good. If we abandon the fulcrum, we run the risk of rendering ourselves useless not only to Humanity but to our country itself. Before men can associate with the nations of which Humanity is composed, they must have a national existence. It is only through our country that we can have a recognized collective existence. Say not I, but We. Let each man among you strive to incarnate his country in himself. Your country is the sign of the mission God has given you to fulfill towards Humanity. The true country is a community of free men and equals, bound together in fraternal concord to labor towards a common aim. There is, therefore, no true country without a uniform right. There is no true country where the uniformity of that right is violated by the existence of caste privilege and inequality. In the name of the love you bear your country, you must peacefully but untiringly combat the existence of privilege and inequality in the land that gave you life. Be your country your Temple: God at the summit; a people of equals at the base. So long as a single one amongst your brothers has no vote to represent him in the development of the national life, so long as there is one left to vegetate in ignorance where others are educated, so long as a single man, able and willing to work, languishes in poverty through want of work to do, you have no country in the sense in which Country ought to exist - the country of all and for all. 60 Heinrich von Treitschke, Extracts from German History in the Nineteenth Century and Political Writings As a young man, the German historian Heinrich von Treitschke (1834-1896) was a liberal nationalist who sought the creation of a united and democratic Germany. But by 1871, when the German Empire was established, he had lost his faith in democracy, and although he never denied the value of individual liberty, his nationalism would henceforth be joined to militarism, authoritarian monarchism, and racism. ON THE STATE The state is a moral community, which is called upon to educate the human race by positive achievement. Its ultimate object is that a nation should develop in it, a nation distinguished by a real national character. To achieve this state is the highest moral duty for nation and individual alike. All private quarrels must be forgotten when the state is in danger. At the moment when the state cries out that its very life is at stake, social selfishness must cease and party hatred be hushed. The individual must forget his egoism, and feel that he is a member of the whole body. The most important possession of a state, its be-all and end-all, is power. He who is not man enough to look this truth in the face should not meddle in politics. The state is not physical power as an end in itself, it is power to protect and promote the higher interests. Power must justify itself by being applied for the greatest good of mankind. It is the highest moral duty of the state to increase its power. The true greatness of the state is that it links the past with the present and future: consequently, the individual has no right to regard the state as a means for attaining his own ambitions in life. Every extension of the activities of the state is beneficial and wise if it arouses, promotes, and purifies the independence of free and reasoning men. It is evil when it kills and stunts the independence of free men. It is men who make history. The state does not stand for the whole life of the nation. Its function is essentially protective and administrative. The state does not swallow up everything; it can only influence by external compulsion. It represents the nation from the point of view of power. For in the state it is not only the great primitive forces of human nature that come into play; the state is the basis of all national life. Briefly, it may be affirmed that a state which is not capable of forming and maintaining an external organization of its civilizing activities deserves to perish. Only the truly great and powerful stares ought to exist. Small states are unable to protect their subjects against external enemies. Moreover, they are incapable of producing genuine patriotism or national pride and are sometimes incapable of culture in great dimensions. ON MONARCHY 61 The will of the state is in a monarchy, the expression of the will of one man who wears the crown by virtue of the historic right of a certain family; with him the final authority rests. Nothing in a monarchy can be done contrary to the will of the monarch. In a democracy, plurality, the will of the people, expresses the will of the state. A monarchy excels any other form of government, including the democratic, in achieving unity and power in a nation. it is for this reason that monarchy seems so natural, and that it makes such an appeal to the popular understanding. We Germans had an experience of this in the first years of our new empire. How wonderfully the idea of a united Fatherland was embodied for us in the person of the venerable Emperor! How much it meant to us that we could feel once more: "That man is Germany; there is no doubting it." ON WAR The idea of perpetual peace is an illusion supported only by those of weak character. It has always been the weary, spiritless, and exhausted apes which have played with the dream of perpetual peace. A thousand touching portraits testify to the sacred power of the love which a righteous war awakes in noble nations. It is altogether impossible that peace be maintained in a world bristling with arms, and even God will see to it that war always recurs as a drastic medicine for the human race. Among great states the greatest political sin and the most contemptible is feebleness. War is elevating because the individual disappears before the great conception of the state. The devotion of the members of a community to each other is nowhere so splendidly conspicuous as in war. Modern wars are not waged for the sake of goods and resources. What is at stake is the sublime moral good of national honor, which has something in the nature of unconditional sanctity, and compels the individual to sacrifice himself for it. ON THE GERMAN CHARACTER Depth of thought, idealism. cosmopolitan views; transcendent philosophy which boldly oversteps (or freely looks over) the separating barriers of finite existence; familiarity with every human thought and feeling, the desire to traverse the world-wide realm of ideas in common with the foremost intellects of all nations and all times. All that has at all times been held to be characteristic of the Germans and has always been praised as the essence of German character and breeding. ON THE ENGLISH The English possess a commercial spirit, a love of money which has killed every sentiment of honor and every distinction of right and wrong. English cowardice and sensuality are hidden behind unctuous, theological fine talk which is to us free-thinking German heretics among all the sins of English nature the most repugnant. In England all notions of honor and class vanish before the power of money, whereas the German nobility has remained poor but chivalrous. That last indispensable bulwark against the 62 brutalization of society—the duel—has gone out of fashion in England and soon disappeared, to be supplanted by the riding whip. This was a triumph of vulgarity. ON JEWS The Jews at one time played a necessary role in German history, because of their ability in the management of money. But now that the Aryans [racially pure Germans] have become accustomed to the idiosyncrasies of' finance, the Jews are no longer necessary. The international Jew, hidden in the mask of different nationalities, is a disintegrating influence; he can be of no further use to the world. It is necessary to speak openly about the Jews, undisturbed by the fact that the Jewish press befouls what is purely historical truth. 63 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848) Although it at first had little or no impact on the revolutionary movements of the midnineteenth century, the Communist Manifesto was to become one of the most influential documents of the twentieth century. Marx (1818-1883) distinguished his theory of socialism from others by insisting that it was scientifically based in the objective study of history, which he saw as being a continuous process of change and transformation. Just as feudalism had been overturned by capitalism, so capitalism would inevitably give way to its logical successor, socialism (a term which in Marx's usage includes its most advanced form, communism) as the necessary result of class struggle. Prologue A specter is haunting Europe--the specter of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this specter. Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries? Two things result from this fact: I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power. II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the specter of communism with a manifesto of the party itself. Part I: Bourgeois And Proletarians The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guildmasters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations. 64 The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society, has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: It has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other-bourgeoisie and proletariat. . . . Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages. We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange. Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, it became an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune; here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany), there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacture proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general--the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of modern industry and of the world market conquered for itself, in the modern representative state, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie has played a most revolutionary role in history. The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors," and has left no other bond between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment." It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom--Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation. The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation. 65 Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. The bourgeoisie [has] forged the weapons that bring death to itself [and] it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians. In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital. These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market. Hitherto, every form of society has been based . . . on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society. The development of modern industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable. Part II: Proletarians and Communists What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class. When people speak of ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express the fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence. "Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religion, moral, philosophical and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change." 