Guest Blogger: Thomas D.

The end of September: a busy time for everyone's classes, not to mention homecoming. APLG is no exception, with the class's recent survival of a essay and oral test, and the quick plunge into the next unit. However, I won't miss an opportunity when I see one, and I'll take this transition from philosophy to American government history to mash them together with some of my own ideas.

During the oral part of the test, a sudden contradiction hit me. Having just read the Declaration of Independence, it is clear that the writers felt very close to John Locke's ideas, if not directly inspired. The authors took great pains to create a list of every single objectionable act that separated protective and beneficial leadership from tyranny. They concluded that "A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." Following Locke's advice, the social contract is completely absolved.

Unfortunately for the newly-independent colonists, the British didn't have quite the same viewpoint. They rather subscribed to Hobbes's ideas, which argued against one's ability to break a social contract. Britain then followed the slightly infamous quote: "Covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all."

Now, the contradiction I see with this is that it happens over and over again in history. The loyalists are strictly Hobbes fans, and the rebels adore Locke. Historical alignment does not seem to matter, only what best preserves the interest of the party. Even Americans, who had previously seemed to be devout Locke followers, did not remain so for long. One of Abraham Lincoln's most famous quotes, "one nation indivisible" shows that the thinking of Americans (or at least members of the Union) had shifted to a Hobbes-like stance, as the secession of the Confederate States did not go unchallenged, causing the Civil War.

To back up his ideas, Abraham Lincoln did not appeal to the logic of Locke or Hobbes, however. Rather, his speeches are laden with ethos, powerful statements of values that he held more important and basic than any other rights. Thus, it could be argued by that the states could not secede because their new government would not serve the people better, due to the masses of slaves who did not have representation.

Clearly, it seems that adhering to a single philosopher's teaching is rather impractical. Rather, my opinion is that people have their own 'metaphilosophy', a gathering of philosophical ideas that are applied when convenient. In my eyes, any universal truth will forever remain a distant utopia, which can never be achieved - no matter the merit nor ingenuity of a new philosopher's ideas.