Saturday, November 8, 2008

Obedience and Political Authority

My topic is the relationship between obedience and political authority. My assertion is that obedience to a law or the directive of a ruler is considered consent, and that obedience provides sufficient entitlement to authority. I will begin by discussing political authority and how power and entitlement of the state are connected to the actions of individuals. Next I will discuss the nature of obedience, including the roles that coercion and justice play in the decision of individuals to obey when ruled. I will then present my ideas about obedience as consent and the problems it eliminates in consent theory. I will conclude by addressing why consent cannot create an obligation for future obedience.

“Rulers are said to have not only the power to make and enforce rules but also the entitlement to do so. And when they do so, they are said to have (political) authority.”[1] Power and entitlement must both be present. Every human being is born under an authority that has power to coerce, be it a parent, tribal leader, dictator, bureaucratic entity of a state, or even a God. Regardless of the time, place or circumstances of our birth, we are born with boundaries and rules in place to govern our actions. A. John Simmons thinks that Rousseau recognized that there are obstacles to the fulfillment of our desires and that there are moral constraints on our actions even though he claims that man is born free.[2] Even recognizing these areas of constraint, Rousseau expressed concern with the legitimacy of governmental coercion within specified areas that he believed were only able to be voluntarily given by the consent of the individual governed. The state of nature thought experiment of Hobbes, Locke and others, as well as Hampton’s idea of a political convention are introduced into a discussion of political authority to explain how those who are ruled could have consented to both the power and the authority of a ruler. There are two very big problems with this pre-political authority consent. First, the consent of the original contract-makers does not have the power to create or obligate consent in others. Contracts are only binding to the parties that enter into the agreement. Second, ideas about the creation of political authority without prior existing political authority do nothing to help one understand his relationship to a government he inherited at birth.
The following chart represents a state. Rulers are those who have political authority. The body politic, which includes rulers, is defined as those who have the power to choose the rulers, consent to changes in state structure, and consent to the laws of the state. Inhabitants of a territory, defined as those who have the power to obey or disobey the laws, includes the previous two groups.
Rulers
Body Politic
Inhabitants of territory

All individuals residing or traveling within the territorial boundaries of a state are able to be punished for breaking the laws of the state, regardless of citizenship, status, sex, race, gender, age or religion. These individuals include people such as resident aliens, travelers and children who are not part of the body politic. According to Hampton, to be mastered is to be subject to the use of coercion in a way that disables one from participation in the process of creating or changing a governing convention.”[3]Prohibition from participating in the body politic places them in a master/slave relationship with the state, which creates a problem for consent theorists.

It does not seem just to be punished for disobedience to laws and rulers they did not consent to, especially if they are prohibited from participation in the body politic. They cannot consent, yet they are not free to disregard the laws of the territory without fear of consequences. All those who risk being coerced or killed by a state should have the ability to consent to its laws in a way that is stronger than merely their presence in the territory. When voting is considered consent, and only those within the body politic vote, then those represented in the grey area of the above chart are only ruled through coercion, making the government illegitimate. “The state must not only receive the convention consent of the people, which merely makes it authoritative in that territory, but also their endorsement consent, which makes it not just a state but a legitimate state”.[4]Legitimacy arises only through the moral justification of individuals.

Some wonder, if the government is protecting your life, liberty, and property, does it matter if you have not consented to the government’s rule? I would reply that governments have many possible motivations for protecting the life, liberty and property of its citizens: self interest (in order to secure power and stability) , manipulation in order to increase power, it is considered part of the “contract”, or it is the right thing to do. All individuals in a state cannot possibly know the true motivations of their government. The individual must use his ability to reason to determine what is best for him and convey through some form of consent his willingness to obey laws regardless of benefits that governments provide.

According to Hampton “a person’s rightful control over others seems to arise from that person’s authority; and authority is about the entitlement to rule. Connected to this entitlement is the obligation the subjects have to obey the authoritative ruler’s commands.”[5] Joseph Raz defines the obligation connected to political authority as follows:
Person x has political authority over person y if and only if the fact that x requires y to perform some action p gives y a reason to do p, regardless of what p is, where this reason purports to override all (or almost all) reasons he may have not to do p.

The idea that someone would be obligated to obey regardless of the directive seems “to limit our freedom or impose on our will.”[6] While it sounds reasonable and desirable for a person to obey just laws, the commitment to obedience in the future poses a problem. Future laws may not be just. Future rulers may not be just. We may have reasons in the future to withdraw our consent because of other obligations. If the initial consent to political authority obligates us to obey that authority regardless of the content of their directives in the future, then we really only give our consent once. Those in authority would have little incentive to be just with all that consent plus the power to force their will.

According to Hampton, power alone does not supply entitlement to rule[7], yet tyrants still feel entitled to coerce. What situation communicates to a tyrant the entitlement to use coercion? Historically, it appears that without sustained, persuasive dissent, rulers do not feel any obligation to change their course. The act of obedience to a law communicates consent to the authority that declares the law. Obedience is an individual decision that cannot be forced, not even by God himself. Philosophers have emphasized the importance of retaining the power of individual choice. Raz in his definition of political authority recognizes the need to retain the ability to disobey a command. Even Hobbes, who asserts that an individual must alienate his natural right to self-governance, includes the necessity for him to be able to withdraw his consent when he feels his life is threatened by the sovereign.

Coercion by a ruler admittedly influences the decision to obey, but it does not have the power to eliminate the option of disobedience. If an individual chooses to disobey, the surety of consequences to his choice does not force him to obey. The choice to disobey when faced with consequences that threaten life and limb has sufficient power to challenge authority. The individual retains unto himself the ability to determine the justice of the laws he is given, which results in varying conceptions of justice within a state. The future actions of each individual are unknown to both the individual and to the rulers. The willingness to obey is an act of faith by the governed based on their individual perception of how the regime will behave. If individuals perceive the regime to be unjust they will be less likely to obey.

It seems logical that the only kind of consent that has the power to threaten the stability of political authority would have the power to authorize the use of political authority. Only disobedience that risks coercion or death carries sufficient weight to threaten political authority regardless of the legitimacy of the regime. When enough people in a territory are willing to withdraw their obedience over time, the stability of the political authority begins to deteriorate. The ability to withdraw consent through disobedience to the law is the only power that checks the state’s power to make and enforce the law. Conversely, the ability to disobey laws is kept in check by the coercive power of the state. The act of obedience acknowledges the presence of authority and demonstrates consent to the state’s use of coercion to enforce laws, which sustains the authority of the rulers.

When obedience is viewed as consent, the master/slave problem outside of the body politic is eliminated. All individuals within a given territory, including children and resident aliens, now have the same ability to directly consent by obeying the laws. In obeying the laws of the territory, those not in the body politic consent to the authority and can justly be punished for disobedience to the laws.

There are many reasons why groups within a state would desire to remove their consent to be governed. Some groups are too different from the rest of society. Sometimes laws restrict groups from displaying particular differences, or penalize them for their differences. Some groups are threatened with violence by others in the society or are made the target of propaganda. If a group of people within a state no longer consent to be governed by a particular regime, they have very few options available to them. They can choose to disobey the laws and risk fines, imprisonment or death. They can move to a place where they will consent to be governed; but where do they go if a regime that reflects their interests does not exist? Finally, they can change the regime through the established legal process, through revolution, or civil war. Therefore, it can be very dangerous for rulers to ignore minorities or to use coercion to handle dissent.
When a law is considered unjust by enough individuals who choose to disobey the law it creates a problem for the government. The regime is forced to act to retain stability. Those actions have historically included repealing the unjust law (e.g. prohibition in the U.S.), granting previously withheld rights or privileges (e.g. napoleonic reforms in France), or using the coercive powers of the state (Stalin, Hitler, etc.). Disobedience, whether civil or violent, is only effective against unjust laws if sufficient numbers in the society are willing to suffer coercion or death and withstand state retaliation over time. The number of disobedient individuals, the amount of suffering and the length of time depend on the arrogance of the regime in power.

When an unjust law is obeyed, those who obey it communicate to the rulers that the injustice is not worth the risk of coercion or death for their defiance. Individuals imply that justice is of less value to them than their other interests. This situation does not pose any problems for a government. Stability is not threatened when there is obedience. Even if a government passes a law, and obedience to that law has unforeseen consequences, the government’s stability remains until individuals decide to disobey the law. When the laws are just and individuals obey the laws, it is a win/win situation for everyone. Power, coupled with the consent derived from the obedience of individuals, seems sufficient to supply entitlement to political authority; however, it does not generate a continued obligation to obey regardless of the content of a ruler’s directive.
I am not convinced that the lack of obligation poses a problem for consent theory. I believe that obligation is irrational and unreasonable if obedience is viewed as consent and consent is sufficient for obligation. There are many people in the world who obey tyrants. Their obedience demonstrates to others, especially to the ruler, that they are willing to be ruled unjustly and through coercion. Individually they have their particular reasons for obeying under these conditions. Regardless of their reason, it does not necessarily follow that they feel obligated to continue to obey. On the opposite end of the justice spectrum, our obedience to God shows our willingness to let him lead us, but it does not necessarily follow that we have a continual obligation to always do his will without individually understanding and accepting what we are being asked to do. Obligating ourselves to continually obey a ruler, regardless of the content of his directives, puts us in the position where using our ability to reason becomes unnecessary. Obligation is connected to a particular law (not a ruler) only if individuals are given means to consent to the law and consent to the rulers who make the laws, however, this obligation is not attached to every law irrespective of their content. “There has never been, and is not now, agreement on the nature of justice”.[8] Individuals determine a law’s justice and act according to their determination. A ruler’s authority comes from the obedience of individuals who base their obedience on a variety of criteria.
[
1] Political Authority, Jean Hampton p.4
[2] Moral Principles and Political Obligation by A. John Simmons p.62
[3] Hampton p 90
[4] Ibid. p. 180
[5] Ibid. p.4
[6] Simmons p.7
[7] Hampton p.4
[8] Ibid. 122

I Can't Tell You Why

I began this essay on the beating of Rodney King intending to share facts that would add perspective to the infamous videotape. I didn’t believe that the tape told the whole story. My goal was not to excuse the behavior of the officers. I hoped to understand the reason Sergeant Stacey Koon directed officers Lawrence Powell, Timothy Wind and Ted Brisneo to beat King the night of March 3, 1991.

