There he lay as a normal infant, red and whimpering. How does the mind of a baby grow to become one of the greatest political philosophers the world has known? From his response to the Puritan upbringing by his father, to “The Reasonableness of Christianity”, which John Locke published just five years before his death, John Locke's life demonstrates how God uses a mind dedicated to honest pursuit of ultimate Truth.
On August 9, 1632 he was born in the village of Wrington in Somercast. His father was a country solicitor and small landowner who fought in the English Civil War on the Puritan side. During his early childhood, the king, Parliament, Protestants, Anglicans and Catholics all were in conflict with each other which lead to the civil war in 1640.
In 1646 Locke attended Westminster School in London and graduated in 1652. That same year he began attending Oxford University. There he learned Latin, logic and metaphysics. Finally in 1656 he completed his B.A.. However he did not leave the school, but tutored there for 3-4 years first a lecturer of Greek in 1658 and then as lecturer of rhetoric in 1663. That year he decided to become a doctor and began studying. During this time, the ideas of Robert Boyle and Descartes heavily impacted him and applied their ideas to philosophy.
As he was working to become a doctor, Locke met Lord Ashley who would later adopt the title of Earl of Shaftsbury. Lord Ashley employed him as a personal physician but he would also serve him as a secretary, political researcher, and political advisor.
Through Lord Ashley, Locke became connected with the king of England, Charles II. When Charles II formed a colony in America, he gave Locke the duty of writing up a constitution. Later this constitution would become known as the Carolina Constitution and would be used by America’s Founding Fathers as a model for their Constitution. In the constitution he included ideas from the Westminster Confession as well as principals such as the Creator-Redeemer distinction (the idea that the government can control men’s outward behavior but should let God rule their hearts) and Liberty of Conscience (the idea that it is wrong for the government to force citizens to act against their consciences). Furthermore he included religious freedom and granted protection of the law to people 18 or older who were members of a church or claimed to be a believer in a higher power.
In Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid” the reader finds all three methods of persuasion, ethos, pathos, and logos in emphasizing his point that Google is possibly making people stupid; but it is ultimately the people who cause their own mental deterioration. His persuasion is a reminder to people of the importance of falling back on the “traditional” ways of reading. He also understands that in skimming an article one has the ability to retain what is necessary. Carr himself points out that in the past he was better able to focus on what he read and retain the information. However, now he exercises the process of browsing and skimming over information, just as many individuals have come to do in this day and age.
He states how he used to spend hours reading, but his concentration started to drift after two or three pages. He backed up his theory with stories from others who say they’re experiencing the same thing. But they still await the long-term neurological and psychological experiments that will provide a definitive picture of how the internet affects cognition. After a brief history lesson, Carr starts to incorporate Google into the article. He tells us about Google’s history and their mission. Carr states how Google, and the internet itself, have a financial stake in collecting the crumbs of data we leave behind. Apparently these companies do not want us reading slowly or for leisure. Carr then ends the article by stating that we are turning into robots ourselves, and that we are relying on computers to mediate our understanding of the
Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
Advancements in technology have strived to make life easier for so many people. In most cases, the advancements have achieved its goal, but in the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Nicholas Carr questions if the improvements in society have unintentionally hindered our thought process overall. Carr begins the article by providing personal instances when his concentration seemed to diminish due to the internet. He explains how he now loses interest when reading lengthy portions, his mind just can’t seem to remain connected to his readings. He then proceeds to talk about how today’s life is surrounded by the internet, and explains the pros and cons of it. The negative side of it is that his mind now wonders off when seeking information from
There are many different ways in which the Enlightenment affected the Declaration of Independence and the U.S Constitution. One way was the by the idea of a Social Contract; an agreement by which human beings are said to have abandoned the "state of nature" in order to form the society in which they now live. HOBBES, LOCKE, and J.J. ROUSSEAU each developed differing versions of the social contract, but all agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for society's protection and that the government has definite responsibilities to its citizens. Locke believed that governments were formed to protect the natural rights of men, and that overthrowing a government that did not protect these rights was not only a right, but also an obligation. His thoughts influenced many revolutionary pamphlets and documents, including the Virginia Constitution of 1776, and the Declaration of Independence. The Bill of Rights was created as a listing of the rights granted to citizens, the Bill of Rights serves to protect the people from a too powerful government. These civil rights granted to U.S. Citizens are included in the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, Locke’s ideas about checks and balances and the division of church and state were later embodied in the U.S. Constitution as well. The Constitution replaced a more weakly organized system of government as outlined under the Articles of Confederation.
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
Locke started his career teaching English at Howard University. Later on however, he became head of the Department of Philosophy. While he was working, he had developed some other interests in other fields as well. He liked music, art, literature, political theory, and anthropology to name a few.
In the beginning of Hamlet, the Prince behaves as any normal person would following the death of a loved one. Not only is this a loved one, but an extra special someone; it is his loving father whom he adored. Hamlet is grief stricken, depressed, and even angry that his mother remarried so soon after his father’s death. Having witnessed how his father had treated his mother with great love and respect, Hamlet cannot understand how his mother could shorten the grieving period so greatly to marry someone like Uncle Claudius. He is incapable of rationalizing her deeds and he is obsessed by her actions.
Any great king must be compassionate, and Hamlet is the embodiment of compassion. He shows this through his great sadness after his father’s death. Unlike many others in the play, Hamlet continues to mourn long after his father’s death. In fact, he never stops thinking of his father, even though his mother rushed into a marriage with Claudius a mere two months after her husband’s funeral. Also, Hamlet shows the reader his compassion through
Though this first soliloquy occurs rather promptly in the play, there are still a lot of proceedings that lead up to it. Hamlet comes back from school to find all is not well in the state of Denmark. His father has died a mysterious death, and his mother has already remarried his father’s brother. In royal times it was customary to mourn the death of royalty for a year, yet his mother only waited two months to remarry. She not only waited two months, but she was committing what Hamlet and others considered incest. This anomalous marriage paired with the recent meeting whit his mother and stepfather, where Hamlet is embar...
Clearly this shows Hamlet grieving his father’s death while showing hostility to the king and queen for being so deathly cold about the previous king’s death. Also the readers can also see in Hamlet’s opening dialogue, it shows that he still has not come to terms with his father’s death and is still in the state of shock when we first see him.
At this instant in the play, the audience perceives Hamlet in his most dismal hour. Although Hamlet often times refers back to the question of why he was chosen to lead this life, Hamlet, wishing to vanish from existence, never brings himself to such rashness. Although the depth of his misery is patently agonizing, Hamlet’s sorrow associated with the loss of his father may not be as deep-seated as Shakespeare initially depicts it to be. On numerous occasions, Shakespeare portrays Hamlet in a state of self-loathing in respect to the task his father’s spirit assigned to him. Although Hamlet is inarguably still grieving the loss of his father, a considerable portion of his grief then stems from his own reluctance to act. Although, undeniably, the centralization of his actions are around the vengeance of his father’s death, through the murder of Claudius, Hamlet’s hesitancy to act furthermore portrays his grief within himself. Despite being given numerous opportunities to execute his sole task,
John Locke, Berkeley and Hume are all empiricist philosophers. They all have many different believes, but agree on the three anchor points; The only source of genuine knowledge is sense experience, reason is an unreliable and inadequate route to knowledge unless it is grounded in the solid bedrock of sense experience and there is no evidence of innate ideas within the mind that are known from experience. Each of these philosophers developed some of the most fascinating conceptions of the relationships between our thoughts and the world around us. I will argue that Locke, Berkeley and Hume are three empiricists that have different beliefs.
The factor that sets the play Hamlet apart from other notable works from other artists is that Shakespeare is able to influence his audience by weaving a gripping yet tragic tale of a revengeful son. Soon after the death of his father, Hamlet’s Mother marries Claudius that makes his the new king of Denmark. Hamlet is heartbroken to find that none in his family nor the royals are able to display grief over the death of his father – the late king. The play Hamlet is written in the form of a poem that is constant throughout the play. One good example of the poetic stance of the author is through ‘Seems, madam! Nay, it is, I know not seems. Tis not alone my inky cloak, good mother’ (Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, page 199). Unlike the p...
...t his father and Ophelia are dead and he cannot accept the thought of his mother’s hasty marriage to his conniving and deceitful uncle. Hamlet regrets his previous actions which caused tremendous pain to Ophelia and her family. Just as his own family was destroyed by his uncle’s evil plans, Hamlet realizes that he caused the same pain and negativity on the family of the woman he loved.