Frietz Franklyn Mandagi

155120407121022

John Locke
John Locke was born in 1632 in Wrighton, Somerset. His father was a lawyer and small
landowner who had fought on the Parliamentarian side during the English Civil War of the
1640s. He attended the Westminster wich is a great school near the London. And he go to Oxford
university to get his bachelors and masters degrees.Locke do study about medicine. He was
living in the Ashley household. He works as a political secretary to Shaftesbury.
Locke publish most of the works on philosophy,education,and religion for which is he known.
The Two Treatises of Government offered political theories developed and refined by Locke
during his years at Shaftesburys side. Rejecting the divine right of kings, Locke said that
societies form governments by mutual (and, in later generations, tacit) agreement. Thus, when a
king loses the consent of the governed, a society may remove him an approach quoted almost
verbatim in Thomas Jeffersons 1776 Declaration of Independence. Locke also developed a
definition of property as the product of a persons labor that would be foundational for both
Adam Smiths capitalism and Karl Marxs socialism.
In three Letters Concerning Toleration Locke suggested that governments should respect
freedom of religion except when the dissenting belief was a threat to public order. Atheists
(whose oaths could not be trusted) and Catholics (who owed allegiance to an external ruler) were
thus excluded from his scheme. Even within its limitations, Lockes toleration did not argue that
all (Protestant) beliefs were equally good or true, but simply that governments were not in a
position to decide which one was correct.

Jean Jacques Rousseau

Rousseaus project in the Discourse on Inequality is to describe all the sorts of inequality that
exist among human beings and to determine which sorts of inequality are natural and which
unnatural (and therefore preventable). Rousseau begins by discussing man in his state of
nature. For Rousseau, man in his state of nature is essentially an animal like any other, driven by
two key motivating principles: pity and self-preservation. In the state of nature, which is more a
hypothetical idea than an actual historical epoch, man exists without reason or the concept of
good and evil, has few needs, and is essentially happy. The only thing that separates him from
the beasts is some sense of unrealized perfectability.
This notion of perfectability is what allows human beings to change with time, and according to
Rousseau it becomes important the moment an isolated human being is forced to adapt to his
environment and allows himself to be shaped by it. When natural disasters force people to move
from one place to another, make contact with other people, and form small groups or elementary
societies, new needs are created, and men begin to move out of the state of nature toward
something very different. Rousseau writes that as individuals have more contact with one another
and small groupings begin to form, the human mind develops language, which in turn contributes
to the development of reason. Life in the collective state also precipitates the development of a
new, negative motivating principle for human actions. Rousseau calls this principle amour
propre, and it drives men to compare themselves to others. This drive toward comparison to
others is not rooted only in the desire to preserve the self and pity others. Rather, comparison
drives men to seek domination over their fellow human beings as a way of augmenting their own
happiness.

John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor

Born in London in 1806, son of James Mill, philosopher, economist and senior official in the
East India Company. Mill gave a vivid and moving account of his life, and especially of his
extraordinary education, in the Autobiography 1873 that he wrote towards the end of his life.
Mill led an active career as an administrator in the East India Company from which he retired
only when the Company's administrative functions in India were taken over by the British
government following the Mutiny of 1857. In addition, he was a Liberal MP for Westminster
1865-8, and as a young man in the 1830s edited the London andWestminster Review, a radical
quarterly journal. He died at Aix-En-Provence in 1873.
Mill was educated by his father, with the advice and assistance of Jeremy Bentham and Francis
Place. He learned Greek at three, Latin a little later; by the age of 12, he was a competent
logician and by 16 a well-trained economist. At 20 he suffered a nervous breakdown that
persuaded him that more was needed in life than devotion to the public good and an analytically
sharp intellect. Having grown up a utilitarian, he now turned to Coleridge, Wordsworth and
Goethe to cultivate his aesthetic sensibilities. From 1830 to his death, he tried to persuade the
British public of the necessity of a scientific approach to understanding social, political and
economic change while not neglecting the insights of poets and other imaginative writers.
His System of Logic 1843 was an ambitious attempt to give an account not only of logic, as the
title suggests, but of the methods of science and their applicability to social as well as purely
natural phenomena. Mill's conception of logic was not entirely that of modern logicians; besides
formal logic, what he called "the logic of consistency", he thought that there was a logic of proof,
that is, a logic that would show how evidence proved or tended to prove the conclusions we draw
from the evidence. That led him to the analysis of causation, and to an account of inductive
reasoning that remains the starting point of most modern discussions. Mill's account of
explanation in science was broadly that explanation seeks the causes of events where it is events
in which we are interested; or seeks more general laws where we are concerned to explain less
general laws as special cases of those laws. Mill's discussion of the possibility of finding a
scientific explanation of social events has worn equally well; Mill was as unwilling to suppose

