Philosophy

Paine outlines an argument in which he claims that the non-democratic state is responsible for making people dumb. Clarify his position, and in so doing, bring two (2) additional authors into your conversation, one of whom agrees with Paine, and one of whom disagrees with him. Clarify their positions as well.

Thomas Paine is considered one of the intellectual founders of the American Independence.  The ideals held dear by his contemporaries were evident in the Declaration of Independence.  Paine made his ideas known in Common Sense and The Rights of Man (1791).  In the latter literature, he wrote it as a reaction to English writer Edmund Burkes article, Reflections on the French Revolution (1790).  Both men had differing views on the French Revolution.  Burkes criticism of the revoultion (negative) was what prompted Paine to write his treatise in defense of it.

One particular aspect where both men disagree was the form of government.  Burke believed that a dictatorial government is essential in governing society to ensure order.  One could not blame Burke for basing it on the system of government of his home country, not merely in France where the (constitutional) monarchy has been successful in running the nation.  Furthermore, he justifies the need of a strong authoritartian government on the account of mans inherently corrupt nature.  As he would put it, The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please  (Burke).  Hence to need to keep man disciplined and let political power be in the hands of those qualified to wield it to ensure stability in society.  He seemed to think that the masses who rose up in revolt lacked the maturity to govern and tend to be reckless in the management of the affairs of the state.  Therefore, it is necessary for such an authoritarian state to provide guidance to these misguided or immature citizens (whether they like it or not) to ensure they are worthy citizens of the state who would contribute it its harmony and stability.

Paine reacts to this by saying that government is not the source of rights people enjoy in society.  He asserted that these individual rights emanate from nature. 

It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect  that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few . . . They . . . consequently are instruments of injustice. 

The fact, therefore, must be that the individuals, themselves, each, in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist  (Paine).

Governments cannot say they have the authority to dispense these rights to the people.  No law on earth can do that because to say so and believe in it would imply they can be revoked anytime.  According to Paine, these are no longer rights but privileges.  Furthermore, authoritarian governments do not want to enlighten their citizens nor empower them for fear that if they become wise, they might become a threat and overthrow them, hence the need to keep them ignorant and obdient in the name of stability.  Paines argument also stemmed from his experiences during the the time the former colonists were fighting the British for their independence when the latter threatened to take away their rights and tried to make them bend to its will and tried to make them believe it was for their on good.  What this implied that the colonists should be thankful for the security, both military and economic the British crown provided them for without it, there would be instability and disorder.

Paine, as well as his contemporaries, begged to differ on this. Paine believes that the role of a democratic government is not to impose its will on the individual in the sense of taking away his (natural) rights but to respect it and protect it from anyone or anything that threatens to take it away and any government that refuses to recognize this would be deemed illegitimate and therefore the citizens have a right to oppose it and change it.

If Burke and Paine would disagree.  Perhaps one of those who would agree with Paines view would be Henry David Thoreau.  This can be seen in his treatise titled Civil Disobedience.  Thoreau wrote this based on his own experience for standing up to his rights as an individual in the face of the threats to his freedom, if not his life.  He agreed with that Paine that governments are human creations and to use Burkes own ideas against him, if men are inherently fault to commit faults, then governments would not be perfect especially if it would be made up of such men.  Thoreaus point was that whoever is power is in a position to do whatever it likes.  So it is only natural that they are in a position to influence the policy of the state or the nation on which direction or course it would take (Hahn).

Naturally, in trying to implement its policies, there is that need to impose its will on the people in order to make them comply.  And it will come to a point where there will be several, regardless of number, who would disagree with the government and offer differing views which would not sit well with the incumbents.  In a non-democratic government, such disagreements would not be tolerated and the state will take measures to stifle any dissent through repression, hoping that fear would make the citizens compliant to its will.

At this point, Thoreau believes that the individual reserves the right not to comply with the laws of the state if it violates or goes against not only his morals but his natural rights.  This has led Thoreau to believe, based on his values that individuals have the right to revolution or refuse compliance to the state if its policies are unjust and repressive to the point it has become unbearable (Thoreau).  Besides Thoreau, the proponents of the social contract, namely Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rosseau would also agree with Paine as well.  There should be a mutual relationship between the state and its citizens.  This can only be possible in a democratic state but not in a non-democratic (authoritarian) one since those in power fear the inherent power of the majority who might rise up in revolt if it perceives the slightest hint of impropriety or wrong in the state, hence the need to keep them fearful and docile to ensure that order is maintained.  If one were to ask Paine and other like-minded thinkers, this would not be right for it violates the laws of nature in the sense that natural rights are stifled.  If the state tries too hard, it would be its folly and its eventual downfall.  Revolutions in history can attest to that.


