barandaangela | Just another WordPress.com site

Final Exam in Comp402 – Internet Marketing

Published March 14, 2012 by barandaangela

1. What is Internet Marketing or E-marketing?

– Internet Marketing is one of the biggest contribution of modern technology to the business industry. E- marketing is the modern medium of advertising products through the use of Internet, email or and wireless media. It gives cheap yet effective approach of advertisement. Big and small companies engage in e-marketing not only because of its effective marketing campaigns but also of its accessibility of the world wide web to its prospect consumers or buyers. The terms e-marketing, Internet marketing and online marketing, are frequently interchanged, and can often be considered synonymous. It aims to  attract new business, retaining current business and developing its brand identity.

Internet marketers also have the benefit of calculating statistics simply and cheaply; almost all feature of an Internet marketing promotion can be traced, measured, and tested, in numerous cases through an ad server. The advertisers can utilize a range of schemes, such as pay per inkling and pay per click. Therefore, marketers can decide which mails or offerings are more alluring to the audience. The outcome of promotions can be deliberated instantly because online marketing initiatives usually necessitate clients to click on an advertisement, to visit a website, and to execute a targeted action.

2. Differentiate marketing with E-marketing.

Traditional marketing or marketing – a process of creating, delivering and exchanging valued goods to ones consumers.  It requires effective interpersonal relationship on the part of the seller. It also develop the social skills on the part of the seller.

E-Marketing – on the other hand, allows everyone to engage in business. It encourage the humid or shy ones to try business because it doesn’t need direct contact to sell. The return on investment (ROI) from eMarketing can far exceed that of traditional marketing strategies.

3. Based on your own understanding, what are the benefits of shifting from previous methods of marketing to E-marketing?

Marketing is defined as the process or technique of promoting, selling, and distributing a product or service. It involves  an aggregate of functions involved in moving goods from producer to consumer. Shifting from previous methods of marketing to E- marketing has the following advantages:

-it allows cheap yet effective medium of transacting business and advertisement.

-it allows a wide range of access since it uses internet, mobiles or emails.

-has the ability to track results of the advertisement.

-it allows to determine the comments and suggestions of ones costumers.

-it allows efficient medium of product exposure.


Filamer Christian University (FCU) Comp 402

Published February 29, 2012 by barandaangela

Filamer Christian University

Filamer Christian University is the only and first private University in the city of Roxas and in the province of Capiz. The Filamer Christian University was established in 1904 through the efforts of the American missionaries, Joseph and Effie Robbins. The school gained its University status through the efforts of the former FCU president, Dr. Salvio E. Llanera.  FCU was granted university status in accordance with the pertinent provision of Republic Act 7722, otherwise known as the Higher Education Act of 1994, and by virtue of Resolution No. 186-2010 dated July 14, 2010 of the Commission en banc which signed by Emmanuel Y. Angeles, chairman.

Filamer Christian University, an affiliate of Capiz Emmanuel Hospital, is a sister school of Central Philippine University and Iloilo Mission Hospital in Iloilo City.

VISION, MISSION and GOALS of the Filamer Cristian University

Vision of FCU: A dynamic Christian institution committed to quality and excellent education.

Mission of FCU: To provide a relevant, quality and holistic education for the pursuit of academic excellence and the development of the total well-being of individuals in society.

Goals of FCU:

– To perpetuate the Christian heritage of the school as a church- related institution maintaining an ecumenical stance.

– To develop the spiritual, intellectual, physical, moral, economic, social, and political well- being of the students through relevant quality education in a Christian atmosphere.

– To demonstrate Christian love by reaching and participating in society building through community service.

– To promote research for the advancement of knowledge.

– To develop self-sufficiency and sustainability through production, enterprise and resource generation development.

Through the years, these goals became the foundation of the students of Filamer Christian University to secure their success. The Filamer Christian University is also known as :

Filamer Christian University – an institution for  adept individuals.

Filamer Christian University – an institution committed to relevant and quality education.

Filamer Christian University – the institution of the first Filipina lawyer.

Filamer Christian University – an institution with a spiritual foundation.

Filamer Christian University – the only institution which emphasizes the bonds between Filipinos and Americans.

Filamer Christian University –  an institution of holistic individuals.

These only prove that FILAMER CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY shines!!!

Characteristics of a Filamer Christian University as an Institution

Filamer Christian University has competent faculty members.

Filamer Christian University has sufficient research materials.

Filamer Christian University is geared with advance technologies and research facilities.

Filamer Christian University has globally competitive students.

Hail FCU!!
Hail FILAMER CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY!!!!!

FILAMER CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY!!!!!

FILAMER CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY!!!!!

FILAMER CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY!!!!!

FILAMER CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY!!!!!

PS: This post is a requirement in Comp 402

Top Ten Social Networking Sites

Published February 7, 2012 by barandaangela

Top 5 Social Networking Cites according to the survey of eBiz as of 2011

1. Facebook was founded by Mark Zuckerberg with his college roommates and fellow students Eduardo Saverin, Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes. The Web site’s membership was initially limited by the founders to Harvard students, but was expanded to other colleges in the Boston area, the Ivy League, and Stanford University. It gradually added support for students at various other universities before opening to high school students, and eventually to anyone aged 13 and over. However, based on ConsumersReports.org in May 2011, there are 7.5 million children under 13 with accounts, violating the site’s terms of services.


2. Twitter is an online social networking services and microblogging  service that enables its users to send and read text-based posts of up to 140 characters, known as “tweets”. It was created in March 2006 by Jack Dorsey and launched that July. The service rapidly gained worldwide popularity, with over 300 million users as of 2011, generating over 300 million tweets and handling over 1.6 billion search queries per day. It has been described as “the SMS of the Internet.” Twitter Inc. is based in San Francisco, with additional servers and offices in New York City.

3. LinkedIn is a business-related social networking site. Founded in December 2002 and launched in May 2003, it is mainly used for professional networking. As of 3 November 2011 (2011 -11-03), LinkedIn reports more than 135 million registered users in more than 200 countries and territories. The site is available in English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Romanian, Russian, Turkish and Japanese. Quantcast reports LinkedIn has 21.4 million monthly unique U.S. visitors and 47.6 million globally. In June 2011, LinkedIn had 33.9 million unique visitors, up 63 percent from a year earlier and surpassing MySpace. LinkedIn filed for an initial public offering in January 2011 and traded its first shares on May 19, 2011, under the NYSE symbol “LNKD”.

4. Myspace (previously styled as MySpace and My_____) is a social networking service owned by Specific Media LLC and pop star Justin Timberlake. Myspace launched in August 2003 and is headquartered in Beverly Hills, California. In August 2011, Myspace had 33.1 million unique U.S. visitors.
Myspace was founded in 2003 and was acquired by News Corporation in July 2005 for $580 million. From 2005 until early 2008, Myspace was the most visited social networking site in the world, and in June 2006 surpassed Google as the most visited website in the United States. In April 2008, Myspace was overtaken by Facebook  in the number of unique worldwide visitors, and was surpassed in the number of unique U.S. visitors in May 2009. Since then, the number of Myspace users has declined steadily in spite of several redesigns.  As of December 2011, Myspace was ranked 138th by total web traffic.

5. Google+ (pronounced and sometimes written as Google Plus, sometimes abbreviated as G+) is a social networking and identity service, operated by Google Inc.
The service was launched on June 28, 2011, in an invitation-only “field testing” phase. Early invites were soon suspended due to an “insane demand” for new accounts.  On September 20, 2011, Google+ was opened to everyone 18 years of age or older without the need for an invitation. It was opened for a younger age group (13+ years old in US and most countries, 14+ in South Korean and Spain, 16+ in Netherlands) on January 26, 2012

6. deviantArt (official typeset as deviantART; commonly abbreviated as dA) is an online community showcasing various forms of user-made artwork. It was first launched on August 7, 2000 by Scott Jarkoff, Matthew Stephens, Angelo Sotira and others. deviantArt, Inc. is headquartered in the Hollywood area of Los Angeles, California, United States.

 

7. LiveJournal (LJ) is a virtual community where Internet users can keep a blog, journal or diary.LiveJournal is also the name of the free and open sourceserver software that was designed to run the LiveJournal virtual community.

 

 

8. Tagged is a social networking site based in San Francisco, California, United States, founded in 2004. Tagged allows members to browse the profiles of other members, play games, and share tags and virtual gifts. Tagged says it has 100 million members. As of 28 September 2011 (2011 -09-28), Quantcast reports Tagged monthly unique users at 5.9 million U.S., and 18.6 million globally. Tagged has acquired the social and instant messaging client Digsbyand the gaming application WeGame.Michael Arrington wrote in April 2011 that Tagged is most notable for the ability to grow profitably during the era of Facebook.

 

9. Orkut is a social networking website that is owned and operated by Google Inc.The service is designed to help users meet new and old friends and maintain existing relationships. The website is named after its creator, Google employee Orkut Büyükkökten. Although Orkut is less popular in the United States than competitors Facebook and MySpace, it is one of the most visited websites in India and Brazil. As of October 2011, 59.1% of Orkut’s users are from Brazil, followed by India with 27.1% and Japan with 6.7%.

 

 

10. CafeMom is an ad-supported social networking site which is specifically targeted at mothers and mothers to be. It was founded in 2006 by Andrew Shue and Michael Sanchez.

Within one year of its launch, CafeMom became the most trafficked website for women (by page views) on the Internet, according to comScore. CafeMom gets more than 8 million unique visitors a month, accounting for over 140 million page views.According to their own website, as of 2009, CafeMom.com has turned profitable.

