Children are social beings as well as adults. Children need other people to be able to help develop his abilities, because children are born with all the weaknesses of others so that no child may not be able to reach a normal level of humanity. According to John Locke (in Gunarsa, 1986) the child is a person who is clean and sensitive to stimuli from the environment. 

Augustine (in Suryabrata, 1987), which is seen as the beginning of the foundation stone of child psychology, said that the child is not the same as adults, children have a tendency to deviate from the law and order caused by the limited knowledge and understanding of the realities of life, children are more easy to learn with examples of the receipt of the rules that are forcing. 

Sobur (1988), defines a child as a person who has thoughts, feelings, attitudes and interests are different from adults with all the limitations. Haditono (in Damayanti, 1992), argues that the child is a creature in need of care, compassion and a place for development. In addition, children are part of the family, and families provide an opportunity for children to learn behaviors that are important to progressing quite well in life together. 

Also includes the child’s understanding of the child exist (there). This is to avoid poisoning of children in hubugannya understanding with parents and the child’s own sense after becoming parents. Kasiram (1994), says children are beings who are in early stages of development that have feelings, thoughts, will itself, which kesemuannya it is the totality of the psyche and the properties and structures that are different in each phase of development. 

In the process of human development, stages of child development, found several stages or phases in the development, between phases with each phase to another is always in touch and influence and have characteristics that are relatively similar to each child. Besides, also the development of man is not independent of the growth process, they will always be associated. If the growth of brain cells to grow, so too will develop his intellectual abilities. Development process is not only limited to physical development, but also on psychological development. 

Children are social beings, who need care, love and a place for their development, children also have the feeling, mind, will own all of which form the totality of the psyche and the properties and structures that are different in each phase of development in childhood (children). Development of a phase is the basis for the next phase.

In the first place, a lawyer will win or lose a case on the basis of his or her ability to convince the judge. Accordingly, there are many judgments based on the judges’ opinions. This is why in criminal law; the standard of proof must be beyond reasonable doubt but not beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, there are very many lawyers who have specialized on dispensing injustice instead of promoting justice. Recently in an article by celebrated academic and judge Justice George W Kanyeihamba, he stated exactly that they are very many crooked lawyers. Although Mr. James  Sebugenyi  defended the lawyers in another article, it remains very clear that there are lawyers who just use the profession to mint money instead of promoting justice.

Just recently, I witnessed personally a situation where a Makerere University lecturer of law instigated mob justice against a student who had asked him a difficult question. I wondered what such a lecturer would do if he was cross examined in court and got annoyed. Would he abuse the judge, or would he fight fellow lawyers on the other side? This exaggerated self-importance by lawyers that they are the only learned people should stop hence forth.

I have had an opportunity of sitting in the law class at Makerere University after doing my bachelors in social science majoring in political science and a master’s degree in human rights. I’ve learnt that many concepts used in law are borrowed from political philosophy, sociology and other social science disciplines. For instance, concepts such as separation of powers and checks and balances are concepts that were developed by political thinkers such as John Locke and Montesque. The social contract theory was propounded by John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes. The natural law theory was developed by Christian thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Huggo Grotius among others. These are taught in political science and philosophy and any lawyer who erroneously thinks is the only person who knows these things lives in self-delusion.

When I was being supervised by Prof. John Jean Barya, a celebrated law professor for a masters degree in human rights, I told him that with my research in labour rights, I had discovered that I know too little and what he told me is that, ”the more you know, the more you discover that you don’t know”. How I wish lawyers would realize that they don’t know and seek to learn more. It is also a common parlance that a good lawyer is not the one who knows the law but the one who knows where to find the law. Me thinks that if we were not to go by technicalities, we should not have any body with paper qualifications to represent a client but anybody who would know where to find the law would suffice to represent a client. I’ve seen magistrates asking lawyers to first present their practicing certificates before representing a client in court. To me, that’s hogwash. Is it a certificate that is important or the lawyer and what he or she presents in court?

I have heard that there are some people who have been convicted of murder yet in actual sense, they did not commit the offence. Edmary Mpagi spent 18 and a half years on a death row only to find later that the “person he had actually killed” was alive and am sure there were lawyers and judges who actually believed that Mpagi was guilty and had him convicted.

Finally, can the lawyers and Judges know that they are not in any way special and if they are learned, others are equally learned?