66 "There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience." What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs. But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms. The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas. Part IV: Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each case, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time. Finally, they labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries. The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite! 67 Social Darwinism William Graham Sumner, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other William Graham Sumner (1840-1910), an American sociologist who taught at Yale University, was a Social Darwinist who believed that competition between individuals was essential for social progress. He criticized racial prejudice and opposed imperialism. Almost all legislative effort to prevent vice is really protective of vice, because all such legislation saves the vicious man from the penalty of his vice. Nature's remedies against vice are terrible. She removes the victims without pity. A drunkard in the gutter is just where he ought to be, according, to the fitness and tendency of things. Nature has set up on him the process of decline and dissolution by which she removes things which have survived their usefulness. Now, we never can annihilate a penalty. We can only divert it from the head of the man who has incurred it to the heads of others who have not incurred it. A vast amount of "social reform" consists in just this operation. The consequence is that those who have gone astray, being relieved from Nature's fierce discipline, go on to worse, and that there is a constantly heavier burden for the others to bear. Who are the others? When we see a drunkard in the gutter we pity him. If a policeman picks him up, we say that society has interfered to save him from perishing. "Society" is a fine word, and it saves us the trouble of thinking. The industrious and sober workman, who is mulcted of a percentage of his day's wages to pay the policeman, is the one who bears the penalty. We each owe it to the other to guarantee rights. Rights do not pertain to results, but only to chances. They pertain to the conditions of the struggle for existence, not to any of the results of it; to the pursuit of happiness, not to the possession of happiness. Karl Pearson, National Life From the Standpoint of Science Karl Pearson (1857-1936) was a distinguished mathematician who made important contributions to the study of statistics. He was also an outspoken Social Darwinist. Pearson believed that the progress of civilization was the result of the struggle for survival between races and nations. He called himself a socialist and believed that the State had an obligation to secure the welfare of the national community. History shows me one way, and one way only, in which a high state of civilization has been produced, namely, the struggle of race with race, and the survival of the physically and mentally fitter race The struggle means suffering, intense suffering, while it is in progress; but that struggle and that suffering have been the stages by which the white man has reached his present stage of development, and they account for the fact that he no longer lives in caves and feeds on roots and nuts. This dependence of progress on the survival of the fitter race, 68 terribly black as it may seem to some of you, gives the struggle for existence its redeeming features; it is the fiery crucible out of which comes the finer metal. You may hope for a time when the sword shall be turned into the plowshare, when American and German and English traders shall no longer compete in the markets of the world for their raw material and for their food supply, when the white man and the dark shall share the soil between them, and each till it as he lists. But, believe me, when that day comes mankind will no longer progress; there will be nothing to check the fertility of inferior stock; the relentless law of heredity will not be controlled and guided by natural selection. The man who tells us that he feels to all men alike, that he has no sense of kinship, that he has no patriotic sentiment, that he loves the Kaffir [black South African] as he loves his brother, is probably deceiving himself. If he is not, then all we can say is that a nation of such men, or even a nation with a large minority of such men, will not stand for many generations; it cannot survive in the struggle of the nations, it cannot be a factor in the contest upon which human progress ultimately depends. Science realizes that the nation is an organized whole, in continual struggle with its competitors. You cannot get a strong and effective nation if many of its stomachs are half fed and many of its brains untrained. The true statesman has to limit the internal struggle of the community in order to make it stronger for the external struggle. 69 Certainty and Uncertainty Pierre Simon, Marquis de Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities Pierre Simon, Marquis de Laplace (1749-1827), was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer and a fervent champion of the ideas of the Enlightenment. His confidence that the knowledge of natural law would allow human beings to understand nearly everything they observe was shared by most scientists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. All events, even those which on account of their insignificance do not seem to follow the great laws of nature, are a result of those laws just as necessarily as the revolutions [of the planets] around the sun. We ought then to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its previous state and as the cause of the one which is to follow. Given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective situation of the beings who compose it, an intelligence sufficiently vast to submit these data to analysis would embrace in the same formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the lightest atom; for it, nothing would be uncertain and the future, as the past, would be present to its eyes. The human mind offers, in the perfection which it has been able to give to astronomy, a feeble idea of this intelligence. Its discoveries in mechanics and geometry, added to that of universal gravity, have enabled it to comprehend . . . the past and future states of the system of the world. Applying the same method to some other objects of its knowledge, it has succeeded in referring observed phenomena to general laws and in foreseeing those [phenomena] which given circumstances ought to produce. All these efforts in the search for truth tend to lead it back continually to the vast intelligence which we have just mentioned, but from which it will always remain infinitely removed. This tendency, peculiar to the human race, is what renders it superior to animals; and their progress in this respect distinguishes nations and ages and constitutes their true glory. Paul Davies, Introduction to Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy. Paul Davies (1946- ) is a prominent theoretical physicist and cosmologist who has long been interested in the relations between religion, philosophy, and science. In this excerpt, he explores the radical implications of Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and of quantum physics. The central theme of Heisenberg's exposition . . . is that words and concepts familiar in daily life can lose their meaning in the world of relativity and quantum physics. Thus questions about space and time, or the qualities of material objects such as their positions, which seem entirely reasonable in everyday discourse, cannot always be meaningfully answered. This in turn has profound implications for the nature of reality and for our total world view. 70 In many ways the conceptual upheaval demanded by the theory of relativity is more easily accommodated than that due to quantum mechanics. True, relativity contains some strange ideas . . . . To ask, for example, at what time an event occurs, or whether two events that are separated in space occur at the same moment, may not be answerable as the questions stand because the theory tells us that there is no absolute universal time, nor is there a universal concept of simultaneity. . . . But although these ideas are strange and unfamiliar, they are not obviously absurd . . . . By contrast with the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics presents us with much greater conceptual and philosophical problems. . . . At the heart of the quantum revolution is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This tells us, roughly speaking, that all physical quantities that can be observed are subject to unpredictable fluctuations, so that their values are not precisely defined. Consider, for example, the position x and the momentum of a quantum particle such as an electron. The experimenter is free to measure either of these quantities to arbitrary precision, but they cannot possess precise values simultaneously. Thus more accuracy in position must be traded for less in momentum, and vice versa. Quantum effects [are so small] that they are generally only important in the atomic domain. We do not notice them in daily life. It is essential to appreciate that this uncertainty is inherent in nature and not merely the result of technological limitations in measurement. It is not that the experimenter is merely too clumsy to measure position and momentum simultaneously. The particle simply does not possess simultaneously precise values of these two attributes. The uncertainty has deep implications. For example, it means that a quantum particle does not move along a well-defined path through space. An electron may leave place A and arrive at place B, but it is not possible to ascribe a precise trajectory linking the two. Thus the popular model of the atom, with electrons circling the nucleus along distinct orbits, is badly misleading. The smearing of position and momentum leads to an inherent indeterminism in the behavior of quantum systems. . . . Two systems initially identical may go on to do different things. For example, the experimenter may fire an electron at a target and find that it scatters to the left, then, on repeating the experiment under exactly the same conditions, find that the next electron scatters to the right. Einstein . . . was so appalled by the idea that there is inherent unpredictability in the physical world that he rejected it outright, with the famous retort, ‘God does not play dice with the universe.' He maintained that quantum mechanics, while possibly correct as far as it goes, is nevertheless incomplete. Thus Einstein hoped that beneath the chaos of the quantum might lie hidden a scaled-down version of the well-behaved, familiar world of deterministic dynamics. Heisenberg . . . strongly opposed Einstein's attempt to cling on to this classical world view. The classical world view, so passionately espoused by Einstein, accords well with common sense by asserting the objective reality of the external world. . . . In particular, 71 the microworld of atoms and particles is considered to differ [only] in scale from the macroworld of experience. Thus an electron is a scaled-down version of an idealized billiard ball . . . . In a classical world our observations do not create reality: they uncover it. Thus atoms and particles continue to exist with well-defined attributes even when we do not observe them. By contrast, the interpretation of quantum mechanics which Heisenberg . . . expounds . . . rejects the objective reality of the quantum microworld. It denies that, say, an electron has a well-defined position and a well-defined momentum in the absence of an actual observation of either its position or its momentum (and both cannot yield sharp values simultaneously). Thus an electron or an atom cannot be regarded as a little thing in the same sense that a billiard ball is a thing. One cannot meaningfully talk about what an electron is doing between observations because it is the observations alone that create the reality of the electron. 