Locke and God, Locke and Money - Syllogism or not?
I have to say, Locke could have used less words in his treatise. He said the same thing about every fifth page. I suppose that was to drive the point home and to increase reader comprehension, but man…
One of the questions ProfPTJ brought up in class last week was about how dependent Locke’s system is/was on universal faith in God (a benevolent one.) God is integral to Locke’s treatise II because he bases the creation of Civil Society on the premise of equality, a God-given trait. With this assumed (faith-based) equality, in the state of nature, every man has everything he needs. All is joyous. However, with the (not evil) entry of money, resources can be unequally distributed and people have the capacity to possess more than they need without it rotting, thus the need for rules about property. As this is the fundamental force behind Locke’s argument, I wonder what role faith plays, and which specific parts of faith are most important (as it is obviously important). I think that the only part of God that is necessary for Locke (by part of God I mean specific extent of faith in God) is the part that pertains to relationships between people and the source of natural resources.
If all relationships are based on God-given equality, then Locke’s argument holds. However, what if there was another way to believe that, yes, everyone else was equal, or at least had equal rights to everything unworked by human hands, then Locke’s Civil Society could apply without God. However, it needs some unifying device – for Locke this is God.
Money introduced an interesting twist in Locke’s history of property. In fact, the idea of representing wealth with a relatively indestructible item was the turning point, and was what gave people reason to have possessions, thus leading to Locke’s treatise (well, many years in between). What would Locke’s God say about money? Locke seemed kind of perturbed by it and how it meant that there would not be equal distribution of goods to people (as people could suddenly possess more than they needed – see p. 301). Perhaps an extension of the faith in God necessary is a faith in Money. Taking that a little further, perhaps Locke’s society (and, by the many associations I tried not to make that ProfPTJ warned us about, ours) could be founded on a faith in Money, as a replacement of the God so called for. Money means the same thing to everybody, and is therefore a unifying device…the only problem is that money is not made readily available to everyone…then again, neither are possessions….
One of the questions ProfPTJ brought up in class last week was about how dependent Locke’s system is/was on universal faith in God (a benevolent one.) God is integral to Locke’s treatise II because he bases the creation of Civil Society on the premise of equality, a God-given trait. With this assumed (faith-based) equality, in the state of nature, every man has everything he needs. All is joyous. However, with the (not evil) entry of money, resources can be unequally distributed and people have the capacity to possess more than they need without it rotting, thus the need for rules about property. As this is the fundamental force behind Locke’s argument, I wonder what role faith plays, and which specific parts of faith are most important (as it is obviously important). I think that the only part of God that is necessary for Locke (by part of God I mean specific extent of faith in God) is the part that pertains to relationships between people and the source of natural resources.
If all relationships are based on God-given equality, then Locke’s argument holds. However, what if there was another way to believe that, yes, everyone else was equal, or at least had equal rights to everything unworked by human hands, then Locke’s Civil Society could apply without God. However, it needs some unifying device – for Locke this is God.
Money introduced an interesting twist in Locke’s history of property. In fact, the idea of representing wealth with a relatively indestructible item was the turning point, and was what gave people reason to have possessions, thus leading to Locke’s treatise (well, many years in between). What would Locke’s God say about money? Locke seemed kind of perturbed by it and how it meant that there would not be equal distribution of goods to people (as people could suddenly possess more than they needed – see p. 301). Perhaps an extension of the faith in God necessary is a faith in Money. Taking that a little further, perhaps Locke’s society (and, by the many associations I tried not to make that ProfPTJ warned us about, ours) could be founded on a faith in Money, as a replacement of the God so called for. Money means the same thing to everybody, and is therefore a unifying device…the only problem is that money is not made readily available to everyone…then again, neither are possessions….
posted by Rebecca at 4:39 PM
<< Home