The justification for the American War for Independence was based on political theory best expressed in clear language by Thomas Jefferson in The Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence made it clear to everyone that all people have basic rights, such as: “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.  It also states the whenever these rights are denied, the people also have a right to fight whatever enemies are in the way that are preventing the people from these rights. So what the American colonists did is based on political theory (and the theory of natural rights), not on legality. The colonists overthrew their government by the form of a “revolutionary war”. A revolution is an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed (Dictionary.com).

            Although some might say that overthrowing your own government makes you look like you are against your country. I tend to disagree with that philosophy because that is not always true. Sometimes the government can do something outrageous that could put the civilian population in jeopardy.  I believe that the colonists did have a right to overthrow their governments and that it was legal. Two important people that instituted reason for the revolution included Thomas Jefferson (Declaration) and John Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government”.

            The colonists brought many beliefs with them from England on what was acceptable of their government. John Locke says that when a government is formed a pact is made between the citizens and that government. This pact states that the citizens or colonists agree to give up all their natural rights and freedom and in return the government will set laws for them and promise not to abuse the aforementioned natural rights. Locke goes on to say that if these natural rights are abused then the citizens have the moral authority to revolt and overthrow the government. The colonists were becoming furious since the British began imposing different types of “acts” (taxes) on them which didn’t benefit them in return, but instead helped pay England’s debt. The largest reason for people to strike back was when a group of colonists had enough of British ruling. The colonists threw snowballs at the British troops stationed there; so the British fired into the crowd of colonists. After the smoke cleared, there were five dead and several injured. No one knows the exact details of how the battle started, but it made the colonists furious, which led to the first step of the revolution. Then when the Tea Act was passed in 1773, the colonists came to the conclusion that King George III was abusing their natural rights. They decided that it was time to take back those rights in a small scale rebellion; The Boston Tea Party. In December of 1773 the Sons of Liberty dumped 342 chests of tea into the harbor. Then England passes the Coercive Acts and the Quebec Act, which made a bright thinker, Thomas Paine, to proclaim that, “We have the power to begin the world again!” This is why I believe that the colonists had a right to overthrow their government and that it was legal.

Ancient Philosophy

In Greek and Roman philosophy, common sense is that which is common to all the senses, or the ideas common to all humans. According to Aristotle’s psychology, the common sense is a general centralizing faculty by means of which one apprehends the “common sensibles”—motion, rest, figure, magnitude, number, and unity. These qualities are not known through any one of the five special senses. Also, since the “togetherness” of the special sense qualities in an object is not discerned by the special senses singly, it is necessary to postulate a common sense that enables one to perceive that a certain color, taste, and sound are all present in the same object at once.

In Stoic philosophy, the view that all rational minds (pneumata) are emanations of an identical rational world-stuff (pneuma) entailed the further view that all rational minds have innately certain notions in common with each other; therefore, what is common sense to all men may be presumed to be true.

Early Modern Philosophy

Image via Wikipedia

These notions, or “innate ideas,” came under attack in the 17th century by John Locke, who maintained that humans are not born with any ideas at all, that the mind at birth is a “blank tablet,” and that our ideas result from sensory experiences and combinations of these. Locke’s insight led to the empirical movement, which sought to base all knowledge on experience and which in the 18th century culminated in George Berkeley’s denial of material substance and in David Hume’s thoroughgoing skepticism regarding the certainty of empirical knowledge.

These consequences, distasteful to some, stimulated a countermovement, the so-called Scottish school of common sense philosophy, led by Thomas Reid, Dugald Stewart, and James Beattie. Reid urged against Locke that the mind is congenitally furnished with some ideas, the presence of which may be certified by introspection. These are the same for the deepest thinker and the simplest human, and they are not the product, but the prior condition, of experience. Sensations are not the objects of knowledge but are “signs” that unmistakably point to the existence of a real self and of real objects to which our thoughts correspond, in a real world, the existence of which cannot be doubted. The final outcome of this movement was a rejection of philosophy as such, or a reduction of philosophical problems to psychological ones.

Contemporary Philosophy

In 19th- and 20th-century thought, common sense sometimes denotes a naïve view of reality as contrasted with a scientific view. The term also may denote a set of attitudes and assumptions presumed to be held by those who are untutored in a conscious philosophy. As such, common sense has been defended by such thinkers as John Dewey; George Santayana, who claimed that “common sense, in a rough and dogged way, is technically sounder than the schools of philosophy”; and, particularly, by George Edward Moore. Moore argued that certain statements about the existence and behavior of one’s body and of things and other minds in one’s environment are everywhere and always understood. The fact that we know these things is proof that they are true; indeed, no other proof of that fact can be given that does not beg the question. The skeptic can have no reason for doubting them, and what is not doubted in common life ought not to be doubted by philosophers.

