Category Archives: Philosophy

Arts, Culture, History, Philosophy

Profile vignette: Voltaire

THE LIFE OF VOLTAIRE

FRANCOIS MARIE AROUET was born in Paris, the son of a civil servant, Francois Arouet. Voltaire was educated at the principal Jesuit college in France, which he left at the age of 17. He was intended to enter a career as a lawyer, but the idea repelled him. His father became concerned at the dissipated life he was leading and permitted him to enter the service of the French ambassador to Holland. Unfortunately, the young man misbehaved there too, conducting an undiplomatic affair with a French Protestant in The Hague, so he was sent back home again.

His return to the lawyer’s office was short-lived. He wrote a notorious satire on a rival who won the poetry competition for an Academy prize. In 1716 he was suspected of satirising the regent, the Duc d’Orleans, and he was banished from Paris for several months. The following year he wrote a savage attack on the regent accusing him of a range of crimes, and this resulted in his imprisonment in the Bastille for a year.

In the Bastille, he wrote his tragedy Oedipus and assumed the pen name “Voltaire”. The play was performed in 1718 and it was a triumph. Voltaire’s next dramas were less successful. He devoted himself to a poem about Henri IV. Because it championed Protestantism and religious toleration, the authorities refused to allow its publication. Voltaire was not that easily defeated though; he had the poem printed in Rouen and smuggled into Paris.

By now Voltaire was a well-known and popular figure at court. He was denounced by the Chevalier de Rohan-Chabot as an upstart. Voltaire inevitably responded by circulating scathing epigrams about the Chevalier, who had Voltaire physically beaten up. Voltaire challenged the Chevalier and was again imprisoned. He was freed only if he agreed to leave France. He left for England in 1726.

In England, Voltaire encountered many interesting people including Alexander Pope, the Duchess of Marlborough and John Gay. He also immersed himself and soaked up English literature: Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden, and the Restoration dramatists. He became interested in the philosophy of Locke and the science of Newton.

Allowed back into France in 1729, Voltaire behaved with more circumspection, trying not to offend courtiers and wisely investing in the government lottery, which led to his increasing wealth. The patronage of Madame de Pompadour procured him the illustrious post of official royal historian. A piece of ill-placed flattery by Pompadour made the queen jealous and Voltaire was once again forced to leave France. This time he travelled to the court of Frederick the Great. By 1750, he was in Berlin as the king’s chamberlain on a huge salary. But, once again, and in customary style, Voltaire caused offence by writing satirical criticisms and was ejected. He was stopped at Frankfurt by a representative of Frederick the Great, who demanded the return of a book. Voltaire characteristically retaliated by writing a malicious character sketch of Frederick, which was not published until Voltaire’s death.

In 1756–59, his pessimistic poem about the Lisbon earthquake appeared, Customs and the Spirit of Nations. The Lisbon earthquake was a great natural disaster in which earthquake, fire and tsunami followed one another in remorseless succession. Was this a demonstration that there was no presiding God looking after human welfare? Was the human race alone in the universe? Whatever the views expressed it was, in a sense, the dawn of humanism – and certainly a landmark in the Enlightenment. He then wrote his masterpiece, Candide, a satirical short story ridiculing the philosophy of Leibniz.

Then, in an almost natural order, the first of Voltaire’s anti-religious writings appeared. In 1762 the Protestant Jean Calas was falsely accused of murdering his son to stop him converting to Catholicism. The judicial killing roused Voltaire to establish the man’s innocence, and he made great efforts to rescue the surviving members of the Calas family from further persecution. This and similar efforts made on behalf of victims of French religious fanaticism won widespread admiration. He even set up a refuge for persecuted Protestants.

Voltaire was a friend of Rousseau – until Rousseau decided to throw his support behind the Swiss government. In 1778, when he was 83, Voltaire was given a “royal” welcome in Paris when he arrived to mount a production of his last tragedy, Irene. The excitement of this reception was too much for him, and he fell ill and died. After the Revolution, Voltaire’s body was buried in the Pantheon, recognised as one of the great figures of European culture.

RECORD: SUMMARY

Born 1694, died 1778

French author

. Propagated the view that saw the Lisbon earthquake as evidence that there was no presiding God looking after human welfare.

. Embodied the 18th century Enlightenment.

. Satirised aristocrats, kings and philosophers.

. Rebelled against religious intolerance and injustice.

. Championed and gave refuge to persecuted Protestants.