First, I read Koon’s account in his book Presumed Guilty – The Tragedy of the Rodney King Affair. Koon was the highest ranking officer present when King was beaten. Koon was directly involved in the case and within feet of the beating. I thought I had an accurate picture of what happened. Then, I read Lying Eyes – The Truth Behind the Corruption and Brutality of the LAPD and the Beating of Rodney King by Tom Owens. Owens was hired by Rodney King’s attorney to conduct an independent investigation of the beating in preparation for King’s civil lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles. I was puzzled by the substantially different accounts of events. I was shocked at the sloppy investigative procedures followed by the LAPD Internal Affairs Division, and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Now, I wish that I could understand the decisions and motivations of the LAPD, Internal Affairs, and the legal teams that represented the accused officers.

The videotaped beating of Rodney King
Shortly after midnight in the foothills of Los Angeles, Officer Lawrence Powell hit Rodney King. His metal baton struck King in the arms, right clavicle, shoulder and chest. King landed face first on the asphalt. Officers struck him up to a dozen times before stepping back to evaluate their use of force. Would King lie down on his stomach with his arms and legs spread out as instructed? No, not yet. In a twelve second flurry, King took fourteen blows: three in the upper torso, two in the back, two in the shoulder, one in the buttocks and six in the arm. The last blow to the arm from Officer Timothy Wind sent King face first into the asphalt. Yet King cocks his left knee and rises once again.

Officers Wind and Powell continue to hit King. In thirty-four seconds they deliver one blow to the knee, one to the hand, two to the buttocks, two to the ankle, two to the thigh, three to the leg, one to the shoulder and five to the back before Officer Brisneo sends King falling face first into the asphalt with a kick to the back between his shoulder blades. In less than a second King begins swinging his left arm toward Brisneo. Powell and Wind respond with blows to the right arm. King continues to rise to his hands and knees and turns toward Powell.
In the final twelve seconds, King is hit in the arm three times, in the buttocks once, and in the back four times. He is kicked in the rear shoulder area three times by Officer Wind. Finally, King puts his hands on his head. Powell hands his handcuffs to Brisneo. But, within ten seconds, King removes his left hand and renews the struggle with the police. The struggle ends when multiple officers use foot pressure to stop King’s resistance.

The video record of the beating of Rodney King lasted eighty-two seconds. The beating was brutal and seemingly unjustified. All over the world people of every race and position called for punishment of the officers involved. Old wounds were reopened, old prejudices rekindled. All because of what was on the tape. The videotape was only a small piece of a larger puzzle. Most don’t know that the edited version they saw only showed the end of the exchange between King and police. The unedited tape shot by George Holliday was twelve minutes long.

High Speed Chase
Officer Melanie Singer was patrolling the Foothill Freeway west of Burbank in her California Highway Patrol cruiser shortly before midnight. Her partner was her husband Officer Tim Singer. She noticed a car quickly approaching in her rearview mirror. In order to assess the speed of the car, she exited at Sunland Boulevard. She re-entered the freeway behind the speeding car. She quickly accelerated and arrived at her vehicle’s top speed of 115 mph. The vehicle was still pulling away from her. She turned on the cruiser’s lights and siren and continued the pursuit. She called for Highway Patrol assistance, but the nearest unit was 20 miles away. The Singers then radioed for assistance from the Los Angeles Police Department.

LAPD’s Foothill Division was a couple of miles away from the chase. Sergeant Stacey Koon listened to the pursuit as he prepared to begin his patrol for the night. Two LAPD police units responded to the Singer’s call and a police helicopter was dispatched to follow the action. Koon got into his squad car and paralleled the chase based on radio reports. The speeding vehicle exited the freeway at Paxton Street. The driver ran the stop sign at the freeway exit ramp. He then made a left turn at the blind curve going 35mph, ignoring the Highway Patrol unit with lights and siren blaring. Now the driver was in an area patrolled by the LAPD, and speeding toward the Foothill Division Station. Two officers from the Los Angeles Unified School District Police had observed the chase and joined in the pursuit. The driver suddenly came to a stop at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Osborne.

Procedurally, this became more than a routine speeding violation while still on the Foothill Freeway. King’s actions made felony stop procedures necessary. No officer would be slowly strolling up to King’s car to ask him if he knew how fast he was going. Highway Patrol officers were in charge of this arrest and proceeded with caution. The sound of the helicopter rotors and the siren from the school police car made communication difficult. Tim Singer commanded the driver of the car to get onto the ground in felony prone position. King didn’t move. Singer repeated his command to the passengers, Freddy Helms and Bryant Allen. They quickly complied and were handcuffed without incident, according to Koon. However, according to Allen, he heard King scream and he looked to see what was happening. Allen was told not to look, hit in the head and pushed to the ground. While handcuffed and on the ground, Allen claimed he was stomped on the back and kicked in the lower neck.

Racism in the LAPD
Koon claims that the race of the suspect was not known until the chase neared its conclusion. This makes accusations of racial profiling unlikely in the King case. Does that mean that racism was not a factor in the minds of any officer or that there is no racism in the LAPD? Of course not. Police forces are made up of human beings that reflect many beliefs, including racist beliefs. Incidents of racial remarks and inappropriate racial references were made public during the trials and investigations. While embarrassing, racist remarks are not confined to the LAPD or police officers.

Personally, I do not see why racism is relevant in the King beating. Would the beating have been more acceptable if four black cops had beaten King? Or, would it have been better if a white guy had been beaten instead? Since any change in the race of those involved would still make the beating outrageous and excessive, it is pointless to let the issue muddy the water.

Baton Proficiency
Before the shift began on the night of March 3, Powell was given “special attention” at roll call because he had trouble using the PR24 baton properly during training sessions. He wasn’t hitting the target hard enough. Wind was noted for his efficiency with the weapon. This information could have no relation to the beating that night. Yet I find myself wondering if Powell was feeling pressured to show he could “do it right” while his sergeant looked on. Would he have been as active in the beating, or as brutal? No one questioned Powell on his motivations.

Assumptions and Decisions
King was a construction worker, six foot three and buffed out. Koon assumed King’s physique was the result of time in prison devoted to working out. Koon claims that King demonstrated behaviors like someone under the influence of PCP. When “dusted”, people seem to feel no pain, speak unintelligibly and become incredibly strong. Officers could not understand King when he spoke. He would not comply to their commands, especially the command to lie face down on the ground with arms and legs spread apart. The Emergency Room report and Sgt. Koon’s daily report, both completed the day of the beating, stated suspected PCP ingestion. However, PCP was not checked as a condition on either Use of Force reports filed with the LAPD connected with the booking of King. The reports were not completed after the Internal Affairs Division began its investigation. The Use of Force reports checked the “other” box and listed possibly under the influence of an unknown drug.

King stopped in an area that was well known to police as a dumping ground for bodies of drug deals gone bad. Koon claims that his thirteen years as a patrol cop had taught him some things about dangerous people that are difficult to explain to the rest of us. One of these things is the Folsom roll. It is a technique learned in prison yards that enables someone in the prone position to disarm an officer. Koon explained that when King rolled toward the officers beating him, that he was engaging in this maneuver. To the untrained eye King only appeared to be rolling on the ground in reaction to the beating.

The assumption of prison time, PCP usage and motivation for the location of the traffic stop put the officers on edge. Actions seen by civilian bystanders and viewers of the tape that seemed reasonable for someone who was being beaten were cause for the escalation of force in the minds of the officers. The officers were making decisions based on their experience with dangerous people and their training as police officers. They used the tools of their trade, TASERs, batons, guns and a lot of yelling. Nothing was effective on King that night, according to Koon.

Witnesses
The investigation of the beating by Tom Owens was professional and thorough. It was his job to check everything out before the civil trial so King’s lawyers weren’t surprised by details that could hurt their case. Owen had been an LAPD patrol officer for 12 years before beginning his investigative business. He still had contacts in the department and an intimate understanding of how things worked.

One of the most puzzling discrepancies I encountered when reading about his investigation concerned the car seen passing between the camera and the beating. Owens was able to identify the car because of a distinctive sticker on the door post. The dark grey Probe was driven by Martin Leon. He was driving home from a family birthday party in San Bernardino. His brother Hector was in the passenger seat and Martin’s wife and two children were in the back seat. The adults in the car gave Owens statements claiming King was attacked by the officers. They identified Brisneo as shouting “nigger” and “black” at King.

When meeting with the District Attorney about the civil case, Owens asked if they had interviewed the occupants of the car in the video. They said that they had taken the statement of “the guy” who had been driving the car. ”Not much there”, said Alan Yochelson. “He said King got out of his car and refused all orders to get down on the ground. When the officers finally approached, King went after a couple of them and knocked them down.” When Owens asked him about the other passengers in the car, Yochelson said there was only the driver. The DA had gotten the drivers name from the defense in the criminal case as part of discovery, and the name was never revealed to King’s attorney.