Comparative Analysis of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau

Published February 6, 2012 by barandaangela

Filamer Christian University

Roxas City

POL SCI. 322

Modern Political Theory

Mid-term Examination

Name: Angela Baranda          Course& Year: AB-3   Score:_____________

THOMAS HOBBES

JOHN LOCKE

JEAN JAQUES ROUSSEAU

I.In terms of Family Background Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher who wrote the 1651 book, Leviathan, a political treatise that described the natural life of mankind as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” Hobbes was educated at Oxford and worked as a tutor to the son of William Cavendish, later the Earl of Devonshire. His connections to the royal family gave him opportunities to travel and pursue his studies, but they also put him in the middle of the English Civil War. In 1640 political turmoil forced him to leave England for France, where he continued to associate with scholars and scientists of Europe, including Galileo and René Descartes. In his philosophical works, Hobbes wrote that matter and motion are the only valid subjects for philosophy. In Leviathan, he argued that man’s natural state is anti-social, and that moral rules are created to avoid chaos. Hobbes’s notion that social authority can come from the people — and not necessarily a monarch — rankled his royal associates, but helped him reconcile with Oliver Cromwell and the English revolutionaries, and he returned to England shortly after Leviathan was published. After the Restoration of 1660, Hobbes was favored by King Charles II, who granted him a pension, but urged him to clear future publications with the throne. Hobbes’s “nasty, brutish and short” line is still used often when students and politicians discuss human nature and the proper role of government. Locke’s father, who was also called John Locke, was a country lawyer and clerk to the Justices of the Peace in Chew Magna, who had served as a captain of cavalry for the Parliamentarian forces during the early part of the English Civil War. His mother was Agnes Keene. Both parents were Puritans. Locke was born on 29 August 1632, in a small thatched cottage by the church in Wrington, Somerset, about twelve miles from Bristol. He was baptised the same day. Soon after Locke’s birth, the family moved to the market town of Pensford, about seven miles south of Bristol, where Locke grew up in a rural Tudor house in Belluton. Rousseau was born in Geneva, which were at the time a city-state and a Protestant associate of the Swiss Confederacy. Since 1536, Geneva had been a Huguenot republic and the seat of Calvinism. Rousseau was proud that his family, of the moyen order (or middle-class), had voting rights in the city. Throughout his life, he described himself as a citizen of Geneva.

In theory, Geneva was governed democratically by its male voting citizens, a minority of the population. In fact, the city was ruled by a secretive executive committee, called the “Little Council“, which was made up of 25 members of its wealthiest families. In 1707, a patriot called Pierre Fatio protested at this situation, and the Little Council had him shot. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s father Isaac was not in the city at this time, but Jean-Jacques’s grandfather supported Fatio and was penalized for it.

The house where Rousseau was born at number 40, place du Bourg-de-Four

Rousseau’s father, Isaac Rousseau, was a watchmaker who, notwithstanding his artisan status, was well educated and a lover of music. “A Genevan watchmaker,” Rousseau wrote, “is a man who can be introduced anywhere; a Parisian watchmaker is only fit to talk about watches.”

Rousseau’s mother, Suzanne Bernard Rousseau, the daughter of a Calvinist preacher, died of puerperal fever nine days after his birth. He and his older brother François were brought up by their father and a paternal aunt, also named Suzanne.

Rousseau had no recollection of learning to read, but he remembered how when he was 5 or 6 his father encouraged his love of readingII. In terms of Educational backgroundHobbes was educated at Westport church from the age of four, passed to the Malmesbury school and then to a private school kept by a young man named Robert Latimer, a graduate of the University of Oxford. Hobbes was a good pupil, and around 1603 he went up to Magdalen Hall, which is most closely related to Hertford College, Oxford. The principal John Wilkinson was a Puritan, and he had some influence on Hobbes.

At university, Hobbes appears to have followed his own curriculum; he was “little attracted by the scholastic learning”. He did not complete his B.A. degree until 1608, but he was recommended by Sir James Hussey, his master at Magdalen, as tutor to William, the son of William Cavendish, Baron of Hardwick (and later Earl of Devonshire), and began a life-long connection with that family.In 1647, Locke was sent to the prestigious Westminster School in London under the sponsorship of Alexander Popham, a member of Parliament and his father’s former commander. After completing his studies there, he was admitted to Christ Church, Oxford. The dean of the college at the time was John Owen, vice-chancellor of the university. Although a capable student, Locke was irritated by the undergraduate curriculum of the time. He found the works of modern philosophers, such as René Descartes, more interesting than the classical material taught at the university. Through his friend Richard Lower, whom he knew from the Westminster School, Locke was introduced to medicine and the experimental philosophy being pursued at other universities and in the English Royal Society, of which he eventually became a member.

Locke was awarded a bachelor’s degree in 1656 and a master’s degree in 1658. He obtained a bachelor of medicine in 1674, having studied medicine extensively during his time at Oxford and worked with such noted scientists and thinkers as Robert Boyle, Thomas Willis, Robert Hooke and Richard Lower. In 1666, he met Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, who had come to Oxford seeking treatment for a liverinfection. Cooper was impressed with Locke and persuaded him to become part of his retinue.Rousseau spent a brief period training to become a Catholic priest before embarking on another brief career as an itinerant musician, music copyist and teacher. In 1731 he returned to Mme de Warens at Chambéry and later briefly became her lover and then her household manager. Rousseau remained with Mme de Warens through the rest of the 1730s, moving to Lyon in 1740 to take up a position as a tutor. This appointment brought him within the orbit of both Condillac and d’Alembert and was his first contact with major figures of the French Enlightenment. In 1742 he travelled to Paris, having devised a plan for a new numerically-based system of musical notation which he presented to the Academy of Sciences. The system was rejected by the Academy, but in this period Rousseau met Denis Diderot. A brief spell as secretary to the French Ambassador in Venice followed before Rousseau moved to Paris on a more permanent basis from 1744, where he continued to work mainly on music and began to write contributions to the Encyclopédie of Diderot and d’Alembert.III. In terms of Linguistic/ Literary Legacy The literary legacy of Hobbes is the Leviathan. Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil — commonly called simply Leviathan — is a book written by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and published in 1651. Its name derives from the biblical Leviathan. The work concerns the structure of society and legitimate government, and is regarded as one of the earliest and most influential examples of social contract theory.The publisher was Andrew Crooke, partner in Andrew Crooke and William Cooke. Leviathan ranks high as a classical western work on statecraft comparable to Machiavelli‘s The Prince and is one of a number of related works incidents upon the crisis of the English state framework of the time.

In Leviathan, which was written during the English Civil War (1642–1651), Hobbes argues for a social contract and rule by an absolute sovereign. He wrote that chaos or civil war – situations identified with a state of nature and the famous motto Bellum omnium contra omnes(“the war of all against all”) – could only be averted by strong central government.John Locke’s major  Literary Legacy

  • Essay concerning Human Understanding

It was statesman-philosopher Francis Bacon who, early in the seventeenth century, first strongly established the claims of Empiricism – the reliance on the experience of the senses – over those speculation or deduction in the pursuit of knowledge.

John Locke in his Essay concerning Human Understanding restates the importance of the experience of the senses over speculation and sets out the case that the human mind at birth is a complete, but receptive, blank upon which experience imprints knowledge. Locke definitely did not believe in powers of intuition or that the human mind is invested with innate conceptions.

  • Two Treatises of Government

In these treatises Locke considers the origins of civil government.
As population increases in relation to the supply of land rules are needed beyond those which the moral law or law of nature supplies. Locke suggests that whilst the moral law is always valid it is not always kept this gives rise to problems of social order. In a state of nature all men equally take upon themselves the right to punish transgressors. What might be called civil societies originate where, for the better administration of the law in relation to the protection of life, liberty, and property, men agree to delegate this function to certain officers. Thus the government of civil societies is initiated by an implicit, but effective, “social contract”.The Literary legacy of Jean Jacques Rosseau were as follows:

  • Rousseau’s autobiographical writings — his Confessions, which initiated the modern autobiography, and
  •  His Reveries of a Solitary Walker — exemplified the late 18th-century movement known as the Age of Sensibility, featuring an increasing focus on subjectivity and introspection that has characterized the modern age.

IV. In terms of Political LegacyHobbes conceived of the royal prerogative as an evolved principle of governance arising from an ancient contractual transfer of power of popular or democratic society when democracy showed itself unable to govern properly. The royalists were not pleased at Hobbes’ building a logical explanation of royal power on some kind of social contract theory arising from the consent of the people—for they claimed that royal power came solely and undisputedly from God. But the anti-Royalists were unhappy with his work because it built a strong argument for absolute royal power.

Hobbes own works began to draw interest on the continent, especially De cive—which accorded monarchy absolute rights over the peace of the land, including even over issues of a religious nature.Locke exercised a profound influence on political philosophy, in particular on modern liberalism. Michael Zuckert has argued that Locke launched liberalism by tempering Hobbesian absolutism and clearly separating the realms of Church and State. He had a strong influence on Voltaire who called him “le sage Locke”. His arguments concerning liberty and the social contract later influenced the written works of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers of the United States. In fact, one passage from the Second Treatise is reproduced verbatim in the Declaration of Independence, the reference to a “long train of abuses.” Such was Locke’s influence that Thomas Jefferson wrote: “Bacon, Locke and Newton … I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the Physical and Moral sciences”.His political philosophy influenced the French Revolution as well as the overall development of modern political, sociological and educational thought.

Perhaps Rousseau’s most important work is The Social Contract, which outlines the basis for a legitimate political order within a framework of classical republicanism. Published in 1762, it became one of the most influential works of political philosophy in the Western tradition. It developed some of the ideas mentioned in an earlier work, the article Economie Politique (Discourse on Political Economy), featured in Diderot’s Encyclopédie. The treatise begins with the dramatic opening lines, “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they.”V. In terms of nature of Human PersonHobbes likewise presents a dim picture of human nature but modifies his pessimism by allowing man the natural faculty of reason. Hobbes famously depicts the state of natural man as a state of war of every man against every man in which life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes 89). Yet he, like Calvin, does not leave man without a trace of natural light. Hobbes locates this natural light in reason, “For all men by nature reason alike, and well, when they have good principles” (Hobbes 35). Hobbes chooses reason rather than conscience because, by his definition, reason is nothing but a “hunting out of the causes, of some effect, present or past; or of the effects, of some present or past cause” and therefore all men may engage in reasoning once taught the proper method. Conscience, on the other hand, is nothing more than dressed up opinion, in the name of which men “pretend to know [their opinions] are true, when they know at most, but that they think so” (Hobbes 48). Unlike Calvin, Hobbes dispenses with the possibility that mankind may distinguish between good and evil. In his view, reverencing man’s understanding of good and evil, which can never amount to anything more than opinion, only entrenches conflict and prevents peace. Though both Calvin and Hobbes argue for obedience to the ruler, Calvin’s understanding of human nature still allows individuals to judge the rightness of the sovereign’s actions. Hobbes’s understanding of human nature, in contrast, discounts appeals to the individual conscience.

