Comments on: Locke’s Nature

By: Joe Winpisinger

Joe Winpisinger — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 00:09:43 +0000

Rothbard calls Locke a “Protestant Scholastic” for a reason…

http://www.3rdwavelandsproperties.net/2012/09/theistic-rationalism-or-protestant.html

By: Adam Baum

Adam Baum — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 21:51:02 +0000

“The Lockean property is biased towards settler polities–a land must be invested with human labor and only then it becomes a property. But why can’t a hunting tribe own its hunting ground?”

Because as soon as a hunting tribe conceives of land as property, it trades the vissisitudes and perils of hunting for the safer and more predictable outcomes offered by agriculture. Corn doesn’t hide or counterattack.

“Locke, like almost all economists, fails to properly distinguish between private property and national territory and this failure leads economics into numerous puzzles and paradoxes.”

Modern economists don’t fail to properly distinguish between private property and national territory, they don’t believe in national territory, as evidenced by their treatment of any restriction on immigration as affronts to human dignity. Of course, the greatest paradox is that the first line of defense in holding private property is national territory (and it’s vigorous assertion not the irredentism of our time)

By: Yes, Lewis Compared Modern Science to Demonology » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:03:27 +0000

[...] commenters on this post object to my characterization of C.S. Lewis’s views of modern science in The Abolition of [...]

By: Greg Forster

Greg Forster — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:03:27 +0000

What you’re laying out is a perfectly defensible view, but it is not what Lewis wrote. No space to show it in a comment, so new post coming soon.

By: andrew

andrew — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:24:08 +0000

I suspect that in the last paragraph, the author of the post really meant to convey that “modern science” is demonic (see first paragraph), with the implicit assumption that “modern science” is synonymous with “scientism.”

By: Bret Lythgoe

Bret Lythgoe — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:49:41 +0000

I’m certainly no expert on C.S. Lewis, but I agree with Steve Billingsley. Lewis probably, not unlike most intellectually inclined religious people today, thought that the misinterpretation of empirical science is the problem, not science itself. His problem was not with empirical science, but with unwarranted materialistic interpretations of scientific findings. He would not deny that the findings of empirical science (i.e.,neuroscience) can provide great insight into the human mind, but it cannot explain the essence of the mind (he had a great argument, which I think cannot be superseded, for why materialism is insufficient to account for the existence of, and our knowledge of, truth).

By: Gian

Gian — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 05:58:40 +0000

The Lockean property is biased towards settler polities–a land must be invested with human labor and only then it becomes a property. But why can’t a hunting tribe own its hunting ground?

Locke, like almost all economists, fails to properly distinguish between private property and national territory and this failure leads economics into numerous puzzles and paradoxes.

Man lives in tribal or national groups. The tribes mutually exist in a state of nature (Locke “Princes exist in a state of nature”). The state of laws exist within a particular tribe or nation. These being the particular laws of a particular tribe. Property, being a rightful thing, arises as a conclusion of a series of arguments, arising ultimately from the command “man shall eat of the sweat of his brow”. The argumentation require shared premises and that shared moral space is provided by the shared moral sense of the tribe or the nation.
Thus, the property acquisition (in land) exists only in the state of laws. Otherwise, we have not property but “Territory” that is defended by force.

Thus, Property being a Right, exists in State of Laws and is secured by laws (or arguments).
While Territory is an Assertion, exists in State of Nature and is secured by force.
Thus, it is always wrong to violate a Property i.e. commit a theft and it is not wrong per se to violate a Territory i.e. conquer a territory.

By: Steve Billingsley

Steve Billingsley — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:39:28 +0000

I grant that Joe seems to have a flat view of Locke, but you have a flat view of Lewis. He did not explicitly compare modern science to demonology – he compared the historical origins of parts of modern science (and only one part – the origins of modern science date way before the Enlightenmen – i.e. see James Hannam’s book “God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science”) to the contemporary (to that time) interest in magic. He did consider some of the spirit of scientism (you do know the difference, don’t you) demonic in nature.

But to say that Lewis considered science demonic is quite a bit of a stretch. If you don’t want people misreading Locke, misreading Lewis is kind of an odd way to go about it.

By: HT

HT — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:30:29 +0000

Again I recommend Eleonore Stump’s chapter “Justice” in her book “Aquinas” for an exposition that contrasts Thomas with Locke illuminatingly. (I don’t expect to convert any confirmed Locke-ophiles, but you never know.)