The Oxford Companion to Philosophy Part 54 potx

the clarity of the relevant perceptions of the apparent causal agent, accompanied by a corresponding decrease in the clarity of the relevant perceptions of the entity appar- ently acted upon. Leibniz’s mature metaphysics includes a threefold clas- sification of entities that must be accorded some degree of reality: ideal entities, well-founded phenomena, and actual existents, i.e. monads with their perceptions and appetites. Material objects are examples of well-founded phenomena, according to Leibniz, while space and time are ideal entities. In the following passage from another letter to de Volder, Leibniz formulated the distinction between actual and ideal entities: in actual entities there is nothing but discrete quantity, namely, the multitude of monads, i.e. simple substances . . . But continu- ous quantity is something ideal, which pertains to possibles, and to actuals, insofar as they are possible. Indeed, a continuum involves indeterminate parts, whereas, by contrast, there is nothing indefinite in actual entities, in which every division that can be made, is made. Actual things are composed in the manner that a number is composed of unities, ideal things are composed in the manner that a number is composed of fractions. The parts are actual in the real whole, but not in the ideal. By confusing ideal things with real substances when we seek actual parts in the order of possibles and indeterminate parts in the aggregate of actual things, we entangle ourselves in the labyrinth of the continuum and in inexplicable contradictions. Leibniz’s consideration of the labyrinth of the continuum was one source of his monadology. Ultimately, he reached the conclusion that whatever can be infinitely divided without reaching entities that can not be further divided is not a basic individual in an acceptable ontology. In part, Leibniz’s reasoning here turns on his beliefs that divisible entities of the sort noted can not satisfy the stand- ards for substantial unity required of basic individuals. The originality and complexity of Leibniz’s reasoning concerning these topics is on display in his correspondence with de Volder, and in his correspondence with Arnauld. In the process of refining the metaphysical considerations that shaped the monadology, Leibniz formulated and defended the following doctrines: the *identity of indiscernibles—the thesis that individual substances differ with respect to their intrinsic, non-relational properties; the theory of minute perceptions—that each created monad has some perceptions of which it lacks awareness; as well as the theses of universal expression, the pre-established harmony, and spontaneity, previously mentioned. An important element in Leibniz’s treatment of entities he regarded as ideal is his treatment of *space and *time, which is formulated in his correspondence with Samuel Clarke. Leibniz set out to explicate the notion of place and space in terms of the spatial relations among material objects, thereby avoiding commitment to space as an independent entity. Another route to Leibniz’s monadology may be traced beginning from some of his conclusions concerning certain of the well-founded phenomena, in particular, material objects. He argued that a correct application of Galileo’s discoveries concerning the acceleration of freely falling bodies to the phenomena of impact established that force is not to be identified with quantity of motion, i.e. mass times velocity, as Descartes had held, but is to be measured by mass times the velocity squared. From these physical results, Leibniz drew important metaphysical conclusions—that force, unlike quantity of motion, cannot be identified with some mode of extension and that, therefore, Descartes was mistaken in identifying matter with extension and its modifications. He concluded that each material substance must have an immaterial component, a substantial form, which accounts for its active force. The labyrinth of the continuum, previously noted, is one of two labyrinths that, according to Leibniz, vex the human mind. The second concerns the possibility of free choice. The nub of this problem for Leibniz is to explain how things might have been otherwise than they are. Leibniz was committed to the concept-containment account of truth, i.e. that a proposition is true just in case the concept of its predicate is contained in the concept of its subject. But that seems to imply that all true propositions are conceptually true, and, hence, necessarily true, and that, therefore, things could not have been otherwise than they are. Leibniz denied that all conceptually true propositions are necessarily true, employing the doctrine of infinite analysis, affirming that in the case of contingent truths, the subject concept contains the predicate concept, but there is no finite analysis of the relevant concepts that establishes that fact. By contrast, Leibniz argued that in the case of necessary truths there is always a finite analysis of the relevant concepts that constitutes a proof of the proposition in question. Leibniz made important contributions to philosophical theology. The Theodicy contains his solution to the problem of *evil, i.e. to the question how the facts concerning evil in this world can be consistent with the conception of God as omnipotent, morally perfect, and creator—a conception to which Leibniz was committed. One basic element in his answer to this question is his thesis that this is the best possible world. In outline, Leibniz reached this conclusion in the following manner. He was totally committed to the *principle of sufficient reason, i.e. the thesis that for every state of affairs that obtains there must be a sufficient reason why it obtains. Applied to God’s choice of a possible world to create, the principle of sufficient reason implies that God must have a sufficient reason for cre- ating just this world, according to Leibniz. But, given God’s moral perfection, this reason must have to do with the value of the world selected. Hence, the world selected must be the best possible. Leibniz also made what he took to be a significant contribution to the formulation of the *ontological argument for the existence of God. He claimed that the ontological argument, as formulated by Descartes, for example, proved that a perfect being exists, with one crucial pro- viso, namely, the premiss that a perfect being is possible. Leibniz believed that none of his predecessors had shown this premiss to be true, and so he set out to do so. The basic 510 Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm idea of his purported proof is this. A perfect being is a being with every perfection. A perfection is a simple, positive property. Therefore, there can be no demonstration that there is a formal contradiction involved in supposing that one and the same entity has all the perfections. Since there can be no demonstration of a formal contradiction, it must be possible for one and the same being to have them all. Such a being would be a perfect being. Hence, a perfect being is possible. Although Leibniz was not as taken with epistemo- logical problems as Descartes or the British Empiricists, none the less he made significant contributions to the theory of knowledge. In his commentary on John Locke, the New Essays on Human Understanding, Leibniz argued force- fully for the thesis that the mind is furnished with innate ideas. Leibniz summarized his debate with Locke on this point as follows: Our differences are on matters of some importance. It is a matter of knowing if the soul in itself is entirely empty like a writing tablet on which nothing has as yet been written (tabula rasa) . . . and if everything inscribed there comes solely from the senses and experience, or if the soul contains originally the sources of various concepts and doctrines that