Hobbes explains the connection between nature, man, and society through the law of inertia (“bodies at rest tend to stay at rest; bodies in motion tend to stay in motion”). Thus man’s desire to do what he wants is checked only by an equal and opposite need for security. Society “is but an artificial man” invented by man, so to understand politics one should merely consider himself as part of nature.He defended the claim that men are by nature free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. He argued that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better insure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property.“Man is essentially good when the State of Nature (the State of all other animals, and condition man was in before creation of civilization and society) and that good people are made unhappy and corrupted by their experiences in society.”VI.  Nature, origin and end of the state

 Hobbes wrote that “during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man” (Leviathan, ch. XIII). In this state any person has a natural right to the liberty to do anything he wills to preserve his own life, and life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (loc. cit.). Hobbes’ view of the state of nature helped to serve as a basis for theories of international realism.

Within the state of nature there is no injustice, since there is no law, excepting certain natural precepts, the first of which is “that every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it” (Leviathan, ch. XIV); and the second is “that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far as for peace and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself”. From this, Hobbes develops the way out of the state of nature into civil government by mutual contracts.The state which is ruled by the government is established by the people. The people therefore, are the supreme authority that governs the state.‘’By joining together into civil society through the social contract and abandoning their claims  of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain free.” Rousseau believes that the general will of the citizen always tends toward the continued health and prosperity of the State. Rousseau believed that the best kind of government was pure democracy—where the citizen would personally make the laws that lived under.VII. What is the relationship between the state and the individual?On his view, what we ought to do depends greatly on the situation in which we find ourselves. Where political authority is lacking (as in his famous natural condition of mankind), our fundamental right seems to be to save our skins, by whatever means we think fit. Where political authority exists, our duty seems to be quite straightforward: to obey those in power.Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments. Locke is thus also important for his defense of the right of revolution. Locke also defends the principle of majority rule and the separation of legislative and executive powers“The State was a primitive condition without law or morality, which human beings left for the benefits and necessity of cooperation. As it developed, division of labor and private property required the human race to adopt institution of law.”VIII. What is the relationship between the State and EconomyPoverty exist solely by the will of the state, thus, in the state of Nature, men are condemned to endless violent conflict.  Each has right to everything in the world but due to the scarcity of things in the world, man could use any force necessary in order to protect his belongings and goods around him. Men are driven by competition and desire for the same goods.Locke proposed a radical conception of political philosophy deduced from the principle of self-ownership and the corollary right to own property, which in turn is based on his famous claim that a man earns ownership over a resource when he mixes his labor with it. Government, he argued, should be limited to securing the life and property of its citizens, and is only necessary because in an ideal, anarchic state of nature, various problems arise that would make life more insecure than under the protection of a minimal state.

Locke is thought to have set three restrictions on the accumulation of property in the state of nature: 1) one may only appropriate as much as one can use before it spoils (Two Treatises2.31), 2) one must leave “enough and as good” for others (the sufficiency restriction) (2.27), and 3) one may (supposedly) only appropriate property through one’s own labor (2.27).Rousseau believes that it is difficult for a governing body to control its desire to fulfill perceive needs or demands within the society. The government is continuously confronted with new demands from citizens and interest groups. As it acts to satisfy these demands, more citizen’s income, in the form of taxes, is required to provide for the new programs. Rousseau

Indicate that once a government allows needs to expand unchecked, even laws enact to resolve them lead to new demands and more legislation in a never ending attempt to satisfy all.IX. What is the relationship between the Politics and Religion?People must submit to the absolute supremacy of the state in both secular and religious matters. He contended that the state must be supreme over the church. He thought god as material, describing him as a corporeal spirit.He espoused the right to freedom of conscience and religion (except when religion was deemed intolerant!), and for his cogent criticism of hereditary monarchy and patriarchalism.

Locke, writing his Letters Concerning Toleration (1689–92) in the aftermath of the European wars of religion, formulated a classic reasoning for religious tolerance. Three arguments are central: (1) Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints; (2) Even if they could, enforcing a single “true religion” would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence; (3) Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity.According to Rousseau a state of nature was primitive condition without law or morality, which human beings left for the benefits and necessity of cooperation. As society developed, division of labor and private property required the human race to adopt institutions of law. In the generate phase of society, man is prone to be in the frequent competition with his fellow men while also becoming increasingly dependent on them. This double pressure threatens both his survival and his freedom. And according to Rousseau, by joining together into civil society through the social contract and abandoning their claims of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain free. This is because submission to the authority of   the general wills of others and also ensures that they obey themselves because they are, collectively, the authors of the law.X. What is the relationship between the ruler and the ruled?According to Hobbes, society is a population beneath a sovereign authority, to whom all individuals in that society cede some rights for the sake of protection. Any abuses of power by this authority are to be accepted as the price of peace. There is no doctrine of separation of powers in Hobbes’s discussion.According to Hobbes, the sovereign must control civil, military, judicial, and ecclesiastical powers.  John Locke states that if a ruler breaks the rules that people have let him enforce, the people have the right and the responsibility to eject the ruler from rule.Rousseau states that there are 3 components on his Republican political theory: the sovereign assembly of the people, the prince or the government, and the people who as subjects obey the government in power and as citizens may exercise sovereignty by changing the government if and when it tends to abuse authority. He reiterated that government, though called itself a public force and though it professed to represent the general will, could usurp power and act against the common good. Government is a constant threat to freedom and yet indispensable; government is a potentially corrupting element in the society, capable of undermining the sovereignty of the people. A republic should, therefore, always be ready to ‘sacrifice the government to the people and not the people to the government.’XI. Concept of Justice, Freedom, Peace, and SovereigntyOf Thomas Hobbes’ 19 laws of nature, the first three, which add consecutively up to his concept of justice, are by far the most influential and important, with the ultimate goal being an escape from the state of nature. The first law states that we should seek peace, and if we cannot attain it, to use the full force of war. Directly building off of the first law’s mandate to seek peace is the second law that states that we should lay down our rights of nature and form social contracts, if others are willing to as well. From this springs forth the concept of the covenant, in which men can transfer their rights of nature between each other and which forms the basis of moral obligation. With the enactment of each of these laws, which act as impediments towards the full use of an individual’s right of nature, an individual will trade a piece of their right of nature in order to promote cooperation between others. According to Hobbes, these two are not enough to keep human kind from betraying one another. There needs to be another layer of control. This is where the third law comes in to fully form the concept of justice. The third law simply states that men need to perform their valid covenants, which becomes Hobbes’ definition of justice. From this, injustice is defined as not performing your valid covenants. As can be seen by this, with one law building off of another, it is quite clear that Hobbes put great effort into creating a full representation of the world in order to support his political doctrine. Thus, in order to understand Hobbes’ reasoning for his concept of justice, this paper will elaborate on how Hobbes’ laws of nature are rules that every human being should follow in order to give them the best chance of living well as well as investigating the full requirements of justice and Hobbes’ claim that there is neither injustice nor justice in a state of nature. Finally, while Hobbes wove his concepts of the state of nature, the laws of nature and justice into an extremely tight web through the Euclidean method, I argue that his account for justice is too weak to account for social atrocities such as slavery, religious discrimination, animal cruelty, genocide and murder and thus it is my intent to show that his account of justice is inadequate.Locke’s definition of political power has an immediate moral dimension. It is a “right” of making laws and enforcing them for “the public good.” Power for Locke never simply means “capacity” but always “morally sanctioned capacity.” Morality pervades the whole arrangement of society, and it is this fact, tautologically, that makes society legitimate.Justice cannot be defined as “the right of the strongest” to the power of some individuals to gain advantage over others. If justice were the same as the power to gain advantage over others, then the most powerful individuals would always be the most just and morally right. Moreover, if justice were obligation for an individual to yield to a particular demand, them there would be no obligation for an individual to comply with a lawful authority unless that authority had the power to force the individual to comply.

Russian Rulers

Published January 25, 2012 by barandaangela

 List of Russian rulers

At different times, a ruler in RutheniaKievan Rus’Muscovy/early RussiaImperial Russia beared the title of Kniaz (translated as Duke or Prince), Velikiy Kniaz(translated as Grand Duke, Grand Prince or Great Prince), TsarEmperor.

The Patriarchs, heads of the Russian Orthodox Church, also sometimes acted as the leaders of Russia — as, for example, during the Polish occupation and interregnum of 1610— 1613.

  •  According to the earliest Russian chronicle, a Varangian named Rurik was elected ruler (knyaz) of Novgorod in about 860, before his successors moved south and extended their authority to Kiev, which had been previously dominated by the Khazars. He controlled the trade route for furs, wax, and slaves between Scandinavia and the Byzantine Empire along the Volkhov and Dnieper Rivers. Kievan Rus’ is important for its introduction of a Slavic variant of the Eastern Orthodox religion, dramatically deepening a synthesis of Byzantine and Slavic cultures that defined Russian culture for the next thousand years.

Princes and Grand Princes

  • ·Andrei Bogolyubsky ( 1168– 1174), a Vladimir-Suzdal prince – first code of laws, Russkaya Pravda, was introduced.[37] From the onset the Kievan princes followed the Byzantine example and kept the Church dependent on them, even for its revenues,[38] so that the Russian Church and state were always closely linked.

o                  Vsevolod III ( 1176– 1212) – was a Rus’ prince (a member of the Rurik dynasty).[2] He was prince of Ropesk (c. 1146–1166), of Starodub (1166–1176), and of Chernigov (1176–1198).[1] When he became monk before his death, he took the name Vasily.

