A Clockwork Universe.

The "clockwork universe" theory refers to the notion that the universe behaves in a consistent and dependable pattern much like a mechanical clock, put in motion and designed by God himself.  Once "wound up" it continues ticking along without any external interference. The sun, stars, moon and planets were at this point (the 16th century) believed to revolve around the earth. Everything that was beyond the moon then was referred to as the celestial heavens- closest to God and therefore perfect and unchanging. In 1543, Copernicus put forward  a heliocentric view in which the earth moved around the sun. This was considered highly controversial and deemed blasphemous as the bible accounted an earth-centred universe. Copernicus' ground breaking discovery was supported by Galileo who used the just invented telescope to secure his own observations. He was accused of heresy in 1633 and was forced to retract his statements and beliefs (the Catholic Church had its ways-ones mainly involving torture) about the supposed existence of a heliocentric universe, which he unsurprisingly did.. It wasn't until 1992 that the church repealed the inquisition against Galileo, 350 years after his death- just a tad late. In 17th Century Northern Europe, Kepler, through pure observation put forward a modified variation of Copernicanism. He agreed that the planets moved around the sun but added that their orbital pathways were in the forms of ellipses, rather than circles. Amongst this he worked out that the square of the period of the orbit of a planet is equal to the mean distance away from the sun cubed.This was a massively important as it was a step away from simple observation and towards mathematical explanation. It was Isaac Newton who in 1666 invented calculus, or what he called "fluxons". Through it, he calculated the motion of the moon around the earth, and recognised the existing law of gravitation between two masses. Because the sun is the largest body in the solar system, it would attract the planets which would in turn rotate around it. He recorded his findings in his Principia Mathematica in 1687.

A priori and A posteriori knowledge.

The Latin term, “a Priori”, literally translates to mean “before”. A priori knowledge therefore is derived from what are believed to be innate ideas. Such ideas are mathematical, for example “2+2=4”, is considered to be a priori. The argument it refers to argue from logical standpoints. “A posteriori” then literally means “after”. This knowledge is derived solely from experience/observation. It is arguable that all knowledge falls under this category, and that a priori knowledge is redundant (This idea is endorsed by the likes of Locke and Hume). A posteriori knowledge is similar if not identical to empiricism.

SEMINAR PAPER: The classical and early modern theory of the state: Machiavelli. Hobbes. Locke.

"It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both", arguably sums up Machiavelli's political ideology. Through his The Prince; perhaps one of the most influential piece of modern philosophies,  Machiavelli out-rightly and somewhat cynically (as pointed out by Russell), justifies immorality when it is used as a means to an end, in this case, a Prince's pursuit for eminence, "for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin." Therefore, an ideal and successful Prince must seem to be religious. So essentially, he must convince his subjects, that through his faith in God he has aquired a strong moral and virtuous core. Machiavell argued that a Prince must in fact use religion and God to exact power, but himself "on occassion be faithless." It should not however be forgotten that Machiavelli did indeed write The Prince to appeal to the new Florentine Prince; Lorenzo de Medici in an attempt to be "unexiled" and return to Italy, and considering the juxtaposition of the notions presented in his previous work, Discourses to that presented in The Prince- especially with regards to the ideal form of a state (a republic and not a principality), Machiavelli can indeed be perceived to be both insincere and hypocritical. Interestingly though, this reflects  and puts into practice his idea that "those who deceive will always allow themselves to be deceived." Unfortunately, his plans of sycophancy failed as Lorenzo de Medici was not at all partial to the book.The Medicis were overthrown by Charles V, and after Florence was returned to its previous republic state, Machiavelli continued to spend the last of his years in exile due to the anti-republican nature of The Prince; a text originally designed to get him back into his Country. Ironic.


