 |
The
basic principles of
modern philosophy
|
The following text addresses some
of the central basic principles and elements that make up modern political philosophy. What
changed with the beginning of modern history? Which modern thinkers have
contributed to the subject? On what view of the world is modern history based?
Overview:
[Back
to top of page]
From cosmos to building
site
Aristotle was the founding father of political philosophy
as an
independent discipline. His basic ideas developed an importance for education that can still be witnessed
today. Many of the terms used by Aristotle are also
cited during modern history. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that a
decisive change in the basic philosophical idea occurred in modern political philosophy. As a
consequence the meaning of political also changed.
Aristotle regards the nature of man as being
inherently political; and he regards the polis, the city-state, as being
the best work to have come about through human action. Aristotle believes that
the entity of man is determined from the most accomplished work coming from human
activity. This work
forms the final purpose of human effort and, indeed, is the actual reason
that man exists. Aristotle determines the sum of human activity from the end. He
does not ask: Of what is man capable? Where do the limits of his capabilities
lie? Instead, he asks: What work is given to man by virtue of his nature? What
conditions encourage or hamper efforts to achieve this final purpose? Aristotle,
then, takes this pre-given work as being the goal of human action. And it is from
here that he derives the abilities that will be necessary for man to reach the
goal.
[Back
to top of page]
The opposing method starts by analyzing
human ability. The goals that appear worthwhile and achievable are
derived from this analysis. In the first instance, man's pre-given work is used to
develop the necessary ability; in the second instance, all the possibilities
offered by man's ability are measured, not to fix a specific work, but rather to peg out the
limits of what is possible. The being of man is no longer determined from the
work achieved by virtue of his nature, because man cannot be pinned down to a
specific task. Rather the being of man is determined from the possibilities that
can be realized; and these must be differentiated from the impossible, which remain
unachievable.
The first question supposes that
the world is like a well-organized house, in which everything in the world has
its natural place. This natural place is given to him through his work, which he
completes by virtue of his being. Indeed, this is Aristotle's conception of the
cosmos.
In contrast, the second theory assumes that human ability cannot be fixed to a specific
work; ability is always
finite and therefore can be crossed, improved and expanded. To this end, rather
than the world being like a finished and completed house, it is actually more
like a building site that is continually working, not towards a fixed goal, but rather
towards on-going improvement of the project. The limits of the work are
determined by human ability and the inherent laws of the building materials
available. Within these limits continual advancement and improvement is possible. The
developer of the building site can be compared with the conqueror moving across
enemy territory: Every victoriously reached new frontier merely forms a
barrier to his action, a challenge to push on and go beyond - this is the basic
principle of modern philosophy. For Aristotle amazement and astonishment at the good and
wonderful nature of the world forms the basic emotion and reason for philosophizing. In modern
history, however, it is formed by doubt
about man's own ability, in order to explore the ins and outs of man's possibilities
and limitations and to ultimately encourage man toward ever-greater achievement.
[Back
to top of page]
Cogito ergo sum:
Philosophy of subjectivity
René Descartes (1596-1650) was
the first person to provide a new fundamental base for modern philosophy and he did
this in his work entitled "Meditations on First Philosophy" (1641).
(...) All human knowledge has to be
subjected to critical examination. The tool for this examination is doubt, questioning the claim of a certain
knowledge to be correct and true. But on what
is the certainty and truth of human knowledge founded? Descartes attempted to answer
this question.
(...) Only one example is
demonstrated. If, for instance, I were to claim that a circle has four sides, I
would have very good reason for doubting the truthfulness of this statement. Yet
an element of this statement cannot be absurd, and that is the fact that it was
I that made the statement. The self, which makes the statement,
regardless of whether the statement be true or false, is the origin and
foundation of all statements and therefore also the origin and foundation of
certainty and uncertainty, truth and untruth. And so the foundation, the
unshakable basis of all knowledge has been uncovered: The self-certainty of the thinking
self. This self-certainty of self as a thinking being is - according to
Descartes - absolutely indisputable, since it is the foundation, or rather the condition of the
possibility of all doubt. "I think, therefore I am" (cogito, ergo
sum) is the principle of all human knowledge and therefore also philosophy.
The method used by this newly
founded philosophy is a turning back on one's self, a way of measuring one's own
ability, in order to determine the limits between
what is achievable and what is not. This is called reflection, or a turning back into one's
self.
The self, which knows itself as a
thinking being, is the basis of all knowledge. Such an underlying principle is called sub-iectum in
Latin. Philosophy in modern history, which takes the self as being the
underlying principle, is rightly called: Philosophy of subjectivity.
[Back
to top of page]
The thought
experiment about a natural state
(...) For Descartes, theoretical
philosophy, metaphysics, formed the focus of his work. The new foundation of philosophy
takes place in the spirit of philosophy of subjectivity and also effects practical
philosophy. From the person as a self, reflecting upon his own ability, a practical and political
philosophy needs to be established.