The conflicting account of King’s reaction to the beating was disturbing. Koon said King displayed extraordinary strength by throwing off four officers. Then King was TASED twice, each time absorbing 50,000 volts of electricity. His only reaction was a loud groan each time, and the repeated effort to rise to his feet. Then the beating began. When King continued to move around after being subjected to blow after blow, Koon was convinced that King was unaffected by pain. Koon assumed the lack of pain was related to PCP usage by King. Koon makes no mention of King screaming during the beating.
“I heard the driver (King) scream”, said Highway Patrol officer Melanie Singer during her testimony at the criminal trial. Officer Wind, in his statement to Internal Affairs, said that he heard King shouting incoherently from the pain of the TASER. A passenger in the grey Probe that drove within a few feet of the beating, Hector Leon, said that King was clearly in pain while being struck by the officers. When interviewed by Owens, Hector said he heard King screaming from the pain.

Let he who is without sin
After the beating, the criminal history of King was exposed in the press. Fear of it being entered as evidence kept King from testifying at the criminal trial. But not much was mentioned about the skeletons in the closet of the officers. Brisneo, like King, had a history of domestic abuse and drinking. The abuse was the reason for Brisneo’s failed marriage to his first wife Cindy.

In 1987 Officer Brisneo was put on a sixty-six day suspension without pay for beating and kicking a handcuffed arrestee. The average suspension is ten to twenty-two days. In 1989, Officer Powell used excessive force that resulted in a broken arm and a $70,000 settlement paid by the city of Los Angeles. This was only one of many complaints filed against Officer Powell. Only Brisneo’s suspension was made public during the trial. Neither was used as evidence against the officers in trial.

Koon makes a good case for his claim that he and his fellow officers were presumed guilty. They were hung out to dry by Police Chief Daryl Gates, Mayor Tom Bradley and even President George H.W. Bush. The videotape was damning evidence against them. But didn’t the officers presume the guilt of King? King’s evasion of arrest, physical build, and refusal to comply were suspicious. Anyone who has ever seen COPS could tell you that. The presumption of guilt on both sides resulted in all being treated unjustly.

Was justice served?
My journey through the statements and evidence has made some aspects of King’s beating clear. But I am bewildered by the discrepancies. If all of this evidence was before me as a juror, I would have reasonable doubt concerning the guilt of the officers. The jurors in each trial were given even less. Decisions made by lawyers on both sides of the case are puzzling. The criminal trail’s prosecutors seemed to just be along for the show. Their failure to let King tell his version of events gave a considerable advantage to the defense. Whenever King had his say in court, decisions were made in his favor. Civilian witnesses gave statements that conflicted with the testimony of the officers. But they were never called to testify in court.

Beginning March third, the media presence combined with posturing from politicians to produce intense public reaction to the case. Some would argue that their influence made it possible for justice to be done. Some would argue the opposite. After my experience preparing this article, I am unsure that justice is blind when there is a camera watching.

Undecided

I am an undecided voter in this year’s primary. And I hate it!

Like me, many Americans are frustrated. We feel government needs to alter its course, but don’t necessarily know what to change or who is best qualified to do it. Every candidate knows this and whips our discontent into a frenzy, offering themselves as the one to usher in this “change.”
After claiming to be this savior, candidates avoid questions that ask for details. Speeches demanding change in Washington don’t take any courage in the face of a recession, a war, and a housing crisis. Comparing all their vague generalizations is like trying to choose between six different flavors of vanilla ice cream.

If candidates are selling change for the sake of change, I am not buying. Change does not come without a cost. Candidates need to be more specific. Outline the alterations you plan to make. Fully disclose all costs. Don’t insult our intelligence by implying the money is hidden somewhere in the budget. History has taught us that we will sacrifice our money through taxes and inflation or sacrifice our liberty.

I haven’t found a leader worth following. Every candidate wants to rule America. None have the courage to lead America. Romney’s flip-flopping and Clinton’s poll-of-the-day pandering is irritating. People want their leader to stand firm.

A leader, like a parent, needs to establish and enforce boundaries. A good leader leads patiently. Additionally, a good leader counsels those he leads when they desire to make an unwise choice. These changes are innovations I would love to see in America’s next president.
Unfortunately, no candidate has the courage to tell the American people when their desires are unwise. It might interfere with their re-election. I doubt these lawyer-candidates can explain why our desires are unwise in a way that we can all understand.

The political sleight-of-hand is especially confusing in this primary. Nothing is as it seems. We have Ron Paul, previously a Libertarian, running as a Republican. We have Huckabee running as a Republican yet sounding like a Democrat. We have McCain, previously an Independent, running as a Republican. Maybe this switch is the change the candidates are talking about.
I am not convinced that any of these candidates will keep their promises. Obama, McCain and Clinton are senators, and Ron Paul is a sitting congressman. They were elected to represent their state’s interests in Washington. While campaigning, all they are supporting and defending are their own reputations.

Citizens of Arizona, Illinois, and New York are paying a candidate $169,300 to take a year off the job while reducing their representation by 50 percent. Citizens of Lake Jackson, Texas are without representation in the House while Ron Paul is setting campaign fund-raising records on the people’s dime. While candidates are campaigning they are not sitting on their committees. They are not listening to deliberations. They are not voting on any resolutions. They are not doing their job.

A candidate running for higher office while serving in another government position is not illegal. Still, they have no ethical problem cashing their paycheck without doing their job – a job that cannot be delegated to others. It is naïve to assume that a pay raise and an oval office will magically change their attitude.

Let’s not forget the press. They don’t make my decision any easier. It amazes me that with six candidates the press produces so little helpful information for voters.

In the past they harped about the cost of John Edward’s haircut and how Dan Quayle spelled potato. How shallow! It is like being back in 6th grade.

This primary season all the voters have gotten from the press are stories about Obama’s race, Romney and Obama’s religion, McCain’s age and Clinton’s gender. Race and gender are obvious to anyone with eyes. All are issues that perspective employers are forbidden by law to ask in the employment process. How ironic.

Many people are undecided in this primary election because they are too confused or uninformed. Most Americans don’t have the time or resources to sort through political hype for the truth. What corrections will help us make intelligent, informed decisions as voters?

The press needs to change their focus. Major networks should let the tabloids handle reporting about the shallow and petty. Otherwise, it appears that both have the same goal: selling papers regardless of truth content. The press has regular access to candidates. They should ask probing questions that push thorough the patronizing generalizations given by candidates. Citizens need information that intelligently compares specifics on the issues.

Candidates need to change their approach to campaigning. They should be more specific and substantial in their speeches. They should be courageous and show leadership by being examples of ethics and integrity.

Both candidates and the press need to change their tactics and prioritize discussion of non-polarizing issues. Then, Americans could begin to find common ground and become more united. That transition would be the best change of all.

Was Fascism Just a Fad?

Following the end of World War I, many new ideas emerged about how best to manage a society without a monarchy, such as socialism, communism, and fascism. The communist experiment was unfolding in Russia, and socialism was all the rage among the intellectuals in Europe, but Germany tried democracy on for size. They tailored their democracy in ways they thought it would fit them best, but it soon became clear that there were problems. Germany’s authoritarian history, strong anti-democratic influences, and weak political institutions were factors that contributed to the rise of fascism.

Germany had a political culture that leaned fundamentally toward authoritarian regimes that saw the military as a means to improve their position among the nations of the world, yet they pioneered progressive practices like formalized bureaucracy, federalism and elected offices during the first and second empires. Germany’s democratic constitution under the Weimar Republic allowed for adult male and female voting, a parliament, and proportional representation, which demonstrates their attempt to break free of their compulsion toward authoritarianism. But just like the Israelites after they were liberated from their masters in Egypt, there were powerful groups that resisted change and desired a return to the familiar. This tendency toward authoritarianism was necessary for the emergence of fascism, but it alone was not sufficient cause.

Within the Weimar Republic powerful groups retained their influence because reactionary army and police officers from the previous Reich had not been purged. The new regime needed the police force and army in order to suppress demonstrations, to quiet the threat of a communist revolution, to prevent a revolution like they had seen unfold in Russia, and to restore order. Judges and civil servants were trained in and firmly entrenched in anti-democratic practices. Two powerful groups, the Junkers (anti-democratic elite landowners) and Army Officers, were represented in the Republic’s second president Otto von Hindenburg. Hindenburg was the person responsible for appointing Hitler as chancellor in 1933. He received the authority to appoint the chancellor through the constitution, but Hitler became his choice because the weaknesses of Germany’s political institutions made Hitler’s emergence possible.

Durverger’s Law states: the more proportional the system, the greater number of political parties. Germany’s proportional representation yielded three larger parties - the Social Democratic Party (usually received @25% of the vote), the Center Party (usually received @15%), and the Communist Party (usually received 15%) - and many smaller parties leaning toward the center-right of the political spectrum (45% of the vote). The extreme left and right wing parties were committed to the destruction of the republic either by communism or a return to a familiar authoritarian regime. At the same time, the smaller parties failed to form a strong urban-rural coalition, which collapsed the center-right and right-wing parties. These small party voters began to support the Nazi party, who were seen as a tool in the struggle against communism. The Nazis began attracting a substantial portion of the vote in 1930, and with this influx of small party voters their ranks swelled, resulting in a plurality of 33% the vote in the 1933 election. Hitler, being the leader of the strongest parliamentary party, was appointed chancellor, asked to form a cabinet, and asked to lead the government. The number of parties coupled with the weakness of their coalitions made the emergence of a small party possible.
Since the end of World War II, the countries of the world have been pondering about the factors that led to the rise of fascism in Germany. One factor alone is not responsible, but the alignment of many factors. Germany tried democracy, but the combination of democratic ideas they chose, together with the fear of communist revolution and a compulsion to revert to their authoritarian tendencies paved the way for fascism. Seventeen years into their second attempt at democracy, contemporary unified Germany is thriving with a strong economy and running on democratic principles. Many in the world hope that Germany has learned from its mistakes and has found democracy to be a fad which has become their favorite style.

