You should totally keep this up, especially because of students like me that study this stuff and happen to have not so good lecturers which makes the whole process of studying this harder and, at first, boring. After watching your lecture I gained a lot of motivation and a much better understanding on why it is necessary for students of political science to be familiar with these works. Thank you !
I really wish our current society would take a step back and really think about the foundational principles of government. In fact, having presidential debates based solely on the principles of government and how it should operate to serve those it governs would be a fresh view. If people can agree on the principles and goals of government, perhaps agreeing on issues would become much easier. Instead it seems our society now is very self-centered, wanting the government to serve our own wants without a thought or appreciation of how it affects our fellow citizens.
This helped so much; it's such a thick read that I found it challenging to focus on the meat of the text, but you articulated it perfectly. Thank you for putting in so much effort and for helping me pass my Intellectual History of Capitalism class!
thanks a bunch for all of these philosophy breakdowns! you are doing good and kind work and im sure you have saved countless philosophy and law students in understanding the works placed before them; myself included. thanks again!
I feel the states of nature between hobbes and locke differ in their confidence in others... While hobbes says a person will attack the others before they could in anticipation of threat and possible self destruction, Locke holds that people won't probably attack each other in such anticipation or paranoia, and will only harm to punish some antisocial element once a harm has been done
And Rousseau was even more optimistic with his 'noble savage' conception. However, they are all assuming that self-evident rights, which we use reason to deduce, are somehow in line with 'human nature', despite how unreasonable people generally are. I also think they assumed human nature to be static, while we now know that humans are constantly evolving. I guess the question is then "Is what is ethical dependent on what humans are capable of doing or is it something to aspire to?"
What I like about Locke, is he doesn’t disregard Hobbes completely, he just re-construes the social contract to not be so one-sided to the commonwealth sovereign having so much control
I'm not sure I understand how natural law leads to rights existing. Could you try explaining how medieval natural law theory fascilitated Locke's liberalism?
I think it’s possible to hypocritically be involved in things you’re critical of. Like I think plastic is bad for the environment but I buy it all the time.
Locke posited a natural right to life and thus a natural right to labor to create the necessities of life and a concomitant right to property in the product of his labor. This provides the moral foundation of Karl Marx and socialism and is the moral indictment of capitalism and feudalism.
I tend to agree with Hobbes more when it comes to the nature of man, I also think Hobbes was less of a hypocrite. With that said, I don't agree with Hobbes theory of government. Locke was a liberal, capitalist, hypocrite.
It's the same as Jefferson or Madison they all wanted slavery gone but they knew it wasn't possible at that time now the fact that they exploited slavery just make some businessman
On some things he wrote I agree. And some I do not. I agree that the government should not tolerate Catholic Papist, but disagree that it should not tolerate Atheists. I am a very lapsed Catholic and an Atheist. 🤔😇😎
So any philosopher who participates in behavior opposite of what they preach can be disregarded? Wonderful! Then we can ignore nearly all of them. Especially Marx, Engels, and Hegel!
17:05 No, because billionaires are not holding idle wealth. They are billionaires because the net worth of their capital stock, which is clearly not idle, amounts to billions. You really should know this as a PhD and lecturer on political philosophy.
@@yevaka You're changing the subject. Regardless of the morality of the issue, it is still a fact that capital stock held by billionaires is not idle and so does not violate Locke's admonition against idle wealth. I would be willing to discuss the moral issues separately, but with the disingenuous debate tactics you have just now displayed, it is clear that the effort would be wasted, as you are evidently not someone interested in an honest discussion.
It’s funny and disingenuous to assume that people’s past would have our morality. Those that favor the disenfranchisement of Locke’s ideas on the basis of his involvement of the business of the day are missing the point. Let us carry on Locke’s tradition in a better way, hence modern day U.S.
There is a sort of love that exists when a women submits to a man and their ability to acquire resources for her. Subservience is often a form of love and trust. Some view this oppression, but it can also be attributed to love in the correct circumstances.
What century are you living in? Children are naturally dependent and tend to trust and obey their parents but women are not naturally dependent on men and certainly not naturally subservient.
You should totally keep this up, especially because of students like me that study this stuff and happen to have not so good lecturers which makes the whole process of studying this harder and, at first, boring. After watching your lecture I gained a lot of motivation and a much better understanding on why it is necessary for students of political science to be familiar with these works. Thank you !
You deserve so much more views and subscribers.
I really wish our current society would take a step back and really think about the foundational principles of government. In fact, having presidential debates based solely on the principles of government and how it should operate to serve those it governs would be a fresh view. If people can agree on the principles and goals of government, perhaps agreeing on issues would become much easier. Instead it seems our society now is very self-centered, wanting the government to serve our own wants without a thought or appreciation of how it affects our fellow citizens.
Thank you so much for this video. Chapter 5 was a slog and I was afraid I wasn’t getting all of it. You allayed my fears and gave me more out of it.
This helped so much; it's such a thick read that I found it challenging to focus on the meat of the text, but you articulated it perfectly. Thank you for putting in so much effort and for helping me pass my Intellectual History of Capitalism class!
thanks a bunch for all of these philosophy breakdowns! you are doing good and kind work and im sure you have saved countless philosophy and law students in understanding the works placed before them; myself included. thanks again!