72 Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis and Civilization and its Discontents Although Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) developed psychoanalysis as a means of treating psychological distress, his view of human nature was gloomy. He argued that far from being the master of its own fate, the ego (the conscious mind) is caught between the implacable demands of the unconscious id for sexual pleasure and the equally implacable moral strictures of the superego (the internalized voice of our parents' and of society's values). In his later years, Freud came to believe that human beings are inherently aggressive. Civilization, he wrote, requires that we repress our instinctual aggression, and it is therefore foolish to imagine that we can ever be entirely happy. New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis [The id. the seat of the unconscious,] is a chaos, a cauldron of seething excitement. We suppose that it is somewhere in direct contact with [biological] processes, and takes over from them instinctual needs and gives them mental expression. These instincts fill it with energy, but it has no organization and no unified will, only an impulsion to obtain satisfaction for the instinctual needs, in accordance with the pleasure principle. For the pleasure principle the laws of logic—above all, the law of contradiction—do not hold for processes in the id. Contradictory impulses exist side by side without neutralizing each other or drawing apart. In the id there is nothing corresponding to the idea of time, no recognition of the passage of time, and (a thing which is very remarkable and awaits adequate attention in philosophic thought) no alteration of mental processes by the passage of time. [Desires] which have never got beyond the id, and even impressions which have been pushed down into the id by repression, are virtually immortal and are preserved for whole decades as though they had only recently occurred. They can only be recognized as belonging to the past, deprived of their significance, and robbed of their charge of energy, after they have been made conscious by the work of analysis, and no small part of the therapeutic effect of analytic treatment rests upon this fact. Naturally, the id knows no values, no good and evil, no morality. The pleasure principle dominates all its processes. The ego is that part of the id which has been modified by its proximity to the external world and the influence that the latter has had on it, and which serves the purpose of receiving stimuli and protecting the organism from them. This relation to the external world is decisive for the ego. The ego has taken over the task of representing the external world for the id, and so of saving it; for the id, blindly striving to gratify its instincts in complete disregard of the superior strength of outside forces, could not otherwise escape annihilation. In this way [the ego] dethrones the pleasure principle, which exerts undisputed sway over the processes in the id, and substitutes for it the reality principle, which promises greater security and greater success. In popular language, we may say that the ego stands for reason and circumspection, while the id stands for the untamed passions. 73 The proverb tells us that one cannot serve two masters at once. The poor ego has a still harder time of it; it has to serve three harsh masters, and has to do its best to reconcile the claims and demands of all three. These demands are always divergent and often seem quite incompatible; no wonder that the ego so frequently gives way under its task. The three tyrants are the external world, the superego and the id. [And so the ego] feels itself hemmed in on three sides and threatened by three kinds of danger, towards which it reacts by developing anxiety when it is too hard pressed. It is designed to represent the demands of the external world, but it also wishes to be a loyal servant of the id [and] to remain upon good terms with the id. In its attempt to mediate between the id and reality, it is often forced to clothe the unconscious commands of the id with its own rationalizations and to gloss over the conflicts between the id and reality. even when the id persists in being stubborn and uncompromising. On the other hand, its every movement is watched by the severe superego, which holds up certain norms of behavior, without regard to any difficulties coming from the id and the external world; and if these norms are not acted up to, it punishes the ego with the feelings of tension which manifest themselves as a sense of inferiority and guilt. In this way, goaded on by the id, hemmed in by the superego, and rebuffed by reality, the ego struggles to cope with its task of reducing the forces and influences which work in it and upon it to some kind of harmony; and we may well understand how it is that we so often cannot repress the cry: "Life is not easy." When the ego is forced to acknowledge its weakness, it breaks out into anxiety: reality anxiety in face of the external world, normal anxiety in face of the superego, and neurotic anxiety in face of the strength of the passions in the id. Civilization and its Discontents Men are not gentle, friendly creatures wishing for love, who simply defend themselves if they are attacked, but a powerful measure of desire for aggression has to be reckoned as part of their instinctual endowment. The result is that their neighbor is to them not only a possible helper or sexual object, but also a temptation to them to gratify their aggressiveness on him, to exploit his capacity for work without recompense, to use him sexually without his consent, to seize his possessions, to humiliate him, to cause him pain, to torture and to kill him. Homo homini lupus [Man is a wolf to man]; who has the courage to dispute it in the face of all the evidence in his own life and in history? Anyone who calls to mind the atrocities of the early migrations, of the invasion by the Huns or by the so-called Mongols under Jenghiz Khan and Tamurlane, of the sack of Jerusalem by the pious Crusaders, even indeed the horrors of the last world war, will have to bow his head humbly before the truth of this view of man. The existence of this tendency to aggression which we can detect in ourselves and rightly presume to be present in others is the factor that disturbs our relations with our neighbors and makes it necessary for culture to institute its high demands. Civilized society is perpetually menaced with disintegration through this primary hostility of men towards one another. Their interests in their common work would not hold them together; the passions of instinct are stronger than reasoned interests. Culture has to call up every possible reinforcement in order to erect barriers against the aggressive instincts of men 74 and hold their manifestations in check. With all its striving, this endeavor of culture's has so far not achieved very much. The time comes when every one of us has to abandon the illusory anticipations with which in our youth we regarded our fellow men, and when we realize how much hardship and suffering we have been caused in life through their ill will. The Communists believe they have found a way of delivering us from this evil. Man is wholeheartedly good and friendly to his neighbor, they say, but the system of private property has corrupted his nature. I have no concern with any economic criticisms of the communistic system; I cannot enquire into whether the abolition of private property is advantageous and expedient. But I am able to recognize that psychologically it is rounded on an untenable illusion. By abolishing private property one deprives the human love of aggression of one of its instruments, a strong one undoubtedly, but assuredly not the strongest. It in no way alters the individual differences in power and influence which are turned by aggressiveness to its own use, nor does it change the nature of the instinct in any way. This instinct did not arise as the result of property; it reigned almost supreme in primitive times when possessions were still extremely scanty; it shows itself already in the nursery; it is at the bottom of all the relations of affection and love between human beings—possibly with the single exception of that of a mother to her male child. If civilization requires sacrifices, not only of sexuality but also of the aggressive tendencies in mankind, we can better understand why it should be so hard for men to feel happy in it. In actual fact primitive man was better off in this respect, for he knew nothing of any restrictions on his instincts. As a set-off against this, his prospects of enjoying his happiness for any length of time were very slight. Civilized man has exchanged some part of his chances of happiness for a measure of security. We may expect that in the course of time changes will be carried out in our civilization so that it becomes more satisfying to our needs and no longer open to the reproaches we have made against it. But perhaps we shall also accustom ourselves to the idea that there are certain difficulties inherent in the very nature of culture which will not yield to any efforts at reform. Edited from New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, translated by W. J. H. Sprott. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1933) and Civilization and its Discontents, translated by Joan Riviere (London: Hogarth Press, 1930). 75 Friedrich Nietzsche, Parable of the Madman Although he had few disciples during his lifetime, since then Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) has had an enormous influence on western thought and culture. In this famous passage from The Gay Science (perhaps better translated The Joyful Wisdom), Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God. THE MADMAN----Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!" As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? Thus they yelled and laughed The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. "How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto." Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves. It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo [May God have eternal rest]. Led 76 out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?" Source: Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882, 1887) para. 125; Walter Kaufmann ed. (New York: Vintage, 1974), 181-82. 77 Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, What Is to Be Done? Lenin (1870-1924), born Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, was the founder of the Bolshevik party and the architect of the revolution that established a Communist dictatorship in Russia. In this excerpt, written in 1902, Lenin argued that only a centralized party of dedicated revolutionaries can lead a socialist revolution. Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without, that is, only from outside the economic struggle, from outside the sphere of relations between workers and employers. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e, it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories that were elaborated by the educated representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals. According to their social status, the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. Similarly, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social Democracy [By "social democracy" Lenin means revolutionary Marxism, not the later concept of "moderate" socialism] arose quite independently of the spontaneous growth of the labor movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of ideas among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia. The political struggle carried on by the Social Democrats is far more extensive and complex than the economic struggle the workers carry on against the employers and the government. Similarly (and indeed for that reason), the organization of a revolutionary Social Democratic Party must inevitably differ from the organizations of the workers designed for the latter struggle. A workers' organization must in the first place be a trade organization; secondly, it must be as wide as possible; and thirdly, it must be as public as conditions will allow (here, and further on, of course, I have only autocratic Russia in mind). On the other hand, the organizations of revolutionaries must consist first and foremost of people whose profession is that of a revolutionary (that is why I speak of organizations of revolutionaries, meaning revolutionary Social Democrats). In view of this common feature of the members of such an organization, all distinctions as between workers and intellectuals, and certainly distinctions of trade and profession, must be obliterated. Such an organization must of necessity be not too extensive and as secret as possible. I assert: 1. that no movement can be durable without a stable organization of leaders to maintain continuity; 2. that the more widely the masses are spontaneously drawn into the struggle and form the basis of the movement and participate in it, the more necessary is it to 78 have such an organization, and the more stable must it be (for it is much easier for demagogues to sidetrack the more backward sections of the masses); 3. that the organization must consist chiefly of persons engaged in revolutionary activities as a profession; 4. that in a country with an autocratic government, the more we restrict the membership of this organization to persons who are engaged in revolutionary activities as a profession and who have been professionally trained in the art of combating the political police, the more difficult will it be to catch the organization, and 5. the wider will be the circle of men and women of the working class or of other classes of society able to join the movement and perform active work in it.... The active and widespread participation of the masses will not suffer; on the contrary, it will benefit by the fact that a "dozen" experienced revolutionaries, no less professionally trained than the police, will centralize all the secret side of the work-prepare leaflets, work out approximate plans and appoint bodies of leaders for each urban district, for each factory district and to each educational institution, etc. (I know that exception will be taken to my "undemocratic" views, but I shall reply to this altogether unintelligent objection later on.) The centralization of the more secret functions in an organization of revolutionaries will not diminish, but rather increase the extent and the quality of the activity of a large number of other organizations intended for wide membership and which, therefore, can be as loose and as public as possible, for example, trade unions, workers' circles for self-education and the reading of illegal literature, and socialist and also democratic circles for all other sections of the population. etc, etc We must have as large a number as possible of such organizations having the widest possible variety of functions, but it is absurd and dangerous to confuse those with organizations of revolutionaries, to erase the line of demarcation between them, to dim still more the masses already incredibly hazy appreciation of the fact that in order to "serve" the mass movement we must have people who will devote themselves exclusively to Social Democratic activities, and that such people must train themselves patiently and steadfastly to be professional revolutionaries. … Give us an organization of revolutionaries, and we shall overturn the whole of Russia! 79 Joseph Stalin, Speech before Elections to the Supreme Soviet Soon after they seized power in November 1917, the Bolsheviks abolished all political parties other than their own. But elections were still held, and a new Soviet constitution, adopted in 1936 in the midst of the Great Purge, declared universal suffrage to be a right guaranteed to citizens of the Soviet Union. The following year, elections took place for the Supreme Soviet, the parliament of the Soviet Union. Joseph Stalin (1878-1953), the Soviet dictator and General Secretary of the Communist Party, was one of the candidates. His election was inevitable, of course, and like other Communist Party candidates, he faced no opposition. Nevertheless, he argued in this speech to the local Communist Party group that had, in theory, nominated him, that the Soviet electoral system was the most democratic in the world. Chairman: Comrade Stalin, our candidate, has the floor. (Comrade Stalin's appearance in the rostrum is greeted by a stormy ovation lasting several minutes. The whole audience rises to greet Comrade Stalin. Constant cries from the audience: "Hurrah for the great Stalin!" "Hurrah for Comrade Stalin, the author of the Soviet Constitution, the most democratic in the world!" "Hurrah for Comrade Stalin, the leader of the oppressed all over the world!”) Stalin: Comrades, to tell you the truth, I had no intention of making a speech. But our respected Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev [who would become leader of the Communist Party in 1953] dragged me, so to speak, to this meeting. "Make a good speech," he said. What shall I talk about, exactly what sort of speech? Everything that had to be said before the elections has already been said and said again in the speeches of our leading comrades. . . . What can be added to these speeches? However, since I have taken the floor, I will have, of course, to say at least something one way or another. (Loud applause.) First of all, I would like to express my thanks (applause) to the electors for the confidence they have shown in me. (Applause.) I have been nominated as candidate, and the Election Commission of the Stalin Area of the Soviet capital has registered my candidature. This, comrades, is an expression of great confidence. Permit me to convey my profound Bolshevik gratitude for this confidence that you have shown in the Bolshevik Party of which I am a member, and in me personally as a representative of that Party. (Loud applause.) Further, comrades, I would like to congratulate you on the occasion of the forthcoming national holiday, the day of the elections to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. (Loud applause.) The forthcoming elections are not merely elections, comrades, they are really a national holiday of our workers, our peasants and our intelligentsia. (Loud applause.) Never in the history of the world have there been such really free and really democratic elections—never! History knows no other example like it. (Applause.) The point is not that our elections will be universal, equal, secret and direct, although that fact in itself is of great importance. The point is that our universal elections will be carried out as the freest elections and the most democratic of any country in the world. 80 Universal elections exist and are held in some capitalist countries, too, so-called democratic countries. But in what atmosphere are elections held there? In an atmosphere of class conflicts, in an atmosphere of class enmity, in an atmosphere of pressure brought to bear on the electors by the capitalists, landlords, bankers and other capitalist sharks. Such elections, even if they are universal, equal, secret and direct, cannot be called altogether free and altogether democratic elections. Here, in our country, on the contrary, elections are held in an entirely different atmosphere. Here there are no capitalists and no landlords and, consequently, no pressure is exerted by propertied classes on non-propertied classes. Here elections are held in an atmosphere of collaboration between the workers, the peasants and the intelligentsia, in an atmosphere of mutual confidence between them, in an atmosphere, I would say, of mutual friendship; because there are no capitalists in our country, no landlords, no exploitation and nobody, in fact, to bring pressure to bear on people in order to distort their will. That is why our elections are the only really free and really democratic elections in the whole world. (Loud applause.) Such free and really democratic elections could arise only on the basis of the triumph of the socialist system, only on the basis of the fact that in our country socialism is not merely being built, but has already become part of life, of the daily life of the people. . . . Our mills and factories are being run without capitalists. The work is directed by men and women of the people. That is what we call socialism in practice. In our fields the tillers of the land work without landlords and without kulaks [wealthy farmers]. The work is directed by men and women of the people. That is what we call socialism in daily life, that is what we call a free, socialist life. It is on this basis that our new, really free and really democratic elections have arisen, elections which have no precedent in the history of mankind. How then, after this, can one refrain from congratulating you on the occasion of the day of national celebration, the day of the elections to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union! (Loud, general cheers.) Further, comrades, I would like to give you some advice, the advice of a candidate to his electors. If you take capitalist countries you will find that peculiar, I would say, rather strange relations exist there between deputies and voters. As long as the elections are in progress, the deputies flirt with the electors, fawn on them, swear fidelity and make heaps of promises of every kind. It would appear that the deputies are completely dependent on the electors. As soon as the elections are over, and the candidates have become deputies, relations undergo a radical change. Instead of the deputies being dependent on the electors, they become entirely independent. For four or five years, that is, until the next elections, the deputy feels quite free, independent of the people, of his electors. He may pass from one camp to another, he may turn from the right road to the wrong road, he may even become entangled in machinations of a not altogether desirable character, he may turn as many somersaults as he likes—he is independent. 