Is Justification Necessary?

The traditional philosophical definition of knowledge for centuries was stated in the following form or some form similar to it:
Subject S knows a proposition P IFF (i) P is true
(ii) S believes that P, and
(iii) S is justified in believing that P.

The truth of P is undisputed as being a necessary condition for knowledge. The idea of belief has been interpreted as S accepting P (Chisholm) or S is sure that P is true (Ayer), adding further dimension to the idea of belief yet maintaining it as a necessary condition for knowledge. However, there is a definite gap between a true belief and knowledge. Justification has traditionally been used to fill the gap between true belief and knowledge, but the idea of justification is problematic because it is unclear and complex. The ability of justification to fill that gap became suspect following the publication of Edmund Gettier’s essay Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? in 1963. In my essay I will state Gettier’s claim and what his claim shows about the relationship between knowledge and the components of its traditional definition. I will then use Richard Feldman’s argument as an additional example of the position that a “fourth component” is necessary in a definition of knowledge. Next I will explain John Pollack’s claim that “Objective Justification” will eliminate the need for a “fourth component” by tightening the relationship between truth and belief formation. Then I will address the claim of William Alston that justification is not a necessary condition for knowledge. The last claim I will introduce is that of Alvin Plantinga, who claims that “warrant” is what turns a true belief into knowledge, and the key to understanding what knowledge is lies in understanding the procedure that produces warrant. Finally, I will conclude with my thoughts concerning the process of justification.
In 1963, Edmond Gettier brought it to our attention that there was a problem with the definition of knowledge. Gettier claimed that the traditional definition of knowledge is false because its conditions do not constitute a sufficient condition for the truth of the proposition that S knows that P. The conditions of justified true belief are true for some propositions, but at the same time it is false that the subject knows the proposition. Gettier cases demonstrate that it is possible to have a justified true belief and still lack knowledge. These cases show that when the justification for the belief is not connected to the facts that make the belief true, then it is possible to satisfy the tripartite account of knowledge and still fail to have knowledge. The subject’s justified true belief could be gained by luck, and luck cannot be knowledge. Gettier himself had nothing to offer as a possible fix, but now that epistemologists understood that something else was missing, and the search was on for a “fourth condition” that would address Gettier’s claim and provide a sufficient definition of knowledge.
Gettier relies on the use of false evidence or beliefs to justify a proposition, leading to his conclusion that false beliefs or evidence cannot justify other propositions. Richard Feldman, in his essay An Alleged Defect in Gettier Counterexamples, claims that even if a proposition can be justified for a person only if his evidence is true (as was argued by Meyers and Stern), or only if he knows it to be true (as argued by D.M. Armstrong), there are still counterexamples to the justified true belief analysis of knowledge of the Gettier sort. (Feldman, p.242) If we alter the Gettier formula slightly so that what justifies the proposition is true (truth connectivity) and the subject knows that it is true (cognitive processing), there remain possible cases in which the beliefs are true, the evidence is true, and the proposition is true, yet the subject lacks knowledge. In Feldman’s example, Smith reasoned from a proposition that he knew to be true, to another proposition that he knew to be true, to the truth, but he still did not know the truth. I understand Feldman to say that the truth connection is necessary, but it alone will not make the traditional definition sufficient. Feldman, as well as Gettier, demonstrate that more is needed to have knowledge, although they give no indication of a possible fourth component.
Some think that justification is necessary for knowledge, but it cannot fill the gap unless strengthened. Pollack, in his essay “The Gettier Problem” argues that Objective Justification will provide the tightened connection between truth and belief formation and fill the gap between true belief and knowledge. Pollock’s solution to the Gettier problem is to tie the propositions that are true more closely to the beliefs that justify the belief (truth connectivity). He states that truth-values of propositions need to play a direct role in our reasoning when forming our beliefs. If there are facts not included in our reasoning that would change our minds if known to us, our original beliefs are not justified. There is also a need to eliminate defeater propositions and their defeaters in order to avoid Gettier problems. Pollock claims that what is lacking to achieve knowledge is not the problem; epistemic justification is the problem. If the problem is fixed, there is no need for an additional constraint on the justified true belief formula. His solution is to tighten up the connection between the belief and the propositions that justify that belief and he calls this idea Objective Justification. He is careful to make a distinction between justification as a belief status and justification as the reasons given for holding a belief. Our arguments (reasons, beliefs, memories or perceptual states that are not yet propositional beliefs) give us reasons for believing some propositions – he calls this a doxastic state. He tries to tighten up the connection between true beliefs and their justifying propositions further by adding a social aspect of justification. He claims that rational people are expected to take into account socially sensitive information when they form beliefs and judgments. His final definition of knowledge is as follows:
S knows that p iff S instantiates some argument A supporting p which is (1) ultimately undefeated relative to the set of all truths, and (2) ultimately undefeated relative to the set of all truths socially sensitive for S. (Pollack, p.258)

For Pollock, the facts that cause and sustain the belief are the ones that make it true.
Some think that Justification is unnecessary for knowledge. William P. Alston, in his essay “Justification and Knowledge”, advances the idea that knowledge is a state, not a claim; he argues that justification is not necessary in order for a state of knowledge to be present in a subject. He walks us through his analysis of justification by pointing out the problems inherit in four different classes of justification: normative justification, voluntaristic justification, involuntaristic justification, and grounds justification. By Alston’s definition, one is normatively justified in believing P iff one is not violating any intellectual obligations in believing P. These intellectual obligations are to obtain truth and avoid falsity. The problem with this class of justification is that obligations attach only to beings that are sufficiently self-conscious and sufficiently sophisticated to be capable of governing their behavior in the light of norms, principles, rules, etc. (Alston, p.173) Another problem with this normative class of justification is that it excludes knowledge from the capability of lower animals, small children and idiots because they acquire and utilize perceptual knowledge, yet they are not capable of acting in the light of rules. Normal mature adult humans acquire and utilize perceptual knowledge as well, but Alston asks why we should feel an obligation to accept or reject beliefs if we aren’t aware of acquiring them? (Alston, p.173) This leads Alston to the class of voluntaristic justification, where in addition to the above definition of normative justification, it is presupposed that believing and refraining from belief are under direct voluntary control. This definition is an attempt to restore the obligatory lack in normative justification. Even with this obligation of acceptance or rejection restored, the idea of belief being under direct control is suspect. Whenever a proposition seems obvious to a subject, regardless of the process through which the subject acquires it, she literally has no choice whether to believe it. (Alston, p.174) Involuntaristic justification, for Alston, is a state in which a subject is able to maintain her intellectual obligations to accept truth and reject falsity without needing belief to be under direct voluntary control. This is accomplished by transferring the acceptance or rejection from the beliefs themselves to the things she can voluntarily do to influence believing or refraining. Examples of the things she can do would be to look for additional evidence or train herself to be less gullible. This appears to be a step in the right direction, except for two problems: it still excludes knowledge from beings that are not subject to intellectual obligations and it does not eliminate the possibility that a mature human being might know that P without being involuntaristically justified in believing that P. (Alston, p.175)
It seems like all is lost for justification at this point with Alston, then he asks us to think of epistemic justification as a matter of being in a strong position (to get the truth) in believing that P. This puts an obligation on the subject to form or hold a belief in such a way or in circumstances where at least the belief is highly likely to be true. (Alston, p.175) This is the truth connection idea – tying the belief to the grounds which are the basis of the belief. Grounds justification is to believe P based on adequate grounds that provide sufficiently strong indication of the belief’s truth. Some epistemologists limit grounds to include only reasons, but Alston believes that doing so eliminates the possibility of immediate justification. Alston includes experiences with reasons in his definition of grounds. This emphasizes the perspective of the subject and restricts grounds to things that register cognitively with the subject. Alston also breaks with other epistemologists concerning the relationship between grounds and beliefs. Others propose that having the grounds is enough, and beliefs need not be related to those grounds. Grounds justification for Alston demands that beliefs be based on adequate grounds, which brings us to the condition described by Feldman. Alston adds the additional condition that the subject must lack overriding reasons contrary to P. He then gives examples of Percy, the Katmandu weather freak (who illustrates the possibility of knowledge without grounds), and Subject S and his sadistic friends that convince S to hold his sensory experience suspect by telling S he has been a neurophysiologic lab rat for 5 years (illustrating the possibility of knowledge with adequate grounds and an inadequate defeater). Alston then points out the vagueness in the adequacy requirement by asking whether the adequacy required for grounds justification is an “objective” adequacy or is it the Subject’s “perspectival” adequacy. Perspectival adequacy would vary from subject to subject and would only provide knowledge to the particular subject. How does this kind of knowledge benefit anyone but the subject? Justification seems necessary in the transfer of knowledge, so knowledge gained using perspectival adequacy as justification would not be very useful in mankind’s pursuit of truth. Objective adequacy has the weakness that knowledge is possible even if
the belief in the adequacy of the grounds is not adequately supported by the totality of [one’s] perspective. So long as I consistently make judgments...on bases that are in fact highly reliable indications of what I am believing, then I do acquire knowledge, whether or not I am in a position to defend the claim that those bases are reliable.” (Alston, p.181)