Great and insightful lecture. A lot of these philosophy videos on RUclips exclude critical points of the argument. You cover everything! Thanks a lot.
I feel the states of nature between hobbes and locke differ in their confidence in others... While hobbes says a person will attack the others before they could in anticipation of threat and possible self destruction, Locke holds that people won't probably attack each other in such anticipation or paranoia, and will only harm to punish some antisocial element once a harm has been done
And Rousseau was even more optimistic with his 'noble savage' conception.
However, they are all assuming that self-evident rights, which we use reason to deduce, are somehow in line with 'human nature', despite how unreasonable people generally are. I also think they assumed human nature to be static, while we now know that humans are constantly evolving.
I guess the question is then "Is what is ethical dependent on what humans are capable of doing or is it something to aspire to?"
I really appreciate you. You are doing a wonderful job for students. From Turkey 🇹🇷 by the way 🙂🙂
I’m so so so thankful for your videos! The great courses don’t have any visuals. You are much better
Thank you so much!! You have no idea how much you are helping :)
Thanks for your commentary along with summary, helps to answer some questions
What I like about Locke, is he doesn’t disregard Hobbes completely, he just re-construes the social contract to not be so one-sided to the commonwealth sovereign having so much control
I'm not sure I understand how natural law leads to rights existing. Could you try explaining how medieval natural law theory fascilitated Locke's liberalism?
Really good videos. Helps me a lot. Thanks!
Thank you you saved my life
This along with negative vs positive rights does answer the question of is clean water a natural right.
Fantastic summary - thank you
Really helped me in understanding Locke's philosophy
I think it’s possible to hypocritically be involved in things you’re critical of. Like I think plastic is bad for the environment but I buy it all the time.
You sir are a phenomenal teacher teacher you're doing great work I'll be watching every video and succession and waiting for the next one to come out
You don't mention, and neither does Locke acknowledge, that Filmer is attacking Cardinal Bellarmine 's Catholic ideas.
This an amazing lecture.
Locke posited a natural right to life and thus a natural right to labor to create the necessities of life and a concomitant right to property in the product of his labor. This provides the moral foundation of Karl Marx and socialism and is the moral indictment of capitalism and feudalism.
I love John Locke.
My understanding is that Locke was paid by the King in Royal African Corporation stock which he had no control over. He also fled the King.
I love your teaching
thank you sm for the video! love the channel
Excellent explanation
Great work! Thank you, you help me a lot!
So well said.
This was cool thanks need me one of them wigs
John still needed more growth, but he set up ground for constitution and amendments!
Excellent!!
I tend to agree with Hobbes more when it comes to the nature of man, I also think Hobbes was less of a hypocrite. With that said, I don't agree with Hobbes theory of government. Locke was a liberal, capitalist, hypocrite.
It's the same as Jefferson or Madison they all wanted slavery gone but they knew it wasn't possible at that time now the fact that they exploited slavery just make some businessman
Great man
Why did you dress, at 9:15, as Whistler's mother?
Can anyone say anything regarding balance here?
slow down....
Thanks a lot for this.
On some things he wrote I agree. And some I do not. I agree that the government should not tolerate Catholic Papist, but disagree that it should not tolerate Atheists. I am a very lapsed Catholic and an Atheist. 🤔😇😎
Lockes theory is great but your critiques are terrible...
So any philosopher who participates in behavior opposite of what they preach can be disregarded? Wonderful! Then we can ignore nearly all of them. Especially Marx, Engels, and Hegel!
Rectifying theory with the writers moral character is only a problem if you're an ideologue
6:02 LMAO
17:05 No, because billionaires are not holding idle wealth. They are billionaires because the net worth of their capital stock, which is clearly not idle, amounts to billions. You really should know this as a PhD and lecturer on political philosophy.
Yes, I love when we can amass value on a intangible form of capital, which comes from the work of slaves that nearly can't sustain themselves
@@yevaka You're changing the subject. Regardless of the morality of the issue, it is still a fact that capital stock held by billionaires is not idle and so does not violate Locke's admonition against idle wealth.
I would be willing to discuss the moral issues separately, but with the disingenuous debate tactics you have just now displayed, it is clear that the effort would be wasted, as you are evidently not someone interested in an honest discussion.
@@CorneliusHDybdahl
YeAh bRo dEbAtE hIm sO fUcKn hARd
It’s funny and disingenuous to assume that people’s past would have our morality. Those that favor the disenfranchisement of Locke’s ideas on the basis of his involvement of the business of the day are missing the point. Let us carry on Locke’s tradition in a better way, hence modern day U.S.
There is a sort of love that exists when a women submits to a man and their ability to acquire resources for her. Subservience is often a form of love and trust. Some view this oppression, but it can also be attributed to love in the correct circumstances.
What century are you living in? Children are naturally dependent and tend to trust and obey their parents but women are not naturally dependent on men and certainly not naturally subservient.
Good in generally, a little bit too woke.
Cry about it
speaks too bloody fast
Hey friend, here is a more polite response! You can use CC (subtitles) or you can slow down the video in the settings :)
Speaks too slow for me