81 Can such relations be regarded as normal? By no means, comrades. This circumstance was taken into consideration by our Constitution and it made it a law that electors have the right to recall their deputies before the expiration of their term of office if they begin to play monkey tricks, if they turn off the road, or if they forget that they are dependent on the people, on the electors. This is a wonderful law, comrades. A deputy should know that he is the servant of the people, their emissary in the Supreme Soviet, and he must follow the line laid down in the mandate given him by the people. If he turns off the road, the electors. are entitled to demand new elections, and as to the deputy who turned off the road, they have the right to blackball him. (Laughter and applause.) This is a wonderful law. My advice, the advice of a candidate to his electors, is that they remember this electors' right, the right to recall deputies before the expiration of their term of office, that they keep an eye on their deputies, control them and, if they should take it into their heads to turn off the right road, get rid of them and demand new elections. The government is obliged to appoint new elections. My advice is to remember this law and to take advantage of it should need arise .... Such, comrades, is my . . . advice to you, the advice of a candidate to his electors. (Loud and sustained applause and cheers. All rise and turn towards the government box, to which Comrade Stalin proceeds from the platform. Voices: "Hurrah for the great Stalin!" "Hurrah for Comrade Stalin!" "Long live Comrade Stalin!" "Long live the first of the Leninists, candidate for the Soviet of the Union, Comrade Stalin!”) Source: Marxist Internet Archive 82 Benito Mussolini, What is Fascism? Although this article appeared in the Italian Encyclopedia under the name of Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) in 1932, much of it was written by the philosopher Giovanni Gentile. Nevertheless, it accurately conveys some of the basic themes of fascism: the glorification of the State, the denigration of the individual, the rejection of socialism, and the celebration of war. Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State, which is the conscience and universal will of man in his historical existence. It is opposed to classical Liberalism, which arose form the necessity of reacting against absolutism, and which brought its historical purpose to an end when the State was transformed into the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of the real man, and not of that abstract puppet envisaged by individualistic Liberalism, Fascism is for liberty. And for the only liberty which can be a real thing, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives strength to the whole life of the people. Outside the State there can be neither individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, syndicates, classes). Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State. Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism — born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision — the alternative of life or death. The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others — those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after. Fascism [is] the complete opposite of . . . Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production. Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the 83 economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.... After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage. Fascism denies, in democracy, the absurd conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress. The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality — thus it may be called the "ethic" State. The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living 84 faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it. 85 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (My Struggle) and Speech to the National Socialist Women’s League Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) was born in Austria and grew up in the city of Linz. After leaving high school, he moved to Vienna to pursue his dream of becoming an artist. It was here that his political outlook was shaped. But much of the account he gave of his early years in Mein Kampf, the autobiography he dictated while in prison in 1924, is false, particularly the claim that he was not anti-Semitic before he arrived in Vienna. Hitler not only despised races he regarded as inferior; he had a low opinion of ordinary Germans, as his reflections on propaganda reveal. Mein Kampf I. The Discovery of Anti-Semitism in Vienna It is difficult today, if not impossible, to say when the word, "Jew," first occasioned special thoughts in me. In my father's house, I cannot recall ever having heard the word, at least while he lived. I believe the old gentleman would have regarded special emphasis on this term as culturally backward. In school, too, I found no cause which would have led me to change this received image. In high school I did learn to know a Jewish boy, whom we all treated cautiously, only because various experiences had taught us to doubt his reliability. But we didn't care all that much one way or the other [about Jews]. Linz possessed very few Jews. In the course of centuries their exteriors had become Europeanized and human-looking. Indeed, I even took them for Germans. The nonsense of this conception was not clear to me because I saw just a single distinctive characteristic, the alien religion. Since they had been persecuted because of it, as I believed, my aversion toward prejudicial remarks about them became almost detestation. I did not yet so much as suspect the existence of a systematic opposition to Jews. Then I came to Vienna. I still saw only the religion of the Jews and for reasons of human tolerance held aloof from attacks on this religion, as any other. Consequently, the tone struck by the antiSemitic press of Vienna appeared to me as unworthy of the cultural heritage of a great nation. In any case, I slowly came to know about the man and the movement which determined Vienna's destiny at that time: Dr. Karl Lueger [the mayor] and the leader of the [antiSemitic] Christian Social Party. When I came to Vienna, I stood opposed to both. The man and his movement seemed "reactionary" in my eyes. My common sense of justice, however, moderated this judgment in proportion to the opportunity I received to get to know the man and his work. Slowly, my just judgment grew into unabashed admiration. Today I see the man, even more than before, as the greatest German mayor of all times. If by this experience my views with regard to anti-Semitism also fell to the passage of time, 86 then this was surely the most significant transformation of all for me. There came a time when I no longer as before wandered blindly through the mighty city. Now with eyes opened I looked at people as well as buildings. As I was once strolling through the inner city, I suddenly happened upon an apparition in a long caftan with black hair locks. Is this a Jew? was my first thought. They surely didn't look like that in Linz. I observed the man stealthily and cautiously. But the longer I stared at this alien face, examining it feature for feature, the more my first question was transformed into a new conception: Is this a German? As always in such cases I began to try to remove my doubts with books. For a few [pennies] I purchased the first anti-Semitic brochures of my life. Unfortunately . . . their tone was in most cases sufficient to recreate doubts in me, particularly because of the shallow and extraordinarily unscientific support for their assertions. But, certainly, I could no longer be in doubt that [the question] did not concern Germans of a peculiar religion but rather a people in itself. For . . . now that I had become aware of the Jews, Vienna appeared to me in a different light than previously. Wherever I went, I now saw Jews, and the more I saw, the more sharply they were distinguished from other men in my eyes. Especially the inner city and the areas north of the Danube Canal swarmed with a people who even externally no longer bore a similarity to Germans. The cleanliness of this people, moral and otherwise, is a point in itself. Just looking at their exteriors, even with your eyes closed, you can tell they are not lovers of water. Later the odor of these caftan wearers often sickened me. Added to this were their unclean clothes and less than heroic appearance. All this is far from appealing. But you must be even more offended when you look beyond the physical uncleanliness to discover the moral stains upon the Chosen People. Was there any kind of filth or brazenness, particularly in cultural life, in which there was not at least one Jew participating? As soon as you cautiously cut into such an abscess, you would find, like a maggot in a rotting body, blinded by the sudden light, a little Yid! Jewry had much to answer for in my eyes when I got to know its activity in the press, art, literature, and the theater. It was sufficient to observe a billboard, to study the names of the intellectual producers of the horrible trash they advertised for the movies and theater, to become hardened for a long time. This was the pestilence, intellectual pestilence, far worse than the Black Death of long ago, with which the people were being infected. And in what quantities was this poison being produced! Here again the streets offered a frequently and truly evil instructional lesson. The relationship of Jewry to prostitution and still more to the white-slave traffic could be especially well studied in Vienna, as in no other city of Western Europe, with the possible exception of the ports of southern France. The first time I recognized the Jews directing 87 this disgusting traffic in vice, shamelessly and in ice-cold business fashion, a cold shudder ran down my back. But then it inflamed me. Now, I no longer avoided discussion of the Jewish question. No, now I welcomed it. But as I had learned to look for the Jew in all the areas and manifestations of cultural and artistic life, I suddenly happened upon him in a place where I least expected to do so. When I discerned the Jews as leaders of the [Marxist] Social Democrats, the scales fell from my eyes. The long struggle of the soul thereupon concluded. . [My fellow workers] were dissatisfied with their lot and damned the destiny which hit them so often and so cruelly. They hated the employers who seemed to be the heartless executioners of that destiny. They cursed the authorities who, in their eyes, possessed no feeling for their situation. They demonstrated against the price of necessities and carried their demands into the streets. All this could be understood. What remained inexplicable, however, was the boundless hate which they laid upon their own nationality. They defamed the greatness of the nation, sullied its history, and dragged its great men into the gutter. This struggle against their own kind, this [fouling] of their own nest and homeland was equally senseless and incomprehensible. It was unnatural. Gradually, I realized that the Social Democratic press was conducted predominantly by Jews. The leadership of the Party, with whose petty members I had been carrying on a violent battle for months, lay almost exclusively in the hands of an alien people. For that the Jew was no German I now knew to my inner satisfaction and with finality The instigators of this disease of the peoples must have been real devils. For only in the brains of monsters--not men--could such a plan and organization assume palpable form, the actions of which would have as their final result the collapse of human culture, thereby leading to the desolation of the world. In this case the only salvation remaining was war, war with all the weapons the human spirit, reason, and will could muster, without regard to which side of the scales destiny might throw its blessing. From a weak cosmopolitan I had become a fanatical anti-Semite. The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and sets in its place the eternal privilege of power and strength of the mass and the dead weight of its numbers. It therefore denies the value of the human personality, contests the significance of nationality and race, and therewith withdraws from humanity the basis of its existence and culture. As a foundation of the universe this [doctrine] would bring about the end of any intellectually comprehensible order. And thus as in this the greatest recognizable organism, the realization of such a law could result only in chaos and, ultimately, death for the inhabitants of this planet. If the Jew with the help of his Marxist creed is victorious over the peoples of this world, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity; then this planet will travel through the ether as it did millions of years ago, devoid of men. Eternal Nature avenges itself mercilessly on the transgression of its commandments. Thus I believe today that I am acting according to the will of the almighty Creator: when I defend myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. 