CEC panel covers political philosophy and varying definitions of liberty

 

The Center for Ethics and Culture hosted a panel entitled “Freedom, Locke, and Liberalism,” on November 12 as part of its “For Freedom Set Free” conference held in McKenna Hall. Michael Zuckert, Professor of Political Science at Notre Dame, and D.C. Schindler, Associate Professor of Metaphysics and Anthropology at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute, each presented a talk.

Zuckert spoke first on the topic of freedom and modernity. He explained the paradox of the general association of modernity with liberty and the three main bodies of thought that contributed to the emergence of modernity. These bodies of thought, namely Protestantism, modern science, and modern philosophy, often run in opposition to the modern conception of liberty. Zuckert used the example of modern philosopher Thomas Hobbes to prove this point.

“[Hobbes] developed a philosophy of mankind that posited humans as acting solely in terms of laws of inertia,” Zuckert stated. “Moreover, Hobbes’ psychology and moral philosophy culminated in a political philosophy that left little room for liberty.”

Hobbes argued that reason is unable to override human passion and therefore proposes a megastate to control unruly humans and allow men to live together in peace.

In order, then, to understand modernity’s openness to freedom, Zuckert looked to political philosopher John Locke. Locke, while influenced by Hobbes in many ways, disagrees with him regarding human nature. Locke claims that humans are free and capable of regulating their own behavior and thus rejects Hobbes’ megastate.

Locke does, however, acknowledge what he calls the “Great Inconvenience” of the state of nature, in which the basic rights of life, liberty, and property are highly insecure. To cope with this, Locke favors a milder constitutional regime and principles of limited government. This view falls more in line with the modern emphasis on freedom.

Schindler followed with a discussion of his paper “Locke’s (Re-)Vision of the Will: Binding Freedom to Power.”

“There is little controversy concerning the importance of John Locke in the political vision of the American Founding Fathers and for the conception of politics in the modern West more generally, but what Locke means is deeply controversial,” Schindler began.

Schindler thus called for a deeper investigation into the anthropological foundation of Locke’s political thought outlined in “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” to resolve the controversy.

After facing criticism of his essay, Locke substantially revised his first edition to disentangle his view of freedom from the traditional conception of freedom. Schindler said these revisions can signify the symbolic birth of the modern view of freedom.

Locke’s first revision regards his conception of the will. In his original essay, he claims that the will is determined outside itself and is oriented towards the greater good. Locke revised this conception to claim that the mind determines the will, and the will is active power.

The subject of the second revision is the beginning and end of the will. Locke sought to clarify that the will originates in the self and terminates in actions. This view runs contrary to the classical view that the will originates outside of the soul and terminates in the reality of the world outside of the soul.

Freshman Matthew Marsland reflected on this point to the Rover, stating, “The Lockean view, the modern view, is that the will is an act of power that begins internally and ends with the action, so that conception of power-based will … changes the whole structure and takes God out of the picture, and it becomes problematic.”

Schindler determined that Locke’s conception of the will undermines the foundation of the principles on which he had constructed his previous theoretical edifice.

“It seems to me that in order to come to terms with Locke and what he represents in the context of contemporary Western culture, we need to see through his notoriously elusive and misleading probes to the basic ideas of the foundation which he attempted to present rather unusually in the ‘Essay Concerning Human Understanding,’” Schindler concluded. “It is only thus that we can finally liberate freedom from its modern bondage to power.”

Matthew Connell is a freshman tentatively studying political science and constitutional studies, but in actuality he has little idea what he wants to do with his life. You can contact Matthew with life advice at mconnel6@nd.edu.