 

o                  Yuri II ( 1212– 1216) – He first distinguished himself in the battles against Ryazan in 1208. During his reign in Vladimir, Yuri waged several wars against Volga Bulgaria and founded the fortress of Nizhny Novgorod on the Volga River to secure the area from Bulgarian attacks. He installed his younger brother Yaroslav in Novgorod. When the Mongols first approached Russia in 1223, he sent a small unit against them, but it arrived too late to take part in the disastrous Battle of the Kalka River.

 

o                  Konstantin ( 1216– 1218) – his father sent him to rule the towns of Rostov and Yaroslavl. In consequence of one domestic squabble, Vsevolod disinherited Konstantin on his deathbed and bequeathed his capital Vladimir to a younger son, Yuri II. In the Battle of Lipitsa (1216), Konstantin and his ally Mstislav of Novgorod soundly defeated Yuri and occupied Vladimir.  Konstanin is also remembered for building the new Assumption Cathedral in Rostov and three brick cathedrals in Yaroslavl.

 

o                  Yaroslav II ( 1238– 1246) – displayed an economy and achievements in architecture and literature superior to those that then existed in the western part of the continent.[39] Compared with the languages of European Christendom, the Russian language was little influenced by the Greek and Latin of early Christian writings.[4] This was because Church Slavonic was used directly in liturgy instead.

 

o                  Svyatoslav III ( 1246– 1249) – was a Rus’ prince (a member of the Rurik dynasty).[3] His baptismal name was Adrian.[2] He was prince of Peremyshl (1206, 1208–1209, 1210–1211), andof Volodymyr-Volynskyi (1206). In 1184, Igor Svyatoslavich dispatched Svyatoslav to escort Vladimir Yaroslavich (Igor Svyatoslavich’s brother-in-law) home when the latter had reconciled with his father (Svyatoslav’s maternal grandfather), prince Yaroslav Volodimerovich of Halych.

 

o                  Andrei II ( 1249– 1252) – was the third son of Yaroslav II who succeeded his uncle Svyatoslav III as the Grand Duke of Vladimir in 1249. Three years later, he challenged the Mongols and was ousted by them from Russia. Upon ascending the golden throne of his fathers, Andrey resolved to assert some independence from the Horde. Andrey is an ancestor of the famous aristocratic dynasty of Suzdal and Nizhny Novgorod princes, which has been known since the fourteenth century as the House of Shuisky.

 

o                  Alexander Nevski ( 1252– 1263) –  commonly regarded as the key figure of medieval Rus, Alexander was the grandson of Vsevolod the Big Nestand rose to legendary status on account of his military victories over the German and Swedish invaders while employing collaborationist policies towards the powerful Golden Horde.  Alexander and his small army suddenly attacked the Swedes on 15 July 1240 and defeated them. The Neva battle of 1240 saved Rus’ from a full-scale enemy invasion from the North. Because of this battle, 19-year-old Alexander was given the sobriquet “Nevsky” (which means of Neva). This victory, coming just three years after the disastrous Mongol invasion of Rus, strengthened Nevsky’s political influence, but at the same time it worsened his relations with the boyars. He would soon have to leave Novgorod because of this conflict.

 

o                  Yaroslav III ( 1264– 1271) –  was the first Prince of Tver and the tenth Grand Prince of Vladimir from 1264 to 1271. Yaroslav and his son Mikhail Yaroslavich presided over Tver’s transformation from a sleepy village into one of the greatest centres of power in medieval Russia. All the later dukes of Tver descended from Yaroslav Yaroslavich.  In 1258 he visited the khan’s capital in Sarai, and two years later led the Novgorod army against the Teutonic Knights.

 

o                  Vassili ( 1272– 1277) – as the eldest surviving grandson of Vsevolod III, he succeeded to Vladimir in 1272 and to Novgorod the following year. He was one of the first princes who didn’t bother to leave their own town (i.e., Kostroma) and settle in Vladimir. His descendants continued to rule Kostroma for half a century after his death in January 1276.

 

o                  Dimitri I ( 1277– 1281) – ascended the coveted thrones of Vladimir and Novgorod. Two years later, he founded a great fortress of Koporye, which he intended to rule himself. The Novgorodians revolted, forcing Dmitry to leave Koporye and Novgorod altogether.

 

o                  Andrei III ( 1281– 1283) –

  • ·Daniel ( 1283– 1303) – first prince of Moscow.  He is one of the most junior princes in the House of Rurik, Daniel is thought to have been named after his celebrated relative, Daniel of Galicia. Daniel made an alliance with Mikhail of Tver and Ivan of Pereslavl against Andrey of Gorodets of Novgorod. Daniel’s participation in the struggle for Novgorod in 1296 indicated Moscow’s increasing political influence. Daniel has been credited with founding the first Moscow monasteries, dedicated to the Lord’s Epiphany and to Saint Daniel. On the right bank of the Moskva River, at a distance of 5 miles from the Kremlin not later than in 1282 he founded the first monastery with the wooden church of St. Daniel-Stylite. Now it is the Danilov Monastery. At the age of 42 on the 17-th (4-th in old style) of March in 1303 St. Daniel died. Before his death he became a monk and, according to his will, was buried in the cemetery of the St. Daniel Monastery.

 

o                  Yuri ( 1303– 1325) – His first important action was to defend Pereslavl-Zalessky against Grand Duke Andrew III. Upon Andrew’s death the next year, Yury had to contend the title of Grand Duke of Vladimir with Mikhail of Tver. While the Tverian army besieged Pereslavl and Moscow itself, Mikhail went to the Golden Horde, where the Khan elevated him to the supreme position among Russian princes.

 

o                  Ivan I ( 1325– 1341) – was Prince of Moscow from 1325 and Grand Prince of Vladimir from 1328. Ivan made Moscow very wealthy by maintaining his loyalty to the Horde (hence, the nickname Kalita, or moneybag[citation needed]). He used this wealth to give loans to neighbouring Russian principalities. These cities gradually fell deeper and deeper into debt, a condition that would allow Ivan’s successors to annex them. The people called Ivan the ‘gatherer of the Russian lands’. He bought lands around Moscow, and very often the poor owners sold their lands willingly.

 

o                  Semeon ( 1341– 1353) – continued his father‘s policies of supporting the Golden Horde and acting as its leading enforcer in Russia. Simeon’s rule was marked by regular military and political standoffs against Novgorod Republic and Lithuania. His relationships with neighboring Russian principalities remained peaceful if not passive: Simeon stayed aside from conflicts between subordinate princes.[1] He had recourse to war only when war was unavoidable.[2] A relatively quiet period for Moscow was ended by theBlack Death that claimed the lives of Simeon and his sons in 1353.

 

 

o                  Ivan II ( 1353– 1359) – was the Grand Prince of Moscow and Grand Prince ofVladimir in 1353. Until that date, he had ruled the towns of Ruza and Zvenigorod. He was the second son of Ivan Kalita, and succeeded his brother Simeon the Proud, who died of the Black Death. Ivan briefly toyed with the idea of abandoning traditional Moscow allegiance to the Mongols and allying himself with Lithuania, a growing power in the west. This policy was quickly abandoned and Ivan asserted his allegiance to the Golden Horde

 

o                  Dimitri ( 1359– 1389) –  sometimes referred to as Dmitry I (12 October 1350, Moscow – 19 May 1389, Moscow), son of Ivan II the Meek of Moscow (1326 – 1359), reigned as the Prince of Moscow from 1359 and Grand Prince of Vladimirfrom 1363 to his death. He was the first prince of Moscow to openly challenge Mongol authority in Russia. His nickname, Donskoy (i.e., “of the Don“), alludes to his great victory against the Tatars in the Battle of Kulikovo (1380) which took place on the Don River.[1] He is venerated as a Saint in the Orthodox Church with his feast day on May 19.

 

 

o                  Vasili II ( 1425– 1462) – was the Grand Prince of Moscowwhose long reign (1425–1462) was plagued by the greatest civil war of Old Russian history. Vasily eliminated almost all of the small appanages in Moscow principality, so as to strengthen his sovereign authority. His military campaigns of 1441-60 increased Moscow’s hold over Suzdal, the Vyatka lands and the republican governments of Novgorod and Pskov.

 

o                  Ivan III (Ivan the Great) ( 1462– 1505) – also known as Ivan the Great[1][2], was a Grand Prince of Moscow and “Grand Prince of all Rus” (Великий князь всея Руси). Sometimes referred to as the “gatherer of the Russian lands”, he tripled the territory of his state, ended the dominance of the Golden Horde over the Rus, renovated the Moscow Kremlin, and laid the foundations of the Russian state. He was one of the longest-reigning Russian rulers in history.

 

Tsars of All Russia, 1547-1721

  • ·Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible) ( 1547– 1584) –  known in English as Ivan the Terrible (Russian:  Ива́н Гро́зный​ (help·info), Ivan Grozny; lit. Fearsome), was Grand Prince of Moscow from 1533 until his death. His long reign saw the conquest of the Khanates of KazanAstrakhan, and Siberia, transforming Russia into a multiethnic and multiconfessional state spanning almost one billion acres, approximately 4,046,856 km2 (1,562,500 sq mi).[2] Ivan managed countless changes in the progression from a medieval state to an empire and emerging regional power, and became the first ruler to be crowned as Tsar of All Russia. Historic sources present disparate accounts of Ivan’s complex personality: he was described as intelligent and devout, yet given to rages and prone to episodic outbreaks of mental illness. One notable outburst may have resulted in the death of his groomed and chosen heir Ivan Ivanovich, which led to the passing of the Tsardom to the younger son: the weak and possibly intellectually disabled[3] Feodor I of Russia. His contemporaries called him “Ivan Groznyi” the name, which, although usually translated as “Terrible”, actually means something closer to “Redoubtable” or “Severe” and carries connotations of might, power and strictness rather than horror or cruelty.

o                  Simeon Bekbulatovich ( 1574– 1576) (fake tsar set by Ivan IV)

 

o                  Feodor I ( 1584– 1598) -the last of the Riurikovich Czars, Feodor was born mentally disabled and was nothing more than a figurehead during his reign. He inherited a land devastated by the excesses of his father Ivan the Terrible and Russia further declined under his reign. His failure to procreate brought an end to the centuries old dynasty and led Russia into the Time of Troubles. He is known as Feodor the Bellringer because of his inclination to travel the land and ring the bells at churches.