88 II. Nation and Race Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man. . . . Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development. No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since, if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, night be ruined with one blow. Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrifying clarity that in every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people. North America, whose population consists in by far the largest part of Germanic elements who mixed but little with the lower colored peoples, shows a different humanity and culture from Central and South America, where the predominantly Latin immigrants often mixed with the aborigines on a large scale. By this one example, we can clearly and distinctly recognize the effect of racial mixture. The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood. . . . The lost purity of the blood alone destroys inner happiness forever, plunges man into the abyss for all time, and the consequences can never more be eliminated from body and spirit. III. Propaganda The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in attracting the attention of the crowd. And [because its purpose does not consist] in educating those who are already educated or who are striving after education and knowledge, its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect. 89 The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out. The function of propaganda is . . . not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly. Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (14th ed., Munich, 1932). Translated by Richard S. Levy. Speech to the National Socialist Women’s League (1934) In this speech, Hitler emphasizes that women must be subordinate to men in order that both may take their part in securing the biological destiny of the German people. The slogan 'Emancipation of women' was invented by Jewish intellectuals and its content was formed by the same spirit. In the really good times of German life the German woman had no need to emancipate herself. She possessed exactly what nature had necessarily given her to administer and preserve; just as the man in his good times had no need to fear that he would be ousted from his position in relation to the woman. In fact the woman was least likely to challenge his position. Only when he was not absolutely certain in his knowledge of his task did the eternal instinct of self and racepreservation begin to rebel in women. There then grew from this rebellion a state of affairs which was unnatural and which lasted until both sexes returned to the respective spheres which an eternally wise providence had preordained for them. If the man's world is said to be the State, his struggle, his readiness to devote his powers to the service of the community, then it may perhaps be said that the woman's is a smaller world. For her world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home. But what would become of the greater world if there were no one to tend and care for the smaller one? How could the greater world survive if there were no one to make the cares of the smaller world the content of their lives? No, the greater world is built on the foundation of this smaller world. This great world cannot survive if the smaller world is not stable. Providence has entrusted to the woman the cares of that world which is her very own, and only on the basis of this smaller world can the man's world be formed and built up. The two worlds are not antagonistic. They complement each other, they belong together just as man and woman belong together. 90 We do not consider it correct for the woman to interfere in the world of the man, in his main sphere. We consider it natural if these two worlds remain distinct. To the one belongs the strength of feeling, the strength of the soul. To the other belongs the strength of vision, of toughness, of decision, and of the willingness to act. In the one case this strength demands the willingness of the woman to risk her life to preserve this important cell and to multiply it, and in the other case it demands from the man the readiness to safeguard life. The sacrifices which the man makes in the struggle of his nation, the woman makes in the preservation of that nation in individual cases. What the man gives in courage on the battlefield, the woman gives in eternal self-sacrifice, in eternal pain and suffering. Every child that a woman brings into the world is a battle, a battle waged for the existence of her people. And both must therefore mutually value and respect each other when they see that each performs the task that Nature and Providence have ordained. And this mutual respect will necessarily result from this separation of the functions of each. It is not true, as Jewish intellectuals assert, that respect depends on the overlapping of the spheres of activity of the sexes; this respect demands that neither sex should try to do that which belongs to the sphere of the other. It lies in the last resort in the fact that each knows that the other is doing everything necessary to maintain the whole community. So our women's movement is for us not something which inscribes on its banner as its program the fight against men, but something which has as its program the common fight together with men. For the new National Socialist national community acquires a firm basis precisely because we have gained the trust of millions of women as fanatical fellow-combatants, women who have fought for the common life in the service of the common task of preserving life, who in that combat did not set their sights on the rights which a Jewish intellectualism put before their eyes, but rather on the duties imposed by nature on all of us in common. Whereas previously the programs of the liberal, intellectualist women's movements contained many points, the program of our National Socialist Women's movement has in reality but one single point, and that point is the child, that tiny creature which must be born and grow strong and which alone gives meaning to the whole life-struggle. Source: Jeremy Noakes and Geoffrey Pridham, eds., Nazism, 1919-1945, Vol. 2: State, Economy and Society 1933-1939. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2000, 255-56. 91 Mikhail Gorbachev, Nobel Lecture Soon after becoming General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev (1931- ) announced a program of radical reform based on the principles of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (economic and political restructuring). Although he did so in order to save the Communist state, by 1991 the Communist Party had lost its monopoly on political power and in December of that year the Soviet Union was dissolved. In 1990 Gorbachev received the Nobel Peace Prize. In this lecture, given in June 1991, he explained the moral, political, and economic convictions that inspired his reforms. The award of the Nobel Peace Prize makes one think once again about a seemingly simple and clear question: What is peace? Preparing for my address I found in an old Russian encyclopedia a definition of "peace" as a "commune" - the traditional cell of Russian peasant life. I saw in that definition the people's profound understanding of peace as harmony, concord, mutual help, and cooperation. This understanding is embodied in the canons of world religions and in the works of philosophers from antiquity to our time. Peace is not unity in similarity but unity in diversity, in the comparison and conciliation of differences. And, ideally, peace means the absence of violence. It is an ethical value. A modern state has to be worthy of [the solidarity of other nations], in other words, it should pursue, in both domestic and international affairs, policies that bring together the interests of its people and those of the world community. This task, however obvious, is not a simple one. Life is much richer and more complex than even the most perfect plans to make it better. It ultimately takes vengeance for attempts to impose abstract schemes, even with the best of intentions. Perestroika has made us understand this about our past, and the actual experience of recent years has taught us to reckon with the most general laws of civilization. This, however, came later. But back in March- April 1985 we found ourselves facing a crucial, and I confess, agonizing choice. When I agreed to assume the office of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in effect the highest state office at that time, I realized that we could no longer live as before and that I would not want to remain in that office unless I got support in undertaking major reforms. It was clear to me that we had a long way to go. But of course, I could not imagine how immense were our problems and difficulties. I believe no one at that time could foresee or predict them. Those who were then governing the country knew what was really happening to it and what we later called "zastoi", roughly translated as "stagnation". They saw that our society was marking time, that it was running the risk of falling hopelessly behind the technologically advanced part of the world. Total domination of centrally-managed state property, the pervasive authoritarian-bureaucratic system, ideology's grip on politics, monopoly in social thought and sciences, militarized industries that siphoned off our best, including the best intellectual resources, the unbearable burden of military expenditures 92 that suffocated civilian industries and undermined the social achievements of the period since the Revolution which were real and of which we used to be proud - such was the actual situation in the country. As a result, one of the richest countries in the world, endowed with immense overall potential, was already sliding downwards. Our society