I feel that this chapter discusses the rise of freedom within politics. There is a truth between the two extremes of theories (thoughts, ideas) and social circumstance’s practice. When ones begins to ask; what is cause and what is effect, this is a ‘futile’ method of philosophical exploration.
Liberalism began in England and Holland; this was due to logical protestant reasoning and not anything of a fanatical nature. It was a time when the religious wars were regarded as ‘silly’ (page 621). Early liberalism favoured the middle class over the aristocracy and it was ‘optimistic’, ‘energetic’, ‘philosophic’; growing forces of victory.
The philosophers of Greece, for example Aristotle were not individualists, they saw a single man as merely a member of the greater and more important community -science demands a social structure. We can however trace and look at how individualism ‘penetrated’ (page 622) through later. Descartes said ‘I think therefore I am’. There was a new movement by which individualism was viewed as the extension from the intellectual sphere to that of the passions. Byron was the poet; Fiche, Carlyle and Nietzon were the philosophers of this movement (anarchism). The most ‘comprehensive’ statement made by a philosopher of these times was made by John Locke who was the most ‘profound’, and most ‘influential’ (page 624). It is plain to see from these statements that Russell approves highly of John Locke.
Note that during this period of change in thinking there was also a dispute between monarchy and parliament.
2 comments:
I wouldn't agree with you that protestants were not fanatics. Protestants at this time were often very fanatical and often extremely intolerant and even bigoted. There's the remnants of that in northern Ireland and in Holland but - above all - in the TV preachers and extreme protestant sects in the USA. So if we have given the impression about this peris that it is Catholics = fanatics; Protestants = reasonable, moderate, toelrant -then that I think is wrong. John Locke is a moderate man, but that In think is more to do with general circumstances than his protestantism nwhich is of the notoriously luke warm Anglican variety.
For extreme protestants see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UE9yGYUD7A
Thank you for your point Chris, the link was also very useful to me.
I personally think that protestants can be very fanatical, for example look at some of the American fundementilists today. However in this post I was summerising my understanding of Bertrand Russell's views and findings not my own, and he does say (I quote); 'Early liberalism ... was Protestant, but of a latitudinarian rather than of a fanatical kind' (page 545), ie. protestants were not fanatics.
Post a Comment