external objects merely reveal on occasion. The claim that some concepts and doctrines are innate to the mind is important for Leibniz’s metaphysics as well as his theory of knowledge, because he held that some of the central concepts of metaphysics, e.g. the concepts of self, substance, and causation, are innate. Throughout his career, Leibniz developed various systems of formal logic, most based on the concept containment account of truth, previously mentioned. Some of those systems provide the elements of an approach to formal logic that is a genuine alternative to Aristotelian logic and contemporary quantification theory. r.c.sle. The definitive edn. of Leibniz’s work, still a long way from com- pletion, will be G. W. Leibniz: Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe (Darm- stadt, 1923– ). Series 2 and 6 are, respectively, the philosophical correspondence and writings. Currently, the most useful edn. is G. W. Leibniz: Die philosophischen Schriften, ed. C. J. Gerhardt, 7 vols. (Berlin, 1875–90). The best source of bibliographic information concerning Leib- niz’s work is Émile Ravier, Bibliographie des Œuvres de Leibniz (Paris, 1937), as supplemented by Paul Schrecker, ‘Une bibliographie de Leibniz’, Revue philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger (1938). The best source of bibliographic information concerning the secondary literature on Leibniz’s work is Kurt Muller and Albert Heinekamp (eds.), Leibniz-Bibliographie: Die Literatur uber Leibniz bis 1980 (Frankfurt am Main, 1984). The most complete edn. of Leibniz’s philosophical work in English is Leroy E. Loemker, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Philosoph- ical Papers and Letters (Dordrecht, 1969). Also available are the New Essays on Human Understanding, tr. Peter Remnant and Jonathan Bennett (Cambridge, 1981), and the Theodicy, ed. Austin Farrer, tr. E. M. Huggard (New Haven, Conn., 1952). A useful selection with introduction and notes is Leibniz: Philosophical Texts, tr. and ed. R. Woolhouse and R. Francks (Oxford, 1998). As a sample of the vast secondary literature on Leibniz, the following may be recommended: C. D. Broad, Leibniz: An Introduc- tion (Cambridge, 1975); Benson Mates, The Philosophy of Leibniz (Oxford, 1986); Nicholas Rescher, Leibniz: An Introduction to his Philosophy (Totowa, NJ, 1979); Catherine Wilson, Leibniz’s Meta- physics (Manchester, 1989); N. Jolley (ed.), The Cambridge Compan- ion to Leibniz (Cambridge, 1994). Leibniz’s law: see identity of indiscernibles. lemma. A lemma is a proposition put forward in the course of an *argument, often accompanied by its own proof. It thus differs from a premiss in that it need not occur at the start of the argument. In discussions of knowledge, the ‘No false lemmas’ principle is sometimes mentioned: this is the principle that a belief will not count as knowledge if the chain of reasoning that leads to it contains a false lemma. r.p.l.t. W. Hodges, Logic, sect. 11 (Harmondsworth, 1977). Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (1870–1924). Lenin was the leader of the Bolshevik faction in Russian politics and architect of the 1917 Revolution. Although thus not primarily interested in philosophy, his two major contributions in this field were of considerable influence. The first of these, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (1909) was an extended polemic against his fellow Bolshe- vik Bogdanov’s espousal of Mach’s view that the world consisted entirely of sensations. Lenin’s account was largely a simplified version of the philosophy found in Engels’s later writings. It consisted in a fairly crude materialism whose central themes were the two doctrines of the external reality of the world and the ‘copy’ theory of knowledge. Lenin was not so much interested here in the philosophical arguments as in maintaining his view that, under the circumstances, this was the only philosophy that would benefit the proletariat. After the 1914 débâcle, however, Lenin took a much less instrumental view of philosophy. In order to reorientate his perspective in face of the catastrophe that had over- taken European socialism, Lenin spent an amazing amount of time studying Hegel in great detail. The contrast between *materialism and *idealism characteristic of his earlier work was now replaced by a contrast between dialectical and non-dialectical thinking. Lenin emphasized the influence of Hegel’s Logicon Marx and even went so far as to claim that human consciousness not only reflected the objective world but created it. Although only published posthumously in 1929, the Philosophical Notebooks in which this study was recorded did much to renew interest in the Hegelian roots of Marxism. d.m cl. *empirio-criticism. L. Althusser, Lenin and Philosophy (London, 1972). V. Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (Moscow, 1964). —— Collected Works, xxxviii: Philosophical Notebooks (Moscow, 1967). lesbian feminism. Lesbian feminists are largely concerned with issues at the intersection of female identity and lesbian feminism 511 sexual–affectional orientation. Issues which arise at this intersection are distinct from those that arise around sex–gender and sexual–affectional orientation in general. Most lesbian feminists hold that self-conscious lesbianism threatens dominant political and social systems in a way that other identities (e.g. as woman or as gay man) do not. The reasoning is this: Patriarchal systems are founded on valuing men above women. Both heterosexuality and male *homosexuality preserves this valuing of men above women. Only lesbian *feminism which explicitly values women and is largely unconcerned with men really chal- lenges this valuing. For a woman to love another woman is thus a political and revolutionary act. Other philosophical issues associated with lesbian feminism include: whether lesbian identity is essential or socially constructed, whether there is a distinctly lesbian ethics, whether lesbian feminists should be separatists (withdraw as far as possible from patriarchal political and social systems). c.m ck. Marilyn Frye, The Politics of Reality (Trumansbrug, NY, 1983). Adrienne Rich, On Lies, Secrets and Silences (New York, 1979). Lesńiewski, Stanislaw (1886–1939). Polish logician. He reacted to the logical *paradoxes by demanding extreme rigour in logic. For example, he maintained that a system of logic should involve no assumptions about the world, except what is involved in identifying a written formula. This led him to develop three unorthodox axiomatic systems of logic: protothetic, ontology, and mereology. Pro- tothetic is a system of propositional logic based on the notion of equivalence, mereology axiomatizes the part–whole relation, and ontology involves a controversial attempt to interpret *quantifiers without assuming that anything exists beyond written expressions. Lesńiewski also proposed an unusually sophisticated theory of *definitions. His influence has largely been indirect, through his students (notably Tarski, whose definition of truth owes much to him). This may change if his writings become available in English. w.a.h. Peter M. Simons, ‘Lesńiewski’s Logic and its Relation to Classical and Free Logics’, in Georg Dorn and P. Weingartner (eds.), Foundations of Logic and Linguistics: Problems and their Solutions (New York, 1985). Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim (1729–81). German philosopher and dramatist, who upheld the *Enlightenment ideals of freedom and tolerance, but in aesthetics antici- pated Romanticism. In Laocoon: On the Limits of Painting and Poetry (1766) he tried to distinguish the laws governing the literary and the pictorial arts, and opposed Winckel- mann’s classical aesthetics, in favour of expressive art free of formal constraints. In a series of papers, the Hamburg Dramaturgy (1767–9), he discussed the true nature of Aristotelian catharsis and the superiority of Shakespeare to French tragedy. His theological works, especially The Education of the Human Race (1780), attacked religious dogmatism in the name of true religion. ‘What education is to the individual man, revelation is to the whole human race’: an age in which men will fulfil their duty for its own sake will follow the present age of pleasure and ambi- tion. His avowal of Spinozism, just before his death, stimulated the revival of Spinoza, previously treated as a ‘dead dog’. m.j.i. A. Ugrinsky (ed.), Lessing and the Enlightenment (London, 1986). Leucippus (5th century bc). The founder of *atomism. Virtually nothing is known of his life, and his very existence was disputed in antiquity, but his role as the origina- tor of atomism is firmly attested by Aristotle and Theophrastus, though the evidence does not allow any distinction between his doctrines and those of his more celebrated successor Democritus. He wrote a comprehensive account of the universe, the Great World-System. The single surviving quotation from his work (from a work entitled On Mind, which may have been a part of the Great World-System) asserts universal *determinism: ‘Nothing happens at random, but everything from a rational principle and of necessity.’ c.c.w.t. D. Furley, The Greek Cosmologists (Cambridge, 1987), ch. 9. Leviathan. LEVIATHAN or the Matter, Form, and Power of A COMMONWEALTH Ecclesiastical and Civil, Hobbes’s master- piece on moral and political philosophy, was published in 1651 (Latin version 1668). The title comes from chapter 41 of the book of Job. The leviathan is a sea monster who ‘is a king over all the children of pride’ (verse 34). That Hobbes chose Leviathan as the title of his book shows that he regarded pride, in particular the view that the individual citizen knows enough to challenge the laws of the sover- eign, as providing an explanation of why an artificial leviathan, the state, needs to have absolute power. The book is divided into four parts: the first provides an account of persons prior to the state; the second shows how the state must be constructed to serve its purpose, lasting peace; the third shows how this is compatible with Christian Scripture; and the fourth is an attack on Roman Catholicism. The importance of religion is shown by the fact that the third and fourth parts comprise half of the book. b.g. Levinas, Emmanuel (1906–1995). French philosopher influenced by *phenomenology and *Jewish philosophy. Born in Lithuania, Levinas introduced phenomenology into France in the 1930s after studying with Husserl and Heidegger, thinkers to whom he owes a clear debt. His lec- tures (Time and the Other (1948) ) introduced themes such as time, death, and relations with others which are expanded in his major work, Totality and Infinity (1961). His main con- cern is to delineate an ethical ‘face-to-face’ relation with the Other, which, while immediate and singular, is none the less transcendent. Seeking such a possibility takes him to the ‘limits of phenomenology’, and to criticize many previ- ous philosophers for their preoccupations with ontology. In Otherwise than Being (1974) he seeks language forms which might circumvent such preoccupations, and enable an ethical exchange with the *Other. Levinas also published religious Talmudic readings. a.c.a. 512 lesbian feminism *French philosophy, today. Sean Hand (ed.), The Levinas Reader (Oxford, 1989). Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1908– ). Anthropologist and ethnographer; leading exponent of the method of *struc- turalism as applied to myth, ritual, oral narrative, kinship systems, and modes of symbolic representation. His aim is not so much to interpret particular instances, but rather to reveal the underlying structure—the deep grammar of mythical thought—which unites the otherwise endless multiplicity of culture-specific meanings and forms. Thus an ancient Greek and a modern Amerindian or Eskimo myth may well turn out, despite all their surface differences, to derive from the same generative matrix of conflicts posed and resolved. For Lévi-Strauss, mythical thought is a kind of ‘bricolage’, a logic that makes do with all manner of found or improvised cultural material, but which cannot be regarded as in any sense more ‘primitive’ than our own. His work thus combines a rigorous formal- ism with an immense range of sources—drawing upon cultures past and present—and a style that on occasion seeks to orchestrate these themes in a quasi-Wagnerian polyphony of themes. c.n. Claude Lévi-Strauss, The Raw and the Cooked, tr. J. and D. Weight- man (New York, 1969). —— The View from Afar, tr. J. Neugroschel and P. Hoss (New York, 1985). Lévy-Bruhl, Lucien (1857–1939). Largely remembered for his studies Primitive Mentality and How Natives Think. Lévy-Bruhl argued that the mentality of so-called primitive peoples was radically different from that of Western rationality. He characterized primitive experience as ‘mystical’ in the sense of being dominated by affectivity, whereas scientific experience is largely cognitive. Further- more, the ‘pre-logical thought’ of primitive peoples is bound, not so much by the law of non-contradiction, as by participation, as when members of a totemic group understand themselves to be identical with their totem. How- ever, in the Notebooks written during his last two years, Lévy-Bruhl conceded that the isolation of a general primitive mentality had misdirected him: mystical participation is more easily observable among primitive peoples, but is present in every mind. r.l.b. J. Cazeneuve, Lucien Lévy-Bruhl (New York, 1972). Lewis, Clarence Irving (1883–1964). American philosopher whose early work focused on symbolic and modal logic and who then went on to work in epistemology, general value theory, social philosophy, and ethics. He argued that empirical knowledge depends upon both a sensuous or subjective *‘given’ and an *a priori set of principles and categories through which we interpret the given. Accord- ing to his ‘conceptualistic pragmatism’, however, the a priori ‘has alternatives’; it is not a set of eternal or self-evident truths or necessary structures of the mind, but a set of conceptual schemes whose organization of our experience is subject to modification on pragmatic grounds, subject to change, that is, when it does not conduce to the ‘long-run satisfaction’ of our human needs. k.h. P. A. Schilpp, The Philosophy of C. I. Lewis (La Salle, Ill., 1966). Lewis, David K. (1941–2001). One of the most important and influential figures in American philosophy in the late twentieth century. Lewis studied at Harvard with Quine, and spent four years at UCLA (in the company of Mon- tague and Carnap) before moving to Princeton, where he taught for thirty years. He was also a regular visitor to Aus- tralia, where he found, and helped to shape, a lively philosophical scene. He contributed significantly to the philosophies of mind, language, and logic, but he is best known for his systematic metaphysical system dominated by two ideas. One is the thesis he calls ‘Humean supervenience’: the claim that the world entirely consists of local physical matters of fact, and all other facts supervene on these facts. (*Supervenience.) This thesis is Humean in its denial of necessary connections between matters of fact. The other is his modal realism: other possible worlds and their inhabitants exist. (*Possible worlds.) Lewis argues for his modal realism by appealing to its philosophical utility: real possible worlds are invoked to explain such diverse phenomena as causation, conditionals, the contents of propositional attitudes, and the nature of properties. As Lewis says, his modal realism has met with many ‘incredu- lous stares’ but few convincing counter-arguments. t.c. *modal realism. D. K. Lewis, Philosophical Papers, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1986). Lexicon, the Philosophical. Originally compiled by Daniel Dennett and Joe Lambert, and later by Dennett alone, this collection of definitions converts proper names of (mostly twentieth-century) philosophers into common nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives. Entry examples follow. braithwaite, n. The interval of time between two books. ‘His second book followed his first after a long braithwaite.’ carnap, n. A formally defined symbol, oper- ator, special bit of notation. grice, n. Conceptual intricacy. ‘His examination of Hume is distinguished by erudition and grice.’ Hence, griceful, adj., and griceless, adj., ‘An obvi- ous and griceless polemic’. hintikka, n. A measure of belief, the smallest logically discernible difference between beliefs; ‘He argued with me all night, but did not alter my beliefs one hintikka.’ quine, v. To deny resolutely the existence or importance of something real or significant. ‘Some philosophers have quined classes, and some have even quined physical objects.’ Occasionally used intr., e.g., ‘You think I quine, sir. I assure you I do not!’ The eighth edition of the Lexicon is available from the Ameri- can Philosophical Association. d.h.s. lex talionis. The law of retaliation, according to which deserved *punishment is neither more nor less than the harm done in a crime, and ideally mirrors the crime. It appears in the Code of Hammurabi (c.1700 bc) but is best lex talionis 513 known in the biblical statement ‘life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . . wound for wound . . . ’ (Exodus 21: 22–5). Commentators agree that the biblical lex talionis was introduced as a moral upper bound on permissible *revenge, i.e. take in retaliation no more than an eye for an eye, etc. Lex talionis, also referred to as jus talionis (the right of retaliation), e.g. by Kant, is most plausibly confined to crimes against the person. Yet even here adjustments must be made; thus, the Code of Hammurabi provided that the son who strikes his father is not to be struck in return; he is to lose his hand. As Blackstone pointed out in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–70), ‘there are very many crimes, that will in no shape admit of these penalties, without manifest absurdity and wickedness’. h.a.b. Marvin Henberg, Retribution: Evil for Evil in Ethics Law, and Litera- ture (Philadelphia, 1990). li : see Confucianism. liar paradox. Semantic paradox, known in antiquity, focus of much recent work. Jack says ‘I am now speaking falsely’, referring to the words he is then uttering. If Jack speaks truly when he says he is speaking falsely, he is speaking falsely. If he is speaking falsely when this is what he says is going on, he is speaking truly. So what he says is true if, and only if, it is false; which seems absurd. One response claims that Jack says nothing true and nothing false. But a variant makes trouble: Jill says ‘I am now not speaking truly’. If Jill is not speaking truly when this is what she says she is up to, she is speaking truly. If she is speaking truly, then she must be doing what she says, that is, not speakingly truly. So, it seems, what she says is true if, and only if, it is not true. r.m.s. *paradoxes. Mark Sainsbury, Paradoxes (New York, 1988), ch. 5. liberalism. One of the major political ideologies of the modern world, liberalism is distinguished by the importance it attaches to the civil and political *rights of individuals. Liberals demand a substantial realm of personal *freedom—including freedom of conscience, speech, association, occupation, and, more recently, sexuality— which the state should not intrude upon, except to protect others from harm. Major philosophical exponents of liberalism include Locke, Kant, Constant, Humboldt, J. S. Mill, Green, Hobhouse, and, in the post-war era, Berlin, Hart, Rawls, and Dworkin. Liberalism first emerged as an important movement in Europe in the sixteenth century. Today, particularly after the decline of *communism, it is the dominant ideology in many parts of the world. There are two familiar ways of explaining the rise of liberalism. On one view, liberalism grew out of the recognition that *toleration was the only alternative to the Wars of Religion. After innumerable wars, both Protestants and Catholics accepted that the state could not impose a common faith, and that the only stable basis for a political regime was to separate Church and State. Liberalism has simply extended this principle from the sphere of religion to other areas of social life where citizens have conflicting beliefs about the meaning of life. A liberal state does not seek to resolve these conflicts, but rather provides a ‘neutral’ framework within which citizens can pursue their diverse conceptions of the good life. Liberalism, on this view, is the only humane response to the inevitable pluralism and diversity of modern societies. Liberalism’s critics, however, argue that liberalism emerged as the ideological justification for the rise of *cap- italism, and that its image of the autonomous individual is simply a glorification of the pursuit of self-interest in the market. Liberalism replaced the web of mutual obliga- tions which bound people together in ethnic, religious, or other communities with a society predicated on competi- tion and atomistic *individualism. There is perhaps some truth in both of these explana- tions. Liberalism was historically associated with capital- ism, although most liberals today accept that *justice requires regulating the market to ensure equality of opportunity. Those who continue to defend free markets and absolute property rights, such as Hayek and Nozick, are now called classical liberals or *libertarians, as opposed to welfare liberals or liberal egalitarians, such as Rawls and Dworkin. (In Europe, the term ‘liberal’ is more likely to refer to a defender of the free market; in North America, to a defender of the welfare state.) A major challenge for liberal philosophers has been to explain why individual freedom should have priority over competing values such as community or *perfectionism. Why should the state allow individuals to criticize and abandon the traditional customs of the community, or engage in degrading or worthless life styles? It is often assumed that the defence of liberalism must ultimately rest on some form of *subjectivism or *scepticism about values. If people’s values are merely subjective preferences, lacking any rational or objective basis, then there is no justification for the state to prefer some ways of life over others. Few liberals have endorsed this subjectivist argument, although it is commonly attributed to them by critics. Sub- jectivism provides a weak defence of individual freedom. For one thing, it conflicts with the way most people understand the value of their own lives, since we typically assume that some ways of leading our lives are intrinsically better than others. Moreover, if subjectivism were true, it would leave liberal values equally without rational foun- dation. When liberals argue that a state which upholds individual rights and equality of opportunity is better than a totalitarian or caste society, they view this as a rationally defensible moral belief, not simply as their subjective pref- erence. But if claims about rights and justice are rationally defensible, then so presumably are claims about the value of different conceptions of the good. As a result, most liberals have sought to defend freedom of choice without 514 lex talionis denying that the worth of different conceptions of the good life can be rationally evaluated. There are a variety of non-sceptical arguments for freedom of choice within the liberal tradition. *Utilitarian and *pragmatist liberals offer various reasons why state coer- cion and paternalism are counter-productive over the long-term. For example, they argue that