was declining, both economically and intellectually. And yet, to a casual observer the country seemed to present a picture of relative well-being, stability and order. The misinformed society under the spell of propaganda was hardly aware of what was going on and what the immediate future had in store for it. The slightest manifestations of protest were suppressed. Most people considered them heretical, slanderous and counter-revolutionary. Such was the situation in the spring of 1985, and there was a great temptation to leave things as they were, to make only cosmetic changes. This, however, meant continuing to deceive ourselves and the people. This was the domestic aspect of the dilemma then before us. As for the foreign policy aspect, there was the East-West confrontation, a rigid division into friends and foes, the two hostile camps with a corresponding set of Cold War attributes. Both the East and the West were constrained by the logic of military confrontation, wearing themselves down more and more by the arms race. The mere thought of dismantling the existing structures did not come easily. However, the realization that we faced inevitable disaster, both domestically and internationally, gave us the strength to make a historic choice, which I have never since regretted. Thus, we embarked on a path of major changes which may turn out to be the most significant in the twentieth century, for our country and for its peoples. But we also did this for the entire world. No one is in a position to describe in detail what perestroika will finally produce. But it would certainly be a self-delusion to expect that perestroika will produce "a copy" of anything. Of course, learning from the experience of others is something we have been doing and will continue to do. But this does not mean that we will come to be exactly like others. Our State will preserve its own identity within the international community. A country like ours, with its uniquely close-knit ethnic composition, cultural diversity and tragic past, the greatness of its historic endeavors and the exploits of its peoples - such a country will find its own path to the civilization of the twenty-first century and its own place in it. Perestroika has to be conceived solely in this context, otherwise it will fail and will be rejected. After all, it is impossible to "shed" the country's thousand-year history a history, which, we still have to subject to serious analysis in order to find the truth that we shall take into the future. We want to be an integral part of modern civilization, to live in harmony with mankind's universal values, abide by the norms of international law, follow the "rules of the game" in our economic relations with the outside world. We want to share with all other peoples the burden of responsibility for the future of our common house. 93 A period of transition to a new quality in all spheres of society's life is accompanied by painful phenomena. When we were initiating perestroika we failed to properly assess and foresee everything. Our society turned out to be hard to move off the ground, not ready for major changes which affect people's vital interests and make them leave behind everything to which they had become accustomed over many years. In the beginning we imprudently generated great expectations, without taking into account the fact that it takes time for people to realize that all have to live and work differently, to stop expecting that new life would be given from above. Perestroika has now entered its most dramatic phase. Following the transformation of the philosophy of perestroika into real policy, which began literally to explode the old way of life, difficulties began to mount. Many took fright and wanted to return to the past. It was not only those who used to hold the levers of power in the administration, the army and various government agencies and who had to make room, but also many people whose interests and way of life was put to a severe test and who, during the preceding decades, had forgotten how to take the initiative and to be independent, enterprising and selfreliant. Hence the discontent, the outbursts of protest and the exorbitant, though understandable, demands which, if satisfied right away, would lead to complete chaos. Hence, the rising political passions and, instead of a constructive opposition which is only normal in a democratic system, one that is often destructive and unreasonable, not to mention the extremist forces which are especially cruel and inhuman in areas of inter-ethnic conflict. During the last six years we have discarded and destroyed much that stood in the way of a renewal and transformation of our society. But when society was given freedom it could not recognize itself, for it had lived too long, as it were, "beyond the looking glass". Contradictions and vices rose to the surface, and even blood has been shed, although we have been able to avoid a bloodbath. The logic of reform has clashed with the logic of rejection, and with the logic of impatience which breeds intolerance. In this situation, which is one of great opportunity and of major risks, at a high point of perestroika's crisis, our task is to stay the course while also addressing current everyday problems which are literally tearing this policy apart - and to do it in such a way as to prevent a social and political explosion. Steering a peaceful course is not easy in a country where generation after generation of people were led to believe that those who have power or force could throw those who dissent or disagree out of politics or even in jail. For centuries all the country's problems used to be finally resolved by violent means. All this has left an almost indelible mark on our entire "political culture,” if the term is at all appropriate in this case. Our democracy is being born in pain. A political culture is emerging - one that presupposes debate and pluralism, but also legal order and, if democracy is to work, strong government authority based on one law for all. This process is gaining strength. Being resolute in the pursuit of perestroika, a subject of much debate these days, must be measured by the commitment to democratic change. Being resolute today means to act 94 within the framework of political and social pluralism and the rule of law to provide conditions for continued reform and prevent a breakdown of the state and economic collapse, prevent the elements of chaos from becoming catastrophic. There is already a consensus in our society that we have to move towards a mixed market economy. There are still differences as to how to do it and how fast we should move. Some are in favor of rushing through a transitional period as fast as possible, no matter what. Although this may smack of adventurism we should not overlook the fact that such views enjoy support. People are tired and are easily swayed by populism. So it would be just as dangerous to move too slowly, to keep people waiting in suspense. For them, life today is difficult, a life of considerable hardship. I am an optimist and I believe that together we shall be able now to make the right historical choice so as not to miss the great chance at the turn of centuries and millennia and make the current extremely difficult transition to a peaceful world order. A balance of interests rather than a balance of power, a search for compromise and concord rather than a search for advantages at other people's expense, and respect for equality rather than claims to leadership - such are the elements which can provide the groundwork for world progress and which should be readily acceptable for reasonable people informed by the experience of the twentieth century. The future prospect of truly peaceful global politics lies in the creation through joint efforts of a single international democratic space in which States shall be guided by the priority of human rights and welfare for their own citizens and the promotion of the same rights and similar welfare elsewhere. 95 Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism Is a Humanism A playwright, essayist, and political activist, as well as a philosopher, Sartre (1905-1980) was the most prominent spokesman for existentialism. In this introduction to existentialist philosophy he argued that the central principle of existentialism is that "existence precedes essence," which means that each human being exists first of all with the freedom to choose what kind of person (what "essence") to be. And since that freedom is absolute, our essence is never fixed. When Sartre said that God could provide an a priori good, he meant that if God existed, he would be able to tell us what is good prior to any decisions of our own. But Sartre contended that even so, we would still have to decide whether to obey God, and that would require us to first make up our own standards about what is good. God does not exist and we have to face all the consequences of this. The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain kind of secular ethics which would like to abolish God with the least possible expense. About 1880, some French teachers tried to set up a secular ethics which went something like this: God is a useless and costly hypothesis; we are discarding it; but, meanwhile, in order for there to be an ethics, a society, a civilization, it is essential that certain values be taken seriously and they be considered as having an a priori existence. It must be obligatory, a priori, to be honest, not to lie, not to beat your wife, to have children, etc., etc. So we're going to try a little device which will make it possible to show that values exist all the same, inscribed in a heaven of ideas, though otherwise God does not exist. In other words, nothing will be changed if God does not exist. We shall find ourselves with the same norms of honesty, progress, and humanism, and we shall have made a God an outdated hypothesis which will peacefully die off by itself. The existentialist, on the contrary, thinks it very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him; there can no longer be an a priori Good, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is we are on a plane where there are only men. Dostoyevsky said, "If God didn't exist, everything would be possible." That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to. He can't start making excuses for himself. If existence really does precede essence, there is no explaining things away by reference to a fixed and given human nature. In other words, there is no determinism, man is free, man is freedom. On the other hand, if God does not exist, we find no values or commands to turn to which legitimize our conduct. So, in the bright realm of values, we have no excuse behind us, nor any justification before us. We are alone, with no excuses. 