Alston concludes his dissection of justification with his claim that knowledge is a true belief that is formed and/or sustained under the effective control of the fact believed, and a believer has knowledge provided the true belief is under that constraint.
Some think that Justification is unnecessary for knowledge and that something else will do the job better. Alvin Plantinga thinks that warrant is what transforms true belief into knowledge, and justification does not produce warrant – proper function does. He begins his book Warrant and Proper Function with the assertion that beliefs fail to have warrant because of a cognitive malfunction. He then goes into a definition of the necessary conditions for warrant:
A belief B has warrant for S if and only if the relevant segments (the segments involved in the production of B) are functioning properly in a cognitive environment sufficiently similar to that for which S’s faculties are designed; and the modules of the design plan governing the production of B are (1) aimed at truth, and (2) such that there is a high objective probability that a belief formed in accordance with those modules (in that sort of cognitive environment) is true; and the more firmly S believes B the more warrant B has for S. (Plantinga, p. 19)

Plantinga admits that the above is at best a first approximation and that is problematic, vague and imprecise. He adds precision and clarity with a more detailed description of the design plan governing the production of beliefs. He says to think of a design plan as a set of triples – circumstance, response and function. These triples working together provide a clear understanding of how something works at a given point in time, or a snapshot design plan. A”max design plan” gives a broader picture of something works in its present structure and organization and how it will behave when broken or malfunctioning. He uses these design plan clarifications to show that beliefs can arise by way of a simple malfunction, an unintended by-product of a damage control mode of function and a proper function of a module not aimed at truth, but neither of these conditions will produce warrant for the belief. Warrant is produced if a belief arises by way of proper function of a design plan module aimed at truth. This is his argument for the necessity of truth connectivity, but the truth is connected to the properly functioning cognitive apparatus, not reasons or experiences (grounds). Plantinga argues that Gettier examples show that internalist accounts of warrant are fundamentally wanting, and as long as additional internalist epicycles are added to compensate for this lack, they are doomed to failure. Warrant is lacking in Gettier cases because the beliefs were not formed as a result of proper function of the cognitive modules governed by the relevant parts of the design plan, they were formed by accident. Additionally, in typical Gettier cases there is a glitch in the cognitive environment that is misleading, but Plantinga does not think this misleading glitch is essential to Gettier situations. He finds Gettier cases useful in that they shine light on the design plan and demonstrate the inadequacies in the internalist accounts of justification.
A criticism of the Gettier problem by Michael Williams is whether “anything important turns on coming up with a solution to Gettier’s problem remains to be shown. Williams makes the claim that traditional theories of knowledge are best construed as responses to radical skepticism” (Empirical Knowledge, 261). Radical skeptics are targeted because they do not believe that justified beliefs are possible. Since Gettier seems to illustrate that the tripartite definition of knowledge is unsustainable, it strengthens the skeptic’s argument against the possibility of justified beliefs. Gettier does not offer any possibilities for what is lacking in the traditional justified true belief formula. It seems wrong that knowledge is possible if justification is based upon false propositions and evidence; yet as Alston points out, we are faced with the reality that we assume the truth of our beliefs until we have sufficient instances of doubt. If we cannot have knowledge without certainty, then empirical knowledge seems unobtainable and only a priori knowledge will meet the test - more ammunition for the skeptics. Feldman does not give any insight into what is lacking in the traditional justified true belief formula. The thing that appears to be lacking in Feldman’s example is the possibility that still exists that Mr. Nogot could be lying to Smith. If this is what is lacking, then there is little hope of anyone having much knowledge because it is not possible for human beings to have empirical evidence of all lies. This also sets us up for the inadequacies of testimony as a means of justification – still more support for the skeptics. Pollock seems headed in the right direction with his argument, but the addition of the socially sensitive aspect creates a problem. The problem is that sometimes people get things wrong and being the first or only person to believe something does not necessarily disqualify the belief as knowledge. To accept this socially sensitive aspect would seem to put knowledge under the control of the majority. His qualification that our arguments be ultimately undefeated by the set of all truths and all socially sensitive truths might solve Gettier’s lack of necessity problem, but it does little to expand the possibilities of knowledge or simplify or increase the utility of the method for determining what knowledge is.
I think Williams is right that traditional theories of knowledge are out to prove radical skepticism wrong and it doesn’t appear to me that the offered solutions to the Gettier problem do very much to strengthen the traditional position. The Gettier problem, Feldman’s adjustment, Pollock’s re-definition of knowledge and justification expose the shaky ground that traditionalist stand upon. Something seems to be missing in the equation, but each attempt at defining the variable exposes additional variables and fallibilities in human reasoning, which in turn fortifies the radical skeptic position. The elimination of justification as a necessary condition for knowledge as proposed by Alston is a tempting solution. I often felt that trying to define justification was like trying to nail jello to a tree, and that I was not being a productive epistemologist. Alston was quite thorough in his analysis of the weaknesses of justification, but I find myself skeptically wondering if his neat and simple solution is too good to be true. Plantinga’s definition of warrant and its replacement for justification in the empirical definition of knowledge has appeal for me. I like the idea of resisting the temptation to add conditions to the definition of knowledge and instead placing our focus on warrant and finding an account for how it works in the main areas of our cognitive life. I only researched the first few chapters for this paper, but the ideas he proposes have inspired me to complete reading the book. Plantinga’s solution of warrant doesn’t even approach the neat and simple approach of Alston, but in pursuing the idea of warrant I have gained a clearer understanding as to what elements are necessary to fill the gap between true belief and knowledge. I do not agree with Williams that the attempts at solving the Gettier problem have been fruitless. I think there is virtue in attempting to increase our understanding of what knowledge necessitates, if the ultimate goal is to discover truth. (Works Cited Available on Request)

The Terrorist Hydra of the Middle East

On September 11, 2001 Americans were desperate for answers. While they vigilantly watched their television sets, the answers slowly started coming; names, faces, locations, affiliations, motivations, financial backers and the connections between them seemed to ripple outward endlessly. We eliminated enemies only to discover more to replace them. The mythical hydra seemed to be materializing before our eyes. The monster before us appears overwhelmingly complex; however, if we focus on some basic behaviors common to human nature, terrorists become easier to understand, and an enemy understood is an enemy defeated.
Before we address the behaviors, we must identify who the opponents are in this battle. Terrorists is such a broad term, it is difficult to know one when we see one. Bernard Lewis, a professor at Princeton, asserts that the battle exists between the Muslims and the West in an epic clash of civilizations. Ussama Makdisi, a professor at Rice University, insists it is the Arabs and their opposition to the Foreign Policy of the United States. It is Middle Eastern Islamic Fundamentalism and the United States for Fareed Zakaria in his column in Newsweek, and Michael Hirsh in an article in Washington Monthly pits the religious against the secular. It is not Americans themselves that are hated, because the society is too diverse and includes Muslims, Arabs, Islamic Fundamentalists, and religious people. In addition to its national identity, the United States plays a role as a symbol for the West and secularism, which are intangible ideas. “Anti-Americanism is not an ideologically consistent discourse – its intensity, indeed its coherence and evidence, vary across the Arab world” (Makdisi 527). Terrorism is a mindset, not an individual or nation. The terrorists, whose varied frustrations with the West are legion, are centering their forces on a single opponent that is important enough for their attacks to be noticed by the rest of the world.
The terrorists would like us to believe that there is something different about their ideas and their causes, so that we will be off balance and in a defensive position. In reality, they are merely terrorist versions of age old weaknesses in human nature. These include practicing cultural habits that contribute to social instability, blaming others for their condition, stirring up old hatreds to further their rhetoric, and resorting to violence when things don’t go their way. The cultural habits that contribute to their social instability include low productivity and high birth rate. These result in a society where job creation, technology, education lag behind the West (Lewis 521). Their nomadic heritage makes it is difficult to see things in terms of ethnic and territorial identity, so they do not refer to their opponents in those terms. They categorize people as insiders and outsiders. The call to jihad is based on that idea, Muslim (insider) against Non-Muslim Infidels (outsiders).
The behavior of blaming others for their condition creates a victim mentality in their followers. There is plenty of blame to go around, but none of it seems to rest in the laps of those pointing the finger. American missionaries came and made education and medical treatment available to them, and they, in turn, decry the Americanization of their lands. They blame the US for exploiting their resources, but someone allowed the US to build the rigs, refineries and roads, and there were plenty of Arabs making a profit from the production and sale of that oil. Did any of those Arabs contribute to the infrastructure of their country, build schools, start businesses and invest in order to make their lands more prosperous for everyone, or did they wallow in luxury creating a huge disparity in wealth? “Almost the entire Muslim world is affected by poverty and tyranny. Both of these problems are attributed, especially by those with an interest in diverting attention from themselves, to America – the first to American economic dominance and exploitation, now thinly disguised as “globalization”, the second to America’s support for the many so-called Muslim tyrants who serve its purposes” (Lewis 519). It is easier to claim that America is to blame than it is to accept responsibility for their shortcomings and to take risks and invest in making a better future.
Stirring up old hatred to further their rhetoric is a political device as old as humanity itself. Lack of a concise set of grievances gives the terrorists an unlimited quantity of followers. All they have to do is cleverly spin old, ingrained hatreds into their rhetoric, and they have additional soldiers for the cause. Terrorists look into history for how Muslims and Arabs were wronged by the West. Imperialism, The Crusades, the creation of Israel are some of the biggies. Religious hatred, jealousy, racial hatreds, resentments of the rich, any hatred will do. It is the tool of the rhetorically lazy. Unfortunately, it also works, especially on the ignorant and the desperate.
Resorting to violence when things don’t go your way is demonstrated even in the very young. Why grown, educated, wealthy men would fall in the same trap is mystifying. Terrorists want power to change the world, but their reasoning is not persuasive enough to change the minds of men. Instead of strengthening their argument and allowing others to freely exercise their conscience, men with weak arguments turn to weaponry and violence to achieve their ends. This characteristic of human nature has been repeated continuously in the history of mankind. What makes the terrorist unique is their complete disregard for human life. They not only desire to kill their enemies, but they don’t bat an eye if fellow believers or innocent women and children die in the process. That idea is the antithesis of civilized behavior, and it is a major factor in the desire of the United States to attack terrorism. It is incomprehensible to Americans to envision a world where such patent disregard for life is acceptable.
Knowing these elements of human nature, America is left with some important decisions to make. We need to make policies and take actions that will reduce or eliminate terrorist activity. Laws like the Patriot Act and actions like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq seemed to be necessary evils at the time, but the microwave mentality of Americans wants it to be over already. Al Qaeda is counting on our short attention span. If cheap oil is a factor contributing to our national interest in the region, I think that America needs to begin to factor in the cost of Middle Eastern hatred into the cost of that cheap oil. I think it would be better in the long run for America to use its ingenuity to fully utilize our domestic resources and reduce our dependency on foreign oil. I also think that if we as Americans truly believe in the ability of a people to rule themselves, then we should put our money where our mouth is and give Iraq the full responsibility of self rule. A people that is not willing to sacrifice for what they believe in will constantly be ruled by others. Iraq has seen this principle from both sides, and it is time for them to take off the American training wheels and feel the wind in their face as they ride all by themselves.All of the writers made valid arguments for their positions, but they fell short for me when they leaned on one factor contributing to the point of excluding all others. I was drawn to the optimistic outlook of the article by Michael Hirsh and his assertion that Moderate Islam is a check for tyranny. The other essays presented situations in which the US is in a Catch 22 position. There is a big part of me that wants to believe that these people can see beyond the rhetoric and achieve self-rule based on their shared beliefs and values. I believe that when even the ugliest and most evil elements of human nature rear their ugly head, there will be enough good, descent people who are willing to stand up for what is good and descent in the world. I think Iraq can pursue its national interests alongside the United States, but it will require the United States to step back and Iraq to take a stand. (Works Cited Available on Request)