truth emerges from free debate with falsehood, and that valuable ways of life emerge from initially unsuccessful experiments in living. Moreover, giving the state the power to decide which ways of life are valuable and which are not increases the potential for the abuse of state power, arbitrary discrim- ination, tyranny, and civil strife. The advocates of different ways of life will end up fighting over which conceptions of the good should be promoted by the state, and which should be discouraged. Given that the merits of different ways of life are controversial, liberalism’s neutrality provides the only way for the proponents of conflicting ways of life to live together. These considerations are not insignificant, but they provide only contingent and indirect support for freedom. They point to various undesirable social consequences that might accompany the restriction on individual liberty, but they do not yet provide any reason for thinking that individuals have an inherent right to a certain sphere of liberty, or that there is any intrinsic injustice in limiting people’s freedom. Many liberals have sought to find a more principled argument for individual freedom. Kantian liberals, for example, argue that the capacity for rational *autonomy is the highest capacity humans possess, and so is worthy of inherent respect. To restrict someone’s freedom of choice, on this Kantian view, is to treat them as less than a fully mature and responsible human being, and this is wrong regardless of the desirable or undesirable social consequences that might follow. To respect someone entails respecting her capacity to judge for herself which customs, practices and traditions are worth maintaining. This Kantian view has been very influential in the liberal tradition. However, it rests on a controversial claim about the nature of moral value and moral respect. The Kantian view is disputed by many cultural and religious traditions that emphasize instead the value of piety, defer- ence to authority, and respect for tradition. Indeed, many critics argue that using the state to promote the Kantian ideal of rational autonomy is as ‘sectarian’ as using the state to promote Protestantism, and as likely to lead to civil strife. Some groups, particularly conservative religious groups, will view the state promotion of Kantian autonomy as a direct attack on their own way of life. Critics of the Kantian approach argue that liberals should therefore avoid appealing to the value of autonomy, and instead defend liberalism simply as the only viable basis for peaceful coexistence in culturally and reli- giously plural societies. These ‘modus vivendi’ liberals argue that liberalism should be defended as guaranteeing tolerance between different ways of life, not as promoting the autonomy of individuals. Kantian liberals respond, however, that without appealing to the value of individual autonomy, there is no reason why coexistence between groups should take the form of guaranteeing the rights of individuals. Why not just allow each group in society to organize itself as it sees fit, even if this involves restricting the rights of its individual members? Enforcing individual rights sometimes means interfering with, rather than tolerating, various group practices, and this can only be justified (or so Kan- tians claim) by invoking the value of individual autonomy. This internecine disagreement between Kantian autonomy-based liberals and modus vivendi, tolerance-based liberals remains unresolved. (The two sides are also sometimes described as ‘comprehensive’ versus ‘political’ liberals, or as ‘Enlightenment’ versus ‘Reformation’ liberals.) Even if one accepts the liberal commitment to individual freedom, there are questions about its social and cultural pre-conditions. The capacity to make choices in a rational and informed manner is not innate—it must be developed in the course of one’s upbringing and education. Moreover, freedom of choice is only meaningful if individuals have an adequate range of options to choose from—that is, if diverse life-styles and customs exist in society. Some *communitarian critics argue that liberalism has not attended to these wider social pre-conditions of *liberty. Indeed, critics argue that the unfettered exercise of individual freedom of choice will undermine the forms of family and community life which help develop people’s capacity for choice and provide people with meaningful options. On this view, liberalism is self-defeating—liberals privilege individual rights, even when this undermines the social conditions which make individual freedom valuable. Liberals respond to this criticism by arguing that individual rights, far from dissolving valuable social groups and associations, provide the best protection for them. Those groups which are truly worthy of people’s allegiance will survive through the free assent and voluntary participation of their members. Those groups which need state support to survive, because they cannot maintain or recruit members, are often not worthy of allegiance or support. The example of religious toleration suggests that there is some merit to this liberal response. Legal guaran- tees of individual freedom of conscience have provided ample protection for a wide range of religious groups, while preventing the dangers that often accompany state- sponsored religion. Whether this example can be general- ized is open to debate. A similar question has been raised about the long-term political stability of a liberal society. Non-liberal societies are typically held together by shared conceptions of the good, such as a common religion, or by common ethni- city. Members of these societies are willing to make sacrifices for each other because of their commonalities. But what holds a society together when its members come from different ethnic and racial backgrounds and do not share a common conception of the good life? Some liberals suggest that the tie that binds the citizens of a liberal society is simply a shared commitment to liberalism 515 liberal principles of freedom and *equality. It is debatable whether this is a ‘thick’ enough bond to keep a *multicultural society together. After all, a liberal society makes many demands of its members: they must be willing to accept considerable sacrifices (e.g. military service), to take an interest in public affairs, and to exercise self- restraint in their personal actions and political demands. Liberals have tended to focus on the rights of *citizenship, but a liberal society would stop functioning if its citizens did not also accept certain duties and exercise certain virtues. It seems likely that a sense of commonality is needed for individuals to accept these sorts of duties. *Conservative critics have argued that the stability of liberal societies is based on a pre-liberal sense of shared identity. Citizens of England, for example, do not see each other primarily as individual rights-holders, but as fellow members of the English *nation, with a shared history and culture. This gives rise to a sense of solidarity which is prior to, and deeper than, a shared commitment to liberalism. It is this national solidarity which explains why the English work together, and make sacrifices for each other. Conser- vatives worry that this sense of being members of the same ‘people’ or culture or community is gradually being eroded by the individualism of liberal rights, which treats people in abstraction from their communal ties and responsibilities. Interestingly, many nineteenth-century liberals, agreed that liberalism is viable only in countries with a sense of common nationhood, a new shared by some recent theorists of ‘liberal nationalism’. Most post-war liberal theorists, however, have rejected the idea that liberalism should ally itself with nationalism, and have instead asserted that a common commitment to liberal