96 That is the idea I shall try to convey when I say that man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet, in other respects is free; because, once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. The existentialist does not believe in the power of passion. He will never agree that a sweeping passion is a ravaging torrent which fatally leads a man to certain acts and is therefore an excuse. He thinks that man is responsible for his passion. The existentialist does not think that man is going to help himself by finding in the world some omen by which to orient himself. Because he thinks that man will interpret the omen to suit himself. Therefore, he thinks that man, with no support and no aid, is condemned every moment to invent man. 97 Pope John Paul II [Karol Wojtyla], Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) John Paul II (1920-2005) was one of the most influential popes of the past two hundred years. He is often credited with having hastened the collapse of the Communist regimes in eastern Europe, but he also denounced western culture for what he regarded as its selfishness and hedonism. He held a doctorate in philosophy as well as theology, and in this encyclical letter to the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, he criticized the divorce of reason from faith that he believed had led to the rise of a debilitating skepticism. Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth; in a word, to know himself---so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves. “KNOW YOURSELF” 1. In both East and West, we may trace a journey which has led humanity down the centuries to meet and engage truth more and more deeply. It is a journey which has unfolded---as it must--- within the horizon of personal self-consciousness: the more human beings know reality and the world, the more they know themselves in their uniqueness, with the question of the meaning of things and of their very existence becoming ever more pressing. This is why all that is the object of our knowledge becomes a part of our life. The admonition Know yourself was carved on the temple portal at Delphi, as testimony to a basic truth to be adopted as a minimal norm by those who seek to set themselves apart from the rest of creation as “human beings,” that is as those who “know themselves.” Moreover, a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in different parts of the world, with their different cultures, there arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade human life: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there after this life? These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda [the Hindu scriptures] and the Avesta [the Zoroastrian scriptures]; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze [the founder of Taoism], and in the preaching of Tirthankara [the founder of Jainism] and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle. They are questions which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has always compelled the human heart. In fact, the answer given to these questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives. 2.The Church is no stranger to this journey of discovery, nor could she ever be. From the moment when, through the Paschal Mystery [the death and resurrection of Jesus], she received the gift of the ultimate truth about human life, the Church has made her pilgrim way along the paths of the world to proclaim that Jesus Christ is “the way, and the truth, and the life.” It is her duty to serve humanity in different ways, but one way in particular 98 imposes a responsibility of a quite special kind: the diakonia [ministry] of the truth. This mission on the one hand makes the believing community a partner in humanity’s shared struggle to arrive at truth; and on the other hand it obliges the believing community to proclaim the certitudes arrived at, albeit with a sense that every truth attained is but a step towards that fullness of truth which will appear with the final Revelation of God: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully.” 3. Men and women have at their disposal an array of resources for generating greater knowledge of truth so that their lives may be ever more human. Among these is philosophy, which is directly concerned with asking the question of life’s meaning and sketching an answer to it. Philosophy emerges, then, as one of noblest of human tasks. According to its Greek etymology, the term philosophy means “love of wisdom.” Born and nurtured when the human being first asked questions about the reason for things and their purpose, philosophy shows in different modes and forms that the desire for truth is part of human nature itself. 4. Driven by the desire to discover the ultimate truth of existence, human beings seek to acquire those universal elements of knowledge which enable them to understand themselves better and to advance in their own self-realization. These fundamental elements of knowledge spring from the wonder awakened in them by the contemplation of creation: human beings are astonished to discover themselves as part of the world, in a relationship with others like them, all sharing a common destiny. Here begins, then, the journey which will lead them to discover ever new frontiers of knowledge. Without wonder, men and women would lapse into deadening routine and little by little would become incapable of a life which is genuinely personal. Although times change and knowledge increases, it is possible to discern a core of philosophical insight within the history of thought as a whole. Consider, for example, the principles of non-contradiction, finality and causality, as well as the concept of the person as a free and intelligent subject, with the capacity to know God, truth and goodness. Consider as well certain fundamental moral norms which are shared by all. These are among the indications that, beyond different schools of thought, there exists a body of knowledge which may be judged a kind of spiritual heritage of humanity. Precisely because it is shared in some measure by all, this knowledge should serve as a kind of reference-point for the different philosophical schools. 5. On her part, the Church cannot but set great value upon reason’s drive to attain goals which render people’s lives ever more worthy. She sees in philosophy the way to come to know fundamental truths about human life. At the same time, the Church considers philosophy an indispensable help for a deeper understanding of faith and for communicating the truth of the Gospel to those who do not yet know it. Therefore, I wish to reflect upon this special activity of human reason. I judge it necessary to do so because, at the present time in particular, the search for ultimate truth seems often to be neglected. Modern philosophy clearly has the great merit of focusing attention upon man. From this starting-point, human reason with its many questions has 99 developed further its yearning to know more and to know it ever more deeply. Complex systems of thought have thus been built, yielding results in the different fields of knowledge and fostering the development of culture and history. Anthropology, logic, the natural sciences, history, linguistics and so forth---the whole universe of knowledge has been involved in one way or another. Yet the positive results achieved must not obscure the fact that reason, in its one-sided concern to investigate human subjectivity, seems to have forgotten that men and women are always called to direct their steps towards a truth which transcends them. Sundered from that truth, individuals are at the mercy of caprice, and their state as person ends up being judged by pragmatic criteria based essentially upon experimental data, in the mistaken belief that technology must dominate all. It has happened therefore that reason, rather than voicing the human orientation towards truth, has wilted under the weight of so much knowledge and little by little has lost the capacity to lift its gaze to the heights, not daring to rise to the truth of being. Abandoning the investigation of being, modern philosophical research has concentrated instead upon human knowing. Rather than make use of the human capacity to know the truth, modern philosophy has preferred to accentuate the ways in which this capacity is limited and conditioned. This has given rise to different forms of agnosticism and relativism which have led philosophical research to lose its way in the shifting sands of widespread scepticism. Recent times have seen the rise to prominence of various doctrines which tend to devalue even the truths which had been judged certain. A legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism, based upon the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of today’s most widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth. On this understanding, everything is reduced to opinion; and there is a sense of being adrift. While, on the one hand, philosophical thinking has succeeded in coming closer to the reality of human life and its forms of expression, it has also tended to pursue issues which ignore the radical question of the truth about personal existence, about being and about God. Hence we see among the men and women of our time, and not just in some philosophers, attitudes of widespread distrust of the human being’s great capacity for knowledge. With a false modesty, people rest content with partial and provisional truths, no longer seeking to ask radical questions about the meaning and ultimate foundation of human, personal and social existence. In short, the hope that philosophy might be able to provide definitive answers to these questions has dwindled. 6. Sure of her competence as the bearer of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, the Church reaffirms the need to reflect upon truth. In reaffirming the truth of faith, we can both restore to our contemporaries a genuine trust in their capacity to know and challenge philosophy to recover and develop its own full dignity. It is undeniable that this time of rapid and complex change can leave especially the younger generation, to whom the future belongs and on whom it depends, with a sense that they have no valid points of reference. The need for a foundation for personal and communal life becomes all the more pressing at a time when we are faced with the patent 100 inadequacy of perspectives in which the ephemeral is affirmed as a value and the possibility of discovering the real meaning of life is cast into doubt. This is why many people stumble through life to the very edge of the abyss without knowing where they are going. At times, this happens because those whose vocation it is to give cultural expression to their thinking no longer look to truth, preferring quick success to the toil of patient enquiry into what makes life worth living. With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation. This is why I have felt both the need and the duty to address this theme so that, on the threshold of the third millennium of the Christian era, humanity may come to a clearer sense of the great resources with which it has been endowed and may commit itself with renewed courage to implement the plan of salvation of which its history is part.

Tutor Answer

School: UT Austin

Here you go! Let me know if you need anything changed :)

The first question is to write about the just state, and asks for; if you choose to write about
the Just State, the three figures you will discuss are Plato, Machi- avelli, and Thomas
Hobbes. You will need to know how they believed the State ought to be governed, why they
believed this, and what events during each of their lifetimes influenced their political
According to Plato, a fundamental part of that government is that intellectuals take the most
critical leadership positions. By appealing to the honest ethics and morals of these men, we can
build a just society with the capac...

flag Report DMCA

Excellent job

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors