I recently wrote up an article for the website Libcom. The article is basically a teaser for my book, as well as a very little history of early Christianity and its social framework.
John Locke is probable the most important enlightenment thinker when it comes to modern Anglo-American Liberalism, which has come to dominate the world. The second book of his “treatises of government” is one of the seminal works of Liberalism, creating a philosophical framework on which both Democracy, Capitalism, and Liberalism have built upon. John Locke is, in my opinion, hugely mistaken when it comes to the nature of man and the nature of rights (especially property), this mistake shakes the entire foundation of John Locke’s Liberalism and I think it is unfortunate that modern ideology more or less takes John Locke’s political philosophy as axiomatic, despite it being extremely problematic when examined. Anyone interested in modern Liberal ideology should examine John Locke’s “two treatises of government,” since it is so important to the development of Liberal ideology. In this post, I’ll be critiquing what I find problematic in his political theory found in “Two Treatises of Government – Book 2”, specifically on the nature of man and rights.
To start with let’s take a look at his concept of a “state of Nature,” he says in Chapter 2:
In the previous post, I presented a quick overview of Zizek’s materialist theology, and began a critique of it. Before you read this post you should read the first one, since without the context of the first post of this series you won’t really understand what it is I am arguing against.
Zizek often quotes Melville Bartleby who takes the stance “I would prefer not to” as a philosophical stance against (psudo?) ethical individualistic demands put on us by ideology. I agree with Zizek here, but in the face of the Death of God, this mantra must be taken to the end and included. A clear example of Zizek’s naivety when it comes to not taking the “I would prefer not to” to the end is found in his book “Living in the end times” where he talks about growing tensions in the Netherlands between the Gay community and the Muslim immigrant community who are more and more homophobic. Zizek says in Location 3182 (kindle version) in “Living in the End Times”:
The concept of the sacred is something that is seemingly irrelevant in the modern secular age. I think however that an account of the sacred is still important, because even if modern secular society won’t admit it, it is still haunted by the concept of the sacred. I read recently a paper by conservative (in the old school Tory sense) philosopher Roger Scruton touching on the Sacred, it’s a good article; however I think there is a conceptual problem in it. The problem I notice is the notion of the sacred as something pointing towards the transcendental. The definition sounds like a natural fit, however a clear example of why it may be problematic is that of sex and sexuality.