(...) The political philosophy of
subjectivity returns to the people and asks what it is that makes them organize
their lives together in the form of a nation state. This question is answered using a
thought experiment. The experiment disregards all the benefits gained by man
from cohabitation and places the individual in a world without government,
in a natural state. In this natural state the individual is free from all state
restrictions and responsibilities; his real being is revealed, the aspiration for
self-preservation. In this state of self-preservation, all people are equal. In
contrast to Aristotle, who assumed a natural inequality among peoples and only
recognized equality among people of the same nationality, modern philosophy assumes that all people are naturally
equal; the fact that individuals do not have equal levels of intellect or bodily strength does nothing to
change the principal life situation, the aspiration for self-preservation. If,
however, every individual were to aspire to securing and optimizing their own
self-preservation without any restrictions, this unfettered competition would
lead to a state of total insecurity and danger. Indeed, people find themselves forced into
averting this aspiration by introducing mutual limits, in order to create a
state of security and peace: The nation state.
[Back
to top of page]
Therefore, the starting point for
the derivation of the state is based on human characteristics, with self-preservation at the centre. The conception of the state depends on
whether man is regarded as being a pessimistic, aggressive being or an
optimistic, social being. Be that as it may, the state must ensure that
agreements entered into are enforced, even if this means using physical force.
Pessimistic anthropology depends on a state that has all-encompassing
powers. An optimistic anthropology, in contrast, depends on citizens' trust in the
state, which in turn governs fairly - meaning that only a minimum of state is held
necessary.
The political philosophy of
subjectivity assumes determined human characteristics; it assumes
a political anthropology. The justification for the necessity of a nation state for securing
self-preservation and as a guarantee of peaceful cohabitation can be found in this political
anthropology, with the level of
powers awarded to a state being directly linked to the basic anthropological
assumptions.
If Aristotle determined the good
life of people as being the purpose of the state, modern history regards securing
of individual self-preservation and the securing of peace as being the aim of
human cohabitation in an organized state form. This guarantee of security forms
the fundamental legitimization of the nation state in modern history: Mainly the
guarantee of internal security, with the guarantee of external security being limited to
the respective ability and possibilities open to individual states.
[Back
to top of page]
Social contract
But how can a nation state be
created from this natural state? Modern philosophy offers a unanimous answer to
this question: By entering into a contract. This contract limits the
individual's unlimited freedom to self-preservation. This is arranged in such a
way as to ensure that individual freedom can exist alongside the freedom of all
others. Every one waives his/her unlimited right, accepts restrictions and as a
result receives a system of collective security and peace. Every individual has
a natural right to self-preservation. This right may not be revoked,
since this would mean the destruction of existence. This natural right, however,
may be restricted in order that the inalienable rights of all might exist collectively.
These restrictions are codified in the form of laws. Man is born with inalienable
natural rights, but a natural law does not exist; because the law (restriction
of freedoms) can be traced back to a free and equal agreement, or in short - to
a contract.
In a natural state all individuals
strive toward securing self-preservation. This leads to conflict between those
involved, since each individual concentrates on his/her own interests. Those
involved are unable to settle their disputes directly. Therefore all
participants find themselves compelled into agreeing to the following
Firstly to
common rules for settling disputes - laws;
secondly to
an independent body, which is capable of settling disputes in an unbiased way and
which is considered fair by all parties.
[Back
to top of page]
In modern history the origin of
the state is conceived according to a judicial model: The state is organized as
a neutral authority, which settles disputes and in so doing guarantees peace in
the community. Two conditions are necessary: The rule of law must exist;
the rule of law must also take the form of institutions with a monopoly rule
over the use of physical force. These institutions are responsible for guaranteeing
that judgments are carried out in accordance with the law; the use of force is necessary
for this. The structure of the modern state, then, has to be a legal
structure: Political philosophy becomes legal theory or, put in another way,
the constitutional state is a legitimate nation state based on rational
argument and justice.
The foundation of the nation state
is based upon two legal acts. In a natural state, social chaos, which is not
subjected to any rules and does not offer order, dominates. Therefore, people
are left with little other choice than to agree to live in a community that is
governed by laws. For this reason a contract of union (pactum unionismust be entered into in which the people agree to become a political body.
However, this is not enough on its own. Another state authority must be
established with the job of monitoring and ensuring adherence to the rules and
laws agreed upon and which also has the power to implement these. A contract of
subjection
(pactum subiectionis) must follow
and complement the contract of union. It is, however, particularly difficult to
determine the relationship between these two contracts and throughout the course
of modern philosophy very heterogeneous models have been proposed, with the
emphasis on subjection and union differing according to which model is being
suggested or, in other words, differing according to the model's authoritarian
or democratic tendency.
[Taken from: Eberhard Braun/Felix Heine/Uwe Opolka,
Politische Philosophie. Ein Lesebuch. Texte, Analysen, Kommentare, Reinbek 1984]
[Back
to top of page]
