Spinoza Superstition Essay

Fate doesn’t control the knife in a murderer’s hand, wavering above the throat of their next victim. Just as fate doesn’t control the amount of blood that follows. Nor does fate take hold of one’s mind when it is twisting on the side of evil and malice. While fate may have some hold on some actions, it often doesn’t make up for most of the crimes done by most people. It is the same in Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Macbeth had choices, even with the witches foretelling his fortune and his doom, and he chose every action, crime, and path he took. Fate had nothing to do with Macbeth’s actions, and Macbeth can be held accountable for all his actions since he could clearly determine between both sides in his choices, he understood the consequences, and

Instead, he believes that all humans are born both free and equal, in which individuals in the society are governed by natural law. (330) The ‘sovereign power’ in John Locke’s findings relates to the government, as it subsists to help support and keep the people safe. However, if an individual is seeking the protection of their property, they must pursue an executive power to help keep that property safe. (326) This relationship between the subject and the sovereign can be considered very significant because it overshadows the way in which political societies work

In the order of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, as time went on, the positive image of the government declined, and the negative image of humans in a state of nature became more positive. The reason that Locke’s philosophies are the most influential in democracies in today’s world is because his thinking was much more moderate than the extreme ideas of Hobbes and Rousseau; Hobbes believed humans were inherently evil and Rousseau believed humans were inherently good. Contrastingly, Locke believed that humans would fair well in a state of nature, but could utilize government as a source of order and benefit in life. In the end, their thoughts of the state of humans in a natural realm are what motivated their various thoughts about government. Although it is difficult to see what a human society would be like under complete anarchy, through the trials and errors of different countries and different political regimes, the philosophies of the different thinkers have shown their various benefits and

Governments are incredibly intricate machines and rely on the fluidity of all involved organizations to function properly. The failure of even one portion of the governing body to function with autonomy causes the entire system to suffer due to lack of synchronization. However, as seen in much of history, a very influential loss of autonomy is spawned by the use of divine right to reinforce the ruling elite. Such a claim was usually a play to maintain the familial dominance

“The first alternative finds its philosophical basis with the anarchists’ presumption” (Teacher) that given that coercion is converse to human freedom is naturally bad so it must be steer clear of, “even at the cost of the very existence of the political entity itself” (Teacher) On the other hand this alternative that focus’ solely on the abolition of coercion has the risk of being ineffective, neither on “philosophical premises” (Teacher) society requires coercion to remain controlled and provide protection for the communities. Therefore another alternative is to investigate the ways and means to normalise the use of coercion rather than abolish it altogether. The state must be democratic in order to normalise coercion, so that it may be used in the combined interest of the

Renowned psychologist and social experimenter Stanley Milgram once said that “obedience is the psychological mechanism that links individual action to political purpose. It is the dispositional cement that binds men to systems of authority.” In other words, man succumbs to authority because it is rooted in his obedience to jurisdiction. An example of this is the American judicial system, which man is obedient to because that is what’s known. His political or societal purpose however is a learned behavior, or one that he matriculates from the dynamic of his culture.

There is no such thing. People fall for delusions because delusions give people hope, enough hope to survive through undiluted evil. The sweet seduction of a delusion created a false sense of hope for many Jewish families who suffered through the Holocaust. These delusions ultimately lead to the demise of many Jewish lives.

Both King Louis XIV’s Versailles and John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government are imbued with ideas that are substantiated by divine providence in one form or another. In Versailles, this idea is that of the King’s divine reign which validates Louis XIV’s kingship. Locke, on the other hand, suggests all men are born inherently equal into God’s state of nature and have a right to liberty. While both Locke and Louis XIV substantiate their arguments through divine authority, their claims as to what God ordains is markedly different; Locke is claiming that all people must adhere to the law of nature but can chose to consent to government—thus discrediting the divine right of kings which is exactly what Louis XIV tries to convince his subjects of

Popular sovereignty is the idea that "governments derive their authority from the consent and support of people, not from God" (Alpha). Until the modern era, most kings and governments claimed their authority from God, a concept called divine right of kings. The concept was based in part of a "social contract" between individuals and their government, a concept created by writers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. A corollary of popular sovereignty is that if a government fails or mistreats its people, the people have the right to replace it (The Social Contract). Because the Third Estate formed the vast majority of the French nation, it was entitled to representation in the national government.

The government which impacts Equality’s society, is similar to a fascist authority, as it prohibits individualism and the regime has complete control

Many centuries ago people have brought authority to the most of human activities themselves; therefore, it still controls and imposes individuals in actions and wishes. Eventually, ¬nowadays freedom has become one the most desired thing. People instinctively think that freedom is the thing that cures the world and authority is the thing that infects the world. Even though, step by step human beings are getting to be used to believe that authority is a dangerous and terrible thing. Humans return to authority even if they have the freedom, because their answer lies in comparison.

Hobbes and Rousseau agree that humans are equal by nature and must consent to submit their rights to a central authority. However, their conclusions diverge on the role and the composition of that central authority. Hobbes’s sovereign is that of one individual or a small assembly of individuals whose sole purpose is to provide security to its citizens and in return maintain the power to represent its citizens (Hobbes 227). Conversely, Rousseau believes that the sovereign is based on the concept of the general will which requires active participation by citizens as a community and binds/favors each citizen equally (Rousseau 76). Therefore Hobbes’s Leviathan and Rousseau’s general will are similar in premise by agreeing humans are motivated by self-preservation and utilize contracts to secure self-preservation, though their conclusions differ on the role/rights of the citizens and the sovereign.

Their minds can easily be swayed and cause them to make the wrong

This example portrays negative government control because lack of

Discussion The main argument supporting authoritarianism help economic development is the state can enjoy autonomy in drawing development policy which face less resistance force from the public and more public interests oriented. When countries are developing its economy, huge investment is needed to start-up the economy and state will cut off the current consumption. The party insist for a “better future” will never win in the election.