Hobbes view of humanity as presented in the Leviathan was essentially negative, as he was pessimistic about people’s behaviour and their basic motivations. He describes the state of nature’s affects on human life as making it ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’.2 Left to their own devices, people are naturally selfish, and would therefore only look after their own interests, and they would not worry about the morality or the ethical implications of the methods they utilise to serve those interests. People want to put their material needs ahead of everybody else needs.3

Without political, civic, or religious authorities or institutions the most negative aspects of human behaviour will become apparent, and to the fore. In the absence of any restraining authority, laws, or morality it will be the physically strongest, or mentally most alert and devious that will tend to compete with each other to dominate their societies whether they are developed or primitive. Hobbes’s negative perception of human nature and behaviour in turn meant that his notions of the state of nature were correspondingly more likely to be negative in their context and content.4 Hobbes thought that disobeying governments would lead to a return to the state of nature. Or as he asked in the Leviathan:

‘How could a state be governed … if every individual remained free to obey or not to obey the law according to his private opinion?’5

In contrast, John Locke’s view of human nature and behaviour was definitely more positive in outlook than Hobbes was. Unlike Hobbes, Locke assumed that if left to their devices would eventually achieve stability, peace, and perhaps even prosperity. Locke was to all intents and purposes an optimist when it came down to what people could achieve prior to authorities or institutions were established. In fact Locke believed that people should still be able to influence or in extreme cases replace their governments.6

From Locke’s perspective people tended towards stability rather than acting in ways that would lead to chaos or anarchy if left unchecked by civic authorities and their associated-armed force and policing powers. Taken as a whole people were more likely to co-operate with each other, at a basic level that co-operation was an essential element of their combined chances of surviving, developing, and eventually prospering as societies and nations. Co-operation allows people to gain food, and accommodation with less effort and less conflict or argument than, when people are competing against each other for everything they need.

For the most part people can acquire what they need through co-operating with each other and once barter or monetary systems have been established then that was the time when that level of co-operation and development should increase in that society. Locke does not argue that violence or conflict is not a part of human behaviour, it is not the most logical or inevitable outcome of people living in the state of nature. Rather the structure of civic, political, and religious authorities are able to evolve or emerge as a consequence of people being inclined towards order and co-operation. Co-operation was carried out, as it was logically that it was the most rational way that people could achieve stability and make progress Heywood.7 Further more unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that the state of nature was something to be learn from, or perhaps even to respect, rather than something to be avoided at all possible cost.8

Arguably the ways in which Locke and Hobbes viewed or developed their personal notions of the state of nature were strongly influenced by their own life experiences. It is certainly no coincidence that Hobbes would develop a pessimistic and rather negative set of notions relating to the state of nature, as the events he witnessed were without much doubt more traumatic than those experienced by Locke.9

Hobbes was around to witness the disintegration of the Tudor constitutional arrangements, a decline that was accelerated by the monarchy’s perennial lack of revenue, intensifying religious divisions, and the extra strains that resulted from having the a monarchy that ruled the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, Ireland. In England, James I and Charles I found it impossible to maintain the traditionally sound relationships between the monarchy, Parliament, and the gentry class from which the majority of MPs, magistrates, and taxpayers came from. Both kings did themselves no favours by clinging on the concept of the divine right of kings.10 James I had been able to prevent those relationships breaking down completely, whilst Charles I pursued policies that inadvertently did much to cause the subsequent civil wars.11

Thomas Hobbes by education, training, and profession had originally been a mathematician. In many respects he was not a man that would be expected to produce a book such as the Leviathan that dealt with political notions such as the state of nature, the legitimacy of governments, and what those governments could or should do to maintain social and political order. Undoubtedly if he had lived in politically and religiously less turbulent times he would have remained a mathematician, and a well paid tutor for the nobility and the gentry. Instead the build up to and the outbreak of the English Civil War would turn Hobbes’s considerable intellectual capabilities toward the study of politics, and how it affected society.12

By inclination Hobbes was originally a loyal supporter of the Stuart cause, believing that the monarchy as the legitimate source of authority, and as the guardian of law and order. His loyalty to the Stuarts was reinforced by his strong links with the Cavendish family, which included the Earl of Newcastle, one of Charles I’s loyalist supporters and one of the richest as well. The Earl of Newcastle would spend a fortune for the Stuart cause yet went into exile after the defeat at Marston Moor.13