Love is the Key

My topic is love and the role it plays in edifying the human soul. It is my assertion that experiencing love is the key to seeing the unseen world and comprehending the nature of the divine. I will briefly discuss how we learn to love, what is experienced when we feel love and what happens when we feel love returned. Next I will present what love desires according to Plato. This will lead to the Ascent to the Form of the Beautiful found in Symposium. I will clarify aspects of seeing the unseen world that are described in Symposium in order to understand the connection between love and beauty. Finally I will utilize Socrates’ second speech on love in Phaedrus and Diotima’s Ascent to the Form of the Beautiful to discuss the role of love in comprehending the nature of the divine.

The first thing we do as a human being is love. We love the person who supplies our needs and makes us comfortable, usually our mother. We communicate our love by the look in our eyes, the smile on our face, the contented lilt of our coos and giggles, and at times our whole body radiates pure joy. We have innate ability at its simplest level, but we don’t really know what we are doing until someone loves us, teaches us to recognize the process and how to perfect it. Plato used a specific type of relationship called pederasty - a relationship between an older man and a young boy outside the man’s immediate family that was an aristocratic means of educational and moral instruction- to illustrate this mentoring process. Relationships between older adult males and young boys were the norm in Greek aristocracy. The relationship was complex and included role modeling, nurturing, mentoring, teaching, and initiating into manhood. The older man showed loving patience to his beloved boy. They shared a passionate love for each other, but that passion was not always expressed sexually. In our times, loving is taught first through parent/child relationships, then friendships and finally through a relationship with a spouse. When we love someone, we feel a sense of connection that cannot be seen. We feel complete when near to our beloved and a desire to become more than we thought possible before we encountered our beloved. This loving experience is described in Phaedrus as our soul beginning to grow wings. Love touches our soul and compels us to explore its possibilities.

We experience an increased aspect of love when we are loved by someone else. Our mother shows us that she loves us by the way she looks at us, the soothing sound of her now familiar voice, and the tender way she touches us. Her love communicates to us that we are valued, important, desirable, significant and beautiful. The love of a mother for her child is believed to be so natural, that its lack in the life of a child is incomprehensible and mourned as tragic. The experience of being loved by family, friends and our chosen partner brings our soul some of the sweetest joys in life. Now that we have experienced being loved by someone, our soul is compelled to discover a higher level and expand our understanding even further.
What is it that we desire when we love? In Symposium, Socrates and Agathon come to the agreement that love desires what it needs and lacks. They proceed to conclude that love desires beauty and immortality. Phaedrus describes when our souls first beheld beauty prior to being joined to a body.
…we gazed in rapture at sacred revealed objects that were perfect, and simple, and unshakeable and blissful. That was the ultimate vision, and we saw it in pure light because we were pure ourselves, not buried in this thing…which we call a body…Beauty…was radiant among the other objects; and now that we have come down here we grasp it sparkling through the clearest of our senses…beauty alone has this privilege, to be the most clearly visible and the most loved. (ref.)

Our soul desires to make the beauty that we recognize as divine from the ultimate vision part of us. Our souls want to possess this beauty and never want to be parted from it, even in death. Love has made its connection to beauty, and helped us to recognize the brightest and most sparkling of the Forms.

This step by step journey from love to beauty is gone into detail in Symposium. It is from Diotima that Socrates learns how the rites of love, when followed correctly, lead to understanding the goal of loving. Those who are pregnant in soul are those who have within themselves wisdom and virtue from a young age. At the appropriate age, these pregnant souls desire to give birth to the wisdom and virtue within them, and they are initially attracted to beauty because of the beauty within themselves. First they are drawn to beautiful bodies, and if they are lucky they are also attracted to beautiful, noble and well-formed (well-proportioned) souls. Led by these beautiful bodies containing well-proportioned souls, the virtuous youth learns that “wild gaping after just one body is a small thing and despise it” and becomes a lover of all beautiful bodies. Alcinous attempted to clarify Plato’s concept of erotic love; he considered love that was directed only toward the body and dominated by pleasure to be bestial in character - love in its basest form. The median form of love combines body and soul by being attracted to the body, but directing love toward the beauty of the soul. This idea is echoed in Symposium as the youth begins to learn that “the beauty of people’s souls is more valuable than the beauty of their bodies” and the beauty of bodies as unimportant. He instead finds contentment in seeking to make young men better through philosophical reasoning. Sexual desire provided a useful illustration for the drive toward philosophy because they are similar in nature. According to Julia Annas, “The drive to do philosophy has to come within you, and be genuine…it comes from within you in a way that cannot be deliberately produced, and, like love, it drives you to focus all your efforts to achieve an aim which you feel you cannot live without, however impossible attainment may seem” (ref). The desire for the physical has now been elevated to the desire for something invisible, intangible, and outside the reach of the physical senses. As our love for our beloved increases, our attraction to the beauty we see in their soul increases and surpasses the distraction of the beauty of their body.

Love’s ability to look beyond the physical is addressed by Alexander Nehamas in Only a Promise of Happiness. Plato said that love is beauty’s attendant and constant companion and has no place for ugliness. Nehamas uses the example in Symposium of Alcibiades’s love for Socrates to point out “that it is possible to love someone who is physically repulsive but psychologically or morally magnetic.”
The question is not whether I can love someone who is in fact ugly...but whether I can love someone I find ugly, and I believe that’s impossible. But to the extent that I find you beautiful – which is always...a matter of love- life will seem better to me with than without you. The forward looking element and the risks that attend it are essential to beauty...My reasons for finding you beautiful include characteristics I feel you have not yet disclosed, features that take me in directions I can’t now foresee.

This phenomenon of seeing beauty in something that is not considered beautiful is belittled in phrases like “love is blind”. Yet it is not that love blinds us in regard to our beloved; instead loving is directed toward the qualities of the divine in the soul of our beloved, and beauty is the quality we recognize first.

From beautiful souls our pregnant youth learns, through philosophic reasoning, about beautiful laws, activities, and customs. These particular beautiful things help him to understand the beauty of knowledge. Nehamas asserts that
...though these “higher” beauties are abstract and seemingly impersonal, they never cease to provoke action and inspire desire and longing. Even the very last stage, when the philosopher understands through reason alone what beauty really is, is not a moment of pure contemplation; his understanding is inseparable from the truly happy and successful life he is now able to lead; his desire has not been sublimated into some sort of higher, disembodied phenomenon.

When the beautiful youth philosophically recognizes the beauty in all of these things, the beauty that is within all of them combines and they create something greater than themselves. “He is turned to the great sea of beauty, and gazing upon this, he gives birth to many gloriously beautiful ideas and theories, in unstinting love of wisdom”– he learns of Beauty itself. But these glorious ideas and theories are only images of virtue. Through love, reason, and philosophy he has come to understand Beauty itself; and while learning of Beauty, he catches a glimpse of the Form of the Beautiful. According to Nehamas
...the philosopher wants from the Form just what ordinary men who know no better want of beautiful boys: intercourse (sunousia) – without a second thought, Plato applies to the highest point of his philosophic ascent the very same word he uses for its lowest. In that way, he reminds us that beauty cannot be sundered from understanding or desire. The most abstract and intellectual beauty provokes the urge to possess it no less than the most sensual inspires the passion to come to know it better.

Only after knowing the Form of the Beautiful, can the virtuous youth give birth to true virtue. Then, as he nourishes true virtue, he will have the love of the gods and become immortal, which, according to Diotima, is the goal of loving.