1718 – Oedipus

1723 – The League or Henry the Great

1738 – Elements of the Philosophy of Newton

1751 – The Age of Louis XIV

1759 – Candide

Standard
Arts, History, Philosophy

(Philosophy): Machiavelli on Religion and Faith

‘THE PRINCE’

Machiavelli, (1469-1527): ‘God is not willing to do everything, and thus take away our free will and that share of glory which belongs to us.’

MACHIAVELLI was an Italian philosopher, politician and historian, who is regarded as the father of political science and of philosophical idealism. Prior to Machiavelli, the prominent form of philosophy had been idealism, but Machiavelli, born during the Italian Renaissance period, adopted a more objective, realist view of mankind, examining how the world was as opposed to ideals of how it should be.

Machiavelli described his political philosophy in The Prince (1513). The term ‘Machiavellian’ is often used to describe political leaders who seize power through cunning opportunism and unscrupulous means and has often been applied to despotic dictators presiding over cruel and callous regimes. However, many critics and scholars have argued that The Prince has been largely misinterpreted as a supposed guidebook of totalitarian tactics. The text’s analysis of how to gain and maintain political power has been overemphasised to the detriment of some of the more politically moderate viewpoints. The Prince is in fact an intricately layered, complex analysis of the human condition, encompassing a critique of religious doctrines and ethics, as much as it is a treatise on the acquisition of power.

Machiavelli was writing during a period of extreme political volatility in his native state of Florence and it is possible that The Prince is a direct result of Machiavelli’s frustration with the constant warmongering and insurrections. The principle theme of The Prince concerns a treatise on what makes an effective ruler (the prince of the title). In contrast to earlier philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, who both believed political power was a divine right, Machiavelli argued that power was there for any person who had the ability to seize it. Machiavelli’s philosophy focused on the end result, not the means used to attain power, which he believed were irrelevant to the outcome. Machiavelli suggested that there are two forms of morality or virtue: those adopted by the ruler (the prince) and those adhered to by his subjects. The prince’s morality should be governed not by universal virtues or religious doctrines but be judged by his effectiveness as a ruler. In making political decisions the only factor that the prince should consider is which outcome will be most beneficial for the stability of his state and the maintenance of his power.

Although Machiavelli seemed to be advocating a separation of church and state, he nonetheless recognised the important role religion must play in maintaining order. For Machiavelli it was wise for the prince to present himself to his people as religious and virtuous even if, in practice, he was not. Having served and witnessed at first hand the brutal regime of Cesare Borgia, son of Pope Alexander VI, Machiavelli recognised the Catholic Church as a powerful, albeit corrupt tool for controlling the people. Indeed, Machiavelli used Cesare Borgia as an example of a ruler who was cunning and clever in his quest to attain power. Although the Borgias relied upon Papal patronage to maintain their power, Machiavelli refuted the belief that the actions of a ruler simply upheld the will of God on earth, claiming that man can (and does) exercise free will for his own ends, with or without the implicit consent of God or religion.

Although there are some dubious elements presented in The Prince, not least the advocation of cruelty and murder as a legitimate means to gain power, Machiavelli’s work represents a radical shift from idealism to realism and stands as a historically important reflective commentary on the political culture of the time in which it was written.

Standard
Arts, Philosophy

(Philosophy) The Stoic: ‘Anger is bad fuel’

PASSIONS & EMOTIONS

“There is no more stupefying thing than anger, nothing more bent on its own strength. If successful, none more arrogant, if foiled, none more insane – since it’s not driven back by weariness even in defeat, when fortune removes its adversary it turns its teeth on itself.” – Seneca, On Anger, 3.1.5

AS the stoics have said on countless occasions, getting angry almost never solves anything. Usually, it makes things worse. We get upset, then the other person gets upset – now everyone is upset, and the problem is no closer to getting solved.

Many successful people will try to tell you that anger is a powerful fuel in their lives. The desire ‘to prove them all wrong’ or ‘shove it in their faces’ has made many a millionaire. The anger at being called fat or stupid has created fine physical specimens and brilliant minds. The anger at being rejected has motivated many to carve their own path.

But that’s shortsighted. Such stories ignore the pollution produced as a side effect and the wear and tear it puts on the engine. It ignores what happens when that initial anger runs out – and how now more and more must be generated to keep the machine going (until, eventually, the only source left is anger at oneself). ‘Hate is too great a burden to bear,’ Martin Luther King Jr. warned his fellow civil rights leaders in 1967, even though they had every reason to respond to hate with hate.

The same is true for anger – in fact, it’s true for most extreme emotions. They are toxic fuel. There’s plenty of it out in the world, no question, but never worth the costs that come along with it.

Standard