For Hobbes the outbreak of the English Civil War amply demonstrated the catastrophic political, social, and military consequences of the main civic or political authority collapsing, a collapse that led to violence, disorder, and civil war.14

The already strong links of Hobbes to the royalist cause were increased by his appointment as the tutor of the future Charles II. The young Prince of Wales was sent into exile to ensure that all would not lost for the Stuarts if Charles I should lose the civil war. Hobbes joined his new pupil into going into exile. It was whilst in exile that Hobbes wrote the Leviathan, as a means to communicate his most forceful thoughts on politics, and philosophy. Hobbes had the good sense to word the Leviathan in such a way that the Commonwealth regime allowed him to return to England from exile.15

On the other hand, John Locke who was born later than Hobbes had different life experiences that help to explain their differing notions of the state of nature. Locke had very little experience of life before the English Civil War, and had not witnessed the descent into civil war that had resulted from the breakdown of the political, social, and religious order in England and Scotland. England’s declining political authority had resulted in a collapse of control in Ireland, which had been one of Charles I’s few successes. Parliament won the English Civil Wars yet at the cost of establishing a governing regime that had more repressive powers than the Stuart monarchy had held previously, and in Oliver Cromwell had a man that had no problem with doing just that. Whilst the Commonwealth regime had such powers, it had also unintentionally helped to strengthen the notions around constitutional government, and the toleration of some political and religious beliefs not associated with the regime itself. However the Commonwealth lacked legitimacy and after Oliver Cromwell’s death the only option had been to restore the monarchy to avoid further chaos and civil war.16

Locke came to national prominence during the latter part of Charles II’s reign when he was involved in the unsuccessful attempts to bar the Roman Catholic James, Duke of York ascending to the throne. Although the monarchy was supposed to have constitutionally weakened after the Restoration, a shrewd monarch such as Charles II could still yield considerable amounts of power.17

Locke believed that people only had the duty to obey their government as long as it represented and promoted their best interests, if not the people should be able to find or start a new government that does act to achieve their best interests. Locke wrote the Second Treatise on Government as a retrospective justification or apology for William of Orange gaining the throne via the Glorious Revolution of 1688. As a result of that revolution a constitutional monarchy emerged. The fact that Locke wrote the Second Treatise of Government to justify the Glorious Revolution explains the different emphasis that Locke put on the notions of the state of nature in comparison to Hobbes. Hobbes had tried to dissuade rebellion; Locke was attempting to justify it as a valid political act against tyranny.18

Or as Heywood states about Locke’s arguments ‘citizens do not have an absolute obligation to obey laws or accept any form of government’.19

Hobbes presents the state of nature as a notion that should only be used to demonstrate the need for all people to obey their governments no matter how tyrannical or authoritarian those regimes might appear to be. All the notions of the state of nature put forward in the Leviathan were bad, as people were incapable of developing and maintaining stable, peaceful, and organised societies without the guiding auspices of a government to direct events. However governments need to be strong, and vigilant to ensure that people always did as they were told. Weak government is definitely not a good thing politically or socially, and the consequences of weakness can be profound. Such governments can be prone to collapse, either being replaced by absolutist regimes or precipitating a return to the state of nature. Strong government according to Hobbes was the key not only for maintaining social and political order, it was also important for the intellectual, material, and technological progress of humanity. It did not matter how advanced any particular country and its society had become. For once its government had become weakened, or was overthrown, it would not take long to revert back to a chaotic situation very similar to how Hobbes believed the state of nature had been like.20

There was certainly no room for believing that the state of nature was to be admired, or copied, as humanity had only progressed due to the presence of governments, laws, and moral values, all of which were absent from the state of nature.21

Interestingly enough Hobbes argued that the state of nature was ended when governments in individual countries were established, with the new perspective that the foundations of governance rested upon a contractual agreement between the people and the government. Thus Hobbes contended that agreement between the governments and the people were concluded through the use of social contract theory. Under social contracts governments pledged that they would maintain law and order, ensure that their people could adequately provide for themselves, and defend their country from any internal or external threats to security. The government was responsible for preventing any catastrophic reversions to the state of nature, and therefore could be justified in taking all steps that were deemed necessary. In return for being protected, and nurtured, people owed their governments absolute obedience, as disobedience led to the awful prospects of rebellions, civil wars, or worst of all a reversion back to the state of nature.22

In the Second Treatise of Government, Locke would also regard social contract theory as vital for understanding how the state of nature operated, then subsequently how its members freely decided to end that state of nature by establishing governments to run their states.23 Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that although people agreed to a social contract they did that through making a rational choice that such a contract was best for them. However that choice is not eternally binding for the descendants of those that agreed to it originally.24 People are only liable to obey their governments whilst a majority of the population regard those governments as holding legitimate authority.25