 

o                  Boris Godunov ( 1598– 1605) –  was de facto regent of Russia from c. 1585 to 1598 and then the first non-Rurikid tsar from 1598 to 1605. The end of his reign saw Russia descend into the Time of Troubles. Boris Godunov was the most noted member of an ancient, now extinct, Russian family of Tatar origin, which came from the Horde to Kostroma in the early 14th century. He was descended from the Tatarian Prince Chet, who went from the Golden Horde to Russia and founded the Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma.

 

o                  Feodor II ( 1605) –  was a tsar of Russia (1605) during the Time of Troubles. He was born in Moscow, the son and successor to Boris Godunov. His mother Maria Grigorievna Skuratova-Belskaya was one of the daughters of Malyuta Skuratov, the infamous favourite of Ivan the Terrible. Physically robust and passionately beloved by his father, he received the best education available at that time, and from childhood was initiated into all the minutiae of government, besides sitting regularly in the council and receiving the foreignenvoys. He seems also to have been remarkably and precociously intelligent, creating a map of Russia, which is still preserved

 

  • ·False Dmitri I ( 1605– 1606) –  was the Tsar of Russia from 21 July 1605 until his death on 17 May 1606 under the name of Dimitriy Ioannovich (Cyrillic Димитрий Иоаннович). He is sometimes referred to under the usurped title of Dmitriy II. He was one of three impostors who claimed during the Time of Troubles to be the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible, tsarevitch Dmitriy Ivanovich, who had supposedly escaped a 1591 assassination attempt. It is generally believed that the real Dmitriy was assassinated in Uglich and that this False Dmitriy’s real name was Grigory Otrepyev, although this is far from certain. Dmitriy planned to introduce a series of political and economical reforms. He restored Yuri’s Day, the day when serfs were allowed to move to another lord, to ease the conditions of peasantry. In foreign policies, Dmitriy sought for an alliance with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Roman Pope. He planned a war against the Ottoman Empire and ordered the mass production of firearms. In his correspondence he referred to himself as “Emperor of Russia“, a century before Peter I, though this title wasn’t recognized at the time.

 

o                  Vasili IV ( 1606– 1610) – was Tsar of Russia between 1606 and 1610 after the murder of False Dmitriy I. His reign fell during the Time of Troubles. It was he who, in obedience to the secret orders of Tsar Boris, went to Uglich to inquire into the cause of the death of the Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich, the youngest son ofIvan the Terrible, who had perished there in mysterious circumstances. Shuisky reported that it was a case of suicide, though rumors abounded that the Tsarevich had been assassinated on the orders of the regent Boris Godunov.

 

  • ·Ladislaus IV of Poland1610– 16131634 he officially ended his claims) –  was a Polish and Swedish prince from the House of Vasa. He reigned as King of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth from 8 November 1632 to his death in 1648. Władysław IV was the son of Sigismund III Vasa (Polish: Zygmunt III Waza) and his wife, Anna of Austria (also known as Anna of Habsburg). In 1610 the teen-aged Władysław was elected tsar of Russia by the Seven Boyars, but did not assume the Russian throne due to his father’s opposition and a popular uprising in Russia. Nevertheless, until 1634 he used the title of Grand Duke of Muscovy. Władysław sounded the waters regarding the possibility of peaceful succession to the Swedish throne, following the recent deeath of Gustavus Augustus, but this, as well as his proposal to mediate between Sweden and its enemies, was rejected, primarily by the Swedish chancellor and head of the regency council, Axel Oxenstierna. Władysław IV owed nominal allegiance to the Imperial Habsburgs as a member of the Order of the Golden Fleece. His relation with the Habsburgs was relatively strong; although he was not above carrying some negotiations with their enemies, like France, he refused Cardinal Richelieu‘s 1635 proposal of an alliance and a full-out war against them, despite potential lure of territorial gains in Silesia.[42] He realized that such a move would cause much unrest in a heavily Catholic Commonwealth, that he likely lacked the authority and power to push such a change of policy through the Sejm, and that the resulting conflict would be very difficult.[42] From 1636 onward, for the next few years, Władysław strengthened his ties with the Habsburgs.

 

o                  Michael I ( 1613– 1645) – first of the Romanovs: elected Tsar following the Time of Troubles – he son of the important boyar Fedor Nikitich Romanov, whom Boris Godunov exiled in 1600, Michael was only sixteen when the Assembly of the Land chose him as tsar on 21 February 1613. Michael, as grandson of the brother of Ivan the Terrible’s first wife, had a tenuous link to the older dynasty, but he was primarily the choice of the boyar clans still in Moscow, the church, the Cossacks, and the townspeople. The last decade of the reign saw a fundamental change in Russian policy. The primary effort went toward a rapprochement with Poland, and as a corollary, a similar approach was taken toward Denmark.

 

  • ·Aleksey I ( 1645– 1676)- He was committed to the care of the boyar Boris Morozov, a shrewd and sensible guardian sufficiently enlightened to recognize the needs of his country, and by no means inaccessible to Western ideas. Morozov’s foreign policy was pacificatory. He secured a truce with Poland and carefully avoided complications with the Ottoman Empire. His domestic policy was scrupulously fair and aimed at relieving the public burdens by limiting the privileges of foreign traders and abolishing a great many useless and expensive court offices.

 

o                  Feodor III ( 1676– 1682) – yodor was born in Moscow, the eldest surviving son of Tsar Alexis and Maria Miloslavskaya. In 1676, at the age of fifteen, he succeeded his father on the throne. He was endowed with a fine intellect and a noble disposition; he had received an excellent education at the hands of Simeon Polotsky, the most learned Slavonic monk of the day, knew Polish, and even possessed the unusual accomplishment of Latin; but, horribly disfigured and half paralyzed by a mysterious disease, supposed to bescurvy, he had been a hopeless invalid from the day of his birth. He spent most of the time with young nobles, Yazykov and Likhachov, who would later introduce the Russian court to Polish ceremonies, dress, and language

 

o                  Ivan V ( 1682– 1696) (joint ruler with Peter I) – He was the youngest son of Alexis I of Russia and Maria Miloslavskaya. His reign was only formal, since he had serious physical and mental disabilities. He sat still for hours at a time[1] and needed assistance in order to walk. Ivan V was the 11th child of Tsar Alexis. As he was eye-sore and infirm, his capacity for supreme power was challenged by the party of the Naryshkins, who aspired to bring Natalia Naryshkina‘s son, Peter I, to the throne. During the last decade of his life, Ivan was completely overshadowed by the more energetic Peter I.

 

  • ·Peter I ( 1682– 1721) (joint ruler with Ivan V) – Peter implemented sweeping reforms aimed at modernizing Russia. Heavily influenced by his advisors from Western Europe, Peter reorganized the Russian army along modern lines and dreamed of making Russia a maritime power. He faced much opposition to these policies at home, but brutally suppressed any and all rebellions against his authority: Streltsy, BashkirsAstrakhan, and the greatest civil uprising of his reign, the Bulavin Rebellion. Peter implemented social modernization in an absolute manner by requiring courtiers, state officials, and the military to shave their beards and adopt modern clothing styles. To improve his nation’s position on the seas, Peter sought to gain more maritime outlets

Emperors of All Russia, 1721-1917

 

o                  Catherine I ( 1725– 1727) – the second wife of Peter the Great, reigned as Empress of Russia from 1725 until her death.  As a person she was very energetic, compassionate, charming and always cheerful. She was able to calm Peter in his frequent rages and was called in to attend him during his epileptic seizures.

 

o                  Peter II ( 1727– 1730) – was an unbalanced, inconstant boy; he didn’t show the interest to anything, except hunting, and seemed to be perfect for manipulating by ingenious favourite. First time after Peter’s II enthroningthings went according to Menshikov’s plan: he managed to keep Tsar-boy under his control, made him and his daughter Maria engaged, obtained new privileges, among which there was a title ofGeneralissimos, appropriate only for members of the royal family.

 

  • ·Anne ( 1730– 1740) – or Anna Ivanovna Romanov reigned as Empress of Russia from 1730 to 1740. Anna married Frederick William, Duke of Courland in November 1710, but on the return trip from Saint Petersburg in January 1711 her husband died. Annacontinued ruling as duchess of Courland (now southern Latvia) from 1711 to 1730.. She established herself as an autocratic ruler, using her popularity with the imperial guards and lesser nobility. As one of her first acts to consolidate this power she restored the security police, which she used to intimidate and terrorize those who opposed her and her policies.

o                  Ivan VI ( 1740– 1741) – was proclaimed Emperor of Russia in 1740, as an infant, although he never actually reigned. Within less than a year, he was overthrown by the Empress Elizabeth of RussiaPeter the Great‘s daughter. Ivan spent the rest of his life as a prisoner and was killed by his guards during an attempt made to free him.

 

o                  Elizabeth ( 1741– 1762) – also known asYelisavet and Elizabeth, was the Empress of Russia from 1741 until her death. She led the country to victory in the War of Austrian Succession (1740–8) and brought it into the Seven Years’ War (1756–63). On the eve of her death, Russia spanned almost 4,000,000,000 acres (16,000,000 km2). Her domestic policies allowed the nobles to gain dominance in local government while shortening their terms of service to the state. She encouraged Mikhail Lomonosov‘s establishment of the University of Moscow and Ivan Shuvalov foundation of the Imperial Academy of Arts in Saint Petersburg. She also spent exorbitant sums of money on the grandiose baroque projects of her favourite architect, Bartolomeo Rastrelli, particularly in Peterhof and Tsarskoye Selo. The Winter Palace and theSmolny Cathedral in Saint Petersburg remain the chief monuments of her reign. She remains one of the most popular Russian monarchs due to her strong opposition toPrussian policies and her abstinence from executing a single person during her reign.

