Contents
Acknowledgements
Introduction
| 1 | Politics, Metaphysically Speaking |
| 2 | Hobbes: A Holistic Reading of His Politics |
| 4 | Hobbes: Rationality as Recurrence |
| 5 | Locke: Removing the Misconceptions |
| 6 | Locke: The Property of Continuous Identity |
| 7 | Locke: Heritage and Nationality |
| 8 | A Breakdown of Cosmopolitanism |
Bibliography
Index
Acknowledgements
Russell Keat, my supervisor at the University of Edinburgh, exclaimed upon reading an earlier version of this work that it was completely mad and yet neat. Come to think of it, I cannot quite recall if he was referring to the thesis as completely mad, or perhaps just to me. Indeed, the completion of this work nearly drove me round the bend, and I must therefore apologize to those close to me who have been adversely affected. I will make it up to you.
I was extremely fortunate to have met special people in my time at Edinburgh, most significantly the members of the collective (you know who you are). To these and other friends, family members, flatmates, and coworkers, I owe thanks not only for their encouragement and support, but also for many joyous shared moments. Cheers!
Finally, a special thanks to Simon Cook, for his insightful comments, invaluable editing skills, and words of encouragement. Any remaining mistakes are mine.
Introduction
From this novel perspective, the security threat that is presumed to inform political theory, most notably in the work of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, is trumped by an insecurity concern derived from ontological identity difficulties. Once processed through this metaphysical sieve, seemingly disjunctive elements of their thought, from theology to politics to scientific method, gain a holistic consistency. Furthermore, Locke no longer hangs on Hobbess coattails, whilst perceptions of Hobbes are turned on their head. However, this reinterpretation is not intended to merely rock the boat, for it also contributes to a more thorough understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of the self, the state, and the nation. Moreover, it calls into question the cohesiveness of the liberal tradition and the adherence of its contributors to a shared fundamental idea of the market.
While the dogmatic reputation of theology and metaphysics has cast a shadow over the entirety of this corpus, the resultant occlusion has deprived us of intriguing ontological discussion that might have served as a vital theoretical backdrop to the prescription of particular forms of political order. This is because metaphysical identity concerns are, at least to my mind, deeply implicated by the various measures that liberal political theorists have proposed as remedies against the collapse of cultured social conduct and the prevention of the emergence of a state of unrest.
In the pages that follow I will unpack this claim by revealing striking correlations between metaphysical problems or tensions, on the one hand, and the seemingly unrelated political solutions of key liberal thinkers on the other. I will achieve this by way of a study of the tension that can be discerned between such pairs of ideas as friction and harmony, change and immutability, freedom and restriction, fragmentation and unison, and chaos and order; a tension that is addressed not only in the metaphysical and political contributions of authors like Hobbes and Locke, but also in the ways in which these concepts relate to the scientific and theological thought of these liberal authors. This holistic approach will generate three distinctive andcontrary to standard interpretationscompeting strands of liberal thought. Moreover, by uncovering the fundamental differences between these strands it will be possible to revisit, and indeed to revise, the prevailing opinion that the very idea of the modern liberal state provides the foundation of an unbound cosmopolitan perspective and, as such, is incompatible with a national perspective.
BOUNDARIES AND BINDS
Metaphysically, corporeality can be understood as a boundary that confines the human existence and, by extension, the perspectives that are humanly attainable. These restrictions apply on the presumption that we are hard-wired for material perception. Our bodily existence, even if it is merely an immutable illusion, generates rigid restrictions on our consciousness. Our mortality pronounces itself in the limited lifespan of our existence, and moreover, beyond restricting our temporal existence, it constricts our spatial existence as well. The mundane expression of how definitive are these constraints of the human condition is found in our inability to be present in two spatially distinct locations simultaneously. The corporeally constricted human, by contrast with the unbound deity, is neither immortal nor omnipresent. Humans are bound to corporeality, and therefore we cannot expect them to be socially motivated by insights gained from an unbound perspective. This metaphysical human leash, by virtue of its very inescapability, should pertain to the social contract tradition and to its product: the modern liberal State.
Both in science and in politics, rule making is an attempt to unleash ourselves, by means of autonomous rationality, from the tyranny of the unknown and the unpredictable. In the formulation of rules, we take particular experiences and extend them to other occurrences by generalizing them into other-referring statements. If we accept the assumption that rationality in itself, rather than its worldly manifestation, is not derived from experience, then rationality should be liberated from worldly constraints. However, if we are subject to inherent material constraints, would these not inhibit us from living out the liberty of an unbounded rationality? The rationalist tradition, which I will trace back to Hobbes in the following chapters, attempts to achieve an impossible feat: namely, to artificially eliminate human constraints by magnifying human rationality into perfect Godly proportions. From this rationalist perspective the limits of the natural human individual can be overcome by means of the ambitious social rule making projects of the social contract and the artificial State. Rationality is allowed to run rampant, unchecked by the confines of the corporeal world. It steps beyond human boundaries, thereby engaging in the self-deception of likening the human condition to the incorporeal condition of God. It utilizes unbound perspectives in time and space in order to form a social structure that is theoretically sound, yet unbefitting of the actuality of bound existence. The aspiration of the rationalist tradition is, in this sense, unreal.