principles is a sufficient basis for social unity even in multicultural countries. Habermas’s idea of ‘constitutional patriotism’ is one example of this view, explicitly offered as an alternative to nationalist theories of social cohesion. One difficulty with this view is that it provides no guid- ance on how the boundaries of distinct political communities should be drawn. Indeed, it provides no explanation for why there should be distinct political communities at all. Why shouldn’t all societies that share liberal values merge into a single state, aiming ultimately to create a single world state? If we reject the nationalist belief that states have the right and responsibility to express particular national identities, languages, and cultures, why shouldn’t liberals favour abolishing existing nation-states and replacing them with a thoroughgoing *cosmopolitanism of open borders within a single global state? Few liberal theorists are willing to take this step towards an unqualified liberal cosmopolitanism, and most believe that nation-states remain the only viable forum for the implementation of liberal-democratic values. Yet equally few liberals are willing to acknowledge that these liberal nation-states depend for their viability not only on adherence to liberal values, but also on the inculcation of deeper feelings of national identity. Whether the cohesion of a liberal society depends on some prior sense of identity remains an important topic for debate. Whatever the explanation, national liberal societies have in fact proven remarkably stable. Dire warnings about liberalism’s inability to contain the cen- trifugal tendencies of individual freedom can be found in every generation for the last three centuries, yet it appears that liberal societies have managed to endure while various forms of monarchy, theocracy, authoritarianism, and communism have come and gone. Despite these disagreements about its philosophical foundations and sociological feasibility, the basic language of liberalism—individual rights, liberty, equality of opportunity—has become the dominant language of public discourse in most modern democracies. w.k. *anti-communism; civil society; liberty and equality; utilitarianism; well-being. Ronald Dworkin, ‘Liberalism’, in A Matter of Principle (Cam- bridge, Mass., 1985). L. T. Hobhouse, Liberalism (Oxford, 1964). J. S. Mill, Utilitarianism, On Liberty, Considerations on Representative Government, ed. H. B. Acton (London, 1972). John Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York, 1993). Michael Sandel (ed.), Liberalism and its Critics (New York, 1984). Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (Princeton, NJ, 1993). libertarianism. The theory about freedom that despite what has happened in the past, and given the present state of affairs and ourselves just as they are, we can choose or decide differently than we do—act so as to make the future different. Libertarianism asserts the freedom of the *will or *origination, and is contrasted with *determinism. Contemporary libertarians may cite quantum mechanics as evidence that determinism is false. Even if this is so, the random behaviour of atoms certainly does not by itself make for the freedom and moral responsibility asserted by libertarians. r.c.w. *freedom and determinism; determinism, scientific. C. A. Campbell, ‘Is “Freewill” a Pseudo-Problem?’, Mind (1951). J. C. Eccles and K. R. Popper, The Self and its Brain (Berlin, 1977). libertarianism, left ‘Left-libertarianism’ is a new term for an old conception of *justice, dating back to Grotius. It combines the *libertarian assumption that each person pos- sesses a natural right of self-ownership over his person with the *egalitarian premiss that natural resources should be shared equally. Right-wing libertarians argue that the right of self-ownership entails the right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as unequal amounts of land. According to left-libertarians, however, the world’s natural resources were initially unowned, or belonged equally to all, and it is illegitimate for anyone to claim exclu- sive private ownership of these resources to the detriment of others. Such private appropriation is legitimate only if everyone can appropriate an equal amount, or if those who appropriate more are taxed to compensate those who are thereby excluded from what was once common property. Historic proponents of this view include Thomas Paine, Herbert Spencer, and Henry George. Recent exponents include Philippe Van Parijs and Hillel Steiner. w.k. 516 liberalism *libertarianism, political. P. Vallentyne and H. Steiner (eds.), Left-Libertarianism and its Crit- ics (Basingstoke, 2000). libertarianism, political. A theory grounded in the right of free choice. Libertarianism comes in at least two varieties, both with roots in the writings of John Locke. One variety starts from the stipulation of particular *rights, often by direct intuition. The other grounds individual rights in causal assumptions about what leads to *freedom and productivity. Some libertarians mix these elements, arguing from intuition but hedging their discussions with references to the effects of a system of rights. Two issues, one conceptual and one practical, drive much of the dis- cussion of libertarianism. Conceptually, there is a conflict between individual interest and its collective provision— it is odd that libertarian rights may work against our inter- ests. Practically, it seems virtually impossible that a state could arise and survive by strictly libertarian principles in a competitive world. r.c.w. *libertarianism, left Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York, 1974). libertinism. A sixteenth- and seventeenth-century, mainly French and Italian, current which rejected Christ- ian revelation and set up reason and nature alone as the criteria of morality, law, and politics. The term libertin was first used by Calvin against religious dissenters who wanted freedom of conscience in matters of faith and morals. Libertinism was then applied more widely to the following positions: the rejection as invalid of theology and metaphysics anchored to ‘divine’ revelation (especially the immortality of the soul, punishments and rewards in the afterlife, teleology in nature, and a provi- dential ordering of history); pluralism in matters of religion and ethics; a sceptical defence of doubt in philosophical and religious matters; assertion of the his- torical origin and consequent human fabrication of reli- gions, creeds, and dogmas; *atheism or at least *deism; and Epicureanism. Major French figures include Pierre Charron, Montaigne, François de La Mothe le Vayer, and Pierre Gassendi. In Italy, libertine thinkers like Pietro Pomponazzi, Giulio Cesare Vanini, Bruno, and Cam- panella follow a naturalistic interpretation of Aristotelian psychology and physics. A popular image of the allegedly depraved libertine is preserved in the character of Don Juan–Don Giovanni: sexually promiscuous, atheist, mocker of human and divine law. l.p. R. Pintard, Le Libertinage érudit dans la première moitié du XVII e siè- cle (Geneva, 1983). G. Spini, Ricerca dei libertini (Florence, 1983). liberty. What is political liberty? In the ancient world, particularly among the Greeks, to be free was to be able to participate in the government of one’s city. The laws were valid only if one had had the right to take part in making and unmaking them. To be free was not to be forced to obey laws made by others for one but not by one. This kind of *democracy entailed that government and laws could penetrate into every province of life. Man was not free, nor did he claim freedom, from such supervision. All democrats claimed was that every man was equally liable to criticism, investigation, and if need be arraignment before the laws, or other arrangements, in the establishing and maintaining of which all the citizens had the right to participate. In the modern world, a new idea—most clearly formulated by Benjamin Constant—makes itself felt, namely that there is a province of life—private life—with which it is thought undesirable, save in exceptional circumstances, for public authority to interfere. The central question posed by the ancient world is ‘Who shall govern me?’ Some said a monarch, some said the best, or the richest, or the bravest, or the majority, or the law courts, or the unan- imous vote of all. In the modern world, an equally important question is ‘How much government should there be?’ The ancient world assumed that life was one, and that laws and the government covered the whole of it—there was no reason to protect any corner of it from such supervision. In the modern world, whether historically because of struggles of the Churches against intervention by the secu- lar State, or of the State against the Church, or as a result of the growth of private enterprise, industry, commerce, and its desire for protection against State interference, or for whatever reason, we proceed on the assumption that there is a frontier between public and private life; and that, however small the private sphere may be, within it I can do as I please—live as I like, believe what I want, say what I please—provided this does not interfere with the similar rights of others, or undermine the order which makes this kind of arrangement possible. This is the classical liberal view, in whole or part expressed in various declarations of the rights of man in America and France, and in the writings of men like Locke, Voltaire, Tom Paine, Constant, and John Stuart Mill. When we speak of civil liberties or civilized values, this is part of what is meant. The assumption that men need protection against each other and against the government is something which has never been fully accepted in any part of the world, and what I have called the ancient Greek or classical point of view comes back in the form of arguments such as this: ‘You say that an individual has the right to choose the kind of life he or she prefers. But does this apply to everyone? If the individual is ignorant, immature, uneducated, men- tally crippled, denied adequate opportunities of health and development, he or she will not know how to choose. Such a person will never truly know what it is he or she really wants. If there are others who understand what human nature is and what it craves, and if they do for people, perhaps by some measure of control, what they would be doing for themselves if they were wiser, better informed, maturer, more developed, are they curtailing the freedom of these others? They are interfering with people as they are, but only in order to enable them to do what they would do if they knew enough, or were always liberty 517 at their best, instead of yielding to irrational motives, or behaving childishly, or allowing the animal side of their nature the upper hand. Is this then interference at all? If parents or teachers compel unwilling children to go to school or to work hard, in the name of what those children must really want, even though they may not know it, since that is what all men and women as such must want because they are human, then are they curtailing the liberty of the children? Surely not. Teachers and parents are bringing out their submerged or real selves, and catering to their needs, as against the transient demands of the more superficial self which greater maturity will slough off like a skin.’ If you substitute for parents a church or a party or a state, you get a theory on which much modern authority is based. We are told that to obey these institutions is but to obey ourselves, and therefore no slavery, for these institutions embody ourselves at our best and wisest, and self- restraint is not restraint, self-control is not slavery. The battle between these two views, in all kinds of ver- sions, has been one of the cardinal political issues of modern times. One side says that to put the bottle beyond the dipsomaniac’s reach is not to curtail his liberties; if he is prevented from drinking, even by force, he will be health- ier and therefore better capable of playing his part as man and citizen, will be more himself, and therefore freer, than if he reaches the bottle and destroys his health and sanity. The fact that he does not know this is merely a symptom of his disease, or ignorance of his own true wishes. The other side denies not that anti-social behaviour must be restrained, or that there is a case for preventing men from harming themselves or from harming the welfare of their children or of others, but that such a restraint, though justified, is liberty. Liberty may have to be curtailed to make room for other good things, security or peace or health; or liberty today may have to be curtailed to make possible wider liberty tomorrow; but to curtail freedom is not to provide it, and compulsion, no matter how well justified, is compulsion and not liberty. Freedom, such people say, is only one value among many, and if it is an obstacle to the securing of other equally important ends, or interferes with other people’s opportunities of reaching these ends, it must make way. To this the other side replies that this presupposes a division of life into private and public—it assumes that men may wish in their private lives to do what others may not like, and therefore need protection from these others—but that this view of human nature rests on a fundamental mistake. The human being is one, and in the ideal society, when everyone’s faculties are developed, nobody will ever want to do anything that others may resent or wish to stop. The proper purpose of reformers and revo- lutionaries is to knock down walls between men, bring everything into the open, make men and women live together without partitions, so that what one wants all want. The desire to be left alone, to be allowed to do what one wishes without needing to account for it to some tri- bunal—one’s family, or one’s employers, or one’s party, or one’s government, or indeed the whole of one’s society—this desire is a symptom of maladjustment. To ask for freedom from society is to ask for freedom from one- self. This must be cured by altering property relations as socialists desire to do, or by eliminating critical reason as some religious sects and, for that matter, communist and fascist regimes seek to do. In one view—which might be called organic—all sepa- rateness is bad, and the notion of human rights which must not be trampled on is that of dams—walls demanded by human beings to separate them from one another, needed perhaps in a bad society, but with no place in a justly organized world in which all human streams flow into one undivided human river. On the second or liberal view, human rights, and the idea of a private sphere in which I am free from scrutiny, is indispensable to that minimum of independence which everyone needs if he is to develop, each on his own lines; for variety is of the essence of the human race, not a passing condition. Pro- ponents of this view think that destruction of such rights in order to build one universal self-directing human society—of everyone marching towards the same rational ends—destroys that area for individual choice, however small, without which life does not seem worth living. In a crude and, some have maintained, a distorted form, totalitarian and authoritarian regimes have stood for one of these views: while liberal democracies incline to the other. And, of course, varieties and combinations of these views, and compromises between them, are possible. They are the two cardinal ideas that have faced one another and dominated the world since, say, the Renaissance. i.b. *freedom through goodness and reason; political freedom. Isaiah Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty (London, 1969), esp. ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’. —— ‘Herzen and Bakunin on Individual Liberty’, in Russian Thinkers (London, 1978). John Gray, Liberalism (Milton Keynes, 1986). J. S. Mill, On Liberty (London, 1859). David Miller (ed.), Liberty (Oxford, 1991). John Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York, 1993). liberty and equality. Some philosophers have argued that these two values are bound to conflict with one another. Given the differences in people’s abilities, they say, there will be an inevitable tendency for some to be more successful than others. Inequalities can therefore be prevented only by the strict exercise of authority to limit the prosper- ity of the more successful. To this others have replied that all members of society need to share equally in the material wealth and political power which are the pre-conditions of effective freedom; liberty and equality are therefore not conflicting but complementary values. r.j.n. *liberty; equality; political freedom; well-being. Richard Norman, Free and Equal (Oxford, 1987). Lichtenberg, Georg Christoph (1742–99). German physicist whose fame rests, apart from an experiment in 518 liberty electricity, on aphorisms. He was a man of the Enlighten- ment: ‘All the mischief in the world may be put down to the general, indiscriminate veneration of old laws, old customs and old religion.’ He straddles *Kantianism and *scepticism: ‘If an angel were to tell us his philosophy, I think many of his statements might sound like “2 × 2= 13”.’ He doubted even Descartes’s *cogito: ‘It thinks, we really ought to say, just as we say, it thunders. To say cogito is too much, if we translate this as “I think” ’; ‘I and myself. I feel myself—these are two distinct things. Our false philosophy is incorporated in our whole language; we cannot reason without, so to speak, reasoning wrongly. We over- look the fact that speaking, no matter of what, is itself a philosophy.’ Schopenhauer often quotes him, and Hegel, in his Phenomenology of Spirit, cites his satirical critique of Lavater’s theory of physiognomy (On Physiognomy (1778) ). What he said of others applies to himself: ‘Earth has greater need of their kind than Heaven.’ m.j.i. J. P. Stern, Lichtenberg: A Doctrine of Scattered Occasions (Blooming- ton, Ind., 1959). lie, noble: see noble lie. Lieh Tzu. Daoist philosopher (440?–360 bc?). The Lieh Tzu text (c.third century ad?) is polysemic in style: a collection of narratives having multiple application—cosmological, linguistic, personal, socio-political. Developing the philosophies of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, it interprets the processes of life and death with a yin-yang cosmology. Investigation of the way (tao) is not a theoretical enterprise, but a psycho-physical discipline resulting in an embodied understanding of processes of transformation, and in an exceptional skill in negotiating our life activities. s.c. The Book of Lieh-tzu: A Classic of Tao, tr. A. C. Graham (New York, 1990). life. This, the distinguishing feature of organisms, is best thought of as involving some kind of complex organization, giving an ability to use energy sources for self- maintenance and reproduction. Efforts to find some dis- tinctive substance characterizing life have proven as futile as they have been heroic. The one thing which is clear is that any analysis of life must accept and appreciate that there will be many borderline instances, like viruses. Incon- venient as this may be for the lexicographer, this is precisely what *evolution theory would lead us to expect. m.r. *vitalism. J. B. S. Haldane, ‘What is Life?’; repr. in M. Ruse, Philosophy of Biology (New York, 1989). life, form of: see form of life. life, the good. Perhaps the most fundamental question in ethics is that posed by Socrates: How should one live? But this question covers not just the ‘moral’ aspects of our con- duct, such as the observance of duties, or our contribution to the general welfare, but also those other more personal and individual aspects of a life which may make it worthwhile, or give it meaning. Aristotle’s theory of virtue aimed to lay down the ingredients of eudaimonia (or human fulfilment), and though this included many elements of what we would now call morality, it was also concerned with the good life for humans in the sense of a flourishing or successful life. Later *Stoic and *Christian systems of ethics continued this tradition, though often in a more ‘inner-oriented’ way: they gave particular promi- nence to what we might now call ‘spiritual’ practices, the cultivation of disciplines aimed at deepening our self- awareness, and enabling us to live harmonious and ordered lives. Several modern philosophers have been interested in these more personal and individual aspects of what makes a life worthwhile, and have begun to reconsider notions that were prominent in the ethical writings of earlier ages—the importance of character, self-reflection, the nature of the self , and the relationship between the intel- lect and the emotions. The stress on the ‘interior’ dimen- sion connects up with the ancient theme of self-awareness as basic to the good life, as in the Delphic motto, ‘Know thyself’; the ‘descent into the inner self’ was also a fundamental theme of St Augustine’s famous ethical and religious work, the Confessions. More recently, psychoana- lytic writers have underlined the importance of uncover- ing the hidden drives and projections that may distort our perceptions and choices, and this has influenced philosophical work on self-integration as fundamental to the good life. There are also important philosophical questions to be asked about the relationship between these broadly ethical concerns and other quite distinct ingredients of good human lives, such as creativity and artistic achievement, the pursuit of which may often appear to conflict with personal equilibrium or commitments to others. Finally, a good human life is often supposed to be one that has meaning; it may be asked whether this simply refers to the fact that a life contains various individually worthwhile ingredients, or whether it implies some over- arching purpose or goal. j.cot. John Cottingham, Philosophy and the Good Life (Cambridge, 1998). Charles Guignon (ed.), The Good Life (Indianapolis, 1999). Pierre Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life (Oxford, 1995). John Kekes, Moral Wisdom and Good Lives (Ithaca, NY, 1995). Alexander Nehamas, The Art of Living (Berkeley, Calif., 1998). Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self (Cambridge, Mass., 1989). life, the meaning of. ‘What is the meaning of life?’ is one of those Big Questions about Ultimate Things that recent philosophers have so often been accused of neglecting. It may invite the retort that the meaning of our lives is what we care to give them; we cannot expect meanings to be handed to us on a plate, and even if they were, what use would they be to us? God may have his purposes in creat- ing me, but why should I adopt them? First I must be con- vinced that they are good purposes (we can ignore the effects of the threat of hell-fire on non-conformists), and if life, the meaning of 519 . artificial leviathan, the state, needs to have absolute power. The book is divided into four parts: the first provides an account of persons prior to the state; the second shows how the state must be constructed to. In the ancient world, particularly among the Greeks, to be free was to be able to participate in the government of one’s city. The laws were valid only if one had had the right to take part. It may invite the retort that the meaning of our lives is what we care to give them; we cannot expect meanings to be handed to us on a plate, and even if they were, what use would they be to us? God

Định dạng
Số trang	10
Dung lượng	674,57 KB