Locke believed that governments had basic functions such as ensuring law and order, administering justice, and defending their countries. Apart from those functions governments had no need and no right to interfere in peoples’ lives.26 Governments did not have absolute authority to do anything, their people are free to renounce their social contract, and appoint new governments as required, even if at the cost of temporary return to a state of nature.27 Locke’s was unconcerned about a temporary return to the state of nature; it was better than Hobbes insistence on obeying tyrannical regimes. His argument that regime change was acceptable in certain circumstances was a truly revolutionary concept. It provided an intellectual defence of the Glorious Revolution, as well as providing rational arguments for subsequent revolutionaries.28 Regimes could avoid been overthrown and a return to a state of nature by serving the needs of their people. In that they retained legitimacy and the people were well -governed.29

In some respects the differences between Locke and Hobbes over the notions of the state of nature are due to a difference of emphasis. They agreed that the state of nature was the starting point for societies that needed to progress to the formation of government and laws. Both men used their books to forward the social contract theory as the theoretical means of ending the state of nature. Social contracts allow people to have better lives than in a state of nature, as governments ensure stability and progress by passing laws and maintaining order. Both men believed that governments should be obeyed, Hobbes argued under all circumstances whilst Locke argued in all but the most exceptional circumstances. Hobbes emphasis on governments being able to use any means to keep hold of power and prevent a return to a state of nature was in sharp contrast to Locke’ s belief that rebellion was acceptable to prevent tyranny. Despite that difference Hobbes was only advocating authoritarian measures, and Locke was only advocating rebellion in extreme circumstances and not as a matter of course. The state was the supreme adjudicator of civil and legal disputes, and if it did that task properly it was better than the state of nature was.30

To conclude there were various differences between Locke and Hobbes when they presented their notions of the state of nature in the Second Treatise of Government, and the Leviathan. Hobbes took a less optimistic view of human nature than Locke did, which, can be explained by their different life experiences. Hobbes was already middle-aged by the time that Charles I poor relationship with Parliament resulted in the English Civil Wars, and the eventual overthrow of the monarchy. Hobbes compared the disorder, chaos, and civil war of his times with an imagined state of nature so that he could call on his contemporaries to obey their governments. Hobbes developed social contract theory to explain how the state of nature had been replaced by the rule of law. The state of nature, just like societies that rejected their governments was untenable as a means of sustaining stability or future political and economic development. Locke’s notions relating to the state of nature were not as negative as those of Hobbes were as he had not had such strong experiences of the English Civil Wars. Locke continued Hobbes’s use of social contract theory yet amended it to suit his notions of the state of nature. Social contracts may have ended the state of nature, but that state itself was not intrinsically bad, although it limited the pace of human development. The social contract was agreed to rationally and was not eternally binding, whilst a rebellion might bring a reversion to conditions like the state of nature providing it was only temporary it would cause any damage to society. Thus for Locke the state of nature was ended by social contracts as governments and laws that should allow improvements. However tyrannical government was not better than the state of nature, and justified rebellion.

Bibliography

Comfort N (1993) Brewer’s Politics, a phrase and fable dictionary, Cassell, London

Crystal D, (1998) The Cambridge Biographical Encyclopedia – 2nd edition, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge and New York

Eatwell R & Wright A, (2003) Contemporary Political Ideologies 2nd Edition, Continuum, London

Heywood A, (2001) Key Concepts in Politics, MacMillan, Basingstoke

Heywood A, (2003) Political Ideologies – An Introduction, 3rd edition, Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke

Lacey R, (2006) Great Tales from English History, the Battle of the Boyne to DNA, Little Brown, London

Lenman B P (2004) Chambers Dictionary of World History 2nd edition, Chambers, Edinburgh

Royale T, (2004) Civil War – The Wars of the Three Kingdoms 1638-1660, Abacus, London

Schama S, (2001) A History of Britain – The British Wars 1603-1776, BBC Worldwide, London

Vale B, (2006) A History of the Church of England 1529 – 1662, only available online from authorsonline.co.uk