 

  • ·Peter III ( 1762) – was Emperor of Russia for six months in 1762. He was very pro-Prussian, which made him an unpopular leader. He was supposedly assassinated as a result of a conspiracy led by his wife, who succeeded him to the throne asCatherine II. After Peter gained the throne in 1762, he withdrew from the Seven Years’ War and made peace with Prussia (the “Miracle of the House of Brandenburg“). He gave up Russian conquests in Prussia and offered 12,000 troops to make an alliance with Frederick II, which relieved Russia financially. Russia was switched from an enemy of Prussia to an ally — Russian troops were withdrawn from Berlin and sent against the Austrians.[3] This dramatically shifted the balance of power in Europe — suddenly handing Frederick the initiative, who recaptured southern Silesia and forced Austria to the negotiating table. Being a Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, Peter planned war against Denmark in order to restore Schleswig to his Duchy. He focused on making alliances with Sweden and England to ensure that they would not interfere on Denmark’s behalf, while forces were concentrated at Kolberg in Russian occupied Pomerania.

o                  Catherine II ( 1762– 1796) –  called the Mennonites as competent colonists (see Chortitza) into her recently acquired lands in the Ukraine. On 22 July 1763 she issued a manifesto guaranteeing to all German immigrants, regardless of creed, freedom of speech, schools, and religion; autonomous government of villages, communities, and colonist areas; and, above all, freedom from military service. By means of a special document signed by George von Trappe she invited the Mennonites in West Prussia to immigrate to Russia, promising them complete freedom “for all time,” and 65 dessiatines (ca. 165 acres) of land for each family. On 7 August 1786 the document was read aloud at a public meeting at Danzig. In autumn of the same year Jakob Höppner and Johann Bartsch went to Russia as deputies of the Prussian Mennonites. They were ceremoniously received by the empress, who was on her journey to Taurida, and “out of special grace and favor” they had to accompany her to the Crimea. The empress remained friendly to the Mennonites throughout her life.

 

o                  Paul ( 1796– 1801) –  was the Emperor of Russia between 1796 and 1801. He also was the 72nd Prince and Grand Master of the Order of Malta (de facto). The popular view of Paul I has long been that he was mad, had a mistress, and accepted the office of Grand Master of the Order of St John, which furthered his delusions. These eccentricities and his unpredictability in other areas naturally led, this view goes, to his assassination. This portrait of Paul was promoted by his assassins and their supporters. There is some evidence that Paul I was venerated as a saint among the Russian Orthodox populace,[51] even though he was never officially canonized by any of the Orthodox Churches.

 

o                  Alexander I ( 1801– 1825) – served as Emperor of Russia from 23 March 1801 to 1 December 1825 and the first Russian King of Poland from 1815 to 1825. He was also the first Russian Grand Duke of Finland and Lithuania. He succeeded to the throne after his father was murdered, and ruled Russia during the chaotic period of the Napoleonic Wars. In the first half of his reign Alexander tried to introduce liberal reforms, while in the second half he turned to a much more arbitrary manner of conduct, which led to the revoking of many early reforms. In foreign policy Alexander gained certain successes, mainly by his diplomatic skills and winning of several military campaigns. In particular under his rule Russia acquired Finland and part of Poland. His sudden death in Taganrog, under allegedly suspicious circumstances, caused the spread of the rumors that Alexander in fact did not die in 1825, but chose to “disappear” and to live the rest of his life in anonymity.

 

o                  Nicholas I ( 1825– 1855) –  was the Emperor of Russia from 1825 until 1855, known as one of the most reactionary of the Russian monarchs. On the eve of his death, the Russian Empire reached its historical zenith spanning over 20 million square kilometers (7.7 million square miles). In his capacity as the emperor he was also the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Finland. There have been many damning verdicts on Nicholas’ rule and legacy. At the end of his life, one of his most devoted civil servants, A.V. Nikitenko, opined that, “The main failing of the reign of Nicholas Pavlovich was that it was all a mistake.”[17] However, from time to time, some efforts are made to revive Nicholas’ reputation. He believed, it is said, in his own oath and in respecting other people’s rights as well as his own; witness Poland before 1831 and Hungary in 1849. It is also said that he hated serfdom at heart and would have liked to destroy it, as well as detesting the tyranny of the Baltic squires over their “emancipated” peasantry. Shortly before his death he made his son Alexander II promise to abolish serfdom.

 

o                  Alexander II ( 1855– 1881) – also known as Alexander the Liberator (Russian: Александр Освободитель, Aleksandr Osvoboditel’) was the Emperor of the Russian Empire from 3 March 1855 until hisassassination in 1881. He was also the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Finland. Alexander’s bureaucracy instituted an elaborate scheme of local self-government (Zemstvo) for the rural districts (1864) and the large towns (1870), with elective assemblies possessing a restricted right of taxation, and a new rural and municipal police under the direction of the Minister of the Interior.

 

o                  Alexander III ( 1881– 1894) –  also known as Alexander the Peacemaker (Russian: Александр Миротворец, Aleksandr Mirotvorets) reigned as Emperor of Russia from 13 March 1881 until his death in 1894. In foreign affairs Alexander was emphatically a man of peace, but not at all a partisan of the doctrine of peace at any price, and he followed the principle that the best means of averting war is to be well prepared for it. Though indignant at the conduct of Prince Bismarck towards Russia, he avoided an open rupture with Germany, and even revived for a time the Three Emperors’ Alliance.

 

  • ·Nicholas II ( 1894– 1917) – is official title was Nicholas II, Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias[3] and he is known as Saint Nicholas the Passion-Bearer by the Russian Orthodox Church. Nicholas II ruled from 1894 until his abdication on 15 March 1917. His reign saw Imperial Russia go from being one of the foremost great powers of the world to economic and military collapse. Critics nicknamed him Bloody Nicholas because of the Khodynka TragedyBloody Sunday, the anti-Semitic pogroms, his execution of political opponents, and his pursuit of military campaigns on a hitherto unprecedented scale. Under his rule, Russia was defeated in the Russo-Japanese War, including the almost total annihilation of the Russian fleet at the Battle of Tsushima. As head of state, he approved the Russian mobilization of August 1914, which marked the beginning of Russia’s involvement in World War I, a war in which 3.3 million Russians would be killed.[4] The unpopularity of the Russian involvement in this war is often cited as a leading cause of the fall of the Romanov dynasty less than three years later.

o                  Michael II ( 1917), he refused to become emperor, see Tsar article – was the son of Tsar Alexander III of Russia, and brother of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. When Nicholas II abdicated the imperial crown on March 151917, he did so in both his own name and in the name of his son, and named Michael as the next Tsar — the dynasty that began on February 71613 with Michael Fedorovitch would now end on March 161917 with Michael Alexandrovitch and his own abdication. Though history sometimes refers to Michael as Michael II, in reality he never reigned. Historians differ as to whether to view Michael as the last Tsar. They universally accept Nicholas II as the last effective Tsar.

o                  Cyril Romanov – was a member of the Russian Imperial Family. After the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the deaths of Tsar Nicholas II and his brother Michael, Cyril assumed the Headship of the Imperial Family of Russia and later the title Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias. After graduating from the Sea Cadet Corps and Nikolaev Naval Academy, on January 1, 1904, Cyril was promoted to Chief of Staff to the Russian Pacific Fleet in theImperial Russian Navy. With the start of the Russo-Japanese War, he was assigned to serve as First Officer on the battleship Petropavlovsk, the ship was blown up by a Japanese mine at Port Arthur in April 1904.[1] Cyril barely escaped with his life, and was invalided out of the service suffering from burns, back injuries and shell shock.

 

Comparative Analysis of Martin Luther and John Calvin

Published January 18, 2012 by barandaangela

Biography

Martin Luther (10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546) was a German priest, professor of theology and iconic figure of the Protestant Reformation.[1] He strongly disputed the claim that freedom from God’s punishment for sin could be purchased with money. He confronted indulgence salesman Johann Tetzel with his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517. His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Emperor.

Luther taught that salvation is not earned by good deeds but received only as a free gift of God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ as redeemer from sin. His theology challenged the authority of the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church by teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge[2] and opposed sacerdotalism by considering all baptized Christians to be a holy priesthood.[3] Those who identify with Luther’s teachings are called Lutherans.

His translation of the Bible into the language of the people (instead of Latin) made it more accessible, causing a tremendous impact on the church and on German culture. It fostered the development of a standard version of the German language, added several principles to the art of translation,[4] and influenced the translation into English of the King James Bible.[5] His hymns influenced the development of singing in churches.[6] His marriage to Katharina von Bora set a model for the practice of clerical marriage, allowing Protestant priests to marry.[7]

In his later years, while suffering from several illnesses and deteriorating health, Luther became increasingly antisemitic, writing that Jewish homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated and liberty curtailed. These statements have contributed to his controversial status.

John Calvin (French: Jean Calvin or Jehan Cauvin; 10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564) was an influential French theologian and pastor during the Protestant Reformation. He was a principal figure in the development of the system of Christian theology later called Calvinism. Originally trained as a humanist lawyer, he broke from the Roman Catholic Church around 1530. After religious tensions provoked a violent uprising against Protestants in France, Calvin fled to Basel, Switzerland, where he published the first edition of his seminal work The Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1536.

In that year, Calvin was recruited by William Farel to help reform the church in Geneva. The city council resisted the implementation of Calvin and Farel’s ideas, and both men were expelled. At the invitation of Martin Bucer, Calvin proceeded to Strasbourg, where he became the minister of a church of French refugees. He continued to support the reform movement in Geneva, and was eventually invited back to lead its church.