that the social sciences would become omniscient about human behaviour as to suppose that
there was no prospect of explaining social affairs at any deeper level than that of common sense.
Throughout theSystem of Logic Mill attacked the "intuitionist" philosophy of William Whewell
and Sir William Hamilton. This was the view that explanations rested on intuitively compelling
principles rather than on general, causal laws, and that ultimately the search for such intuitively
compelling principles rested on understanding the universe as a divine creation governed by
principles that a rational deity must choose. Mill thought that intuitionism was bad philosophy,
and a comfort to political conservatism into the bargain. His Examination of Sir William
Hamilton's Philosophy 1865 carried the war into the enemy camp with a vengeance; it provoked
vigorous controversy for some twenty years or so, but is now the least readable of Mill's works.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

Marx and his coauthor, Friedrich Engels, begin The Communist Manifesto with the famous and
provocative statement that the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class
struggle. They argue that all changes in the shape of society, in political institutions, in history
itself, are driven by a process of collective struggle on the part of groups of people with similar
economic situations in order to realize their material or economic interests. These struggles,
occurring throughout history from ancient Rome through the Middle Ages to the present day,
have been struggles of economically subordinate classes against economically dominant classes
who opposed their economic interestsslaves against masters, serfs against landlords, and so on.
The modern industrialized world has been shaped by one such subordinate classthe
bourgeoisie, or merchant classin its struggle against the aristocratic elite of feudal society.
Through world exploration, the discovery of raw materials and metals, and the opening of
commercial markets across the globe, the bourgeoisie, whose livelihood is accumulation, grew
wealthier and politically emboldened against the feudal order, which it eventually managed to
sweep away through struggle and revolution. The bourgeoisie have risen to the status of
dominant class in the modern industrial world, shaping political institutions and society
according to its own interests. Far from doing away with class struggle, this once subordinate
class, now dominant, has replaced one class struggle with another.
The bourgeoisie is the most spectacular force in history to date. The merchants zeal for
accumulation has led them to conquer the globe, forcing everyone everywhere to adopt the
capitalist mode of production. The bourgeois view, which sees the world as one big market for
exchange, has fundamentally altered all aspects of society, even the family, destroying traditional
ways of life and rural civilizations and creating enormous cities in their place. Under
industrialization, the means of production and exchange that drive this process of expansion and

change have created a new subordinate urban class whose fate is vitally tied to that of the
bourgeoisie. This class is the industrial proletariat, or modern working class. These workers have
been uprooted by the expansion of capitalism and forced to sell their labor to the bourgeoisie, a
fact that offends them to the core of their existence as they recall those workers of earlier ages
who owned and sold what they created. Modern industrial workers are exploited by the
bourgeoisie and forced to compete with one another for ever-shrinking wages as the means of
production grow more sophisticated.
The factory is the arena for the formation of a class struggle that will spill over into society at
large. Modern industrial workers will come to recognize their exploitation at the hands of the
bourgeoisie. Although the economic system forces them to compete with one another for ever
shrinking wages, through common association on the factory floor they will overcome the
divisions between themselves, realize their common fate, and begin to engage in a collective
effort to protect their economic interests against the bourgeoisie. The workers will form
collectivities and gradually take their demands to the political sphere as a force to be reckoned
with. Meanwhile, the workers will be joined by an ever-increasing number of the lower middle
class whose entrepreneurial livelihoods are being destroyed by the growth of huge factories
owned by a shrinking number of superrich industrial elites. Gradually, all of society will be
drawn to one or the other side of the struggle. Like the bourgeoisie before them, the proletariat
and their allies will act together in the interests of realizing their economic aims. They will move
to sweep aside the bourgeoisie and its institutions, which stand in the way of this realization. The
bourgeoisie, through its established mode of production, produces the seeds of its own
destruction: the working class.