Plato’s Forms are an integral part of his philosophy. One of the qualities that distinguish Forms is their separateness from the material world. Since they are immaterial, Plato reasons that they could not have any place in anything material. He is making an assumption that all material functions like the physical material in the world. We have just been taken through a process where our soul, while residing in a physical body, is able to possess the Form of the Beautiful by making it a part of itself. Why then can’t there be a body that possesses all of the Forms in their perfected state? That body could not be a physical body that degenerates and breaks down, it must be a body that is immortal, capable of containing the Forms forever. I believe that if Plato took the next step, he would envision a being who has the qualities of goodness, virtue, justice, beauty and all of the Forms in their perfected state because he had succeeded in making them all his own forever. This would be a being truly worthy of the worship of the souls of mankind. This is what it is to be a God. What our souls would have viewed while riding around the rim of heaven was God himself. We didn’t get a complete understanding of what we beheld, but because the beauty he possessed was so compelling, it made the biggest and most lasting impression on our souls. When a piece of paper is folded it becomes smaller with every fold, exposing less and less surface area to the scrutiny of a casual observer. Physical attraction, the smallest portion of life’s mysteries, is available to the most causal observer. The mysteries of life are said to unfold, exponentially expanding our understanding with each turn. When love inspires the desire for greater understanding, physical attraction unfolds into an attraction between souls that we ravenously explore. This exploration introduces our souls to philosophic reasoning, which further unfolds the mysteries of life and we revel in the Bacchic frenzy of philosophy. Our reasoning enables us to understand the phenomenon of the unseen world, unfolding the mysteries even further. It is while we are thus engaged that we catch a glimpse of the divine. This small glimpse propels us into the all-consuming desire to see more of the divine, and we seek to increasingly understand its nature. In the final unfolding of life’s mysteries, we come to know God. We desire to be just like him. In the beginning of our journey, what we loved was all of the qualities of the divine seen in those we loved and who loved us. In the end, we can come to understand that God loves us because he sees the qualities of the divine within us.
(Works Cited Available on Request)

Pederasty and Plato

My topic concerns homoeroticism in Plato’s writings. Many modern readers of Plato become uncomfortable at the use of homoerotic examples of love in Symposium and Phaedrus and the uneasiness creates an intellectual barrier. I will proceed to give examples of the types of imagery he used, reasons why he used them, and the reasons why they were appropriate. Next, I will describe Plato’s ideas about the highest type of love. I will discuss the weakness in writing that is made evident with a change of audience and the importance of looking past the specific details to discover the underlying principles. Finally, I will conclude that the homoerotic elements used by Plato to describe his ideas about love were essential to the achievement of understanding with his pupils.

Plato used imagery of sexual as well as non-sexual relationships between males. He also referenced a specific type of relationship called pederasty - a relationship between an older man and a young boy outside the man’s immediate family that was an aristocratic means of educational and moral instruction. Plato offers examples of how lovers treat each other, usually in the lover/beloved pederast relationship of his culture. He used these images because the practice was common among his aristocratic pupils and he knew that they were familiar with it. I believe Plato used this teaching technique of relating an abstract concept to something familiar to the pupil because it is highly effective and it serves as a reference point as the pupil studies the concept in depth.

To the Ancient Greeks, males were esteemed to be of higher value to society than females. They had more civil rights and political power. They displayed a higher proportion of reason to emotion thus were considered higher souls and the closest to the gods. Relationships between men and women were inferior to the relationships between men on every level. Women were not seen as having anything of any importance to offer a man except a means to increasing his wealth, status or property, or in her performance of an inferior role such as cooking, cleaning, raising children and managing the affairs of the home. These contributions of women were inferior because they did not increase knowledge and philosophical understanding; instead they centered on inferior pleasures and bodily necessities. Men and women entered into sexual relationships only for the sake of continuing the race by conceiving children. Relationships between males (including, but not limited to sexual relationships alone) were of supreme importance in Greek society. They were more likely to result in philosophical discussion and inquiry which would lead to the elevation of the soul toward the divine. Plato described situations using these male relationships because men approach the divine as they reason together, learn about the world and revel in the Bacchic frenzy of philosophy.

Relationships between older adult males and young boys were the norm in Greek society. Young boys were desired for their beauty and were pursued by older men. The relationship was complex and included role modeling, nurturing, mentoring, teaching, and initiating into manhood. The older man showed loving patience to his beloved boy. They shared a passionate love for each other, but that passion was not always expressed sexually. It was the elements of loving patience, passion, teaching and concern for the welfare of the soul that Plato was drawing upon in the use of this imagery.

Plato seems to think that sexual desire and gratification play a key role, both as the initial launching platform for a journey that leads to knowledge of the Form of the Beautiful, and as an aid to communicating the intensity of the force involved in the pursuit of philosophical truth. In Symposium, Socrates explains how sexual desire and gratification may become the starting point in a process that enables man to progress from bodily gratifications to the contemplation and ultimately the understanding of universal truths. (Annas 46) I agree with Plato’s view that once desires and passions have been addressed, then those desires and passions no longer cause pain to the soul and progress can be made toward knowledge and reasoning. Sexual desire and gratification were useful illustrations for the intensity of the drive toward philosophy because they are similar in nature. “The drive to do philosophy has to come within you, and be genuine…it comes from within you in a way that cannot be deliberately produced, and, like love, it drives you to focus all your efforts to achieve an aim which you feel you cannot live without, however impossible attainment may seem.” (Annas 46) The yearning, longing, and the desire for completeness and wholeness that accompanies love are powerful images to draw upon in describing the ideal feelings and motivations toward knowledge and truth. Sexual imagery was also a key in communicating the importance of mutual benefit through argument and discussion and equal participation in philosophical activity. If only one partner gets the pleasure and participates fully, then exploitation becomes an issue both sexually and philosophically. This exploitation was not considered beneficial to the soul, and therefore not a worthwhile pursuit.
It now becomes clear that the Greek custom of pederasty contains within it all of the key elements Plato needed to achieve a common reference point for his pupils. The superiority of the male to the female, the importance of physical beauty, the mentoring of a loving, passionate guide, and the experience of sexual drives and desires were all demonstrated in this practice. Since erotic love is a concept central to understanding Beauty, it is important to establish definitions. The speeches on love contained in Symposium as well as Phaedrus attempt to include descriptions of Eros from different perspectives. Alcinous (pp 45 lines 26-32) clarifies the concept of erotic love further by breaking it into three classifications, based on their aims. The baser form of erotic love is directed only toward the body, dominated by pleasure and considered bestial in character. The highest form of erotic love is directed only at the soul itself for promoting virtue. The median role combines body and soul by being attracted to the body, but directed toward the beauty of the soul. Plato used these definitions of Eros to help his pupils to comprehend how to rise above the base desires of the body and to desire a love centered in truth and reason, which would lead to knowledge of the Forms.

In Symposium, Socrates shares with his friends the teaching of the priestess Diotima. It is from Diotima that Socrates learns how the rites of love, when followed correctly, lead to understanding the goal of Loving. Those who are pregnant in soul are those who have within themselves wisdom and virtue from a young age. At the appropriate age, these pregnant souls desire to give birth to the wisdom and virtue within them, and they are initially attracted to beauty because of the beauty within themselves. First they are drawn to beautiful bodies, and if they are lucky they are also attracted to beautiful, noble and well-formed (well-proportioned) souls. Led by these beautiful bodies containing well-proportioned souls, the virtuous youth learns that “wild gaping after just one body is a small thing and despise it” (Symposium 210b) and becomes a lover of all beautiful bodies. The next step in his progression is to learn that “the beauty of people’s souls is more valuable than the beauty of their bodies” (Symposium 210c) and the beauty of bodies as unimportant. He instead finds contentment in seeking to make young men better. From beautiful souls he learns about beautiful laws, activities, and customs. These particular beautiful things help him to understand the beauty of knowledge, and “he is turned to the great sea of beauty, and gazing upon this, he gives birth to many gloriously beautiful ideas and theories, in unstinting love of wisdom” (Symposium 210e) – he learns of Beauty itself. But these glorious ideas and theories are only images of virtue. Through love, he has come to understand Beauty itself, and while learning of Beauty, he catches a glimpse of the Form of the Beautiful. Only after knowing the Form of the Beautiful, can the virtuous youth give birth to true virtue. Then, as he nourishes true virtue, he will have the love of the gods and become immortal, which, according to Diotima, is the goal of Loving.

In Phaedrus, Plato, through Socrates, exposes his Achilles heel concerning writing. These weaknesses are clearly evident when discussing his writings on love. He asserts that written words are impotent for writing on the soul because discourse, questioning and clarification of ideas are impossible. A writer cannot control who becomes his audience. A different audience is likely to have different points of reference, customs, and values than the author’s original. The focus of the new audience becomes misdirected from the original intent when common reference points disappear. This is a major problem with works like Symposium and Phaedrus. Readers who cannot get past the homoerotic elements end up denying themselves the opportunity for philosophical insight. When the homosexual and pedophilic elements are removed, the general principles remain and can be used to communicate Plato’s ideas about beauty, philosophy, love, the soul and the Forms.

In my reading of Symposium and Phaedrus, I discovered that the best kind of Erotic love requires good souls with a proper proportion of reason and emotion. Physical attraction is initially important to the souls, but its emphasis decreases over time. Sexual desire and gratification can be a tool for lovers to recognize the drive toward increasing knowledge and reason through philosophy. The qualities of loving patience, teaching and humility are essential for love to rise above its basest form. Deep friendship can be created when lovers look beyond the physical pleasures and discuss with each other how they can live a good life together. Between lovers, the highest value should be placed on the soul, not the body of their beloved. Philosophical discussion benefits and enlarges the souls of lovers and enables them to approach the divine. I agree with all of these ideas, and my experience in my marriage of 25 years confirms them.