Following his return, Calvin introduced new forms of church government and liturgy, despite the opposition of several powerful families in the city who tried to curb his authority. During this time, the trial of Michael Servetus was extended by libertines in an attempt to harass Calvin. However, since Servetus was also condemned and wanted by the Inquisition, outside pressure from all over Europe forced the trial to continue. Following an influx of supportive refugees and new elections to the city council, Calvin’s opponents were forced out. Calvin spent his final years promoting the Reformation both in Geneva and throughout Europe.

Calvin was a tireless polemic and apologetic writer who generated much controversy. He also exchanged cordial and supportive letters with many reformers, including Philipp Melanchthon and Heinrich Bullinger. In addition to the Institutes, he wrote commentaries on most books of the Bible, as well as theological treatises and confessional documents. He regularly preached sermons throughout the week in Geneva. Calvin was influenced by the Augustinian tradition, which led him to expound the doctrine of predestination and the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation of the human soul from death and eternal damnation. Calvin’s writing and preaching provided the seeds for the branch of theology that bears his name. The Reformed and Presbyterian churches, which look to Calvin as a chief expositor of their beliefs, have spread throughout the world.

CONVERGENCE

  1. Man is composed of twofold nature. Each has specific functions to perform and contribute or work together for the development  of the totality of man. Be it noted, that these philosophers agreed that God, in some ways, has a key role in man’s life. The man on the contrary needs to perform his duties to the creator.
  2. God played an important role in the origin and functions of the state. It has the function to control or set limits to human actions so as to give pride to his Creator who created him in his own image and likeness.
  3. One of the function of the functions of the state is to promote the common good and to teach each citizens the pure doctrine of religion. They agreed that the church helps mold the citizen of a state. To keep and avoid chaos is the main purpose of the state.
  4. None
  5. The church and the state are to separate institution. Each has its own function to perform. The state has the duty to protect the church from all axes of evils. The church on the other hand, needs to educate the people the values God want them to possess.
  6. God establish the autority which rules the society. The ruled should obey the rulers at all times. Obeying them means obeying God. The ruler should act favoring God’s commandmennts so as to prove to the ruled that he is worthy to be respected and deserves the position God had given him.
  7. The ideal society is one in which the people value the word of God. These are the people having a personal relationship with Him. They are those considered as true Christians. They possess Christian values, ethics and renders fidelity to his fellowmen.
  8. God sanctifies the stae thus, a state contained in the law of God is the ideal state. It should protect pure souls from the impure ones. The ideal state is being ruled by a ruler who recognizs, believes and observes the laws of God.
  9. Punishment for a crime, as one of the powers of the sovereign, is necessary to maintain peace and order in the society. The “sword” exists to punish the wicked and protect the upright if he is used in the service of evil.

DIVERGENCE

  1. Man has twofold nature but for Martin Luther, it is the spiritual and bodily; the formerr is called the soul, the spiritual inwardor new man while the latter is the flesh, the fleshly outward or old man. On the contrary, John Calvin called the two fold of man as the spiritual and political; the former is the conscience which is formed in the piety and service of God while the latter instructs man to intercourse with mankind.
  2. The state was established by God. But Luther and Calvin have diverging views on how the state should operate. For Luther, the state must operate under the rule of law and its main purpose is to set limits to human sin and gives consequences for such actions. For Calvin, it is the duty of the church to form peoples’ manners. The state therfore, shoul defend the constitution of the church.
  3. States’ role is to keep outward peace in the society. For Luther, in order to establish peace, the state should promote education in order to have many able, learned, wise and honorable citizens. Education is the proper means in producing responsible and peace loving citizens. For Calvin, the individuals should relate themselves in the concerns of their state. Awareness in the political issues coupled with thorough understandings  and with the guidance of the church helps keep peace in the state.
  4. None
  5. The church and the state are two separate entities but Luther belived that the state fulfills an important requirement of protecting the church from all kinds of evil. For Calvin, the church and the state works hand in hand to protect pure souls from the impure souls, if corruption occurs within the church, the civil government has the right to antagonize the church.
  6. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities but according to Martin Luther, those who rebel against the authority rebels against God for the rulers had been established by God. For Calvin, the rulers must act accordingly and justly so as to prove himself deserving for such position.
  7. An ideal society has individuals who value the words of God. For Luther, the government teaches them to obey the laws of god. For Calvin, the state and the church needs each other to shape the values of man in accordance to the commandments of God.
  8. An ideal state is contained in the laws of God. For Luther, tyrants do violence or injustice in making their demands yet, it will do no harm as long as they demand nothing contrary to God. For Calvin, a state is not completely isolated but parallel to the church. These two institutions are vital for the people to have salvation in heaven and in earth.

CONCLUSION

Although Martin Luther and John Calvin did share some of the same beliefs, they had many factors that boldly differentiated them. The main difference in the teachings of Martin Luther and John Calvin was their outlooks on salvation. Martin Luther believed in salvation through good works, while John Calvin strongly believed in predestination. Martin Luther and John Calvin’s teachings were also different due to the fact that Martin Luther believed in the separation of the church and state, while John Calvin did not. Despite their differences, they did share the belief that the Catholic Church was at fault and committed obscenities that were unholy, and that should be reformed. Martin Luther believed that one can retrieve salvation through faith and good acts. He basically believed that what you did throughout your life on Earth would determine whether or not you would receive salvation. If you had faith in God, prayed, read the bible, and did good deeds; you would then receive salvation. Therefore, Martin Luther believed that people could make the decision of how.

On the other hand, John Calvin believed in the union of the state and church. In Calvinism, ministers not only would rule the church, but they would also obtain the authority to rule the city. The people who were elect simply did not do things that would condemn them, since God had already predetermined that they would be elect and receive his salvation. On the contrary, John Calvin strongly believed in predestination. Martin Luther also rejected the authority of Bishops, and replaced bishops with a set of people that were devoted to God, known as presbyteries. For example, the Catholic church permitted the sale of indulgences, which was money that was paid to the church in order to reduce a sinner”tms time in purgatory. John Calvin“tms teachings were far more strict than those of Martin Luther. Luther and Calvin also differentiated because Luther believed in the separation of the state and church, while Calvin believed in the union of the two. Through this, we can infer that Martin Luther was suggesting individualism in this belief because he is saying that men have a say in whether or not they will receive salvation. This belief in predestination lead to another one of John Calvin“tms beliefs, which was that men existed either as an elect or a reprobate. they would live their lives, and then depending upon that, God would judge them. While Martin Luther believed in the justification of salvation through faith, John Calvin adopted the belief in predestination. The teachings of Martin Luther and John Calvin did differ, due to the fact of their different beliefs. Predestination was the belief that God had a plan for each and every person at the time of creation.

Luther and Calvin were not perfect Reformation heroes without major flaws or faults. They were human and subject to errors, wrong-doing and sin as we are. They had their differences, but never lost their appreciation for each other. In a letter which Calvin wrote to Luther, but which he never received or read, for Luther’s friend Melachton, did not think it advisable to deliver it to him, Calvin asked Luther’s opinion about a certain matter which gave him much trouble. Beautiful and magnificent is the ending of this letter. “For I would preferably converse with you personally, not only on this matter, but also on other matters. But that which is not granted to us on earth, will presently, I hope, be imparted to us in the Kingdom of God. Hail to you, most excellent man, servant of Christ, and honoured father. May God bless you always through his Spirit until the end, to the mutual well being of his church.”

REFERENCES

Martin Luther

  • ^ Plass, Ewald M. “Monasticism,” in What Luther Says: An Anthology. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959, 2:964.
  • ^ Ewald M. Plass, What Luther Says, 3 vols., (St. Louis: CPH, 1959), 88, no. 269; M. Reu, Luther and the Scriptures, Columbus, Ohio: Wartburg Press, 1944), 23.
  • ^ Luther, Martin. Concerning the Ministry (1523), tr. Conrad Bergendoff, in Bergendoff, Conrad (ed.) Luther’s Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1958, 40:18 ff.
  • ^ Fahlbusch, Erwin and Bromiley, Geoffrey William. The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999–2003, 1:244.
  • ^ Tyndale’s New Testament, trans. from the Greek by William Tyndale in 1534 in a modern-spelling edition and with an introduction by David Daniell. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989, ix–x.
  • ^ Bainton, Roland. Here I Stand: a Life of Martin Luther. New York: Penguin, 1995, 269.
  • ^ Bainton, Roland. Here I Stand: a Life of Martin Luther. New York: Penguin, 1995, p. 223.
  • ^ Hendrix, Scott H. “The Controversial Luther”, Word & World 3/4 (1983), Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN, p. 393: “And, finally, after the Holocaust and the use of his anti-Jewish statements by National Socialists, Luther’s anti-semitic outbursts are now unmentionable, though they were already repulsive in the sixteenth century. As a result, Luther has become as controversial in the twentieth century as he was in the sixteenth.” Also see Hillerbrand, Hans. “The legacy of Martin Luther”, in Hillerbrand, Hans & McKim, Donald K. (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Luther. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

John Calvin

John Locke

Published January 18, 2012 by barandaangela

John Locke FRS/ˈlɒk/; 29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704), widely known as the Father of Liberalism,[2][3][4] was an English philosopher and physician regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers. Considered one of the first of the British empiricists, following the tradition of Francis Bacon, he is equally important to social contract theory. His work had a great impact upon the development of epistemology and political philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the American Declaration of Independence.[5]

Locke’s theory of mind is often cited as the origin of modern conceptions of identity and the self, figuring prominently in the work of later philosophers such as Hume, Rousseau and Kant. Locke was the first to define the self through a continuity of consciousness. He postulated that the mind was a blank slate or tabula rasa. Contrary to pre-existing Cartesian philosophy, he maintained that we are born without innate ideas, and that knowledge is instead determined only by experience derived from sense perception.

Influence

Locke exercised a profound influence on political philosophy, in particular on modern liberalism. Michael Zuckert has argued that Locke launched liberalism by tempering Hobbesian absolutism and clearly separating the realms of Church and State. He had a strong influence on Voltaire who called him “le sage Locke”. His arguments concerning liberty and the social contract later influenced the written works of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers of the United States. In fact, one passage from the Second Treatise is reproduced verbatim in the Declaration of Independence, the reference to a “long train of abuses.” Such was Locke’s influence that Thomas Jefferson wrote: “Bacon, Locke and Newton … I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the Physical and Moral sciences”.[11][12][13] Today, most contemporary libertarians claim Locke as an influence.

