Being on a quite liberal campus such as the beautiful University of Michigan, weed isn't exactly brushed under the rug. As I randomly roam the streets, whether in between classes or various night life activities, that "good-good" aroma catches the nostrils at least four times a week. If I were to ask some of my MSU "friends" what they were to think about the AA, they may reply (this is actually a quote), "you're all a bunch of stuck-up hippie stoners." What I replied, however, may not be blogger-friendly but let's just say we better win this Saturday or I am going to be in quite the predicament. Ignoring the week of Hash Bash, where the laws are even more relaxed for the sake of celebrating the fight on cannabis restrictions and to remember the cultural activist John Sinclair, Ann Arbor isn't all too out of place in the grand scheme of things.
Starting to slowly connect this to Locke, however, I bring up the mary j to state the general observation: We all know "that guy" who smokes some kush and instantly becomes modern day Socrates, or Sigmund Freud, or Tupac. After a few hits of the J, this weed user simply gets it. They instantly land in someone else's shoes. They know the pain of the oppressed (and all the solutions to stop it). This plant enables the now-philosopher to not only eat incredible amounts of junk food, but also to see through the clutter towards the final path of what it means to be "freeeee man" and to have "world peace bro"(reread in your best stoner voice). |
| PsYcHeDeLiC mAn! or Mr. John Locke? |
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying the guy isn't right on some of these matters. There is a reason he is being discussed in the first place in basically all political science classes ever. What I am saying, however, is why does this guy know anything about the state of nature? He is an upperclass rich dude, not some peasant who has to struggle for life on a day to day basis. Nowadays, we blast people of the top class trying to connect to those of lower socio-economic status (Romney anyone?). Do it a few centuries ago, however, and we have a philosophical genius on our hands. And no, I am not saying Romney is trying to redefine some theory of the status of life through his policies (come on now, really?). Anyway, what I am getting at is modern times is all about experts in the field saying things about, well, their field. We wouldn't trust a doctor of medicine projecting the stock market, and we wouldn't have random peeps diagnosing hospital patients.
How does this all tie in, you may be wondering? Well, "that guy" is a dude smoking pot who pretends to know everything about anything, even if he hasn't the slightest bit of experience in his subjected field, and Locke is a rich guy holed up in Amsterdam (liberal in more ways than freedom of press, mind you) writing about, essentially speaking, a life he never has to worry about living. If I really wanted to know about life in a state of nature, wouldn't I consult some guy from war torn, government broken Somalia? I mean, look at the place:
 |
| a loving state of nature, eh? |
My final point is this: I like people to preach from a podium of experience. If they haven't lived in a scenario, how can they tell us the infrastructure of the damn thing? Locke, in the bluntest of ways, stumbled upon a theory that fits. Who knows how many other countless old white dudes tried to write about the same topic and aren't given a second thought today. Locke just happened to be that one-in-a-ton "guy" who's blabbering mouth landed them somewhere. For all we know, the next Locke could be at our very own Hash Bash this coming year, lighting up right under our noses.
Mike I completely agree with the points you laid out. I, for one, would prefer to receive orders from someone who knows exactly what they are talking about. This goes for advice as well. I'm definitely guilty of (just as I'm sure everyone is at some point in their life) being extremely stubborn and not listening to my parents when they try to give me advice. In reality, they have been in my position, and have experienced, firsthand, problems that arise at certain points in life (say, college life). Thus, I am actually more inclined to listen to them based off of their experiences, and I believe this is how things should be in most, but not ALL, aspects of life. For instance, I do think that certain professional fields should only be practiced and preached by trained individuals with expertise. This includes doctors, engineers, lawyers, policemen, and even chefs. However, other careers, such as teachers, politicians, and even business entrepreneurs, do not need as specific training. One does not need a degree to become a successful business person or politician. Obviously society makes it almost impossible to achieve these positions without a degree of some sort, but it is still possible. A politician should be someone who can relate to all the people they are governing, using their past experiences to makes people's lives as easy as possible. Yet, like I said, this is where society makes it impossible for any common person to just decide they want to become a politician. They need an education, and it is why, for this exact reason, that we take what the "stoner guy" says with a grain of salt. I am not saying this a good or bad thing, but it does reflect the extent of how materialistic our society has become. In Locke's time, societal values were very similar. This is why his work was not only published, but held with merit across many years of being analyzed. He came from a wealthy background, which then allowed him to get an education, and then have access to publishing resources etc. On the other hand, the poor homeless man who claims to discover the meaning of life will not have any merit; society will not even consider his ideas, as he's on the lowest rung of the socioeconomic ladder. This concept shows how important demographics are when we choose people to listen to or take advice from. Other homeless people will certainly believe the poor man's philosophy. Alternatively, educated citizens (like ourselves) will be more inclined to listen to Locke, or someone from a similar background. There is your answer to how this fits in to politics. The higher 1% of the population will gravitate towards a candidate from a similar background or ideals, as is true with the middle class. Demographics explain your state of nature comment as well; you shouldn't ask people in Somalia about the "true" state of nature, since their version of the state of nature is much different from yours. You have never experienced war-torn Somalia, so that state of nature can't possibly apply to you. In my opinion, the question of state of nature is very general, and can only be specified based on demographics.