Plato and I come from very different times and cultures, so we part ways concerning homosexual relationships, the value of women in a society, the use of pedophilia to initiate boys into adulthood. It seems for him that the ends - immortality, or even the knowledge of the Forms - justified the means. In my time and culture, and with my religious values, immortality and approaching the divine are obtainable without homosexuality, pedophilia, and the subjection of more than half the population. In his romanticizing of homoerotic love, Plato does not address the instability it brings into a society. Neither does he address homosexuality’s tendency to remain in its basest form by emphasizing gender blurring and superficial beauty. While Plato was philosophizing about the silver lining in pedophilia, he missed the destructive elements perpetuated by the rank and file of lesser ideals who were exploiting young boys and damaging the self-esteem of those considered ugly. While women in Greece had civil rights, they were judged by the standards of men. They were not valued for doing what women do better than men; they were praised when they came close to being like a man. I guess women who were rational, wise, just and virtuous were as rare in Greece as men who could look beyond superficial beauty and concern themselves only with the soul.

Even though we have different values, with effort I was still able to come away from my readings of Symposium and Phaedrus enlightened, entertained and enriched. But they weren’t written for me. They were lessons intended to teach his pupils 2000 years ago. The homoerotic elements used by Plato to describe his ideas about love, though problematic and uncomfortable for the modern reader to read, were essential to the achievement of understanding with his pupils. He needed to give them a common ground on which to build an abstract, complex idea. The foundation he put in place enabled his students to relate what he was teaching them to something familiar in their life – something they all had experience with. They transposed those feelings and ideas onto abstract philosophical ideas that are difficult to conjure even for the most learned men. There are beautiful ideas concerning the timeless subject of love in Plato’s writings. Understanding his customs and his choice of examples, even though we don’t agree with them, is the first step toward understanding those beautiful ideas. (Works Cited Available on Request)

Agents and Powers

Which do you trust more, your gut feeling or a well though out conclusion? Deep down inside themselves, men feel that they have the ability to make decisions that direct the course of their life; and these decisions can be changed at any point without constraint exterior to themselves. Philosophers have attempted to reason through the idea of personal autonomy and their explanations are problematic either metaphysically or ethically. I will present the explanations of both John Locke and David Hume concerning freedom and liberty. I will criticize their explanations with the help of insights from Sarah Buss, Brian Garrett, and Nicholas Jolley. I will conclude with the idea that in the end we are still left with the choice between our gut feeling and rational explanations that fall short of our personal experience in the area of liberty.
Both Locke and Hume agree on the following definitions of will and freedom (for Locke) or liberty (for Hume):
· Will is the power to choose one course of action over another from the alternatives physically available to us (we cannot will to breathe water, or fly).
· Freedom / Liberty is the power to do or refrain from doing any particular action selected by the will
A free action for Locke is one in which “A subject S is free to do action x at time t just in case: (1) if S wills to do x at t (2) S is physically able to do x at t AND (3) if S wills not to do x at t, he is physically able not to do x. The ability not to act or the ability to do otherwise is a key point for Locke. He believes the power to choose not to act is connected to our personal moral responsibility. He holds to this idea because he believes that the idea of divine justice cannot be separated from human freedom – it is a necessary condition. In other words, if there is no human freedom there cannot be divine justice. God could not justly punish us for sins we could not avoid. Locke also claims that this type of freedom (a necessary component of moral responsibility) is consistent with the thesis of determinism because it does not require the power of willing in a causally determined fashion. Since Locke thinks that determinism and free will are compatible doctrines, he is classified as a compatibilist.
David Hume is a compatibilist also, but for an entirely different reason. Hume is insistent on the existence of a law-governed causal explanation for what happens in the natural world. He believes that there are also law-governed causes for human nature, and just as natural science explains the natural world, a science that explains human nature is possible. His ideas about necessity, like other ideas related to determinism, seem to be at odds with the concept of free will. If Hume is right, man is not free, and no better than animals. He attempts to reconcile the seemingly opposing ideas by differentiating between liberty of spontaneity and liberty of indifference. He claims that everyone except a prisoner in chains has liberty of spontaneity and if they choose to perform an action A, and they can, then A was done freely. The absence of hindrances to our volition is all that matters for Hume when it comes to free will. Liberty of indifference, claims Hume, is a freedom we think we have, but we do not have. He thinks that Locke’s “ability to do otherwise” would deny that all actions and events have causes, and he cannot abide contemplating such a heresy to his philosophy. Our liberty of indifference is mistaken and our liberty of spontaneity makes liberty compatible with determinism.
Separating things into the categories of agents and powers helps us in our discussion about freedom. According to the definitions agreed upon by Hume and Locke, freedom/liberty and will are both powers. These powers belong to or are attributed to some agent in order to be utilized. This separation into the “Agent team” and the “Power team” is the litmus test for coherence in an argument concerning free will. According to Locke
... whether the will has freedom, is to ask, whether one power has another power, one ability another ability; a question at first sight too grossly absurd to make a dispute, or need an answer. For who is it that sees not, that powers belong only to agents, and are attributes only of substances, and not of powers themselves? (E 2.21.16)

He believes the agent of the will is the mind, attacking the Scholastics who have sought to avoid predicating freedom to another power by elevating mental faculties, including the will, into agents within the agent of the mind. Hume, on the other hand, turns the whole thing upside down and puts the agent (the mind) in a subservient position to the power of the will, which is in turn subservient to the power of the passions. Hume emasculates the will by claiming “reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions.” At this point, Locke seems to have failed the litmus test because his definition of freedom subjects it to the will, both of them powers. Hume fails too because he subjects the agent to a power.
Another criticism of Locke, according to Jolley, is his inconsistency in his definition of freedom in the Essay Concerning Human Understanding when Locke states:
“we have a power to suspend the prosecution of this or that desire, as everyone daily may experiment in himself. This seems to me the source of all liberty; in this seems to consist that, which is (as I think improperly) called free will” (E2.21.47)

This appears to be inconsistent with his earlier position that liberty concerns not the will; it pertains to overt acts of behavior. Others suggest that Lock is merely noting an exception to his previous position, as if responding to an objection he received while writing the Essay. The ability to control our desires or postpone the fulfillment of them seems to resonate with Locke as an area of the will that cannot be constrained or hindered.
Compatibilists like Locke and Hume maintain that free will does not exist when constraints (of various kinds) are present. For example, Hume’s definition of liberty of spontaneity – the only liberty non-imprisoned men have- is the absence of hindrances to acting and the absence of obstacles to the choice of the will. What constitutes a hindrance or obstacle? Locke uses the example of a sleeping man brought into a room with his friend. After being locked inside the room, the man awakens and upon seeing his friend, chooses to remain in the room for a visit. Locke maintains that his choice to remain was not free because the man was not able to leave the room, even though he did not know that leaving was impossible. Is it physical hindrances alone such as chains, and locked doors that keep us from acting? After determining what counts as an obstacle, then we must ask if the obstacle affects the agent, the action or the power. Locke argues that if we are not in chains we are free, our acts of volition (the actions of our will) may not be free and our will is not free. For him, freedom of the individual is undisputed; freedom of the will is semantically a nonsensical expression, and freedom of acts of volition need to be checked for hindrances and the ability to do otherwise in order to determine whether they are free. Ideas about constraints upon acts of volition bring us to question what is causing the constraint or what is causing the agent to choose.
The attempt to draw a distinction between determining causes (causes compatible with free will) and constraining causes (causes incompatible with free will) doesn’t seem to fortify the strength of Locke’s argument. Garrett aptly points out that the agent subject to either kind of cause could not have done otherwise, so why make the distinction between the two? It appears that our attempts to rationalize determinism keep taking us farther and farther from the issue of freedom. I think Locke saw this happening and decided to take the Empirical stance of sticking to what can be known. He comes to the conclusion that we cannot possible tell from observation and reason alone if we are metaphysically free; he assumes that we must be free in some sense because God has promised to judge us justly and cannot do so if we are not free. The knowledge that God will judge us justly cannot be known empirically, but that does not seem to be a problem for Locke. The other ideas he stirs up in the discussion on freedom are more interesting, so most just overlook that inconsistency.
I leave the discussions of necessity and causes with the question “Does the cause that necessitates choice really have any effect on the agent’s freedom to do what is willed? I am not convinced that it does, and I am beginning to question the idea of determinism. Since determinism is only a problem for free will if it is true, then I feel the need to explore it in more detail. Sarah Buss clarifies the dilemma we face when we try to properly order agents and forces.
The puzzle at the heart of these questions is a puzzle about the relationship between the agent’s power and the power of the forces that move her. And it is a puzzle about the relationship between the agent’s authority and the status of these motivating forces. What distinguishes motives whose power is attributable to the agent herself from motives whose power is external to the agent’s? What distinguishes motives on which the agent has conferred her authority from motives whose power has reduced her authorization to a mere formality? When the governing agent and the agent she governs are the very same self, we cannot answer either of these questions without answering the other, This is why it is so difficult to produce a satisfactory account of personal autonomy.

I don’t think either Locke or Hume is completely right on the issue of freedom. They begin with interesting ideas that make some sense, but when they are developed further, they seem to get further and further from the issue and neither confirm or deny what I feel about my own personal freedom. Their reasoned accounts do not consistently match my experiences concerning my freedom of self, action and will and so I rely on my gut, which is right where I began.
(Works Cited Available on Request)