But Locke’s influence may have been even more profound in the realm of epistemology. Locke redefined subjectivity, or self, and intellectual historians such as Charles Taylor and Jerrold Seigel argue that Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) marks the beginning of the modern Western conception of the self.[14]

Theories of religious tolerance

Locke, writing his Letters Concerning Toleration (1689–92) in the aftermath of the European wars of religion, formulated a classic reasoning for religious tolerance. Three arguments are central: (1) Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints; (2) Even if they could, enforcing a single “true religion” would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence; (3) Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity.[15]

Constitution of Carolina

Appraisals of Locke have often been tied to appraisals of liberalism in general, and also to appraisals of the United States. Detractors note that (in 1671) he was a major investor in the English slave-trade through the Royal African Company, as well as through his participation in drafting the Fundamental Constitution of the Carolinas while Shaftesbury‘s secretary, which established a feudal aristocracy and gave a master absolute power over his slaves. For example, Martin Cohen notes that as a secretary to the Council of Trade and Plantations (1673–4) and a member of the Board of Trade (1696–1700) Locke was, in fact, “one of just half a dozen men who created and supervised both the colonies and their iniquitous systems of servitude”.[16] Some see his statements on unenclosed property as having been intended to justify the displacement of the Native Americans.[17][18] Because of his opposition to aristocracy and slavery in his major writings, he is accused of hypocrisy and racism, or of caring only for the liberty of English capitalists.[19]

Theory of value and property

Locke uses the word property in both broad and narrow senses. In a broad sense, it covers a wide range of human interests and aspirations; more narrowly, it refers to material goods. He argues that property is a natural right and it is derived from labour.

In Chapter V of his Second Treatise, Locke argues that the individual ownership of goods and property is justified by the labour exerted to produce those goods or utilise property to produce goods beneficial to human society.[20]

Locke stated his belief, in his Second Treatise, that nature on its own provides little of value to society; he provides the implication that the labour expended in the creation of goods gives them their value. This is used as supporting evidence for the interpretation of Locke’s labour theory of property as a labour theory of value, in his implication that goods produced by nature are of little value, unless combined with labour in their production and that labour is what gives goods their value.[20]

Locke believed that ownership of property is created by the application of labour. In addition, he believed property precedes government and government cannot “dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily.” Karl Marx later critiqued Locke’s theory of property in his own social theory.

Political theory

See also: Two Treatises of Government

Locke’s political theory was founded on social contract theory. Unlike Thomas Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature is characterised by reason and tolerance. Like Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish. This is apparent with the introduction of currency. In a natural state all people were equal and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his “Life, health, Liberty, or Possessions”. This became the basis for the phrase in the American Declaration of Independence: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.[21]

Like Hobbes, Locke assumed that the sole right to defend in the state of nature was not enough, so people established a civil society to resolve conflicts in a civil way with help from government in a state of society. However, Locke never refers to Hobbes by name[22] and may instead have been responding to other writers of the day.[23] Locke also advocated governmental separation of powers and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances. These ideas would come to have profound influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

Limits to accumulation

Labour creates property, but it also does contain limits to its accumulation: man’s capacity to produce and man’s capacity to consume. According to Locke, unused property is waste and an offence against nature.[24] However, with the introduction of “durable” goods, men could exchange their excessive perishable goods for goods that would last longer and thus not offend the natural law. The introduction of money marks the culmination of this process. Money makes possible the unlimited accumulation of property without causing waste through spoilage.[25] He also includes gold or silver as money because they may be “hoarded up without injury to anyone,”[26] since they do not spoil or decay in the hands of the possessor. The introduction of money eliminates the limits of accumulation. Locke stresses that inequality has come about by tacit agreement on the use of money, not by the social contract establishing civil society or the law of land regulating property. Locke is aware of a problem posed by unlimited accumulation but does not consider it his task. He just implies that government would function to moderate the conflict between the unlimited accumulation of property and a more nearly equal distribution of wealth and does not say which principles that government should apply to solve this problem. However, not all elements of his thought form a consistent whole. For example, labour theory of value of the Two Treatises of Government stands side by side with the demand-and-supply theory developed in a letter he wrote titled Some Considerations on the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and the Raising of the Value of Money. Moreover, Locke anchors property in labour but in the end upholds the unlimited accumulation of wealth.[27]

On price theory

Locke’s general theory of value and price is a supply and demand theory, which was set out in a letter to a Member of Parliament in 1691, titled Some Considerations on the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and the Raising of the Value of Money.[28] Supply is quantity and demand is rent. “The price of any commodity rises or falls by the proportion of the number of buyer and sellers.” and “that which regulates the price… [of goods] is nothing else but their quantity in proportion to their rent.” The quantity theory of money forms a special case of this general theory. His idea is based on “money answers all things” (Ecclesiastes) or “rent of money is always sufficient, or more than enough,” and “varies very little…” Regardless of whether the demand for money is unlimited or constant, Locke concludes that as far as money is concerned, the demand is exclusively regulated by its quantity. He also investigates the determinants of demand and supply. For supply, goods in general are considered valuable because they can be exchanged, consumed and they must be scarce. For demand, goods are in demand because they yield a flow of income. Locke develops an early theory of capitalisation, such as land, which has value because “by its constant production of saleable commodities it brings in a certain yearly income.” Demand for money is almost the same as demand for goods or land; it depends on whether money is wanted as medium of exchange or as loanable funds. For medium of exchange “money is capable by exchange to procure us the necessaries or conveniences of life.” For loanable funds, “it comes to be of the same nature with land by yielding a certain yearly income … or interest.”

Monetary thoughts

Locke distinguishes two functions of money, as a “counter” to measure value, and as a “pledge” to lay claim to goods. He believes that silver and gold, as opposed to paper money, are the appropriate currency for international transactions. Silver and gold, he says, are treated to have equal value by all of humanity and can thus be treated as a pledge by anyone, while the value of paper money is only valid under the government which issues it.

Locke argues that a country should seek a favourable balance of trade, lest it fall behind other countries and suffer a loss in its trade. Since the world money stock grows constantly, a country must constantly seek to enlarge its own stock. Locke develops his theory of foreign exchanges, in addition to commodity movements, there are also movements in country stock of money, and movements of capital determine exchange rates. The latter is less significant and less volatile than commodity movements. As for a country’s money stock, if it is large relative to that of other countries, it will cause the country’s exchange to rise above par, as an export balance would do.

He also prepares estimates of the cash requirements for different economic groups (landholders, labourers and brokers). In each group the cash requirements are closely related to the length of the pay period. He argues the brokers – middlemen – whose activities enlarge the monetary circuit and whose profits eat into the earnings of labourers and landholders, had a negative influence on both one’s personal and the public economy that they supposedly contributed to.

The self

Locke defines the self as “that conscious thinking thing, (whatever substance, made up of whether spiritual, or material, simple, or compounded, it matters not) which is sensible, or conscious of pleasure and pain, capable of happiness or misery, and so is concerned for itself, as far as that consciousness extends”.[29] He does not, however, ignore “substance”, writing that “the body too goes to the making the man.”[30] The Lockean self is therefore a self-aware and self-reflective consciousness that is fixed in a body.

In his Essay, Locke explains the gradual unfolding of this conscious mind. Arguing against both the Augustinian view of man as originally sinful and the Cartesian position, which holds that man innately knows basic logical propositions, Locke posits an “empty” mind, a tabula rasa, which is shaped by experience; sensations and reflections being the two sources of all our ideas.[31]

John Locke’s formulation of tabula rasa in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding was influenced by a 17th century Latin translation Philosophus Autodidactus (published by Edward Pococke) of the Arabic philosophical novel Hayy ibn Yaqzan by the 12th century AndalusianIslamic philosopher and novelist Ibn Tufail (known as “Abubacer” or “Ebn Tophail” in the West). Ibn Tufail demonstrated the theory of tabula rasa as a thought experiment through his Arabic philosophical novel novel Hayy ibn Yaqzan in which he depicted the development of the mind of a feral child “from a tabula rasa to that of an adult, in complete isolation from society” on a desert island, through experience alone.[32]

Locke’s Some Thoughts Concerning Education is an outline on how to educate this mind: he expresses the belief that education maketh the man, or, more fundamentally, that the mind is an “empty cabinet”, with the statement, “I think I may say that of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education.”[33]

Locke also wrote that “the little and almost insensible impressions on our tender infancies have very important and lasting consequences.”[34] He argued that the “associations of ideas” that one makes when young are more important than those made later because they are the foundation of the self: they are, put differently, what first mark the tabula rasa. In his Essay, in which is introduced both of these concepts, Locke warns against, for example, letting “a foolish maid” convince a child that “goblins and sprites” are associated with the night for “darkness shall ever afterwards bring with it those frightful ideas, and they shall be so joined, that he can no more bear the one than the other.”[35]

“Associationism”, as this theory would come to be called, exerted a powerful influence over eighteenth-century thought, particularly educational theory, as nearly every educational writer warned parents not to allow their children to develop negative associations. It also led to the development of psychology and other new disciplines with David Hartley‘s attempt to discover a biological mechanism for associationism in his Observations on Man (1749).

Religious beliefs

Some scholars have seen Locke’s political convictions as deriving from his religious beliefs.[36][37][38] Locke’s religious trajectory began in Calvinist trinitarianism, but by the time of the Reflections (1695) Locke was advocating not just Socinian views on tolerance but also Socinian Christology; with veiled denial of the pre-existence of Christ.[39] However Wainwright (Oxford, 1987) notes that in the posthumously published Paraphrase (1707) Locke’s interpretation of one verse, Ephesians 1:10, is markedly different from that of Socinians like Biddle, and may indicate that near the end of his life Locke returned nearer to an Arian position.[

Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#References