4) Both Burke and Fichte insist that a love of country (in short, patriotism) must be attached to something outside of Reason. In so doing, they are emphatically tying the state to an aura of the sacred, as against the mundane. Explore the question of patriotism in three authors of these three, choose only Burke or Fichte, but not both.

It is said that patriotism is the highest form of nationalism, or love for ones country.  It entails going above and beyond what is expected of a citizen.  This often would mean taking greater measures, which is often making the ultimate sacrifice as an expression of that love of country.  For this case, three authors on their view of this concept Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Samuel Johnson and Patrick Henry.

Johann Gottlieb Fichte was one of the philosophers who laid down the foundations of German idealism and sometimes regarded as the father of German nationalism because of his ideas.  By some cruel twist of fate, his ideas also contributed to the development of Nazi ideology which Adolf Hitler was able to sell to the German people in need of a savior from social, political and economic ruin at the time (Shirer).  Fichte made use of history to state his case.  He cited the resistance of the ancestors of the modern German people, the Goths, against the Roman invaders which set a precedent for German patriotism even though the word or idea did not originate from them.  He said in his Eight Address to the German Nation

Freedom for them meant just this remaining Germans and continuing to settle their own affairs independently and in accordance with the original spirit of their race, going on with their development in accordance with the same spirit, and propagating this independence in their prosperity (Viroli).

Fichte pointed out that their ancestors chose to be Germans rather than accept Pax Romana which could have endowed them with the blessings of prosperity experienced in other parts of the empire.  It was that German-ness or the need or spirit (for lack of a better word) to assert their identity was the impetus that made them resist Roman domination and eventually propagate their ways (ironically) on the Roman Empire which was crumbling.  As such, their descendants, the modern Germans must show gratitude to their efforts of making them Germans and to be proud of it.  In addition, Fichte also added that the German people possess the power of regeneration considered very appropriate in times of chaos and disorder brought about by the mess caused by Napoleon and that the German language is the purest and most original and that history will flourish.

If one were to study Fichtes thinking very carefully, while it extols national pride, it is also deemed chauvinistic.  Fichtes ideas give the impression that Germans are a superior race, something that the French would vehemently object since they regard themselves the same way.  Nevertheless, nationalism or patriotism, according to Fichte, is more than just love for ones country.  Fichte took it a step higher by emphasizing pride.  Every German must be proud of their nations achievements and are expected to do their share in contributing to its glory.  These were the ideas that later German leaders would pick up and apply, notably that of Otto von Bismarck when he unified Germany and helped forge the German Empire (Second Reich) and Hitler would follow in his footsteps when he established the Third Reich.  Even though the last two Reichs of Germany were deemed un-democratic, both Bismarck and Hitler still subscribed to the part of asserting German pride and superiority although Hitler went overboard to the point he tried to exterminate those who did not conform to the New Order he was creating.

Samuel Johnson, an English writer, moralist and lexicographer, had many things to say about patriotism.  One unusual aphorism attributed to him was that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.  He made this remark a year after he published his treatise The Patriot. This may seem to sound strange for Johnson to make a contradiction of what he wrote in The Patriot but he wanted to make it clear when he made that remark was that there are false patriots about, hence the aphorism.  Johnson pointed out that there are those with ulterior motives who would commit their deeds under the name of patriotism.  These are people who have somehow thought that his ideas stated in The Patriot are compatible to theirs giving justification to their acts.  Incidentally (during his time), his remarks were aimed at those scoundrels across the Atlantic who decided to break away from England and establish their own nation.

That man, therefore, is no patriot, who justifies the ridiculous claims of American usurpation who endeavours to deprive the nation of its natural and lawful authority over its own colonies, which were settled under English protection were constituted by an English charter and have been defended by English arms.To suppose, that by sending out a colony, the nation established an independent power that when, by indulgence and favour, emigrants are become rich, they shall not contribute to their own defence, but at their own pleasure and that they shall not be included, like millions of their fellow-subjects, in the general system of representation involves such an accumulation of absurdity, as nothing but the show of patriotism could palliate (Johnson).