1 Eatwell & Wright, 2003 p.72

2 Heywood, 2003 p. 40

3 Eatwell & Wright, 2003 p. 108

4 Eatwell & Wright, 2003 p. 72

5 Comfort, 1993 p. 343

6 Heywood, 2000 p.29

7 Heywood 2003 p. 78

8 Heywood, 2003 p. 78

9 Royale, 2004 p. 251

10 Royale, 2004 p. 14

11 Vale, 2006 p. 47

12 Crystal, 1998 p. 451

13 Royale, 2004 p. 251

14 Heywood, 2003 p. 29

15 Crystal, 1998 p. 451

16 Schama, 2001 p. 226

17 Lenman, 2004 p. 482

18 Schama, 2001 p. 321

19 Heywood, 2003 pp. 39-40

20 Heywood, 2003 p.39

21 Eatwell & Wright, 2003 p. 72

22 Heywood, 2003 p. 77

23 Heywood, 2003 p. 77

24 Heywood, 2003 p. 77

25 Heywood, 2000 p. 29

26 Eatwell & Wright, 2003 p. 36

27 Lenman, 2004 p. 482

28 Schama, 2001 p. 321

29 Heywood, 2000 p. 29

30 Heywood, 2003 pp. 39-40

            John Locke’s ideas are built into American society today. He agreed with the Social Contract, written by Rousseau, but said people are to be given the rights to life, liberty, and property (Holt 293), this of course was changed to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” written in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence (DoI). John Locke also said when the government breaks the Social Contract to defend the people and becomes oppressive; the people have the right to rebel (notes). This is reflected in our constitution because the government is one third thrown out every two years, we vote, and decide who to elect. This is also connected into why the revolutionaries rebelled. England had begun to be oppressive, and they broke the Social Contract, so the revolutionaries felt justified in rebelling and declaring themselves free.
            Rousseau also influenced what formed America. He wrote the Social Contract, a large part of why the Americans thought they were justified in rebelling against the British (Holt 304). He wrote that people need to select their own government, based on popular sovereignty (Holt 304). This meant that people would select who to lead them and would therefore preserve their natural state, if and only if, they could select their own government (Holt 304). He is obviously a strong advocate of democracy, and his ideas were part of the reasons America became a republic.

            Voltaire wrote, in defense of freedom of speech, “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it (Holt 303).” This idea is the basis for the First Amendment to the constitution (US constitution). This idea, gave people their freedom of religion, freedom of press, and of course freedom to say whatever they would like. This amendment is what makes America what it is today, and it might not have been possible without the thinking of Voltaire. The American people were being oppressed and shut up by the British who locked up political prisoners, and shot several people at the Boston Massacre. This does not follow what Voltaire said, and is one of the reasons the rebellion started.

            John Locke, Voltaire, and Rousseau all contributed ideas to the forming of the United States of America. They also helped in making the Colonists of the time ready to fight. The ideas thought of by the philosophers made the Americans want to rebel because they showed how much better their lives could be. America would not be what it is today if it wasn’t for these philosophers. They brought the Social Contract, human rights, and freedom of speech to the American constitution.

            Thomas Hobbes was a philosopher born in 1588 in the city of London.  He was a student at Oxford University, and travelled around Europe studying government.  During these travels he wrote a book called Leviathan in 1651.

            Hobbes claimed that people were naturally wicked and selfish creatures who could not be trusted to govern themselves.  He believed in Absolute Monarchy.  He believed the King had to make decisions for the people and to provide leadership and direction.  He thought that governments were made to protect people from themselves.  He thought that nations were like people, and were in a constant battle for money and control.  Democracy wouldn’t work because people were only interested in their own needs is another thing he believed.

            Hobbes believed in the voice of the people.  He believed a representative could be elected to come forth to the king and present the people’s ideas.  The representative could try to influence the king, but the decision was ultimately up to the king.  He also thought that money and business should not have an impact of standing in government.

John Locke

            John Locke was a philosopher born on August 29, 1632 in Bristol, England.  He studied medicine at Oxford University.  He met John Owen, the Dean of Christ Church College, who taught him about religious freedom.  Locke believed this and also that all sides should be heard.  He believed humans could settle conflict by meeting in the middle.

            Locke believed Men and Women were equal, and that they both had the natural ability to govern themselves and think and reason.  Locke believed in Democracy.  He thought that people should choose who led them.  He believed that Divine Right, which was an excuse people used to justify themselves as being king, was not right.  Government’s duty was to protect people’s rights.  Locke also was against controlling any person unwillingly.  This included slavery and unfair rule.