ReplyDeleteMike, I thought your argument was really well thought out, and I agree with many aspects of it. On the other hand, I think we need to take a step back on a few points and look at it from a more general view. One thing I had issue with was the comment about the state of nature in Somalia. Much like Joshua pointed out in the previous comment, demographics play a role in many situations. To go along with demographics, we also have to understand that not all societies live the same. People in Somalia obviously have a different life than us in the U.S., but that doesn't mean that one exception means that Locke is wrong. Locke suggests that men are generally good, like you said. Just because there is a small area of the world that doesn't fit Locke's description of human nature does not mean it is wrong. Sure, we have thieves and murderers in the world, but does that mean that humans are generally evil? I don't think so. Another issue that I had with your claim is that just because one person hasn't lived through something doesn't mean they can't analyze it. Yes, John Locke came from a wealthy background and did not deal with the same struggles that many people may have encountered, but that doesn't mean he couldn't study the lives of those who were less fortunate, and may have found themselves in the true state of nature which you suggest. There are many fields of study in which it is not necessary to have experience. I'm not saying it wouldn't be helpful, but just because John Locke was rich doesn't mean we should disregard all his claims about human nature and social contracts. Again, I think that you made a very interesting and unique argument that not only related to our class, but also our incredible university. Well done!
ReplyDeleteI'd like to start by saying that I really enjoyed your writing format and style - I thought it was well-informed and you conveyed some really good points too. I think I share this idea with you of historically over-praised writers - authors whom it seemed equally likely to have stumbled into their success rather than being the geniuses we have built to glorify. Returning to your latter points, I think we have been built to distrust representatives who seem "out of touch" - an easy characteristic to cast upon a politician. Romney has certainly fallen into this association, as did George H.W Bush with his comments over the miraculousness of grocery store scanners. I would not, however, pin this to be a "wealth" issue. I am a liberal from Queens, but I went to a prep school on the North Shore of Long Island with many wealthy friends and can defend the fact that wealth does not necessarily define or limit one's experiences. Further, I believe we should let our differences unite, not divide us. However, at least in this case, I don't think that Locke's background weakened the validity of his claims or were even relevant. In fact, I think he structures strong evidences of mankind based on the structures of society, psychology, and natural inclination. I would agree that Locke's weakest point of argument were his attempts to point out real-world examples of his state of nature, but I do not think that even this indicates a 'lucky' draw. Rather, I believe his perception of global politics (events and people corresponding outside of the domestic area) were consistent with those of his time - limited by travel and communication. Instead, I would point to the solidity and consistency of his arguments and the applicability of his ideas for all peoples, in all walks of life, to make the claim that 'hey, maybe Locke isn't such a wannabe stoner, or a jerk guy after all'.
ReplyDeleteI love how this post is so laid back because it makes it that much easier to respond to. I completely agree with the fact that you're saying you should go through something before you preach about it. A lot of times people don't understand what it's like to be in a situation until they are in it and experience it first hand. I think by experiencing a scenario for yourself, it helps you not only understand the effects of the situation, but also helps you relate to others who have been through the same thing. Responding to your point about Mitt Romney trying to connect with people of the lower-class: it's almost impossible. One major problem we have here in the United States is people like Romney running for president when they haven't been through unemployment, suffered with a poverty-stricken family, or had to go through many of the troubles that over half of the people in this country go through. There are so many working-class people in the United States that go to work every single day and still suffer and have hardships because that is just the way life goes. People like Romney, however, can't relate to someone like that because they have wealthy inheritance. I do agree with Locke's theories on "the state of nature." I don't believe there are many people out there who can honestly think that deep to come up with something that is so fit to society. He goes in depth about humans, how they interact, what their intentions are, etc. and is spot on in my opinion. Has he suffered through what many people have? No. But he is still human and interacts with other humans everyday. Everyone has their own opinion about Locke and his claims, but of course not everyone is going to fit into what he is saying. He came up with his theories based on the general population, not a study of every individual, meaning that there are people that don't fit into the description he portrays. I also agree with Josh on the fact that your state of nature does depend a lot on where you come from. Every country and different area of the world has different values, political systems, and people around them. People act differently in other parts of the world. It's unfair to assume things about people in Somalia, for instance, because they are used to different things than we are. Just like here in our own country, we don't want someone to assume they know what we have been through if they haven't experienced it first-hand, so why try to put yourself in someone else's position? Locke did the best he could in studying humans and how they act and react. His ideas were based on society as a whole, not the individual man and him thinking he knows everyone's situation and what they have been through.
ReplyDeleteLike everyone else that has posted, I really liked this post. But seeing as most of the commenters have already stated what I was going to say, I would rather spend my post responding to people that have already commented.
ReplyDeleteAs the first comment points out, I agree that politicians do not need the experience that everyone claims they do. However, they do need money. The cost of campaigning has led to a majority of politicians being completely out of the league of most of the people they are representing. Perhaps it would probably be better if politicians do not need “experience” of being in the political world to be labeled as "qualified". They would possibly be even more effective since they actually experience what the majority of the population experiences. In the past, money was not a requirement to hold influential positions. Unfortunately, high amounts of money have become a necessity although politicians do not need money to qualify for the position. Thus, I totally agree with Farone.
Also, Andrew (the second comment) says that “just because one person hasn’t lived through something doesn’t mean they can’t analyze it.” That is true…but analyzing isn’t the same as experiencing something. You can look at an event and know everything about it but that is nothing in comparison to actually feeling and knowing what someone is going through. You can rattle off facts and feel empathy but there is no way someone can know what is actually happening. No matter how informed you tried to be, you would still be uninformed about everything critical to understanding the situation—only attainable through personally experiencing it yourself.
As for Locke, I think that his hypocrisy just proves that his state of nature is too ideal. As Farone says, he fails to include “real-world examples.”