Hi Theo,
Although grouping contributions by topic would make reading a lot easier, it could be very difficult to work out which topics to 'categorise' things into - Stef Gula's comments in C89 is a prime example ! The best solution to this, is probably to keep grouping things by author but also provide a much more comprehensive index.
Looking at Rick's comments on moral values ( C89 p.31 ), a State could be said to deduce and then impose the morals which are ideal for its social structure. Locke expressed in "Essays on Human Nature" (published in 1954 ... see note following , Ed.) his belief that although there is a natural ethic knowable by reason, historical observation would indicate that finding it is too exacting an intellectual activity for many.
Considering, therefore, that a purpose of a State is to harmonise society and people's behaviour within it through a governable ethic, I believe that this State would overstep its mark when the limits which are imposed are unreasonable or unjustifiable. And people may perceive the (governing) State through the way that the limits are imposed - reason or duty or law or fear or oppression....
Now, the (human) brain works by association. Negative memories are (generally) stronger than positive ones. Consequently, those who have strong memories of power being wrongly enforced will automatically 'tar all leaders with the same brush'. This implies that becoming a leader can alienate you from others - because your possession of power may excite in them the possibilities of misuse.
Now, power influences one's judgement. When I am in Scout leader's uniform, I automatically impose limits on my behaviour which (unfortunately!) I wouldn't normally recognise. Likewise, I recall that, when kitted out in fake Army clothing for a 'paintballing war', there were ways of behaving aggressively which seemed appropriate which I wouldn't normally think of doing. This suggests that power can significantly change one's outlook on life.
In a more general sense, I believe that a disadvantage of a large, invisible, overseeing State is that people can't relate to it - the State is too large and formless to 'understand' - which means that people will feel uneasy, compared to their feelings towards a 'leader' who they can see, know and trust. "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't" - cf. the complete lack of either knowledge or trust depicted in Orwell's "1984" - the unseen holder of power is easier to perceive as an enemy.
Myself, if I have disrespect for a / the State, it is because I don't see any justification for what it does. I don't like power to be used for power's sake! This 'tyranny' produces feelings of helplessness through 'predestination' of what can and can't be done.
Couldn't the organisation of anarchy be said to arise through a 'unity of belief' ? Actions predetermined by circumstance ?
"Free Will" (Vijai Parhar, C89 p.27 ) : The idea of everything being done according to scripts is interesting but, I think, narrow-minded. All people innately learn by copying - that's just the way our minds work - but this doesn't eliminate the ability to deduce. If everyone followed predefined scripts in all circumstances, we would be more like robots, as nothing would ever change.
Having said this, Tolstoy (in the second epilogue to "War and Peace") writes a convincing essay about the constrained freedom of 'free will'. Apparently, in a specific set of circumstances, virtually everyone would react in the same way, despite honestly believing that they always have the ability to choose not to !
Anyway, the idea of 'absolute freedom within predefined limits' surely is just another way of defining society ?
"Science versus Religion" (Rick Street, C89 p. 35 ) : Aren't philosophy and religion supposed to be the 'glue' that groups all different topics together ? Such as some 'devout scientists' worshipping the 'religion' of Materialism, to justify their faith ?? I wouldn't refer to religion, as such, as ancient. Worshipping football teams or pop stars is a relatively modern occurrence!
A useful book to read is "God, Chance & Necessity" by Keith Ward (Oxford). This gives a strong rejoinder to the 'scientific' arguments of people such as Richard Dawkins, by showing that their statements are deliberately biased by unprovable philosophical presumptions.
Which does indeed suggest that 'objective reality' is beyond us! ( C89, p.32 paragraph 2 ).
Mike Rossell
Previous Article (in Commensal 89)
Theo
Ah....what I should have said was, "unpublished until 1954"
Also, and this may simply be my ignorance, I've never heard of this work. The title sounds like a conflation of Hume's "A Treatise of Human Nature" and Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding".
I'm not sure which title the work in question is in print under now; I'm cross-referencing from "On the Reasonableness of Christianity", by Locke, ed. Ewing; Gateway, Chicago (1965). The quote which I summarised is in "Politics and Vision" (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1960), p.335 - not having all of the books myself it can be difficult to pinpoint things. Maybe I shouldn't quote quotes of quotes so much !
Mike (with questions from Theo !)