Inspired by the works of Galileo,  and an endorser of mathematical theory, Hobbes(1588-1679) was an empiricist whose political texts are often described more modern that that even of Machiavelli. His Leviathan, the name of which is derived from the biblical creature with unmatched power and stands as a metaphor for the commonwealth; giagantic in proportion and all powerful, focuses on the importance of a single political leader to avoid civil war and unrest between the masses. In the beginning of Leviathan, Hobbes speculates that a lifestyle without a stable government  combined with his notion that "all men are born equal", would lead to a "war of all against all",  and in short,"continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man; solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." To free himself of this disorder, man must make and abide by a social contract and appoint a "sovereign" or as he puts it, a leviathan who would provide a political, metaphorical umbrella. Somewhat mirroring the theme of The Prince, Hobbes justifies any abuse inflicted by this sovereign power as a result, must be accepted as it is better to be politically safe than at a threat of war. Hobbes also stated that the very Church itself must be subject to this state. This was no doubt, extremely controversial. However, not nearly as extreme as Machiavelli (whose theories would justify Hitler's actions),  due to the nature of the social contract, Hobbes states that all subjects have a right to life, and therefore are able to defend themselves, even from the sovereign, and have no duty of allegiance to a sovereign who can not protect them.

An empiricist like Hobbes, Locke is regarded as "an apostle of the revolution of 1688" by Russell, and was hugely influenced by Descartes. Russell's fondness of Locke is made painstakingly obvious as he considers even his errors useful in practice. The prime example of which is the notion of primary and secondary qualities (in which Locke argues that primary qualities are unseperate from the body, whereas secondary qualities lies with the percipient), Berkley did however refute this, and said primary qualities too were dependent on the perceiver and therefore didn't exist at all). Still, Locke “initiated” the idea, and was essentially the founder of philosophical liberalism, and therefore unsurprisingly shaped the British government until roughly 50 years ago. However, even Russell recognises that the appreciation and application of Locke's theories was hugely aided by the existence of a government ruled by those with similar opinions.

Filmer’s work was  widely refuted by Locke. Filmer claimed that the King alone must make laws, free from any duty to his subjects, as he was descended directly from Adam, whom God blessed with Kingly power. In this sense, Adam as a father, passed down this authority along to his children, thus down through the generations. This ideology of course has nothing to do with the fact that Filmer was writing under the name of "Charles 1" himself (!) Locke posed serious opposition to this "theory", and claimed that it was an absurd notion as God granted Adam "Kingly power" over the plants and animals; not human life. (Although, I suppose you could claim that all humans are animals, blahblahblah) He also states that it would be impossible to discover Adam's "true heir", and states that parental power is equal between the sexes. He concludes with the idea that doctrine of the divine rights of the king will in fact be the downfall of all governments.

Unlike Machiavelli, Locke claims that the state of nature is in fact "a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation", and that men "live together according to reason with a common superior on earth, with an authority to judge between them". However, he also (rather contradictorily) argues that man is free to punish attacks on himself and his property, and can judge the severity of his actions himself. For example, by Locke's notions, you can go as far as to kill a man who happens to steal a slice of bread from you, and this is completely justifies under the law of nature. He also (rather controversially) argues that captives in a just law should be condemned to slavery.

Socrates. Plato. Aristotle.

The son of Sculptor and midwife, Socrates, like Pythagoras but perhaps less mathematical in his doctrines, was an idealist/rationalist. He was a lover of the truth and believed in the constant reincarnation of the eternal soul, where knowledge is forgotten at birth and we are reminded of what we already know throughout our lifetimes. A good act is not simply good because it is promoted by the Gods, but also because it is useful in making us “better”, happier individuals. Unsurprisingly, he (rather controversially) rated individual conscious more important than the law. Alas, it was this ideology that perhaps gave rise to his death, as he was made to drink hemlock in front of his very students.


Plato was Socrates's prize student. He taught that reality is divided into two: the idea which is ultimate reality, and phenomena, which are manifestations of ideals and are associated with matter, time and space. Whereas as phenomena are illusions and often die, ideals remain unchanging and perfect, an example being a triangle. The idea of a triangle never lives up to reality, as it is imperfect in some way, shape or form. The phenomenal world therefore always strives to be an ideal one. God is the ultimate ideal being and Socrates believes that humans ought to strive to resemble him.