Jean Jacques Rousseau

            Rousseau was a philosopher born in Geneva, Switzerland on June 28, 1712.  His mother dead and his father having fled the country, at 16 he left his aunt and uncle and wandered around Europe.  He finally settled down in Europe about 15 years later.  After settling down in Paris, he wrote his book, “The Social Contract”, in which he described society’s relationship with the single man.  Rousseau believed that society created men who were good from men, who were naturally more good than evil.  When a man joins a society, Rousseau claimed, then he must give up his natural rights like hurting or killing other men, but in return, society provides him with protection for himself and his property.  Men join together in society because it helps them.

            Other philosophers and scientists believe that the Social Contract applies to the ruled and ruler as well.  The ruled will have their needs satisfied, and so will the ruler.  If either side doesn’t provide his share, then a new contract must be made.

Comparison to Government

            The 3 philosophers Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have differences and similarities in opinion compared to government in the U.S.A. today.  Today government is a democratic republic.  Locke and Rousseau believed in this form of government.  In this democratic republic people vote, which Locke and Rousseau also talked about.  In the modern government the government’s job is to protect people’s property, natural rights, and well being, which both Locke and Rousseau agreed with.  The government’s purpose is also to protect people’s libery and freedom, which is something Locke believed in, but not Rousseau.   In government we have three branches.  Not all the philosophers believed in all three branches.  The congress is the legislative branch, which makes laws.  Hobbes didn’t believe in this, but Locke and Rousseau did.  All three philosophers agreed on the executive branch, which enforces the laws.  The final branch is the judicial branch, which makes sure laws are carried out fairly.  All three philosophers believed in this as well.  All the philosophers believed in the voice of the people, and freedom of speech is an American law today.  The three philosophers believed that taxes were necessary so the government could help people.  Additionally, they all talked about how a military is necessary in order to protect the people.  Both of these ideas are in play in U.S. government today.  As you can see, the philosophers had some similarities and differences to government in the U.S.A. today.

Comparison to Society

            There are many similarities and differences between the three philosophers Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau’s ideas and American society today.  Locke and Rousseau were very similar.  They both talked about freedom of religion and speech, which, as it turns out, we have in society today.  Today in society we value justice and education, as both Locke and Rousseau did.  Both Locke and Rousseau believed in no slavery, which is an American law today.  Hobbes disagreed with all these ideas.  All three philosophers believed that people work to accomplish things and profit, which is true in modern day society.  They also talked about capitalism as an economy, which is the current economy in the U.S.A. today.  Hobbes was very negative.  He believed that people were greedy, as did Rousseau, though Rousseau not as much, which is certainly true in Modern U.S. Society.  Hobbes claimed crime, poverty, war, and resource limitations were natural in society and people which, sadly, is also true today.  As you can see, society is both similar and different from the three philosophers’ ideas.

In the novel, A Long Way Gone, the author Ishmael Beah tells the reader of his experiences as a child soldier.  There were times in the novel, that it was hard to see what was good and what was bad.  Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both correct in their ideas about how people should be governed and what they will do to have protections.  We see examples that prove their ideas to be correct in Beah’s novel, A Long Way Gone.

            Ishmael Beah’s experiences as a child soldier in Sierra Leone prove Thomas Hobbes’ ideas about life without government to be true.  Thomas Hobbes believed that a world where every person had a right to everything in the world would lead to a “war of all against all” and people’s lives would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.  Hobbes believed that a world with no government would lead to a war of everyone against everyone and we see this in the novel when Ishmael becomes a soldier so he can stay in the village and he goes out to kill others.  In the novel, Beah speaks of the war and speaks of the time that he and his friends were captured by rebels, and held at gunpoint.  People who were just like Ishmael and his family were willing to kill Ishmael because they could.  In the novel, it is said that soldiers like Ishmael would shoot people for no reason and would kill people who they thought to have killed one of their fellow soldiers, but may not have.  When Ishmael was living with his Uncle, he had to risk his life just to get food when the leader of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council decided to over throw the democratically elected President Tejan Kabbah.  The civil war that took place in Sierra Leone proves that when there is no government, people will turn against each other and this will lead to war of all against all.  We see in the novel that everyone has pretty much been left to fend for themselves, we see how lonely the main character, Ishmael, got when he was lost from his family.  Hobbes said that people’s lives in situations like Ishmael’s would be nasty and short.  We see that this is true because many of the Ishmael’s friends die during fighting in the war in nasty situations.  Hobbes thought on a world without government were correct and we see this in Ishmael Beah’s novel, A Long Way Gone.