Ironically, the Americans also used Johnsons words in justifying their reasons for breaking away.  One such adage they borrowed from Johnson would be He who wishes to see his country robbed of its rights cannot be a patriot (Johnson).  Looking at it from an American perspective, the colonists developed an identity of their own the moment they settled down in the New World and established their roots there.  This same attitude would be passed on to succeeding generations who would think they were more American than English owing to their background and distance.  Moreover, they enjoyed greater freedom than what they or their ancestors had and it became their patrimony and when this was threatened, did something about it rather than sit idly by and let tyranny take away their rights.

If one were to look for modern-day examples that exemplify Johnsons remark on patriotism as the refuge of scoundrels would be the terrorists of Al-Qaeda and other similar groups who commit their acts to fight against the tyranny of the west and their materialistic values.  Although they are regarded as terrorists and murders by the west, they are regarded as patriots or heroes who thought the same way as the colonists in the 18th century.  The only difference between them though is that they use violence indiscriminately in trying to achieve their aims.

Finally, there is Patrick Henry.  He was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States who is forever remembered for saying these immortal words that underscored American patriotism Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery Forbid it, Almighty God I know not what course others may take but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death (Fox)
If one were to dissect this part of his emotional and compelling speech, for Patrick Henry, what makes a man a patriot or a lover of his country is that he cherishes and values the freedom to exercise his right to live the way he wants to live along with the peace (of mind) that goes with it.  For Patrick Henry, there can be no real peace if one were enslaved and living under tyranny.  Any peace they claim that exists would be false or superficial.  A true patriot is one who loves peace and harmony in society and Henry, being a governor of Virginia, realized that it requires the collective effort of everyone in society to contribute to the promotion of that peace and harmony.  At the same time, should this peace and harmony be threatened by forces of evil that intend to take away their freedom, the citizens must be prepared to defend it and if necessary be prepared to put their lives on the line.  Henry emphasized that in the first part of his speech by way of a preamble when he said, No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House  (Fox).  This was what impelled him to speak.  He felt he could not afford to be silent on the matter and had to make it known to everyone of the imminent threat they faced and they must get ready for the coming fight.  It can also be said that Henry would rather die a free man of a free nation than live under the dominion of a foreign power.  He had set an example for others to follow when he made that very bold speech in 1775.

In a final analysis, it could be said that patriotism and nationalism go hand in hand.  The common denominator they have is the love for ones country.  In other words, patriotism is altruistic in nature.  It does not harbor or entertain any ulterior motive.  Even though the three authors gave very good insights on what is patriotism, there are also several others who have something to say about patriotism.  Going back to the three, Johnson and Henrys ideas appear to compliment each other even though they were on the opposing sides.  Patriotism is about loving ones country and everything it stands for, and that its citizens must be not be indifferent nor apathetic in letting their values be encroached and their rights robbed and that they must be prepared to defend it even if it may mean losing their lives in the process.

Fichtes ideas takes patriotism a step higher in the sense that patriotism, in the old German sense is more than just love for ones country that they must be prepared to die to defend and uphold the values they hold dear, it also evokes pride in ones country and its achievements.  What Fichte was driving at was he wanted the German people to be proud of their achievements.  As long as it contributes to the greater glory (not merely good) of Germany, it is something worth being happy about and proud.  This was what motivated Germany (before the coming of Hitler and the Nazis) to become a great power.  They conquered lands outside its borders and even beyond the continent of Europe.  Instead of being critical about it, the Germans were proud of it because the image of their nation was further enhanced and everyone was encouraged to take part in it.  If one were to follow Fichtes idea, this would be considered patriotism even though it may be imperialism to non-Germans.  In other words, Fichtes concept of nationalism, as applied by leaders such as Bismarck and Hitler is my country, right or wrong.  No amount of criticism or condemnation can stop the Germans into living up to their values of promoting and propagating a strong nation.  It could be said that Fichtes ideas would clash with that of Johnson and Henry as well as other thinkers who regard patriotism as doing the right thing, only it is in defense of freedom and rights. 

Both Johnson and Henry also emphasized that those who value these should be aware that it may call for great sacrifice.  And if there would be any consolation, it would be that others will get to continue enjoying these rights and freedoms.  And another comforting thought would be that their sacrifices will not be forgotten and that they will be forever be remembered as patriots who have made the ultimate expression of their love of country and a reminder for the succeeding generations to do the same if the situation calls for it.