He stated that there are three pleasures; sensual which are purely physical, aesthetic, and ideal. He also stated that there are three souls. The first is the appetite which is mortal and comes from the gut and is not dissimilar to a horse in its waywardness and immense power. The second is the spirit, which is also mortal and comes from the heart, but it is well refined and trained. And finally reason, which is immortal and comes from the brain and acts as the charioteer of the two previous souls. He went onto state that society was comprised of these three, in that peasants act as the appetites, warriors act as the spirits and philosophers act as reason and therefore the charioteers of the previous two (in other words, kings).

Aristotle was in turn,Plato’s prize student and was interested in both science and philosophy. He furthered and altered Plato’s ideas and stated that the ideals are in fact the essence which remains perfect and provides matter (which is shapeless) with a form and shape. Essence therefore makes matter real, and encourages its completion. The process of this is called entelechy. There are essentially four parts to entelechy, the first being material cause, the second; efficient cause, the third; formal cause and finally, the fifth, which is the final cause. Aristotle states that the mind is the first entelechy and the body is its cause principle. Like Plato, he also believed in the three souls. However he differed from him in that he wrote of the plant soul, the animal soul and finally the human soul which comprised of reason and could perhaps exist apart from the body. This idea would soon be furthered by the likes of Descartes (Dualism).

Ancient Philosophy.

Russell has his work cut out; due to the wide scope of history he attempts to tackle in the first chapter. It remains such an important era as it is essentially when the seeds of all later western philosophy were sewn. Yet, admirably, he manages to do it so concisely. This concept of course goes for the entire book, where almost (give or take) 3000 years of history is encompassed in 900 pages.  

The sheer importance of the Greek civilisation can be realised when one considers that if it had been destroyed, almost everything that is considered to be the norm in contemporary society would have been wiped out. This is massively true of our notion of political democracy- the very word is comprised by the Greek language. The foundations of democracy (as it is today) are laid by the Greeks in their notion that there is no one person that all people are bound to obey- not even the king, who according to homer, can be disagreed with by aristocrats. Russell then goes on to question the existence of Homer as a person or just a collection of thoughts. The Greeks considered Gods to be immoral beings that didn’t create the universe, but were just in fact superhuman. They were representative of heroes of past and forces of nature, apathetic of humanity. Later on-“God” as an entity would be transcendent of nature, and singular. This perhaps removes the necessity of evil.  If there was more than one god, they’d eventually have conflicting wills, leading to war, an unstable universe and therefore the existence of evil. When you place God outside (transcendent), the universe can perhaps begin to be harmonious.  The lack of such a God would perhaps also slow down scientific enquiry, as the existence of a chaotic world, which is constantly unstable would not be susceptible to the bedrock of scientific enquiry- the act of repeating tests with similar, if not, identical outcomes.

The Greeks felt Confined within their own civilisation, and sought a certain freedom that would return them to their roots, restore harmony, and return them to a primitive past, when man was closer to nature (God), spontaneous and happier.  

Man sees himself as different, but tends to question why. All Religion rests its foundations on attempts to answer that question. Orpheus stated that man is half divine, and half earthly, and Russell goes onto state that the very notion of “Philosophy as a way of life” is down to Orpheus. We are all called to live a life of adherence to an idea. It should also not be forgotten that the very birth of philosophy can be dated back to the Greeks.

The Romans were not particularly philosophical. One of the only exceptions (that perhaps proved the rule) was Sextus Empiricus who taught that all ideas are of equal value, and that arguments against mathematical thinking is in fact useless. He also stated that the contrary of a statement is equal in value, for example “I think therefore I am”, is exactly the same as “I am, therefore I think”.  He was an empiricist as he believed that the only way anything can be known is through the senses, and that there were no innate ideas.