            John Locke believed that in times of trouble, people will subject themselves to civil law or political authority to gain civil rights in return.  In the novel, we see a major example of this with the main character, Ishmael, and his friends.  Ishmael and his friends subject themselves to be soldiers when they are told that that is what they will have to do in order to be able to stay in the village that they were living in at the time.  The village said they had to become soldiers if they wanted protection.  Ishmael and his friends chose to become soldiers so that they would have a place to stay and food to eat.  In a time of trouble, Ishmael and his friends did what they were told so they could have protections.  Another example that proves John Locke’s thoughts to be true was when Ishmael was held at gunpoint by the rebels and he would do anything that he was told so he wouldn’t be shot.  People in Sierra Leone would do anything to have protection.  These examples prove that Locke’s idea that people will give up their “state of nature” to have laws and protections from others.

            Both philosophies, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, are proven correct in their thoughts about people and governing in the novel by Ishmael Beah, A Long Way Gone.  Hobbes believed that a world with no government would lead to a war of everyone against everyone and we see this in Sierra Leone’s civil war with Ishmaels experiences.  The philosophie, John Locke, thought that people would do anything for protection and we see this when Ishmael becomes a soldier to have protection.  Both Hobbes and Locke’s ideas were proven correct in the novel, A Long Way Gone.

Image via Wikipedia

Before that period of study at the Royal Society, Locke had already attended several courses and materials that put him in contact with various areas related to Humanities.Reflecting the possibility of integration of knowledge, the young Englishman nurtured throughout his life an interest in hard distinct areas of human knowledge. Despite this profile outlined, we can not suggest that Locke has always had liberal tendencies facet. 

When he began to dabble in political affairs, Locke initially defended the need for a centralized government structure that would prevent the disorder within society. His authoritarian and conservative vision also extended to the field of religion, when he believed that the monarch should interfere in the religious choices of its subjects.However, his interest in the field of philosophy gradually changed their views. 

One of the key points of his political thinking has changed markedly when the intellectual started to question the legitimacy of the divine right of kings. The work mainly deals with this issue is titled “Two Treatises of Government” and was published in the late seventeenth century. In his views, Locke defended the establishment of political practices that were not against the laws of the natural world. 

Furthermore, this prominent thinker observed many of his interests in politics are themed within your country when witnessed important events relating to the English Revolution. In his view, one can not guarantee the right to property and protection of life could not have means to legitimize its exercise. Also under this aspect clearly stated that a government that does not respect these rights should be legitimately overthrown by the population. 

With regard to property, Locke uses theological arguments order to defend its own existence. He said the world and mankind are the fruits of divine and therefore should be seen as his property. Likewise, all the wealth that the man be able to get through their individual efforts should naturally be their property. 

Interested in reflecting on the process of obtaining the knowledge and importance of education for the individual, Locke was clear advocate of the transformative power of educational institutions. According to their tests, the man born without mastering any form of knowledge, and only with the passing years, would have the ability to accumulate it. From this premise is that the British author believed that the wounds were socially produced and could be overcome by man. 

The recognition of the legacy of Locke occurred when he was still alive. During his lifetime he had the chance to occupy important administrative positions and acted as a diplomatic nature. In England, came to occupy the office of Member of Parliament and defended the right of this institution indicate that the ministers were to compose the state. Respected by many other representatives of liberal thought, John Locke died in 1704 in the town of Oates, England.

Modern semiotics rests on the works of two men who were writing at about the same time but completely independent of each other. One was the American Charles Sanders Peirce, who observed that the relationships between word and thing could take three forms: iconic (a symbol looks like the appearance it represents, such as an early Chinese character); index (in which a symbol represents something related to a concept, as the skull and crossbones is related to poison) or symbolic (in which the relationship has no meaning other than the conventional, such as most road traffic signs).

More influential, perhaps, has been the work of the French philosopher Ferdinand de Saussure. He drew two particularly important distinctions. The first is between the signifier and the signified. The former related to the symbols or sounds representing a word and the second relates to the actual meaning of that word. Saussure argued that these two aspects of a sign (i.e. signifier and signified combined) were inseparable (within the context of a particular language) and must be considered as such. Second, there is the relationship between parole and langue – Saussure of course used French terms. The first, parole, is the idiomatic nature of individual messages and the second, langue, represents the fundamental system of language that provides a meaning for specific uses of parole. Understanding the rules by which the langue operates represents the principal (but not only) area of investigation for semioticians and this investigation has extended into a wide range of different disciplines. One of the most interesting and important of these was provided by the French philosopher Michel Foucault, who was concerned with the ways in which inclusions and omissions in the langue represented power relationships between different people and different classes in society. As George Orwell wrote in 1984, people cannot conceive of a concept (e.g. ‘freedom’) if there is not a word for it.